Archive for the ‘Politics & World Events’ Category

Holding the middle, especially this week, is hard work.

The middle is not a compromise.  It’s not a lack of opinion or feeling.  It’s also not a passive place.  It’s a very active role in holding center while others around you get pulled (sometimes manipulated) to the extremes.

The middle doesn’t hate. It neither puts itself above anyone, nor is it a victim to anyone else.  It’s not a place where people are looking to win over someone else.

In the middle, people understand that conflict is inevitable, and that how we deal with conflict is sometimes even more important than the conflict itself.  Being in the middle requires reaching across the aisle, or the dinner table, and showing respect, and seeking understanding.  In the middle, disagreement is an opportunity for learning, and that dialogue and discourse are the way toward being a peaceful, informed society.  In the middle, we find shared values, interests, and goals.  The middle is the only place where collaboration and synergy can exist – where 2 plus 2 can equal 5.

The middle is quiet, and right now, that is part of why it is at risk.  It’s intelligent and sexy, but in a quiet way.  Not unlike Trump supporters in blue states, those in the middle are increasingly quiet about their position because it’s not popular, and holding it is sometimes seen as a failure to support friends and loved ones.  That quiet means we have to work harder to hold it.

And right now, the middle isn’t very popular.  Those in the middle are being pulled by those on the ends to join in.  When waves of euphoria, or rage, or entitlement sweep people up into a movement, saying to them, “No, thank you.” can be seen as oppositional.

Meanwhile, the ends are seductive.  It’s liberating to yell and vent, whether one is in a position of power or feeling oppressed.  It releases chemicals into the brain that are as powerful and exhilarating as a walk-off grand slam in the bottom of the ninth inning in your home ballpark, or a third encore of your favorite artist’s concert.

But, not unlike an eye for an eye, when we fight and yell and try to overpower, the other just regroups and comes back to yell even louder, or show their power or their teeth to win the next time.  Witness America’s pendulum-like swings from Kennedy to Nixon/Ford to Carter to Reagan/Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama to Trump.  If the pendulum were slowing and calming, and our swings as a nation becoming less pronounced and adversarial, we would be working our way toward a more sustainable middle.  But our swings have held or increased in their wildness between some people and the other people; between us and them.  So, in fifty years, is it working?  Some might say that this is how democracy is supposed to work.  I believe that we can do better.

This week, I had people I with whom I’m very close at both the Presidential Inauguration of Donald Trump and the Women’s March on Washington, and in various cities.  The middle was hard to hold this week.  Next week, I invite you to join me.  As a country, I think we could use some more people holding the middle right now.  I’ll hope to see you there.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share

As a mediator and leadership coach, I have to say this:  While generally I don’t disagree with most of what Meryl Streep said during her acceptance speech for the Hollywood Foreign Press’s Lifetime Achievement Award at tonight’s Golden Globe awards, she did miss an incredible opportunity.

First, she used her audience, her station, and her status the same way she accuses President-Elect Trump of using his.  Then, by attacking him, all she did was up the ante and unify his supporters (half of our country), while ensuring that Newton’s third law of physics persists:  For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  As long as any of us advocate for one “side” over another, or argue over who/what is right/wrong, and frame it as “us and them”, we simply continue volleying in the same game.  The only way to unify us as a people, and appeal to the vast middle of the bell curve, is instead to catch the ball, stop the game, walk to the middle of the court and have real dialogue, with listening, understanding, and acknowledgement.

If you were cheering her speech, you may be caught up in the game, too.  We call it confirmation bias, where you seek out what you agree with because it feels good.  If you are booing it, maybe you should listen again and hear her words.  The fact that she delivered them in advocacy doesn’t mean that they are wrong; it only means she said them in a way that some couldn’t hear them.  And perhaps with a little too much judgment.

As a mediator, I know that telling people they are wrong doesn’t change their minds.  And as one who regularly mediates with the biggest celebrities in “Hollywood”, I know that even the ballroom before her was divided.  I also know that her talk made it unsafe for any who disagreed to speak up.  That’s why the election polls were so inaccurate.

We should be seeking to make people stop and scratch their heads and think in a new way about things they hadn’t before considered, rather than seeking to make the majority cheer and raise a fist.  As long as both sides persist in the latter, we are trapped in this volley for the unforeseeable future.

I call upon my mediator and leadership colleagues, and on all of you reading this, to help change the game and create dialogue, modeling more inquiry and active listening than advocacy.  It is up to all of us.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.3/10 (4 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
Share

Boston, Violence and Listening

Author: Lee Jay Berman

boston-bombing-150Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” – Stephen R. Covey

We are once again in the wake of a tragedy.  News outlets are filled with coverage, details are slowly emerging, and the cover of Time Magazine shows a frightened child in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing.  Many runners were running in memory of the Newtown, Connecticut victims, meeting tragedy with tragedy.

It is so difficult to find the words to express thoughts and feelings when there are infinitely more questions.  How could someone do this?  Why would someone do this?  Am I at risk?  We’ve even caught one of the suspected bombers alive, but still the unfortunate reality is that the answers to these questions may never be known and will certainly never be satisfying, certainly not to a daughter-less mother, a son-less father or a victim missing a limb.

So, how did we get here?   Simply put, someone wasn’t listening and someone wasn’t being heard.  As of this writing, we don’t know much about why this horrendous act was perpetrated.  But what we do know is that it was a statement – a political statement from a disenfranchised party, be it a person or a group, during the busiest area of a highly visible race on a highly visible day.

When people lash out, whether it’s in line at the dry cleaner, via road rage or in acts of terrorism like school shootings or the occurrences at the Boston Marathon, they usually do so because nobody has listened to them.  People get stifled, ignored, pushed down, or just out shouted, and not enough of us are listening.  So, feeling unheard and misunderstood, they scream louder, through social media or any other outlet they can find, until they finally lash out with anger or violence, so that someone will be forced to pay attention and listen to them.

To be clear, it is not anyone’s fault when someone resorts to violence, other than the person who cannot or does not contain their own emotions.  But when we ask ourselves, what could we have done, perhaps there is one answer that may have helped.

As a society, we are so connected by technology: email, news feeds, Facebook, Twitter, Skype. There is so much talk. So much chatter and noise.  But nobody listens.  Most people are merely waiting their turn to chime in with their own woes.  As human beings we all want to be understood, we want to have that moment of satisfaction and that feeling that someone actually understands us, maybe even cares.  As adults, as citizens in our communities, and in our schools, it is incumbent on us to actively choose to listen, to show empathy and compassion, and to give to others the feeling of being understood.  We don’t have to agree with everything others are saying, but by listening and letting them know that they’ve been heard, we may remove their need to shout louder.  Otherwise, a tool of communication becomes a tool of separation.

Mediators do not have magic wands.  All we really do is convince people to come in for a day, disconnect from technology, and allow us to listen to them and address their concerns.  We ask them to do this for each other. We let them know we hear them and that they are understood, thereby hopefully reducing or eliminating conflict.  School counselors, therapists, human resource professionals and others in the mental health and services professions are trained to do the same thing.  But every person reading this can make a difference, too.

In the coming days, weeks, and months, I implore people to take a moment to truly listen.  Listen to a friend.  Listen to a colleague.  Listen to your children.  Check in.  Ask questions and seek first to understand as we are all trying to understand.  Maybe that will be the difference between conflict and resolution.  And maybe even it will be the difference between violence and satisfaction.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share

Senator John Boehner and President Barack Obama“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”   Sound familiar?  Having flashbacks to 7th grade history?  Me too.  The Declaration of Independence contains one of the most recognizable and quotable lines in history and it has a nice ring to it – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Regardless of your political affiliation, polls have shown most Americans are unhappy with the job performance of our representatives on Capitol Hill.  It is hard to turn on a news program without hearing the constant arguing that seems to be the new normal in D.C.  It is as exhausting to watch as it is, I am sure, to participate in, and it is not making anyone happy.  Take a good look at John Boehner’s face on any given day and tell me that man is not miserable.  So, where is the happiness?  It is missing in government.

There is another part of The Declaration of Independence that reads, “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”  Bear with me, I am not suggesting a massive overhaul, nor am I suggesting we abolish anything.  Perhaps simply alter government:  put Mediators in Congress, not as members, but simply as neutral parties armed with conflict resolution skills that will allow both sides of the aisle to compromise.

The issues plaguing our government are so polarizing that, no matter where you turn, someone feels like they are going to lose.    So often the idea of conflict in our society is resolved in a way in which one party is right and “wins” and one party is deemed wrong and “loses.”  It happens most of the time in our court systems.  This is not always the most productive path to conflict resolution and it certainly is not the most effective way to govern.  We have all, in our lives, gotten to a point of diminishing returns in a conflict – be it with a spouse, a friend, or a co-worker.  Such a point occurs when neither side is listening and everyone feels like they have something to lose if they budge from their position or, better yet, they disagree with an issue simply because the other side agrees with it.  In government this is referred to as political gridlock and it happens all the time.  Let’s take away that option but allow everyone the ability to save face.  A mediator’s skill lies in allowing parties the ability to compromise without looking weak.  A mediator gives the issue space to breath and offers a third option:  a solution instead of more conflict.  Imagine, both sides of the aisle given the ability and tools to govern effectively.  At the very least I think the House and Senate could use a class in conflict resolution techniques.

Consider this a Declaration of Resolution: somebody please put mediators in Congress!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share

Protests (AP image)The uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria and elsewhere, are they similar to the uprising in the United States 250 years ago?  Perhaps, but we did it when people penned letters to each other and there were no 24-hour news networks with microphones, bright lights and pundits pressuring day after day for “what will happen next!!”  The Declaration of Independence took 17 days to write and just over a year for us to agree upon.  A year.  Then it took 11 years for us to adopt a brand new constitution.  Here we are almost 250 years after that spark and we’re still fighting, polarized with 180 degree different perspectives on life and how it should be lived.  How can we expect those nations to figure out their direction any sooner?  And yet, with the intense scrutiny of the media in this information age, how can they have the time to think through it thoughtfully and get the same buy-in that took us 11 years to accomplish?

Simply because people have a common enemy, doesn’t mean that they agree on anything else.

Breathe, people. Breathe. Give them time to find themselves.  They won’t achieve clarity or consensus any faster than your teen-aged child will figure out the rest of their life. How could they possibly?!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share

Obama Supports 'Gound Zero Mosque'Candidate Obama was sharply criticized for not having a plan for the economy or for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He defended by saying that the President’s job is to listen to all positions before acting, and that he hadn’t had the chance to do that yet.  It was the single most threatening concern about his candidacy in the Democratic primaries, and in the Presidential election.

Unfortunately, Candidate Obama’s wide-eyed, idealistic optimism has given way to Politician Obama’s having to decide for the media whether he supports or opposes issues such as the plan to build a Muslim Mosque near Ground Zero.  See Obama backs ‘Ground Zero’ mosque.

The President’s job is not to decide whether he supports or opposes a project such as this.  His job is to lead by making certain that there is a healthy dialogue going on.  The pressure on President Obama from politicians and the media, who are all accustomed to dealing in a world of positions, has caused him to do the worst thing he can do as a leader:  take a position on the issues that Americans care about.  The astute politician, and the masterful leader, know how to advance the dialogue without taking a side, and understand that as soon as they take a side, they have alienated all of the people who believe strongly in the other side.

What is needed here is more than a Beer Summit, but it is not as far off as most people would think.

Recently, I brought together two Arizona legislators to hold a mediated dialogue on the immigration issue facing America.  We calmly discussed each group’s underlying interests, goals and values and found that they surprisingly agreed on most of the issues.

This kind of dialogue, however, only tends to occur when a professional facilitator is managing the discussion, when the stakeholders are all present or represented, and when the discussion turns away from positions (black or white, thumbs up or thumbs down) to each group hearing the other – not unlike the President did when he held the Beer Garden Photo Op.  In that discussion, and in that setting, it was a different discussion than the two men had ever had.  That was the same response that I had from the two legislators, who each told me that they had learned more and had a better discussion in the two hours on a stage with me than they had been able to have in sum to that point.

What this issue needs is a real dialogue, facilitated (mediated) by a professional who is expert at managing the emotions, the values and the discussion between representatives of the two groups.  Give me Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and some of his leaders, along with some of the most vocal opponents, preferably from families of those who died in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, and I will guarantee you a dialogue where each walks away having heard the other and having had their eyes opened to things that they had not realized before this discussion.  Televise it, put it on the internet, and broadcast it over the radio, and we will educate hundreds of thousands with one discussion.

This is what we do – those of us who resolve conflict.  Mediators do it every day in legal battles, Ombudspeople do it in the workplace environment and conflict coaches do it with individuals who are in conflict.  My personal passion is to do it in situations such as this.

It is time for President Obama to begin delegating the facilitation of issues such as this to those of us who do it professionally, and return to running the county, focusing on the wars, the economy and jobs,  and the spill that endangers the Gulf Coast.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share

Amam Feisal  Abdul Rauf by Tom A. Peter / The Christian Science Monitor / Getty ImagesRadio talk show host Michael Medved got it right when he urged President Obama to “welcome conversation to replace confrontation” in the debate about plans to build a mosque in lower Manhattan near ground zero (the Park51 project).

“If leaders on all sides managed to address the dispute in a broader perspective, it ought to become obvious that Americans actually agree on both of the key issues in the debate,” Medved wrote in “Time for a Mosque Beer Summit?

Issue one:  Muslims have the right to harassment-free worship.  Issue two:  The proposed location is a lightening rod for America’s concern or fear surround Muslims.  Medved asks, “What prevents the various parties to this battle from cutting through the multiple misrepresentations and misunderstandings to reach a meeting of the minds that would benefit everyone?”

That’s a good question, particularly since government officials including the likes of New York Gov. David Paterson has offered to help find a less controversial location for the mosque.

Sometimes a solution that seems so simple to third parties doesn’t even address the heart of a conflict.  Many Americans are still angry about Sept. 11, 2001.  Muslims don’t feel welcome in much of America, and holding on to one address in New York may be largely symbolic of their greater battle to win acceptance in this country.  If any situation could use a good mediator, this is it.

When two sides become as entrenched as those we see here, they need to talk in a neutral setting with an accomplished mediator who has the capacity to recognize the emotions behind the conflict, to ensure that each party listens to and acknowledges his opponent’s position, then to help them move beyond to a workable solution.  We call this a “win-win,” when both parties end up with what they essentially wanted in the first place.

It’s hard to get there, though, when people keep shouting at one another, clinging to their rights and refusing to come to the table where a meeting of the minds can occur.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share

Am I the only one who is tired of political rhetoric?  Am I the only one tired of turning on the TV and radio only to hear Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olberman, Bill O’Reilly, Randi Rhodes, Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow earning big bucks for doing nothing more than repeating sound bites, talking points and arguing extreme perspectives on every issue?  How did we get to the point where political debates were so politically correct that our leaders are afraid to say anything that their base might disagree?  How did “We the people” allow our politicians to become puppets to special interest groups and lobbyists with the largest budgets?

It really is time for a change.  In a time where more mediators are running for office, bringing with them the skills that conflict resolvers use, and where for a recent judge seat in Los Angeles County, four mediators were among those running, I think the change is more one of process than of ideals.  While most will agree that President Obama has certainly been a change from his preceding President Bush, many would also say that policy change has not solved the problems we face.  What is needed instead is process change.  Until we change the way we do leadership, in government, big business and in every organization, whether a massive homeowner’s association or a small non-profit board, we will continue to face the same frustrations, the same failures, the same disenfranchising, and the same power struggles.

John KavanaghKyrsten SinemaThis is why I decided to hold our Immigration Dialogue 2010 at the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles on July 23rd.  Sponsored by the American Institute of Mediation, this will be a discussion of a different kind.  Rather than hosting a debate, where each side slings sound bites and talking points at the other, and the result is that each audience member becomes even more galvanized behind the position they carried with them into the debate hall, we are putting on a facilitated dialogue, essentially a mediation, featuring Arizona Representatives John Kavanagh (R) and Kyrsten Sinema (D).  We will discuss the immigration issues facing our nation, and have some discussion about Arizona’s controversial SB 1070, which is due to become law on July 28 of this year.

These two lawmakers, both intelligent and articulate, along with their constituents, have lived with these issues up close and personally in recent years.  Because of their experiences and their perspectives on the immigration issues we all face today (the fact that there are somewhere between 11 and 12 million illegal immigrants living in this country), we can delve into the underlying interests that they and their constituents hold, that are driving their positions on the solution.

In hosting this event, the American Institute of Mediation is hoping to commence a change in the way we all talk about the critical issues that face our society, and to become more collaborative and a little less competitive; to listen more and argue less; and to explain, describe and attempt to understand, rather than simply repeating sound bites and talking points.

We will attempt to find the underlying interests that they have in common, and build from there because we believe that solutions that are derived from people’s interests are generally strong and long lasting, and we hope to demonstrate this by moving this discussion in that direction using the same skills that mediators use on a daily basis.

If a mere 120-minute dialogue about immigration among stakeholder representatives could curtail protests, boycotts and protracted litigation, wouldn’t you welcome the opportunity to watch such a conversation live and in person?  We expect to fill a 300-seat neutral venue in Los Angeles with members of the public, government, law enforcement and of course the media who would witness how parties interested in the controversial immigration question might come together to have a facilitated dialogue from which every state, not just Arizona, could benefit.

We will do all that we are able to provide a safe, protest-free venue, a respectful audience, media coverage and the opportunity for our guests to speak about their issues freely and fully.

I am donating my time and resources to this project because in my 16-year career as a mediator, I have never encountered a conflict that could not benefit from a structured mediative approach when the parties so need to have their interests understood.  I believe the immigration dilemma has been minimized to sound-bites and protests and is no exception to this rule. Our guests, as thought leaders on this topic deserve to be better heard and understood by those who disagree with them, and we are able to provide that forum.

We invite you to join us for this AIM Institute Special Event. Only 200 tickets will be sold, so register now before it sells out. Advance registration is required, and parking is free.  Video highlights will be available online at the AIM Institute site following the event.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share

“I don’t care if it’s Tiger Woods, Bernie Madoff, or Toyota, if an apology comes late it’s going to be seen as phony,” Atlanta lawyer Jimmy Faircloth told the Los Angeles Times recently.  Faircloth is among a number of litigators representing plaintiffs suing Toyota for alleged acceleration incidents involving its automobiles.  Most lawyers agree the Toyota acceleration litigation will be long, complex, involve multiple jurisdictions and reach “historic proportions.”  See “Lawyers Circle Toyota

I beg to differ with Faircloth, because I believe it is never too late for a sincere apology.

Here’s the dilemma:  Most product manufacturers that allegedly cause injury are advised against apologizing because it could be viewed as an admission of wrongdoing.  Most injured parties require something more than an apology to be made whole.  Defendants realize that no matter what, they are still on the hook for monetary damages, so why bother.  Besides, they think that no matter what they say, it won’t ever be enough.  Just ask Faircloth.

So why apologize?  I submit that it is almost always the right thing to do – both ethically and strategically.  From a strategic perspective, people (plaintiffs) will fight longer and harder in the absence of an apology.  And why is that?  Because absent expressions of real remorse or empathy from the alleged wrongdoer, the aggrieved person has no choice but to fill that vacuum with his or her own worst imagination.  Couple that with the frustration of not having expectations of an apology or empathy met, and you have a recipe for explosion.

Wouldn’t a sincere apology from the Pope regarding the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal ease a good deal of the public’s outrage about the Church’s handling of the incidents?  Without that, people fill that void by assigning to the Church feelings of apathy, indifference, even tacit acceptance, and it is that array of feelings to which people are reacting.

Akio Toyoda Apology from knx1070.comIn Toyota’s case, company President Akia Toyoda apologized publicly.  He said the important words, “I am sorry for any accident Toyota drivers have experienced … and I will do everything in my power to ensure such a tragedy never happens again.”  You can listen to his entire apology here:  http://aiminst.com/toyoda.

Is he sincere?  Only time will tell, but the world will be watching Toyota’s production quality very closely, and skeptically, to see.

Litigants don’t have the opportunity to offer or hear apologies such as the one Toyoda made to Congress and the world.  In civil litigation for monetary damages where lawyers and witnesses do all the talking, apologies are almost never a part of the equation (except sometimes on TV dramas).

Mediation is different, however.  In mediation, litigants come together for the express purpose of talking about their disputes in an environment that both encourages and facilitates apologies as part of resolution.  For some parties, hearing the words “I’m sorry” is part of being made whole.  For defendants, having the opportunity to say and mean those words can lift a burden they may have carried for years.

I have seen apologies work wonders for all involved in sexual harassment and discrimination cases, medical malpractice cases, product liability and personal injury cases.

Once, in a sexual harassment suit I mediated, after the plaintiff told how the harassment had affected her entire life, the defendant shocked us all when he literally confessed. “I did it,” he said.  “I did everything she just described.”  He could only do that because of the protections provided by mediation.  He went on to apologize, explaining that he thought they were all just goofing around, that everyone in their workplace flirted with everyone, that he never dreamed his actions affected her the way they had  and that if someone had ever made his wife feel the way she was describing, he would want to strangle the guy.  He apologized sincerely, asked for her forgiveness, and wanted to know what he could do to make it better.  Those are the three components of a real apology.  More important, his words gave that plaintiff exactly what she needed.  The modest amount of money she accepted meant less to her than the apology.

In a medical malpractice case, when the plaintiff talked of losing her elderly mother, the hospital’s risk manager answered, not by denying liability, but by telling her own story of loss – her elderly father in a hospital.  Upon hearing that, the plaintiff felt she had someone on the other side who understood her.  We were able to resolve that case in about 30 minutes with just one monetary offer.  Read more about this at http://aiminst.com/advopen.

So, my advice to Faircloth — and all who are skeptical about the motives behind apologies — is that the words “I’m sorry” mean something, no matter how long you have to wait to give or receive them.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share

The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution on March 5 publicly acknowledging and condemning Turkey’s Ottoman army for their role in the Armenian Genocide almost 100 years ago.  According to New York Times reporters Sebnem Arsu and Brian Knowlton, “Turkey reacted sharply, recalling its ambassador to Washington, Namik Tan, in a display of annoyance.  Turkey is a critical United States ally in NATO, but the question of Armenian genocide taps deep veins of national pride.”  Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told the reporters, “Each interference by a third party will make this normalization impossible.”  See “Turkey Criticizes Committee Vote on Armenian Killings.

With all due respect to Minister Davutoglu because I know he means well, the U.S. government acknowledging the Armenian Genocide will not harm Turkey-Armenian relations and it should not add strain to Turkey’s relationship with the United States.

Minister Davutoglu doesn’t understand what mediators know to be true:  There are different levels of defining peace.  While many people, Americans mostly, define peace as a state of bliss where everything around us is good and everyone around us gets along, others, notably people in war torn countries, consider peace to be an absence of active war.

Mediators define peace (we call it “success”) differently, too.   One way is compromise that avoids expensive litigation through settlement, but doesn’t necessarily resolve the conflict.  The parties may still walk away believing their opponents are the enemies who intentionally injured them.  If the relationship continues, as it often must, the unaddressed, underlying conflicts resurface and manifest in a new dispute.  Take neighbors, for example, who dispute property lines or encroaching tree limbs.  Once the survey is done and the tree is trimmed, that immediate dispute is settled.  But unless the animosity and bad feelings between them are addressed, and the underlying conflict resolved for good, new disputes will likely erupt in a few months over parked cars, fertilized lawns, noise, lights or any other lever disgruntled neighbors can find to fight about.  That’s how unresolved, underlying conflict continues.

Turkey and Armenia are neighbors who will never have true peace until the travesties of the past are acknowledged, discussed and artfully apologized for.  My “Talk It Over” co-host Louise “Weezy” Palanker puts it this way:  Don’t just say “I’m sorry,” (or worse, “I’m sorry you feel that way”), you have to also say, “can you ever forgive me?” and “what can I do to make it up to you?”  The transgressor who asks these questions is taking responsibility for his or her actions and attempting to make things right.

Minister Davutoglu seems to believe that silence and a lack of unrest indicate that all is well when it fact, Armenians are merely tolerating the current situation while still holding a vey deep grudge, resulting in an unresolved underlying conflict.  Real peace between Turkey and Armenia will be achieved once Minister Davutoglu or another high-ranking Turkish leader delivers a public acknowledgement, complete with a responsible apology, and asks the “what can we do to make things right?” question.  Then, and only then, can discussions about forgiveness and peace begin.  And perhaps then, the world will have one fewer ticking time bomb ready to explode in that part of the world.  Permanently.

Share