Originially from: World Arbitration and Mediation Review (WAMR) 

Exporting Western Conflict Resolution: A Perspective on Training in the Solomon Islands
By Morgan Brigg
Doctoral candidate, School of Political Science and International Studies, University of
Queensland (m.brigg@uq.edu.au)1
Recently, I was part of a team of three trainers2 who prepared and delivered a short
conflict resolution training program to Peace Monitors of the Solomon Islands National Peace
Council. This followed a request for training by the Council to the Australian Centre for Peace
and Conflict Studies of the University of Queensland, where I am a doctoral candidate. As part
of their role in the areas they are posted, Peace Monitors are required to deal with a variety of
conflicts, many of which are inflected through what is locally termed the ethnic “tensions” that
emerged in the late 1990s.
In the context of my research into the politics and ethics of intercultural conflict
resolution, this experience generated a range of reflections that are likely to be of interest and
value to others who have been or may be involved in exporting Western conflict resolution.
These relate to the politico-cultural context of such training, associated ethical and political
dilemmas, negotiating these difficulties, the durability of local conflict resolution processes, and
the need for intercultural dialogue among conflict resolution practitioners and processes.
I. The “Post-Colonial” Context
The politico-cultural context for the training can broadly be described as post-colonial
given that the Solomon Islands have been sovereign since 1978. The term post-colonial,
however, is most usefully thought to refer to a situation infused with the difficulties and legacy
of colonialism rather that one in which colonialism is “past.” One notable illustration of the
ways the colonial legacy continues to play itself out is the very fact of our invitation to provide
training. Solomon Islanders themselves possess a range of conflict resolution processes and
expertise and yet an external and Western institution was invited to deliver training. This
process of inviting accords prestige to both a Western academic institution and practices in ways
that resonate with colonial precedents. In the contemporary context, this prestige is reinforced
by very significant differences in wealth and resources. One result is that the other trainers and I
are invariably invested with the status of conflict resolution “expert,”3 raising certain ethical and
political dilemmas that I discuss below.
This is not to say categorically that a colonial logic pervades such encounters, that
something new and of value cannot be contributed from outside, or that the capacity to provide
training in the style desired by the Council was not well served by the University of Queensland.
Furthermore, while problem-solving or interest based conflict resolution has limitations,
including difficulty dealing with different worldviews or values, and the effecting of operations
of power biased against non-Western cultures,4 it has also proven popular and of value in a range
of contexts. Hence, it is precisely the complex mix of colonial legacy and contemporary
possibility that presents ethical and political challenges that need to be engaged.