Part I: Introduction
Part II: Entering the Context of Conflict
Part III: The Two "Realities" of Conflict
Part IV: You Have an Impact on All Factors
Part V: The Things You Bring
Part VI: How You Do Your Work Matters as Much as What You Do
Part VII: The Devil is in the Details
Part VIII: There Are Always Options
Part II: Entering the Context of Conflict
Before I continue, I'd like to offer an explanation of the word "conflict" as I use it in what follows. I generally use "conflict" to mean the violent, destructive type, but I may draw upon examples from current diplomatic events to illustrate how the analytical concepts I am citing have broad applicability to many types of conflict.
Conflict, as such, is not inherently bad. Without conflict there is no change. Incessant, onrushing change is one integral element of modernity and conflict is among its engines and its outcomes.
Destructive, violent conflict, however, can leave a legacy behind that takes lifetimes to repair. It is true that sometimes it seems as though violence is the only answer and war does indeed decide some issues. But there are other options, there are always other options. People can disagree about whether the compromises necessary to implement those options are worthwhile or not. We see these disagreements in many places around the world. We also find people who use violence to promote limited and limiting agendas for their own personal gratification. And some wars have failed to settle anything, dragging on for decades as communities and whole societies shatter.
Not all conflict is violent. If violent means of addressing grievances can be overcome and democratic systems reintroduced or put in place, people can build societies that are free and inclusive. Change need not consume its children in the fires of war and hatred, but can be a choice. Whatever we can do to promote change in peaceful ways should be considered and attempted.
Furthermore, I do not hold with that strange ideology of "stability" sometimes espoused by people in a position of privilege. The changing world is admittedly complicated and confusing, and calling for stability is an attempt to reduce and manage this complexity. But too often, this attempt to manage the pace of change seems to me to be an excuse of the powerful to defer the dreams of the poor and marginalized. The desire to live a better, deeper, richer life should not need to be put on hold so the complicated world will be just a little simpler and easier for elites to understand - and to run. Modernity and the drives that we call by that name run counter to stability. The flux of modern life cannot be held back by Canute or by you.
. . .
Lesson #1: When you enter a context of conflict, you become a part of that context.
Neutrality is a goal espoused by many organizations entering into conflict situations. Indeed, it is one of the seven principles of the Red Cross Movement. We don't take sides, we work with whomever we need to work, wherever we need to work.
But neutrality is slippery in the complex circumstances surrounding conflict. If you can only put a refugee camp - or an oil well - behind the lines of one side, your actions will not be seen as neutral by at least one side in the conflict. If you help the "most vulnerable" or only hire the "qualified" in situations where the standard definition of those categories falls along a cleavage in that society, then your actions will not be seen as neutral. This is not to say that you should abandon your categories, but you should understand that your sure knowledge of your neutrality is often not apparent to the parties involved in the conflict.
Think for a moment about one of the phrases in common usage: "countries act in their own interest". Whether this is true or not (and I have an important quibble), it collapses all the nuance and contradiction of a 'nation' into vague and usually ill-defined 'interests'. These interests are then found to have some relationship to the conflict situation, and the nation is now involved in the conflict because others perceive it as having interests that involve it. It is possible that countries feel that they have to take sides because no one will believe an attitude of self-interested neutrality.
If you are in a context of conflict, all the other actors will see you as an actor too.