Category Archives: Readings

Only the ‘Readings’ from 2021 onwards are accessible here. For older ‘Readings in Nonviolence’, please click on the “Go to our pre-2021 Archive website’ on the right, and select ‘Readings’ there.

The Peace Line with Kate Laverty: Joy in the time of sorrow

Nonviolent News, Readings, , , , , ,

The easier story would be the violence of recent weeks. The shattered windows. The smoke-dark language of hatred. The ancient human instinct to turn fear into fire and direct it towards the vulnerable.

But that is not the story I want to tell.

Because beneath the noise of those early June nights, something quieter and infinitely more powerful was unfolding. Something the headlines rarely know how to hold. Nonviolence.

Not as theory.

Not as performance.

But as lived, breathing practice.

I think of the children first.

Children sitting cross-legged on living room floors, their small hands stained with marker ink and paint, making signs to place in windows and on doors. Bright drawings declaring that refugees and asylum seekers were welcome here. There is something almost sacramental about a child choosing colour in the face of hatred. A holy refusal to let fear become the loudest voice in the room.

And then the women.

Women who organised gatherings in community centres. Women who walked alongside their Muslim sisters, their Black sisters, not with grand speeches but with ordinary tenderness — cups of tea, shared food, laughter rising gently above anxiety. The kind of care that rarely appears in political analysis but without which communities collapse entirely.

There is an ancient strength in women gathering. A form of resistance rooted not in domination, but in protection.

And then the volunteers.

And threaded through all of it were the volunteers. More than one hundred people, coordinated largely by two women from Sudan, quietly sustaining over six hundred people every single day. Grocery runs. Pharmacy collections. Lifts to work. Safe transport out of dangerous situations. Helping families move between temporary accommodations carrying little more than bags and exhaustion.

This too is nonviolence. Practical. Organised. Fiercely attentive.

And perhaps this is what gives me hope. Because violence is always loud. It needs spectacle. It feeds on visibility. But nonviolence often works beneath the surface, like roots strengthening unseen beneath winter soil. It survives through ordinary people choosing care over contempt again and again and again.

I have come to believe that the universe bends itself quietly towards justice through these acts. Through stubborn human tenderness.

And there is something else we must remember too: rest is part of this work. Joy is part of this work. Creativity is part of this work. The systems of hatred and violence depend upon exhaustion. They thrive when people become hardened, cynical, disconnected from beauty and each other. So every act of laughter, every shared meal, every song sung loudly in community halls, every badly painted banner held proudly by children becomes its own quiet rebellion.

To choose joy while protecting others is not frivolous. It is resistance. Perhaps nonviolence is ultimately this – the refusal to let the human spirit become smaller in response to cruelty. And for all the darkness that tried to descend, that is the story I want remembered.

–

Kate Laverty is director of Forthspring Inter Community Group https://www.forthspring.org/

Five points on Triple Lock issues by Anthony Coughlan

Nonviolent News, Readings, , ,

INNATE introduction: Sometimes you can be wandering in the forest for so long you can’t see the wood for the trees. The issue of the Irish government, and in particular Micheál Martin, striving to get rid of the Triple Lock on the deployment of Irish troops abroad – as part of slowly abolishing Irish neutrality while denying doing so – has been simmering for a number of years. As a result we can be confused and forget. In this short summary of some of the background and issues, Anthony Coughlan sees the wood and the trees –

–

Five points worth thinking about in considering the Triple Lock and Taoiseach Micheál Martin’s latest proposal to abolish it –

1.     Ireland’s UN Obligations: Ireland is bound by international law and by the rules of its membership of the United Nations to abide by the UN Charter and every provision thereof, including the right of the permanent Security Council members to outlaw military operations they disapprove of, and authorise military operations they approve of, by unanimous vote under the Charter. In view of  this, talk of the veto power of  particular UN Security Council members being in some way a restraint on Irish “sovereignty” is sheer demagogy, legal nonsense and aimed at gulling the ignorant.

2.     Ireland’s “National Declaration” on Neutrality and the Triple  Lock: In 2002 the Bertie Ahern Government issued a solemn National Declaration by Ireland – always referred to with capital letters by the Government – to the effect that in view of Ireland’s neutrality policy the State would not engage in any foreign military operation involving more than 12 soldiers unless that was authorised by the United Nations.  This National Declaration was made because a majority of voters had  rejected the EU’s Nice Treaty in the 2001 referendum on that –  many of them out of concern at Nice’s effect on Irish neutrality.  The existence of the National Declaration and the Government’s Triple Lock commitment in it was mentioned in the publicity material that was sent to voters by the statutory Referendum Commission to inform citizens what the Nice Two referendum was about in 2002. This National Declaration by Ireland was supported by all parties in the Oireachtas at the time. It was formally responded to by the other EU Member States in their Seville Declaration of that year. These Declarations persuaded enough people to change their votes so that in the 2002 Nice Two referendum a majority agreed  that that treaty could be ratified, without any change being made to the treaty itself.  Ireland’s National Declaration and the EU’s Seville  Declaration were associated with the Nice Treaty when that was formally registered later with the United Nations.

3.     The National Declaration was repeated for Lisbon Two: A similar procedure was followed  by the Brian Cowen Government when a majority of voters rejected the Treaty of Lisbon in 2008 and the EU Constitution that Lisbon brought into being – again partly out of concern at its possible effects on neutrality.  Ireland’s National Declaration on Neutrality and the Triple Lock was reiterated by the Brian Cowen Government along with some other issues. It was again highlighted in the Referendum Commission’s Explanatory Guide sent to voters on the occasion of the second Lisbon Treaty referendum in 2009.  Again voters agreed to the ratification of an unchanged Treaty, in part because of this Triple Lock commitment. Again the National Declaration was associated with the Lisbon Treaty when that was formally registered with the UN.  

4.     The Triple Lock commitment in this unique National Declaration by Ireland has thus acquired a constitutional or quasi-constitutional character: No Irish Government has ever issued a National Declaration like this on any other topic throughout the history of the State. The Triple Lock commitment set out in the National Declaration by Ireland and its use to influence the votes of citizens in the Nice and Lisbon Treaty referendums has given the Triple Lock such a constitutional or quasi-constitutional character that it cannot be constitutionally set aside by the current crop of Government politicians without  a referendum of the People. The attempt to repudiate the solemn  commitments given in it may also raise legal issues under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

5.     Abolishing the Triple Lock would have the unintended effect of subverting comparable commitments in any future Border Poll: Even if people deny that the Nice/Lisbon Triple Lock has acquired constitutional force by the manner of its adoption and use in two referendums, its repudiation by the present generation of Government politicians would be a profound breach of political faith with Irish voters past and present. It would mean, for example, that any constitutional commitments or policy guarantees that might be given to Northern Ireland Unionists in the context of a future Border Poll could be repudiated just as easily by a later crop of Irish politicians and would show that such commitments could in no way be relied on.  Principled and sensible politicians in the Oireachtas will be sensitive to possible unintended consequences such as this when considering what the Coalition Government is now proposing.

Workshop and training materials: Interpersonal conflict without mediation

Nonviolent News, Readings, ,

Introduction:

We have added some new workshop materials to that section on the main INNATE website. In a final extract from this material – for now – we include here material on dealing with interpersonal conflict where mediation is not an option. It includes both a list of options and notes for using the list in a group or training workshop. Online this is available in the Workshops and nonviolence training materials section at https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/workshops/ and directly at https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/A-road-forward-with-notes.pdf

lA road forward –

Dealing with interpersonal conflict

without mediation

Introduction

You want to resolve or deal with a conflict at an interpersonal level but the other party (person, persons, or group) declines to be involved in a mediation process. Or you may feel mediation is not on for some reason, or you simply don’t like it. You may feel powerless. What can you do?

This check list is put in the context of interpersonal conflict in general and in particular neighbour-neighbour or work disputes. In the latter, however, there are likely to be procedures (good or bad) in place for grievances – whether this covers the issue(s) in question, or whether even if they do you want to go down that route, is for you to decide.

Whether any of the following points is appropriate to your situation is entirely up to you – think of this as a list of things to consider rather than a list of things to do. Some of the points below are attitudes or approaches and some are actions. Some might lead to you talking and negotiating directly with the other party; some might bring you to third party intervention as in mediation.

The list is semi-chronological in that things you should always consider or consider doing first as you start to work on resolving the issue are at the start of the list.

Points 1-8 are approaches both at the beginning and throughout as you try to deal with the conflict, e.g. if you find the conflict escalating, ‘doing nothing’ (Point 3) may not be what you want but it is still something to consider as a cooling off period if things are going badly.

Points 1, 2, 4 and 5 are about relating to the other party in a positive manner.

Points 9 and 10 are for when you feel sorting it out between yourselves, in a rational discussion of causes, effects and solutions, is not going to work (Point 10 is short-circuiting the process to go straight to ‘solutions’).

The last few points (11-13) are the last things you should consider doing (as they mark an escalation in response).

However the order may work out differently for you. To use the list effectively you need to be familiar with it all and not think of it as a simple step-by-step guide.

– – – – – – – – –

Options

1. Always think of the relationship

If you have to live, work or be in contact with the person or people involved in the future, always consider the effect anything you do will have on the relationship and the environment (of work or your locality). To win on the issue but poison the relationship might be a pyrrhic victory (not worth the cost).

2. Listen

If you get the chance to talk to the other party, listen carefully to what they say. If you hear their views from a third person, listen carefully. If there is something you don’t understand, ask. If you were involved in a mediation process of any kind, listening to the other party (and they to you) is a whole stage so listen actively and try to understand the other. This can be difficult when you are bursting with the injustice of your situation but the key to understanding what is needed to move the situation on may be revealed through you listening carefully. Useful conflict points here include focusing on the problem and issue rather than the person (attacking and blaming them is not going to get you far – it may make you feel better but it will make the other party more defensive and quite likely less able to change). When you have heard their case, think how you can help to meet their interests (which may be different to the position they adopt).

3. Do nothing

This is unlikely to be satisfactory if you were seeking to actively deal with the matter. But there are some issues in life where it is very difficult to get what we want, even where what we want may be reasonable (though what is ‘reasonable’ to you may not be to someone else). The matter might also be annoying but trivial 9not of great importance). You might decide that getting on with your life and ignoring the issue is best. An opportunity might come up to deal with it at a later date. It might just go away through changing circumstances, someone moving, or whatever – but it might not. On the other hand there is also the possibility of making things worse so this approach should at least be considered, at every point in the conflict.

4. Appeal to your common interest

Hopefully you have points of common interest with the other party in the dispute. Try to persuade them – or get a trusted person to persuade them – that you have a common interest in resolving the matter together, as neighbours, parents, team members, part of the same work force or NGO etc. To avoid the other side thinking they may lose from this process, emphasise that you want to find a mutual solution and agreement, a win-win solution rather than a win-lose or lose-lose one. Appealing to their sense of fair play can be part of this.

5. Treat them civilly / Doing the unexpected

‘Behaving differently’ sometimes communicates powerfully because people realise something has changed. If the relationship has been cold and silent because of an issue between you, consider ‘normalising’ it, i.e. treating them in a friendly manner. But you would need to say to them at the same time that a) the relationship between you is important so you want good relations, but b) that the issue remains important to you and remains unresolved. It is thus more difficult for them to consider you unreasonable and unwilling to have a proper discussion about it.

If you are normally very civil, showing anger – in a controlled way – can also communicate the strength of your feeling but it is potentially dangerous. If they perceive you have ‘lost it’ – or you actually lose it in being extremely angry – you may portray yourself as irrational or obsessed. It is best to use an ‘I’ statement that you feel considerable anger in this situation rather than exhibit it. But in any case be careful to show your rational side and willingness to talk reasonably.

There may be other ‘unexpected’ things you can do to draw the other party’s attention to the issue but they should be ‘nice’, and not nasty, acts. For example, during a dispute you could buy the other party flowers or a plant with a note saying you would like to build a good relationship, and to talk.

6. The ‘broken CD’ technique

Basically this is where you refer to the issue as frequently as you can, saying the same thing, but not in an angry manner, e.g. you could say how important it is to you to try to resolve the issue between you. This technique is difficult to use in a positive way in disputes and it can make the other party feel you are obsessed by the issue. So continuing to use it for a long period in a hostile atmosphere is not recommended at all.

7. Put things down in black and white

Writing things down can sometimes communicate and have an effect that is not achieved by speaking about an issue. However this is always best done in a non-accusatory way, that is, telling off the other party is unlikely to communicate in the way you want. It is much better to use ‘I’ or ‘We’ statements as in “We felt really put out/put down when…….” or “I really felt shocked and made to feel very small when….” Apart from your own feelings, put what happened factually and put what you would like to see happen – both regarding the issue(s) concerned and the relationship between you.

Choose a non-confrontational way to give what you have written to the other party. It could be given in paper or e-mail format – if the latter, find a way to check with the other party that it has been received and not lost in the e-mail shuffle.

8. Say what you are going to do before you do it

This is not making a threat but a statement about what you intend to do, before you do it, again with an ‘out’ for the other party. For example, you could say “I would really like to resolve this issue through us talking about it together, or involving a third party*, but if not then I intend to………” This is difficult to do without it coming across as a threat but it may be possible to use this approach to indicate how serious you are about resolving the issue – and that you would much prefer to do it informally. You should also only use it in an honest way, not stating you will do something you have no intention of doing.

* if the services of a mediation agency or other third party have already been suggested and rejected, there may be no point in making the same offer again. On the other hand, the further step which you have announced that you will take if the matter is unresolved may persuade the other party it is better to deal with it relatively informally.

9. Involve a mutually known and trusted third person

Another way to communicate might be through involving someone that both you and the other party would trust to communicate between you (but you have to be prepared to listen back to the other side’s responses). This could be a mutual friend, a priest, minister, or member of your religious faith or interest group – someone you know that would be acceptable to both you and the other party as a mediator or a messenger or go between. Such a third person might be trusted to assist when an outside agency would not. This may be mediation by another name.

However their role should be agreed between you and the other party – not least because someone not used to doing such a task could put their foot in it and make things worse. Some people are naturally skilled go betweens and mediators while others can stoke the flames of the conflict. It always helps for their role to be carefully defined and agreed (are they simply communicating between you, or are they mediating – i.e. taking you through a process); without such agreement they may do something entirely different to what you want or expect.

10. Think of their position and ‘make an offer’

It takes at least two people or parties to have a dispute. And there are thus always at least two sides to the coin, and sometimes more. If the other party does not want to engage in a mediation or conflict resolution process, why is this? Are they afraid of the process? Are they afraid they will lose? Do they see you as unreasonable or behaving unreasonably? Is there anything you can do to make an offer which might mean something to them?

Making such an offer might or might not have a financial cost to you – e.g. in a dispute over a dog digging up your garden you could offer to pay for net fencing to keep the dog out, in a dispute over noise you could offer to help with sound insulation or by being flexible occasionally. There is an old conflict rule about thinking of the other party’s interests rather than the position they take – can you help meet their interests? Always think of how you can give them an ‘out’ – a way in which they can change position without losing face or money.

In a mediation process, searching for a mutual solution comes after the sharing of stories and the establishment of some level of trust in the process. If the sharing of stories has been impossible, this approach may be short-circuiting that and jumping straight to making an offer and possible solution, and therefore has dangers. A ‘reasonable’ offer (what might look reasonable to an outsider), may be rejected by the other party because they are focused on the conflict rather than a solution, or simply their own narrow interest. And there is a risk that such a ‘reasonable’ offer, rejected at this stage, may be difficult to reintroduce later because it has already been rejected. This would not always be the case but it is a risk; another party who is focused on the conflict and their own gain rather than a solution may think “Ha, ha, I/we have got them [you] on the run, let’s see what more I/we can get.” Careful judgement is necessary but there is no gain for you without some risk.

11. Appeal to a higher power

In a neighbour-neighbour dispute, are there any local council regulations or government legislation on the issue? Or social housing regulations* if you are in social housing? In a work dispute, are there clear guidelines* or a trusted person in a senior position – who would be acceptable to you both – that you can go to? In a work situation you may have the right to go to someone senior without the other party’s agreement but remember point 1 above about relationships – going above someone’s head can make for long term resentment, even possibly with other people. However you may consider the matter is so important and clear cut that you should do so, as you are entitled.

* Such guidelines can be used in two ways; a) to get a judgement in your favour, or b) to be used as ‘independent guidelines’ on the issue in dealing with it informally. Obviously b) has the greater chance of establishing or maintaining good relations with the other party and a) can be considered by the other party as an escalation in the conflict.

12. Move

Neighbours do sometimes move to get away from a problem. People also leave a workplace for the same reason. This is obviously very disruptive to you and possibly very expensive (the cost of moving home or job). You also need to consider whether ‘the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t” (whether there could be problems where you move to). But moving is an option. It may however seem to you like giving in when it may not be your fault at all – but some people consider it worth it.

13. Go to the law

Recourse to the law and litigation may or may not be an option, e.g. in a boundary dispute between neighbours, and is the ultimate ‘higher power’. Employment legislation may mean in a work situation that recourse to a tribunal is possible. On the other hand, neighbours sometimes make the assumption that the law will support them when they feel strongly aggrieved about an issue – but the law may be highly unlikely to take a stand in favour of them on the issue concerned because it is not governed by legislation. Going to litigation, with its confrontational approach, is also likely to further damage any relationship, and make a better relationship harder to establish in future. It may, of course, be an option for you but you would be wise to consider the chances of success, the likely financial cost, and the cost to the relationship before pursuing this path.

– – – – – –

About using this list

– This check list can go under the label of ‘conflict counselling’ and, as with personal counselling, is not telling you what to do but aiming to help you explore options – and you always have a number of options so do not feel trapped. It aims to help you explore both ways to get a negotiated settlement and your ‘Best Alternative To a Negotiated Settlement’ (‘BATNA’).

Obviously it can be used for personal reflection but in a serious matter it is best explored in a pair or small group, preferably with at least one person from ‘outside’ the conflict to provide an overview and reality check. Ideally this outsider should be someone involved in working on conflict issues, or experience in so doing, but any outsider’s ‘common sense’ is valuable too.

Having worked through the options and what they might mean in the pair or small group, discussion can then focus on a plan which it is felt would communicate with the other party, deal with their interests, and be practicable.

This check list is, as the introduction said, in the context of interpersonal conflict at a neighbour-neighbour or workplace level. It therefore does not include other aspects of nonviolence or nonviolent action which might be relevant in different situations. Whether it was practised or not, it was meant to be the case in ancient Irish society that if a neighbour aggrieved someone then that person could fast outside their house – and they would also be obliged to fast – until hunger drove them to negotiate and, hopefully, a settlement. In a serious situation all sorts of nonviolent action is possible which can be explored, e.g. using the ‘Nonviolent tactics workshop’ under ‘Workshops’ on the INNATE website.

Using it in a training workshop

If you want to use this list in a training workshop on conflict there are many ways it can be used. You should go through the list first with people so they are familiar with the options, or simply allow them to read it, or both. You could then give them a scenario or scenarios and ask them to explore, in pairs or small groups, what would be relevant. However it may be better to get people into small groups to share an interpersonal conflict they have been involved in, or have knowledge of, each person speaking for up to a time limit of, say, 3-4 minutes (remember to tell people they can pass if they do not want to or feel they can share). Then for another minute they could share what points they felt were most relevant from this list and any lessons they saw from the case involved.

Another option here, where there is more time, is (after the above has been done) small groups pick one of the conflicts to analyse in more depth, perhaps using drama (normal rules apply that if the person sharing the problem is involved in the situation they have shared they do not play ‘their’ role). Finally, you can come back into plenary session together to draw out learning. Remember if anyone is very emotional or distraught about a conflict to offer further support or ensure they are supported.

The Peace Line with Kate Laverty

Nonviolent News, Readings, , ,

Nonviolent engagement

This weekend, nonviolence found me in a bookshop.

Usually, I encounter it in the natural world — in cliffs and rain, in wind through trees, in the stillness that reminds me I am part of something larger and slower than the urgency of modern life. Nature steadies me. It teaches restraint, interdependence, humility. It is where my spirit recalibrates.

But this weekend, in Edinburgh, it arrived differently.

Among dusty shelves and uneven floors in vintage bookshops, I found myself returning to older roots — history, memory, stories carried through paper. There is something quietly restorative about second-hand books; they hold traces of previous lives, previous hands, previous thoughts. They resist disposability. They ask us to slow down.

And sitting there, reading a history of Arsenal F.C. — because, as any youth worker knows, supporting a football team is essentially a professional requirement — I found myself reflecting on the club’s recent partnership with Deel. Deel is a global HR and payroll platform co-founded in 2019 by French-Israeli entrepreneur Alex Bouaziz who has spoken in support of IDF and the genocide in Palestine.

It would be easy not to think about it too deeply. Football is saturated with corporate sponsorship. We are conditioned to accept branding as background noise. But nonviolence, at least as I understand it, asks us to remain awake to systems — to notice what becomes normal, what becomes invisible, what values are quietly being reinforced.

So I sat with the discomfort.

What does it mean to love a club while remaining critical of the economic and corporate structures around it? What does ethical support look like in a world where identity and consumption are increasingly intertwined? Can you still belong while refusing unquestioning participation?

For me, the answer is yes. Nonviolence is not purity. It is practice. It is the ongoing discipline of refusing to surrender moral reflection simply because something is popular, profitable, or culturally embedded. It is recognising that we are always participating in systems, but still asking how we might do so more consciously, more ethically, more humanely.

So no, I won’t buy the new kit. Not because I reject the club, but because I care enough to remain attentive. To hold affection and critique together. To resist the idea that loyalty requires silence.

Youth work teaches this too. Young people do not need adults who perform certainty. They need adults willing to think critically, act ethically, and model that belonging does not require abandoning conscience. And perhaps that is part of what nonviolence really is, not withdrawal from the world,
but deeper engagement with it. A refusal to stop asking questions. A refusal to let comfort replace ethics. A commitment to living gently and truthfully within systems that often encourage neither.

This weekend, I found that reminder not on a mountainside, but between old books, in the quiet turning of pages, and in the strange grace of paying attention.

Community – the past is present

This week, I met a man who once imagined something into being. Not an idea in the abstract, but a place. A meeting point. A vision that would eventually become Forthspring — the community I now have the privilege of helping to lead. https://www.forthspring.org/

What struck me most was not nostalgia. It was continuity.

The Reverend Sam Birch is a prominent Methodist minister in Belfast known for his extensive peacebuilding work during and after the Troubles. During the height of the Troubles, Rev. Birch gained recognition for his quiet but vital cross-community work, which famously included partnering with Redemptorist priest Father Gerry Reynolds to reach out to grieving families across sectarian divides.

The vision Sam Birch had has not dimmed with time. It remains bright, rooted in people, sustained by relationship, animated by the belief that community matters deeply. As he spoke, he returned constantly to others — to connection, to encounter, to the importance of creating spaces where people can belong across difference.

And I realised how much of that vision still lives. Not only in the building itself, but in the daily practice of what happens there: tea shared across divides, young people finding safety, communities choosing relationship over retreat. Forthspring was never simply about services. It was — and is — about sustaining human connection in a world that increasingly fragments it.

That feels profoundly linked to the principles of nonviolence. Not nonviolence as passivity, but as intentional, relational work. The understanding that peace is not merely the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice, dialogue, participation, and shared humanity.

Nonviolence begins in how we see one another. It is built through spaces where people are listened to, where dignity is practised, where fear does not get the final word. It asks us to resist the easy pull towards isolation, suspicion, and dehumanisation, and instead to remain committed to relationship — especially when it is difficult.

That is what I heard in his reflections this week. A belief that communities are not sustained through control or performance, but through care. Through ordinary acts of welcome. Through people willing to hold open spaces where others can gather, speak, disagree, heal, and imagine differently together.

In many ways, sustaining Forthspring now feels like inheriting not only a building, but a practice of nonviolence. A commitment to connection in a culture of division. A commitment to encounter in a time of withdrawal. A commitment to hope that is active, not naïve. And perhaps that is why his vision still feels so alive.

Because the need for places like Forthspring has not disappeared. If anything, it has become more urgent.

– – – – –

Overcoming obstacles to mediation

Nonviolent News, Readings, , ,

Workshop and training materials

Introduction:

We are adding some new workshop materials to that section on the main INNATE website.

Mediation at all levels is a desirable process for dealing with conflicts which have either not been resolved by discussion or never reached proper talking between the parties. However many people are suspicious or ignorant about mediation, even if it is now mainstream and recognised at official level as a desired way of dealing with conflicts. This handout looks at some of the reasons people may not be willing to engage in mediation – and possible responses in favour of using it.

The worksheet as a 2 sides of A4 handout is available as a PDF at https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Obstacles-to-mediation.pdf with the general Workshops and nonviolence training materials section being at https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/workshops/

This handout can be used in a workshop setting with participants having a copy, and sharing of situations where mediation has been (or could be) impossible or difficult to arrive at, and how people in conflict can be persuaded it is ‘a good idea’. Of course it can also be used by individuals in conflict to try to persuade another party to engage but that is likely to be more difficult; having ‘a carrot’ to offer (a possible gain for the other party) in relation to a possible successful outcome could be helpful.

Obstacles to mediation

– and possible ways to overcome them….

Mediation is a voluntary process so no one can be forced to engage in a mediation process….. while they can be encouraged or even gently cajoled (if that is felt to be appropriate…), it should be a free decision by all parties involved to engage. Getting people ‘to the table’ may even be the most difficult part of it all and many mediations never take place because one party says a very clear ‘no’. Here are some of the obstacles to people engaging and possible arguments to dispel such opposition…….

l1. Misunderstanding of the mediation process

There are many possible misunderstandings of the mediation process. One fear is that engaging with the other party/parties is already handing over power and losing control. While not a misunderstanding, the need to listen to the other side can be felt to be unnecessary and/or painful (this also relates to 3 below).

q Your can state clearly that at all stages the process remains voluntary and participants can withdraw at any stage until a possible final agreement or agreements made in stages.

You can make sure prospective participants understand the stages a mediation goes through, if necessary giving them written material on this; it may also be necessary to talk about the role of the mediator(s) themselves and the fact that they cannot force anyone into anything.

l2. Power imbalances

This can work both ways. A party which is powerful may not be willing to engage because they feel they have the power and shouldn’t have to talk to anyone. A party which is powerless may feel they could not ‘win’ or gain because of the power of the other party.

q It is a mediator’s job to ensure a ‘level playing field’ in a mediation. This may mean doing some work individually with one – or both – parties so they can fully engage with each other.

In terms of persuading a ‘less powerful’ party to engage you can emphasise the equality in the process and the fact that they can withdraw at any stage. In trying to persuade a more powerful party to engage you can emphasise relationships and how things might look if they refuse to engage.

l3. Fear of losing by engaging

Anyone who has ‘an asset’ or advantage which would be put under question through mediation may fear losing out. People who have erected a high fence, trees or a hedge (which is objected to by their neighbours because it spoils their view and/or light) may not be willing to engage because they feel they can only lose out by talking about it. Obviously this relates to the issue of power in number 2 above.

q You can again emphasise relationships and the voluntary nature of the process at all stages and that if they do not want to concede or change then they are not obliged to so do. You can also talk about the generating of different possibilities (a breakthrough in one mediation on a ‘blocking of view’ issue came when the party who raised the issue offered to pay for a professional to look at, and if necessary pay for, different possibilities which would be mutually acceptable or advantageous). The aim is a ‘win win’ solution.

l4. “I am/we are right, they are wrong”

Certainty in being right can lead to the idea that engaging is pointless. This can also lead to point 6 below.

q While some people may believe opponents on an issue raise it because they want to stir up trouble, you can emphasise that different people can see the same issue very differently, and the importance of maintaining good relationships even if they are not (at that stage anyway) willing to compromise.

l5. Acceptability of the opponent

This is different to, but has links to the issue of power imbalances. It is where ‘the opponent(s)’ is/are not seen as worthy of engaging with.

This could be because of a variety of factors – social, religious, political. In one Northern Ireland example, the case of the Drumcree marching dispute in Portadown the Orangemen who want to march down the Garvaghy Road may be unwilling to engage in a process with Catholic residents because of who might be included in those they would be engaging with, e.g. republican ex-prisoners, and also feel they should be entitled to go where they want. And there may be people on the Catholic side might be unwilling to engage with those they see as political enemies or even bigots.

q To get a resolution, people may have to engage with others they would prefer not to. It is their choice – but you can emphasise the possibility of a ‘win-win’ solution.

l6. Dismissiveness

The other side’s concerns are dismissed as trivial with the feeling the other party is getting worked up over ‘nothing’.

q A small issue can loom large in someone’s life, in fact small issues that irritate can be distressing if not dealt with. If one party is dismissive of someone else’s concerns, try to get them to think about things that might irritate them. One side’s views of the other (point 5 above) can also lead to such dismissiveness – “they’re always getting worked up about something….”

l7. Timing

There are a wide variety of issues in regard to timing which can mean one or more parties in a dispute are not interested in negotiating/being involved in mediation. It may ‘never’ be the right time. Or a situation may be temporary or seen as temporary leading to an unwillingness to engage.

q While choosing the right time is important, as a potential mediator or person trying to move the conflict on, you can emphasise that starting engagement – and building at least a working-with-the-issue relationship – is more important than doing nothing and waiting for an ideal time that may never come. However it is also possible that you do have to wait for a time when the sides are willing to engage; the time frame on this could be long and there is nothing you can do except wait.

– – – – – –

The Peace Line with Kate Laverty: Just War, Just Peace?

Nonviolent News, Readings, ,

Reclaiming nonviolence in a time of political noise

Recent political commentary in the United States has brought the concept of “just war” back into public debate. Criticism directed at the Pope — alongside interventions from figures like Donald Trump and JD Vance — has framed Christian nonviolence as naïve, even irresponsible, in the face of global threat.

But this framing misunderstands both the history and the depth of the tradition it seeks to invoke.

The idea of “just war” did not emerge as a justification for violence, but as an attempt to restrain it. Rooted in the writings of Augustine of Hippo, it was a moral framework designed to limit when and how force could be used — insisting on necessity, proportionality, and last resort. It was, at its core, an ethic of hesitation.

Over time, however, what was intended as a brake has too often become a permission structure.

The Pope’s recent emphasis on nonviolence is not a rejection of moral responsibility — it is a return to a deeper question: what does it mean to follow a faith rooted in love, dignity, and the refusal to dehumanise?

And Christianity is not alone in grappling with this tension.

In Islam, principles of just conduct in war (jus in bello) emphasise protection of civilians, restraint, and accountability. In Judaism, the concept of milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war) is tightly bound by ethical conditions. In Buddhism, the commitment to non-harm (ahimsa) sits uneasily but persistently alongside historical realities of conflict. Across traditions, there is a shared discomfort — a recognition that violence, even when justified, leaves a moral wound.

So where does that leave us?

The question is not simply whether war can ever be “just,” but whether justice can ever truly be achieved through violence.

Nonviolence does not ignore harm. It confronts it differently. It asks what it would mean to build systems, relationships, and politics that prevent violence long before it becomes thinkable. It shifts the focus from reaction to prevention, from dominance to dignity.

To reconcile just war and nonviolence may not be about choosing one over the other, but about recognising their tension.

Just war says: if force must be used, it must be constrained.

Nonviolence says: we must build a world where it is no longer needed.

In a time when political rhetoric rewards certainty and strength, the harder path is moral complexity — holding the line that human dignity cannot be conditional, even in conflict.

Iran and nuclear weapons by Lawrence Wittner

Nonviolent News, Readings, , , ,

How the international community obtained a nuclear weapons-free agreement with Iran―and lost it thanks to Donald Trump

By Lawrence S. Wittner – TRANSCEND Media Service

If the objective of the U.S. war upon Iran is to ensure that that country does not develop nuclear weapons, that goal was attained more than a decade ago through a far different approach than the one now being followed by the Trump administration.

Iran, as a signer of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1970, had agreed to forgo the development of nuclear weapons.  Even so, fears grew during the early 21st century that Iran’s uranium enrichment program, used for peaceful purposes, might be diverted to the development of the Bomb, thereby throwing the volatile Middle East into yet another crisis, including a frenzied nuclear arms race.

As a result, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France) and Germany began lengthy negotiations with Iran, offering it various incentives to halt uranium enrichment.  A key incentive was the lifting of international sanctions, which were having a severe impact on sales of Iran’s oil and, thus, its economy.  After the election in 2013 of an Iranian reformer, Hassan Rouhani, as president, the negotiators came to a preliminary accord to guide their talks toward a comprehensive nuclear agreement.

The final agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was negotiated by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany, and the European Union.  Signed in July 2015, it granted Iran sanctions relief in exchange for significant restrictions on its nuclear program.  These included Iran’s agreement to ban production of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, ensure that its key nuclear facilities pursued only civilian work, and limit the numbers and types of centrifuges that it could operate.  In addition, Iran agreed to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, unfettered access to its nuclear facilities and undeclared sites.

In the United States, the Iran nuclear agreement was strongly supported by the Obama administration, which played a key role in securing it, and by Democrats, but denounced by Republicans.  Jeb Bush, then a leading presidential contender, called it “dangerous, deeply flawed, and short-sighted,” while U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham claimed that it was a “death sentence for the state of Israel.” Indeed, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, lobbied ferociously against U.S. acceptance of the Iran agreement, furiously attacking it as a “historic mistake.”

Despite the opposition, the agreement went into effect in January 2016 and, initially, had smooth sailing. The IAEA certified that Iran was keeping its commitments, nations repealed or suspended their sanctions, Iran’s oil exports surged, and the United States and European nations unfroze about $100 billion of Iran’s frozen assets.

In May 2018, however, Donald Trump, Obama’s successor as President, breaking with America’s European allies, unilaterally withdrew the U.S. government from the Iran agreement and announced the reimposition of oil and banking sanctions.  “It is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of this deal,” Trump announced.  Assailing the Iran agreement as “defective to its core,” Trump condemned it for failing to deal with Iran’s ballistic missile program and its proxy warfare in the Middle East, as well as for the agreement’s 10-year sunset provision.

In response, Iranian President Rouhani. stating that the U.S. government had failed to “respect its commitment,” declared that he had “ordered the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran to be ready for action if needed, so that if necessary we can resume our enrichment on an industrial level without any limitations.”  Even so, he promised, he would wait to speak about this with allies and the other signatories to the agreement.

Thereafter, things went downhill.  Although France, Germany, and Britain sought to keep the agreement alive by evading the U.S. banking sanctions through a barter system, this effort eventually collapsed.  Meanwhile, Trump got into a verbal brawl with Rouhani, threatening Iran with what he called “CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE.”  Ultimately, Iran began exceeding the agreed-upon limits to its stockpile, enriching uranium to higher concentrations, and developing new centrifuges.

Although Joe Biden, as a 2020 presidential candidate, promised to rejoin the Iran nuclear agreement and “to work with our allies to strengthen and extend it,” by the time he was in office the relationship with Iran had deteriorated too far to make this feasible.  Coming under a new, more reactionary leadership, the Iranian regime grew more repressive, as well as more distant from the United States and more politically toxic.  As a result, a new agreement was increasingly out of reach.

In retrospect, are there any lessons that can be learned from these events?

One is that, to the degree that the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is a currently a problem, it is a problem of Trump’s making.  Or as Biden put it years ago, Trump’s pullout from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement was “a self-inflicted disaster.”

Another is that getting a country to forgo nuclear weapons development is easier to accomplish through international―and especially UN Security Council―action than through unilateral action.  A threat from one nation to another can easily be viewed and dismissed as bullying.  But pressure from a worldwide organization representing the community of nations has greater impact.

More generally, if nations are going to be asked (or pressured) to forgo development of nuclear weapons, it is useful to have a framework that treats nations equally.  The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty fosters this equality through a bargain, in which the non-nuclear nations forgo building nuclear weapons in exchange for the nuclear nations eliminating their own nuclear arsenals.  The next time Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu threaten to annihilate Iranian civilization, someone might remind them of that.

–

Lawrence S. Wittner ( https://www.lawrenceswittner.com ) is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of ‘Confronting the Bomb’ (Stanford University Press).

Article taken from Transcend Media Service, 27 April – 3 May 2026. https://www.transcend.org/tms/

NATO and the USA by Edward Horgan

Nonviolent News, Readings, , ,

Introduction: Edward Horgan is an inveterate letter writer and part of the art of letter writing is being succinct and on the ball. We carry here a letter written, and published, in early April concerning NATO:

“It would benefit humanity if Trump were to pull out of NATO.

US President Trump has threatened to pull the US out of NATO. If he does so, this will be one of his very few actions as President that would benefit humanity. However, he is unlikely to follow through on this threat, and his successor would likely reverse any such decision. NATO should have been disbanded shortly after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. NATO was founded in 1949 the same year that the USSR developed its first nuclear weapon, and it claims that it defended western Europe during the Cold War. Nuclear weapons have terrorised all of humanity since the US first used them in its double-tap war crime nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With the increasing proliferation of nuclear weapons, humanity has never been more threatened with extinction.

In the meantime, the US has misused NATO as the equivalent of a global criminal protection racket in its series of resource wars of aggression, beginning with the NATO attack on Serbia in 1999 in contravention of the UN Charter and of NATO’s own Charter. These wars have killed millions of people, especially women and children, wreaked havoc with the environment and left multiple countries in chaos.

Trump is now accusing his erstwhile ‘allies’ of failing to support the illegal US/Israeli attacks on Iran and elsewhere, while at the same time threatening to annex NATO member Canada and Denmark’s Greenland territory. Trump is annoyed because three large NATO members, France, Spain and Italy have imposed severe restrictions on US military use of their airports or overfly their territories. Neutral Switzerland and Austria have done likewise.

Our Irish Government, while claiming to be neutral, is recklessly allowing aircraft associated with the US military to use Shannon airport and fly through Irish airspace, thereby being complicit in genocide and war crimes. It is failing to support the UN and the proper rule of international laws. Basic morality should ensure that preventing the killing of hundreds of thousands of children is prioritised over Irish economic interests.”

Workshop and training materials: Tic-tac-toe the line

Nonviolent News, Readings, , , , ,

INNATE has a wide variety of training and exploratory materials online concerning nonviolence, nonviolent tactics, conflict, group dynamics and group working and decision making. These are in the Workshops and nonviolence training section of the website https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/workshops/ There are also links there to the WRI manual on nonviolent campaigning and the Mari Fitzduff and Sue Williams manual “Dialogue in Divided Societies: Skills for Working with Groups in Conflict” which are important resources in the field.

We have more material which we will be adding to the website over the next period and will carry some of this in, or with Nonviolent News (perhaps also as a separate attachment for email recipients). Here is the first addition, a short exploration of power and privilege –

A short game exploring power and privilege

Tic-tac-toe (the usual US English name) is more usually known in European English as ‘noughts and crosses’. It is a simple game played by two people involving a 3 x 3, 9-space square with the aim being to get three in a row of your symbol (an ‘X’ or a ‘0’ – hence ‘noughts and crosses) vertically, horizontally or diagonally. The box is easily made by two vertical and two horizontal lines –

Players choose whether their symbol will be an X or a 0 and one starts by placing their symbol in a space. The second person counters by trying to get their three in a row but the person starting has an advantage so the second person may find themselves blocking the possibility of three in a row for the other. Someone may win or it may be a draw where no one can get three in a row in the nine spaces. Players take turns to start.

This game is well known to many who have played it in childhood but it is not known in some cultures. So you can get participants in a workshop to pair off and play a few games ‘normally’ until everyone feels familiar with it – and even those who know it may not have played it for years. Ensure people have paper and writing implements.

Then get the pairs to have a few games where one person starts each time but gets two goes before the other person has a go. After a few games swap around the person who has two goes at the start.

This is an exploration of built in power and privilege. If you have two goes at the start it is very difficult to lose and very difficult for your opponent to win though it may still be a draw.

At the end of a few games like this, allow people to share on how it felt having two goes at the start – or your opponent doing so. It is a very simple illustration of built in bias in a system. You can invite the sharing of comparisons in participants’ lives and in society if you wish to take it further and have the time to do so.

There is plenty of further information about the game online but the ‘power tweak’ of two goes for the person starting is definitely not part of the game as normally played.

The Peace Line with Kate Laverty: Online harassment, the manosphere, and nonviolent digital citizenship

Nonviolent News, Readings, , , ,

The rise of social media has transformed the public sphere, collapsing distance and amplifying voice in unprecedented ways. Platforms that promised connection, participation, and democratic engagement have also become sites of harassment, intimidation, and symbolic violence. Online abuse is often dismissed as trivial or inevitable, yet its impacts are real: silencing marginalised voices, intensifying polarisation, and normalising cruelty as a mode of public interaction. In this context, the concept of nonviolent digital citizenship offers a critical ethical framework for navigating contemporary online life.

Recent media attention on the so-called “manosphere”—a loose network of online communities promoting hyper-masculinity, resentment toward women, and rigid hierarchies of power—illustrates how digital cultures can both reflect and intensify social tensions. Documentaries and investigative reporting on these networks highlight how algorithmic ecosystems can draw young men into increasingly extreme spaces through recommendation systems designed to maximise engagement. What begins as self-help, fitness advice, or dating guidance can gradually shift toward narratives that frame gender relations as conflict, grievance, or domination.

These dynamics are not merely theoretical. In youth work and pastoral practice, practitioners increasingly encounter the real-world consequences of digital cultures that reward hostility and manipulation. Young people report experiences of sextortion, online grooming, and targeted harassment that move rapidly from private messaging to public humiliation. The psychological impact can be severe: fear, shame, social withdrawal, and the erosion of trust in both peers and institutions. Such cases illustrate that online abuse is not an abstract phenomenon but a lived reality for many young people navigating digital spaces without adequate protection or guidance.

These developments reveal how the architecture of digital platforms shapes not only what people see but how they understand the world. Algorithmic amplification rewards outrage, speed, and emotional intensity, privileging content that provokes strong reactions. In this “attention economy,” hostility and humiliation often travel further than nuance or reflection. As a result, antagonistic identities—whether gendered, political, or ideological—can become profitable forms of content production.

Within such an environment, harassment becomes less an aberration than a structural feature of platform design. Online hostility can function as a form of symbolic violence, relying on dehumanisation, anonymity, and asymmetrical power. Women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, journalists, and political activists remain disproportionately targeted, reflecting offline inequalities reproduced and intensified in digital spaces.

From a global perspective, digital hostility is increasingly weaponised within broader political and cultural struggles. Coordinated trolling campaigns, disinformation networks, and online intimidation now form part of contemporary conflict dynamics. The same infrastructures that allow communities to organise for justice also allow resentment and polarisation to scale rapidly across borders.

Nonviolent digital citizenship offers a counter-framework to these dynamics. Drawing on traditions of nonviolence articulated by figures such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., it reframes online engagement as a moral and civic practice grounded in dignity, restraint, and accountability. Applied digitally, nonviolence does not mean silence in the face of injustice. Rather, it calls for disciplined forms of resistance: challenging misinformation without humiliation, responding to hostility without escalation, and recognising when disengagement itself is an ethical act.

Education is crucial in this context. Young people often encounter complex digital ecosystems long before they possess the tools to understand algorithmic manipulation, ideological radicalisation, or the psychological dynamics of online conflict. Nonviolent digital literacy therefore extends beyond technical competence to include emotional regulation, critical media analysis, and ethical reflection. It asks who benefits from outrage, why certain narratives spread, and how individuals can participate in digital spaces without reproducing cycles of hostility.

Ultimately, the challenge posed by online harassment and polarised digital cultures is inseparable from the broader question of what kind of public sphere societies wish to cultivate. The emergence of communities such as those described in recent “manosphere” documentaries reminds us that digital environments are not neutral technologies but moral landscapes shaped by incentives, narratives, and power relations. Nonviolent digital citizenship insists that these spaces can still be shaped differently—through conscious norms, institutional accountability, and a renewed commitment to human dignity in both speech and interaction.