[Radix] Burma/Myanmar Cyclone Disaster Diplomacy

[George Kent]

I would like to explain my probes a bit more.

Referring to Ben's first paragraph here, I understand that this group  
focuses on disasters. I meant to ask whether there is any reason to  
believe that responses to NATURAL disasters are more likely to  
contribute positively to conflict transformation.

To put this into more general terms, in this discussion I think it is  
important to ask UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS can responses to disasters  
contribute positively to conflict transformation. Surely, part of the  
answer will have to do with the character of the disaster. What  
dimensions matter? Maybe the natural-not natural dimension matters.  
Why would we hypothesize that it matters?

I share with others the intuition that it may be easier to get  
positive conflict transformation in natural disaster situations.  
Nevertheless, I think it is useful to ask why that would be so.

In his second paragraph, Ben says "in the face of catastrophe, the  
common people who happen to be on two "sides" of a civil conflict are  
more inclined to transcend it . . . " Certainly that could happen.   
Why would it happen? I can also imagine conditions under which the  
sides in a civil conflict use the disruptive event as an opportunity  
to do more harm to the "enemy". Again, it seems that both positive and  
negative outcomes are possible. Which of them actually occurs must  
somehow depend on the specific conditions.

I can continue in this vein with Ben's third paragraph. Donors could  
use the disaster occasion to apply pressure toward resolution of the  
conflict, but I can just as easily envision situations in which  
partisan donors take advantage of the disaster to boost their side.

Richard Krajeski quoted Peterson, saying:

"It is essential that outside resources understand the dynamic and use  
the opportunity to open discourse/resources between those who were  
otherwise in conflict.  This participatory approach can break  
prejudicial barriers faster than anything else I have experienced.  It  
creates knowledge among those who were otherwise separate and it  
allows for change to happen."

Whether or not there is a disaster, participatory approaches to  
conflict management can help in transforming conflict situations in a  
positive way. Of course it is often to get such approaches going.  
Perhaps one major point in this discussion should be that disaster  
situations often create new opportunities to introduce participatory  
approaches to conflict management? Disaster might lead to increased  
receptivity to conflict management efforts by outsiders.

If we find this is true, there might be great value in building up the  
capacity to quickly introduce participatory approaches as the  
opportunities arise.

We are exploring an area in which there may be some valuable nuggets  
to be found. I am trying to get clearer on what it is that we should  
be looking for.

Aloha, George



On May 5, 2008, at 3:52 AM, bwisner at igc.org wrote:

> Briefy and schematically -- others hopefully will disagree or add  
> detail -- there seem to have been two kinds of recent historical  
> experience that point to two dynamics.  Both share the notion of  
> "window of opportunity."  George is certainly correct that other  
> events can provide such a window.  But since what brings people to  
> this list serv and the RADIX web site is a critical reflection on  
> disasters, I'll focus on them.
>
> The first dynamic is that of uniting people in a common act of  
> compassion.  This sounds rather mushy and idealistic, but I think in  
> the face of catastrophe, the common people who happen to be on two  
> "sides" of a civil conflict are more inclined to transcend it even  
> if their leadership is more cynical.
>
> The second dynamic is that donors, multi- and bi-national partners  
> may be able to use that window to put new pressure for a ceasefire  
> and eventual resolution to the civil conflict.  Recovery resources  
> can well become a carrot and inducement, but, as one was in the case  
> of Sri Lanka, such resources can also become something the two sides  
> end up contending for.
>
> So, as George reminds us, it can go both ways.
>
> Best, BEN
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: George Kent <kent at hawaii.edu>
>> Sent: May 4, 2008 10:53 PM
>> To: bwisner at igc.org
>> Cc: radix at ecie.org
>> Subject: Re: [Radix] Burma/Myanmar Cyclone Disaster Diplomacy
>>
>> Friends --
>>
>> Disaster diplomacy is about what Smith describes as "the concept of
>> natural disasters as paving the road for conflict transformation". We
>> already knew that it can go either way, with disasters sometimes
>> facilitating conflict transformation and sometimes impeding it. Thus,
>> the real question on the table is under what conditions can disasters
>> facilitate conflict transformation? What have we learned about this
>> from the Aceh and Burma experiences?
>>
>> I don't see any reason to limit the inquiry to natural disasters.
>>
>> What is the reasoning behind the idea that disasters could pave the
>> road for conflict transformation? It is not obvious.
>>
>> Aloha, George
>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ecie.org/pipermail/radix/attachments/20080505/636108c6/attachment.htm