MALAYBALAY CITY (BukidnonNews.Net/ 16 March 2025) — Conflict is unavoidable, but how we talk about it determines whether we deepen divisions or open paths to peace.
Johan Galtung, a pioneer in peace and conflict studies, cited that poorly framed messages can escalate tensions, deepen divisions, and fuel resentment.
As Galtung argues, “Peace journalism gives peace a chance by offering a deeper, more accurate understanding of conflict, highlighting potential solutions rather than merely recounting violence and blame.”
This piece explores how conflict-sensitive communication can help navigate complex issues without worsening divisions. The goal is not to pass judgment or take sides but to reflect on how to communicate responsibly in difficult situations.
Conflict-Sensitive Communication in the Duterte Case
The importance of CSC became evident following divisive online responses to reports about the arrest and investigation of former President Rodrigo Duterte by the International Criminal Court. Supporters argued that the anti-drug campaign restored public order, while human rights groups claimed it led to serious human rights violations.
Discussing this case—or any sensitive political issue—requires balancing truth, fairness, and sensitivity. This is where CSC becomes essential.
What is Conflict-Sensitive Communication?
CSC isn’t about avoiding conflict—it’s about recognizing it and choosing to communicate in a way that minimizes harm and promotes understanding. Howard (2009) defines CSC as designing and delivering messages that address conflict complexities while preventing escalation and encouraging dialogue.
Vladimir Bratić, a scholar known for his research on media’s role in peacebuilding and conflict transformation, argued that it requires deliberate framing of contentious issues to avoid reinforcing divisions or assigning blame. It’s about encouraging dialogue rather than hostility.
This approach is not limited to journalists and media professionals. Today’s social media landscape empowers ordinary citizens, vloggers, and influencers to shape public opinion. While we can’t expect everyone to be conflict-sensitive, we can encourage mindful consumption and sharing of information. Responsible communication isn’t just about what we produce—it’s also about what we consume.
Why It Matters
You might wonder why CSC matters so much. Isn’t communication about conveying facts? In Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick’s book Peace Journalism, they discussed how traditional journalism often emphasizes violence and conflict, which can escalate tensions and hinder peace efforts.
Conflict-sensitive communication helps prevent escalation, promotes peace and reconciliation, builds trust among stakeholders, and strengthens peacebuilding efforts. Aggressive or unfair framing fuels outrage and division, while balanced communication builds trust and encourages dialogue.
Take former President Rodrigo Duterte’s case as an example. Framing it solely as a criminal matter before the court’s decision could alienate his supporters. Presenting it as a complex legal and political process, however, allows room for multiple perspectives and understanding. The goal isn’t to soften the truth but to communicate it in a way that reduces harm and encourages dialogue—consistent with constitutionally protected free expression.
Core Principles of Conflict-Sensitive Communication
Based on several sources, effective CSC relies on five key principles: conflict sensitivity, balance, accuracy, respect, and empathy. These principles align with established frameworks in conflict resolution and communication.
Understanding the conflict’s dynamics is essential. In Duterte’s case, this means recognizing the political context of the drug war—its public support, human costs, and institutional role. Presenting the case without misrepresentation or bias depends on this understanding.
Balance means fairly representing multiple perspectives. Acknowledging Duterte’s justification for the anti-drug campaign, the arguments of human rights groups, and the legal basis for ICC involvement ensures that communication is seen as credible.
Ross Howard, author of Conflict Sensitive Journalism, emphasizes the role of accurate and impartial reporting in reducing conflict. Accuracy means sticking to the facts. Case in point, the ICC reportedly asserts jurisdiction over Duterte’s case because the alleged crimes happened before the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute. Duterte’s legal team argues that the withdrawal limits ICC authority. Presenting both claims factually, without bias or distortion, is key.
Respect, in communication, involves using language that maintains dignity. Terms like “criminal” or “killer” may inflame tensions, especially before the court rules on the case. More appropriate terms like “allegations” and “charges” allow for discussion without provoking hostility.
Empathy, on the other hand, means recognizing the human side of conflict as espoused by Marshall B. Rosenberg, a renowned psychologist and mediator, who introduced the concept of Nonviolent Communication (NVC). NVC emphasizes empathy as a cornerstone of effective communication, advocating for a “respectful understanding of what others are experiencing.”
Acknowledging the pain of victims’ families while understanding the motivations and fears of Duterte’s supporters creates space for thoughtful dialogue. Empathy does not mean agreement—it means understanding the emotional landscape of the conflict and communicating with sensitivity.
How to Frame Public Statements
Preparing a public statement about former President Duterte’s ICC case—or any sensitive issue—requires a thoughtful approach. Words matter, especially when emotions are high.
Based on the works of Howard, Lynch and McGoldrick, here’s a framework to guide communication, which I call APEER – pertaining to the first letters of the phrases.
Acknowledge the conflict without assigning blame. State the facts clearly without judgment. Instead of saying, “Duterte committed human rights violations,” say, “The ICC is investigating Duterte’s anti-drug campaign for alleged human rights violations.” Hopefully, this directly addresses the issue without inflaming tensions.
Provide factual and unbiased information. Stick to the facts—nothing more, nothing less. For example: “The ICC asserts jurisdiction based on pre-withdrawal incidents, while Duterte’s legal team argues that the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute limits the ICC’s authority.” Note: Reporting factually does not mean giving legitimacy to falsehoods or propaganda.
Express empathy. Behind every conflict are real people with real pain. Saying, “Families affected by the drug war continue to seek justice and healing,” acknowledges the emotional weight without fueling division.
Emphasize solutions. Focus on possible paths forward without prescribing solutions. For example: “Various stakeholders have highlighted accountability and reconciliation as key factors for peace.” This frames the issue as one of the possibilities that could lead to resolution, rather than endless division.
Reference multiple perspectives. Reflect different sides of the issue. Supporters might argue that the campaign restored public order, while human rights groups highlight the loss of life and potential violations of international law. Mentioning both views shows fairness and balance.
Big Challenge
Conflict-sensitive communication is more than careful wording—it’s about fostering dialogue and preventing further harm.
This requires rigor and trust. Can we create space for dialogue rather than division? Can we encourage people to see each other not as enemies, but as human beings with legitimate concerns and hopes? Already, as we read, the temperature is rising.
In the case of reporting/communicating the case of the former president, the goal isn’t to defend or accuse—it’s to provide a space where truth, justice, and reconciliation can coexist. Balancing truth, fairness, and sensitivity isn’t easy—but it’s essential for peace.
If we must take a side, it better be the side of peace.
(Bukidnon Views is the opinion section of Bukidnon News. BEYOND THE FOUR WALLS is the opinion column of Walter I. Balane, a faculty member of a state university’s development communication department. The views he presented here represent only his personal insights. This piece was first published in MindaNews.com)