The Mercury Game: Teaching about the role of scientific information in international environmental negotiations

Incorporating scientific and technical information into negotiations is an ongoing and difficult problem. Scientific uncertainty remains a key challenge, particularly in the context of environmental decision-making. Despite decades of scientific research on problems including biodiversity loss, ozone depletion, climate change, and hazardous chemicals, effectively communicating uncertainty remains a major challenge in environmental treaty negotiations and policy-making. Strategies for incorporating scientific information into policy include developing scientific assessments, setting up subsidiary technical bodies to conventions, and appropriately framing the information. Yet, how can we teach about this science-policy interface, enabling students and negotiators to build skills to cope with scientific uncertainty and risk?

 

Robert C. Bordone

The Mercury Game is a role-play simulation written by Leah Stokes, a doctoral student at MIT, under the direction of MIT Professors Noelle Selin and Lawrence Susskind. It is designed for scientists, students and decision makers, and is based on the current United Nations Environment Programme mercury negotiations. It was written to be accessible to both graduate students in scientific disciplines and public policy and international relations. A glossary that facilitates policy students’ understanding of the technical science and science students’ understanding of the policy jargon is included with the game.

 

The central component of the Mercury Game is the “International Mercury Assessment,” a summary of scientific information on global mercury modeled after United Nations Environment Programme assessments. This 15-page summary document digests and packages the science in a way that allows players to use and question it during the game. As a result, scientific uncertainty, risk and information gaps become the principal issues. Over the course of three to four hours, players attempt to assess whether there is sufficient scientific evidence on mercury’s risks to warrant international action. Not only do players walk away with a much richer understanding of the current state of mercury science, they also develop an understanding of the consequences of representing scientific uncertainty in various ways in a policy context.

The game focuses on the credibility of various sources of technical information, strategies for representing risk and uncertainty, and the balance between scientific and political considerations. For example, the game portrays scientists in a number of different roles. Some of the country representatives are themselves scientists, each viewing the common scientific assessment from a different perspective based on their national circumstances. In addition, one role represents an industry scientist, who casts doubt on the assessment, while another represents a non-governmental advocacy group. Finally, one role represents a neutral intergovernmental scientific body, which attempts to present information to the group without taking a position on any of the issues. Other players need to consider these contrasting perspectives, and, as a result, players must grapple with how and why science can become politicized.

In addition, the game requires players to think about environmental policy, economics and politics. Like other international environmental role-plays, such as the Chlorine Game (Managing the Global Use of Organochlorines, available through the PON Clearinghouse), this exercise explores the dynamic between the developed and developing worlds, introducing these challenges, which are at the heart of many treaty-making efforts, to science students. The game is based on actual events at the international level, particularly between 2003 and 2009. In this period, the question of whether there was adequate scientific information about mercury’s risks to humans and the environment was central to many United Nations meetings. This question forms the basis of the Mercury Game.

The game is available for free at http://mit.edu/mercurygame. If you play the game, we would greatly appreciate receiving the pre- and post-game one-page surveys. For a quick overview and introduction to the game, you can watch this video: http://eaps-www.mit.edu/paoc/about/news/mercury-game

Written for NP@PON by Leah Stokes. 

Using a Series of Linked Games to Teach a Mutual-Gains Approach to Water Negotiations

Multi-issue, multi-party negotiations over the allocation of boundary-crossing water resources are increasingly important almost everywhere in the world. Existing role-play simulations are helpful in conveying practical wisdom about such negotiations, but most games only deal with one issue or one aspect of negotiation at a time.

Underrepresented in our teaching materials are ‘linked games’ that cover several rounds of negotiations or negotiations that take place at several levels simultaneously. The new Indopotamia Game, developed as part of the Water Diplomacy Workshop (www.waterdiplomacy.org) offers four interlinked game segments that can be played independently or in sequence.[1] These are appropriate for mid-career water professionals or graduate students studying engineering, law, science, environmental planning or public policy.

 Water Diplomacy 2

Indopotamia is a nine-party, mediated, multi-issue negotiation game involving a dispute over the allocation of land and water resources shared by three countries in an international river basin. The four segments of the game deal with:

 1. Understanding interests and building coalitions,

 2. Information sharing and knowledge generation,

 3. Option generation, and

 4. Deal-making.

The Game

Eight stakeholder group representatives, including senior officials from three countries (Alpha, Beta, and Gamma), have gathered to discuss, with the help of a mediator, possible development strategies for the Indopotamia River Basin. The three countries face significant water-management challenges, and there is no formal agreement governing how they are supposed to share or use their common resources. A multinational Regional Development Bank has brought the countries together and is prepared to offer substantial financial support if they, and some non-governmental interest groups as well, can come to an agreement. There can be many groups of nine (all in the same class or training event) playing the game at the same time in separate rooms.

The Water Diplomacy Framework

The game introduces water professionals and aspiring water professionals to the Water Diplomacy Framework (WDF). This is a new approach to water management that builds on three critical propositions. First,boundaries and representation in water networks should be considered open-ended and continuously changing. Second, long-term water management must take account of substantial uncertainty. Third, the politics of trans-boundary water management need to be negotiated in an adaptive and non-zero-sum fashion. The participants learn to take account of these propositions as they deal with each segment of the Indopotamia negotiations. The forthcoming book of Islam, Susskind and Associates (Resources for the Future, 2012) will also provide a theoretical underpinning about the Water Diplomacy Framework for those who want to use the linked games to teach about it.[2]

The Experience

Experienced negotiation professionals who have used the linked games say that the experience encouraged them to think about trying new approaches to water negotiations in their own practice. Participants in the 2010 Water Diplomacy Workshop (which included senior water professionals from 17 countries) found each segment to be particularly helpful in dealing with a specific challenge. One water-official said, “What I’ve learned is adaptable to my regional situation and my conflicts.”

Main Lessons

One of the most critical lessons of the games is that participants can in a simulation context carry over the aftermath of coalitional strategies from segment to segment. A coalition established in the first segment can be instrumental in finding mutually advantageous solutions in later segments of the game on subsequent days.

The first segment focuses on political dynamics in cross-border water management negotiations. It gives the nine-parties an opportunity toexplore the rather different interests of each of the stakeholders involved in the river basin. The structure of the opening exercise presses the players to emphasize the importance of pursuing the interests of others as they design their negotiation strategies.

Segment two explores the dynamics of information sharing, particularly scientific information. It urges a value-creating approach to water negotiation that highlights the benefit of sharing rather than withholding information. It encourages the parties to switch from being adversaries to becoming collaborative problem-solvers. It also demonstrates how contingent agreements may hold the key to dealing with technical uncertainty and scientific disagreements.

The third segment explores the problem of generating value-creation options in a multi-party context. The importance of linkages between options, along with the gains and losses associated with threats and promises, are examined. There is a chance for the participants to invent ingenious ways of stretching resources or using the same resources in a number of different ways so that the interests of all parties can be met.

Segment four addresses how groups can negotiate future relationships and on-going governance arrangements. The comparison of outcomes at different “tables” is instructive. Typically, some groups reach agreement while others do not.

Conclusion

The linked games provide an opportunity to come closer to the complexities of multi-party, multi-state negotiations in a water management context. A key objective of this exercise is to highlight the value of using facilitation or mediation in such situations. Solving water disputes and conflicts requires a combination of both scientific knowledge and political awareness. The linked negotiation gives parties the real life experience of negotiations cycling through different stages that each require adaptations of various kinds to move on to the next phase. It illustrates the importance of coalition building, and the need to find solutions that bring benefit to all in order to find lasting agreements. The scientific complexities of the issues and the need to follow a structured process demonstrate that professional guidance from trained facilitators can be of great value in managing complex water negotiations.


[1]Catherine M. Ashcraft has developed the game under the supervision of Professors Lawrence Susskind and Shafiqul Islam. The games can be ordered from the PON Clearinghouse (www.pon.org).

[2] Islam, S.; Susskind, L. and Associates, “Water diplomacy: A Negotiated Approach to Managing Complex Water Networks, Resources for the Future, forthcoming. The book challenges many prevailing beliefs about water management. For example, the authors argue that water is a flexible, not a scarce resource. They spell out how and why a negotiated approach — guided by insights from complexity theory — will produce fairer, more efficient, more stable and wiser management results.

Written for NP@PON by Paola Cecchi Dimeglio & Peter Kamminga .

From the Symphony Hall to the Jazz Jam Session: Teaching negotiation to graduate students vs. providing negotiation training to senior executives: Quite Similar or Very Different?

Negotiation Pedagogy Faculty Dinner Seminar, November 14th, 2011

Panelists: Theodore Johnson (Brandeis University), Deborah Kolb(Simmons College), Deepak Malhotra (Harvard Business School),Brian Mandell (Harvard Kennedy School of Government), Melissa Manwaring (Babson College), Bruce Patton (Vantage Partners), and James Sebenius (Harvard Business School). Moderated byMichael Wheeler (Harvard Business School)

The fall Negotiation Pedagogy Faculty Dinner Seminar took place at the Harvard Faculty Club on November 14, 2011. The event brought together more than 30 leading scholars and teachers from Boston-area business schools, law schools, schools of public policy and planning, and other organizations for a lively discussion on how the contexts in which we teach influence what we teach and the ways in which we teach negotiation. The point of departure was teaching in traditional graduate school courses versus tailored training in business or governmental organizations. It was soon clear, however, that there are a great many hybrids in between, like open-enrollment executive education courses. Furthermore, there are a variety of pedagogical approaches that can be used in each of these settings.

Time and goal

Bruce Patton kicked off the panel by introducing two variables along which teaching activities might be located:How long do we have with the participants, and whether the goal is to teach them about something (give them a set of concepts) or how to do something (to master a skill). Appropriateness pedagogically depends on where we are along each of these axes.

For example, if we have a short amount of time with an academic audience, and the goal is to teach them about something, a successful intervention might involve a lecture conveying five key principles that present the concept. In contrast, if we have a long time to teach students about an issue in an academic context, the goal might be not only to present more material in greater depth, but also to get students theorizing about the open questions in the area of study themselves.

If we have a short amount of time and a client is paying for help to address a very specific problem, we need to help them identify and develop the behavioral assets that are going to have the highest immediate impact. This involves getting them to do things differently right away, regardless of whether or not they fully understand why the change in practice is necessary. If we have a longer period of time, and an audience that wants to learn how, the intervention might involve more skills-based exercises coupled with rigorous and comprehensive reflection.

Context

The importance of context was a recurring theme throughout the event. One aspect of context is whose environment you are operating in. William Ury observed: “When you are the teacher in the classroom, you are the insider, you know the field, and the students are the outsiders getting to know your culture. When you are [working with] a company, you are the outsider, they are the insiders, they have the local knowledge that you don’t have; you bring a general framework, they bring local knowledge and you have to find some way in which that local and general knowledge can produce synergy. There is a ritual experience going on where there are defined roles, and the roles are very different in these two contexts.”

Lawrence Susskind concurred, noting that because you are in their context, that is typically the exclusive focus of attention when dealing directly with an organization. In contrast, various contexts may be referred to in a classroom setting for illustrative purposes, but they are just that – they serve as hypotheticals while the lessons are generalized.

On a similar note, James Sebenius highlighted the important difference between what is valued and what the goals are in the academic versus non-academic worlds. Sebenius asserted that: “In academics, and the type of mind that is often drawn there, you are rewarded for generalizations, and the more powerful and the more spare, the better. In the world, you are rewarded for solving particular problems, and that is a very different task.” We need to appreciate these differences and deliver as appropriate in each context. Brian Mandell reinforced this point, noting that practitioners are typically not interested in our theories – they want our “war stories.” Practitioners are also typically less patient and expect us to pass the “sniff test” early in the relationship, while the relationship with students in an academic setting typically takes longer to unfold.

Deepak Malhotra cautioned that, regardless of the context, we should be careful to consider participants holistically to maximize learning. “Perhaps the most sacred relationship is between teacher and student. The moment you start treating your student as either a customer or a client, whether they are [in school] or at an organization, I think something gets excised,” said Malhotra. Even when the short-term expectation is that we are going to help them do better on a looming deal, we need to help our students to think more about how they are going to create lasting value and make a positive difference.

Course design

How we approach the design of a course is also dependent on context. Melissa Manwaring noted that we typically design academic courses up-front with some flexibility based on how students respond, but there is little opportunity for true co-design. In contrast, trainings done for organizations typically involve quite a bit of tailoring to the particular situation and needs. She typically uses diagnostic surveys up front to get input. This tailoring and attention do not reflect greater concern for corporate clients (than for students), but rather recognition that they face a complex set of preexisting problems, norms and politics that the trainings must address. While certainly not context or problem-free, graduate students are in a “culture of learning and reflecting” in which they are less “patterned” and more open to what teachers have to share. Theodore Johnson concurred that professional courses require much more tailoring. He noted that professional audiences expect trainers to clearly articulate a value proposition based on a serious examination of their particular needs and informed by knowledge of the organization and their industry. There is a greater need to be on target and high-energy, and often less opportunity to be deliberative.

Brian Mandell stated that he thinks of his “degree program courses as unfolding, carefully orchestrated symphonies [and] the outside work […] more as improvisational jazz.” While more preparation is typically required for professional trainings, particularly given the limited time available, they also need to be very responsive. Mandell often uses a clinical format in professional trainings, giving the group a general outline, and then working through a process of shared learning, drawing out contextual specifics with them. Alternatively he will go “totally tactical,” giving audiences very practical lessons on how to deal with the concrete issues they face. Either way, Mandell typically finds professional audiences much less patient. The challenge is how to provide them with the key messages in a ‘sticky’ way in a short amount of time such that they can take them back to their work and apply them in the face of ever-changing conditions.

James Sebenius admitted that, in the academic classroom environment, he is ‘selfish’ in his teaching, and that this is what sustains him. He frequently uses classes as a way to work through issues that he is trying to better understand. Said Sebenius:

“For example, I’m interested in the relationship between auctions and negotiations. I’ll probably stick together half a dozen cases that are faithful to the underlying reality, bring a fair bit of theory to it, then put them together and see what starts to emerge. Having that sustained conversation, I frequently find myself crystallized on things that weren’t a priori obvious, but I really have to think hard about it if I am going to teach it, and in the conversations what I think is a good idea often falls flat, and what I think is sort of obvious is really a point that is central.”

Of course, Sebenius also tries to learn from his non-academic teaching, but the lessons are very different. It is not about sustained conversations in the same way as it is in a class, but about working with clients to understand their barriers and how they can improve their organizational capacity.

Evaluation

The issue of how courses are evaluated was also discussed. Deborah Kolb uses relatively unstructured role-play exercises that she calls negotiating next week towards the end of workshops to give participants the opportunity to practice what they have learned and confirm whether or not it has had an impact. Lawrence Susskind noted that he likes to reach back out to professional course attendees six to eight weeks later via e-mail to ask them what they have been doing differently as a result of the training and how it appears to have impacted their organization.

In the academic classroom context, more structured means of evaluation, like tests and papers, are used to evaluate both students and the efficacy of pedagogy. According to Susskind, evaluating open-enrollment executive education courses can be particularly challenging, since there is often no shared context – as we have with training inside a specific organization – nor the broader learning objectives and longer time together that is typical of an academic environment.

Returning to the key variables, Robert Mnookin noted that, in addition to the length of time and goal, the number of participants is an important factor in structuring evaluation. When we are teaching semester-long courses we have the time for detailed observation and feedback. This is not possible in a three-day course for dozens of people. Some observation and personalized attention is possible in shorter courses with much smaller audiences.

From polishing symphonies to preparing for improvisational jazz, the pedagogical approaches taken by negotiation instructors are as diverse as the contexts in which we operate. The variety of situations and expectations demand diversity, but much can also be learned from comparisons within each instructional category and across major divisions. The Negotiation Pedagogy Faculty Dinner provided an opportunity to talk candidly about the assumptions that underlie our pedagogy. This is sure to be a conversation that will continue.

Written for NP@PON by Todd Schenk.

Choose the right messenger

The evidence from social science is clear: people’s behavior is powerfully influenced by the actions of those who are like them. A classic study by Harvey Hornstein, Elisha Fisch, and Michael Holmes found that New York City residents were highly likely to return a lost wallet after learning that a “similar other”—another New Yorker—had first tried to do so. But evidence that a dissimilar other—a foreigner—had tried to return the wallet did not increase the likelihood that they would try. When people are trying to determine how to act, they pay attention to how others like them behave in the same situation.

Negotiators who overlook the value of similarity in influencing decision making can rely on the wrong individuals to deliver important messages. One common mistake is to take sole responsibility for communicating the wisdom of a particular policy or the need for change. By taking on the sole burden of persuasion, negotiators give too much credit to their position in the organizational hierarchy or their own powers of influence.

The most effective communicators recognize when they are not the most effective communicators. Specifically, they know that the best route to influence can be from the side rather than from above. For influence practitioners, this means allowing individuals who haven’t yet changed in the desired direction to hear from those who have. Even one exposure to the favorable positions of peers on a topic can have more impact than multiple exposures to the same position from a negotiation opponent or a supervisor.

Both inside and outside the organizational envelope, then, the same principle applies:  persuading one individual by providing evidence that some very different others have done so can be a big waste of time.

A related point: when working to ensure that the voices of supportive individuals will be heard, leaders should give greatest priority to those who are most similar in circumstances to the still-unconvinced. Imagine that resistance to a beneficial change is strongest among the longest-employed members of a department. This group is most likely to be influenced by a fellow old-timer who has genuinely embraced the rationale for change. Therefore, leaders would be well advised to resist the temptation to encourage a newer (although more articulate) member of the group to speak up instead. Canny sales managers teach a version of this lesson to their troops by coaching them to use testimonials from satisfied customers who share a similar business background with new prospects.

Adapted from “Everybody’s Doing It,” by Robert B. Cialdini (professor, Arizona State University), first published in the Negotiation newsletter, January 2004.

Professor Robert Mnookin: Negotiation Strategy and Bargaining with the Devil

Success in negotiation, according to Professor Robert H. Mnookin, Chair of the Program on Negotiation, depends largely on being capable of managing each of the three tensions that he defines as being inevitable within almost any negotiation process. These include the tension between how to expand value and how to divide it, the tension between empathy and assertiveness, and the tension between principals and agents.

In this video, Mnookin, author of Bargaining with the Devil: When to Negotiate, When to Fight, also describes how important it is for all of us to learn how to “de-demonize” each other and that in most cases it is better for all to negotiate rather than fight.

To watch this video, click here.

To watch more PON videos, click here.
Jeswald Salacuse

02/13/2017 - Medford/Somerville, Mass. - Jeswald Salacuse, Professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, poses for a photo on February 13, 2017. (Alonso Nichols/Tufts University)

“Advice for the Advisor” by Jeswald W. Salacuse

Jeswald W. Salacuse, (professor, Tufts University), explores the five principles behind offering beneficial advice. Salacuse’s five essential rules (listed below) are drawn from his book, The Wise Advisor.

  • Know your advisee. Clients are not interchangable. Don’t generalize with your advice; instead, try to understand the particular needs and perspectives of your clients.
  • Help, or at least do no harm. When your advisee is facing a big decision, propose specific helpful actions.
  • Agree on your role. The precise nature of your relationship with an advisee should be the product of negotiation. Whether you’re acting as a director or a partner, know your role in
    giving advice.
  • Never give a solo performance. To give advice effectively, you must be active in your role as an advisor and make sure your advice is understood.
  • Be clear and constructive. Make sure your advisee knows and understands the advice you have given them.

In this “Negotiating Life” column in Tufts Magazine, Salacuse counsels us on how to give advice using these five principles when fulfilling a leadership role, whether it be through talking to your boss or to your kids.

Read the article here.

To read more about Jeswald W. Salacuse, please visit our website.

Are you asking enough questions?

At the time of the final presidential debate between President Jimmy Carter and challenger Ronald Reagan during the 1980 election campaign, the U.S. economy was tanking and the Iranian hostage crisis smoldering. Ronald Reagan used his concluding statement of the debate to address a string of questions to the nation that highlighted Carter’s vulnerabilities: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?… Is America as respected throughout the world as it was?” A week later, Reagan went on to triumph in the election. His questions were viewed as pivotal in bringing about that result.

Negotiators often overlook the power of questions to help them achieve their goals. Indeed, they sometimes fear that asking questions will diminish them in the eyes of those across the table. After all, shouldn’t an effective negotiator have all the answers?

In fact, when posed correctly, questions are potent tools that can help you meet three particular negotiation goals: information gathering, relationship building, and persuasion.

1. Questions that inform. Two sisters were locked in a dispute over their recently deceased father’s diamond ring. Finally, in frustration, one asked a key question: “Why do you want the ring?” The other replied, “Because it has a beautiful diamond that I want to use in a pendant.” The first sister responded, “I want the ring because it reminds me of our father.”

Once they realized their interests were different but not necessarily incompatible, the sisters explored possible solutions. They ultimately agreed that the sister who wanted the diamond could have it after she paid to replace it with the birthstone of her sister, who would then keep the ring.

Remember, knowledge of the other side’s interests is always the key to effective dealmaking. The right questions will assist you in discovering those interests.

2. Questions that connect. Questions are not only a means of gaining information, but also a way to send important messages to other people. Through your questioning, you communicate that those across the table are important to you—that you care about their concerns, ideas, and feelings. On the other hand, not asking questions about the other side’s interests may send a powerful message that you don’t care about them and therefore can’t be trusted.

3. Questions that persuade. Most people like to give advice, an inclination that you can put to work in your negotiations. Vice President Joe Biden did just that in the waning days of the Cold War when, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he tried to persuade Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko to accept changes to a proposed arms control treaty. Detecting Gromyko’s resistance, Biden, instead of insisting on the changes, asked Gromyko’s advice on how to explain some of the treaty’s more problematic provisions to his Senate colleagues. A dialogue ensued, and at one point, Gromyko said, “I see what you mean. Perhaps we can modify the language in this way to take care of that concern.”

Adapted from “Find the Right Negotiator Voice,” by Jeswald W. Salacuse (professor, Tufts University), first published in the Negotiation newsletter, October 2010.

 

Negotiate for what you really want

It may seem elementary, but one of the first questions you should ask when you’re thinking about negotiating for an important purchase is whether you truly want or need it.

We tend to assume that future events—such as buying a new car or signing a seemingly important contract—will have a lasting impact on our overall happiness. But the thrill of just about any event usually wears off much sooner than we predict, research by psychologists Daniel Gilbert of Harvard University and Timothy Wilson of the University of Virginia has found. When focusing on a single purchase, we fail to consider that it may quickly be overshadowed by other, more pressing events at home and at work.

Moreover, we often pay too much attention to the vivid, flashy aspects of a deal. As an example of this vividness bias, Harvard Business School professor Max H. Bazerman has observed that when choosing among job offers, graduating MBA students often base their decisions on aspects that will most impress their peers, such as a high starting salary or a position with a well-known firm. Within a few years, many of these graduates end up switching to work that is less prestigious, but more meaningful to them.

In a similar manner, buyers sometimes fall into the trap of focusing exclusively on getting the lowest price possible—whether for a car or a purchasing contract at the office—with an eye toward bragging about their negotiating prowess to others.

In negotiation, it’s important to work hard to get a low price. But before you start haggling, be sure you really want the item at stake. Educate yourself on your potential purchase as well as other viable alternatives. View sellers’ claims with skepticism, as they may be trying to lure you into an impulse purchase. In addition, consider the negotiation in light of the needs you, your family, or your organization may have. If saving money is critical, then passing on a particular deal—even a great one—may be the smartest choice.

Adapted from “Buyers, Be Aware of These 4 Potential Traps,” first published in the Negotiation newsletter, May 2010.

Gene Sharp event featured on HLS website

A review focusing on the PON film screening of “How to Start a Revolution,” a documentary following the life and work of Gene Sharp, was recently published on Harvard Law School’s website.

The event featured a post-screening panel discussion with Sharp,  founder of the Albert Einstein Institution, a nonprofit institute that focuses on the study of nonviolent action in conflicted zones and the author of From Dictatorship to Democracy, (1993). This book has influenced  nonviolent movements in countries as diverse as  Burma, Georgia, China and Egypt.

“The phenomenon I have been describing in my book is growing and so much has been changed already. I grew up in the post World War II period and lived the Cold War, which seemed to be unfixable at the time and now it is gone,” said Sharp. “When people are no longer intimidated and become conscious of their rights there is hope for change.”

Sharp is currently working to effect change by serving as a leading expert in nonviolence and as Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. For more information about Gene Sharp, click here.

To read the article on the Harvard Law School website, click here.

For more information about upcoming film screenings with PON film series, please visit our website.

 

Militias in Northern Ireland: Guiding Combatants from Violence to Politics

PON Brown Bag Lunch Series Presents:

Militias in Northern Ireland:

Guiding Combatants from Violence to Politics

with Rev. Dr. Gary Mason


When: Friday, November 4

Time: 12:00 — 1:30 p.m.

Where: Pound Hall, Room 108 (Baker), Harvard Law School Campus

Please bring your lunch. Drinks and desserts provided.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Rev. Dr. Gary Mason has spent 24 years as a Methodist pastor in Belfast and has played an integral role in the Northern Irish peace process. He currently leads church efforts in urban development and inter-community relations while running the largest faith-based redevelopment project in Western Europe. Mason is a close advisor to the UVF and RHC (Protestant paramilitaries) and has helped many ex-combatants move away from violence. He was instrumental in facilitating negotiations with paramilitaries and government officials, and in 2007 his contribution was formally recognized by the Queen. In 2009, Mason’s church was the stage from which Loyalist paramilitaries announced their weapons decommissioning. Mason has spoken in political and academic forums throughout Europe, South Africa, and the U.S. on lessons from the Irish peace process. He has been interviewed on CNN, BBC, ITV, the Methodist Hour, and various radio programs. He holds a PhD in Psychology from the University of Ulster, a graduate degree in Theology from Queens University, and a Bachelor’s in Business Studies from the University of Ulster.