INKOVEMA Podcast „Well through time“
#231 GddZ
Peace movement, the rise of mediation and the return of war – and now what?
What does the return of war in Europe mean for the profession of mediation?
In conversation with Tilman Metzger
Lawyer, mediator of the first hour in Germany and passionate clarification helper; trainer for mediation and clarification help; co-founder of the Federal Association of Mediation; specialises in conflict management in organisations: Conflict management in organisations, associated with Sascha in the mediator pool of the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft.
Small series: Socio-political conflicts
Contents
Chapter:
0:08 – Introduction to mediation
5:15 – The peace movement and its influences
6:48 – A look back at mediation in Germany
7:50 – The legal framework of mediation
15:29 – The turning point in 2014: Crimean occupation
16:08 – Political perspectives on the Ukraine conflict
20:26 – The role of mediators in war
25:40 – Moral dilemmas of mediators
34:13 – Approaches to social defence
42:03 – The distinction between attack and defence
51:25 – Identity and ethics of mediators
1:04:05 – Political stance and mediation
1:07:12 – Conclusions and outlook
Summary of content
In this episode of the podcast „Gut durch die Zeit“ I invite experienced mediator Tilman Metzger to talk about how mediators see themselves. We will look at how the challenges of conflict, particularly in the context of war, influence our understanding and approach to mediation. Tilman brings his extensive experience of peace mediation gained in various crisis areas since the 1980s and shares with us his insights on the transformation of the mediation profession over the years.
We begin with a discussion of Tilman's early experiences in the peace movement and his first steps in mediation during the Northern Ireland conflict. These experiences not only helped him to develop his skills as a mediator, but also to gain a deep understanding of the dynamics of conflict and the need for non-violent conflict transformation. Tilman explains how, in times of crisis, he realised that mediation is not just a professional tool, but also a personal calling.
A central topic of our conversation is the changing nature of mediation. Tilman reflects on developments from the 1980s to the present day and the challenges mediators face when it comes to maintaining their own self-image and ethical principles. We talk about the Mediation Act in Germany and its impact on professional practice. Tilman emphasises that despite the legal framework, the fundamental principle that mediators must act responsibly and remain orientated must not be lost.
Another important aspect is the influence of current geopolitical events, especially the Ukraine conflict, on mediators' sense of self-evidence. Tilman and I discuss the moral dilemmas that arise when it comes to acting as mediators in conflicts where misbehaviour and aggression are evident. We question the role of mediators in an environment where military confrontations and the need for defence strategies are becoming ever more present.
The discussion leads us to the question of whether and how the German Mediation Association should get involved in political debates without jeopardising the neutrality and integrity of mediation. We consider how important it is for mediators to draw a clear line between their personal opinions and their professional role in order to respect the diverse perspectives and needs of their clients.
In conclusion, we emphasise the need to keep the dialogue open within the mediation community and to accept different opinions and experiences in order to develop the profession. This episode offers valuable insights into the complex challenges and ethical considerations facing mediators today and invites reflection on one's own practice.
Complete transcription
[0:08]
Introduction to mediation
[0:06]Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit. The podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting. A podcast by Inko Fema. I'm Sascha Weigel and I'd like to welcome you to a new episode. Today it's about the self-image of mediators.
[0:26]The way of dealing with conflicts and in this case with a full-blown war and what that means for us mediators, in a professional sense, but also in a very human and private sense. And I can't think of a more competent mediator to be invited to this podcast discussion on this topic. And he has come, after a long time, Tilman Metzger. Hello, yes, hello Sascha. I'm very pleased to be here again. Yes, that was a long time ago. Back then we talked about mediation support and then also about mistakes that mediators make and how they deal with them. It was a big conversation with several people. It was also about our own conflicts that we get involved in. And then we bridged the gap very briefly. And when I say that I can't imagine a more suitable dialogue partner, it's partly because you're a professional mediator, of course, but also because you come from peace mediation and have lost your heart to mediation in the worst war and crisis zones, if I can put it so pathetically. And you can correct me right away.
[1:56]But I think you said it in the first podcast and I know, of course, we've also talked a few times about the fact that you actually learnt about mediation in the peace movement in the 1980s and in the Northern Ireland conflict, if I remember correctly, but you're welcome to specify that again.
[2:14]Yes, exactly. I was very active in the peace movement in Germany straight after leaving school in 1983. Back then, it was all about the NATO Double-Track Decision, nuclear armaments and so on. As we know today, we were very close to a nuclear war back then. We know that today from research. We just feared it at the time.
[2:34]And when the peace movement collapsed in 1984, after the NATO Double-Track Decision was passed and it was decided that even more nuclear weapons would be installed in Germany, the peace movement collapsed and I didn't understand that at all. So I think that's when it really started and I was basically looking for something, somehow meaningful things that I could do that didn't have anything to do with demonstrations, because I had lost a bit of faith in demonstrations and then by chance, because instead of doing my civilian service I did a foreign service in Belfast, Northern Ireland, for 18 months in '85, '86, I stumbled across US mediators who were training in mediation at the beginning of that time. And then, on the one hand, I actually had the feeling that doing mediation work in everyday life could be a kind of subversive peace work, so that people could experience that co-operative conflict work is actually possible. And on the other hand, it was also super exciting for me as a person to be able to deal better with my own conflicts. So in that respect, as you say, I really lost my heart to mediation in Belfast, in the middle of the trouble. You could actually say that.
[3:45]And not by chance, because that's something new to me, so to speak, or yet another piece of the puzzle, that this initially emerged from an experience of disappointment or irritation that you hadn't expected, the collapse of the peace movement. Totally. Well, I was actually a political person quite early on as a teenager who was also interested in reading newspapers. And at 14 or 15, I think I was still someone who was very militantly in favour of nuclear weapons. Well, in the kind of discourse that you have with people as a teenager. But then, when I was faced with the question of whether to do military service or civilian service, I looked into it more intensively, including Gandhi and others who had brought about non-violent change. And then I was quite clearly simply a conscientious objector and I am still someone who thinks that, apart from climate change, which is actually a climate catastrophe, I believe that nuclear weaponry is the greatest danger we still face as human beings. I think that accidentally blowing a circuit or some idiot pressing the button is one of the greatest dangers we still face today. And amazingly, it is somehow ignored.
[5:00]But that really got to me back then and gave me the feeling that we have to do something to survive as a society, as a global community, we have to do something to really deal with the fact that we are different.
[5:15]
The peace movement and its influences
[5:12]And that's where mediation came in. And I was someone who really wanted to do something that made sense in my life. And with mediation, I suddenly had the feeling that, yes, bingo, that's it. And if I now construct the times a little from 1984 to 2014 to make 30 years complete and 2014 is a very important date for Europe, namely the occupation of Crimea and the collapse in 1984, then these 30 years have been a success story from a mediation perspective, at least a positive story, that mediation has almost unwaveringly maintained the belief in peaceful conflict, in the idea that communication, verbal communication, rational communication is an instrument that is experiencing a rise and that violence is, so to speak, a thing of the past in conflict resolution and that you have, so to speak, trained your mediation profession during this time.
[6:28]I experienced it exactly as you have just described. I also went through all the stages. So when I came back to Germany in '86 with mediation in my luggage, it was clear to me that I wanted to do it here and I was still totally unknown in Germany. Of course, my first path was back to the peace movement,
[6:48]
A look back at mediation in Germany
[6:46]to the people I knew there and have already introduced myself. And that was very interesting, because they said at the time that it was something for children and you can't do anything that way. So even in the peace movement, at least the part that I had access to at the time, or the remnants of the peace movement, you have to say that if you compare it to 83, it was strange at first with mediation. It was a strange word, mediation, and then it was American, oh God, oh God. As a peace activist, you can't do anything with American things at first. And back then we were all still talking about mediation. So this Germanised mediation, I think I remember it from around 92, 93. So it was really a bit strange, both for peace movements. Then I was also very active in Lüneburg in the 90s. I really spent two years cleaning doorsteps there, administration, charities, parties, whatever. I really spoke to an incredible number of people. There were two main reactions. One reaction was that we've been doing this for a long time, it's always been done. And the other reaction was that it doesn't work.
[7:43]So it really was the case that, I would say, until the 90s, it was really hard to knock stones.
[7:50]
The legal framework of mediation
[7:51]And then it came so slowly and for me it was a first perceived breakthrough, there were of course many small steps, but I think the first perceived breakthrough was Merkel in some Bundestag debate or at some point, that was around 2006, 2007 for the first time.
[8:06]used the word win-win. I thought, wow, okay. So it's growing into politics and my general perception is simply that I really definitely felt and experienced a sense of progress with migration until 2014 or so. Things are moving forward. We are getting better and better at dealing with conflicts, at all levels to be honest. And we've already made a ten-year leap, so to speak, from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, when mediation was also widely developed via the EU directives and the mandate was to create a German mediation law. So it was from 2008, I think, if I'm categorising it correctly.
[8:54]Roughly. And I also thought it was very good that Germany, like many other European countries, is saying that if we're going to make a migration law, then it should be general. That was originally the reason for these bi-national divorce issues, for which this very civil EU was originally intended, so that the poor children don't suffer from divorce if the father is Portuguese and the mother is German. And then Germany and many others also decided to make a general initiation law, so to speak. And I also experienced that as a very positive change. I felt there was a difference between the adoption or entry into force before 2013 and afterwards. It was much more natural than it had been before to go into companies and nobody smiled at you with that word anymore. At least not in HR departments. So that was all over by then at the latest. Yes, this legislative accolade.
[9:49]I think the Austrians already had their mediation law in 2006, if not in 2003, 2006, so they did it much earlier, even within the deadline, so to speak. Germany was too late and also paid a fine because they implemented this directive too late, but they did it comprehensively. Let's stay with the time when mediation developed into a legally established procedure, so to speak. I had the impression that mediators who were not legal practitioners, i.e. not lawyers, were suddenly irritated. Oh, now lawyers determine what mediation is because it has now become a legal term. And then the accolade came back with a vengeance, so to speak. Was that one thing, including in the Federal Mediation Association, because that is an association that is not now characterised by law or by lawyers, was it rather disappointing or irritating or was the law also experienced positively when it was passed in 2012?
[11:13]Also wenn ich da erstmal von mir spreche, ich bin ja so ein bisschen ein lustiger Zwitter. Ich habe ja Jura studiert, weil ich schon Mediator war und dachte, ich brauche in Deutschland irgendwas. Irgendeinen Schein, den ich vorweisen kann, der zeigt, ich bin nicht bekloppt. Da kommst du auf Jura, okay. Ja, ja, und deswegen habe ich Jura studiert. Also Jura und Psychologie kamen halt in Frage und aus irgendwelchen Gründen, die ich jetzt nicht ausbreite, habe ich mir Psychologie nicht zugetraut, was ich heute ganz anders sehen würde. Aber ich habe mich dafür entschieden, war von Anfang an kein typischer Jurist. Also ich bin von meiner Identität her kein Jurist geworden, habe auch nie als Jurist praktiziert, aber habe halt das erste Startexamen. Also ich bin so ein bisschen so ein Zwitter und als der Zwitter, der ich bin, finde ich das erstmal genau, wie du sagst, ist es ein Ritterschlag. Ich finde zweitens, dass dieses Migrationsgesetz, was wir in Deutschland haben, sehr liberal ist. Also es ist sehr wenig, was es wirklich behindert. Also man darf sich ja sogar in Deutschland weiterhin Mediator nennen und dann Silberschild an die Tür stellen und sagen, ich bin Mediator, ohne dass man irgendwas gemacht hat, so ungefähr. Also es ist ja der Begriff zertifizierter Mediator. Und ansonsten werden natürlich rechtliche Herausforderungen an den Mediator gestellt. Wir arbeiten sollen ja nicht. Aber es ist wenig Behinderung dabei, muss man mal ganz klar sagen. Auch gar keine Sanktionen. Also selbst wenn irgendwas ist, gibt das Gesetz keine harten Sanktionen vor.
[12:33]So the most likely thing would be to be dragged through the mud under civil law if you do something wrong and it has repercussions. But as lawyers, we know that these are pretty big conditions that have to be met before anything happens. In other words, I think it's a very liberal law and I don't agree with it 100 per cent. There are things that I criticise, but I don't think that's the point right now. Essentially, I would say it's a huge step forward. And in BM as a whole, I would say that BM is a mirror of society. They have a very large mix of people from very different backgrounds. And there is no question that the BM as a whole and officially embraces this law and finds it important. And of course there are also people, especially among the non-lawyers, as you say, who had the feeling, oh, now it's being defined in legal terms and so on.
[13:24]These fears exist and have existed. I don't have the impression that any of these fears have materialised, to be honest. But yes, there were also sceptical people. Yes, there was. But I wouldn't describe that as mainstream, I don't think. That would mean, so to speak, that the law, which is simply an enormous change for the implementation of mediation, also for the self-image, has not caused a break, has not had an irritation in the right to exist, in the self-image of mediators, but it was a further step on a path of advancement. Exactly, the essential change is simply the accolade, otherwise the Mediation Act actually only says mediate well, that's all it says. Yes, that's the right thing to say. Yes, it's short, but that's practically the message. Yes, mediators are good.
[14:20]And every mediator should have realised that before the law was passed. And in that respect, I don't think anything has really changed in terms of content. The only sticking point that I can see is that at the time people, apparently I have the impression, were involved in the Mediation Act, also from the Carband side, who mainly came from the field of divorce mediation and dual mediation. So I miss the dimension of labour migration and what that means for migration, that the Migration Act is simply too narrow, too inaccurate, not good enough. But that would probably be another one. That really is a podcast in its own right.
[14:54]So who is involved and who is allowed to have a say. But you make a separate one out of it. Voluntariness, new case voluntariness, I think the biggest problem is that voluntariness is written into it. It's not a must, it's voluntary, and certainly not in a company context. And the wording of the law makes it more difficult. But you can deal with that too, we have learnt to deal with it. Yes, but Tillmann's own podcast notes that, second half of the year, 25. Yes, and then we come to the topic, so to speak.
[15:29]
The turning point in 2014: Crimean occupation
[15:30]2014, Crimea is occupied. There is a lot of disinformation and propaganda surrounding it. But for those who already had Eastern Europe in their sights, so to speak, this was an unprecedented turning point, which then led in a series of attempts and disappointments to the big full-scale attack in 2022.
[16:00]Looking back, it's been another eight years, but what was 2014 like for you?
[16:08]
Political perspectives on the Ukraine conflict
[16:09]No longer directly active or involved in peace mediation, I suppose, but of course a politically aware, interested mediator with relevant experience in such developments and entanglements. Yes, well, I remember that I wasn't really that actively involved in 2014 and then I tried to make a bit of sense of it, how should I actually judge it now. At the time, I was one of the people who was definitely looking at Putin and what he was doing, with a mixture of, yes, are the speeches he gave, for example in the Bundestag, where they sounded very cooperative, is this the real Putin? 2001.
[16:58]Yes, it's the real Putin, who invades countries, which he has done a lot of, and has therefore waged a lot of wars. So how do you categorise that? And I was a bit torn about that. I could also easily understand this argument, well, I think it was Stalin who gave Crimea to the Ukrainians at some point for some reason. Khrushchev.
[17:23]That was Khrushchev, okay, thank you. And that you could say, well, before that it was actually Russian territory. So you could say, I wasn't so, how should I put it, not so involved in the whole debate, but I did talk to a lot of people who were already claiming at the time that, well, the West was doing Russia wrong and Putin was doing Putin wrong and that was all very well. And of course there was also the other argument. I have to admit, I didn't really get into it that deeply at the time and actually, yes, it didn't have any major consequences for me at first. Yes, it was very similar for me. I wasn't very orientated and certainly not very interested. And afterwards I had the impression that I hoped, if I'm really talking about hope in a conscious sense, that it was local. It's about this island. It's about this Crimean peninsula and it's good. Like… I can identify very well with hope.
[18:35]Certainly not, but okay, if it's just about this island and, in God's name, if it stays that way, okay, something like that, exactly. That was the case, and for me, and this is something that really shifted in 2022, the meanings and categorisations of proportions. I thought, this is just local and it's really just about this peninsula and then it's good and the other would be a big war and that was somehow unimaginable.
[19:07]That was already in the offing, so at that time, it was really happening, the war started on 24 February, or let's say, the full-scale invasion, it has to be said, sometimes started on 24 February. 22 and in the days and weeks leading up to that, there were already reports describing this massing of Russian troops on the border and there were also talks with Macron and others, with Putin and so on, which certainly gave certain warning signs, but basically, I don't know how you felt, I had the feeling that if Russia really crossed the border, I had the feeling that it would cost Russia an incredible amount in terms of reputation, etc. And it would potentially have been crazy. And it would have potentially crazy consequences. And somehow I interpreted Putin at the time as a rational player who wouldn't do something like that on this scale in the middle of Europe. And I was wrong about that. Yes.
[20:09]So over the years I've looked at it with more concern. And that's because I simply, I had my private, how should I put it, my English teacher, whose
[20:26]
The role of mediators in war
[20:22]My wife comes from Ukraine and her parents live in these areas. And over the years I've always had information and talked about what they're experiencing there and what it's all about and that it really was a war zone. Yes, and then in 2021, 2022, I also saw this with a view or with influence from the American development and knew that this, I'll say it, this influence. This weak and belittling of Europe and also the military situation, that this was an invitation and that Trump also helped to bring about this invitation and with Corona Europe was then once again perceived as being in disarray and with the brain death that Macron proclaimed, NATO, it was somehow clear that this is no longer unlikely.
[21:21]Okay, yes. That's also directly related to the situation there, so to speak, and as an invitation to Putin, it won't have any major consequences if you wash your hands of it. Menat is brain-dead anyway, so to speak. Yes, so this self-assessment that this also awakens the hunger there or also demonstrates the willingness, then of course the news all came about this really big exercise that was to take place there. Hence this massing of troops. And then I was the 22nd. That was actually the decisive day for me. That was when the republics were recognised. And then I realised that it would mean war, because if the Russian side recognised the republics, there would be war. That is simply the logic. Because Ukraine can't let this proclamation of a republic by pro-Russian groups stand. They have to act there. If Saxony wants to free itself somehow, then that's the way it is, that's simply the national idea.
[22:32]Putin says, for me these are independent republics, then I will protect them in inverted commas. And then it’starts. I was much more aware of what was happening than I actually was at the time. So it wasn't as if I was completely blindsided on 24 February. That was one of the possibilities described in the press about what could happen. And yet somehow I thought, I can't imagine that.
[23:02]Yes, I can remember in conversations with colleagues that they were not happy to have spoken to me. I was very gloomy, yes, but in retrospect I have to say that I was actually more optimistic in the sense that Europe was going to arm itself and then there would be a wall again. All the entanglements and the wrangling and then we come to the question of how we react to this and how we react based on our understanding of our profession. Keyword defence readiness, emergency aid, self-defence. Is that allowed? Is it peace or freedom? I actually imagined it would be easier. I wouldn't have imagined the discussions that have taken place over the last few years. With everything that is possible. With everything that is possible. Yes, yes, yes. So that's also interesting. We also realised in preliminary discussions that we obviously have very similar views on this.
[24:17]So this discussion about whether or not to send weapons to Ukraine is really incomprehensible to me, to be honest. Even if it's a huge parallel, I also studied history for three semesters and have always been very interested in history in my life. And if you imagine, well, we had the situation in the Second World War that Franklin D. Roosevelt, the President of the USA at the time, actually wanted to intervene in Europe against Hitler very early on and yet there were very strong isolationist tendencies in the USA at the time that said, no, we don't want to get involved again like in the First World War. And then it was only after Pearl Harbor that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, which was actually a justification for Roosevelt to get involved. But I don't even dare to imagine what Europe would look like today if the USA hadn't stepped in. I have to be honest about that. And for me there is no question that I am grateful that the Americans were involved in the Second World War. And for me there's no question of saying that we're just pacifists and that we'll put up a bit of non-violent resistance, you Ukrainians, and otherwise good luck. I honestly can't imagine that.
[25:30]So I take it upon myself to be a pacifist who says, no, when an underdog like Ukraine is invaded,
[25:40]
Moral dilemmas of mediators
[25:38]then you also have to do something about it as an external country. Yes, and that's where I think we're also dealing with issues relating to our professionalism. And I don't mean that in terms of good or bad, but that is the subject of our work. And confrontation, conflict and, for some, war. And what consequences result from this, but first of all, I actually imagined differently at the time, that there would be greater clarity and unity.
[26:16]Whereby, and here I also look, so to speak, the question is, are mediators in their complexity actually a mirror of society or a section that is, so to speak, very framed? Well, I would say that the image of mediators is more, clearly, in favour of peace. My experience is that social media is not a mirror of social discussion, but it is an important social discussion platform.
[26:51]This is regularly met with irritation when mediators argue in favour of supplying weapons and supporting the attacked party.
[27:03]That really surprised me, I have to say. I wouldn't have expected that. Yes, of course you can generally say that perhaps fortunately we Germans have certainly been very cautious about acting militaristically since the Second World War. And in this respect, I believe that we therefore already have a very broad, basic current of pacifism or at least non-intervention. And I also believe that this is certainly even more the case among seafarers, seafarers, seafarers. My experience is that for many of the seafarers I deal with, the supply of weapons is not really a problem for all of them. That is the case. Yes, but I can also confirm that. So I think it's also worth discussing. I also think it's really worth discussing the fact that, as confrontational or painful as this war of aggression may seem, it is. We are still not the ones directly attacked, so to speak, and we should discuss this. And Ukraine also led a very easy, individualistically independent life until 2014, see where not.
[28:29]defence and military armament for the defence campaign, but that was necessary. So what they achieved in terms of defence in 2022 would have been unthinkable in 2014. It was a society like ours.
[28:49]Yes, I have a similar view and I have followed this much more closely since then and it seems to me that it is correct to say that, on average, society in general in Ukraine, certainly not every individual, but per se, wants to be more closely aligned with these Western democracies and that their view is similar, that Russia, the Russian population, is actually a bit different. So I found it very exciting. I then published a special issue on war and peace together with Fritz Glasel in 2023, Spektrum der Mehration. I was the person who, together with Fritz Glasel, was responsible for this special issue and wanted to write it again. Dr Günther Bächler, a Swiss national who, among other things, had mediated between Georgia and Russia for 15 years, together with others, it has to be said. And he wrote very clearly, I quote from the booklet, Putin and his advisors. Basically, they were always very clear in explaining the characteristics of Russian Orthodox civilisation, which would not only stand in contrast to the West, but was also chosen to save the West from moral decay.
[30:09]And Bächler then goes on to explain this in combination with the tsarist claim that we were also victims of fascism, that we are still victims of fascism. So a whole narrative has developed that ultimately justifies such an invasion of Ukraine. And why am I making this whole arc? Because in this intensive engagement with the whole story since 2022, I have the impression that it is justified to say that Putin, the way he acts as an autocrat, is a danger to Western Europe. That's my view. And to hope for Ukraine, well, he'll just take Ukraine, have some arguments in favour of it and then that's fine. I'm very sceptical about this and I do believe that Ukraine is also defending the Western way of life, that's definitely my impression.
[31:02]Absolutely, absolutely. This is a danger for Western Europe. It has always been the goal, including this Greater Russian Empire from Lisbon to Vladivostok. So this is not only well documented, it is simply a declared goal. And anyone who hears words from Lavrov or Putin in daily interviews that make the hearts of peace-minded people beat faster, so to speak, simply fails to realise what politics is and how broad lines are drawn. And I also think that Putin is a man of broad strokes. He is a strategist who thinks in terms of decades and not months.
[31:51]And I think that if you listen to the experts who are familiar with Eastern Europe and don't watch RT videos on YouTube, to put it casually and disparagingly, you can hear that. So that's no secret. I also have to say that, in retrospect, I've made myself a bit smarter. And the people who analyse it in such a way that Putin has actually been sitting on the horse he's sitting on today more or less since 1999, I find that more convincing than those who say, oh Putin, he actually wanted to, and reached out his hand and so on, NATO turned him down. That's all, so I, of course NATO is no angel either, I don't want to say that now, but I find it more convincing, this view that you have just cast on Putin. Nevertheless, and I think this is also how I heard your invitation to this discussion, as mediators we are people who say, well, just staring at each other with weapons, that can't be it either. And I found it very exciting, I don't know if you noticed the article, there was an article in Der Spiegel by Olaf L. Müller on 24 June.
[33:06]The professor for non-violence, if I may call it that casually. I don't think it's called that, but I think that was his subject. Exactly, Professor of Philosophy of Science at Hummelt University in Berlin and he's been a professor there since 2003, born in 66, and he wrote an essay for Reklam on the subject of nuclear war, a warning and also published pacifism, a defence. So he's an avowed pacifist, that's for sure. And at the same time he says, I am in favour of an enlightened pacifism, which stands in contrast to an absolute pacifism that says never any weapons. And in the end, Müller argues that if you are confronted with Putin or an aggressor, you should have a defence. You should have logistics, you should have reconnaissance, you should also have the means to stand at the border with the military, to say, if you cross the border here, it will be expensive for you. So, that's it for now. But what I find very exciting about his approach is that he says.
[34:13]
Approaches to social defence
[34:12]So please don't rely on automatic upgrades now. There's a huge risk that this will turn into a disaster, so to speak. I totally agree with that. And I find what he's advocating very interesting: the reintroduction of military service. And with two options. You can serve at arms or you can learn in the forest-free resistance.
[34:32]And then for men and women. And then really systematically, so there has been this association for social defence for a long time, the idea of social defence, i.e. how can you make life as difficult as possible for an aggressor using non-military means without weapons, but without being aggressive, instead someone simply makes social defence. And to really install this at a federal level, so to speak, is something that I have so far missed in this peace movement discussion about social defence. If we want to take social defence seriously, we need very clear structures for it at the federal level, and it's not enough to say that we've had great experiences, that there was this one case, that's not enough.
[35:13]Yes, I agree, and I also think that this plays a role under the heading of a resilient society, especially for those who advocate defence preparedness. And this is more likely to come from those who are in favour of the military. They all consistently say that it's not just about armament in the military sense, it's about a resilient society. And I fear, so to speak, that the more pacifist-minded people there are hearing a militarisation of society, as was understood in the communist era and in the 20th century. And I completely agree that defence preparedness in the modern sense does not have to include the social in an explicitly military sense. And that is something that is also important for us. That's how I see it. And that's where I see a misunderstanding, so to speak, or an incorrect categorisation when we talk about war and peace.
[36:21]It's about war or peace. And peace is also about those who don't want to have weapons and don't want to take them in their hands and don't advocate it. And war is about those who all take up arms. And I think that this Russian attack makes it very clear that Ukrainians and Russians are being treated equally, to put it bluntly. That it is simply pretended that you are both a people who take up arms. And you belong on the side of war. That's not a clever concept. I think that's very fatal, because it allows the conclusion to be drawn that anyone who takes up arms is just as evil as anyone who takes up arms and no distinction is made between attacker and defender, between perpetrator and victim, which is something we immediately take into account in other areas as mediators. Yes.
[37:22]There are also narratives, and there are also people in my environment who believe these narratives, that Maidan was actually the fascists who took power in Ukraine, sponsored by the USA, so to speak, and so on. There are narratives like that, but I just don't find them convincing at all. I have to say, if you just look at it, I can only say that I see Ukraine as a country that simply wants to live its style independently. And someone has come along who doesn't like that. So for me, one of the very coherent arguments as to why Putin found it interesting to attack Ukraine in the first place was simply that they have clearly decided in favour of a Western lifestyle for ties to the West and that it is extremely uncomfortable for him as an autocrat to have a former, in inverted commas, brother nation right on his border, which is going all Western on him. So I think that's definitely one of the motivating factors. And you simply have to recognise that. And you can't say that they both have weapons in their hands. So me as well as you.
[38:22]And with regard to what you just said, I also believe that in the areas that are in favour of non-violent defence, in favour of social defence, there is also a resonance, a scepticism against such institutionalisation at federal level. And there have certainly been attempts to set up some kind of ministries to promote social defence, so to speak. The peace movement was also sceptical about this. But I think that's what's needed. If you look at Germany, you have to be honest and say that there are over 80 million people there. And if we want to take this seriously, that social defence and as few weapons as possible, and certainly no nuclear weapons, work, then we need an entire population, or at least well over 50 percent, who support it and who say, yes, we find this concept convincing and for this you need a ministry at federal level that organises social defence and you need a democratic discourse that would run for many years, you need non-violent distribution in situ at federal level and of course also at local level. Otherwise nobody will be convinced. Yes, and I have to add another point from the beginning and pick up on it again, which sometimes gets lost in this context.
[39:40]And my colleague from Humboldt University said that we should behave in such a way that the invasion or the start of an attack should appear costly. But that only works if they believe that we will defend ourselves with everything we have at our disposal. In other words, this strategic ambivalence, that he will meet someone who is prepared to fight and inflict losses. And I mean that losses in this area are actually human lives. Only then does this deterrence work. You cannot say, not even socially, especially because these are always public speeches, well, we are building weapons, but we will do everything we can to avoid having to use them. No, we have to say that we will use them. And that is a dilemma that needs to be answered. So I share that. I think we clearly need artillery at the borders. We need good reconnaissance. We need logistics. We really need enough soldiers etc. to make it clear to a military aggressor at the border that you'll get a bloody nose if you invade here. And of course, and this is what…
[41:06]Olaf Müller emphasises this very strongly. He is very, very sceptical about the discussion about nuclear armament, which is also taking place here again. That's simply the point where he says, dear people, it's simply far too risky to rely on nuclear deterrence. And then, of course, it becomes clear that even if you defend yourself at the border with conventional means and have weapons that are not initially suitable for an invasion, but are very suitable for defence in principle, there is no guarantee that you will be able to hold them. Müller says that quite often. There's no guarantee that you'll be able to hold it if a major power really does invade you. And that's the point where social defence plays an important role. Namely, that even if the aggressor is in the country, he will continue to encounter structures, not without violence, that simply make life uncomfortable for the aggressor and make it clear to the soldiers who have invaded, holla, here we have it for now
[42:03]
The distinction between attack and defence
[41:59]with civilians, with people who are just like me and who mean me no harm. And I honestly find this hybrid idea of a border that is defensive, but also ready for social defence on the inside, the most convincing at the moment.
[42:15]Yes, and that would be such a point, how these things are no longer thought of in this dyrotomy of war and peace or war and non-violence, but as in a strategy that means a continuum of the social and then also explicitly military and that differentiates itself from attacking, oppressing, waging war. In other words, there is simply a distinction made between, well, I don't think it's enough, even among professionals, so to speak, that the term war is used to describe all parties involved in the same way. And warfare is, so to speak, blurring the boundaries of who is the aggressor and who is the defender, and I think that's a problem when you break it down to conflicts and that's where we come to the term conflict in a mediation topic, which in theory, so to speak, creates its own phenomenon that is now being argued about and then a conflict analysis is carried out and it becomes, so to speak.
[43:30]An entity called conflict and then an attempt is made to mediate between them. And you can see this one conflict from different perspectives. I also have a different idea in mediation. Even if there are advantages to taking such an analytical object from the conflict. Yes. But it becomes particularly clear in war, and here in the Ukraine conflict too, or in the Ukraine war particularly dramatically.
[43:59]So if I understand you correctly, you are basically making this parallel to mediation in the sense that, first of all, we as mediators say yes, everyone contributes to the conflict. The aim of mediation is not to find out who is to blame or who is more to blame. And we all live with different perspectives, etc. Pp. So as mediators, we are fundamentally impartial and are not interested in identifying an aggressor. And, but that's the difference, there is a lived practice of mediation in victim-offender mediation, so to speak, where a person is labelled as a perpetrator because they have crossed a criminally relevant line. And here too, even in conflicts, there is a consensus that in most cases, or at least often, people have escalated. It's also a bit of a coincidence who crosses the criminal line first. And yet, someone has knocked the other person's tooth out, whereas before they were just having a bit of a row. And then the perpetrator says, yes, we can mediate. But that only works if the perpetrator says beforehand, yes, that's right, I knocked the tooth out and that wasn't good. Yes, and that's what you're talking about. So that's not in perpetrator-wash-up-light practice to say, well, they were all tough guys and no wonder he got punched in the face. No, it's done in a perpetrator-waste-light way.
[45:25]And in this context I really emphasise the contractual element and the element of personal responsibility and say that we can call him a perpetrator because he is in proceedings where he has been charged, he has not yet been convicted and he is conducting this conversation in acknowledgement and thus also on his own responsibility and thus also, so to speak, agreeing that the facts of the case are recognised as such. So I said, yes, that's the case. That's what I did. I knocked out the tooth and I can have the conversation again here for my sentencing and also to explain myself again or to understand again what I have done. But for me as an offender, it's okay if I'm named and labelled like that, because I stand by it. And we can take it seriously. So we don't have to act as if the perpetrator is labelled from the outside in a victim-offender mediation. It's a contractual agreement. There is an agreement. And if you don't agree, then there is no dialogue.
[46:27]And I think that's okay and it would also be, so to speak, and I think that's also an issue for the self-image, I don't feel in conflict or when I see conflict, I'm not a mediator. When I'm at home, when I'm with friends, when I'm at a conference, when a conflict breaks out somewhere, I'm not a mediator. I am not a born mediator. I have not developed something internally because of my training where I would now say that I feel, think and act as a mediator, but I do that when I have concluded a contract in which I have been engaged as a mediator. And in this conflict, the parties who want me as a mediator and I have also agreed to mediate in this conflict, I am a mediator.
[47:18]This also allows me, if I have not been engaged as a mediator and have said so, to take a stand, like everyone else, or not, and to say, it's not my business, it's none of my business. Yes, I think that's a very interesting distinction you're making there, between me, as a person who works as a mediator, being allowed to have a private opinion that also says in certain contexts, sorry, if you encounter violence, you have to be able to distance yourself to a certain extent with violence, but that doesn't mean you're denied the right to work as a mediator. I think that's what you mean, isn't it? Yes, of course, I can't override Section 32 of the law of self-defence just because I've done mediation training. Exactly. And that also means, and I think the term attitude is overstretched in mediation circles, because it encourages an identity that also has a shadowy side, which is perhaps more shadowy for me than for others, but rather approaches it with a contractual model, i.e. really contractually orientated. And then I'm also a mediator and that's a service that has its price. I have to check whether I want to do this in this conflict, because then I commit myself, let's take separation and divorce mediation for example.
[48:47]Not to pass judgement on stories and tales of what happened in the flat. Knowing full well that we should at least realise that we will hear stories of violence, injustice, children being beaten up and so on. And it's my service.
[49:11]In the idea that this mediation work will help these two parties because they want it to, I will then suspend my judgement. Yes, and even then it is the case that we are called upon, also under the Mediation Act, but that was not seen differently before. Of course, there are limits to what we can do as mediators. So, so to speak, if the couple in my divorce mission agree to sell the child to some oligarch because neither of them wants it.
[49:44]Then that is a kind of immorality and a threat to public order. Exactly, it's a danger. It's about a danger in the future. Where the gates have to be awake. So we are not completely indifferent to what happens, but to a very large extent we are people who say we don't judge anything and we are here to help you find the right solution for you and my judgement is not required. Yes, and that's where I'm a lawyer. A risk assessment takes the future into account and says, so what's the threat here? And I'm not bound by my confidentiality. But an assessment of who is the perpetrator here, who is not, who is guilty, who is not, that is always the past.
[50:26]In other words, the service consists of, when I hear from the woman, clichéd now, that the husband beat up the child in an argument five years ago and that was the beginning of the end of this marriage and he has never apologised for it. Then my service there is not to pass judgement on this person, but to mediate this person in the service of the claimed mediation. That's a good differentiation, not making judgements about the past, but also keeping an eye on the dangers. There is a residual responsibility for me as an idiator to take a look. I can understand that very well. And in addition to this contractual construct that you are looking at, am I in this contractual construct, migration or am I a private individual, I would simply like to recognise that this discussion about dealing with war, dealing with Ukraine, supplying weapons, etc., is not just a discussion about the past.
[51:25]
Identity and ethics of mediators
[51:22]It's simply a moral dilemma. So I believe that there really are a lot of people, especially among mediators, who simply want to do the right thing and the good thing when it comes to violence. And of course this is often underpinned by deep values, underpinned by attitudes, and that's really difficult.
[51:42]If you take this seriously, then you have to come up with such exceptional circumstances where you say, well, you have to defend yourself against an aggressor who comes with weapons, even with weapons in part. I can understand that this can be a total moral dilemma. That I can also feel that even if someone listens to this podcast, they are not at all convinced by either of us, but say, no, no, no, you have to lay a lot of radical groundwork. So I definitely sympathise with that. I still don't think it's the real solution in the face of a war in Ukraine.
[52:15]And I also think that's an important point. So the discussion about it and also the debate, because it is indeed a moral dilemma and we have to make a decision for ourselves today about what we do, even if we go back to historical references or role models and so on. And that's always difficult, it was difficult for everyone. Where I fall into the plea bargain, so to speak, and where I realise that I'm not happy with the term mediator or conflict advisor being equated with what kind of opinion do you have to have? And that's where I think we can be clearer, even among ourselves. So the dispute really is part of it and we are not mediators, we are simply fighters for our values and for our understanding of conflicts and warlike developments. And I think it's worth talking about the fact that this is an imposition. Hence the dialogue with you.
[53:31]So when I say contractually, it doesn't mean that it doesn't affect us, but rather that this is a real turning point, I believe, also for the understanding of mediation. Yes, I think so too. So I think it's really good to see how you put it. And I'd like to make a small mini-excerpt on the association level. Because we in the Bundesverband Mediation e.V. have also been discussing this for years, for example in view of right-wing extremist tendencies in Germany, AfD etc., for years.
[54:05]Shouldn't we as the Bundesverband Mediation e.V. take a stand? For example, in favour of FIFA, against the AfD, etc. And then of course we can also consider, okay, if Sascha and Tilma are now so vehemently in favour of using weapons, what should the BM say about that? And I'm really curious to hear what you have to say. I am of the opinion that the BM is not a human being, but an institution that really stands for mediation and not for weapons. So I, even if I privately have this opinion, I have zero interest in the BM issuing any kind of communiqué that says we should, even the BM says, so to speak, that Ukraine should be supplied with weapons. No, so I'm totally against it, simply because the Federal Association as an institution really stands for mediation per se. And I think it's really harmful to politicise this just because I, as a Thiermann Metzger, have a different political opinion. But I don't know how you see it, but I wouldn't want him to argue in favour of arms deliveries. I would say that he should stay out of the discussion completely.
[55:08]At best, what we did in Hetz, we showed alternatives, what can be done without violence. That's fine, that's what we're here for, but that's just a technical contribution to what's possible and nothing more. Yes, I also think that I can go along with that and I don't see any reason why the BM organisation should or must take a stand there. So I don't see any reason. But what that means, especially when it comes to right-wing tendencies in Germany, is of course the reason that there are a lot of people who are worried, just like me, and simply think, well, the civil state's right of self-defence, so to speak, and the BM should also get involved where it's about defending the good, the true and the beautiful on a political level. So the fact that people say, let's use the BM to get the right messages across politically is something I can understand on an individual basis, but I think it's fatal because then you're simply dragging the BM into something where it doesn't belong as an institution, in my opinion. Yes, you could also build it up in such a way that the price that this entails is still unknown and too high, because it would of course have an impact on the members. And that is also an open question for me, what service can…
[56:30]Professionally trained conflict mediators in the social debate, which is becoming more heated, more divided and more polarised. What can we bring to the table?
[56:43]And I don't think much of it, so to speak, to say that mediation with right-wing extremists, fascists or others is out of the question for me or for us. You don't want to offer them a platform and they shouldn't benefit from the fruits of your labour. I think these are all overestimated, grandiose ideas. It's a dilemma situation for every mediator. Do they enter into this contractual service or not?
[57:24]And you have to assess that. And I believe that as an association, we have the task of drawing attention to this dilemma and offering reflection and practice. To say, yes, that can happen, so I just have to assume that if I, and this is just a stamp, so to speak, that will apply everywhere, but if I mediate in a company in Saxony, then there is a high probability that there will be right-wing extremist ideas in the mediation, even if it doesn't play a role in a conflict, so I don't need to stamp people there, but the question is, how do I deal with it as a mediator if I have said yes in a mediation? I will mediate for you. And then something like this comes up. And I find that…
[58:19]I am also very happy if people, regardless of their colour and how they think, politically and as far as violence is concerned, if they still have the impression that mediation is per se an all-party procedure and that would be called into question for me if we were to take a political stance for ourselves as associations. So I think these institutions of mediation as an all-party procedure are very, very worthy of protection. And I'm very happy that we in the BM also have very controversial discussions about many things. We are a very controversial association, as I think every mediation association is. I know the BM best. And I'm very happy that there are people who will probably respond to this podcast by saying, my God, what nonsense Sascha and Tilma were talking and they're not afraid.
[59:03]So yes, I'm expecting that to happen too. So I think we're both a bit brave the way we're sticking our necks out here, to be honest. You know the BM better than I do. I approach it with a certain naivety and blindness.
[59:19]Various members, I couldn't say that to the minorities on this point. But we can expect to be criticised and that's fine by me. So I think it's good that we, the majority, don't agree on this. And as I said, it is important to me overall that the institutions of the associations and the institutions of migration are not appropriated for something that has a political level. And yet, as Tillmann and you, Sascha, I can allow myself a political opinion, just as you have described. Yes, I also don't see it as being so narrowly defined or decisions that apply forever. I can also imagine developments where an organisation has to take a stand, but I don't see it at the moment. And I still think the boundary is wide. But the issue is also that boundaries are shifting. What is conceivable and what is not conceivable? And we are dealing with developments that were really unthinkable yesterday and the day before yesterday. In this respect, I wouldn't absolutely rule it out forever, but at the moment I also believe that there is no reason for it and that the collateral damage of such a decision would be far too great and unpredictable.
[1:00:40]I think that mediation, as it is still perceived as a monolithic process, should be careful that it is not seen as an elitist process that eloquent, eloquent, financially strong players can afford, so to speak, but that it can really be used as an institute that can also be adapted to the areas of use. And that means not setting too many standards of its own that simply have an exclusionary effect. So if you position yourself as a mediation organisation, you're also excluding others. And that's always the point of self-ascriptions, that they should act like a magnet on the one hand, but can also have a repellent effect like a magnet and.
[1:01:38]Yes, that's also exciting. I think we still had a relatively strong discussion in the 2000s. What is mediation and what is it not? And even before that. I also share your view that we simply have very, very different colours of mediation around the world and what we have does not represent a section of what is referred to as mediation worldwide. And we should also be a bit humble and not believe too much, how should I put it, that we have cultural sovereignty over mediation and what is right. So I think what you're saying is easy to understand. Yes, because you say we have a lot of colours and colourfulness. And if you say, so to speak, that mediation is colourful, then you also have to recognise in the discussion that people for whom life is currently too colourful and for whom mediation also seems too colourful will not be able to connect with it.
[1:02:33]And that's a dilemma, it really isn't easy. To present mediation in a multi-layered and multi-coloured way so that people also get the idea that it could be helpful for me if I am someone who prefers black and white or blue or another colour. It is true, and here we are probably in another debate, that mediation is of course also perceived politically and some mediators also want to position it politically and want it to be understood.
[1:03:14]I find that a difficult discussion. So really, I don't have a final judgement on that either, not on many issues. Where do you see the connection with our topic, with the war in Ukraine and our stance as a mediator, and now with regard to this last thing you said? That with what we say or what we don't say, for example on socio-political developments, we also position ourselves strongly in this process, also because some people particularly emphasise, I hope I'm not one of them, that we experience this as strongly identity-forming and say, I'm just a mediator and I believe in the power of mediation.
[1:04:05]
Political stance and mediation
[1:04:06]And then I'm so connected in there that I no longer see it as a service, but it's always connected to my identity and that also has side effects. Namely? What are the side effects? That you simply exclude yourself from certain situations, that you are not considered as a mediator or that you are not considered for the process. Okay, so if you put certain principles, certain aspects of me as John on such a high pedestal that other people say I don't want to go up on that pedestal, so to speak, that's too one-sidedly radical and too unworldly for me, something like that. And that applies to many issues, not just political ones, but also things like that. For example, it's a balancing act for me, even if on the one hand, like you, I mediate with professors and academics in research institutions and then I'm invited to the Erzgebirge to a tangible industrial company that mediates local conflicts there. And the question is, does that suit us, does he suit us? What does he offer? Is it a process that helps me, in other words, where I can find myself? Or can I only do it, to put it bluntly, if I can talk well?
[1:05:25]Yes, I think I now have a rough idea of what you're talking about and what you mean. And maybe that fits in with the fact that what we've just done here in the podcast, that I've also talked a lot about my peace movement past and that this peace movement impulse is also an essential part of my own intrinsic motivation as to why I do this work at all, because it makes sense to me. It's not something that I would normally foist on my clients. So it's not a prerequisite for them to think I'm great as a peace activist or that they are peace activists or that they believe mediation is the only good thing in the world and that it brings salvation.
[1:06:05]All the do I not, but it goes first therefore, similar like you it written have with the Contract, so what lies there with those before? Gives it what, what I in addition offer can? And in addition needs it none radical-pacifist or radical-meitorical Confession. And it goes really therefore, have I a Offer, what those help could? And there needs it first none bombastic Superstructure. The would probably rather obstructive be on some Points. White not, whether the so the Direction corresponds, in the you straight thought have. Yes, so the is the Basic idea, clear. And? I mine, you need with the Podcast none Fear have, the listens none, but Trust builds itself natural on about Visibilities. And that, what we times written have, where we times also in the Internet clearer were, also when it not to this Case or to the Topic is, becomes natural seen and becomes also before scanned and we become googled.
[1:07:12]
Conclusions and outlook
[1:07:12]And therefore has it also, Side effects or Reference points the we not in the Intention have but the simple there are and the also to expect.
[1:07:31]Communication is stop always also observed Communication and the even asynchronous also about the Time away and, Yes, but it makes already one Difference, whether someone me googles and then even still this Podcast listens or whether he first with me a Conversation leads. So I believe already, that People itself inform. But I would now not on mine Website on the first Page write on it. I am although peace-moving, but I find, we should Weapons on the Ukraine deliver. The would I not on mine Frontpage write.
[1:08:15]Yes, exactly. Yes, and reversed, and reversed. Yes, exactly, exactly, exactly. Tillmann, the Floske is, we could now still eternal so continue talking. Fact is but, we become it. Coming soon, at some point. But for the Moment first many Thanks to until here, because it a stimulating, multi-layered and also in the Problem a important Topic was. Yes, and I would like me also very thank you for yours Invitation. Has me very good done, me with you about it to entertain. A Topic, what me already many years is what drives us. And the does simple good, itself about it exchange. Many Thanks to. Come good through the Summer and natural through the Time in total. And I happy me, when itself the Paths cross. Ciao. Good, then I wish you one beautiful Summer. Likewise. Ciao.
[1:09:10]The was my Conversation with Tilman Butcher, Mediator. He more experienced Peace mediator, a Mediator the first Hour, the with me about the Time travelled is as Mediator from his Beginnings Centre the 80s years until today and which Influences also these Professional history exposed was and which also groundbreaking Changes so that went hand in hand. It is one Discussion, before all Things but also one detailed Dialogue worth for Mediators, itself about these Themes to communicate and by no means to fast on old Truths to jump on the bandwagon. The Things, the we Mediants and Clients sometimes near bring may, that itself the Environment changed has.
[1:10:14]The, what one believed has, really real is or still well-founded is, the stands also for us itself as Mediators to. When you from this Episode the one or other taken from have, for you stimulating or also exciting or perhaps also annoying experienced have or also corrosive or what also always for one Vocabulary there now for you fits, let it me and us with pleasure know. On the social Media, on the Website, under the Episode can you one Comment leave behind.
[1:10:51]I would me look forward to, because me the Topic on Hearts lies, that we ours Professionalism, our Professional understanding with each other develop, whereby the Direction open is. I wish you and you all one good Time. Handled you probably. I am Sascha Weigel, yours Host from IncoFEMA, the Institute for Conflict and Negotiation management in Leipzig and Partner for professional Mediation and Coaching training programmes.
Leave A Comment