Interview with Kertész Tibor

This week I had the opportunity to interview Kertész Tibor. He is a well known Hungarian mediator with a genuine passion for conflict resolution and the process of mediation. The interview provided me with a wonderful insight into mediation in Hungary, and the importance of passion and professionalism in the field of conflict resolution. 

How did you become involved in mediation?

I attended ELTE University in Budapest, and while I was there István ( a founding member of Partners Hungary Foundation) introduced me to the concept of mediation. I was very interested and discovered that I really enjoyed mediation. István then introduced me to Partners Hungary Foundation as a volunteer. After attending trainings, in which active and experiential learning took place, I became a training assistant. I also studied, trained, and practiced in Austria and in the U.S.A.

How many mediations have you conducted? I have heard through the grape-vine that you have conducted the most mediation sessions in Hungary?

I think my students and fellow mediators have done many mediations. We are all very close in number. (At this point, as an interviewer, I would like to highlight the modesty Tibor showed throughout the interview). I'm not quite sure. At the last count I had held 1300 mediation sessions.

What are the most common "types" or "forms" of conflict that you mediate?

Currently, I would say business conflict and family conflict. Mostly dealing with conflicts around the divorce process.

In your opinion what is the greatest benefit of engaging in a mediation in order to resolve a conflict? Why may it be better than engaging with the court system?

When you participate in a mediation the outcomes and the process is based upon the participants decisions. They are in control of the conflict resolution process. It isn't depended on a third party-like a judge. Also, the judicial system and law was not created with the specific personal and situational context of the participants in mind. I recently had a divorcing couple come to mediation, while still having their case heard in court, and they left agreeing that they needed to resolve their problems through mediation. They wanted to come to their own personal decisions.

What is the most rewarding part of being a mediator or the mediation process for you?

Receiving a thank you is always rewarding. I think that it is important to know that not everyone leaves a mediation smiling, but when there is an agreement and you can see the participants are relieved. When the participants have been able to come to some form of conclusion without hurting the other and moving away from a win-lose perspective....that is the biggest reward. I think seeing people engage with problem-solving through mediation is very rewarding. 

What is the most difficult aspect of being a mediator?

Staying out of the conflict and maintaining neutrality. You must always remain aware of being neutral. It is easy to find yourself within another person's conflict. For example- I had a mediation in which a divorced parent left the country with the child and the other parent wanted them to return. The child was four. I have a four-year old. It is easy to see you life in other people's conflict. The most important thing is to remember to remain professional. You are there as a professional.

Is there a difference between mediation in the U.S. and mediation in Hungary? 

The types of conflict are the same. There are not necessarily differences in the forms of conflicts or its manifestation. However, there are slight cultural differences. I think in the U.S. people are able to open-up more easily. Building trust is an easier process. Mediation is more widely accepted in the U.S. and there is an understanding of the mediation process. Because, the concept of mediation is more legitimate in the U.S. society participants often know that a mediator is neutral and is not advocating for any side. This is not always the case in Hungary.

What is success in mediation? What does a successful mediation look like?

Many people think it's an agreement, but sometimes an agreement is not the best outcome. Let me give you an example. This occurred in a victim-offender mediation. A couple had separated and were going through the divorce process. They lived in separate places and the divorce process was very hard. The woman ended up throwing a brick through her ex-husband's window-it landed on the dining table while he was eating with his new girlfriend. The police were called and she was charged. During the mediation old stories and conflicts were told for two-hours. In the end the woman said: "I don't want to do this anymore. My life was about you. Revolved around you. I want to quit mediation." She decided to go to court. The woman understood she would be found guilty, but she saw it as ending the conflict. She wanted to "stop playing his game." It was the only way she could get a clean break. So you see an agreement does not always represent a success in mediation. It is different based on the people and their conflict-context.

How do you "see" mediation in Hungary? 

Positive. Legislation has expanded the field, and it is becoming more and more integrated into the judicial system. There is always room for improvement- mostly in terms of training and quality management. In Hungary, you need 60 hours of training to be a mediator. There is no form of examination and you do not have to participate as a co-mediator or as an observer. Additionally, there is not enough interest in the person who wants to be a mediation. Are they a good candidate? Are they prepared? Not having this quality management makes it very easy for people to be suspicious of professional mediators. 

What is your favorite type of conflict to mediate? ( The phrasing of this question was due to clarity)

Dealing with neighborhood conflict. It is difficult. Married people can separate, but if all your memories, belongings, finances, and security are tied to a physical place...then the conflict is very complicated. The most private area of people's lives and often their "escape" is their home. There was a neighborhood conflict, in the past, that occurred on a one-way street. The families lived on opposite ends and one of the families blocked the exist out. They did not let the other family through with ease. There was fear of violence. The other family often had to be escorted past the "block". When we held the mediation everyone in the town showed up. Through a series of questions and discussion the question of: "why are we here?" and "what is the problem?" was asked. No one knew. No-one could answer the question. There was no way to discuss the starting point of the conflict. Through discussion, it became clear that the neighbors had been in conflict for over forty-years. It had started with their grandparents and some connection to one of the men borrowing a bike from a church... and the other knocking him over. The conflict was so intense it had been maintained for generations. One of the participants decided not to come to the mediation. He or she feared violence. After we held the mediation we did a follow-up on the neighborhood ( 6 months after mediation). The general feeling was that the parties didn't end up as friends, but they could live together. This was a success.

I am personally very committed to working with children and understanding their perspectives in conflict situations. What is the major difference between mediations involving adults and those involving children?

Children-youth are involved in mediation in a couple of different ways: indirectly and directly. Indirectly, children may be involved when handling family conflicts such as divorce or conflicts that involve institutions-such as schools. This is a complex issue overall. In Hungary you cannot involve a child under the age of 14 in a mediation. It is not a matter of parental consent, but a ruling based on age. Children that are coping or form a part of a conflict (often times indirectly) do not have much of a voice. They can't speak for themselves. In a family conflict, such as divorce, you have two parents...but there is a third narrative (the child's) that is not always present.

When I do meet and encounter children-youths in mediation sessions they often have similar traits to the elderly. They are similar in many of their vulnerabilities and their emotions. However, a major difference is that the elderly talk and children-youth often don't want to. Children-youth often don't initially really trust me as a mediator. I am not their age or in their social circle etc. It is understandable. This makes it harder to create dialogue. Usually, you have to start on a topic that allows for some discussion and can lead to trust-building. A topic that everyone has an understanding of. The focus of direct child-youth mediation is communication building and creating trust. You need to build trust in the participants and the process before you can resolve conflict. 

This question leads me to think of empathy building, which is different between the elderly and children-youth. You cannot always ask a child a direct question such as : "How would you feel in the same situation?" or " What is trust to you?" Often times children-youth cannot express themselves in a direct- "question-answer" manner. Rather, it is easier for them to tell stories. I have often had success phrasing points in the following manner: " Tell me a story in which you felt you were trusted." 

How would you like to see mediation develop in Hungary over the next ten years? Ideally?

I would like all mediators to have university degrees. Maybe even a Masters in conflict resolution. I would like there to be a practical training requirement and lots of fieldwork form part of the process of becoming a mediator. Mediators "in training" would be required to observe, co-mediate, and have 350 hours of training before being permitted to practice mediation alone. I would also like to see large and strong mediation organizations developed. Ones that could provide quality control. These organizations could provide training and ensure that skill levels are high. Hopefully the number of mediation cases increases. In Vienna, Austria, a large organization as I have described exists and they mediate thousands of cases a year. I think these organizations should be civil organizations and not run by the state. 

What advice would you offer to mediators just entering into the profession? Or students such as myself?

You are going to have to reflect on yourself and conflict in a different way. You will need to understand your place in the conflict resolution process. Bright and innovative ideas to resolve the problems before you will come to your mind, but you will need to be a professional and stay neutral. You must learn to work with your personality without letting it impact the neutrality of mediation. Be neutral, but be present. You will never completely understand the conflict...only the participants fully understand what they are going through.

I would like to thank Tibor for taking the time out of his busy schedule to provide me with an interview. I have wanted to speak with him for a very long time, as his reputation as the best and brightest has often been discussed. I have participated in evaluations and have had the opportunity to meet and interview many wonderful individuals-all whom have urged me to speak with Tibor.  

One Conflict to Resolve Another?

After a couple of weeks of not having much work and generally waiting around to hear from the powers that be, I have a new project to work on. The Turkish Red Crescent has asked me to develop a country profiling system for humanitarian assistance, in order to help them keep a record of all the risk-prone countries in the world, the type of risks they are facing, and the amount of aid they have already received from the Turkish Red Crescent. After developing the template, the first country I am to work on, is Bosnia and Herzegovina. So far, the template is ready, and I have started working on the individual case studies.

In the 1930s, the Turkish government expressed its desire to assimilate Kurds into Turkey. Many resisted this move, and today the Kurds comprise 15 to 18% of the total population of Turkey. Since the 1980s, Kurdish movements included both peaceful political activities for basic civil rights for Kurds in Turkey, as well as armed rebellion and guerrilla warfare, including military attacks aimed at Turkish military bases, demanding a separate Kurdish state. In the 1970s this separatist movement tied up with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which is currently listed as a terrorist organization by many countries as well as international organizations.

According to today's Hurriyet Daily News, a Turkish newspaper supplement, support for the 'resolution process' aimed to end Turkey's three decade old conflict between the Turkish State and the Kurdish separatists has increased among both the Kurdish population as well as the rest of the Turkish population, according to a survey conducted by the ruling party's Research and Development Directorate. Since the Gezi park protests, the percentage of Kurds supporting the peace process has risen from 75% to 90%, while the percentage of Turkish people has risen from 65% to 70%. It's funny how as soon as the Turks and Kurds were collectively faced with a problem that lay outside the realm of their own differences, it was easy for them to look upon themselves as a unified entity -- raising their voices in unison against authoritarian measures imposed by an otherwise democratic government.

This is almost reminiscent of Muzafer Sherif's 'Robbers Cave Experiment' where the presence of a superordinate goal led the rival groups to forget their differences and join forces to overcome a greater problem. Fun fact: Sherif himself was Turkish, and obtained his first M.A. degree from the University of Istanbul!


 

Assessing GoT/TRC Programming for Gender Sensitivity: A Glance at Material and Non-Material Camp Infrastructure

From the beginning, the Turkish Government has treated Syrians as if they were “guests” seeking temporary reprieve from a violent situation. Government officials predicted that the crisis would be short-lived and based early interventions for displaced Syrians on the notion that their stay would be an abbreviated one. This assumption also partially explains the government’s early resistance to overtures from the international community as well as the difficulty it faced with establishing a uniform registration system prior to June 2012[1], a mishap, in retrospect, that has contributed to the ongoing
challenge of reporting accurate numbers of Syrians who are not living in camps.

In terms of reports on the conditions within Turkish camps for Syrian refugees, it makes sense to differentiate between material conditions (the quality of physical infrastructure, security, and the provision of food and non-food items, etc.) and non-material conditions (access to and quality of basic services, availability of psychosocial support, etc.), primarily because there exists a disparity between the two in most camps.

Material Infrastructure

The overall impression of the camps from a material perspective is overwhelmingly positive. State Department officials who had visited the Kilis camp reported that it was “5 star” in quality and boasted homes with running water and flat-screen TVs as well as access to laundry facilities. In most camps, children have designated areas to play, and vocational training in sewing and rug making for women are available. Children also have access to Turkish language classes and are increasingly able to continue primary school studies in Arabic, although the government was slow to procure Arabic speaking individuals to help run camp operations.[2] The International Crisis Group has documented similar reports of Syrians enjoying a “5-star experience”, with some outside observers commenting that these camps are the best they had ever seen.[3]

Despite positive feedback from visits to camps by external actors, it seems clear that material conditions and levels of comfort enjoyed by Syrians vary from camp to camp. Generally, container camps are better-equipped and more comfortable than tent camps, which make up the majority of available facilities.

The overall security of camps seems to be quite good, with differences in threats to physical safety largely dependent on each camp’s proximity to the border. Law enforcement is comprised of both gendarmerie and privately contracted officer, female security guards form part of the camp security detail, and the relationship between camp residents and security guards was reported as friendly. In addition to well-developed security around the perimeter of camps, one interviewee noted that within one camp, certain areas had been cordoned off for single male inhabitants to occupy on their own. This was apparently done after some female residents raised the concern that they felt uncomfortable with single males roaming campgrounds freely.[4]

Most interviewees reported that they had observed friendly interactions between camp staff and camp residents, but a more thorough interview process conducted with Syrian women in Osmaniye and Nizip camps suggests that camp staff would greatly benefit from cultural sensitivity training as residents felt resentment and tension between themselves and staff.[5]

Non-Material Infrastructure

The primary program in support of food security within the camps is one of the bright spots of the ongoing effort to care for displaced Syrians. In partnership with WFP, TRC kicked off a program that enables Syrian families to purchase pre-approved food items from participating vendors both within camps and in nearby towns and cities. Each person within a family unit receives two installments of 40TL (approximately 40USD) on an electronic card each month.[6] Using these cards, families can choose from a variety of foodstuffs (with the exception of alcohol and junk food) and can prepare meals using kitchen equipment provided by camp management.

            
This program is currently active in 14 camps and TRC/WFP have plans to roll out the e-voucher program to the remaining camps in the coming months. The program itself not only enables Syrians to resume the kind of activities that underpin some semblance of normalcy (like shop for groceries, interact with shopkeepers, cook a variety of meals), but it has resulted in huge cost-savings for the Turkish government. When WFP first arrived in country, the Turkish government was spending between 140 and 170USD per person per day on hot meals that were prepared by camp management staff.[7] The e-voucher program has essentially halved food and nutrition costs and, at the same time, attempts to renew in survivors a sense of self-reliance and ownership over day-to-day activities.

            
Access to education has been something of a mixed bag for both adult and child learners living with the camps. Early on, low numbers of Arabic speakers made it difficult to enable young children to continue their studies in Arabic, although it also seems that TRC has made Turkish language lessons available where possible. One interviewee reported that classrooms that she observed were not sex-segregated and that the children seemed relaxed and well-adjusted to their surroundings, although she did come across one girl who did not attend classes because her family would not allow it.[8] Another observer remarked that a fairly equal number of boys and girls appeared to be in attendance in the classrooms.

An early draft of a needs assessment report completed by a SGBV consultant and her colleagues during visits to Nizip and Osmaniye camps, however, indicates that many women are unable to take advantage of adult-learning courses because their husbands will not allow them to participate. Overall, her team fielded requests for greater access to educational outlets and Turkish language courses at all levels.^[9]

The ability to generate income as a Syrian refugee living in Turkey remains a major challenge. Within the camps, management offers training in traditional vocations for residents. For example, women are able to learn carpet weaving and beautician trades[10] but there is no opportunity to expand skill sets outside of traditional niches.

As part of their status as Temporarily Protected Persons, Syrian camp residents are unable to procure temporary work permits for any part of their stay in Turkey. In speaking with a SGBV consultant familiar with camp operations, it was noted that the current high demand for Arabic-speaking teachers could be addressed by making provisions for camp residents who were teachers in Syria to work-for-pay, but because the government refuses to issue temporary work permits to Syrians, any work that a Syrian teacher would perform within the camps would go unpaid. [11]

This phenomenon of working for free or working for far less than their Turkish counterparts has been reported widely throughout the country, with one commentator arguing that Syrians have become the new working class in Turkey.[12] Instances of survival sex and prostitution were reported[13], but because a UN-sponsored needs assessment of this phenomenon is still underway, accurate figures for the degree to which this impacts women’s lives in the camps is unknown (the cropping up of women selling sex for survival and protection will be explored at greater length in the subsequent section). The same report noted that the significant burden of finding paid work in the informal sector falls heavily on women, who are often heads-of-household as a result of either the death or involvement of their husbands in the anti-Assad insurgency.[14]

There is some level of political organization within the camps, for both women and men, although only 40% of the camps have official camp committees in place and two camps have no female representatives at all.[15] Almost all camps, however, feature a mukhtar (“chosen”, or headman) system, which has formed out of democratic elections of representatives within camp communities. In some camps, there are both male and female mukhtar committees, although it is not clear what level of decision-making power each committee has and whether or not constituents feel that the mukhtar committees function as strong liaisons between constituents themselves and camp administration.

One State Department official recalled a time when the embassy actively pressured TRC camp management to require the formation of a female mukhtar committee in a camp with only male representation. She recalled that TRC’s response reflected a “live and let live” ethos, one in which the Turkish government would only intervene in camp affairs when absolutely necessary.[16]

Interestingly, instances where interpersonal and intercultural conflict has erupted within the camps are around the issue of child and polygamous marriage. Having ratified both the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in addition to drafting the Child Protection Law, Turkish law identifies children as individuals less than 18 years of age. A recently revised Civil Code stipulates that the statutory age limit for marriage is 17 for both women and men, whereas prior to 2002, the limit was 15 and 17 for women and men, respectively. In practice, however, UNFPA reports that child marriage is practiced throughout Turkey, with a heavier concentration of cases in Central East Anatolia, an area that shares ethnic and cultural ties to the many Syrians now living in Turkey.[17]

It was reported by several sources that GoT/TRC is not consistent with its response to child marriage in Syrian camps, opting in some cases to turn a blind eye and in others to unequivocally forbid the practice, a development one official finds ironic given how rampant it is in nearby Turkish towns.[18] This challenge is not one faced by the Turkish government alone; in fact, it is also a reality many officials are forced to confront in camps throughout Jordan.

On the subject of forced [child] marriage, unofficial religious marriages in Zaatari Camp are a serious concern, but on the other side, they are seen by some (women, girls and/or their families) as a protection mechanism.  This is proving an incredibly difficult issue to tackle, particularly without sounding alarm bells that may cause more harm. [19] 

Even in Turkish camps, which are comparatively better equipped and secured than Lebanese or Jordanian counter-examples, early and forced marriages have sprung up in alarming numbers as a way to ensure that young girls are both protected and leveraged to secure a bride price for families with little to no income.[20]

            
Because healthcare practices in the camps and the scarcity of psychosocial support for survivors of sexual and violent trauma are two components that have contributed to some of the largest gender gaps in GoT/TRC programming, these two areas will be explored in great detail in the subsequent section.

---

[1] US State Department Official #2. Interview. June 7, 2013.

[2] US State Department Official #1. Interview. June 7, 2013.

[3] Hugh Pope. Country Director of International Crisis Group. Interview. July 19, 2013.

[4] State Department Official #2. Interview. June 7, 2013.

[5] SGBV Consultant. Interview. June 9, 2013.

[6] “WFP-Kizilay Food E-Voucher Programme.” Progress Report 7 (Gaziantep). May 31, 2013

[7] WFP Official. Interview. July 18, 2013.

[8] State Department Official #1. Interview. June 7, 2013.

[9] SGBV Consultant. “Report on Humanitarian Gender Based Violence (GBV) needs Assessment.” May 22 – 28, 2013.

[10] SGBV Consultant. Interview. June 15, 2013.

[11] SGBV Consultant. Interview. June 9, 2013.

[12] Hugh Pope, Country Director of International Crisis Group/Turkey. Interview. July 19, 2013.

[13] SGBV Consultant. “Report on Humanitarian Gender Based Violence (GBV) needs Assessment.” May 22 – 28, 2013.

[14] SGBV Consultant. Interview. June 9, 2013.

[15] UNHCR RRP 5, p.  223.

[16] State Department Official #2. Interview. June 7, 2013.

[17] UNFPA. “Turkey: Child Marriage” (Version 1). October 2012.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Abbie Taylor. Personal Correspondence. June 24^th, 2013.

[20] SGBV Consultant. Interview. June 15, 2013.

Assessing GoT/TRC Programming for Gender Sensitivity: Turkey's Reaction to a Regional Nightmare

According to a report by the International Crisis Group, on April 29, 2011, the first group of 250 Syrians crossed into Hatay, seeking shelter from an upsurge in violence at home. By October 2012, over 100,000 refugees had made their way into urban and camp areas,[1] and the most recent estimates by UNHCR suggest that 194,000 Syrians now live in Turkish camps and 210,000 Syrians have established residence either with family or on their own in urban locales. Based on current migration trends and no foreseeable end to the fighting in Syria, the UNHCR further predicts that Turkish camps and cities could host up to 300,000 and 700,000 people, respectively.[2]

The GoT currently extends a regime of Temporary Protection to Syrians who have fled the conflict and are now living within Turkey. In legal terms, this falls short of full refugee status and results in the absence of the ability to: apply for transfer to third countries as UN-recognized refugees; participate legally in the work force; and, formally enter educational institutions. The Temporary Protection regime stems from Turkey’s signing of the 1951 Geneva Convention and its 1967 Protocol geographical limitation, which translates to zero recognition of refugees from outside European borders.[3]

Currently, there are 19 fully functional camps in varying proximity to the Turkish-Syrian border. The following is a list of regions and associated camps that house and provide basic services and security to registered Syrians: Adana (Adana camp), Adiyaman (Adiyaman camp), Gaziantep (Islahiye, Nizip-1, Karkamis, Nizip-2 camps), Kilis (Kilis camp), Hatay (Altinozu, Boynuyogun, Apaydin, Yayladagi-1, Yayladagi-2 camps), Karhamanmaras (Kahramanmaras camp), Osmaniye (Duzici, Cevdetiye camps), and Sanliurfa (Ceylanpinar, Harran, Akcakale camps). 5 camps are container camps, 2 camps are comprised of pre-fabricated units, and the remaining are tent camps.[4] According to WFP, the Turkish Government plans to cap the building of new camps to 21 total.[5]

The cost of providing for displaced Syrians has been and continues to be enormous, with the Turkish Government footing a sizable portion of the bill. To date, ICG estimates that the GoT has spent $750 million on the construction, staffing and maintenance of camps. As of April 2013, GoT was spending $50 – 60 million a month on caring for refugees.[6]

Within the camps, AFAD, which is the division of the Turkish Government that handles emergencies and disasters, and TRC personnel are solely responsible for camp management and program implementation. AFAD also closely coordinates with various line ministries (e.g. the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Family and Social Services, etc.) to provide essential services to camp residents. As one UN representative put it, this approach differs significantly from the refugee camp structure preferred by the UN when it is the apparatus in charge; in other words, each agency within the UN typically designs and operates programs within its mandate, which, in effect, creates a kind of siloed and sector-specific approach to refugees’ needs. The Turkish Government, on the other hand, has opted for a top-down, camp management structure wherein the full range of refugee-related needs are addressed by government officials with respective expertise.[7]

---

[1] International Crisis Group. P. 5.

[2] UNHCR RRP 5, p. 213

[3] International Crisis Group. P. 5.

[4] International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. “Emergency Appeal: Turkey: Population Movement.” May 28, 2013.

[5] WFP Official. Interview. July 18, 2013.

[6] Ibid.

[7] WFP Official. Interview. July 18, 2013.