August 22, 2024 • 44 mins
Reframing Peace Mediation with Dr Owen Frazer: A Deep Dive into Conflict Transformation
In this episode of the Conflict Tipping podcast, host Laura May engages in a thought-provoking conversation with Dr Owen Frazer, a seasoned conflict resolution expert and Senior Advisor for Conflict Transformation at Helvetas. Dr Frazer, with over two decades of experience and a new book titled Reframing Peace Mediation, shares invaluable insights into the art and science of mediation in conflict settings.
Key Highlights:
-
Dr Frazer's Journey and Motivation: From Belfast to becoming a leading voice in peace mediation, explore Owen's motivations and how his experiences shaped his approach to conflict resolution.
-
The Gaps in Mediation Literature: A critical look at the disconnect between academic research on mediation and practical, on-the-ground conflict resolution. Discover why Dr Frazer embarked on his PhD to bridge these gaps.
-
The El Salvador Peace Process: An in-depth exploration of Dr Frazer’s research on the 1989-1992 peace negotiations in El Salvador, focusing on the complexities of facilitative mediation and the power dynamics at play.
-
Framing in Mediation: Uncover Dr Frazer's innovative framework that explains how mediators can effectively influence outcomes through strategic framing actions—naming, claiming, and gaming.
-
The Role of Pragmatism in Peacebuilding: A discussion on how pragmatic decision-making impacts the longevity and acceptance of peace agreements, particularly in the context of political mediation.
-
Dr Frazer's Current Work: Insights into Owen’s current role at Helvetas, where he advises on conflict transformation across various contexts, from grassroots peacebuilding to navigating complex political landscapes.
This episode is essential listening for anyone interested in the evolving practice of peace mediation and the intricate dance of framing that underpins successful conflict resolution.
Links:
- Reframing Peace Mediation by Dr Owen Frazer: Routledge
- Helvetas: Helvetas Official Site
- Dr Owen Frazer's LinkedIn: LinkedIn Profile
Timestamps:
- Introduction and Welcome - [00:00:00]
- Owen's Journey into Peace Mediation - [00:01:00]
- Gaps in Mediation Literature - [00:02:00]
- The El Salvador Peace Process - [00:06:00]
- Framing in Mediation - [00:10:30]
- Pragmatism in Peacebuilding - [00:30:00]
- Dr Frazer’s Current Work at Helvetas - [00:35:33]
- How to Get Involved in Conflict Transformation - [00:40:42]
- Conclusion and Contact Information - [00:44:00]
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Laura May (00:10):
Hello and welcome to the Conflict Tipping podcast from Mediate.com,
the podcast that explores socialconflict and what we can do about it.
I'm your host, Laura May, and today Ihave the pleasure of speaking with Dr.
Owen Frazer, a distinguished conflictresolution researcher, practitioner, and
trainer with over 20 years of experience.
(00:30):
Currently serving as the senior advisorfor conflict transformation at Helvetus
owen is a certified mediator that hasheld various significant, amazing,
incredible roles, including with theinternational committee of the Red
Cross and the Berghof Foundation.
His new book on peace mediation, ReframingPeace Mediation has just hit the shelves
(00:50):
and it provides insightful strategiesfor navigating and resolving conflicts.
So welcome Owen.
Owen Frazer (00:57):
Thank you, Laura.
Nice to be here.
Laura May (00:59):
No, it is great to have you here, Owen.
I'm so happy you're able to join today.
And so let's just jump straight in.
I want to hear about the book.
So what was your inspiration forwriting Reframing Peace Mediation?
Owen Frazer (01:13):
My inspiration was that I was working at something called the Center
for Security Studies here in Zurich atthe Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
And there I was part ofa mediation support team.
We worked quite a lot with supportfrom the Swiss Foreign Ministry
on topic of peace mediation.
And I was specifically working on aprogram actually to do with mediation
(01:33):
and dialogue processes in conflicts withreligious dimensions, but also sometimes
working on mediation more generally.
And we did a lot of training,a lot of support to kind of
mediators and actors involved indialogue and negotiation processes.
And at some point the opportunity came upto embark on a PhD in parallel to my job.
And the question that I wasinterested in answering there was
(01:56):
a bit focused on mediation, but tohave a focus on also practice, right?
So to not just go off and do some veryacademic researchy kind of PhD, but really
something that might feed back into thework that I was doing, because I felt that
there was a little bit of a disconnectbetween the academic study of mediation
and what we were presenting as kind ofthings that you need to know as a mediator
(02:18):
or as a negotiator, which drew a lot frommore general mediation literature, but
not so specifically on the peace mediationliterature, because that tended not
really to have very practical insights.
Let's say it was looking at thingsat a higher level of surveying kind
of trends of mediation in the world.
Things are changing.
There's been a lot of work done, Ithink in the last few years, but that's
(02:39):
was my starting point and motivation.
Laura May (02:43):
And so, what were some of those gaps in practice?
You described the peace literature isreally focusing on high level items
that were disconnected in some waysfrom what you were seeing on the ground.
So what were thosedisconnects or those gaps?
Owen Frazer (02:56):
I think, it's very hard to study mediation processes, right?
Because it's very difficultto actually be in the room and
actually see what's going on.
So the kind of micro stuff of what'sreally happening in the mediation
process is very difficult to research.
So a lot of, a lot of mediationresearch, I think following a more
general trend in political sciencein the last decade or two decades has
(03:16):
gone in quite a quantitative direction.
So a lot of the research waslooking, trying to identify what
are factors by, looking at largedata sets of all the different
mediation processes in the world.
So it could tell you stuff aboutstructural conditions, but that's not
so helpful for the person who's actuallydoing the mediating around the table.
So that's where I sawa bit the gap so that.
(03:36):
In the kind of trainings and supportwork that we were doing, there you're
looking much more to literature that'sbeen developed in other sectors, whether
that's labor negotiations or moredomestic settings or not in the kind
of international peace mediation, sowhere the whole dimension of violent
armed violent conflict is not present.
And so I guess the question was a bit,do those ideas and those practices
(03:59):
really transfer to the contextof negotiating the end to a war?
And maybe indeed they do well, I wasn'truling that out but I was also saying
but we haven't actually shown thatthey do and I think also the other
motivation for me was that a lot ofour knowledge comes from talking to
mediators, saying, well, what do you do?
What's effective?
And that is of course very helpful, ortalking to parties But rarely does one
(04:22):
have the opportunity to actually takea 360 view and talk to the mediators
and the parties and look at the archivesand really like see it from all the
different angles to figure out what wasit that actually made the difference?
Because of course the mediator cansay, well, I did this and then I
suggested they all have coffee.
And in that moment, then the deal emergedand it was all thanks to that moment.
But, you know, maybe it was, maybeit wasn't, I think, you know, you
(04:44):
need to look at the, yeah, the manydifferent stories around that moment
to see if that really holds up.
So what I wanted to do was reallydive in, in a deeper way to a process
and try to put together all thedifferent pieces and see what emerged.
Laura May (04:59):
No, it is really interesting how there's often that
myth of the mediator, and the mythof the mediator's magic moments.
If I can continue to alliterate.
Where yeah, exactly.
In the example you just gave, ohwait, I got 'em to have coffee.
And that was the exact momentthat peace became possible.
And that's certainly like a storyyou hear, people really build
careers around this and storiesabout this become quite powerful.
(05:19):
But what does that say aboutthe other microprocesses?
There's no magic wand for the mediators.
You mentioned this possibilityof doing 360 research.
Was that something you were actuallyable to do as part of your studies?
Yeah,
Owen Frazer (05:33):
so the book itself is actually based on a case study of the
El Salvador peace negotiations thattook place between 1989 and 1992, that
ended the civil war in El Salvador thatran for basically all of the 1980s.
And so it was one of the firstUN mediated ends to a civil war.
I was looking around for, first of all,I was looking for cases where really it
(05:55):
was what we call facilitative mediation.
So you didn't have a very powerfulmediator come in and basically
force the parties to do a deal.
And so there's been a certain amount ofresearch already out there identifying
the different styles of mediation used.
And so I had a sort of list and I waslooking through those, saying, okay,
where is the case where I would reallybe able to get this comprehensive view?
And then realised I really need a casewhere there's good archives because you
(06:19):
can talk to people 30 years after, fiveyears after, and they will tell you
stories, they'll have written things down.
But of course, as we all know,everyone gives their particular
version and memories are notalways perfect and so forth.
This really led me to focus on a few casesto dig a bit deeper, and particularly
ones that had been mediated by the UN,because the UN keeps very good archives.
(06:40):
And so I thought, well, there's a muchgreater chance of actually finding
documentation that can't allow me tobe in the room, but at least allow me
to see what they were actually sayingat the time, or at least what they
were writing down about what they said.
Of course, it won'tcapture everything either.
And so, with El Salvador, it turnedout indeed there were good archives,
both on the part of the UN and also theFMLN, so the main rebel movement that
(07:03):
was negotiating with the government,had also kept archives and donated
those to a university in El Salvador.
So there were various archivesavailable, giving their perspective.
There was unfortunately not somuch in the National Archives
from of government perspective.
Plus several of the protagonistshad written their own lengthy
accounts of how it all went.
Many of them are still alive,including the mediator, and were
(07:27):
available to be interviewed.
So I really felt, okay, that's tickinga lot of the boxes in terms of being
able to gather data on what happened.
So that's why I focused on that.
And I think I was really able to geta pretty good picture, reconstruct
what happened throughout the process.
Again, it was at the time a very big deal.
And so there were also quite alot of studies written about the
mediation process itself from, orthe, let's say the peace process.
(07:50):
So there was already a goodfoundation on which I could build.
And then by really having literallythese documents in my hands, where
they're describing the back andforth and individual meetings.
It was just exciting to read thosethings, but also then very helpful
when it came to cross checkingpeople's accounts of what happened.
Laura May (08:06):
Was there anything that really surprised you when reviewing
these accounts and cross checkingor anything in general, in your
research that really surprised you?
Owen Frazer (08:13):
That's the kind of question I should have a really snappy answer to.
And
Laura May (08:16):
No.
Owen Frazer (08:16):
Then you're surprised at the time and then
you forget how you were surprised.
I remember the first time sitting in theUN archives, and you're turning the pages
of the 10th folder you've looked throughand suddenly there is the peace agreement
with all the original signatures on it.
You're like, oh, and that's exciting.
But what surprised me was it didconfirm the value of archival
research because again, this processhappened more than 30 years ago.
(08:37):
People have told theirstories so many times.
There are several kind of mythicalanecdotes about this process.
It was funny to read also sometimes in theminutes, literally things contradicting a
little bit, what people would have said,or, sometimes several people claimed
that they were the one who had the ideato resolve this small disagreement by
(08:58):
this kind of wording, and then you canactually see, who it was in the end.
From a bigger point of view, whattook me a long time to understand
actually researching the processwas how little time that the parties
actually spent doing research.
Talking to each other directly.
So a lot of it was shuttle mediation.
They would be even brought to thesame place, but the mediator spent
(09:21):
a lot of time going between them.
And even then when there were kindof joint discussions happening in
the, in those sessions, becausethe decision makers were elsewhere.
The president of El Salvador and thehigh command of the FMLN mediator also
had to shuttle back to visit them.
So that did surprise me because Ihad thought they'd spent much more
(09:42):
time together from a reading of theinitial accounts, but it was also
then very helpful from a researchpoint of view, because it meant that
then these were all super minuted.
So every time the mediator hada meeting, so you really, you
didn't lose the thread so quickly.
Whereas I guess if it had been all donein face to face discussions, it would have
been very hard to get the back and forth.
This sort of shuttle mediation stylemeant that things were more drawn out
(10:04):
and therefore more better documented.
Laura May (10:08):
That is really curious to me, because when we started and were
talking about this being really afacilitative mediation, and in this case,
the mediator is not seen as empowered inthe same way as an evaluative mediator,
who's more on the road to arbitrateor tell you what to do, but at the
same time in a shuttle mediation, themediator obviously has a lot of power
(10:29):
in terms of reframing and choosingwhat to say and how to present things.
So
Speaking of reframing and facilitativemediation, I understand this is
actually one of the key partsof your book, this reframing.
is this where it comes in?
Owen Frazer (10:42):
Absolutely.
So I guess that's the key question.
So, The book's argument is basicallythat this framing explains how
facilitative mediation works.
You don't have carrots andsticks, so you've got your words.
So how you present things isthe power of the mediator.
And then the question becomes,how does the mediator actually get
anyone to accept their framing?
Because everybody's always framing, right?
(11:03):
So the negotiation as other researchersput it, is a framing contest and every
party is basically trying to frame thingsin the way that serves their agenda best.
And so if you come in as a mediatorand say, well, no, I think you
should look at it like this.
You know, why would they take yourframing rather than the framing that
they think best serves their interests?
So I think to getting away from this ideaof the mediators just, well, it's somehow
(11:27):
this magical power of just describingthings in a certain way and saying,
oh, look, this is the common ground.
And then everyone'slike, yeah, that's right.
Let's look at it like that.
No, it's you're just another partycoming into a discussion and trying to
put forward yet another point of view.
And so then the question is, howdo you make it so that your point
of view becomes the one adopted?
And that's the theory I develop inthe book is to describe this process
(11:48):
and what the mediator is doing.
And in a way it's a theory moregenerally about how framing works.
So what is it that takes for anyone toactually have their framing be the one
that, that has an effect, a framingeffect, as adopted by someone else.
And there I say, it's really.
It's a combination of two things, right?
What you do.
So the different kinds of framingactions you engage in, and the framing
(12:10):
capacity or the framing power you have.
And so by kind of analyzing all thedifferent sources of information I
had, I developed a bit of a typology ofthese different sources of power, but
also the different kinds of actions.
Laura May (12:25):
I love the idea of mediation as a framing competition.
I just love that you use the wordcompetition in a process that is
ultimately, you know, always trying tokeep away from competition from this idea,
that no we're collaborating, but no, we'recompeting in the ideas marketplace here.
But I was wondering before wedig into the actions and the
processes, as you described.
Doesn't this mean that the mediatorwho's selected will actually have
(12:49):
a huge influence in the processbecause yes, it's about their
ability or what have you to frame.
But I mean, in this case, in theEl Salvador case study, was the
mediator appointed by the UN?
Do we know anything about the process bywhich they were appointed and how they
were selected as having the right frames?
Owen Frazer (13:09):
Yes, we do.
But maybe just first, I think it'simportant to just say, of course, I'm
not making the argument and I thinkeveryone recognizes, you know, again,
like you said, we should not overemphasize the influence of the mediator.
So structural conditions and so forth playa huge role in determining the outcome.
And I think mediation researchhas gone to both extremes.
At the beginning, there wasa lot focusing on mediators.
(13:30):
And then at some point, the kind of,the more hardcore political scientists
came in and were like, wow, whatabout all the structural conditions?
And then it, things swung the other way.
And so of course, it's both it's, whatare the overall conditions in which a
peace negotiation is taking place thatwill set a bit the bargaining range.
But there's a lot that happens withinthe process that will also determine
(13:50):
a bit how that process ends up.
And the mediator there has a lot ofinfluence, but not supreme power, right?
So,
Laura May (13:57):
Yes.
Owen Frazer (13:58):
So just to relativize, let's say the role of the mediator,
but I do think indeed it is importantwho is selected as a mediator.
And I think that's one of the practicalimplications of the model I developed,
to say the mediators capacity for framingis important and I say that's really
dependent on kind of their expertise likehow good are they at actually framing?
But also their legitimacy how muchthey're accepted by the parties as
(14:20):
a kind of source of authority andalso then questions of opportunity
like are you know, if you're the Unappointed mediator that gives you a
lot more opportunities than if you'rejust some unknown NGO who maybe has
to make their own luck as it were.
So in this case, so Álvaro de Sotowho's well known in the mediation
field was the lead mediator.
He was the already the specialrepresentative of the Secretary
(14:42):
General for the region and hadbeen following the peace process.
So when the parties finallyinvited the UN to be the mediator,
he was the logical choice.
He's from Peru.
He's a Peruvian diplomat, workedfor years in the UN and so I
think was very well accepted.
Partly because of his culturalbackground, but also because he's
coming from inside the UN, which wasa well respected institution, although
(15:06):
it was not immediately evident thatthe UN was going to be mediating that
process to the parties, well, on thegovernment side, I think they were very
reluctant to have any kind of mediation.
On the FMLN side, they were interested,but approached other governments first.
And so the idea of the UN camearound rather late in the day.
However, that's one of the kind ofmoments in the negotiation I discussed
(15:29):
in the book is how the UN framed thingsand laid the ground so that actually at
some point they became the only mediatorleft standing who really did have this
kind of legitimacy and to play this role.
But it was the first time that theyhad played this role in a civil war
I think, so It was a first for themand not self evident in the way
that we would think now it's theUN is mediating all over the place.
(15:52):
That was not the case back then.
So yeah, it was a bigger leap offaith, let's say, than perhaps one
might've imagined with hindsight.
Laura May (16:02):
I mean, it fascinates me because I can imagine that perhaps
there would be some reluctance onthe behalf of the government to
even have FMLN as a mediation partybecause we give them legitimacy.
And then when you have this internationalorganization coming and you've got
the UN and you've got the prestige andthe legitimacy behind it, that really
gives a lot more footing to the FMLN.
(16:24):
So, I really want to read your bookjust based on that paragraph alone.
I want to know how this happened,because that is fascinating.
And to your knowledge, have we seenmany examples of that, where the UN
specifically or an organization ofits standing would come in and really
mediate between a government andanother movement such as the FMLN?
Owen Frazer (16:43):
Yeah, I think there are now several cases.
I think unfortunately for the UN,it's often the one that's left
holding the bag when other mediatorshave tried and failed, right?
There's also that I cannot quotethe research, but I'm pretty sure
that one could generalize to saygovernments tend to be reluctant to
have formal peace negotiations, because,as you say, it grants legitimacy to
(17:06):
movements that they are fighting.
And don't want to recognize them as anegotiating party and then by inviting
in a mediator this gives it even moreof a kind of status and particularly an
international organization like the UN.
So that's not somethingthat happens quickly.
So in the El Salvador case there had beenseveral attempts at dialogue in the mid
80s There'd been a few and that had beenfacilitated by the church, but had not got
(17:30):
very far at the time, again, was not ripe.
And then things were just shifting.
Again, the larger structural conditions,it was the end of the Cold War,
1989 things were moving quite a lot.
And this kind of, I guess, forcedthe government to have a rethink.
Plus there was an election anda new president came in who
made a commitment to dialogue.
(17:51):
And they started dialogue.
It was first of all under theauspices of the church, they had two
meetings in September, October, 1989.
And they just they went nowherebecause soon after the government
clearly said, we cannot give into anyof these demands, violence escalated.
And that's when the FMLN launcheda huge military offensive.
And for the first time thenentered the capital of the country.
(18:11):
And although they didn't succeedin toppling the government, I think
this took the government by surprise.
And there was a sudden realizationthat things on the battlefield were
not quite the way they thought it was.
And De Soto himself would say thiswas the moment where they realized
there was a mutually hurting stalemate.
So this famous idea thatnobody's going to win this war,
but nobody wants it to continue.
We're all ready to start negotiatingand so that was the moment at which
(18:34):
they said, okay, yes negotiations, butagain that the government didn't want
to call them even negotiations so itwas always a dialogue mission of on the
side of the government and indeed themediator was not named a mediator.
Right?
And that's something I traced throughthe book is how very limited the mediators
mandate was at the beginning, but howover time through both being effective
(18:56):
and some very smart work, the mediatorboth Alvaro De Soto, but also his
team and the UN to really expand theirmandate and prove themselves in a way,
an essential part of the process becauseat various moments, the process got
stuck and that's what I was very happyto be able to show in my research that
was really the mediator that unstuck it.
And I think that's always, likewe're saying the question, how much
did the mediator really play a role?
(19:19):
That was what I wanted to get at bylooking, in fact, at moments when the
negotiation got stuck and then saying,okay, what really happened here?
And then you could really point toa moment and say, well, it was only
when that happened and the mediatordid that things move forward.
And so the, that's a very longanswer to, I think, what was a short
question, but I will stop there.
Laura May (19:38):
My questions are never short and they always have at
least three questions in one.
So you're definitely forgiven,especially cause you've now given me
this image of a mediator as basicallyjust a giant can of WD 40 cause
they're there to unstick problems.
Cause what I'm
Owen Frazer (19:52):
Oh, nice.
Where
Laura May (19:54):
wherever the, whenever the conflict got stuck
or the dialogue got stuck.
The mediator was there unsticking it.
So yes, for me now,this mediator was WD 40.
Owen Frazer (20:02):
Where were you when I was looking for metaphors to put in my book?
Laura May (20:07):
Look, metaphors for free any day.
Okay.
You can reach out at any time.
Okay.
And so, I mean, you've mentioned someof these things that helped lend the
process some legitimacy and helpedperhaps in some ways, ripen it.
Did you want to talk a bitmore about your framework?
Cause you mentioned framingactions, for instance.
Owen Frazer (20:27):
Yes.
Um,
So I guess there's,
Laura May (20:31):
I'm not going to make you.
Owen Frazer (20:32):
I guess I could talk about that.
I only spent eight years.
Yes.
Thinking about it.
No.
So I guess to take a step back,so I think it's again, important
not to say the mediator justdoes this and then things happen.
So I think before I even startedlooking at what the mediator was doing,
I wanted to get to understand howthe parties come to a common framing
(20:52):
because that's ultimately what's needed.
So they get stuck because theycan't agree on how to frame things.
This framing contest is goingon and to move forward, they
need to get a joint framing.
And so somehow, of course themediator is there to help that
happen, but what is actually thisprocess of getting to a joint framing?
So that's what I looked at first, wasthis back and forth of framings and
trying to understand how this comesto a kind of an agreement as it were.
(21:15):
And so there, you know, Ikind of define what is a frame.
A frame has three parts.
You identify the problem, you evaluate.
So you say why the problem exists.
And then finally you then say,what you're going to do about
the problem, the prescription.
So I then looked in all thesebacks and forths of exchanges
and endless shuttle mediations.
Each time I was like, okay,what is each party's frame?
It has a three part to it.
And so I made these little summariesand then tried to say, okay, do
(21:37):
they actually, by the end of it,are they aligned on the right?
Diagnosis of the problem, their evaluationof why the problem exists, and their
prescription for what to do about it?
And what I found was, yes, they doin the end agree on what the problem
is, and they agree on the solution,but they don't always agree about
what the reason for the problem was.
You might intuitively think, well,first step is you agree the problem.
(21:59):
Second, you agree why it exists.
And third, then you agree whatyou're going to do about it.
But I found this was notnecessarily the case.
So that was interesting already.
The second part in my framework,just to now give you the
whole book in five minutes
Laura May (22:12):
I'm still going to read it.
Don't worry.
Like this sounds fascinating.
Yeah.
Owen Frazer (22:16):
spoiler alert.
The second part is then to explain,okay, each time they shift their
framing of something, this is like,this is a moment of reframing.
And so when people reframe, is thatbecause they've actually changed their
mind and they see things differently,or is it more of a strategic calculation
that, well, I need to reframe becauseof outside pressures, everyone
(22:36):
else is seeing it the other way.
Therefore I also need to reframe.
So I looked at that.
So I call these two ways, a convictionmechanism where someone kind of suggests,
well, maybe you could look at it likethis and you say, Oh, you're right.
That's how it is.
And so then you adopt that framing becauseyou're really convinced or they say,
well, maybe you can see it like this.
You're like, no, I don'tthink it's like that.
They say, well, everyone elsedoes, including the United States.
(22:56):
So you really should see it like this.
And then they say, okay, thenmaybe we should see it like that.
Cause otherwise we'regoing to get in trouble.
So that's a more pragmatic mechanism.
So I look to see in the arguments thatwere used and different explanations
of why they changed their minds.
And I found both.
So sometimes the mediator was justsuper convincing and other times
(23:16):
they weren't convinced and then themediator would go off and talk to the U.
S.
and then surprise, surprise, aweek later, they were convinced.
So, both things happen.
And then the third part of theframework is exactly what I was
talking about there earlier.
Is then, well, what is the mediatordoing to try and convince them
or to put across his framing?
And so, in terms of the actionsthat the mediator engages in, I
broaden this concept of framing.
(23:37):
So, I think normally when we thinkof framing, it's really about how
do we put together words to describesomething, to interpret a situation.
This part of it, I call naming.
So we're naming what's going on.
We're saying it's like this, butthat's not enough as well as naming
something, then you also haveto argue for why your particular
interpretation is the right one.
And this process I call claiming.
(23:58):
So what are the different kindsof arguments you make right . And
again, there, as I said, therecan be pragmatic arguments.
Well, you need to just accept this becauseeveryone else sees it like this or no,
you've just misunderstood what the otherside meant when they said something.
So actually they meant it likethis, or you fail to appreciate
the situation that they're in.
So you bring several arguments whyit's important to adopt the framing
(24:18):
you put forward or that you've named.
And then the third part of theactions is what I called gaming.
There's all the other things.
Laura May (24:26):
I was hoping it would rhyme.
I was going to be soupset if it didn't rhyme.
Okay.
Gaming, naming, claiming and gaming.
Okay, cool.
Owen Frazer (24:34):
Yeah.
I would say it was a long dayswhiteboarding there with all the
words that have an aim in them.
Yes.
But indeed, so gaming, so it's in thesense of like how you game something
right to try and gain an advantage.
So it's all the things that mediatordoes around the side that will
create the conditions conduciveto their framing being accepted.
And so that then brings in the kindof things we hear about, ensuring
there's a coffee break or moving intoa more discreet venue or having
(24:58):
them come to Seoul New York where theSecretary General can participate.
All the more structural arrangementsaround the negotiation that might
then favor them adopting your framing.
So I split these into thesethree categories, there's
then some subcategories, ofcourse, but I won't go there.
But just to I suppose summarize is tosay until now we talk a lot about framing
just in this really discourse sense ofthe words and I think It's helpful to
(25:22):
think about it in terms of the actionsas I said the kind of the claiming the
arguments and the gaming that goes on.
And that I think then links the conceptto the other perspectives we have
on mediation and what mediators do,and that creates a more comprehensive
understanding of what's going on.
The other part of it is, of course,is what you do, but then there's
who you are and the capacityyou actually have to do it well.
(25:42):
So the expertise side, like somepeople are just very good with words.
And so the naming part of it is a talent.
And I think Alvaro De Soto is aperfect example of someone who's just,
who loves words and loves languageand finding the right formulation.
He would also tell stories of hiscolleagues, he had the wonderful
lawyer working with him, Pedro Nikon,who also was just gifted to find that
formulation that the parties could accept.
(26:03):
And this is what you classicallyhear about in mediation, right?
Finding that reformulationthat everyone accepts.
But also expertise in terms of, justknowing the content, knowing the
context, the actors and so forth.
And again, that's where thensomething like the UN has a lot
of clout as a mediator becauseit can draw on these resources.
They can say, Oh, we needto talk about ceasefires.
Let's bring in the head of peacekeeping.
(26:24):
Oh, we need to talk about police reform.
Let's go and find a police expert,and they have the resources.
They have the contacts they can mobilize.
And they have then this legitimacy,I think this is the key thing.
And I think this is wheremediation research is going
in an interesting direction.
There's a couple of colleagues alsowere searching this topic, what is it
that gives a mediator legitimacy inthat respect so that they're seen as
(26:44):
a source of authority so that you candescribe a particular situation and
people will just accept it becausethey think that, they should take you
at your word that they don't secondguess your motives and so forth.
And then finally as I said just thatopportunity question So about being
in the right place at the righttime But also being able to perhaps
create opportunities to bring partiestogether to be able to bring them to
(27:04):
the right place to meet people to havethose connections and networks that
allow you to engage with the partiesthrough different channels and to also
You know, I think what's so importantin a mediation process is not just
dealing with the parties at thetable, but all the other people that
they are connected to who are alsohaving an influence on the process.
And so the more you have connectionsand entry points with those and can
(27:26):
really read the overall situation,the more effective you will be, I
think, in terms of how you frame.
Again, another long answer.
There you
Laura May (27:35):
No, I was literally making notes because I mean, some of the things
you said, I've got an upcoming workplacemediation, which is very different.
And something you said, I'm like,Oh, I'm actually going to use that.
That was a good tip.
It didn't rhyme, but I liked that one.
So no, that was fantastic.
And I was wondering, I mean, in the ElSalvador context because you mentioned
it can be useful to have that sortof supporting infrastructure in a
(27:57):
way that you're really addressingpeople outside the room itself.
And so was there that supportinginfrastructure, maybe civil
society engagement or otherwisein the El Salvador case?
Owen Frazer (28:09):
Yes.
Although one criticism of theprocess was that it was not an
incredibly inclusive process.
And I know you've talked aboutinclusion quite a lot, I think, on
this podcast in other episodes andthis was the early days, I guess,
of this international mediation, orat least from the UN's perspective.
So that wasn't such a theme at the time.
(28:29):
However, there had been a big civilsociety movement led by the church
pressuring for negotiations and thatwas one of the structural conditions
creating pressures for negotiations . AndI think that, that played a big role.
And so indeed the mediator, De Soto,would regularly meet with representatives
of that movement, would meet also withbusiness interests, with representatives
of the church when he was in El Salvador.
(28:51):
I think the mediation team acted a littlebit as a focal point for at least taking
into account those perspectives, ofcourse, also the parties themselves had
their meetings and there was even anorganization of the political parties
where the government would meet with them.
And I think the FMLN also hadexchanges to update a little bit on
what was going on in the process.
But it was not a, it was still nota very inclusive process, it was just
(29:15):
a kind of informing and so forth, butthe real negotiation was still very
much happening between these two mainparties with the other main players
being then the big international actors,particularly the United States, because
it had such a, such an influence over thegovernment of El Salvador, but then also
there was this group of friends set up.
So you had the governments ofMexico and Venezuela and Spain, and.
(29:38):
I've forgotten thefourth, that's terrible.
Uh, Another Central American country whowere accompanying the process and to some
extent, able to have quiet words with theparties and had a little bit of leverage.
Laura May (29:51):
Amazing.
And I want to circle back to somethingelse you said, because you mentioned
that there were two main ways inwhich people would change their mind.
And one was conviction andone was more pragmatism.
And I'm wondering, and this is, I guess,a bit of a tricky question to ask, but
whether you saw any difference wherepeople had that pragmatic mind shift
(30:15):
as opposed to one with conviction,because think about it, if I'm in a
mediation process and I am just acceptingan argument because I have to, am I
still buying into the outcome as much?
And that makes me wonder aboutthis pragmatic mindset shift.
I don't know.
That was a bit of an incoherent question.
Owen Frazer (30:35):
No, no, I totally, I totally see what you're asking.
And I think, I don't think I have astraightforward answer because I didn't,
Wasn't able to get, again, it's veryhard to see inside people's heads.
So the, you know, I have limitedinformation to, to come to conclusions
about which mechanism was really at play.
However, I think that this is perhaps whatdistinguishes or one of the distinguishing
(30:56):
characteristics between kind of politicalmediation and let's say more interpersonal
mediation, where I think that's thebit, the critique, I guess, you know,
why we're taking all these ideas andconcepts are from interpersonal mediation.
But we cannot imagine.
Not that we cannot imagine, but thekind of personal transformation might
be important in political mediation, butit's not enough because you have all these
(31:19):
other actors with interests who also havea stake in the outcome and have influence.
And there's no way as a mediator,you can create that transformative
moment for all of them, right?
The most influence you have is withthose you are dealing with directly and
everything else is then at a distance.
And so this sort of transformativemediation approach and the really that
everyone needs to believe, um, I thinkthat some of that is true, but I think
(31:43):
that's maybe where the limits are.
And so I think, politics is also abusiness of pragmatism and people do
sign up and do deals about things thatthey may not be 100 percent convinced
about, but they recognize that the powerconstellations are such that that's
the best deal that they're going toget and compromises have to be made.
So.
Of course, if everyone is convincedthat this is how it is, and this is
(32:06):
the only deal possible, amazing, thenprobably it is more likely to last.
But even if they've been pragmatic,so long as they don't reevaluate
that later on say, well, no, actuallythe power relations were different
then it can also still hold.
But I think the dream that everyone can betotally convinced all the time it's just
irrealistic in that kind of a setting.
Laura May (32:25):
Yeah.
I agree that it's perhaps not realistic.
I'm just curious about the implications.
Maybe this is an additional studybecause of course I can understand
that even if you take somebody who'svoting in the political sphere, for
instance, and say they're in a twoparty system, they can vote A or B.
And you know, maybe theyfind A really charismatic,
really compelling as a person.
They've won their heartsand minds in a way.
(32:47):
But then B actually has the policiesthat are going to ultimately benefit
that person, even if they don'tagree with their presentation.
And so even as an individualvoter, they can make the choice,
which is based on conviction.
It doesn't need to be just personality.
It can also be policies, butconviction or pure pragmatism.
I can think of one example whereif you vote for a particular person
(33:10):
in a particular government, youget, I think it's sacks of potatoes
, because your vote can essentiallybe bought in a pragmatic way.
So I can definitely see that, but then,we mentioned inclusion and we mentioned
in the context of peace processes,and I'm just wondering, if you've got
these parties in the room and some ofthem are accepting new frames and have
changed their mind because of pragmatism.
(33:31):
Will the other people behind themso civil society, different interest
groups, accept framing in the same way.
Will they accept that new frame, which isjust pragmatic for the people in the room?
Like, will it have the same just buyin from the, the larger populations
really that are involved in anintra state or interstate conflict.
(33:53):
And I don't expect you to know theanswer, but it's just something
that really makes me wonder.
Well, I mean,
Owen Frazer (34:00):
I think the bigger question is just how do the negotiators at the
table convince the larger populationbehind to accept whatever they've agreed
to, I don't think it actually makes thatmuch difference whether the reason that
the negotiator agreed was conviction orpragmatism, because not all the people
behind them will also agree with thedecision for the same reason either,
they may also be convinced or they mayalso be pragmatic I think the bigger
(34:23):
question is you know, is whatever decisionyou've made, can you sell it right?
And the reason why theymight accept it may either be
pragmatic or through conviction.
And daring to already contradict the bookthat's only been out for three, two weeks.
But, at some point maybe the distinctioneven breaks down because at some point
you're really convinced this is apragmatic, everyone else sees it this way,
(34:43):
so I have to, then actually, if everyonesees it that way, is it not that way?
Because framing isall about constructing.
There's a million ways wecould describe a situation.
The important thing at somepoint is to come to a common
agreement about how it is.
And so whether at the beginning youbelieve that's how it is or not.
If over time everyone else is acting as ifit is that way, you might also start to be
(35:06):
convinced it is actually that way becausethat's how everybody's acting is that way.
So, in the moment, there's a distinctionto be made, but over the longer term
we are creating new realities as we go.
So I think that also, when it comes tothen persuading a larger population to
back a peace deal, again, it's all aboutcreating these narratives for peace
and, we've come to agreement and thisis how it is going to be going forward.
(35:26):
And then, yeah you've created a newreality, a new framing of the situation.
Laura May (35:33):
All right.
So then moving on from, in some sense,your academic perspective , what kinds
of work do you do as a senior advisor inconflict transformation, for instance?
Owen Frazer (35:44):
So, so now I've shifted a little bit focus.
I work now for Helvetas is adevelopment organization, probably
not very well known to your listeners.
It's one of the largest Swiss developmentorganizations, but akin to organizations
like Oxfam or Save the Children andengages in about 35 countries running both
development and humanitarian activities.
It's very, let's say grassrootsand civil society focused.
(36:10):
And I work as a conflict transformationadvisor, both supporting staff in
different countries who are runningprojects actually aiming to transform
local conflicts and also advisingcolleagues running other kinds of
projects, but in contexts where conflictis present, and how can they be conflict
sensitive and navigate in those contextsin a way that has a positive rather than
a negative effect on those conflicts.
(36:32):
So it's a bit of a shift away from thiselite peace negotiations world that
I'm talking about in my book, to muchmore the grassroots and community level
development and peace building work.
We are a development organizationcovering a wide range of topics of which
conflict and peace building is justone, and we're normally about two people
as acting as advisors on this topic.
(36:52):
So supporting across a range ofcountries and projects, which is
super interesting means, you knowworking sometimes on topics around
youth inclusion and prevention ofviolent extremism, but also supporting
local conflict resolution mechanismsaround natural resource conflicts.
Or also using, for example, arts andculture as a means of promoting pluralism
(37:15):
and diversity in Myanmar, for example.
So really quite a wide range of things.
And my role is a bit to, on the one hand,provide some technical advice and support
to colleagues running these projects, butalso to help us to design new projects
and to help the flow of knowledgebetween different countries, what
have we learned by adopting particularapproaches in particular places?
(37:37):
Can that inform what wecould be doing elsewhere?
So it's a bit of a knowledgebroker role as well.
Laura May (37:43):
I want to ask what drew you to this kind of work?
Was it pragmatism and that we allneed a job or was it conviction?
What's your story?
Owen Frazer (37:53):
Well, we all need a job, so there's definitely an
element of pragmatism, but no, Ithink this is largely a conviction
related profession I find myself in.
I am very originally from Belfast inNorthern Ireland, and I think the, the
context of Northern Ireland somehowhas shaped a little bit my interests.
And so when I finished universityand was trying to figure out, if
(38:13):
I have to get a job, well, whatdo I want to spend my life doing?
And then I decided I really would beinterested to work on conflict resolution.
And so that's what I've been doingsince then, one way or another.
so I guess this is a kind of an earlyconviction that has stayed with me.
Um, yeah.
Laura May (38:30):
I am curious about what keeps you going as well, because it's, I
think, fairly evident that working in theconflict field can be very difficult and
disruptive and challenging, and you reallyneed something to get you through it.
So how is it that beyond those first fewyears of mixed pragmatism and conviction,
like, how do you keep going workingin this field or what inspires you?
(38:53):
Maybe that's a more positive
Owen Frazer (38:54):
What inspires me What inspires me?
I mean everyone says it right but what isinspiring is to really meet people doing
the work and in the kind of job I meanyou're often supporting someone else who's
actually doing the work and so it's verynice when you actually get to interact
with those people and feel like you maybehave contributed in some small way to, I
(39:15):
don't know, a light bulb going on theirhead or connected them with someone that
might be useful for them to talk to.
And just to learn about what peopleare doing, but what's I think most
inspiring is then when you do get toengage over time and you can actually
see a change and not at all relatedto conflict, but I was just talking to
a colleague the other day was off toBangladesh and she's been working on the
(39:35):
labor conditions in factories there.
And she's saying.
Yes, it is still difficult,but it's so different.
It's so much better than it was 10years ago when I started visiting.
And so people trying to contributesomehow positively to change in the
world when you can actually see thatchange even if you maybe can't always
be sure there was, you had any partin it, but at least things are getting
(39:55):
better for some people that is inspiring.
And I think in an organizationlike Helvetas that does so many
different things, there are manyexamples of where that happens.
And so it's always a privilege when youget to somehow engage with that firsthand.
And otherwise.
In a more personal way, Iguess I'm a curious person.
And what I love about the jobs I'vehad is that they're very varied.
(40:16):
And I love this job because I can engagewith many different contexts, many
different topics, but at the same time,there's some kind of coherence to it.
And so I feel like my life makes sensein some way, but I'm not just finding
myself doing the same thing all the time.
Also why I've changed organizationssometimes and I've always been
interested also in the differentperspectives you get from working
(40:37):
for different kinds of organizationand having different kinds of jobs.
Laura May (40:42):
Totally.
And I mean, speaking of jobs, whatwould be your advice to people
who are just graduating or juststarting in their career to get into
the kind of work that you're in.
So I really sprung that question on you.
Sorry.
Owen Frazer (40:54):
Yeah.
No, that's okay.
That's a question I get a lot.
I always feel I should have a betteranswer, I think, because I think the
longer you've been in it, probably theless valid your advice is, because,
when I was starting out 20 years ago,it's not the world that it is now.
But I think one thing that hasn'treally changed is still this valuing
of so called field experience.
So having worked abroad, if youwant to work in the international
(41:16):
sphere, having actually lived andworked in different countries is an
important thing to have on your CV.
Which is understandable.
When I was starting out, I was like, well,why did the, why this big insistence?
Can you not learn stuff fromtalking to people and reading books?
But no, of course just.
Just knowing what it is to live and workand operate in other cultures and other
contexts and to develop the kind of skillsinvolved there, I think is important.
(41:38):
And so if you want to work inthe international sphere, you
have to at some point do that.
And probably doing it sooner ratherthan later from a life perspective
is easier when you have fewercommitments and other things to juggle.
And being really honest with yourself,are you willing to be the kind of flexible
that is needed and to give up, some ofthe things that might make your life
(42:01):
quite comfortable and really commit toa different lifestyle for a while, I
think it's not for everybody and that'sabsolutely fine, but I think don't make
the mistake of thinking you might likeit, and you just want to try it out.
I think really think hard about itand talk to people who do this kind
of work and try to understand whatthey do and what life is like and,
is that something that appeals?
And I think if something appeals andyou're curious and interested and
(42:23):
motivated then you can put up withanything, but uh, you have to have
that intrinsic interest and motivation.
Laura May (42:32):
Okay.
And so for those who are interestedin learning more about your work
then, where can they find youand where can they get your book?
Owen Frazer (42:41):
So I think the easiest thing is to find me on LinkedIn.
That's where I'm most active froma social media point of view.
And these days I'm onlyposting about my book.
So you'll easily find my bookif you find me on LinkedIn.
But otherwise, if you Google my name andthe title of the book, you'll come to the
Routledge website where you can order it.
And hopefully soon it will be availablein all the libraries near you.
Laura May (43:00):
Yes.
And if it's not, then make sure you shakethe librarian until you order it in.
It's the very peacefulmessage that I'm giving here.
Librarian violence.
Owen Frazer (43:08):
I encourage all your listeners to check it out and
urge their libraries to buy it.
And yeah, what I'd like to do is alsojust to get it out there, but also
to get it out there in forms whereit's easily digestible and perhaps
useful for practitioners as well asbeing a kind of academic exercise.
And so it's a bit, my next projectis to try and produce some of
those easily digestible formats.
Laura May (43:30):
There's always more homework.
Owen Frazer (43:32):
There's always more homework, that's for sure.
That's what I'm realizing.
It never
Laura May (43:35):
ends.
Yup.
Yup.
Amazing.
I'll include those links in thedescription below as well, but Owen, thank
you so much again for joining me today.
And for everybody else, thanks forjoining the Conflict Tipping podcast
again, we will see you next time.
Hello and welcome to the Conflict Tipping podcast from Mediate.com,
the podcast that explores socialconflict and what we can do about it.
I'm your host, Laura May, and today Ihave the pleasure of speaking with Dr.
Owen Frazer, a distinguished conflictresolution researcher, practitioner, and
trainer with over 20 years of experience.
(00:30):
Currently serving as the senior advisorfor conflict transformation at Helvetus
owen is a certified mediator that hasheld various significant, amazing,
incredible roles, including with theinternational committee of the Red
Cross and the Berghof Foundation.
His new book on peace mediation, ReframingPeace Mediation has just hit the shelves
(00:50):
and it provides insightful strategiesfor navigating and resolving conflicts.
So welcome Owen.
Owen Frazer (00:57):
Thank you, Laura.
Nice to be here.
Laura May (00:59):
No, it is great to have you here, Owen.
I'm so happy you're able to join today.
And so let's just jump straight in.
I want to hear about the book.
So what was your inspiration forwriting Reframing Peace Mediation?
Owen Frazer (01:13):
My inspiration was that I was working at something called the Center
for Security Studies here in Zurich atthe Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
And there I was part ofa mediation support team.
We worked quite a lot with supportfrom the Swiss Foreign Ministry
on topic of peace mediation.
And I was specifically working on aprogram actually to do with mediation
(01:33):
and dialogue processes in conflicts withreligious dimensions, but also sometimes
working on mediation more generally.
And we did a lot of training,a lot of support to kind of
mediators and actors involved indialogue and negotiation processes.
And at some point the opportunity came upto embark on a PhD in parallel to my job.
And the question that I wasinterested in answering there was
(01:56):
a bit focused on mediation, but tohave a focus on also practice, right?
So to not just go off and do some veryacademic researchy kind of PhD, but really
something that might feed back into thework that I was doing, because I felt that
there was a little bit of a disconnectbetween the academic study of mediation
and what we were presenting as kind ofthings that you need to know as a mediator
(02:18):
or as a negotiator, which drew a lot frommore general mediation literature, but
not so specifically on the peace mediationliterature, because that tended not
really to have very practical insights.
Let's say it was looking at thingsat a higher level of surveying kind
of trends of mediation in the world.
Things are changing.
There's been a lot of work done, Ithink in the last few years, but that's
(02:39):
was my starting point and motivation.
Laura May (02:43):
And so, what were some of those gaps in practice?
You described the peace literature isreally focusing on high level items
that were disconnected in some waysfrom what you were seeing on the ground.
So what were thosedisconnects or those gaps?
Owen Frazer (02:56):
I think, it's very hard to study mediation processes, right?
Because it's very difficultto actually be in the room and
actually see what's going on.
So the kind of micro stuff of what'sreally happening in the mediation
process is very difficult to research.
So a lot of, a lot of mediationresearch, I think following a more
general trend in political sciencein the last decade or two decades has
(03:16):
gone in quite a quantitative direction.
So a lot of the research waslooking, trying to identify what
are factors by, looking at largedata sets of all the different
mediation processes in the world.
So it could tell you stuff aboutstructural conditions, but that's not
so helpful for the person who's actuallydoing the mediating around the table.
So that's where I sawa bit the gap so that.
(03:36):
In the kind of trainings and supportwork that we were doing, there you're
looking much more to literature that'sbeen developed in other sectors, whether
that's labor negotiations or moredomestic settings or not in the kind
of international peace mediation, sowhere the whole dimension of violent
armed violent conflict is not present.
And so I guess the question was a bit,do those ideas and those practices
(03:59):
really transfer to the contextof negotiating the end to a war?
And maybe indeed they do well, I wasn'truling that out but I was also saying
but we haven't actually shown thatthey do and I think also the other
motivation for me was that a lot ofour knowledge comes from talking to
mediators, saying, well, what do you do?
What's effective?
And that is of course very helpful, ortalking to parties But rarely does one
(04:22):
have the opportunity to actually takea 360 view and talk to the mediators
and the parties and look at the archivesand really like see it from all the
different angles to figure out what wasit that actually made the difference?
Because of course the mediator cansay, well, I did this and then I
suggested they all have coffee.
And in that moment, then the deal emergedand it was all thanks to that moment.
But, you know, maybe it was, maybeit wasn't, I think, you know, you
(04:44):
need to look at the, yeah, the manydifferent stories around that moment
to see if that really holds up.
So what I wanted to do was reallydive in, in a deeper way to a process
and try to put together all thedifferent pieces and see what emerged.
Laura May (04:59):
No, it is really interesting how there's often that
myth of the mediator, and the mythof the mediator's magic moments.
If I can continue to alliterate.
Where yeah, exactly.
In the example you just gave, ohwait, I got 'em to have coffee.
And that was the exact momentthat peace became possible.
And that's certainly like a storyyou hear, people really build
careers around this and storiesabout this become quite powerful.
(05:19):
But what does that say aboutthe other microprocesses?
There's no magic wand for the mediators.
You mentioned this possibilityof doing 360 research.
Was that something you were actuallyable to do as part of your studies?
Yeah,
Owen Frazer (05:33):
so the book itself is actually based on a case study of the
El Salvador peace negotiations thattook place between 1989 and 1992, that
ended the civil war in El Salvador thatran for basically all of the 1980s.
And so it was one of the firstUN mediated ends to a civil war.
I was looking around for, first of all,I was looking for cases where really it
(05:55):
was what we call facilitative mediation.
So you didn't have a very powerfulmediator come in and basically
force the parties to do a deal.
And so there's been a certain amount ofresearch already out there identifying
the different styles of mediation used.
And so I had a sort of list and I waslooking through those, saying, okay,
where is the case where I would reallybe able to get this comprehensive view?
And then realised I really need a casewhere there's good archives because you
(06:19):
can talk to people 30 years after, fiveyears after, and they will tell you
stories, they'll have written things down.
But of course, as we all know,everyone gives their particular
version and memories are notalways perfect and so forth.
This really led me to focus on a few casesto dig a bit deeper, and particularly
ones that had been mediated by the UN,because the UN keeps very good archives.
(06:40):
And so I thought, well, there's a muchgreater chance of actually finding
documentation that can't allow me tobe in the room, but at least allow me
to see what they were actually sayingat the time, or at least what they
were writing down about what they said.
Of course, it won'tcapture everything either.
And so, with El Salvador, it turnedout indeed there were good archives,
both on the part of the UN and also theFMLN, so the main rebel movement that
(07:03):
was negotiating with the government,had also kept archives and donated
those to a university in El Salvador.
So there were various archivesavailable, giving their perspective.
There was unfortunately not somuch in the National Archives
from of government perspective.
Plus several of the protagonistshad written their own lengthy
accounts of how it all went.
Many of them are still alive,including the mediator, and were
(07:27):
available to be interviewed.
So I really felt, okay, that's tickinga lot of the boxes in terms of being
able to gather data on what happened.
So that's why I focused on that.
And I think I was really able to geta pretty good picture, reconstruct
what happened throughout the process.
Again, it was at the time a very big deal.
And so there were also quite alot of studies written about the
mediation process itself from, orthe, let's say the peace process.
(07:50):
So there was already a goodfoundation on which I could build.
And then by really having literallythese documents in my hands, where
they're describing the back andforth and individual meetings.
It was just exciting to read thosethings, but also then very helpful
when it came to cross checkingpeople's accounts of what happened.
Laura May (08:06):
Was there anything that really surprised you when reviewing
these accounts and cross checkingor anything in general, in your
research that really surprised you?
Owen Frazer (08:13):
That's the kind of question I should have a really snappy answer to.
And
Laura May (08:16):
No.
Owen Frazer (08:16):
Then you're surprised at the time and then
you forget how you were surprised.
I remember the first time sitting in theUN archives, and you're turning the pages
of the 10th folder you've looked throughand suddenly there is the peace agreement
with all the original signatures on it.
You're like, oh, and that's exciting.
But what surprised me was it didconfirm the value of archival
research because again, this processhappened more than 30 years ago.
(08:37):
People have told theirstories so many times.
There are several kind of mythicalanecdotes about this process.
It was funny to read also sometimes in theminutes, literally things contradicting a
little bit, what people would have said,or, sometimes several people claimed
that they were the one who had the ideato resolve this small disagreement by
(08:58):
this kind of wording, and then you canactually see, who it was in the end.
From a bigger point of view, whattook me a long time to understand
actually researching the processwas how little time that the parties
actually spent doing research.
Talking to each other directly.
So a lot of it was shuttle mediation.
They would be even brought to thesame place, but the mediator spent
(09:21):
a lot of time going between them.
And even then when there were kindof joint discussions happening in
the, in those sessions, becausethe decision makers were elsewhere.
The president of El Salvador and thehigh command of the FMLN mediator also
had to shuttle back to visit them.
So that did surprise me because Ihad thought they'd spent much more
(09:42):
time together from a reading of theinitial accounts, but it was also
then very helpful from a researchpoint of view, because it meant that
then these were all super minuted.
So every time the mediator hada meeting, so you really, you
didn't lose the thread so quickly.
Whereas I guess if it had been all donein face to face discussions, it would have
been very hard to get the back and forth.
This sort of shuttle mediation stylemeant that things were more drawn out
(10:04):
and therefore more better documented.
Laura May (10:08):
That is really curious to me, because when we started and were
talking about this being really afacilitative mediation, and in this case,
the mediator is not seen as empowered inthe same way as an evaluative mediator,
who's more on the road to arbitrateor tell you what to do, but at the
same time in a shuttle mediation, themediator obviously has a lot of power
(10:29):
in terms of reframing and choosingwhat to say and how to present things.
So
Speaking of reframing and facilitativemediation, I understand this is
actually one of the key partsof your book, this reframing.
is this where it comes in?
Owen Frazer (10:42):
Absolutely.
So I guess that's the key question.
So, The book's argument is basicallythat this framing explains how
facilitative mediation works.
You don't have carrots andsticks, so you've got your words.
So how you present things isthe power of the mediator.
And then the question becomes,how does the mediator actually get
anyone to accept their framing?
Because everybody's always framing, right?
(11:03):
So the negotiation as other researchersput it, is a framing contest and every
party is basically trying to frame thingsin the way that serves their agenda best.
And so if you come in as a mediatorand say, well, no, I think you
should look at it like this.
You know, why would they take yourframing rather than the framing that
they think best serves their interests?
So I think to getting away from this ideaof the mediators just, well, it's somehow
(11:27):
this magical power of just describingthings in a certain way and saying,
oh, look, this is the common ground.
And then everyone'slike, yeah, that's right.
Let's look at it like that.
No, it's you're just another partycoming into a discussion and trying to
put forward yet another point of view.
And so then the question is, howdo you make it so that your point
of view becomes the one adopted?
And that's the theory I develop inthe book is to describe this process
(11:48):
and what the mediator is doing.
And in a way it's a theory moregenerally about how framing works.
So what is it that takes for anyone toactually have their framing be the one
that, that has an effect, a framingeffect, as adopted by someone else.
And there I say, it's really.
It's a combination of two things, right?
What you do.
So the different kinds of framingactions you engage in, and the framing
(12:10):
capacity or the framing power you have.
And so by kind of analyzing all thedifferent sources of information I
had, I developed a bit of a typology ofthese different sources of power, but
also the different kinds of actions.
Laura May (12:25):
I love the idea of mediation as a framing competition.
I just love that you use the wordcompetition in a process that is
ultimately, you know, always trying tokeep away from competition from this idea,
that no we're collaborating, but no, we'recompeting in the ideas marketplace here.
But I was wondering before wedig into the actions and the
processes, as you described.
Doesn't this mean that the mediatorwho's selected will actually have
(12:49):
a huge influence in the processbecause yes, it's about their
ability or what have you to frame.
But I mean, in this case, in theEl Salvador case study, was the
mediator appointed by the UN?
Do we know anything about the process bywhich they were appointed and how they
were selected as having the right frames?
Owen Frazer (13:09):
Yes, we do.
But maybe just first, I think it'simportant to just say, of course, I'm
not making the argument and I thinkeveryone recognizes, you know, again,
like you said, we should not overemphasize the influence of the mediator.
So structural conditions and so forth playa huge role in determining the outcome.
And I think mediation researchhas gone to both extremes.
At the beginning, there wasa lot focusing on mediators.
(13:30):
And then at some point, the kind of,the more hardcore political scientists
came in and were like, wow, whatabout all the structural conditions?
And then it, things swung the other way.
And so of course, it's both it's, whatare the overall conditions in which a
peace negotiation is taking place thatwill set a bit the bargaining range.
But there's a lot that happens withinthe process that will also determine
(13:50):
a bit how that process ends up.
And the mediator there has a lot ofinfluence, but not supreme power, right?
So,
Laura May (13:57):
Yes.
Owen Frazer (13:58):
So just to relativize, let's say the role of the mediator,
but I do think indeed it is importantwho is selected as a mediator.
And I think that's one of the practicalimplications of the model I developed,
to say the mediators capacity for framingis important and I say that's really
dependent on kind of their expertise likehow good are they at actually framing?
But also their legitimacy how muchthey're accepted by the parties as
(14:20):
a kind of source of authority andalso then questions of opportunity
like are you know, if you're the Unappointed mediator that gives you a
lot more opportunities than if you'rejust some unknown NGO who maybe has
to make their own luck as it were.
So in this case, so Álvaro de Sotowho's well known in the mediation
field was the lead mediator.
He was the already the specialrepresentative of the Secretary
(14:42):
General for the region and hadbeen following the peace process.
So when the parties finallyinvited the UN to be the mediator,
he was the logical choice.
He's from Peru.
He's a Peruvian diplomat, workedfor years in the UN and so I
think was very well accepted.
Partly because of his culturalbackground, but also because he's
coming from inside the UN, which wasa well respected institution, although
(15:06):
it was not immediately evident thatthe UN was going to be mediating that
process to the parties, well, on thegovernment side, I think they were very
reluctant to have any kind of mediation.
On the FMLN side, they were interested,but approached other governments first.
And so the idea of the UN camearound rather late in the day.
However, that's one of the kind ofmoments in the negotiation I discussed
(15:29):
in the book is how the UN framed thingsand laid the ground so that actually at
some point they became the only mediatorleft standing who really did have this
kind of legitimacy and to play this role.
But it was the first time that theyhad played this role in a civil war
I think, so It was a first for themand not self evident in the way
that we would think now it's theUN is mediating all over the place.
(15:52):
That was not the case back then.
So yeah, it was a bigger leap offaith, let's say, than perhaps one
might've imagined with hindsight.
Laura May (16:02):
I mean, it fascinates me because I can imagine that perhaps
there would be some reluctance onthe behalf of the government to
even have FMLN as a mediation partybecause we give them legitimacy.
And then when you have this internationalorganization coming and you've got
the UN and you've got the prestige andthe legitimacy behind it, that really
gives a lot more footing to the FMLN.
(16:24):
So, I really want to read your bookjust based on that paragraph alone.
I want to know how this happened,because that is fascinating.
And to your knowledge, have we seenmany examples of that, where the UN
specifically or an organization ofits standing would come in and really
mediate between a government andanother movement such as the FMLN?
Owen Frazer (16:43):
Yeah, I think there are now several cases.
I think unfortunately for the UN,it's often the one that's left
holding the bag when other mediatorshave tried and failed, right?
There's also that I cannot quotethe research, but I'm pretty sure
that one could generalize to saygovernments tend to be reluctant to
have formal peace negotiations, because,as you say, it grants legitimacy to
(17:06):
movements that they are fighting.
And don't want to recognize them as anegotiating party and then by inviting
in a mediator this gives it even moreof a kind of status and particularly an
international organization like the UN.
So that's not somethingthat happens quickly.
So in the El Salvador case there had beenseveral attempts at dialogue in the mid
80s There'd been a few and that had beenfacilitated by the church, but had not got
(17:30):
very far at the time, again, was not ripe.
And then things were just shifting.
Again, the larger structural conditions,it was the end of the Cold War,
1989 things were moving quite a lot.
And this kind of, I guess, forcedthe government to have a rethink.
Plus there was an election anda new president came in who
made a commitment to dialogue.
(17:51):
And they started dialogue.
It was first of all under theauspices of the church, they had two
meetings in September, October, 1989.
And they just they went nowherebecause soon after the government
clearly said, we cannot give into anyof these demands, violence escalated.
And that's when the FMLN launcheda huge military offensive.
And for the first time thenentered the capital of the country.
(18:11):
And although they didn't succeedin toppling the government, I think
this took the government by surprise.
And there was a sudden realizationthat things on the battlefield were
not quite the way they thought it was.
And De Soto himself would say thiswas the moment where they realized
there was a mutually hurting stalemate.
So this famous idea thatnobody's going to win this war,
but nobody wants it to continue.
We're all ready to start negotiatingand so that was the moment at which
(18:34):
they said, okay, yes negotiations, butagain that the government didn't want
to call them even negotiations so itwas always a dialogue mission of on the
side of the government and indeed themediator was not named a mediator.
Right?
And that's something I traced throughthe book is how very limited the mediators
mandate was at the beginning, but howover time through both being effective
(18:56):
and some very smart work, the mediatorboth Alvaro De Soto, but also his
team and the UN to really expand theirmandate and prove themselves in a way,
an essential part of the process becauseat various moments, the process got
stuck and that's what I was very happyto be able to show in my research that
was really the mediator that unstuck it.
And I think that's always, likewe're saying the question, how much
did the mediator really play a role?
(19:19):
That was what I wanted to get at bylooking, in fact, at moments when the
negotiation got stuck and then saying,okay, what really happened here?
And then you could really point toa moment and say, well, it was only
when that happened and the mediatordid that things move forward.
And so the, that's a very longanswer to, I think, what was a short
question, but I will stop there.
Laura May (19:38):
My questions are never short and they always have at
least three questions in one.
So you're definitely forgiven,especially cause you've now given me
this image of a mediator as basicallyjust a giant can of WD 40 cause
they're there to unstick problems.
Cause what I'm
Owen Frazer (19:52):
Oh, nice.
Where
Laura May (19:54):
wherever the, whenever the conflict got stuck
or the dialogue got stuck.
The mediator was there unsticking it.
So yes, for me now,this mediator was WD 40.
Owen Frazer (20:02):
Where were you when I was looking for metaphors to put in my book?
Laura May (20:07):
Look, metaphors for free any day.
Okay.
You can reach out at any time.
Okay.
And so, I mean, you've mentioned someof these things that helped lend the
process some legitimacy and helpedperhaps in some ways, ripen it.
Did you want to talk a bitmore about your framework?
Cause you mentioned framingactions, for instance.
Owen Frazer (20:27):
Yes.
Um,
So I guess there's,
Laura May (20:31):
I'm not going to make you.
Owen Frazer (20:32):
I guess I could talk about that.
I only spent eight years.
Yes.
Thinking about it.
No.
So I guess to take a step back,so I think it's again, important
not to say the mediator justdoes this and then things happen.
So I think before I even startedlooking at what the mediator was doing,
I wanted to get to understand howthe parties come to a common framing
(20:52):
because that's ultimately what's needed.
So they get stuck because theycan't agree on how to frame things.
This framing contest is goingon and to move forward, they
need to get a joint framing.
And so somehow, of course themediator is there to help that
happen, but what is actually thisprocess of getting to a joint framing?
So that's what I looked at first, wasthis back and forth of framings and
trying to understand how this comesto a kind of an agreement as it were.
(21:15):
And so there, you know, Ikind of define what is a frame.
A frame has three parts.
You identify the problem, you evaluate.
So you say why the problem exists.
And then finally you then say,what you're going to do about
the problem, the prescription.
So I then looked in all thesebacks and forths of exchanges
and endless shuttle mediations.
Each time I was like, okay,what is each party's frame?
It has a three part to it.
And so I made these little summariesand then tried to say, okay, do
(21:37):
they actually, by the end of it,are they aligned on the right?
Diagnosis of the problem, their evaluationof why the problem exists, and their
prescription for what to do about it?
And what I found was, yes, they doin the end agree on what the problem
is, and they agree on the solution,but they don't always agree about
what the reason for the problem was.
You might intuitively think, well,first step is you agree the problem.
(21:59):
Second, you agree why it exists.
And third, then you agree whatyou're going to do about it.
But I found this was notnecessarily the case.
So that was interesting already.
The second part in my framework,just to now give you the
whole book in five minutes
Laura May (22:12):
I'm still going to read it.
Don't worry.
Like this sounds fascinating.
Yeah.
Owen Frazer (22:16):
spoiler alert.
The second part is then to explain,okay, each time they shift their
framing of something, this is like,this is a moment of reframing.
And so when people reframe, is thatbecause they've actually changed their
mind and they see things differently,or is it more of a strategic calculation
that, well, I need to reframe becauseof outside pressures, everyone
(22:36):
else is seeing it the other way.
Therefore I also need to reframe.
So I looked at that.
So I call these two ways, a convictionmechanism where someone kind of suggests,
well, maybe you could look at it likethis and you say, Oh, you're right.
That's how it is.
And so then you adopt that framing becauseyou're really convinced or they say,
well, maybe you can see it like this.
You're like, no, I don'tthink it's like that.
They say, well, everyone elsedoes, including the United States.
(22:56):
So you really should see it like this.
And then they say, okay, thenmaybe we should see it like that.
Cause otherwise we'regoing to get in trouble.
So that's a more pragmatic mechanism.
So I look to see in the arguments thatwere used and different explanations
of why they changed their minds.
And I found both.
So sometimes the mediator was justsuper convincing and other times
(23:16):
they weren't convinced and then themediator would go off and talk to the U.
S.
and then surprise, surprise, aweek later, they were convinced.
So, both things happen.
And then the third part of theframework is exactly what I was
talking about there earlier.
Is then, well, what is the mediatordoing to try and convince them
or to put across his framing?
And so, in terms of the actionsthat the mediator engages in, I
broaden this concept of framing.
(23:37):
So, I think normally when we thinkof framing, it's really about how
do we put together words to describesomething, to interpret a situation.
This part of it, I call naming.
So we're naming what's going on.
We're saying it's like this, butthat's not enough as well as naming
something, then you also haveto argue for why your particular
interpretation is the right one.
And this process I call claiming.
(23:58):
So what are the different kindsof arguments you make right . And
again, there, as I said, therecan be pragmatic arguments.
Well, you need to just accept this becauseeveryone else sees it like this or no,
you've just misunderstood what the otherside meant when they said something.
So actually they meant it likethis, or you fail to appreciate
the situation that they're in.
So you bring several arguments whyit's important to adopt the framing
(24:18):
you put forward or that you've named.
And then the third part of theactions is what I called gaming.
There's all the other things.
Laura May (24:26):
I was hoping it would rhyme.
I was going to be soupset if it didn't rhyme.
Okay.
Gaming, naming, claiming and gaming.
Okay, cool.
Owen Frazer (24:34):
Yeah.
I would say it was a long dayswhiteboarding there with all the
words that have an aim in them.
Yes.
But indeed, so gaming, so it's in thesense of like how you game something
right to try and gain an advantage.
So it's all the things that mediatordoes around the side that will
create the conditions conduciveto their framing being accepted.
And so that then brings in the kindof things we hear about, ensuring
there's a coffee break or moving intoa more discreet venue or having
(24:58):
them come to Seoul New York where theSecretary General can participate.
All the more structural arrangementsaround the negotiation that might
then favor them adopting your framing.
So I split these into thesethree categories, there's
then some subcategories, ofcourse, but I won't go there.
But just to I suppose summarize is tosay until now we talk a lot about framing
just in this really discourse sense ofthe words and I think It's helpful to
(25:22):
think about it in terms of the actionsas I said the kind of the claiming the
arguments and the gaming that goes on.
And that I think then links the conceptto the other perspectives we have
on mediation and what mediators do,and that creates a more comprehensive
understanding of what's going on.
The other part of it is, of course,is what you do, but then there's
who you are and the capacityyou actually have to do it well.
(25:42):
So the expertise side, like somepeople are just very good with words.
And so the naming part of it is a talent.
And I think Alvaro De Soto is aperfect example of someone who's just,
who loves words and loves languageand finding the right formulation.
He would also tell stories of hiscolleagues, he had the wonderful
lawyer working with him, Pedro Nikon,who also was just gifted to find that
formulation that the parties could accept.
(26:03):
And this is what you classicallyhear about in mediation, right?
Finding that reformulationthat everyone accepts.
But also expertise in terms of, justknowing the content, knowing the
context, the actors and so forth.
And again, that's where thensomething like the UN has a lot
of clout as a mediator becauseit can draw on these resources.
They can say, Oh, we needto talk about ceasefires.
Let's bring in the head of peacekeeping.
(26:24):
Oh, we need to talk about police reform.
Let's go and find a police expert,and they have the resources.
They have the contacts they can mobilize.
And they have then this legitimacy,I think this is the key thing.
And I think this is wheremediation research is going
in an interesting direction.
There's a couple of colleagues alsowere searching this topic, what is it
that gives a mediator legitimacy inthat respect so that they're seen as
(26:44):
a source of authority so that you candescribe a particular situation and
people will just accept it becausethey think that, they should take you
at your word that they don't secondguess your motives and so forth.
And then finally as I said just thatopportunity question So about being
in the right place at the righttime But also being able to perhaps
create opportunities to bring partiestogether to be able to bring them to
(27:04):
the right place to meet people to havethose connections and networks that
allow you to engage with the partiesthrough different channels and to also
You know, I think what's so importantin a mediation process is not just
dealing with the parties at thetable, but all the other people that
they are connected to who are alsohaving an influence on the process.
And so the more you have connectionsand entry points with those and can
(27:26):
really read the overall situation,the more effective you will be, I
think, in terms of how you frame.
Again, another long answer.
There you
Laura May (27:35):
No, I was literally making notes because I mean, some of the things
you said, I've got an upcoming workplacemediation, which is very different.
And something you said, I'm like,Oh, I'm actually going to use that.
That was a good tip.
It didn't rhyme, but I liked that one.
So no, that was fantastic.
And I was wondering, I mean, in the ElSalvador context because you mentioned
it can be useful to have that sortof supporting infrastructure in a
(27:57):
way that you're really addressingpeople outside the room itself.
And so was there that supportinginfrastructure, maybe civil
society engagement or otherwisein the El Salvador case?
Owen Frazer (28:09):
Yes.
Although one criticism of theprocess was that it was not an
incredibly inclusive process.
And I know you've talked aboutinclusion quite a lot, I think, on
this podcast in other episodes andthis was the early days, I guess,
of this international mediation, orat least from the UN's perspective.
So that wasn't such a theme at the time.
(28:29):
However, there had been a big civilsociety movement led by the church
pressuring for negotiations and thatwas one of the structural conditions
creating pressures for negotiations . AndI think that, that played a big role.
And so indeed the mediator, De Soto,would regularly meet with representatives
of that movement, would meet also withbusiness interests, with representatives
of the church when he was in El Salvador.
(28:51):
I think the mediation team acted a littlebit as a focal point for at least taking
into account those perspectives, ofcourse, also the parties themselves had
their meetings and there was even anorganization of the political parties
where the government would meet with them.
And I think the FMLN also hadexchanges to update a little bit on
what was going on in the process.
But it was not a, it was still nota very inclusive process, it was just
(29:15):
a kind of informing and so forth, butthe real negotiation was still very
much happening between these two mainparties with the other main players
being then the big international actors,particularly the United States, because
it had such a, such an influence over thegovernment of El Salvador, but then also
there was this group of friends set up.
So you had the governments ofMexico and Venezuela and Spain, and.
(29:38):
I've forgotten thefourth, that's terrible.
Uh, Another Central American country whowere accompanying the process and to some
extent, able to have quiet words with theparties and had a little bit of leverage.
Laura May (29:51):
Amazing.
And I want to circle back to somethingelse you said, because you mentioned
that there were two main ways inwhich people would change their mind.
And one was conviction andone was more pragmatism.
And I'm wondering, and this is, I guess,a bit of a tricky question to ask, but
whether you saw any difference wherepeople had that pragmatic mind shift
(30:15):
as opposed to one with conviction,because think about it, if I'm in a
mediation process and I am just acceptingan argument because I have to, am I
still buying into the outcome as much?
And that makes me wonder aboutthis pragmatic mindset shift.
I don't know.
That was a bit of an incoherent question.
Owen Frazer (30:35):
No, no, I totally, I totally see what you're asking.
And I think, I don't think I have astraightforward answer because I didn't,
Wasn't able to get, again, it's veryhard to see inside people's heads.
So the, you know, I have limitedinformation to, to come to conclusions
about which mechanism was really at play.
However, I think that this is perhaps whatdistinguishes or one of the distinguishing
(30:56):
characteristics between kind of politicalmediation and let's say more interpersonal
mediation, where I think that's thebit, the critique, I guess, you know,
why we're taking all these ideas andconcepts are from interpersonal mediation.
But we cannot imagine.
Not that we cannot imagine, but thekind of personal transformation might
be important in political mediation, butit's not enough because you have all these
(31:19):
other actors with interests who also havea stake in the outcome and have influence.
And there's no way as a mediator,you can create that transformative
moment for all of them, right?
The most influence you have is withthose you are dealing with directly and
everything else is then at a distance.
And so this sort of transformativemediation approach and the really that
everyone needs to believe, um, I thinkthat some of that is true, but I think
(31:43):
that's maybe where the limits are.
And so I think, politics is also abusiness of pragmatism and people do
sign up and do deals about things thatthey may not be 100 percent convinced
about, but they recognize that the powerconstellations are such that that's
the best deal that they're going toget and compromises have to be made.
So.
Of course, if everyone is convincedthat this is how it is, and this is
(32:06):
the only deal possible, amazing, thenprobably it is more likely to last.
But even if they've been pragmatic,so long as they don't reevaluate
that later on say, well, no, actuallythe power relations were different
then it can also still hold.
But I think the dream that everyone can betotally convinced all the time it's just
irrealistic in that kind of a setting.
Laura May (32:25):
Yeah.
I agree that it's perhaps not realistic.
I'm just curious about the implications.
Maybe this is an additional studybecause of course I can understand
that even if you take somebody who'svoting in the political sphere, for
instance, and say they're in a twoparty system, they can vote A or B.
And you know, maybe theyfind A really charismatic,
really compelling as a person.
They've won their heartsand minds in a way.
(32:47):
But then B actually has the policiesthat are going to ultimately benefit
that person, even if they don'tagree with their presentation.
And so even as an individualvoter, they can make the choice,
which is based on conviction.
It doesn't need to be just personality.
It can also be policies, butconviction or pure pragmatism.
I can think of one example whereif you vote for a particular person
(33:10):
in a particular government, youget, I think it's sacks of potatoes
, because your vote can essentiallybe bought in a pragmatic way.
So I can definitely see that, but then,we mentioned inclusion and we mentioned
in the context of peace processes,and I'm just wondering, if you've got
these parties in the room and some ofthem are accepting new frames and have
changed their mind because of pragmatism.
(33:31):
Will the other people behind themso civil society, different interest
groups, accept framing in the same way.
Will they accept that new frame, which isjust pragmatic for the people in the room?
Like, will it have the same just buyin from the, the larger populations
really that are involved in anintra state or interstate conflict.
(33:53):
And I don't expect you to know theanswer, but it's just something
that really makes me wonder.
Well, I mean,
Owen Frazer (34:00):
I think the bigger question is just how do the negotiators at the
table convince the larger populationbehind to accept whatever they've agreed
to, I don't think it actually makes thatmuch difference whether the reason that
the negotiator agreed was conviction orpragmatism, because not all the people
behind them will also agree with thedecision for the same reason either,
they may also be convinced or they mayalso be pragmatic I think the bigger
(34:23):
question is you know, is whatever decisionyou've made, can you sell it right?
And the reason why theymight accept it may either be
pragmatic or through conviction.
And daring to already contradict the bookthat's only been out for three, two weeks.
But, at some point maybe the distinctioneven breaks down because at some point
you're really convinced this is apragmatic, everyone else sees it this way,
(34:43):
so I have to, then actually, if everyonesees it that way, is it not that way?
Because framing isall about constructing.
There's a million ways wecould describe a situation.
The important thing at somepoint is to come to a common
agreement about how it is.
And so whether at the beginning youbelieve that's how it is or not.
If over time everyone else is acting as ifit is that way, you might also start to be
(35:06):
convinced it is actually that way becausethat's how everybody's acting is that way.
So, in the moment, there's a distinctionto be made, but over the longer term
we are creating new realities as we go.
So I think that also, when it comes tothen persuading a larger population to
back a peace deal, again, it's all aboutcreating these narratives for peace
and, we've come to agreement and thisis how it is going to be going forward.
(35:26):
And then, yeah you've created a newreality, a new framing of the situation.
Laura May (35:33):
All right.
So then moving on from, in some sense,your academic perspective , what kinds
of work do you do as a senior advisor inconflict transformation, for instance?
Owen Frazer (35:44):
So, so now I've shifted a little bit focus.
I work now for Helvetas is adevelopment organization, probably
not very well known to your listeners.
It's one of the largest Swiss developmentorganizations, but akin to organizations
like Oxfam or Save the Children andengages in about 35 countries running both
development and humanitarian activities.
It's very, let's say grassrootsand civil society focused.
(36:10):
And I work as a conflict transformationadvisor, both supporting staff in
different countries who are runningprojects actually aiming to transform
local conflicts and also advisingcolleagues running other kinds of
projects, but in contexts where conflictis present, and how can they be conflict
sensitive and navigate in those contextsin a way that has a positive rather than
a negative effect on those conflicts.
(36:32):
So it's a bit of a shift away from thiselite peace negotiations world that
I'm talking about in my book, to muchmore the grassroots and community level
development and peace building work.
We are a development organizationcovering a wide range of topics of which
conflict and peace building is justone, and we're normally about two people
as acting as advisors on this topic.
(36:52):
So supporting across a range ofcountries and projects, which is
super interesting means, you knowworking sometimes on topics around
youth inclusion and prevention ofviolent extremism, but also supporting
local conflict resolution mechanismsaround natural resource conflicts.
Or also using, for example, arts andculture as a means of promoting pluralism
(37:15):
and diversity in Myanmar, for example.
So really quite a wide range of things.
And my role is a bit to, on the one hand,provide some technical advice and support
to colleagues running these projects, butalso to help us to design new projects
and to help the flow of knowledgebetween different countries, what
have we learned by adopting particularapproaches in particular places?
(37:37):
Can that inform what wecould be doing elsewhere?
So it's a bit of a knowledgebroker role as well.
Laura May (37:43):
I want to ask what drew you to this kind of work?
Was it pragmatism and that we allneed a job or was it conviction?
What's your story?
Owen Frazer (37:53):
Well, we all need a job, so there's definitely an
element of pragmatism, but no, Ithink this is largely a conviction
related profession I find myself in.
I am very originally from Belfast inNorthern Ireland, and I think the, the
context of Northern Ireland somehowhas shaped a little bit my interests.
And so when I finished universityand was trying to figure out, if
(38:13):
I have to get a job, well, whatdo I want to spend my life doing?
And then I decided I really would beinterested to work on conflict resolution.
And so that's what I've been doingsince then, one way or another.
so I guess this is a kind of an earlyconviction that has stayed with me.
Um, yeah.
Laura May (38:30):
I am curious about what keeps you going as well, because it's, I
think, fairly evident that working in theconflict field can be very difficult and
disruptive and challenging, and you reallyneed something to get you through it.
So how is it that beyond those first fewyears of mixed pragmatism and conviction,
like, how do you keep going workingin this field or what inspires you?
(38:53):
Maybe that's a more positive
Owen Frazer (38:54):
What inspires me What inspires me?
I mean everyone says it right but what isinspiring is to really meet people doing
the work and in the kind of job I meanyou're often supporting someone else who's
actually doing the work and so it's verynice when you actually get to interact
with those people and feel like you maybehave contributed in some small way to, I
(39:15):
don't know, a light bulb going on theirhead or connected them with someone that
might be useful for them to talk to.
And just to learn about what peopleare doing, but what's I think most
inspiring is then when you do get toengage over time and you can actually
see a change and not at all relatedto conflict, but I was just talking to
a colleague the other day was off toBangladesh and she's been working on the
(39:35):
labor conditions in factories there.
And she's saying.
Yes, it is still difficult,but it's so different.
It's so much better than it was 10years ago when I started visiting.
And so people trying to contributesomehow positively to change in the
world when you can actually see thatchange even if you maybe can't always
be sure there was, you had any partin it, but at least things are getting
(39:55):
better for some people that is inspiring.
And I think in an organizationlike Helvetas that does so many
different things, there are manyexamples of where that happens.
And so it's always a privilege when youget to somehow engage with that firsthand.
And otherwise.
In a more personal way, Iguess I'm a curious person.
And what I love about the jobs I'vehad is that they're very varied.
(40:16):
And I love this job because I can engagewith many different contexts, many
different topics, but at the same time,there's some kind of coherence to it.
And so I feel like my life makes sensein some way, but I'm not just finding
myself doing the same thing all the time.
Also why I've changed organizationssometimes and I've always been
interested also in the differentperspectives you get from working
(40:37):
for different kinds of organizationand having different kinds of jobs.
Laura May (40:42):
Totally.
And I mean, speaking of jobs, whatwould be your advice to people
who are just graduating or juststarting in their career to get into
the kind of work that you're in.
So I really sprung that question on you.
Sorry.
Owen Frazer (40:54):
Yeah.
No, that's okay.
That's a question I get a lot.
I always feel I should have a betteranswer, I think, because I think the
longer you've been in it, probably theless valid your advice is, because,
when I was starting out 20 years ago,it's not the world that it is now.
But I think one thing that hasn'treally changed is still this valuing
of so called field experience.
So having worked abroad, if youwant to work in the international
(41:16):
sphere, having actually lived andworked in different countries is an
important thing to have on your CV.
Which is understandable.
When I was starting out, I was like, well,why did the, why this big insistence?
Can you not learn stuff fromtalking to people and reading books?
But no, of course just.
Just knowing what it is to live and workand operate in other cultures and other
contexts and to develop the kind of skillsinvolved there, I think is important.
(41:38):
And so if you want to work inthe international sphere, you
have to at some point do that.
And probably doing it sooner ratherthan later from a life perspective
is easier when you have fewercommitments and other things to juggle.
And being really honest with yourself,are you willing to be the kind of flexible
that is needed and to give up, some ofthe things that might make your life
(42:01):
quite comfortable and really commit toa different lifestyle for a while, I
think it's not for everybody and that'sabsolutely fine, but I think don't make
the mistake of thinking you might likeit, and you just want to try it out.
I think really think hard about itand talk to people who do this kind
of work and try to understand whatthey do and what life is like and,
is that something that appeals?
And I think if something appeals andyou're curious and interested and
(42:23):
motivated then you can put up withanything, but uh, you have to have
that intrinsic interest and motivation.
Laura May (42:32):
Okay.
And so for those who are interestedin learning more about your work
then, where can they find youand where can they get your book?
Owen Frazer (42:41):
So I think the easiest thing is to find me on LinkedIn.
That's where I'm most active froma social media point of view.
And these days I'm onlyposting about my book.
So you'll easily find my bookif you find me on LinkedIn.
But otherwise, if you Google my name andthe title of the book, you'll come to the
Routledge website where you can order it.
And hopefully soon it will be availablein all the libraries near you.
Laura May (43:00):
Yes.
And if it's not, then make sure you shakethe librarian until you order it in.
It's the very peacefulmessage that I'm giving here.
Librarian violence.
Owen Frazer (43:08):
I encourage all your listeners to check it out and
urge their libraries to buy it.
And yeah, what I'd like to do is alsojust to get it out there, but also
to get it out there in forms whereit's easily digestible and perhaps
useful for practitioners as well asbeing a kind of academic exercise.
And so it's a bit, my next projectis to try and produce some of
those easily digestible formats.
Laura May (43:30):
There's always more homework.
Owen Frazer (43:32):
There's always more homework, that's for sure.
That's what I'm realizing.
It never
Laura May (43:35):
ends.
Yup.
Yup.
Amazing.
I'll include those links in thedescription below as well, but Owen, thank
you so much again for joining me today.
And for everybody else, thanks forjoining the Conflict Tipping podcast
again, we will see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.