dougnoll’s posthaven

Segment 1 – Our guest on this edition of The Doug Noll Show is Brian McLaren: author, speaker, activist and public theologian. His latest book is titled Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road? (Christian Identity in a Multi-Faith World). Brian’s website is http://www.brianmclaren.net/.

 

Brian started his career as college English professor and ended up being part of a small congregation, of which he later became the pastor. He recently left pastoral hood in order to devote more time to writing and speaking. Brian grew up as a conservative evangelical, where evolution was not something you believed and the bible was interpreted literally.

 

A lot of folks frame the world today in broad sweeping terms, as in “it’s a Muslim world against the Christian world.” Why is it that people are so quick to deduce the difficult conflicts in our world down to religious identity? According to our guest, one of the ways we feel safe is by finding a tribe or community where we think we belong. We often define “us” by having opposition toward “them.” We tell stories about how “they” oppressed us, which gives us the feeling of bonding with our tribe.

 

Segment 2 – Let’s say Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed met up in a bar…what do you think they would talk about? Brian believes they would talk about the religions that have been formed in the world today, and they might talk with great sadness and pain about the things that are being done in their name. The lesson to “love one another” and “love your enemies” is the toughest teaching to follow. It is difficult to accept the feeling of love instead of the biological feeling of hatred for an enemy who is threatening. Security trumps peace. We have forms of religions that in some ways are trying to protect the status quo for the social and political elite, and then we have other forms of religions that are trying to transform the status quo. The latter’s focus is on the people at the bottom of the pyramid. Essentially we have religions of control and religions of transformation. Interestingly, each one sees themselves as the maintainer of peace.

 

Segment 3 – We consistently do two things already: 1) We either know how to have a strong religious identity and be hostile to people with other religious identities, or 2) We have the opposite approach, which is to have a weak or benign identity (we think the only way to become less hostile is to become less Christian). Brian thinks we need a better alternative to these two approaches. He believes the more committed to Christianity we are, the more dedicated we need to be to peacemaking and to learning the skills of interacting with people of different religious beliefs. Unfortunately, when a person who is a member of “us” advocates that we show compassion and understanding and tries to humanize “them,” that person is often seen as a traitor. In many ways it’s the story of Jesus.

 

Segment 4 – So how can we rethink the concept of Eucharist and instead of having it be a sacrificial, violent exercise, have it be a peace-loving, engaged spiritual practice? Brian tells us that Jesus envisioned a form of religion where (animal) sacrifice was not part of the ritual. To find out more, listen to the complete interview:

 

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Segment 1: The Village Gathering

Our guest on this edition of The Doug Noll Show is Paula Langguth Ryan, principal mediator at Compassionate Mediators, LLC, and a member of ACR’s Elder Decision-Making and Conflict Resolution Section. We will discuss her work with The Village Gathering, which focuses on sustainable restorative justice mediation in Kenya. Paula’s latest book (among many) is the forthcoming Ryan’s Rules of Order: A Clear and Compassionate Process for Minimizing Conflict and Keeping Any Meeting on Track. Her website is www.paulalangguthryan.com.

 

Segment 2: One Tribe

As a middle child growing up, Paula felt an innate connection to peacemaking. Her professional peacekeeping work in Kenya begin right after the Kenyan election crisis in 2008. Paula was asked to go to Kenya to lead a pastoral conference for a week, but found that her work would not resonate unless the prevalent inter-tribal conflict was first addressed. At that point she knew nothing about restorative justice, but with help from other mediators, as well as a former warrior (now a self-taught peacemaker) named Lantano, the tribes literally ended up “breaking bread” together. Lantano reiterated a new message: we are ONE tribe. We’re Kenyans.

 

Paula’s 2^nd trip was in 2010 for two weeks. Again she met with members of a small tribe (1 of 13 tribes) about inter-tribal conflict. She watched Lantano, who had no formal training as a mediator or peacemaker, go to speak with the mothers of the fighting warriors as well as the elders of the tribes and successfully bring the members of the tribes together for a communal meal.

 

Segment 3: A Reconciliation Meal

Lantano, the young warrior turned peacemaker, organized a reconciliation communal meal. The meat was braided, and there is a tradition in Kenya that says if you have shared a piece of meat together you can no longer be enemies. At this communal meal the tribal warriors cut meat for each other and fed one another. Every warrior bit from a single piece of meat.

 

Segment 4: The Kenya Solution

Paula believes the solutions for Kenya’s problems have to come from Kenya. The Kenyan people know what the underlying fears are and how to address them. They want to solve their own problems. There is a deep authenticity when one has truly experienced war, and this authenticity stems credibility within the tribes. Professional mediators can provide support, coaching, training, and funds, but fundamentally they can’t be the peacemakers in Kenya. Only the Kenyans can.

 

To listen to the full interview:

 

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Segment 1: The Irrationality of Nuclear Arms

Is there any rational reason to maintain nuclear weapons? On this edition of The Doug Noll Show we speak with Dr. David Krieger, Founder and President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, to discuss that question. A respected authority on foreign policy, international relations, peace and disarmament, Dr. Krieger has been at the forefront of the peace movement for 30 years. In 1982 he started his own dream organization: the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He was inspired to work for the abolition of nuclear weapons after visiting Hiroshima and Nagasaki and seeing the peace memorial museums --- powerful reminders of what happened in WWII. During his tenure as an International Relations professor he came to believe that the most important issue that confronts society today is the need to abolish nuclear weapons. It affects not only the people living today but future generations far into the future.

 

Dr. Krieger says when we realize nuclear weapons are maintained and strategies are developed totally on the basis of “rationality,” we come to understand that we’re betting the future of the world on the fact that we will continue to have leaders who are rational at all times, under all conditions and all circumstances. It’s a very unlikely proposition.

 

Segment 2: The Deterrence Argument

Is there any rational reason for maintaining nuclear weapons? Deterrence is not rational. Dr. Krieger argues unilaterally that we would be safer if we got rid of our Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles. They are something to target in a time of high conflict or high stress. There are ICBMs in three states in the United States and the Senators of those three states, encouraged by industry and people who profit from those weapon sites, fight to maintain those ICMBs. Between $50 - $70 billion dollars a year are spent on the nuclear weapons industry.

 

Segment 3: Capable of Eliminating a Species

With that $70 billion dollars we could fund housing programs, provide education and Head Start programs for children, fund food programs, etc. Instead we are spending the money on preserving dinosaur-like weapons that can only be used in a manner that kills indiscriminately, violates national law, is immoral at the highest level and terribly costly.

 

If you consider the greatest threat today – terrorism – nuclear weapons have no value of deterrence. There is no “place” or “territory” to retaliate against. We need to convince countries throughout the world that we must eliminate the only weapon system in the world that is capable of eliminating us as a species.

 

Segment 4: The Non-Proliferation Treaty

The Non-Proliferation Treaty, which entered into force in 1970 and extended indefinitely in 1995, leveled the playing field to some extent. The countries who signed the treaty agreed to not acquire new nuclear weapons and to pursue disarmament, but there are still over 19,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Four countries did not sign the treaty: Isreal, India, Pakistan and North Korea. They don’t consider themselves bound by its provisions.

 

To listen to the entire interview:

  

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Segment 1: Human Rights Education.

Here in the U.S. we generally take many of our basic rights for granted. In many countries, however, tyranny, power, greed and corruption act to deny basic human rights. Even in countries where human rights are respected, the average citizen has little knowledge of what those rights are. Schools do not teach human rights concepts and students who are ignorant of their basic rights do not step up to assert them. Our guest on this edition of The Doug Noll Show is Dr. Mary Shuttleworth, founder and president of Youth for Human Rights International. Dr. Suttleworth will discuss her amazing organization as well as her passion for human rights education around the globe.

 

Dr. Shuttleworth was born and raised in apartheid South Africa, and even as a young child was intensely aware of the devastating effects of discrimination. As an adult she found that discrimination is not only a South African issue, but a global issue that needs to be addressed at an international level. The mission of Youth for Human Rights International (YFHRI) is to teach youth about human rights and inspire them to become advocates for tolerance and peace. The education is based around the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was signed into being in 1948 after the abuses of WWII.

 

Segment 2: Human Rights, Tolerance and Peace.

There is a direct relationship between human rights, tolerance and peace. When we teach human rights, we are also teaching responsibility. We need to ask ourselves, “What is MY responsibility?” We all want basic human rights for ourselves, but the trick is to want them for others. Discrimination is not born in the heart of a child. It stems from learned lessons - not always overt - from culture, genetics, and environment.

 

Segment 3: Radical Reevaluation Needed.

Youth for Human Rights International works with youth of all ages. They can teach the concept of human rights to kids at a very young age (i.e. sharing, working together, etc.). It is essential that we teach human rights in our schools. We have “zero tolerance policies” in schools but we need a radical reevaluation of the use of power and coercion to control our own fears and anxieties about our environment. Parents need to spend more time with their kids to development good communication skills and deep empathic connections.

 

Segment 4: A Global Concept.

YFHRI does not have a problem keeping their teachings culturally appropriate as they travel from culture to culture. Basic human rights is a global concept. The declaration is a universal document and the material they use to teach human rights applies to all cultures. It’s imperative that the youth understand the concept that these human rights belong to EVERYONE. In order to make this happen, it takes money, support and volunteers. To get involved or find out more about the Dr. Shuttleworth’s organization, go to www.youthforhumanrights.org.

 

To listen to the compete interview:

 

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Segment 1: The Complexities of Foreign Policies.

Our guest on this edition of The Doug Noll Show is Kathleen Brush, an author, senior executive and global business consultant. Kathleen’s articles have been published by CNBC, Fox Business, The Washington Post, Financial Times China, Business Week and Entrepreneur. Her book, The World Made Easy, is designed to help us understand the complexities of foreign policies throughout the world.

 

Kathleen studied the regions of the world (194 countries) and evaluated their different political systems, economic systems, social cultural systems and significant events in history. Her goal was to simplify the systems to achieve easier understanding as well as answer questions like, “Why are there uprisings in the middle east and North Africa?” and “Why do people do things differently in China?” for example. Kathleen believes if a country is running fine with their current systems and their people are not revolting, the U.S. shouldn’t get involved. However, there are many brutal regimes in the world. There are still labor camps and places where people get shot for opposing the government. The solution is continuing to foster education so that people can self-determine what type of government is best for their own country.

 

Segment 2: Africa Divided.

The division of Africa in the late 1890s has caused more misery and conflict on that continent than we can even imagine. The map was formed without any consideration or concern for ethno-linguistic groups. It’s a source of a great number of tribal conflicts to this day. The continent has been deprived of effective leadership as well. Again, education is one of the keys.

 

Segment 3: Afghanistan’s Struggle Continues.

The Afghani people have been fighting for centuries. Kathleen believes they might not even WANT to live in peace. Fighting is what they do well. This is a country with many tribal groups and that has been geopolitically strategic for the last 1,000 years. A destabilized Afghanistan is of political interest to the Pakistani military, and China is now investing millions of dollars into Afghanistan to extract the mineral resources. The unemployment rate is 75%. Add to that the geopolitical problems (it has one of the most corrupt governments on the planet), an extremely high literacy rate and one of the lowest per capita incomes in the world and it is clear they need a lot of help (i.e. economic development and education) to be able to move forward.

 

Segment 4: Held to a Higher Standard.

Throughout history, when women became educated and established themselves professionally, they were able to make a bigger impact. However, even in the U.S. we still have challenges with equality. Kathleen found when she conducted business internationally she was seen as an AMERICAN first and a WOMAN second, which made it easier for her to work in foreign countries. Because the U.S. is #1 economically and militarily, we are held to a higher standard and need to step up to the plate.

 

To listen to the entire interview: 

 

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

One of the great cultural barriers to peacemaking involves what Walter Wink, a brilliant theologian, has described as the Myth of Redemptive Violence. His idea is that our culture is based on violence as a means of bring order out of chaos. In other words, the only thing that works against evil is violence. Peacemaking becomes frightening because it does not seem strong enough to overcome evil. The insane box office success of The Hunger Games demonstrates the power of the Myth of Redemptive Violence in our culture.
The Myth of Redemptive Violence permeates our life. In its simplest form, it is found in children’s entertainment. An indestructible good guy opposes an irreformable and equally indestructible bad guy. Nothing can kill the good guy, though for most of the (comic book, television episode, movie, or novel) he suffers grievously. Somehow, the hero breaks free, vanquishes the villain, and restores order. Nothing finally destroys the bad guy or prevents his reappearance. Bruce Willis, in his post-Moonlighting television series career, made a financial fortune exploiting this myth in his Die Hard movies. Clint Eastwood did the same in his early spaghetti westerns and later as Dirty Harry, the rogue San Francisco cop. So has Disney and countless other entertainment stars and celebrities.
If you pay attention, you will see that the structure of the combat myth is faithfully repeated in The Hunger Games. Our heroine is Katniss Everdeen. Though she's only a teenager, she's a tough hunter who puts food on her family's table. Her father is dead and she lives with her mother and sister Prim in District 12 in the country of Panem, a brutally oppressive autocracy. Every year the Capitol of Panem hosts an event called the Hunger Games where two "tributes" – a boy and a girl – are drafted from each of the twelve districts to be brought to an arena and fight to the death. Only one person can win. Katniss volunteers when her little sister is chosen as the tribute from District 12.
The game starts when the 24 tributes are transported to the arena to fight it out. Katniss is on her own. Eventually, she is cornered by the big rich kids, the Career Tributes. She drops a deadly wasp nest on them and wins a bow and arrow in the process.
After this, Katniss teams up with Rue, a tiny girl from District 11 who reminds her of her sister Prim. Rue is killed by one of the Career Tributes. Katniss honors her body by covering it in flowers.
After Rue's death, the announcer changes the rules of the game: two people from a single district can now win. Katniss goes hunting for Peeta, the boy from her District, and eventually finds him. He is wounded and camouflaged in the muddy bank of a stream. She nurses him back to health and realizes that by playing up the romance angle, they can get gifts from sponsors.
Eventually, Katniss and Peeta must face off with Cato, the leader of the Career Tributes and the only other surviving tribute, but before that they are all pursued by wild dogs which are actually genetically mutated killing machines. Finally, Katniss shoots Cato and he falls into the pack.
The announcer comes back on and says the rules have changed back: only one winner allowed.
Katniss and Peeta can't kill each other, so they make a show of taking poisonous berries in an act of double suicide. The announcer comes back on before they can kill themselves, and says that they win.
Here's how the Myth of Redemptive Violence works: A superior force representing chaos attacks aggressively; the champion fights back, defensively, only to be humiliated in apparent defeat; the evil power satisfies its lust while the hero is incapacitated; the hero escapes, defeats the evil power decisively, and reaffirms order over chaos. The structure of the story cannot be altered. The evil antagonist does not simply lose more often; he must always lose. The good guys must always win. The only way peace is established is through violence.

In all of this, no premium is placed on reasoning, persuasion, negotiation, or diplomacy, not to mention peacemaking. Confession, repentance, apology, and forgiveness are alien concepts in this myth. Villains are never redeemed from their bondage to evil or restored to true humanity. The law is viewed as too weak to deal with pure evil. Hence the gunslinger in the Wild West or Dirty Harry of the inner city takes the law into his own hands. In the movies, John Rambo acts outside the law to achieve justice. Katniss kills and wins against overwhelming odds The heroic results she achieves justify the illegal acts he employs.

Let’s be real here. Redemptive violence is satisfying. The idea of watching a cartoon or movie about peacemaking simply does not satisfy us like a good dose of The Hunger Games. However, this cultural myth dominates our entertainment and our thinking about conflict and is a real barrier to world peace. In this way, the entertainment industry conditions us to violence as a means of restoring and preserving order in an evil world.

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.

I just read a paper by Rotary Peace Scholar Duncan Autry that paralleled the ideas I present in my latest book Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts. What we concluded from entirely different approaches is that the traditional means of achieving peace is doomed to fail. This is especially true if applied to Libya. Libya has a choice, and the wrong choice will lead to disintegration of its fragile civil society and a dive into chaos and genocide. Unfortunately, the wrong choice would be to follow the traditional strategy offered by international diplomats.

First, let's look at the traditional strategy. In conflict situations, the international community views its peacemaking tools as military intervention, diplomacy, and legal action. These can be effective in some circumstances. In Libya, they are worse than inadequate; they will make matters worse.

The military option has already been exercised. While the Ghadafi regime is on the verge of being removed, there are serious unintended consequences. First, major elements of Ghadafi loyalists, armed to the teeth, will remain in country. There is little likelihood of surrender without a bloody, long term, low level insurgency fought by the loyalists. Second, the rebels are now armed as well. The rebel force, rather than being a disciplined military group, is an ad hoc mixture of tribal and militia elements that are not under a central command and control structure. There is no simple, expedient way of disarming these people. In effect, a second group of highly armed elements is loose in Libya. Whether they lay down arms or choose become warlords, criminal gangs, or insurrectionists remains to be seen. Third, the NATO strikes have pretty much destroyed the infrastructure of the country.

The diplomatic option is ill suited for the problems facing the Libyan people. Diplomacy is predicated upon a horizontal negotiation where foreign ministers negotiate with foreign ministers, generals with generals, heads of state with heads of state, and so forth. It is very status conscious and precludes vertical negotiation within layers of a society or culture. In Libya's case, there are bound to be decades of injustice, injury, anger, and conflict that permeate through society that must be reconciled. Diplomatic efforts and so-called "political solutions" cannot and will not solve those underlying structural conflicts. In fact, negotiating a "political solution" often makes things worse because the solution leaves in place all of the problems that caused the conflict in the first place.

Legal action is likewise not a viable peace process. Generally speaking, legal actions, whether civil or criminal, deal with specific conflicts between individuals. Legal action is poorly suited to addressing structural conflict. In addition, legal action only works if there is an independent judiciary with the enforcement powers of an executive branch willing to support it, attorneys trained and capable of representing the parties, and a respected tradition of the rule of law that allows losers to accept defeat without violence. Obviously, Libya is ill-equipped for effective legal action as a peacemaking tool.

So what should the Libyans do to prevent social collapse, civil war, and genocide after Ghadafi? Here are some ideas:

First, the Trans National Council should recognize that it may not have the voice of all of the people. It should approach the task of rebuilding Libya with deep humility.

Second, it should provide basic services to the people as quickly as possible. Electricity, communications, transportation, food distribution, clean water, sanitation, and public safety (community-based policing) should be at the top of the first 60 days To Do list.

Third, create a clean government. Since a huge amount of money will be spent in this process, patronage and corruption should be stamped out and utter transparency should be the credo of the day. The opportunity and temptation for graft will be very difficult to reject. The TNC should use every means to stop dishonesty and establish ethical conduct in government. Want the counter-example and results--look at Hamid Karzai and the incredible corruption of the central government of Afghanistan.

Fourth, create jobs that pay working people decent wages so that they can begin to provide a decent standard of living for their families.

Fifth, and most important, bring in international consultants, mediators, and facilitators to design and implement a national dialogue process. The TNC has unveiled a new constitution that has many admirable virtues. However, not everyone is buying into it. This is the problem of top-down political solutions. There has to be a bottom-up piece too.

Train the best and brightest Libyans in mediation, conflict resolution, negotiation, and facilitation across the country. Intervene in every conflict at the lowest level possible with skill intervention when possible and appropriate. Support the tribal sheiks and their indigenous peacemaking processes. Get people talking about their vision and hope for the new Libya. Start the process of building a national consensus around that vision.

This dialogue process should not be mired down in bureaucracy, and should begin as soon as possible. It should be a vertical and horizontal process so that the very high and mighty are listening and talking to the lowliest farmer, women are being heard, young people are being given a voice, the professional class is being respected, and tribal leaders feel enfranchised. In short, the dialogue process, as a massive conflict resolution and transformation project, should touch the entire Libyan population up, down, across, and through social, economic, tribal, ethnic, familial, and political sectors.

Libya has the good fortune of having significant oil resources. It can afford to pay for some outside help. This not "how its done." However, "how its done" gave us Iraq, Afghanistan, the Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, and host of other failed situations and states. The Libyans have an enormous opportunity to show the world how to create real peace. Not the absence of conflict, but the resolution of conflict through respectful processes that engage everyone.

 

Doug Noll is a lawyer turned peacemaker, professional mediator, and author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books, 2011). www.elusivepeace.com