By Richard Cohen

I have said countless times to student mediators that the basic principles of conflict resolution are applicable to international disputes as well as to interpersonal disputes. With first hand experience in the resolution of apparently intractable conflicts, who better than these mediators to use the current crisis to deepen their understanding of conflict resolution?

The following is a list of conflict resolution principles, followed by questions you can use to spark discussion among your students. My hope is that these questions can help you complicate students' thinking and challenge them to think for themselves.

1. For a conflict to be truly resolved, all parties who have significant interests in it must be part of the resolution process.

• Who are the parties to this conflict?
• Are they limited to the United States and the terrorists?
• What about the vast majority of world citizens that abhor terrorism? Countries that have been the victims of terrorism in the past? The considerable number of people who appear to support the terrorists' cause, if not their methods?

2. For a conflict to be truly resolved, all parties must feel that they have achieved enough of their goals to make the cost of continuing the conflict prohibitive.

• What do the parties to this conflict want? Do we know?
• What interests lie behind their public pronouncements and demands?
• What would be required for them to feel resolved, and how will we know when they are?
• What will be the consequences if any parties' interests are not addressed?
  

3. With few exceptions, responding to violence with violence only escalates conflict and creates more suffering.

• What are the likely repercussions of the bombing of Afghanistan?
• How will it make that Afghani people and their allies feel toward the US?
• Will our bombing kill off all future terrorists?
• Will it scare them off?
• Will it increase their fervor?
• What will prevent those who are coerced into submission from retaliating in the future?
• If a violent response does appear to be justified, what about this conflict makes it an exception to the rule? The extent of the violence perpetrated against the United States? The nature of the enemy? The apparent military advantage of the US and its allies?

4. When conflicts are at their worst and emotions run strongest, it is best, if at all possible, to postpone taking actions that one might later regret.

• Have we waited long enough, and done enough to learn about this situation, prior to taking military action?
• What would have been the consequences had we waited longer?
• If we did have to act militarily at this time, what specifically required it?
• Were there alternative courses of action that might have kept us just as secure in the short term?
  

5. In order to truly resolve a conflict, one must strive to understand the perspective of one's adversaries.

• Do we understand why the terrorists acted as they did?
• What led them to give up their lives to commit their terrible acts?
• Are they simply delusional? Evil?
• Are they confused about who Americans are and what Americans want?
• Did they misunderstand past policies and practices of the US government?
• Has the United States and its allies behaved in a way that, although in no way justifying the terrorists' actions, at least helps us understand what motivated them?
• If we don't understand what motivated the terrorists, will we be able to prevent like-minded people from committing similar atrocities in the future?
• What do you make of the fact that both the United States ("G-d Bless America") and the terrorists invoke the name of G-d to support their actions?
  

6. Understanding does not equal agreement.
No reasonable person can excuse or agree with the acts of the terrorists. But many people confuse trying to understand one's adversaries with agreeing with them.

• Do you see people being accused of being too lenient upon the terrorists just because they want to understand them?
• What if any impact does this misunderstanding have upon the viewpoints we hear on the news or in our communities?
  

7. Punishment and conflict resolution are distinct processes, and the former only rarely accomplishes the latter.

• The perpetrators and of the attacks of September 11th unquestionably deserve the most severe punishment for their barbaric actions. What is the best way, or combination of ways, to punish them? Legal channels and international law? Military action? Economic sanctions?
• What distinct messages might these approaches send to the perpetrators, to those who appear to support them, and to the rest of the world?
• Will any punishment inflicted upon the terrorists resolve the grievances that led them to take these actions? Should we care?
• Will the methods used to punish the terrorists influence the chances of resolving this conflict with those who support?

8. Columbine Writ large?

• Do you see any parallels between the September 11th bombings and the "Columbine Tragedy" (in which two high school students who had been regularly harassed and ultimately ostracized by their peers vented their frustration by getting weapons and opening fire on their classmates and teachers)?
  If so, what are they? If not, why not?

If you have discussed the tragedy of September 11th with your peer mediators, tell us what has worked for you.