NATIONAL SECURITY: SOCIAL CONFLICTS, POWER, COLLABORATION, ARMED FORCES AND INTELLIGENCE

* By Luis E. Oré, Mediator and International Consultant in Negotiations and Consensus Building

Beyond capitalism, communism, globalization and the geopolitical struggle for economic control, power relations between citizens and the State, and between citizens and businesses, cyberspace, technology and social networks amplify citizens' voices and unify social movements. Citizens around the world demand more voice and participation in decision-making - by governments and businesses - that could affect them. At the same time, the economic growth of some countries demands greater use of natural resources and an increase in investment projects that can generate social and environmental impacts around the world. These dynamic fosters the increase in social conflicts, and social conflicts are a threat to the national security of countries.

New threats to national security include not only threats from other States, but also from organized groups, organizations and gangs, and even political, economic and social situations. Social conflicts limit the State's ability to manage and exploit its natural resources, and investment projects in mining, gas and oil resources can be halted and affect the national interest. A country that is unable to exercise effective control over its territory and natural resources is not free from intrusions by third parties with interests in its internal affairs, and this can threaten its sovereignty. In the face of social conflicts, the population loses confidence in the State and corruption means that only a few benefits from the legal and democratic system, losing social legitimacy and creating space for anti-system populisms that can also threaten national security.

How can we strategically respond to these threats in defense of national security?

One possibility is to address these threats with multi-stakeholder engagement processes with a strategic vision of shared value that connects business success, community prosperity and a responsible state. Modern multi-stakeholder engagement is a negotiated partnership between the population affected by a company's investment or business project and the opportunity to collaborate to generate shared value for both the company and the population.

Sharing power to gain power? It may seem counterintuitive, but very often the best results in investment projects occur when companies (and governments) give up some degree of control over multi-stakeholder engagement processes or inclusive dialogue processes.

Involving multiple stakeholders in an inclusive and meaningful way can improve the quality of decisions made, build credibility, and stakeholders take ownership not only of the process but also of the outcome. For a multi-stakeholder engagement process to be meaningful, participants must be able to see the connection between their participation and their influence on the decision made. In situations with stakeholders with legitimate concerns, superficial participation does not make the process meaningful and loses legitimacy. In a meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement process, the parties design the decision-making process together. As long as the parties feel that the process has been developed together and they feel that they can influence the way decisions that may affect them are made, the parties will be more willing to defend and implement the decisions made in the process. If, for example, a population is concerned that the siting of a concentrate plant in a mining investment project will impact their water sources, the offer to build a school by the company or the State will not satisfy that concern or lay the foundations for a long-term relationship of trust. On the contrary, if the mining company and the population take the time to listen to and understand the perspectives, concerns and aspirations of both parties, they will lay the necessary foundations to work together to generate solutions that satisfy these concerns and resolve the social conflict.

In the face of social conflicts, companies and governments need an approach that supports actions and behaviors that maximize opportunities to generate value and mutual benefits for citizens who may be impacted by investment projects. Our colleagues at Consensus Building Institute, spin-off of the Program on Negotiation Harvard-MIT has developed a practical approach and framework for action and multi-stakeholder involvement with mutual gains. This involvement assumes that company and community are interdependent because they can generate greater gains together than separately and they need a pathway for their productive interaction.

A multi-stakeholder engagement process with a focus on mutual gains creates the conditions necessary to generate shared value. How? i) By helping the parties understand their concerns and priorities regarding key issues before jumping to solutions; ii) by helping the parties generate credible and reliable information and objective criteria for decision-making; and iii) by helping the parties make value exchanges on issues that they value differently.

Some basic principles make the process of multi-stakeholder engagement with a focus on mutual gains meaningful and proven effective:

1)???? Stakeholder involvement in the design and implementation of engagement initiatives produces strong and sustainable results. “Do it with them, not by them or for them.”

2)???? Understanding, deliberating and addressing the priorities, needs, concerns and aspirations of all parties sets the foundation for effective engagement strategies, sustainable agreements and long-term relationships of trust.

3)???? Companies, the State and local actors can generate shared value and beneficial results for all through value exchanges in structured processes.

A multi-stakeholder engagement process with a focus on mutual benefits has proven to yield positive results in different latitudes and even in scenarios as violent as the one experienced by Chevron Nigeria and local communities in the Niger Delta in 2005.

In the face of recurring social conflicts, when there is a lack of trust between the State, companies and citizens, a neutral and independent third party - a mediator or facilitator - has the role of helping the parties to dialogue and negotiate directly to find solutions that are mutually acceptable. The mediator or facilitator creates the right conditions and manages a safe and structured process in which the parties can address their interests, concerns and aspirations, and generate value with benefits for all. The responsibility of the mediator or facilitator is to manage the process by taking care of the issues of importance to the parties, building trust and helping to improve the relationship between the parties or enough so that they can dialogue constructively.

Considering the added value that mediators and facilitators as neutral and independent third parties can bring to the solution of social conflicts; the government could support the participation of professional mediators to help facilitate processes of dialogue and multi-stakeholder involvement to resolve these conflicts. For instance, according to the provisions of Article 171 of the Political Constitution of Peru, the Armed Forces participate in the economic and social development of the country. What would happen if, within the framework of this participation in the development of the country, the Armed Forces participated by assuming a facilitator role or, through resources destined for national security, could participate by constituting a "task force" of facilitators of processes of involvement and dialogue with mutual gains to strategically manage social conflicts around investment projects that may threaten national security with a vision of shared value?

There are multiple actors involved in social conflicts, some with legitimate interests and others with illegitimate interests, but the vast majority have legitimate interests. The secret is knowing how to engage these actors and interests with a safe and structured process.

Legitimate interests can be addressed and satisfied with a safe, structured and well-facilitated process. With an appropriate process with a focus on mutual gains, illegitimate interests can also be revealed and exposed. Actors with illegitimate interests may seek particular benefits for their own individual benefit or that of third parties or even for the benefit of other organizations or other governments. Generally, these actors with illegitimate interests use coercive tactics, violent practices and even criminal activities that threaten human security, the governability of the country and national security. Faced with this situation, the intelligence community plays a fundamental role in identifying, neutralizing and deactivating actors and agents that seek to coerce or violate the genuine will of the population.

The intelligence community and services must play a leading role in this situation and must be able to generate the necessary synergies to collaborate and work together and in an aligned manner to prevent illegitimate interests and foreign third parties from prevailing over national interests and threatening national security.

In conclusion, the armed forces can play a key role in “sharing power to gain power” and gaining control over the national territory and its natural resources; contribute to facilitating multi-stakeholder engagement processes with mutual gains for the transformation of social conflicts; and prevent, through intelligence, illegitimate interests from prevailing over national interests, violating the will of citizens, coercing national sovereignty and threatening national security.

?

____________________________________________________________________________________________

* Luis E. Oré is a mediator and international consultant specializing in multi-stakeholder negotiations, strategic relationships and consensus building processes. Luis is Managing Partner of Estrateus Consultores (Peru), founding director of ORASI Consulting Group (USA), senior partner of the Consensus Building Institute (USA), and is listed facilitator in the roster of the InterAmerican Development Bank`s Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism, Mediator for the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) - independent accountability mechanism for projects supported by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) private sector arms of the World Bank Group. Luis is an International Consultant and Peace Builder with Mediators Beyond Borders International and author of the books Consensus Building: The Consensus Building Process; The Extractive Game Triangle: Do we need to change the mining game to achieve the Social License to Operate?; and The Warintza Model: From Conflict to a Strategic Alliance with Social Engagement and Consensus Building. Luis served as Undersecretary for Dialogue Management of the Secretariat for Social Management and Dialogue of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers in 2021 (Peru), President 2010-2011 of the International Section of the Association for Conflict Resolution ?(USA), Vice President 2011-2012 of the Investment and International Development Committee of the American Bar Association (USA). Luis Oré has a Master's Degree in Conflict Management and a Master's Degree in Organizational and Intercultural Communication with extensive training in negotiation and consensus building from the CMI International Group, the Institute for Conflict Management at Lipscomb University and the Negotiation Program at Harvard Law School. He is a lawyer from the University of Lima. He works with individuals, groups, communities, organizations, companies and governments to promote effective negotiations, build consensus, collaborate and resolve conflicts in ways that develop sustainable solutions and strengthened relationships. Luis can be contacted via email at [email protected]