Dealing with the cost of conflict: A psychological need in resolution

Dealing with the cost of conflict: A psychological need in resolution

Ignas Kleden, Center for East Indonesian Affairs, Jakarta,
ceia@centrin.net.id

Conflict resolution and reconciliation faces certain
contradictions. On the one hand, people deeply involved in
conflict and violence, like those in Ambon, are usually unable to
step back from their situation and look at it with reasonable
judgment.

It is unlikely that a man whose wife and children have been
murdered will think objectively. These people need outside
assistance to help figure out their problems and what has caused
them. On the other hand, definite conflict resolution can only be
established if these people, whatever their psychological
condition, are involved at every step. They should engage in the
preparation, negotiation and the implementation of
reconciliation. This is a minimum necessity because they are the
very agents of conflict resolution.

It is important to reiterate that those who want to help
people involved in conflict should be very careful not to overdo
their assistance. People who are affected by violence remain the
subjects of the resolution of their problems. If their
responsibility in resolving the situation is removed then it only
complicates matters.

People who want to help are usually inclined to take over
responsibility and want to do everything needed to bring about
reconciliation for those who are victimized, rather than try to
help them help themselves. One should keep in mind that there is
no moral right whatsoever to make other people mere objects, even
an object of our own generosity and compassion. The only way to
help them get out of trouble is to create conditions in which
they are motivated and able to win their own self-confidence, so
that they are in the position to build their life anew despite
their miserable past.

Needless to say, this effort is doomed to fail for two
reasons. People who have suffered so much tend, from their side,
to rid themselves of responsibility to determine their own
destiny, an attitude which easily stimulates outside volunteers
to do everything for them. In so doing, they are not encouraged
to liberate themselves, nor are they motivated to rid themselves
of their problems and conflicts.

It is my impression that at a certain point, people
traumatized by conflicts are put into a situation comparable to
those suffering from mental illness. There is a substantial
difference between people who suffer physical illness and those
who are mentally ill. Whereas the first will do everything for
their own recovery, the latter will do everything to remain in
the situation they are in.

The temptation for volunteers to do everything for the
victimized will, despite their good intentions, perpetuate the
problematic situation because it meets the requirements of a
neurotic symbiotic relationship. Volunteers feel happy because
they believe they have done their best to help, whereas the
victimized feel relieved because they can remain in their
situation in which they are free from taking responsibility for
their own future.

This has happened to political refugees from East Timor, who
became a real burden for people in West Timor, who were their
hosts. The aid provided by various international institutions did
not strengthen the refugees to help themselves, but rather make
them all the more dependent upon the aid. After the end of the
rescue action, which involved a substantial amount of material
and financial support, these refugees have had to rely on the
capacity and hospitality of their hosts, who have much less
material and financial means. The resentment between both sides
originates in the fact that, whereas the refugees do not reduce
their demands for material and financial help, the hosts cannot
do more than what they usually do for their own people.

In another context, this might happen to people who are have
been stranded for too long in protracted conflicts. For a period
of time they have had to think only of themselves and their
security and do not care about the conditions of other people,
except the possibility of destroying their opponents. Now that
reconciliation and conflict resolution has become a political
necessity, they have to change their whole mind-set by trying to
think also of the requirements and the interests of the other
party.

However, this attitude should grow from within the
consciousness of the people concerned. To a certain extent, this
can become a bitter experience because, while avoiding one's
habit of avoiding responsibility, taking other people into
consideration presupposes a sense of responsibility, which is in
itself another burden. If this sensitive psychic condition is
disturbed from outside by a hastily superimposed demand for
reconciliation, than those who are still trying to recover from
the old situation will easily choose to fall back into the old
illusion of security of having no responsibility at all.

In that situation, any effort to establish reconciliation
without involving the participation of victims cannot last long,
because no body in such a situation can be forced to take
responsibility that appears burdensome and troublesome. It is
extraordinarily difficult to ask people to go back to their homes
and live together under the same roof with their former foes. To
let these people participate in the whole process of
reconciliation will require a lot of time, patience, energy, but
there is no other way that could promise a lasting peace. It took
three years to bring Ambon to a state of almost total ruin, and
we have to reckon with many more years to restore peace and
beauty to this island.