Co-founder of Harvard’s Program on Negotiation, William is one of the world’s leading experts on negotiation and mediation. He is currently a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Harvard Negotiation Project.

William-Ury.jpg

William Ury

<h4>
 WILLIAM URY is
 one of the world’s most trusted negotiators and mediators. He has spent his
 life building bridges in conflict situations and teaching other people how
 to do the same. His book, Getting to Yes, is a worldwide bestseller
 and is translated into thirty-five languages. Here he is interviewed by
 GUILA CLARA
 KESSOUS
 about his approach to peace-making.
 We thank our partner, the
 <a href="https://www.sohforum.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Spirit of Humanity Forum</a>,
 for facilitating this
 interview.
</h4>

<hr class="vertical-space1" />


 Q: William Ury has dedicated his life to peace-making and
 better diplomatic
 relationships. William, welcome and thank you so much for giving us your
 time.



 Today, we live in a world where relationships have become
 harder and
 harder, especially in terms of trust. What is your definition of
 peace-making today?



 WU: First of all,
 thank you Guila. In today’s world, conflict is a growth industry. Everywhere
 we look – domestically and internationally – for every issue, from war to
 climate, to hunger, we are faced with conflicts that are seemingly impossible
 to resolve. To me, peace-making is the continuous transformation of those
 conflicts.



 When I began working in this field forty-five years ago, with my colleague
 Roger Fisher, we were working on the Cold War, and it seemed impossible that
 there’d ever be an end to it. People thought the Berlin Wall was going to be
 there forever, but as we know, the Berlin Wall fell, and the relationship
 between the United States and the then Soviet Union transformed.



 The same was true in South Africa when we were working on the problem of
 apartheid. For as long as anybody could envision, people said there would be a
 race war in South Africa, and I watched Nelson Mandela and countless other
 individuals working for peace to transform that situation. The same thing
 happened in Northern Ireland. The Catholics and the Protestants have been
 fighting each other for centuries, and they are going to be fighting each
 other for centuries. In each of those cases, there’s no end to the conflict.



 Sometimes, we have this illusion that peace-making means an end to conflict –
 you wrap it up like a present. No. The form changes. It changes from a
 destructive form, from the destruction of values, the destruction of lives, to
 a more constructive, creative form.



 To me, that is the definition of peace-making. Peace-making never ends. It’s
 not like you get to a final yes. I think of peace-making as being the
 impossible yes. It may seem impossible, but it is actually a whole series of
 yeses over time, because the game of conflict is not a final game. It’s not a
 win-lose final game. It’s an infinite game. It goes on. Relationships go on.
 The United States and Russia still have problems, there are still problems in
 Northern Ireland, and there are still problems in South Africa, but the
 conflicts were transformed.



 If you look around the world today, there are still so many injustices. I
 would argue that, paradoxically, the world needs more conflict, not less,
 because conflict is the way we deal with injustice. At the same time, we need
 constructive, creative conflict, and to me that’s what peace-making is.
 Peace-making is the continuous transformation of those conflicts through
 methods like negotiation.



 Q: You speak about a new way of seeing negotiations, of
 possibilism, and I
 like this notion. In fact, when I hear you talking about the idea of
 unwrapping conflict – trying to have a change of energy, of value – it’s a
 way to change perspective and realize that in conflict there is an
 interdependency that we cannot put away. Could you give us a little more
 information about this notion of possibilism?



 WU: Sure. People
 ask me, “At the end of forty-five years working in this field, dealing with
 impossible situations, are you still an optimist?” I generally say, “You
 know, constitutionally I am an optimist, but I’d like to say now that I am a
 possibilist.” A possibilist is someone who believes in human potential.
 Of course, there is the possibility that we will kill each other, but there is
 also the possibility that we can create or find ways to deal with even the
 most intractable, impossible situations. The reason I say that is because I
 have seen it happen with my own eyes, and I’ve had the privilege of
 participating in one such situation in the last decade.


<hr class="vertical-space1" />

<hr />

<h4 class="has-text-align-center">
 A possibilist is someone who believes in human
 potential. Of course,
 there is the possibility that we will kill each other, but there is
 also the possibility that we can create or find ways to deal with
 even the most intractable, impossible situations.
</h4>

<hr />

<hr class="vertical-space1" />


 About ten years ago, I got a call from the President of Colombia, who wanted
 to find a way to end or transform the civil war in Colombia, which had been
 going on for fifty years, since the 1960s. It was fifty years of civil war,
 over 250,000 dead, and eight million victims of conflict, mostly women and
 children, the innocents. He was willing to put his political reputation on the
 line, because peace is the hardest work that people do. People think wars are
 hard, but peace is even harder, because it takes more of us as human beings.
 So, my colleagues and I worked with President Santos for over eight years. We
 made twenty-five trips to Colombia even before the negotiation process began,
 secretly, trying to see whether it could be transformed. And it did get
 transformed. Is the conflict over in Colombia? No, but it’s transformed. The
 armed conflict came to an end, and that’s what is possible in every conflict
 facing the world today. That’s why I am a possibilist.


<hr class="vertical-space1" />

<div class="block-image">
 <figure>
 <img decoding="async" width="434" height="600" alt="transforming_conflict_golden_bridge2"
 class="lazyload has-img-center"
 src="https://cdn-prod-static.heartfulness.org/transforming_conflict_golden_bridge2_18cd37a4cd.jpg?updated_at=2023-04-10T06:38:55.726Z" />
 </figure>
</div>

<hr class="vertical-space1" />


 Q: So, what is a good way to transform conflict, to change
 people’s minds?
 What is the paradigm shift that can happen?



 WU: Well, let me
 begin by telling you one of my favorite stories on negotiations, which I think
 crystallizes and answers your question, Guila. It is an ancient story from the
 Middle East about three sons who receive from their father an inheritance of
 seventeen camels. The first son, being the eldest, receives half the camels,
 the second son receives a third of the camels, and the youngest son receives a
 ninth of the camels. The three sons get into a negotiation about dividing up
 their inheritance, because seventeen doesn’t divide by two, it doesn’t divide
 by three, and it doesn’t divide by nine. Each one wants more. They argue, and
 there is the risk of it becoming violent.



 Finally, in desperation, they consult a wise old woman, and she thinks about
 the problem for a long time. Finally, she comes back and says, “Well, I don’t
 know if I have an answer to your problem, but I have a camel. Would you like
 my camel?” The three sons say, “Okay,” so they have eighteen camels. Now,
 eighteen divides by two, so the first son takes nine camels. Eighteen divides
 by three, so the second son takes six camels. Eighteen divides by nine, so the
 youngest son takes two camels. When you add nine plus six plus two, you get
 seventeen. They have one camel left over, so they give it back to the wise
 woman.



 If you think about that problem for a moment, you’ll find it resembles a lot
 of the negotiations we engage in. At first sight it seems impossible. The
 secret to the paradigm shift you asked about, Guila, is the wise old woman.
 What does she do? She steps back from the situation for a moment. She goes to
 what I call a balcony, which is the place where you overlook the stage in a
 theatre. It’s a place of perspective. It’s a place where you can rise above
 the fray, above the conflict, where you can see the picture more clearly,
 where you can keep your eye on the prize.



 Then what does she do? She comes up with the eighteenth camel, what I call
 “building the parties a golden bridge” so they can advance across the big
 chasm of disagreement. How do we build them a bridge over that chasm? How do
 we make it as easy as possible to say yes? That’s the eighteenth camel. Where
 does that eighteenth camel come from? It often comes not from the parties
 themselves but from the surrounding community, which is what I call the third
 side of any conflict.


<hr class="vertical-space1" />

<div class="block-image">
 <figure>
 <img decoding="async" width="700" height="353" alt="transforming_conflict_golden_bridge3"
 class="lazyload has-img-center"
 src="https://cdn-prod-static.heartfulness.org/transforming_conflict_golden_bridge3_700x353_f4d43fc3b7.jpg?updated_at=2023-04-10T06:40:10.635Z" />
 </figure>
</div>

<hr class="vertical-space1" />

<hr />

<h4 class="has-text-align-center">
 We use the third side to act on those new
 possibilities. That’s the
 paradigm shift – balcony, bridge, and third side. I call it BB3, the key to finding impossible yeses.
</h4>

<hr />

<hr class="vertical-space1" />


 We often see conflicts as two-sided – Arabs versus Israelis, Catholics versus
 Protestants – but there is always a third side, the surrounding community, the
 circle surrounding the conflict. In this case, it is the wise old woman. That
 is the paradigm shift.



 If I had to look back over forty-five years and ask, “How do I sum all of this
 up?”, it is the ability to get to that impossible yes. We need to step back
 and go to the balcony to see new possibilities. Then we build a golden bridge
 to bring about those new possibilities creatively. Finally, we use the third
 side to act on those new possibilities. That’s the paradigm shift – balcony,
 bridge, and third side. I call it BB3, the key to finding impossible yeses.


<hr class="vertical-space1" />

To be continued.

<hr class="vertical-space1" />

Transforming conflict: building a golden bridge

Peace-making

<h4>
 WILLIAM URY is
 an author, anthropologist, and one of the world’s leading negotiators and mediators. He
 has spent his life building bridges in conflict situations and teaching
 other people how to do the same. His book, Getting to Yes, is a
 worldwide best seller, and is translated into thirty-five languages.
 
</h4>

<h4
 id="h-in-part-2-of-his-interview-by-guila-clara-kessous-william-speaks-about-what-causes-conflict-how-men-and-women-bring-different-qualities-to-negotiation-and-how-conflict-resolution-has-evolved"
>
 In part 2 of his interview by GUILA CLARA KESSOUS, William speaks about what causes conflict, how men and women bring
 different qualities to negotiation, and how conflict resolution has
 evolved.
</h4>

<hr class="vertical-space1" />


 Q: What are the most common stereotypes we see today in conflicts?



 WU: What is
 behind all the conflicts around the world? They are each very different, but
 behind almost all of them is a feeling of scarcity, that there isn’t enough.
 And behind that scarcity – if you go deeper – there is a sense that we are all
 separate. There is no sense of the interconnection that you were talking
 about, Guila; we are all separate little parties, and there isn’t enough. In
 this worldview, the only way we satisfy our interests is by engaging in a
 win-lose battle.



 Those are the stereotypes behind conflicts: scarcity, separation, and the
 win-lose mindset.



 And what’s required of us to make a paradigmatic shift is to realize that, in
 fact, quite possibly there is no scarcity. Of course, there is scarcity in one
 sense, but there may be enough for everyone, just like in the story of the
 camels&nbsp;. We are not separate; we are interconnected. We are in that story
 the whole family, the brothers, right? And we are all one in the human family.
 What’s then required is to shift the mindset from win-lose. We shift it not
 only to win-win, which has become a phrase popularized by
 Getting to Yes, but we need a third win. We need a win not just for
 both sides of a conflict, but a win for the whole. We need a win for the
 community. We need a win for the world. We need a win for the world’s
 environment. We need the triple win. That’s the new game we need to learn to
 play.



 Q: And this triple win includes the possibility and the willingness to get
 out of the conflicts. Is that correct? It means that the two parties are not
 so in love with their conflict. That is, they accept to take a step back and
 go to the balcony.



 When we talk about gender stereotypes with what has happened in
 Afghanistan, for example, is there a question that could change men’s
 approach to women? Is it something you could advise?



 WU: Well, it’s
 really hard to generalize about gender. But with my knowledge of the
 sub-scientific research, I would say that men tend to be more sucked into the
 win-lose: Who’s gonna win in the short term? Women, evolutionarily, are
 trained to pay more attention to relationships in the long-term. So, I have
 found that when women are involved (or the feminine principle, whether it’s
 women themselves) in a negotiation, there is more tending to relationships,
 which is also key.



 In negotiation, men often make the mistake of being hard on the problem,
 wanting to solve the problem. That also means being hard on the people: “Well,
 okay, that’s what’s possible.” Women sometimes make the opposite mistake,
 which is, “We need to be soft on the people. We have to tend to the
 relationships,” so they are soft on the problem, and give in too easily.



 A successful negotiator is soft on the people, respectful of the people, and
 hard on the problem. They try to solve the problem in a way that works for
 everyone. So, we need both the masculine and the feminine, especially in the
 peace-making field. We need a lot more women and the leadership of women. I
 think that’s starting to happen, and it’s an extremely promising trend.


<hr class="vertical-space1" />

<hr />

<h4 class="has-text-align-center">
 Those are the stereotypes behind conflicts: scarcity, separation, and the win-lose mindset.
</h4>

<hr />

<hr class="vertical-space1" />

<div class="block-image">
 <figure class="has-img-center" style="width: 700px !important">
 <img
 width="700px"
 alt="why-we-need-megotiation2-700x488"
 class="lazyload w-100"
 src="https://cdn-prod-static.heartfulness.org/why_we_need_megotiation2_700x488_f5ae42358c.jpg?updated_at=2023-04-10T11:19:10.219Z"
 />
 <figcaption>Photograph by LINKEDIN-SALES-SOLUTIONS</figcaption>
 </figure>
</div>

<hr class="vertical-space1" />


 Q: In your career, have you seen an evolution of ego in negotiation? Would
 you say that the egos of countries have changed now that they know the
 protocols you and Rodger Fisher have given to the world? Do you see an
 ego-education? Would you say that some countries have understood mutual gain
 and become softer in their relationships?



 WU: There’s a
 syndrome I call the “me-syndrome,” which stands for “male-ego syndrome,” you
 know, bad heads. And then there is something that happens in these
 peace-making processes, where suddenly the ego starts to diminish, people
 start to realize that there are things like the future, their children.


<hr class="vertical-space1" />

<hr />

<h4 class="has-text-align-center">
 A successful negotiator is soft on the people, respectful of the
 people, and hard on the problem. They try to solve the problem in a
 way that works for everyone.
</h4>

<hr />

<hr class="vertical-space1" />


 I was just remembering back to Northern Ireland in the 80s or early 90s. The
 reputed head of the IRA was a man by the name of Mark McGuiness. The IRA had
 declared a ceasefire and then broken the ceasefire, and the terrorist acts
 were going on. Going back to the role of women here, he was confronted at home
 by his wife and daughter over the dinner table. They said, “You told us you’re
 going to stop.” To me, that’s the third side. That’s the community. And that’s
 when the ego – especially the male ego – starts to go, “Oh, okay.” And Mark
 McGuiness made the most remarkable turnaround where he led the IRA and Gerry
 Adams into an agreement – the Good Friday agreement. He later served in the
 government and became the Minister for Education. His closest colleague in
 government was his most bitter adversary on the Protestant loyalist side, Ian
 Paisley. The two of them formed a friendship, and that’s when the ego starts
 to diminish. A lot of it was through the role of women.



 Q: It’s the same in business relationships. Sometimes, in salary
 negotiation, bosses forget that, even if they don’t have money to give, the
 person wants to take home something more than money. It’s also to answer the
 third party, whether it’s a wife, or a past significant, just to say, “Yes,
 I’ve got something. I’ve been working so hard and you know what? I had the
 guts to ask for a salary review, and guess what? I’ve got something.”
 Sometimes, the hierarchy forgets that there is this conversation that
 happens right after the negotiation, and if they don’t give anything it is a
 disaster for that relationship. Of course, they are also losing the
 employee. Would you say that this is also an illustration of the third
 party?



 WU: Absolutely.
 In fact, one of the most useful exercises when you are preparing for a
 negotiation is to imagine the other side – maybe the employee – accepting your
 proposal, and then having to go to the people they care about and explain why
 this was a victory. In other words, sit down, take out a piece of paper, and
 write out the other side’s victory speech. What are they going to say to their
 constituency, the people they care about most, about why accepting your
 proposal is a victory for them? And then work back from that. How do you help
 them deliver that victory speech?


<hr class="vertical-space1" />

<div class="block-image">
 <figure class="has-img-center" style="width: 600px !important">
 <img
 width="600px"
 alt="why-we-need-megotiation3"
 class="lazyload w-100"
 src="https://cdn-prod-static.heartfulness.org/why_we_need_megotiation3_27925f6dd5.jpg?updated_at=2023-04-10T11:20:24.312Z"
 />
 <figcaption>Original Photograph by COTTONBRO</figcaption>
 </figure>
</div>

<hr class="vertical-space1" />


 Q: Excellent! In terms of role games, it is true that it helps for this
 paradigmatic shift to prepare the other better to this positive “No,” the
 way you call it. Excellent!



 It is the International Day of Peace, so I would like to ask you: Do we
 learn, and do Nations learn from conflicts? Can we say that the harm, the
 difficulties, the aggression, the violence is something that serves the
 world to get better?



 WU: Well,
 paradoxically and unfortunately, when we are offered a choice between learning
 the easy way or the hard way, we often choose the hard way. Sometimes we learn
 through the destructiveness of conflicts. You know, people learned when there
 was World War I in Europe. But there wasn’t enough learning, so then there was
 World War II. And that’s how the UN was born, right? The League of Nations was
 born after World War I, and that was not quite enough. Slowly, slowly, the
 world is making progress. It may not look that way from the news, but actually
 the numbers of wars and the numbers of people killed in wars have been
 gradually decreasing for the last fifty years. There have been some ups here
 and there, which are very serious, but there has been a slow learning process.



 A century ago, war was glorious and people celebrated. For example, in Paris
 in August 1914, all the women wished the soldiers, “It’s going to be a
 glorious success,” and sent them off. Since then, we’ve learned that war is a
 terrible thing; no one wins and, in the end, everyone loses. You know, even
 one of the most powerful countries in the world, the United States, was not
 able to win in Afghanistan, against the comparatively small force of the
 Taliban. They had to leave. It’s just one more example that war does not work.
 That’s why we need negotiation.


<hr class="vertical-space1" />

To be continued.


 Thanks to our partner, the Spirit of Humanity Forum, for facilitating this
 interview.


<hr class="vertical-space1" />

<hr />

<h4 class="has-text-align-center">Interview by CLARA KESSOUS</h4>

<hr />

<hr class="vertical-space1" />

Why we need negotiation

<figcaption>Photograph by Metin Ozer</figcaption>
<h4>
 WILLIAM URY
 is an author, anthropologist, and one of the world’s leading negotiators
 and mediators. He has spent his life building bridges in conflict
 situations and teaching other people how to do the same. His book,
 Getting to Yes, is a worldwide bestseller, translated into
 thirty-five languages.
 
</h4>

<h4>
 This is part 3 of an interview conducted by
 GUILA CLARA KESSOUS and
 JULIAN PÉLABÈRE on the occasion of the 2021
 United Nations and NERA Humanity Prize, which
 was awarded to William for his efforts in promoting innovative thinking to
 change the world for a better future, to help us better understand what is
 negotiation, and how we can all live together for a better life, a better
 future.
</h4>

<hr class="vertical-space1" />


 GCK: William, you have already mentioned BB3 – balcony,
 bridge, and third
 side. Is that your advice to bring more peace within ourselves and in our
 relationship with others? Is BB3 the magic formula? Do you have any advice
 you could give us?



 WU: Well, first
 of all, in the last forty-five years since I started
 Getting to Yes, the biggest lesson I have learned is that to
 influence others we first need to learn how to influence ourselves. We keep
 thinking that we want to change the minds of others, but it starts right
 here. The single biggest obstacle for me in my personal life, or for me to
 get what I need to satisfy my interests, is not the difficult person on the
 other side of the table. It’s not the difficult person in life, as difficult
 as that person might be. It’s right here. The most difficult person is the
 person we look at in the mirror every single morning, and that’s a lot of
 what going to the balcony is about.



 There is a saying, “When you are angry, you’ll make the best speech you ever
 regret,” and I think that’s very true. Human beings naturally get frustrated
 and angry, and say things that they later regret. That happens a lot in
 conflict. Gandhi noticed this and he said, “An eye for an eye will leave the
 whole world blind.” So, learn the ability not to react. Neuroscientists tell
 us it takes about ninety seconds for any emotion like anger or fear to go
 through your system. Learn to pause, a little bit of silence.



 There is an interesting study done by one of my colleagues on negotiation,
 where they studied different groups and measured the number of pauses in the
 conversation. That was it. There was a direct correlation between the number
 of pauses, how collaborative the process was, and how successful the outcome
 was.



 So just slow down. We live in a very fast world. We need to pause. We need
 to go to the balcony. We need to take some time for ourselves.



<hr class="vertical-space1" />
 


<hr />

<h4 class="text-center">
 The biggest lesson I have learned is that to
 influence others we
 first need to learn how to influence ourselves. We keep thinking
 that we want to change the minds of others, but it starts right
 here.
</h4>


<hr />
 


<hr class="vertical-space1" />


 Take emails, for example. When you get an email or a text that makes you
 irritated, the temptation is to hit the reply button and get it out of your
 system. Then the whole thing escalates, right? There is a balcony button on
 the screen that we never use, called “save as draft.” Write it out, save it
 as a draft, then go to the balcony, meditate, go for a walk, have a coffee
 with a friend, sleep on it, and then go back and look at that message.
 You’re going to hit “delete.” And then you’re going to pick up the phone and
 you’re going to talk to that person or, even better, listen to that person
 because that’s the key in negotiation. We think of negotiation as talking,
 but successful negotiation is more about listening.



 So, learn to pause, learn to listen effectively, learn to listen not just
 from your perspective. The hard thing is to listen from the other side’s
 perspective, to put yourself in their shoes, in their frame of reference. If
 we can learn to do that, then I think that’s the secret of success for
 negotiation.



 GCK: What can you share with us about your balcony,
 William? What is your
 way to find peace? Do you have a style of peace-making for yourself?



 WU: Well,
 Guila, it’s a good question. You know, when I was a boy of six, I moved from
 the United States to the Swiss Alps for a year. I fell in love with
 mountains. Nowadays I live in Colorado, which is like Switzerland in the US.
 The mountains are my personal balcony.



<hr class="vertical-space1" />
 


<hr />

<h4 class="text-center">
 We think of negotiation as talking, but successful
 negotiation is more
 about listening.
</h4>


<hr />
 


<hr class="vertical-space1" />

<div class="block-image">
 <figure class="has-img-center" style="width: 700px !important">
 <img alt="join-peace-games" class="lazyload w-100"
 src="https://cdn-prod-static.heartfulness.org/join_peace_games2_9e79d42039.jpg?updated_at=2023-04-11T07:13:32.388Z" />
 <figcaption>Original photograph by ANTENNA</figcaption>
 </figure>
</div>

<hr class="vertical-space1" />


 I travel around the world, to Afghanistan, to the Middle East, to Korea, but
 I come back here to the mountains. The mountains have been here for tens of
 millions of years. I get perspective. Going out for a walk in the mountains
 is my way of regenerating myself in this world of conflicts. That’s my
 personal balcony: taking a walk, nature, beauty.



 There is nothing like beauty to give a little bit of hope. There are so many
 problems, and it is so easy to fall into despair. Beauty awakens the heart
 again, brings a sense of wonder, and then it gives you the strength to go
 back into the fray, fight the good fight, transform conflicts, because it’s
 never-ending. This game never ends, but it’s a game in which everyone can
 benefit, as opposed to the usual games like sports where someone wins and
 everyone else loses. This is a game where everyone benefits, not just us but
 our children, our grandchildren, and successive generations.



 JP: I really love what you say about looking for a third
 win, and how
 negotiation is not like sport with a winner and losers. Can you give us
 more clues to understand what is winning in negotiation?



 WU: Thank you,
 Julien. To me, winning a negotiation is satisfying your interest. Your
 interests are your deep desires, your aspirations, your concerns, your
 fears, and, in the end, it’s basic needs. Every human being has a few basic
 needs: a basic need for well-being (to put food on the table for your family
 and so on); for security and safety; for some kind of recognition, some
 sense of autonomy and dignity, right? So, to me that’s success. Success is
 when there is dignity for everyone, well-being for everyone, and a sense of
 safety for everyone. That’s the goal of negotiation – to meet the basic
 needs. You may not always get everything you say you want – you know
 everyone says, “I want this sum of money, I want that territory” – but the
 basic needs are met.



 Let me give you an example. About two decades ago, I was involved in
 mediating with a Swiss institution. It was a conflict in Indonesia, a civil
 war that had been going on for decades over the Province of Aceh. I was
 sitting in Geneva with the leaders of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), and I
 said, “You’ve been fighting for over thirty years for independence. What do
 you want? What’s the purpose of the negotiation?” “We want independence
 – that’s what we want.” “Okay, I got it. Why do you want independence?
 What’s independence going to give you?” I can tell you, around that
 table in Geneva there was silence. They didn’t quite know how to answer that
 question. They knew what their position was – independence – but they hadn’t
 thought through what they really wanted independence for. I asked, “Is
 it because of economics? Do you want control over your natural resources? Is
 it political? Do you want a seat at the United Nations? Is it symbolic? Is
 it that you want autonomy for your culture, so that your children can go to
 school in your own language? What does independence mean to you?”



 The truth is, they realized that militarily they were never going to defeat
 the Indonesian army, so the question was: Could they meet the interests for
 which they were fighting without necessarily getting independence? They
 could still keep the dream of independence. Five years later, they reached
 an agreement that gave them full political autonomy. The leaders of the GAM
 became the Governor and the Vice-Governor of the Province. In the
 parliament, in the province, their own language was respected. They gained
 control over their natural resources. Did they get independence? No. But
 their basic needs were beginning to be addressed, and the basic needs of the
 people were addressed. That’s really the purpose of negotiation.



<hr class="vertical-space1" />
 


<hr />

<h4 class="text-center">
 Success is when there is dignity for
 everyone, well-being for
 everyone, and a sense of safety for everyone. That’s the goal of
 negotiation – to meet the basic needs.
</h4>


<hr />
 


<hr class="vertical-space1" />


 GCK: This notion of meaning is extremely important. Do
 you think this
 willingness of meaning is also something that we have to look for in a
 world of Covid? We know it’s going to be a spiral, and we know that there
 will be a lot of violence. Things will also be complicated regarding
 security, and for our children and children’s children. So, would you say
 this notion of meaning is the most important to keep, no matter what
 conflict or negotiation we are going through?



 WU: There is a
 basic human need for meaning. People want their lives to be meaningful, and
 to me that’s one of the great opportunities with peace-making – to redefine
 what gives meaning to our lives. It used to be that war gave people’s lives
 meaning. Can peace give people’s lives even more meaning?



 We can make that happen. That’s why we have the peace-making profession, the
 negotiation profession. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there has been a race
 between human beings’ technological genius to devise weapons of incredible
 destructiveness that could put an end to all of life on Earth, and our
 moral, emotional, political, and social capacities to find ways to live
 together and create meaning together.



 Creating meaning is the great challenge, the ongoing challenge we face
 today. How do we make peace genuinely meaningful and not just some kind of
 an abstract thing? It goes back to your first question Guila, it’s in the
 game of the impossible yes1. Let me give you a dream here: What
 if we had (in addition to the Olympic Games) the Peace Games, in which teams
 were organized around the world to resolve the world’s toughest conflicts?
 They would not be competing with each other but against the challenge of
 these impossible conflicts. It would be a league, like a league of nations …
 call it a league of possibilists. There would be teams playing and working
 with each other. I really think we could transform these impossible
 conflicts. That’s what the world needs – peace games. There were war games,
 and now we need peace games. That would bring meaning to people. People love
 to play games, so may we all join this league of possibilists!


<hr class="vertical-space1" />

<div class="block-image">
 <figure class="has-img-center" style="width: 700px !important">
 <img alt="join-peace-games" class="lazyload w-100"
 src="https://cdn-prod-static.heartfulness.org/join_peace_games3_cb1c5a5cbc.jpg?updated_at=2023-04-11T07:14:59.238Z" />
 <figcaption>Original photograph by Priscilla Du Preez</figcaption>
 </figure>
</div>

<hr class="vertical-space1" />

<hr />

<h4 class="text-center">
 What if we had the Peace Games, in which teams were
 organized around
 the world to resolve the world’s toughest conflicts? They would
 not be competing with each other but against the challenge of
 these impossible conflicts. It would be a league, like a league
 of nations … call it a league of possibilists.
</h4>


<hr />
 


<hr class="vertical-space1" />


 GCK: I am in! You’re right in saying that playfulness
 needs to be there,
 because even if people want meaning, they don’t want sad meaning. They
 want joyful meaning. They want objective meaning. They want dynamism and
 the willingness to live. Living is also a way not only to make efforts,
 but also progress, with people flourishing – Getting to Yes with
 happiness.



 William, I want to thank you so very much for these
 very precious moments
 we have spent together. It has been a great pleasure to have you as a
 speaker. Julien and I were very honored that you accepted this prize, and
 we would like to thank our great host, the Center for Executive Education
 at the University of Peace. We would like to thank our sponsor,
 Heartfulness, and their event “Connecting for Peace,” together with
 Institut NERA and UNESCO Artists for Peace. So, thank you for talking to
 us so sincerely from the heart. We wish you all the very best.



 What can we do to help you continue in this wonderful
 direction that you
 are taking us?



 WU: Join me in
 forming this league of possibilists. Let’s play these peace games and let’s
 tackle the world’s problems. It would give me joy to welcome you all into
 this league.



 GCK: Definitely. You heard Professor William Ury. We
 are all invited to
 this possibilist movement that he is creating for more peace in the world.
 Please join him. Thank you again William.



 WU: My
 pleasure. Thank you all. Un grand plaisir. Merci. Infiniment.


<hr class="vertical-space1" />

<hr />


 1 In part 1 of this interview in the February
 2022 edition,
 William Ury said, “I think of peace-making as being the impossible yes. It
 may seem impossible, but it is actually a whole series of yeses over time,
 because the game of conflict is not a final game. It’s not a win-lose
 final game. It’s an infinite game. It goes on. Relationships go on.”

William Ury

Co-founder of Harvard’s Program on Negotiation, William is one of the world’s leading experts on negotiation and mediation. He is currently a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Harvard Negotiation Project.

Explore