dougnoll’s posthaven

Segment 1: A Different Paradigm.

Marty Price, J.D., our guest on this edition of The Doug Noll Show, is a social worker turned lawyer turned mediator. He is internationally recognized as a leader in Restorative Justice and peacemaking. Professor Price will soon be returning to India to teach Restorative Justice at a top-ranked law school in India (National Academy of Legal Studies and Research) and on this show we will be talking to him about his upcoming trip to India and Restorative Justice. His website is www.vorp.com.

Marty started out as a juvenile court social worker, but felt he wasn’t making a big enough difference in the lives of troubled kids and their families. In order to change the system he needed to get a law degree and go to court, but he soon discovered he was much better suited for peacemaking than for being a lawyer warrior. He began his peacemaking journey by volunteering at local dispute resolution centers as a mediator, and then moved to Restorative Justice, which he calls “a different paradigm for understanding crime and justice, and responding to crime with a different sort of justice.” Restorative Justice recognizes that crime is about hurting people: the direct victims, the indirect victims, and the community at large. Crime is about harm. Restorative Justice looks at who was harmed and who has an obligation to make it right.

Segment 2: Victim-Offender Mediation.

Victim-Offender Mediation is one form of Restorative Justice. It brings together victims and offenders, voluntarily, if and when they are ready. This work has the potential to transform lives. When people can’t move on, they lose their lives to their crime. Offenders often think of their victims as nameless and faceless. However, through Victim–Offender Mediation, the offender is able to take real, meaningful responsibility for what they have done, and assume an obligation voluntarily. Restorative Justice is not soft on crime; it’s much more difficult to face one’s victim than to face a judge.

Segment 3: India’s Criminal Justice System.

India’s criminal justice system, simply put, is broken. India has an incredible backlog of criminal cases. People wait 10-20 years in jail before they get a trial. This mainly happens to the poor, who cannot afford bail or a lawyer. Because of this lack of justice, the offenders and their families are suffering, and the victims’ families are suffering as well. Marty believes Restorative Justice programs can help. At each of the law schools at which Marty taught, students are carrying on Restorative Justice programs they’ve created. Marty planted the seeds; his students are growing the movement.

Segment 4: Exchanging Knowledge and Building Goodwill.

The Fulbright Commission of the U.S. Department of State sends students and professors overseas to teach and learn; it brings foreign students and professors to the United States to teach and learn. It’s all about exchanging knowledge and building goodwill and peace between nations. In 2012, Marty went to India as a Fulbright Senior Scholar and taught Restorative Justice in three of the fourteen National Law Universities of India. In January 2013, Marty returns to India to teach at the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, where the vice-chancellor is an advocate for Restorative Justice. He asked Marty to come and teach for a semester, during which Professor Price will have an opportunity to pursue his own goals: to arrange internships for students to do Restorative Justice work. He is raising money to be able to accomplish this because he does not have a Fulbright Scholarship for this year's work in India. If you would like to support Marty Price and this transformative work, please visit his website at www.vorp.com to find out more information and to make a donation.

To listen to the entire interview:

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

The assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was spearheading the reconciliation process with the Taliban in Afghanistan, has changed the dynamics of peace in Aghanistan. The Afghan government has evidence that the assassination, carried out by the Quetta Shura Taliban headed by Mullah Omar and based in Pakistan, was supported, encouraged, and perhaps financed by the ISI, the Pakistani Intelligence Service. The Pakistanis vehemently deny this charge. However, it would seem that Pakistani influence in Afghanistan is on a severe decline.

As a response to the assassination and the evidence linking it to the Pakistani intelligence service, the Afghanistan government has turned to India, seeking stronger ties and a reliable peace partner. This is infuriating and probably frightening the Pakistani military and intelligence service. The whole point of the Afghanistan adventure, from their perspective, was to de-stabilize the country, keep it in a low level of insurrection and civil war, and control the insurgents from Pakistan. They could thereby assure themselves that Afghanistan would not pose an existential threat on their western border. However, the continued duplicity that Pakistan has used as its chief strategy now seems to be backfiring. The US is tired of the lies, double-dealing, and outright deceptions carried out by the Pakistani military and intelligence service. This became apparent after Osama bin Laden was discovered living 750 yards from the Pakistani military academy and was assassinated by Seal Team 6. Now the Afghanistan government has turned against Pakistan as a direct result of Pakistan's involvement in the Rabbani assassination. Obviously, Pakistan is not a willing partner in the creation of a stable, neutral Pakistan and is beening ostracized from the process. What might this mean for a peace process?

First, any legitimate peace process will have to start inside of Afghanistan. No matter what any other country may wish, the Afghan people have to decide that they want peace, not war. This will by necessity be an internal process and therefore cannot be constrained by traditional 18th century diplomatic negotiations favored by the international foreign policy establishment. In other words, at the outset, there will be no high level peace talks between diplomats, envoys, and heads of state. 

Instead, if any peace process is to be effective and enduring, it must be organized and implemented from within Afghanistan. The stakeholders must include tribal leaders, village and regional councils (both shuras and jirgas), urban civil society leaders, women's rights leaders, government ministers, Pashtun, Tajik, Hazzari, and Uzbek ethnic representatives, and rule of law advocate, among others. The process must be carefully designed, fully funded, and organized by a mediation and facilitation team dedicated to a very long, arduous process. Lasting peace in Afghanistan will take 10-15 years to accomplish, not 6 months.

Second, the focus of the international community, especially the US, should be on supporting this internal process and protecting it from outside interference (e.g. from the Pakistanis and their Taliban proxies). Pakistan may be the major spoiler because peace is the last thing it wants to see in Afghanistan, unless it is in total control of the government. Pakistan and its Taliban proxies must be isolated and persuaded to stay out of the internal peace process.

Third, to the extent feasible, the NGOs and diplomats working in Afghanistan should be offering peace-related resources to the stakeholder groups. This could include referrals to mediation and facilitation experts, training in negotiation and mediation, training in effective group decision-making, and the myriad other skills needed in any difficult peace process. Building a systemic capacity for peace processes, negotiations, facilitated conversations, and restorative processes will be as important as the actual peace work itself. The US could divert a small percentage of its military spending in Afghanistan, which would be enough to support a robust peace process for the  generation that the process will probably take.

Finally, the international community should stay out of the way except to provide support and expert advice when asked. It should shelter the process, provide security as necessary in support of the process, and keep Pakistan at bay. Only when the Afghanistan people are speaking with one voice under a leadership regime that all trust to speak for their interests should the circle widen to include regional states.

This view of peace is very different from the usual trajectory of international peace efforts. It requires those who have power or think they have power to step back and allow for Afghanistan self-determination. At the same time, those who have power and are truly interested in peace can use their power to protect the process from outside spoilers. It means becoming a servant to peace instead of a master of war. It means putting the interests of the Afghanistan people ahead of national economic or security interests. It's unlikely that this dedication to peace exists in the international community. However, peace in Afghanistan is unlikely without it.

Douglas E. Noll is a professional mediator, author, and speaker. His latest book is Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts.