Creating virtual One Text processes in the Sri Lankan Peace Process Sanjana Hattotuwa

If we have learned one thing from the history of invention and discovery, it is that, in the long run - and often in the short one - the most daring prophecies seem laughably conservative. Arthur C. Clarke

Introduction Envisioning the use of Information Communications Technology (ICT) for conflict transformation is a relatively new field of study and practice. The virtualisation of peace processes is still in an embryonic stage. At present, practice informs research – examples of cutting edge in-field applications of ICT in countries ranging from Cyprus to Sri Lanka, along with relevant developments in the more mature fields of ICT for development and poverty alleviation, resonate in turn with research that is only beginning to look at the rich possibilities of using advanced computer mediated communications to help with processes of conflict transformation and peacebuilding.

It is the author’s contention, as has been explored in earlier work (Hattotuwa: 2004), that ICT can qualitatively enhance the role of peacebuilding in each of these areas. The virtualisation of conflict transformation processes can significantly strengthen interventions for sustainable and just peace. Writ against the complex tableau of post-conflict nation building, ICT can significantly augment socio-political processes that explore options for interest based negotiations, one-text processes and a range of other frameworks that address violent conflict. Conversely, this is not to argue that the virtualisation of peacebuilding will in itself constitute a panacea for complex socio-political emergencies and protracted conflict. ICT is not a construct that exists in a rarefied domain that is removed from the complex emotions and problems that inform peacebuilding processes in the real world. Tethering ICT systems for peacebuilding to ground realities requires that such systems recognise complexities of conflict

transformation but at the same time are able to transcend the regressive tendencies of stakeholders in a nascent peace process. In doing so, such systems become a catalyst for strengthening positive factors in a peace process and marginalising extremist and corrosive elements that are detrimental to conflict transformation. Furthermore, such systems can connect progressive elements of the socio-political fabric that under-gird sustainable peacebuilding interventions, including, but not limited to, women, children, youth, grassroots communities and rural peace activists who work in the swabhasha (vernacular). It is the unfortunate fact that the disconnect between political processes and the concerns and fears of people on the ground oftentimes leads to misplaced confidence in peace processes which cannot support the aspirations of people in the long term, leading to renewed conflict.

As such, within the larger matrix of OCT for peacebuilding, the central thesis of this paper will be to argue for One Text processes, which fall under the broad rubric of transformative mediation, that virtualise real world processes in order to increase the efficiency, sustainability and success of such processes of conflict transformation and peacebuilding. The specific case of Info Share’s work in Sri Lanka will be explored and used to examine the specific challenges that face such systems in the real world. The object will be to briefly explore the creation of new iterations of such systems that will be better able to respond to the dynamic and unique challenges of peacebuilding in post-conflict contexts.

Conflict Transformation Contemporary intra-state conflicts do not lend themselves to easy analysis. The multi-faceted nature of protracted ethno-political conflict, the structural underpinnings that both gave rise to it and are transformed by it and the resulting upheaval of societies and the complex political emergencies that it engenders are interwoven in a complex mesh of inter-related dynamics in constant flux. The sheer complexity of these situations goes beyond the capacity of traditional theories of conflict resolution to explain, explore or critique. Furthermore, contemporary conflicts cross repeatedly into cycles of violence and cycles of peacebuilding. This exhausting cycle breeds a vicious process which often saps the life energies of peoples, economies and states. Importantly, contemporary conflict also involves far more than two actors – ‘win-win’ outcomes are made meaningless on the ground, where, inter alia, marginalised voices in peace processes often act as spoilers to ceasefire and peace agreements between the key actors in the conflict, thereby creating added complexities in the journey towards a just and lasting peace.

For the purposes of this paper, it is important to distinguish conflict transformation from conflict resolution. Violent conflict is often not the result of a monocausal event or trigger, but is rather the inability of a society (or the failure of a State) to address the basic human needs and the interests and aspirations of all its constituent peoples, ethnicities and groups. These exclusions, in turn, lead to increasingly belligerent positions of marginalised and alienated groups, who over a period of time, may take up arms, in the face of constant marginalisation, in order to further their aspirations. However, while violent conflict can be viewed as a result of an inevitable and gradual hardening of positions, peace processes are relatively more complex. Addressing grievances and nurturing reconciliation is a multi-faceted and difficult process, where levels of violence may, perversely, increase (in the short-term to medium term) the closer one is to agreement, and where agreement itself is no guarantee against the reemergence of violent conflict.

Viewed with this lens, “conflict transformation is therefore a process of engaging with and transformation relationships, interests, discourses and, if necessary, the very constitution of society that supports the continuations of violent conflict” (Miall, 2003: 3). Thus, while conflict transformation recognises that violent conflicts take time to transform, it problematises and also calls for a radical deconstruction of the status quo – recognising that institutions, systems and frameworks which breed grievances need to be altered to accommodate diversity and become inclusive and participatory.

Sri Lanka – An overview A growing disconnect between the various tiers in the peacebuilding process have contributed in large part to the present imbroglio in Sri Lanka, where the on-going peace process is under severe strain and shows signs of imminent collapse. Key actors in the peace process have shown a remarkable inability to coordinate actions and interventions to support the organic growth peace within and between communities (Hattotuwa, 2004: 25 – 26). Furthermore, as the author has stated earlier,

“This is not a feature that is unique to the Sri Lankan peace process – in countries coming out of protracted ethno-political strife, dilapidated institutions and systems of governance do not have the ability to keep up with the frenzy of work and interventions by multiple stakeholders on multiple tiers that take place in the heat of a fledgling peace process.” (Hattotuwa, 2004: 26)

In Sri Lanka, the on-going peace process shows an unfortunate growth of the same zero-sum and parochial politics that has bedevilled its socio-political relations since independence in 1948. As the figure above demonstrates, the disconnect between the (mislaid) confidence in the sustainability of the peace process writ against the growing fears of what peace really means in the minds of the various communities on the ground is a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately, the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004 did nothing to ease societal schisms, despite much hope at the time that the comprehensive devastation would lead to more harmonious relations between and within the communities in the affected areas and the country writ large.

The inability to collectively vision shared futures based on principles of equality, democracy and social justice continues to thwart efforts at meaningful peacebuilding.

Ironically, the current instability of Sri Lanka is an ideal framework to examine the value of ICT frameworks for peacebuilding and negotiations support. This is not to propose the idea that for purposes of research the status quo in Sri Lanka must continue. On the contrary, the examination of One Text systems for conflict transformation in the most austere environments imaginable rigorously tests assumptions and hypotheses that inform the design and implementation of such systems for peacebuilding.

Transformative mediation In their 1994 publication, The Promise of Mediation, Robert A. Baruch Bush and Joseph Folger explicitly outlined a framework for the practice of transformative mediation. Although practitioners had already touched on the possibilities of mediation in this realm, Baruch Bush and Folger's work defined transformative mediation, in contrast to the dominant orientation of problem-solving mediation, the rubric that Norwegian mediation in Sri Lanka has been hitherto based upon. Problem-solving mediation is aimed at resolving specific disputes between parties and coming up with a mutually acceptable solution to the immediate, short-term problem. In problem-solving mediation, the mediator normally plays a very active role in guiding the process.

Instead, Bush and Folger proposed that mediation can effect much deeper changes in people and their interpersonal relationships, beyond just remedying a short-term problem. They proposed a way of practicing mediation that seeks to address deeper levels of social life. In the preface of their seminal work, they stated that, "mediation's greatest value lies in its potential not only to find solutions to people's problems but to change people themselves for the better, in the very midst of conflict." (Bush and Folger, 1994). By employing a specific perspective on mediation practice as well as specific techniques, they believe mediation possesses the power to change how people behave not only toward their adversary in a particular conflict, but also in their day-to-day lives thereafter. Mediation, in their opinion, can transform individuals. For mediators who adhere to the framework of transformative mediation, achieving this type of long-term change is more important than solving a specific problem between parties.

The primary goal of transformative mediation is to foster the parties' empowerment and recognition, enabling them to approach their current problem, as well as later problems, with a stronger, more open view. It should be noted as well that achieving empowerment and recognition is assessed independently of any particular outcome of the mediation. (Bush and Folger, 1994) This approach, according to Bush and Folger, avoids the problem of mediator coercion, which so often occurs in problem-solving mediation. Transformative mediation instead puts responsibility for all outcomes squarely on the disputants.

There are many differences between transformative and the design of the Norwegian mediation in Sri Lanka to date. The only similarity is that each uses a third party to assist the disputing parties to deal with the dispute in a new way. (Note: These are idealized descriptions. Actual mediators will hold these ideas and follow these actions to a lesser or a greater degree.)

Assumptions about conflict

Transformative Mediation Conflict is an opportunity for moral growth and transformation. Conflict tends to be a long-term process.

Ideal response to conflict

Facilitate parties' empowerment and recognition of others.

Goal of mediation

Parties' empowerment and recognition of others. Secondary: parties are seen as experts, with motivation and capacity to solve own problems with minimum help. Mediator is responsive to parties. Mediator explains concept of mediation, but lets parties set goals, direct process, design ground rules. Makes it clear settlement is only one of a variety of possible outcomes. Mediator "micro-focuses" on parties' statements, lets them frame issues themselves. Mediators allow parties to take discussions where they want them to go; encouraging discussion of all issues that are of importance to the parties, regardless of whether or not they are easily negotiable;

Mediator role

Mediator actions

Mediators encourage mutual recognition of relational and identity issues as well as needs and interests. Mediators encourage an examination of the past as a way of encouraging recognition of the other.

Emotions are seen as an integral part of the conflict process; mediators encourage their expression.

Mediator focus

Mediators encourage parties' deliberation of situation and analysis of options; parties' design settlement (if any) themselves and are free to pursue other options at any time. Mediators focus on parties' interactions, looking for opportunities for empowerment and/or recognition of the other.

Problem-Solving Mediation Conflict is a problem in need of a solution. Conflict is a short-term situation. Take collaborative steps to solve identified problem; maximize joint gains. Settlement of the dispute. Mediator is expert, who directs problem-solving process. Mediator directs parties. Mediator explains goal is settlement, designs process to achieve settlement, sets ground rules. May consult parties about these issues, but mediator takes lead. Mediator "categorizes" case, frames it for disputants.

Mediators direct the discussions, dropping issues which are not amenable to negotiation (for example, relational or identity issues) and focusing on areas "ripe" for resolution (usually negotiable interests).

Mediators discourage discussion of the past, as it tends to lead to blaming behaviours; focus instead is on the present and future -- how to solve the current problem. Emotions are seen as extraneous to "real issues." Mediators try to avoid parties' emotional statements, or emotions are tightly controlled. Mediators use their knowledge to develop options for settlement; can be quite directive about settlement terms. Mediators focus on parties' situation and interests, looking for opportunities for joint gains and mutually-satisfactory agreements.

Use of time

Mediation: definition of success

Time is open-ended; parties spend as much time on each activity as they want to. No pre-set "stages" as in problemsolving mediation. Any increase in parties' empowerment and/or recognition of the other -- "small steps count."

Mediator sets time limits, encourages parties to move on or meet deadlines. Mediator moves parties from "stage" to "stage." Mutually-agreeable settlement.

Copied from Transformative Approaches to Conflict by Heidi Burgess and Guy Burgess with Tanya Glaser and Mariya Yevsyukova (http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/transform/index.html).

What is a One Text Process? It can be argued that One Text mediation falls into the larger category of Transformative Mediation practices as detailed above. In a One Text process, the parties' attention is focused on the same composite text which is here referred to as a draft. A draft is suggested by a mediator or the negotiators themselves. The parties then try to figure out from their own perspectives how the draft can be improved. Methodological help can be provided by the mediator. Based on the information the parties give about their preferences, the mediator starts to search for a new tentative agreement which would be preferred by all parties to the previous one, building in their recommendations and options for mutual gain, and creating the foundations for common interests to take precedence over partisan position. When a new tentative draft is found, it is taken under examination to see if further joint improvement can be realized. These drafts do not constitute the mediator's recommendation or opinion of what fair or right settlement terms might be. Rather, they reflect the mediator's analysis of what terms and implementation details might be acceptable to all parties, based primarily upon dialogue with them about their objectives, concerns and constraints and the underlying principles, or formula, they are seeking to implement collaboratively. While drafting this "bridging document" the mediator shares drafts with all parties for comment, criticism, and revision. Each party communicates privately and confidentially with the mediator regarding which terms are acceptable and which are not, and suggests alternatives for terms that are not acceptable. Based upon these conversations (and, occasionally, additional conversations initiated by the mediator to "float" new proposed terms or language), the mediator revises the single text. The mediator may call face-to-face meetings between parties at any time. The process continues until a collaborative settlement agreement emerges that is acceptable to all parties - a single text (or One Text) that may and constitute the blueprint for a peace agreement - or until any one of the parties, the judge or the mediator himself calls the process off.

This process allows the mediator to: •

Act as a buffer if tensions have escalated – within the parties, between the parties or by events in the larger peace process

•

Keep the parties focused on implementing the concepts in their agreement in principle – the emphasis being on the process and a commitment to shared values rather than a goal with coerced compliance

•

Supply a neutral memory on the spirit and basic parameters of the settlement where the parties' recollections diverge – in doing so, aiding parties away from contentious issues and guiding them into interests that are shared and can lay the foundation for future negotiations

•

Suggest compromise language where the parties agree on concepts but not on their articulation – the politics of language, the expressions of terms in the vernacular and even the creation of phrases, sentences and words where none exist to describe the creative solutions that take place within an active peace process is the remit of a One Text system which must allow the parties the freedom to explore ideas without being tied down to semantics

•

Facilitate agreement on any new issues that have arisen. A One Text process is not behoven to set parameters as defined by outside mediators, but is responsive to the dynamics within and between the parties in the negotiations. As such, such a process is more inclusive, responsive, creative and resilient to the violence that often erupts and threatens to dislodge peace from the minds of various constituencies

•

Keep track of and confine the package of unresolved issues. By shelving contentious issues to return to at a later date, when the dynamics of the process have changed on account of the groundwork that was done since the time the issue was shelved, allows a One Text process to revisit issues when the parties feel comfortable to address them.

•

This single text process will be used in an attempt to reach a collaborative settlement agreement and thereby avoid protracted positional bargaining.

The “one-text process” makes the mediator’s proposal more difficult to criticize and more difficult to reject. It designs a new – and easier – series of choices for the parties. The one-text process allows each party to suggest further refinements based on lingering interests and concerns. When the mediator cannot improve the draft further, he presents it as a final draft for approval. The parties know exactly where they are and they can compare the draft to their WATNAs (worst alternative to a negotiated agreement).

In a 1996 follow-up article to their book The Promise of Mediation, Bush and Folger presented a list of 10 hallmarks of transformative mediation that distinguish its practice from other forms of third-party intervention processes. One may summarize these hallmarks as follows (Bush and Folger, 1996: 264)

1. In the opening statement, the transformative mediator explains the mediator's role, and the objectives of mediation as being focused on empowerment and recognition. 2. Transformative mediators leave responsibility for the outcomes with the parties. 3. Transformative mediators are not judgmental about the parties' views and decisions. 4. Transformative mediators take an optimistic view of the parties' competence and motives. 5. Transformative mediators allow and are responsive to parties' expression of emotions.

6. Transformative mediators allow for and explore parties' uncertainty. 7. Transformative mediators remain focused on what is currently happening in the mediation setting. 8. Transformative mediators are responsive to parties' statements about past events. 9. Transformative mediators realize that conflict can be a long-term process and that mediation is one intervention in a longer sequence of conflict interactions. 10. Transformative mediators feel (and express) a sense of success when empowerment and recognition occur, even in small degrees. They do not see a lack of settlement as a "failure."

The call for One Text based transformative mediation processes in Sri Lanka has been extended earlier in the process. In their recommendation to the Norwegian mediators, authors from leading NGOs in Sri Lanka extolled the virtues of a One Text process:

“Make use of single-text procedures when negotiating agreements, i.e., generates drafts of common papers and use them as the main basis for building consensus rather than allow the parties to stick to formulation that come out their drafts.” (Ferdinands et al, 2004)

As such, it is imperative that we look forward the creation of such a mediation process in Sri Lanka to help a flailing peace process.

Info Share’s One Text Process in Sri Lanka Info Share’s One-Text Process was designed to facilitate dialogue and stimulate the exchange of ideas between key stakeholders in the peace process. Using the high-end security and power of a software platform called Groove Virtual Office® Info Share was able to design a virtual ‘workspace’ to conduct a virtual One-Text process long before the calls for such processes was recognised by other stakeholders in the peace process.

In creating the virtual One-Text workspace, Info Share endeavoured to create a virtual negotiations process that would enable the key stakeholders to discuss issues freely and frankly, and most importantly, securely, extremely sensitive issues, without worrying about the leakage of their communications.

For the One-Text process itself, where the key actors come together to create a single text that incorporates all points of view, a software interface was needed that would allow each party to contribute their input on each topic under discussion, and to do so in a way that gave equal prominence to all. For this, using Groove Virtual Office®, Info Share developed a set of custom-built tools, each of which targeted a specific group of negotiators and each of which

was able to handle any amount of highly specific topics, first laying out each party’s position summary and detailed proposals on each topic, and then providing a space for the negotiators to arrive at a consensual one-text proposal on each topic after taking all points of view into account.

The One-Text procedure is a systematic process to elicit underlying interests and needs of parties and providing a mechanism and space to jointly explore and develop many options and deciding on one. The process is called the ‘One-Text’ because quite literally there is only One Text - drawn on the texts of each of the stakeholders. All the parties' positions - on every issue - are reflected in the workspace. New positions and proposals are captured daily and included in a dynamic document through a joint and collaborative process.

The screenshot below is based on a template that was designed to explore issues and ideas around setting up an interim administration for the North-East of Sri Lanka. The setting up of an interim administration is a key issue in the on going peace process, since it involves issues of equal participation, parity of status in the on going negotiations, legitimacy, fiscal responsibilities and setting up coherent, transparent and accountable systems of governance, based on established principles of democracy (Because of the high confidentiality of the OT processes, these screenshots do not reflect actual on-going discussions, but are based on actual templates that are used in the exercise).

The intractable nature of these issues, inextricably entwined with the communal hagiography, party positions and respective ideologies of the stakeholders, make them extremely difficult to explore, discuss and navigate in the public fora.

The virtual One Text processes allow a ‘safe space’ for parties to discuss these issues in an environment removed from the pressures of constituency politics or zero-sum power games. The underlying premise of the usefulness of virtual One Text processes is that the virtual domain, while not divorced totally from the emotions of physical and real world problems and processes, nevertheless allows participants to express their interests without having to justify them to hostile audiences. The virtual One Text process has allowed participants to tease out their understanding and notions of various facets of the interim administration. Without the burden of justifying their every word to a hardened constituency, parties in Sri Lanka in the One Text process can talk about many issues, and discuss innovative ideas and solutions to seemingly intractable problems, that would not otherwise have been possible.

This screenshot shows the template in which parties enter their positions and proposals for a particular aspect of the Interim Administration. Parties can add links to documents that have aided them to come to their positions, choose to direct participants to web sources, include excerpts from previously unreleased material, include links to private workspaces / domains that only certain stakeholders have access to (while maintaining the transparency and visibility of the macro level dialogue / decisions / positions) and can revise and edit their input based on going discussions. The screenshot below shows what another partner would see for the same issue:

Since each party is colour coded, the User Interface (UI) gives visual cues to aid the recognition of input into the OT system. If parties like to carry on discussion elsewhere, or explain further the evolution of thought and the justifications for the input they give in the OT drafts, they have another area specifically designed for this purpose.

The discussion area provides the space for the exchange of ideas, position, interests, metadata etc. Individual parties can have as many private spaces as they wish – to include key leadership, second tier organisers, grassroots activists, so that the central OT virtual workspace becomes the apex forum into which discussions and ideas from other private fora are channelled.

The

One

Text

process

was

designed to allow for the greatest transparency possible, also

whilst

maintaining

security

and

confidentiality

of

the content in the workspace. matter

No what

state-of-the-art processes that one uses,

it

would

have been impossible to begin the One Text process if we did not acknowledge existing real world peacebuilding initiatives which brought stakeholders and participants together. The One Text process, especially because it was virtual, needed to at first build on what little trust building mechanisms there were in place, before trying to nurture more open and frank discussions in the virtual domains.

The holistic nature of the One Text process was pivotal to the design of the overall framework for engaging the stakeholders in virtual domains – the ONE TEXT system used is not weighted or biased towards any one party, doctrine, individual, organisation or position. Info Share’s own role is limited to the maintenance of the workspaces and providing the technology

and

services

for

stakeholders to fully participate in the virtual OT processes. Any further involvement would undermine the non-partisan

nature

of

the

organisation and its interventions.

Stakeholders

and

participants

in

these processes where drawn from as wide a spectrum as possible, in order to add diversity to the discussions and fertilise the content with opinions that would not

be heard in public fora and discourses. While the technology (Groove Virtual Office® ) offered, in and by itself, a powerful argument for its use as the backbone for the virtual OT process, stakeholders nevertheless had to be convinced of the trustworthy credentials of Info Share – individually and organisationally – a process that is still on-going and linked to issues of trust mentioned above.

As the screenshots show, there is a wide

range

available ranging

for from

of

tools

OT

participants

news

already –

aggregation

(local, regional and international) to workspaces that are custom made for

visioning

incorporating

future each

scenarios, participant’s

WATNA’s and BATNA’s within a transformative

framework

that

takes them from ossified position to mutual options exploration.

Building trust in virtual One Text processes and (and sustaining that trust) is an on-going challenge - and a formidable one at that. This study submits that it is impossible to create virtual processes that don’t have any linkages to physical peacebuilding processes and exist only on the hard drives of a select few. The virtual One Text process and all other initiatives of Info Share are closely connected to other physical and virtual processes and initiatives, that together, try to build more sustainable and holistic peacebuilding practices.

Challenges of virtual One Text systems Virtual OT systems for transformative mediation bring up many challenges in not just systems design, but, inter alia, also the ways in which such technology is used, by whom and the wider social implications following the introduction of ICT.

1. Systems architecture Given that One Text systems for the Global South need to work with technologies that it has hitherto excluded (like mobile telephony and community internet radio) and processes that fall beyond the realm of what has traditionally been looked at in such systems (i.e. peace processes and conflict transformation), a period of experimentation and a blossoming of many standards, possibly incompatible with each other, will be followed by a period of consolidation and standardisation. Systems architecture in this interim period will deal with the problems and challenges associated with data exchange, input and dissemination within and between hugely disparate systems with a broad spectrum of users.

Open and sustainable standards based One Text frameworks are imperative in support the long term needs of peacebuilding. Closed standards that are based on proprietary solutions, however powerful, lock in processes and communities into frameworks that maybe sub-optimal for successful conflict transformation and at worst, may impede progress and result in the resumption of violent conflict. Open standards encourage creative mixing and matching of suitable One Text frameworks to create customised solutions that best fit specific geo-physical context and the specific issues that the process is founded upon.

2. Legal and political context The volatile political context that is inextricably entwined in nascent peace processes and the very nature of peacebuilding itself can undermine the processes engendered by even the best ICT frameworks. A lack of enabling and supportive legal frameworks can undermine the trust in ICT systems, or at worst, create the perception that such frameworks do not have the clout to ensure compliance and are a waste of time.

The legal and political context in the North-East is bedevilled by deep macro level distrust between the State and the LTTE. This is turn is further compounded by the inability of the LTTE to entertain plural voices in the region that voice opinion that is contrary to that of their own. Collaboration within stakeholders in this region requires

an attendant knowledge of the culture of politics and its praxis. One Text system that fall prey to and concretise existing power inequity might in the long term is as ineffective as real world processes that are partisan and biased. On the other hand, such systems that are not designed to address such local dynamics might be ineffective since they operate with the assumption of a culture of participation and knowledge sharing that is non-existent in the region. One Text systems must both attend to and at the same time transform the interactions of the stakeholders on such systems to engender processes of mutual gain that are premised on knowledge sharing on multiple levels.

Grassroots interaction that in turn leads to heightened trust within and between government and LTTE institutions, Sinhala / Muslim and Tamil communities and respective civil society organisations, can create One Text systems that support the necessary social dynamics that strengthen nascent peacebuilding processes.

3. The digital divide The digital divide – the inequitable distribution of technology to social elites and on the other hand, the gap between these elites and their use of technology and the realities of the many millions who do not have access to such knowledge and by extension, power – underpins the context of ICT for peacebuilding in many countries in the Global South (Wahab, 2004). Such countries, amidst a litany of other issues coterminous with under-development, have skewed IT frameworks, ill-thought e-government initiatives, have high cost of access, vast regions with no electricity and by extension, unable to run and maintain PC’s and have little or no human resources to under-gird sophisticated One Text mechanisms.

Even though the most advanced technology may run for days on batteries, empty stomachs and the fear for one’s personal safety are enough to completely cripple the most sophisticated One Text system imaginable for peacebuilding. The author underscores the importance of a holistic approach to peacebuilding, of which the design and implementation of state-of-the-art One Text systems is but one facet in the larger matrix of socio-political processes that need to under-gird nation building after protracted conflict.

4. Culture & language At present, existing One Text systems pay scant regard to the entrenched cultures of disputants or ways in which such cultures help or impede mediation processes (Rao,

2004, Law, 2004). Ethnic conflict and other value based conflicts are under-girded by complex cultural constructs that need to be recognised in the design of One Text systems for peacebuilding. Influencing the selection of technology to the modes of service delivery, the study of culture will play a vital role in the creation of One Text systems in the Global South for processes far removed from commercial disputes, domain name resolution or e-commerce disputes in cyberspace. The ability to access and benefit from One Text systems for peacebuilding will also rely heavily on the language of use – systems that use English exclusively will alienate large swathes of grassroots communities who do not speak, read or write English. From simultaneous translation to multi-lingual interfaces, new generation One Text systems need to eschew monolingual approaches and design systems with the flexibility to operate in several languages seamlessly.

Because One Text systems for conflict transformation and peacebuilding are still in their infancy (one might even argue that it is still in an embryonic state) there challenges above are not indicative of the many other hurdles that await such systems and frameworks in the real world.

Given the impossibility of creating the perfect solution in the face of the sheer complexity of peacebuilding, One Text systems can endeavour to get better at what they aim to do – creating trust and generating hope between conflicting parties in ways that would not otherwise have been possible.

As the author has noted earlier:

“[One Text systems are] not about the search for the perfect computer system to help peace process. It is about the design of processes and tools which organically develop local capacities for non-violent conflict transformation. It is about the design of systems and frameworks for virtual engagements in a peace process that are sensitive to the heightened emotions and mental frameworks of key stakeholders. It is about the design of tools that help negotiations grapple with the real world complexities of communicating across mistrust and different cultures, about the search for determinants of trust to bring peoples together and about the never ending search for creative ways – physically and virtually – to help prevent and mitigate violent ethnopolitical conflict.” (Hattotuwa, 2004: 50)

The vision for One Text systems in peacebuilding and conflict transformation is fundamentally based a confluence of what is eminently possible in countries such as Sri Lanka and the need to re-visit the existing theories of One Text to fully deal with the challenges of new iterations of systems that are specifically designed for conflict transformation.

Final thoughts This paper explored the ways in which One Text systems can be designed for the most problematic region in Sri Lanka. It has tested the assumption that One Text systems can identify and organically develop sets of applications that help the specific needs of peacebuilding in a particular group, organisation, geographical area or individual.

However, the exploration of technology does not take away from the responsibility of political actors to ensure that fundamental tenets of democracy are safeguarded in order to create viable foundation upon which new social covenants can be visioned, enacted and sustained. In the absence of such a holistic & multi-tier approach to peacebuilding, technology alone cannot create and sustain the critical mass of opinion that can serve as a bulwark against cultures of impunity and violence.

Peace is made primarily in the hearts and minds of people. The new generation of technologies envisioned in this paper, can help facilitate such transformations and aid in the creation of processes that help Sri Lanka regain a renewed trust in the sacredness of human life that continues to elude us today.

People make the difference.

Bibliography 1. Bush, R. A. B. and J. P. Folger (1994) The promise of mediation : responding to conflict through empowerment and recognition. San Francisco, CA :, Jossey-Bass

2. Bush, R. A. B. and J. P. Folger (Fall 1996), "Transformative Mediation and Third-Party Intervention: Ten Hallmarks of a Transformative Approach to Practice," Mediation Quarterly 13, no. 4, pg 264.

3. Ferdinands T., K. Rupesinghe, P. Saravanamutthu, J. Uyangoda, and N. Ropers. 2004. The Sri Lankan peace process at a crossroads: Lessons, opportunities and ideas for principled negotiations and conflict transformation. Colombo: Berghof Foundation for Conflict Studies.

4. Hattotuwa, S 2004, 'Untying the Gordian Knot: ICT for Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding', paper presented to Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution, Melbourne, Australia.

5. Law, SF 2004, 'Language, Culture and Online Dispute Resolution', paper presented to Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution, Melbourne, Australia.

6. Miall, H. (2003), Conflict Transformation: A Multi- Dimensional Task. Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation, Leske & Budrich.

7. Rao, S 2004, 'The Cultural Vacuum in Online Dispute Resolution', paper presented to Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution, Melbourne, Australia.

8. Wahab, MA 2004, 'Online Dispute Resolution and Digital Inclusion: Challenging the Global Digital Divide', paper presented to Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution, Melbourne, Australia.