Previously, I cited research from psychology, political science, and history suggesting that when it comes to reducing terrorism, war is not the answer. And I cited statistics showing a rise in global terrorism following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So in the lecture on terrorism, I suggested a number of peace and security measures that could be taken instead of going to war, the last of which was to take the third side— the topic that I'd like to cover in this video. I'm very pleased to say that a world renowned expert on negotiation, Dr. William Ury, has generously agreed to let me use an 8-minute excerpt of a TED talk he gave about taking the third side. Dr. Ury co-founded Harvard University's program on negotiation, and he served as a negotiation adviser and mediator in some of the world's most difficult conflicts, including ethnic wars in the Middle East, the Balkans, and the former Soviet Union. During the 1980s, he also helped the United States and Soviet Union create nuclear crisis centers designed to avert an accidental nuclear war, and in that capacity, he served as a consultant to the Crisis Management Center at the White House. It gives me great pleasure to introduce Dr. William Ury. >> Well, the subject of difficult negotiation reminds me of one of my favorite stories from the Middle East, of a man who left to his three sons 17 camels. And to the first son he left half the camels, to the second son he left a third of the camels, and to the youngest son he left a ninth of the camels. Well, three sons got into a negotiation. Seventeen doesn't divide by 2. It doesn't divide by 3. It doesn't divide by 9. Brotherly tempers started to get strained. Finally, in desperation they went and they consulted a wise old woman. The wise old woman thought about their problem for a long time, and finally she came back and said, "Well, I don't know if I can help you, but at least if you want, you can have my camel." So then they had 18 camels. The first son took his half. Half of 18 is 9. The second son took his third. A third of 18 is 6. The youngest son took his ninth. A ninth of 18 is 2. You get 17. They had 1 camel left over. They gave it back to the wise old woman. Now, if you think about that story for a moment, I think it resembles a lot of the difficult negotiations we get involved in. They start off like 17 camels— no way to resolve it. Somehow, what we need to do is step back from those situations like that wise old woman, look at the situation through fresh eyes, and come up with an 18th camel. Now, finding that 18th camel in the world's conflict has been my life passion. I basically see humanity a bit like those three brothers. We're all one family. We know that scientifically. Thanks to the communications revolution, all the tribes on the planet—all 15,000 tribes— are in touch with each other. And it's a big family reunion, and yet, like many family reunions, it's not all peace and light. There's a lot of conflict. And the question is how do we deal with our differences? How do we deal with our deepest differences given the human propensity for conflict and the human genius at devising weapons of enormous destruction? That's the question. As I've spent the last better part of three decades, almost four, traveling the world, trying to work, getting involved in conflicts ranging from Yugoslavia to the Middle East to Chechnya to Venezuela—some of the most difficult conflicts on the face of the planet—I've been asking myself that question. And I think I've found, in some ways, what is the secret to peace. It's actually surprisingly simple. It's not easy, but it's simple. It's not even new. It's maybe our, one of our most ancient human heritages. The secret to peace is us. It's us who act as a surrounding community around any conflict, who can play a constructive role. Let me give you just a story, an example. About 20 years ago, I was in South Africa working with the parties in that conflict, and I had an extra month so I spent some time living with several groups of San Bushmen. I was curious about them, about the way in which they resolve conflict, because after all, they're, within living memory, they were hunters and gatherers living pretty much like our ancestors lived for maybe 99% of the human story. And all the men have these poison arrows that they use for hunting— absolutely fatal. So how do they deal with their differences? Well, what I learned is, whenever tempers rise in those communities, someone goes and hides the poison arrows out in the bush, and then everyone sits around in a circle like this, and they sit and they talk and they talk. It may take two days, three days, four days, but they don't rest until they find a resolution, or better yet, a reconciliation. And if tempers are still too high, then they send someone off to visit some relatives as a cooling off period. Well, that system is, I think, probably the system that kept us alive to this point given our human tendencies. That system I call "the third side" because, if you think about it, normally, when we think of conflict, when we describe it, there's always two sides. You know, it's Arabs versus Israelis, labor versus management, husband versus wife, Republicans versus Democrats, but what we don't often see is that there's always a third side. And the third side of the conflict is us. It's the surrounding community. It's the friends, the allies, the family members, the neighbors, and we can play an incredibly constructive role. Perhaps the most fundamental way in which the third side can help is to remind the parties of what's really at stake. You know, for the sake of the kids, for the sake of the family, for the sake of the community, for the sake of the future, let's stop fighting for a moment and start talking. Because the thing is, when we're involved in conflict, it's very easy to lose perspective. It’s very easy to react. Human beings—we're reaction machines. And as the saying goes, when angry you will make the best speech you will ever regret. And so, the third side reminds us of that, the third side helps us go to the balcony, which is a metaphor for a place of perspective where we can keep our eyes on the prize. Let me tell you a little story from my own negotiating experience. Some years ago, I was involved as a facilitator in some very tough talks between the leaders of Russia and the leaders of Chechnya. There was a war going on, as you know, and we met in The Hague, in the Peace Palace—in the same room where the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal was taking place. And the talks got off to a rather rocky start when the Vice President of Chechnya began by pointing at the Russians and said, "You should stay right here in your seats because you're going to be on trial for war crimes." And then he went on. And then he turned to me and said: "You're an American. Look at what you Americans are doing in Puerto Rico." And my mind started racing. Puerto Rico… what do I know about Puerto Rico? I started reacting. But then, I tried to remember to go to the balcony, and then, when he paused, and everyone looked at me for a response, from the balcony perspective I was able to thank him for his remarks and say: "I appreciate your criticism of my country and I take it as a sign that we're among friends and can speak candidly to one another. And what we're here to do is not to talk about Puerto Rico or the past. We're here to do, just to see if we can figure out a way to stop the suffering and the bloodshed in Chechnya." The conversation got back on track. That's the role of the third side— it's to help the parties go to the balcony. In the last 35 years, as I've worked in some of the most dangerous, difficult, and intractable conflicts around the planet, I have yet to see one conflict that I felt could not be transformed. It's not easy, of course, but it's possible. It was done in South Africa, it was done in Northern Ireland. It could be done anywhere. It simply depends on us. It depends on us taking the third side. So, let me invite you to consider taking the third side. Even as a very small step: We're about to take a break in a moment... just go up to someone who's from a different culture, a different country, a different ethnicity, some difference, and engage them in a conversation. Listen to them. That's a third side act. The secret to peace is the third side. The third side is us. Each of us, with a single step, can take the world, can bring the world, a step closer to peace. There's an old African proverb that goes: "When spider webs unite, they can halt even a lion." If we're able to unite our third side webs of peace, we can even halt the lion of war. Thank you very much. >> A very wise perspective. Dr. Ury literally wrote the book on "The Third Side." And if you're interested in learning more, or you'd like some tips on negotiation, a good place to start is with one of his books. The Third Side goes into more detail about peace-building measures and conflict resolution, and "Getting to Yes" is a bestseller that's sold over 8 million copies and has been translated into more than 30 languages. A hallmark of the approach advocated by Dr. Ury and his coauthor, Roger Fisher, is what they call "principled negotiation." Principled negotiation boils down to four key points. First, separate the problem from the people. Don't get into personal attacks. Second, focus on underlying interests, rather than expressed positions. Positions are fine, but they're not the whole story—you have to dig deeper. Third, generate a variety of options before deciding what to do. Don't narrow your options prematurely. And fourth, insist that the result be based on some objective standard: market value, scientific judgment, what-have-you. This last point is important because of the distortion that often arises between parties in a negotiation. In fact, Fisher and Ury warn that whatever you say, you should expect that the other side will almost always hear something different, and this applies to negotiations not just between countries or corporations, but between family members, friends, tenants and landlords. This approach can be applied at any level. Let's pause for a pop-up question about a key element of principled negotiation, just to make sure that it's clear. Returning to Dr. Ury's talk about the third side, you might be thinking, "Well, it's a lovely idea, that individuals and communities can bring about peace, but isn't it a little bit idealistic—a little bit naive?" Individual citizens aren't going to be any match for police and soldiers with guns, or governments that rule by force, right? Well, you could have said the same thing about apartheid in South Africa, but apartheid is gone. You could've said that about colonial rule in India, but colonial rule is gone. In fact, you could've said that about dictatorships and colonial rule in many countries, but over the past century democracy has been on the rise, often as a result of ordinary citizens making their voices heard, and in some cases, making their voices heard with the help of other parties taking the third side. To me, one of the best examples of how individual actions can have amazing effects is the case of Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan who in 1971 became the first East African woman to receive a PhD, and who went on to found the Greenbelt Movement in 1977. The background is that beginning in the 1960s, Kenya suffered tremendous deforestation as a result of government corruption, selling off public lands, growing cash crops like tea, and other factors. And this deforestation was increasing poverty, hunger, and conflict because the water was drying up, people couldn't get fuel for cooking, habitat was being destroyed, and so on. Now, if you look at this landscape and imagine the task of changing it, you might feel overwhelmed. How could you counteract the deforestation of a country as large as Kenya? Wangari Maathai's simple but powerful solution was this: You plant trees. Lots of trees. So, she spoke to other women and began a tree planting campaign that the Green Belt Movement continues to this day. All told, over 50 million trees have been planted, and over 30,000 women have been trained in forestry, beekeeping, and other occupations that are providing them with income, preserving the environment, and fighting climate change. In 2004, this work was recognized when Wangari Maathai became the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize. In her memoir "Unbowed" (which, by the way, is a fascinating book), she summed up her approach to mass mobilization with these nine words: "You don't need a diploma to plant a tree." And of course, we don't need deforestation as a motivation to protect the environment because all of us are facing climate change, which has the structure of a social dilemma in which the pursuit of individual self-interest can lead to catastrophe at the group level. This week's assigned reading covers two of the most famous social dilemmas: the prisoner's dilemma and tragedy of the commons. When you read this material, think about human behavior and climate change. This week we also have a terrific bonus reading on the "Psychology of Climate Change Communication," a reading that was generously contributed by the Columbia University Center for Research on Environmental Decisions. Now, before we end, I thought you might like to see a 2-minute video of Wangari Maathai telling a very interesting story about a hummingbird confronted by a forest fire. You might think of the forest fire as a metaphor for war, for climate change, or really for any problem that seems overwhelming. We are constantly being bombarded by problems that we face, and sometimes we can get completely overwhelmed. The story of the hummingbird is about this huge forest being consumed by a fire. All the animals in the forest come out, and they are transfixed as they watch the forest burning, and they feel very overwhelmed, very powerless, except this little hummingbird that says, "I'm going to do something about the fire." So it flies to the nearest stream, takes a drop of water, and puts it on the fire, and goes up and down, up and down, up and down, as fast as it can. In the meantime, all the other animals, much bigger animals, like the elephant with a big trunk, could bring much more water, they are standing there helpless, and they are saying to the hummingbird: "What do you think you can do? You're too little. This fire is too big. Your wings are too little, and your beak's so small. You can only bring a small drop of water at a time." But as they continue to discourage it, it turns to them without wasting any time and tells them, "I am doing the best I can." And that, to me, is what all of us should do. We should always feel like a hummingbird. I may feel insignificant, but I certainly don't want to be like the animals watching as the planet goes down the drain. I will be a hummingbird. I will do the best I can. In the lecture on aggression, I mentioned the power of non-participation. For example, we don't have to listen to sexist lyrics or watch violent movies. But when it comes to working for peace and social justice, there's also the power of participation, of not falling prey to the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility. And here is where the message of William Ury and Wangari Maathai come together. Whether you're taking the third side when two parties are in conflict, or you're taking steps to protect the environment, what's most important is to be active rather than passive. On that note, I'll end with a quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, who was a master at creating social change in the face of enormous obstacles: "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it."
