Actual Dialogue

58. There are times when negotiators representing conflicting interests will feel unprepared to meet each other. Even if they are already at the venue, they may feel emotionally and mentally not yet ready for direct discussions. It would be best that they spend some period of time in separate gatherings, to thrash out their own two separate points of view, and get themselves ready for actual negotiations. Some time also may be very profitably spent at a common gathering of all the participants of both parties, in which the peacemaker herself or some other neutral animator(s) may make a passionate appeal for peace, basing themselves on arguments from human experience, philosophical thought, wisdom of the respective societies, (and if they are believers) teaching of the scriptures. Depending on the charisma and moral authority of the animator(s) a great measure of mental transformation takes place during such an exercise. Experience is witness to this fact.

59. It is only when both parties feel ready to meet each other, does the peacemaker invite them to come together. After a few motivating words from the peacemaking team, one spokesman (spokeswoman) from each side places the entire problem before the general assembly as his/her group perceives it, expresses his/her desire for peace, points to possible difficulties, proposes solutions and alternatives, invokes collaboration from the other side in the most acceptable way possible, and concludes. After this, there may be  common discussions to deepen the understanding of the problem and of each others’ position on the entire matter. A few rounds of separate and common meetings to narrow the differences and widen the areas of consensus may bring the participants to the final stage and conclusions. Often such talks fail, and the peacemaker has to begin all over again.

60. I would suggest that during the entire period of the negotiations the peacemaker remains merely helpful and intelligent, leaving full freedom to the contestants to thrash out their differences. Only during a deadlock should she offer some suggestions, mostly regarding procedures. Occasionally it may serve to draw the attention of the debaters to some point of view they had overlooked. The less she presses her vision, her course of action or her set of solutions on the participants the better. If the solutions are their own, they have a better chance of winning wide acceptance and of being implemented.

61. The best role of the peacemaker is that of a confidence-builder, facilitator, creator of a serene atmosphere…an atmosphere in which interactions become easy. If she remains inconspicuous and keeps a low-profile, her long-term contribution can be greater. But the temptation to win recognition and wide acclaim is so great, that the peacemaker, if she is successful, rushes into the roles of a mediator, arbitrator and judge. Even if the contestants agree to such an idea, it would be unwise to assume such roles. Winning the headlines may be flattering, but the fruits therefrom may not last long. The simple reason is that the solutions you propose are not theirs. Doing things as though not doing it-----that is the role of the true peacemaker.

62.  Premature publicity is fatal to the cause. By this I do not mean to say she should keep media at a distance. But she should feel free from having to play up to the gallery. She should not give chance to those opposing the cause of peace to track her down at every step and make her stumble. If she is not careful, they can undermine her initiatives long before they begin to yield fruits. That is why I say premature publicity can leave you exposed and vulnerable.

63.  Living together always means being prepared for compromises.  This is true of a family, a village, a nation or the international community. The most valuable contribution  the peacemaking team can make is to lead opposing partners towards a gradual awareness of this great truth. Self evident as it is, if you rush to conclusions urging compromise and  quoting adages and aphorisms when the anger is still high, the pedagogic process you have initiated may be disturbed. It is far more profitable to draw their attention to the disastrous consequences of on-going conflict. You have to walk a long distance with them sharing the pain of their people. Only when they are mentally prepared to look for alternative solutions, is it pedagogic to propose compromises.

64. It is unwise too to prompt specific issues on which a compromise may be worked out. It is best that they emerge from the participants’ lived experience and their own agonizing search for a way out of the deadlock they are caught up in. Prodding compromises in the area of their central concerns may appear insensitive to them. What they themselves are ultimately willing to concede is their gift to God in view the future of their community and that of humanity.  

65. Often the negotiators themselves have no authority to decide on issues in behalf of the two contending parties. But they can make recommendations. And if these are well-phrased, balanced and respond to realities, they may evoke a good reaction. The participants in the first trend-setting meeting we have described above, can make an effort to organize similar meetings at the local level, try to reproduce the same atmosphere and goodwill, and discuss the recommendations that they have drawn up for the public. Each party will do this with their own people and then with others. If there is wide acceptance of the proposals, the communities may move on to final negotiations in the presence of civil authorities, in which the peacemaker need not take part at all. If in the process she is clean forgotten or is marginalized, she should rejoice, for it is God who is the author of peace no matter who all served the cause.