The second part of the Frontiers Seminar series explains a new, complexity-oriented strategy for better addressing tough conflict challenges such as those
posed by the left/right divide and the rise of Authoritarian Populism.
|All of these speakers believe that neutrality is, in many ways, a myth. Either it is not possible, or it is undesirable, or it is unnecessary for successful intervention and/or conflict transformation.
|Helen Chauncey says intervenors should not be neutral when it comes to identity issues, rather they should be bi-partisan.|
|Carolyn Stephenson says that both escalation (done by partisans) and de-escalation (often aided by neutrals) are need to resolve conflicts.|
|Jannie Botes reflects on whether journalists can or should be "neutral" when reporting on humanitarian crises or atrocities.|
|Richard Salem discusses why mediator often cannot be neutral, but rather, must be advocates for justice.|
|Helen Chauncey observes much could be learned if different types of intervenors would learn from each other.|
|Peter Coleman says that neturality is a myth.|
|William Ury explains how Nelson Mandela, who was clearly partisan, not neutral, was still a consummate third sider.|
|Wallace Warfield explains how he works with the parties to help them clarify their issues.|
|Community Relations Service Mediator Silke Hansen describes how it helps to level the playing field by helping community groups prepare for mediation.|