This topic was an excellent summary of what we have covered in the course so far. We discussed the role of personality & media on conflicts, nationalist ideas in relation to cognitions, emotions, attitudes etc. The topic ‘conflict resolution, reconciliation and peace’ helped me give a nice ending to the course by concluding all the tabs in mind.
Firstly, conflict resolution is a different concept than conflict settlement and I think it is important to recognize the difference before delving deep into this idea. I think conflict settlement is more of a result by the mediation by an outside party or a broker perhaps whereas conflict resolution refers to the peace made by the two parties in conflict themselves. Also, we can think of these processes to come one after another as a result of each other, so for example conflict resolution is followed by conflict settlement and then reconciliation happens as an ultimate step. However, I assume it depends firstly on the intensity of the dispute and secondly on the scale of the dispute. So for example the Israel-Palestine issue is an issue that should be mediated by a third party now due to its intensity of reaching to the extent of a genocide whereas if we talk about a less intense dispute, it can be resolved within parties themselves, so then conflict settlement is not needed to reach the conflict resolution. Secondly, for example a small-scale dispute for example an issue between small communities in Pakistan might not need conflict settlement from an outside party and maybe they never reach the point of reconciliation or peace.
In conclusion, we might say that reconciliation or peace is the ultimate outcome of conflict resolution and this seems utopian in a way that it is not achievable in most of the cases. As much as we put it as an ideal situation, we have to recognize that it might not be possible despite efforts put by the outside and parties.
Leave a Reply