The Role o f Leaders and Elites

ever, Icadcrs arc a l so ;~ltictctl 1)y the c o n ~ I ~ i t ~ . ~ t i o n c~ l ' cu l t l~rc .~n t l instigating cc~~~tl i t ior ic 111;1[ crcntc i ~ ~ c l i t i ; ~ r i o ~ ~ s to h l ;~r l~c nr~d turn . ~ g . ~ i ~ l \ t orhcrs. In acldition, group^^ d11icrcJ ;Ire more ollcll r c ~ Ic.ltlcr\ who .Ire inclined toward rhcrc tlcsrructivc proccsscs.

Some Ic;ldcrs m;ly pcrso~i;~ll! c;Irry urillc;~lctl n w ~ ~ l d s I ' I O I I I victi~nization their p u p h ; ~ s sultircil. .l-lic parents o t ~ c v e r ; ~ l S c r l ~ Ic,~dcr\, tOr- example, (;cner;~l hllaJic. rhc c o m ~ n ; ~ n J c r of the Scrh ;Irnl!. in I\o\rii;~, \vcrc among those killed by Croats (luring \Vorld \Y;lr I l . 'l'his is likcl\. to lead to an inclination for dcfcnsivc violcncc. ;IS d c s c r i l d e;lrliu. 'I'llus tlcstructive lead- ership can be b ~ s c d on the Icatlcrs' gctiuir~c t'cclir~g\ m d bclicli, t;~lfilling their own basic needs in ciifhculr times, or i t c;111 he self-inrcrcsred manip- ulation hy Ie;~rlers. or some comhin;ltion ot' thc t\vo (Sr.1~11. IWOa). Dif- Kcrent preventive approaches nl;ly bc reqrrircd, c lcpcr~t l i t i~ on wt~ich it is (Scc also Gurr. 2001).

The Evolution of Increasing Violence and Intractable Conflict

(iiven instigarir~g cot~tlirions and cultur;~l p r c c o ~ ~ d i t i o t ~ s . oncc violence by one group agahst aanorller begins, wirllout restraining Ii)rccs such as active bystanders, an evolutior~ is likely to follow. Individu,lls ;~nrl groups learn by

, . Joing. I hey change as a result of their own actions. In the course of this ~ v o l u t i o n , co~~fI ic t 111;1y I ~ C ' C O I I I C intract;~l>lc, violcncc nlole i r ~ t ~ n s e . Violence by a dominant group or government m;xy lc;d ivith "steps along a contin- LILIIII of Jcstruction" to genocide (Staub, 108'9, in press-1)).

Once \klcr lcc I>cgirls, individw~ls ant1 rhc \ v l ~ o l ~ group tt.11d to justify tllcir ;~ctiotis. 110t only to o111c1.s hut ;IISO to I I I C I I I S C I ~ ~ S . 'I'llcy explain their actiom ;IS ~ 1 1 1 ~ t o the victinls' I~I.1111c\\~o1-tliy ;1ctio11 or ~ ; I U I I \ . ~ I I . I I - ; I C I C ~ (Ler-

I I C I . IOHO). 'l'llcir incsc;tsingly negative view of the victim and the "high" idc..~l\ of' rhc idcolog). join to make new violence easier and more likely (51,1111). ]')ti()). Such .11i evolution h x also been found in terrorist groups. I ' l ~ c . \ . \ o ~ ~ ~ c t i l ~ l c \ I y j n with political action, as for example the Baader- hlcinflloi group in (;crrnan): but as these seem ineffective, they turn to \ . iolen~-c. l.c,~rnirlg by doing a n d the dynamics within the group, for example ~ ~ ~ c i l r l o strive for st;ltus by expressing more radical views, lead to I I I C 1~,15i1ig viole~ice ( h ~ l c ~ ~ : ~ u ~ e y & Segd, 1989).

A s cIcv.~luation intensifies, the victim or enemy is progressively excluded !)on1 th r moral and human realm (Opotaw, 1990; Staub, 1989, 1990) or, in :~nothcr tcrminologfi from the realm of moral obligation (Fein, 1979, 1')')3). As violence intensifies, there is often a reversal of morality, so that killing rncnlhcrs ot ' rhc other group becomes the right, moral thing to do. tiillel-s ni;ls come t o src tliclnselves as able and willing to kill to fulfill higher idcnls (Staul), 1080).

I:ollo\ving Milgranl's work o n obedience to authority Zukier (1994) rlotccl the role in such an evolution of authorities who order acts of violence. As fwof)le ellgage i l l thcse acts, the personal changes just described follow. h o w n i n g ( I 902) t l csc r i ld a process of desensitization and personal change i r ~ the mcr i~ l~crs of n reserve police battalion who were sent to Poland to kill Iews . Hut people wllo are ordered to engage in silch violence, or vol- untcrr ior it, ofier~ do not start from scratch. T h e reserve police oflicers l i ;~ i l cng:lgrti in violence in the course of their police work, in part preparing t l ~ c n ~ fbr this gre;lrer violence (Staub, 1992, 2001 c). Some of them had also crigngcd in previous violence dictated by the system (Rhodes, 2002). W h e n they were first ordered in Poland to kill large numbers of people, many I;ttcr r c p r t e d to Rrowning thnt tlley wcre greatly distressed, even felt ill. Somc said they did not act. But over time, they became efficient, calm, and dedicated killers. Support by their superiors in their "difficult" task, praise, being p:ut of n like-minded group, and learning by doing helped them along. (However, in the view of Goldhagen, 1996, they were dedicated, cold-blooded killers from the start.)

Changes in societies include changes in societal beliefs, as well as in norms of conduct, so that unacceptable actions toward the enemy or victim group t ~ e c o n ~ e norrnal, even desirable. Institutions change, o r new institutions are creared that serve discrimination, conflict, and violence (Stauh. 1080). Such e v o l ~ ~ t i o n may take place over a long historical period. Culturcs retain lnenlories of historical events, including their own past ac- tic)ns and collective ~rlenlories that are created out of them. Views of and o r i e ~ ~ t a t i o n rc i ano t l~cr group may become part of the deep structure of a culture. I I I response to new instigating conditions, the evolution of increas- ing violence m l y rcsunic. For example, both in Turkey against the Arme- 11ii1115 J I K I i l l RW:I I I~ : I ;~gitinst the *Ii~tsis (des Forges, I999) , mass killings wcre follo\vctl I y long pcriods without violence, and then the resumption of'cvc~i mote i r i t c~~cc \*iolcric.c, genocide (Stauh, I c W h ) . .Ih prevent renewed

Ethos o f Intractable Conflict

4 . Aborrt ~~ir.ti~)riz,~tinrr. A society in intr .~ct ,~l>le c o r ~ f l i c t c o ~ ~ i c s t o I,clicve

t l la t i t is v i c t i n ~ i r c d b y the opponen t .

5 . /I/~otrt wurr i ty . ' l h csc I xd ie I i o u t l i n e t l i c nccc\\.lr.\. c o ~ l d i t i o r ~ \ l i ) r p r -

s o r ~ ; ~ l s ; ~ f i t y ;111d n . ~ t i o n . ~ l security, \ v h i c l ~ ol'rc11 Ic;~cl t o i ~ ~ t c n \ c v io-

Icrice ag.~inst thc o ther ( t i l . ~ r c & ' l 'homas. 109 l; N c y P i I .!wr~-Jones,

1088). Secur i ty I ~ c c o n ~ c s ;I cx-ntr.ll cocict;ll \~1l11c in rinles 0 1 - in t r ;~c tn-

h l c cor l t l ic t . I~;~r-'l',~l, I ;~c .o l~sor l , ; ~ n d K l i c n ~ ; l n ( 1 0 0 8 ) dc \c~ i l )cc l sccrl-

r i t v I~c l i c f s in r l l c Isr;lcli socicty ;IS ;I rcstrlt of' the i \ r . ~ l ~ - l \ r . ~ c l i conflict

i l 1 i i i t c o f t 727

rlicnillr~r\ ro rlicir group and the country in which they reside, is of C I I I I . ~ . I ~ i ~ l i p ) ~ i . r i i ~ c in t i ~ l i c ~ of intsact;~ljle conflict. 1)atriotism main- [ . r i l l \ Io\..rIt\. J I I ~ ~nol,ilires group mcmlxrs for action (see Reykowski, I ')')'; ILnC. 1 O H i ; Src,rri, 1005) . I'coplc ;Ire asked to sacrifice their on.11 I I C C X ~ \ to I I C ~ ~ ,~cIiicvc society's goals (Sonlerville, 1981). Those W I I O ~ . ~ c r ~ f i c . c clicir li\w arc as heroes. A blind adherence to rllc groul3 i \ tlcni,lndccl, ivhilc constr~ictive patriotism, questioning {lie ~ I O U J > ' \ or leaders' policies and practices, is not tolerated (Staub. I O O - ; S c l l . ~ t ~ , Stauh, & Lxvinc, 1999). T h e emphasis on patriotism in I\r . rcl i society i l l tI1e course of the Arab-Israeli conflict served the I u ~ i c r ~ o r r ~ ot 'solid;~rity strcngtliening identity, loyalty, n~obilization, .111d tlrc \villing~less to sacrifice (Uen Amos & Bar-'lhl, in press).

-. , , / / )or// r/r/i/y. I'dicf> a t ~ o u t common goals, values, origins, history, and t r d i t i o ~ l c ~ l i p h a s i x the importance o f maintaining unity by ignoring i ~ i r c r ~ x ~ l discorcls and disagreenlents in the face of external threat. 'I'licy Iiighliglir that internal conflict can harm the common cause.

H. A/)or i / p r m ~ . 'l'llcse belief; Iiold peace as the ultimate goal and de- \tribe rllc socicry ac peace loving. 7'hc presentation of peace as a su- I U ~ I I I ~ gO;lI is usunlly doue in utopian, general, and vague terms, like ;I ~ I C . I I ~ I or \visIr. witllout specifying tlie concrete meaning of peace or u.,r\,s to d ~ i c v c it.

' I ' h ethos of'contlict is a prism through which group members look .I[ tlir worlcl, collect new itlforn~ation, interpret their experiences, and make decisions about their courses of action (e.g., Ross, 1995). It is maintained

socict;d, political, and cultural institutions and transmitted to new g a l - crnriorls 11). the educational system. I t is used to justify the society's policies, dccisio~is, and action. While it makes better adaptation to the intractable conflict possible, it also fuels the conflict and violence. These societal beliefs see111 ro 11e present to some degree in the United States in the wake of the 01 I 110 I attacks, perhaps to different extents in the public mind, the media, and in political processes.

The Role of Bystanders

'l'llc pssivity, ;1110 ;I[ times c o ~ n p l i c i t ~ , of bystanders, witnesses who are in ;I positioil t o ;KT, is of great importance in allowing the evolution of the i n f l u c ~ i ~ ~ ' t l l , ~ t I C ; I C ~ to v i~ lencc , and of violence itself (Staub, 1989, 1999a). CJs~~;rll!: itr/c.w,rl /ytttrrmh,s, nlc~nbcrs of a population who themselves are not part of ;11i ideological movctncnt o r perpetrator group, remain passive in the f;lcc of increasing cnrnity and violence. As part o f the same group tl1r.y ;lie ~ l s o .rflkctctl I>y instigating cotiditions and culture, such as deval- uation of' the victinl group.

External Bystanders

O u t s i d e grol tpy ;111tl t i ,~t iot i>, JI\O [e t~c i IO 1c~ti1.1i11 ~~ , I \ \ I \ . c~ , 111- c , i ~ . 1 1 \ ~ ~ p l w r t

1icr13cu;1tors. Sornct in lcs tI ic\. t lo rhiz . ~ c t i \ d \ . . .I\ tilt. l ' l l i t cd \I.I~(-. JIICI other

c o u ~ ~ t r i c s s ~ ~ ~ y o r t c d I r q I ~ I ~ I L . i t \ i t ~ r . l \ t o t ~ of ~ ~ L I \ \ A I I . ~ Y ~ I I n l ~ i l c i r ~ q was

us ing c l ~ c n i i c ~ ~ l \ v c ~ ~ p o t i s : ~ g . ~ i n < t 11s K u r r l i ~ h popu1~1t io11 ~ S t ~ u l i 10 t ) l 1. A t

o t l i c r t imes the\. d o i t ly g o i n g o n \v i t l i h t \ i t~r \ \ ,I\ U\LII. 'I\ [ t i c \voAct did d r ~ r i r ~ g the 1030s irl rc ln t ion t o N .w i (;crni.~n\,. I:or cx .~ r~ i~ i l c . . L ? . S . corpo-

r ; ~ t i o r ~ s (S impson. 1003) Lvcre I ~ c y d o i n g h u t i n c w i n (;cYII~.II~\.. I:.\.e11 the

p ~ s i v i ? ol ' I>~.st .~ndcrs cncour,lgcs ~ U ~ W ~ I , I I O I \ , \ t I i o t ~ k c ~ ) , ~ \ \ i r i r \ . f i ) r ap- pro\." ('II;l!dor, 1983). I k I ! act ion, i v l i i ch is r,lrc. IIJ\ tlir grc*.ltctt po tent ia l

t o i n h i b i t the c \ w l u t i o r ~ o f v io lence \v i rhout the r ~ s c of ' \ . io l twcc. As the

resurgent Is rae l i - l 'a lcs t i r~ i ;~~ i conf l i c t I3ccamc incr rn i l ig l ! . \ . i c ~ l c l ~ t 51,lrting in LOOO, the I J n i t c r i S t ~ r c s . the 13otcntially mor r i n l l u c ~ ~ r i . ~ l Iy,.\t.~nclcr. did very

l i t t l e (see a l to I'o\vers. 2001, 2002 ; Staul,, 200013).

A t t imes, v io lence in intracrahlc conf l i c t is l im i r c t l I>cc.luw of ' t l ie be-

h : ~ v i o r o f hystarlcicrs (Stnub, LOOla). I n N o r r l l c r l ~ I rc l .~ i i r l , u11dc.r Br i t i sh

I lorne rulc, 13ritain t o o k b o t h po l ice act ions ;11icl o ther \ I C ~ i n t r y i n g t o

stop violence (Ca i rns c9( [)arb); 1008). I n rhc I s r . ~ e l i - l ' ; l l c ~ r i ~ i i ~ ~ ~ i conf l ic t ,

apart f r o m ;lctual wars a n d 13cfi)rc the rcnc \v ;~ l oi violetwe ill 2000, the

relationship t o the U n i t e d States. ;IS we l l ;IS r l ~ r \,oicc of' v.1ricd victvs a n d

parties i n ;I plural ist ic, c lc lnocr;~t ic society, l i ; ~vc cucrtcd in f lucncc in Israel.

I n I w t h coll icts. scgrrlcnts o f the I~o lmla t ion \vorkcd t o b r i n g t og r the r smal l

g r o ~ ~ p ~ ; ' c r o n t l ~ c i l i v idc . l ' l ~ c cxl1cricrice i n 00 th c;~.sct. p c r l ~ ; ~ p c csl)ccially

N o r t h e r n I rc l ;~nr l . suggests t h r wh i l e in t r ;~cr ;~b lc co i i f l i c t is vol ,~t i lc , under

special t i rcumstanccs i t n i ay I ~ e c o r ~ l e institutionalized .I( .I ccrt; l in level, just

as d i sc r im ina t i on a p i n s t another g r o u p cal l he.

h Halting and Preventing Mass Violence

Halting Potential Mass Killing or Genocide

W h e n violence against a g r o u p has already hegun o n a h r o a d scale, o r

intense d i sc r im ina t i on and l i m i t e d violence ind ica te grc;it danger, ha l t i ng

its fu r ther evo lu t i on I~~COIIICS i n ~ p r ; l t i \ . c . LJs11;111y ;1t IILII 1)oint o n l y p o w-

er fh l nations, o r the in ternat iona l c o m m u n i t y , CIII exerr sufiic.ic.nr influence.

I n t l ie past, th is has rarely happcncd. I t did I i a p l w ~ i i n I h n i ; ~ , after years

o f hesi tat ion a t id ~ninirn;d act ion. T h e i n teu \c ~ ~ ~ i l i r . ~ r y response in Kosovo

was the result o f the ;11>scnce o f early actio11 ;IS \vc11 ;IS t hc 1,lr.k of 'cxperience

i n construct ively respond ing t o such si tuat ions (Sr;~ub. IOOOn). . l ' l ~ e later

tha t bystanders act, t l i c m o r e d i f f i cu l t i t is t o 11;llt violence \ v i t l l ou t l r i i l i ta ry

act ion. ' l 'hc need l o r m i l i t a r y ac t ion c-;tn p ro l> ;~ ldy I>c n \ u t c c l ill most in-

stances b!. early intervent ion- a p r o p o r i t i o n ~II;II r ~ r c d s t o 13c tested by q x o p r i a w . c c m m i t t c d act ions Iy 13!.stnntlcr ~ i ; l r i o n \ .

I lie I ; I \ I \r.igc ot' ~c\p t r~ i sc , if violence is still limited, may be private I ~ I ~ ) I ) ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ . ~ [ ~ I ) I I will1 Ic..~ders. Auto~r;ltic le.~ders d o not want to seem weak 1 1 ) tlic c!.c.\ oI rlicir Ii)llo\vcrs and may refuse to cooperate in face of public ( l ~ ~ i i . ~ ~ i d \ . I)ri\..ltc ~ ~ o ~ l i ~ i i i ~ ~ i i c ; \ t i o ~ i s may include warnings, specific demands lor ~ l i . l r ~ g c \ i l l policies :ind pr;~ctices, and offers of help. T h e engagement \v111i Ic.1~1cr~ ~11ouId Iw C R I - I - I ~ ~ out with sensitivity to the culture, political I I I I X ~ \ \ C C . . 1 1 d p\ '~l iologicnl wounds of the group as well as of the leaders rI i~~~i) \c . l \~cs (Stnul). IOWa), which requires special training of emissaries. I I ) I I I . I I \ I I C C C \ \ in c o ~ i l ~ ~ i \ ~ i i i c a t i o ~ i should be followed by mediation and con- l l i c t rcv)lution, ccononiic help. and continued engagement with leaders. At [inlcs of c ~ i \ i s , the involvenie~it of high-level leaders of countries important to thc potential ~ ~ u l x u a t o r s ~ i ~ a y be necessary for success. This requires that C ~ I C I I Ie;ider~ t;lke risks, since their efforts may be i~ns~~ccess fu l .

I I incllktivc, the second stage ought to be public condemnation and ~)ul)lic warning of s f m i t i c consequences. If this is ineffective, various sanc- iici~is slioulrl fidlow. Snnctious that affect the whole population may in the s11ort I N I ~ he c ( ~ ~ ~ ~ l t e r ~ ) r ~ ~ I i ~ t i v e , with leaders using them to blame the out- \idc \vorld ancl to create increased group cohesion (Leatherman et al., 1999). Over the long run they can be successfid, as according to many analysts (Iicy \vcsrc in Soutli Africa and to some extent in the former Yugoslavia. I 1cwcvc.r. rhcy can ;ilso create great suffering in the population, as they did iri I r q , without accomplishing their aims. Mixed goals may contribute to t h i r tiilurc, when in addition to aiming to stop human rights violations . ~ n d \.iolcr~ce t h y ;lim at renloving leaders (Staub, 199%).

' l ; ~ r ~ c t d sanctions aim at leaders and the elite (Carnegie Commission, 1007). 'l'licy include confiscating foreign bank accounts and boycotts of goods o t ' spe~i ;~I interest to the elite. Sanctions that are responsive to specific circumstances, are flexible, and are changed in response to new conditions sccni the best policy. As the last resort, in the face of intense violence, military action is required. Many have argued for the need of a UN force (Fein. 1994). If instead of a peacekeeping force with instructions not to . - fight, even a small fighting tbrce had been available and active in Rwanda in 1994, the genocide almost certainly could have been prevented (Gour- cvich, 1998; Powers, 2001, 2002).

A tool that may help prevent future genocides has emerged in recent rinirs: rlic prosecution of perpetrators outside their country, through ad hoc i~itcrn.itio~i;iI t~-il>u~i;lls and the newly created International Criminal Court . I n ntldition. counrries have hegun to pass laws that enable them to try p o p l c ; I C C I I S C ~ ~ of I1un1;in rights violations elsewhere. Britain detained Cen- cl;il I'irioclict of' Chile; Hclgium tried Rwandese nuns for collaboration in the murder of ' l i~ts is in Rwanda in 1994. While the international prose- cu[ion of pcrpct~-;ltors is iniportant, only by addressing the varied forces that Ic.id t o ni;lss killing or intractable conflict can intense violence be prevented.

Preventing Violence and Transforming Conflict

'l'lie presence ; ~ r i c l iritcri~ity 01' rlw irill~r~riccs ~ I I J I TI^, ~ ~ I C I I I I I ~ C C I ,I\ co11- t r i h t i n g 10 gcriocide or ~ I I I I . I C I . I I ~ I ~ ~ o ~ i f l i c t i.111 hC id ,111~1 ~rscd to predict tllc likclilioo~l o i I<~tcr \ ~ i o l c ~ i ~ ~ c ~ . ( I . ~ r i ~ l t . I c ) c ) ~ ) : S r ~ t ~ l , . I Oc)Sl~). I<vi- tlcricc ot 'cvol~~tior i . o1'inc.r-c.~sc in Iio~tilit \ . rid 11.111ii-doiri~, i \ ,111 ~ p c c i a l l ~ imlwrt :~r~t iridic;~tor. l:xtcrn;~l t>\.stnnclcr\ c.ln 11.1\.c .I ~,tr\iti\.c rtrlc i l l .~Iiccting i r ~ r e r ~ ~ ; i l proc-cws in :i socict\r i ~ ~ v o l v c d i i i ~ I ~ \ L ~ I I I I O I ~ J I I ~ I cor~llict ~ r ~ ~ ~ i s l i ~ r - ~ i u t i o n .itid in dc\.cloping concrrr~ctivc Ic .dcr\ l i i l~ ( S I J I I ~ , . I')'J').I: \cc also Ackcrr~i ;~rir~, 2OOO).

Ilo\vcvcr. I ~ ~ ~ ~ t ; ~ r i d e r s - - g o v c r ~ i ~ i ~ c ~ i t s . i~i terr~.~t ior i .~l i r i ~ r ~ t ~ ~ t r o r ~ \ . norigov- ernnie~ltal org;iriiz.itio~is (N(;Os)-tcrid to I ) C C O I I I C ~ o ~ i ~ c r r i e c l . ~ l ~ ) t r t vio- I c r ~ c J I N I corillic~, 11. at ; I I I , orily in R Y ~ O ~ I \ L - to J I I ~ . I c I \ . I I ~ I C I I \ ~ l~rol)lc~iis. \L'I~ile ;I grc;It &II o i rce-cnr ; ~ t r c r i t i o ~ ~ l i ~ s I O C I I \ L ~ 011 e,111y n.1111i1ig (Ciurr cYr I l;irIl', 1000: l~l;irlf; IOOO), tlicrc is no ctlccri\,c of c.~rl! w.~rr>ing or of the use of ecirly \v;irr~ing to xtiv:itc ;I rc\ponw ( S I J I I ~ , 1000.1). 1.cath- errn;in ; ~ r i r l cdlcaugucs (ICNO, p. 206) s ~ ~ g g c s t th;it c.~ch \ i r~r .~rion rcquires rlw building o i a co;ilition of rn;iny plrrics Ii)r prcwntiori. S ~ ~ c l i coalitions ;Ire Iluid ;11ic1 ditlkr f~ori i case to case, rcllccting tlic pcrccption of' interests 1y niajor po\rrcrs and leading rcgion;~l st;~rcs. Hut tlic I)r~ilding of such a co;~lition recluircs tirnc, ; I I ~ w l ~ c n sr;ltcs arc clisir~tcrcstcd, i r rii:I!. not Iiappen.

It seems cssc~~tial to Iluild a systcrii \vithin govcrnmcrits of high-level institutioris specihcnlly clinrgcd with early warriing nnet the ,~c-tivntinn of prevcritive actions. 'l'hese institutioris c;111 conricct \vitll N(;Os mci inter- national orpnizat ions. Social ;~ctivisrn hy civic groups n u y be essential to bring this about. It is ;ilso essential to infl~rcncc tlic wn\. t licsc institutions hr lct ion, to add psycliologic;~l kno~vledgc a r d skill? to the pr.~cticc of pre- vcrition, as delineated below (Staub, 1008b. 1 0 0 ' ) ~ ) .

Processes of Prevention

l.caciers can help overcome devaluation a n d promotc the positive irnagc: of a11 outgroup by hot11 words rid actions. For cs;~mplc. RicIi;~rcl Nixon did this hy initiating f;icridly talk \\,it11 (:liiricsc Ic.~dcrs: A l - . ~ t i t ;rnd Rabin clianged attitudes by shaking lianrls. After tlic Oslo agreement, support for suicide Iwriibcrs dccliricd ;1111011g I'alestini;iris (h/lc(:;~~~Icy, in pros) . Whether heginning ch; ingc~ ~lccpcn dcpcnds on firrtlicr c\.cnts. 'l'lle nicdia has a po\vcrful potential to create positive change (sce I<o;~cli. 1004). I-lowever, rlic media ofieri magnitics hostility. Syrnparlictic portr.1y;il of tlic other group> its values, culture, a r d gods ;~nci thc \rrn!.s 01' lit;, of its members, car1 promote positive attit t~des.

Itlste;~cl of sc;~pegoating ;ind ~iivisivc ideologies, in rc?IwIiw to difficult life coriditions, leadcrs can generate a vision o i a n d pl.~ns Ii)r the f i~ ture that irirludc ; ~ l l groups, in shared cft;~rts to improve liic. l ' h c Urlirccl Stares led hy I<ooscvclt during the Great I)cprcsion is ;In cx;~nll,lc. I lo\vcvcr, societal

p ~ o l l l c ~ n t in t l i ~ t c.lsc were nor as great as in most genocidal situations. As I I I rhc ( : ~ r n p I>.~vid ;~grcc~licnt , the h ; ~ n d s l ~ ; ~ k e Ixtwren Kabin and Arafat, . ~ r i c l the O \ l o ngrccrncnt, outsiciers can play an important role.

Srruct i~r;~l changes, such as changes in the economic situation of par- ricul.~r groups, ;Ire i n ~ l ~ o r r ; ~ n t . In Northern Ireland, greater economic op- p ) ru111i t i c ; ~ n d grcdter material well-being of the Catholic minority has contril~urcd to the possibilities of peace. Enlightened elements of British I I O I I I C rule I i ; 1 \ ~ h s ~ c r c d this c l~angc ((:aims & Darby, 1998). T h e United N . I ~ ions 1 1 . 1 ~ \ I I C S ~ C C I c ~ o n o n l i c cIc.velopnient as a way to reduce group hos- t i l i t y (C:.~r~lcgic (:ornn~ission, 1907). Improving the life of less-privileged F I . O I I ~ i l l .I t oc ic (~ ; as W C I I as reducing inequalities, are important in ame- lior.~ting ccmllicr. I lowever, in the short term, economic development can co~l t s i lu~rc ro prolllcrl~s. A l r c : ~ t l ~ privileged groups may be the primary ben- cfici.~ric$, i n c ~ c ; ~ r i n g .I serlsc of' ir~jirsricc (Gorclon, 1994). Economic devel- ~ ~ I I I C I ~ I ;111d 111ocIcr1ii~;1tio11 also create profound social changes, with atten- dant Ifi)diologic:~l cflicts. In addition, when conflict is already entrenched ; I I I ~ groups h ;~vc inflictec1 violence o n each other, psychological changes are rcclui~cd Ii>r overcoming hostility. Hut without structural changes, psycho- Iogic;~I C I I ; I I I ~ C S may not he possible to bring about or maintain.

(:rosscu~ting relations (Lkutsch, 1973; Staub, 1989), deep engagement Iy ~llcni lxm ol' hostile groups with each other, can make a significant dif- frrcrice. 130th in Northern Ireland (Cairns & Darby, 1998) and until the year 2000 in Israel, community organizations bringing members from the t ~ v o sides togethcr probably significantly limited the extent of violence. In hiaccdonia, journalists belonging to the different ethnic groups have joined ro write stories about the lives o f people in each group, publishing them in the newspapers of each of the groups (Manoff, 1996).

Social psychologists have long stressed the importance of contact and attempted to specift conditions under which contact needs to occur to lessen devaluation and hostility. Superficial contact, living in the same neigh- borhood, does not help. For contact to be effective, it has to involve sig- nificant engagement with the other (Deutch, 1973, Pettigrew, 1997, 1998; Staulj. 1080). In addition, various conditions have been noted as necessary fi)r contact to have positive effects, such as equality among those engaged wit11 each other, the support of authorities, and others (Allport, 1954; Cook, 1970).

13i1t thcsc conditions often d o not exist in the larger world. Instead, they may h a w to be created as processes within the interacting group: cqu;~lity within the group, tliird parties facilitating the interaction and sup- porting tlic process in place of authorities, arid so o n (Staub, 2002). In a study in Northern Ir-eland. Cairns and tiewstone (2000; described in Lund- \vcll. ,2001) found that contact between Protestant and Catholic students reduced anxiety arid prejudice when group affiliation was made explicit and students kept i t in mind during the interaction.

h Reconcilia tion

Rcconciliatiori is both a process and mi outcornc. Its proximate aims arc to bring about psychological changes in the orientation of ~ncnibers of g r o i t p s t o \ v ~ ' d each other, in their r~nderstancling of the p s t . in their vision of a joint Suture, and in who they are in relation to each other. I<econcili- ation as a naturally occurring process is usually slo\v. In many situations it requires active efforts to facilitate it anti to overcome social, cultural, and psychological obstacles to it.

T h e nature of the process and the outcomcs dcpcnd on clwxter is t ics of the g r o u p s a d their circunistanccs (see cxanlplcs in W i t t a k e r , 1999). Are the groups part of the same politic;~l entity, so tll;tt they will continue to live together, as in Nicaragua, South Afiica, o r l<\v;~rlda, or are they separate political entities, as in Israel and Ilgypt? \Xhs violence p r p r a t e d by one group, or was it mutual?

I'eace-ni;lki~tg techniques h a w rrnditionally f;)c~lsctl on the structural aspects of restoring or forming relations between former ant;lgonists (see Charif, 1994; Lederacli, 1997; l..il>scli~ltz, 1998; hturray & Grcer, 1999; Wilnler, 1908). I t was assumed that equality in the interaction o f parties, together with ccononiic and political restructuring. Icads to cooperative links, which stabilize peaceful relations (Ackcrm;wn, 1004; Gardner- I:eldrilan, I W 9 ; Weiwen & L)cshingkar, 1005). l 'lic literature focused on S L I C I I structural c l ~ n i e n t s as maintaining channels of conimunication and consultation between the leaders and representatives of the groups; reducing . .

tllrcar anti tension by disarmament and dc1nilitari7ntion; tlcveloping free

(knocitlc, hl;lss Killing. :~nd lntractahlc Conflict 733

. I I I C ~ I I I ) C I I I I ; I C ~ C ; ~ooper;~tive econonlic venti~res; inclusion of all groups in tlic pnvcr \ ) . IcI~; cst.~t)lishnient of structural equality and justice; human ,111cl ~ i v i l ~ighrs ,111~1 dcn~ocrntic political governance; the creation of equal o p l x ) ~ [unit!' .~ntl redistribution of wealth (Arnson, 1999; Corm, 1994; Krie\lw g. 1 0 0 8 ~ ; I.ctle~-ach, 1998; Murray & Greer, 1999; Wilmer, 1998; %<ll.lq"e", 101)')).

t Jn l i ) r runntc l~ these approaches do not guarantee lasting peaceful re- I.~rion\ (Arn\on. I90'9; Arthur, 1999; Kriesberg, 1 998a; Simpson, 1997; and \ee \I;'ilrilcr, 1008, on the former Yugoslavia). Over time they might pro- more signilic;~nt reconciliation and lasting peace, especially if they foster deep C O I I ~ ; I C I I ) C ~ \ V C C . I I group members in the context of joint efforts, but ol1e11 v io le~~ec ~ C ' C I I I C ~ ~ C F 0ef;re this has happened. Moreover, these ap- I ) I O . I C I I L Y arc t l~c~i~sclves inipe~led by the still-existing feelings of hostility.

\Y'c dcfinc reconciliation as niutual acceptance by members of hostile or prcvio115ly I~ostile groups of each other and the societal structures and psYchologic;~l processes directly involved in the development and mainte- nancc of such acceptancc (Staub, 1998a; Staub & Pearlman, 2001). Gen- uine ;~cccptance nleans trust in and positive attitude toward the other, and sensitivity to and consideration of the other party's needs and interests (Bar- 'Ild & I k n ~ ~ i n k , in press). Given where the parties usually start, these ideal outcon~cs are difficult to achieve. Reconciliation is a process that moves pnrricipants toward these outcomes (Staub & I'earlman, 200I) , usually with regressions along the way (see Bar-.Id, in press-b).

Elements of Reconciliation

I<econciliation requires basic psychological changes in large segments of both groups (Asmal et al., 1997; Bar-Tal, 2000a; Kriesberg, 1998a; Leder- ach, 1997). A distinction may be made between elements or building blocks of reconciliation and methods to bring them about. Elements that have heen iwop)serd include truth and justice (see under methods), healing, for- . . givcncss, and shared views of history.

Shared Collective Memory

I)uring rlic mass killing or conflict, the parties had divergent and often opposing views about the conflict anti the history of their relations. Creating a conin~on view seenis important in reconciliation (Hayes, 1998; Hayner, 1099; Kopstein, 1997; Lederach, 1997; Volkan, 1998; Whittaker, 1999), ;1ltl10~1gIi what its nature should be is not necessarily clear (see Asmal et al., Ic)97; l3ar-'Id, 2000a; Kelman, 1999; Marrow, 1999). We will call this C O I I I I I ~ O I I view a sl~crred coiiective memoly (Staub & Pearlman, 2002). Its formntiori rcquircs establishing a shared truth (Staub & I'earlman, 2001, 2002) and the parties accepting this truth about the past (Asmal et al., 1997; 1-layes, 1'198; Lederach, 1998; Norval, 1998, 1999). The two con-

. . .

r h i c i q ;I process o f r ~ c g o t i . ~ t i o n , i n \ \ ,h rc l~ t l ~ c \ to r \ . 01. t t ic rue gr-oups is

~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ r o r i i m l i ~ n d ;I nc\v n;~rr : t t ivc is gcr~cr.ttccl (A\IIIJI ct JI.. 1007: I layes,

Healing, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation

h l a r ~ y schol;~rs argue that t he psychological \ vou r~ds t l ~ a t rcqr~ l t I i o n ~ years

of violence. the grief, sorrolv, a n d sense o f \ ~ i c t i m h o o d , as \vcl l ;IS .lnger a n d

the w i l l t o revenge, m u s t b e perceived and ackno\\4cdgcd I,!. outsiders

(Staub, 1998a), i n c l u d i n g the o the r pa r t y ( A s n ~ a l ct ;d.. 100;: Kriesberg,

1008a; I h s , 1995; W i lmer , 1008) . O t h c r s suggest t h ~ t the p r o c e s o f rec-

onc i l ia t ion , t o be cltcctivc, requires col lect ive hc ;~ l ing . ; t d evc*r~ 1i)sgiveness

of the adversary's misdeeds (A r thu r , IOOO; tI;~!-ner. IOOO; I .cdcr; tc l~, 1998; Staub e( I'earlman, 2001 ).

Acknowledg ing a group's p a i n a n d suffer ing, h c l p i r ~ g it5 rncmbers relive

their pa in fu l experiences unde r safe cond i t ions , suppo r t i ng t h e m i n m o u l r i -

ing the i r losses, va l ida t ing the i r experience o f pair1 ;tncI grief; ar id o f fe r ing

ernpathy and suppor t are a l l essential elements o f hea l ing (l.cclcrach, 1998; h4inow. 1908; M o n t v i l l c , 1'99.3; Staub, 1098a. St.td> Pc I 'ec~r lmnn, 2001). H e a l i n g in t u r n creates a space where forgivcnesc can l>c of-fcrcd a n d ac-

ccpted (see Shri\,cr, 1095). 1:orgivcncss is o1'spcci;tl i ~ ~ ~ p o r t ; t n c . c i r r cases o f

u n e q i ~ a l responsibility, w h e n o n e p r t v is seen ns r c c p o r ~ s i l ~ l c f i ) r t he outbreak

o r n~a in t cnance o f the cont l i c t o r violence. I:orgivcr~css s!~mlx) l i /cs a psy-

chological departure f r o m the past (Lcdcrach, IOOH: No rvn l , 1000) .

Some scholars see col lect ive reconst ruc t ion of the p ~ s t as a p r i m a r y

CICIIICII~ ill r e c o ~ i c i l i a t i ~ n a t ~ l r e g i ~ r d h c ; ~ l i n g and f;)rgivcr~c\s, ~ \ ~ l c c i a l l ~ i n

sc\.erely t i i \ ~ i d c d societies l i ke Sou th Af;ic;t ;~nd N o r t h e r n Ircl.tnd, as very

hard, if n o t impossible, t o achieve ((;ardr~cr-k'cldman. IOOO: 1 I.i!.cs. 1998;

f l o row i t z , IO9.3). t l a~ .es (1998 ) argues t h ; ~ t rccorlci l inriort i\ n o t ; t h o ~ t t the

(;enocitlc, hl ;~ss Killing, and Intracrahle Conflict 735

fi)rgivc~icss of' the c l rcdf i~ l acts committed under apartheid but about how ,111 \ \ , i l l ~ I I t i~.ipate in bi~ilcling :i new society (p. 3.3).

I t i \ i ~ ~ i p o r t a n t to distinguisii between healing and forgiveness. Follow- i ~ l g c~trcmic \.iolcncc, the latter is difficult to contemplate, and its very I I J I I I I C is not \\,ell ~~ndcrstoocl. T h e timing, degree, and object of forgiveness ( I \ i t tlie pctpctr;itors \vho are to he forgiven, or more likely members of rlic p c ~ r p c t r ; ~ ~ o ~ - group \vIio are not themselves perpetrators? see Staub & I'c.irlm.in, 200 I ) arc ;ill important to explore. While forgiveness adds to the I~o\\iljilit!. ot' ~ . c ~ o ~ i ~ i I i ; ~ t i o ~ ~ , i t is healing from the past that seems primary. I Io\vc~\.e.r. fi~rKivCricss clocc seem inherent i11 full reconciliation, the genuine .~ccept;i~icc ol' the othcr. linderstnnciing the influences that have led to the pe11)ctr.1~01\' . i c t i o ~ ~ , I I O \ \ I W ~ Iiorrihlc, contrilwtes tv healing (see below) .i1ic1 nl:iy I K all nvcnue as \vcll to acceptance of the other.

I Ic.ilitig tiom p s t victi~riization is essential to prevent new violence. As I I O I C ~ c.lrlier. willloitt he;ding, wlie~l groupscontinue to live t o p h e r , anger ,111cl tlie d ~ i r c Ii)r r e v ~ ~ i g e C;UI lead to viole~ice by former victims. In ad- (lition. \vitliout healing, hrrncr victims may respond to threat in ways that . . I c ; I ~ 01c1ii to l~econie perpetrators of violence, even against groups other t l i ; ~ r ~ I I I C o ~ i ~ fh;tt IS h a r n ~ e d them. Healing by perpetrators is also nec- essary. .l'hc perpetrators may have been themselves wounded, this leading to tlicir ;~ctiotis. 111 addition, direct perpetrators, or even members of the ~ ~ e ~ p c t ~ - , ~ t o r group, are likely to be wou~lded by the extreme violence that the?. thcn~sclvcs or their group have engaged in. Their actions, and their o\vn defensive reactions to them, limit their capacity for empathy or guilt and therefore their ability to later reconcile. Instead, even if they are stopped or dclc;ited or an agreement brings the intractable conflict to a halt, they re~ id I(> continue to blame their prior victims or adversaries (Staub, 1998a; St;lul., & I)car1111;111, 2001).

Without some healing, which helps affirm the self and increase trust in other people and the world, it may be impossible for reconciliation to . . begin. Without the beginning of reconciliation, especially when previously hostile groups continue to live together, healing, which requires some degree of safety, might not proceed (Staub, 1998a, 2000a; Staub & Pearlman, 2001) . I t is also likely that the creation of a shared history, a new collective nicmory. requires prior healing.

Methods of Reconciliaton

A variety of rilethocis to facilitate reconciliation have been proposed (see c x . ~ ~ n ~ l e s in Bror~khorst, 1995; Whittaker, 1999). Some are part of formal politics n h i k o t l ~ e n are carried ou t infi~rnmally. We will describe several t~ictliocls, csI~eci;~lly those that can be used in situations of genocide, mass killing, ;lnd intractable conflict, for intrastate but also for interstate recon- cili;ltio~i

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions

'I'hesc coni~iiissions explore \vhat has ;~ctually h.~pj,cncd. 'I'11c\. expose vio- lation of tiurnan arid civil rights, cliscri~iiin;~ric,n, . ~ r l c l violcrlcc l,!. h r m a l ir~sriti~tions of the state, groups. ; I I ~ inclividu.ll5 (A<II~.II ct ~ 1 . . 1007; Kaye, 1007; Kricshrg, 1WHa; 1,ielienlwrg Kr %cgc!.c. 190H). In I C L ~ I I I ? I W S , var- iations o n such corii~nissiorls li;~vc 1icc.n undcrt;tkcri i l l 5011rli i \ I ~ i c ; ~ . Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, I-londuras, Urugi~ ly , : ~ n d I<n.antl.t. Among them, the South African 'li-ut11 arid I<cconcilintio~i (:omnlissio~i (,'I'l<(:) has re- ceived the most attention (Asmal ct al., 1997; Chir\v;~. 1007; I k la Key & Owens, 1908; Hayes. 1978; Harnbes, 1 9'18; 1.icbcnlicrg cY: Zcgcye, 19%; Norval, 1098).

Establiching the truth. and thereby acknon.ledging the victims' suffer- ing, helps them heal. Documenting the actions of perpetrntors iilakes it less likely that they will feel, or claim to have been, the vicrimc It also provides the basis for a collective history that takes cveryone'r role into consitiera~ion (Staub & I'earllnan, 2001, 2002). I-lowever, the truth is oticrl co~nplex and diflicult to establish.

Public Trials

'I'hesc provide the opportunity to establish the truth. ,~ckno\vlcdge the vic- . .

rims' suffering, fulfill a ticep-seated desire for I-ctriliution, ;111c1 satisfy the rlecd for justice. I3y laying the r c s p ~ n s i h i l i t ~ Ii)r cr-imcs on Ii.irriculnr indi- viduals, such trials reduce the collcctiw rcspo~isil~ility of rlic group to which the ~ ~ c r ~ ~ e t r a t o r d ~ c l o n g . T h e punislinlcnt of perlietrators may help prevent the recurrence of mass violence, as it slio\vs t h ; ~ t c.rimin,~ls can I x found, tried, ant1 puriished (Kriesberg. 1998a; Kritz, 1006; 1.iclic11ber-g cY: Legeye,

C;erlocidc, Masc Killing. .lnd l~itractahle Conflict 737

1')')s). I t ni.iy Iiclp s.ltid). the basic needs of victims for security, positive iJ(.tlriry, .11icI .i tiic;iningf;~l cornprehension of reality. The Nureniberg tri- I i ~ t ~ i ~ l \ , r11v K'JS ( : I inics 'l'sil)u~i:il set up t o try perpetratvrs from the former \ ' i~~;o\l.~vi.i .11id I < \ v , i t ~ I ; i , ;1nd tlic permanent International Criminal Cour t c\t.il~li\lic.d i l l LOO2 ; I I ~ i~i t r~lclcd, in part, to serve these functions.

Payment o f Reparations

'l 'hc oficr of rcp.iration indicates admission of guilt and regret o n the part of- ~ I i c p c s p c t s ; ~ t ~ r (see Stiriver, 1935). Its acceptance may be a step by victi~lis to\vard a readiness to reconcile. An example is the compensation l i : ~ i c l to (:;lcch vicriri~s by the German government for their suffering during [lie ( ; u r n a n occupation of 1939-45 (Handl, 1997; Kopstein, 1997). T h e i ~ i i l ) r o v c ~ ~ i u i t of the econo~nic condition of people impoverished in the course of' violence against their group is an important contributor to a f'cclirig of justice and openness to reconciliation (Gibson, in press).

Education

I < d ~ ~ c - : ~ ~ i o n is an in~por tan t avenue toward reconciliation (Asnial e t al., 1997; (:;~llci.i. 1004; (:lictkow-Yanoov, 1086; Gordon, 1994). It refers mostly to I)C;ICC rduc;ltioti in the SCIIU~IS. However, i t can also involve fostering among ;icI~Its a11 utidcrst;~nding o f the roots of the violence (Sta~tb, Pearlman, Hag- cngiriia~ia, & Guhin, 2002; see below). Peace education aims to affect knonlcdge, perceptions, feelings, attitudes, and motives (Salomon & Nevo, 2.002). l b be effective it must include both instruction and experiential learning (Staub, 2002). Both require the training of teachers. T h e former requires setting educational objectives and the preparation of a curriculum. Ilxperiential learning requires the development of a climate in schools (Bar- IBI, 2002; Rjerstetd, 1988, 1993; Burns & Aspelagh, 1996; Harris, 1988; Hicks, 1988; Keardon, 1988; Staub, 2002, in press-b) involving positive - -

relationship between students and teachers and among peers. It requires the creation of classroom and school communities, and participation by stu- clcnts in a system that promotes positive attitudes toward people in general ;tnci toward people in the other group if they are present, and feelings of resl~onsibility for taking action in behalf of others and, by extension, in bchalf of peace (Staub, 1996a, 2002, in press-b). Genuine peace education requires the kind o f socinlizatioti of children that develops inclusive caring, caring fLr beyond one's own group, including a formerly devalued g r o i ~ p (St;litb. 2002, in press-a, in press-b).

In South America's conflict-ridden societies, peace education addresses issues of human rights and the prevention of structural violence and eco- - nomic i~icc~uality ( ( h c i a . 1984). In Northern Ireland, peace education em- ploy Mutual Understanding programs that aim to create genuine cultures