Unzipped

IInteraction with the media often presents an early test of the ethics and intentions of people involved in conflict resolution, both for parties to as well as facilitators of negotiations. Media coverage, after all, represents power for all involved. Parties usually want the increased power that comes with media coverage favourable to their view; facilitators enjoy and sometimes seek the prestige that comes with public recognition as a broker of talks. Paying attention to the media question is critical to success in high-stakes, high-visibility conflicts.

Facilitators are, in my view, bound by ethical considerations inherent in their roles. The following are guidelines for facilitators and mediators dealing with the media - which often presents innumerable ethical dilemmas:

1. Never claim credit for any progress in peace efforts.
   Facilitators should view their role modestly, as servants of a process of conversation between the true 'owners' of the talks, i.e. the conflicting parties. Of course, every facilitator knows how much hard work, courage, sophistication, and skill success often requires of them. But any lasting agreement requires the parties to 'own' the outcome of their talks. To the extent that facilitators claim credit for themselves, they reduce the parties' ownership in the fruits of any peace process. Usually such claims seriously damage the parties' trust in facilitators, and poison relationships with others in the peacebuilding community as well.
   "You can have social change, or you can have credit for social change," said American sociologist Robert Theobald. More than any other temptation, the quest for credit for their own work is a major obstacle to the work of peacebuilders worldwide. Facilitators can of course accept the acknowledgement and even the praise of others. But the appropriate goal in these rare moments of glory is to re-direct attention back to the parties: they are the ones who chose to enter into talks, endure long hours of conversation and make the commitments required for peace.
    
2. Negotiate a clear understanding among all parties early in any peace initiative regarding how to deal with the media.
   Where parties are in the public eye, such an understanding should be worked out well before any joint meetings take place, even if those meetings are private and 'off-the-record'. Not long ago, religious leadership in a war situation invested months of effort in gaining the agreement of key parties to attend peace talks. However, the facilitators failed to discuss the question of press contacts with the parties. A week before the talks were scheduled to take place, one of the parties announced to the press its intention to meet with other parties. The major opposing party, which had previously agreed to attend, immediately denounced the talks and made clear they had no intention of participating. Such events can often be avoided if facilitators make sure there is a clear, common understanding of how to deal with the press.
    
3. In situations where press scrutiny is likely, it may be preferable to take a pro-active stance towards the media rather than a reactive one.
   Although the press often contributes to polarisation, it is also true that many journalists are eager to provide responsible, non-polarising coverage of peace initiatives if they are assisted in gathering information enabling them to do so. When negotiations are underway, consider securing an agreement among the parties that only jointly authorised persons will speak to the press regarding the talks. Then appoint a committee or one impartial person to speak with the press, or issue press statements that have been approved by all parties.
    
4. Negotiators and facilitators should be more sensitive to the impact of press statements and other media visibility on 'behind-the table' parties.
   Negotiators and facilitators alike tend to assume that the major task in peace efforts is to secure an agreement between adversaries seated across a table. In fact, a bigger challenge to long-term peace is often the phenomenon of escalating tension behind the table among apparent allies, tension which often increases as agreement nears. For instance, Rabin was murdered by a fellow Israeli; deals in Northern Ireland were repeatedly blocked by extremists on both sides; the ANC, AZAPO, PAC and Inkatha feuded for decades about how to respond to apartheid. Mistrust and suspicion, even among 'brethren', is the norm rather than the exception in high-stakes, high-conflict situations. Negotiators ought to pay far more attention to the parties' task of maintaining unity within their own ranks than they commonly do.
   One implication is that decisions to hold press conferences or issue statements should be scrutinised carefully for their impact not only on cross-table talks, but also on dynamics behind each side of the table. To the extent that tension and mistrust exist among allies behind either side of the table, they are likely to be exacerbated by high press visibility. Sometimes a round of consultation with key leaders back home before announcing success to the world will increase their sense of involvement in the final result, and make the deal more sustainable in the long term.

Ron Kraybill is Associate Professor in the Conflict Transformation Program at Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA. He was formerly Director of Training at CCR.

CONTENTS    HOME