<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I would like to explain my probes a bit more.<div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Richard Krajeski quoted Peterson, saying:</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; ">"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."</span></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Aloha, George</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On May 5, 2008, at 3:52 AM, <a href="mailto:bwisner@igc.org">bwisner@igc.org</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>So, as George reminds us, it can go both ways.<br><br>Best, BEN<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br><blockquote type="cite">From: George Kent <<a href="mailto:kent@hawaii.edu">kent@hawaii.edu</a>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sent: May 4, 2008 10:53 PM<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To: <a href="mailto:bwisner@igc.org">bwisner@igc.org</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Cc: <a href="mailto:radix@ecie.org">radix@ecie.org</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Subject: Re: [Radix] Burma/Myanmar Cyclone Disaster Diplomacy<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Friends --<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Disaster diplomacy is about what Smith describes as "the concept of <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">natural disasters as paving the road for conflict transformation". We <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">already knew that it can go either way, with disasters sometimes <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">facilitating conflict transformation and sometimes impeding it. Thus, <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the real question on the table is under what conditions can disasters <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">facilitate conflict transformation? What have we learned about this <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">from the Aceh and Burma experiences?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I don't see any reason to limit the inquiry to natural disasters.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">What is the reasoning behind the idea that disasters could pave the <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">road for conflict transformation? It is not obvious.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Aloha, George<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></div></div></body></html>