International mediator for dispute and conflict resolution – neutral expert cultural negotiation services

PeaceMatrix™ international online virtual mediation services for dispute and conflict resolution between ethnic, cultural, religious, racial, national, political, and ideological groups

The PeaceMatrix™ offers an entirely new system for conflict resolution, by its developer, Daniel Ben Abraham. Mediation services offered include the following types of International mediation dispute topics:
  • Water, land, energy and resource rights mediation
  • Fishing, lake water, river, stream and coastal access rights versus government regulation mediation
  • Hunting and animal herding rights and dispute mediation
  • Tribal, religious, and cultural rights agreements
  • Access to religious sites and institutions, prayer, visitation and maintenance disputes
  • Construction, land development, and building projects versus cultural rights
  • Heritage, cultural and burial site rights and development
  • Financial relationships with organizations and ethnic groups
  • Scientific and artistic disputes with cultural implications
  • Tribal control over trade routes
  • Tax and tariff rights of local communities
  • Rights of indigenous peoples regarding building, construction, modernization and globalization
  • Immigration, visitation, and tourism dispute mediation
  • Cross-border dispute and trespass mediation
  • Mediation between tribes, religious, cultural and ethnic groups, and local or national governments
  • Rights to forest preservation
  • Farming and agricultural land rights mediation
  • Toxic exposure, pollution, and environmental harm mediation
  • International armed conflict mediation
  • Diplomacy facilitation private mediation services
  • Cross-national political dispute mediation
  • Mediation of international dispute over United Nations positions, actionsstatements, and resolutions
  • International organization membership terms mediations
  • International defense contractor mediation services
  • Government to government mediation services
  • International political and military relations mediations
  • Climate change grants, funding dispute mediation
  • Multi party mediation involving multiple groups, governments, and organizations
  • Conflict mapping mediation and dispute resolution services


International dispute resolution mediation services

Mediator Daniel Ben Abraham is a practicing attorney for 18 years, and facilitates conflict resolution as international mediator and negotiator helping resolve disputes in addition to his role as a litigator. Daniel Ben Abraham has a Juris Doctorate with a Specialization in Public International Law. He has experience as an attorney resolving countless disputes in negotiations, including for hundreds of clients in mediation. Daniel Ben Abraham is the inventor of the PeaceMatrix™ dispute settlement system, and also offers personalized international mediation and third party neutral dispute resolution services worldwide. He author of the book The PeaceMatrix™ Volume One, on his invention for a new type of global peace-building system, available at Mediator services are outside his role as a litigation attorney.

If you are looking for mediation, negotiations, and dispute resolution services to help negotiate and find solutions for conflicts between international ethnic, cultural, religious, national, political, and ideological groups, please use the following contact information:

If you are interested in hiring the PeaceMatrix™ and Daniel Ben Abraham as a peace negotiator, mediation neutral, and dispute settlement process administrator for your dispute, please contact us.

Benefits of mediation

In mediation, two or more parties are helped to reach agreement on issues of dispute through guided negotiations assisted by a neutral third party. PeaceMatrix™ mediations are facilitated by international mediator Daniel Ben Abraham, using his unique PeaceMatrix™ peace-building system.

How does PeaceMatrix™ mediator and dispute resolution services work?

The PeaceMatrix™ is a new system of dispute settlement between nations, tribes, cultures, religions, ethnicities, ideological and political groups invented by its author and founder, Daniel Ben Abraham.

PeaceMatrix™ offers dispute resolution services applying the PeaceMatrix™ system to help mediate, build understanding, and seek solutions for disputes large and small between any number of parties. While the PeaceMatrix™ is intended for high-technology implementation on a global scale currently in its initial stages, the system is also available for custom manual mediation, group communication, and dispute resolution services guided by its developer, Daniel Ben Abraham, who has a background in both U.S. law and public international law and dispute settlement, having studied under a former U.N. Ambassador, and a legal advisor to the Dalai Lama.

What is needed to get started with mediation

For mediation, you need two or more parties with a wish to resolve a dispute, or to enhance their relationship or the relationship of their respective groups or peoples. It is helpful if the parties have a goal they can work toward. If you are ready to hire services, you must contact our office. You will have to arrange for and schedule services, and make payment pursuant to the mediation terms. You will then have to familiarize yourself with the process. Finally, before mediation starts, you or your representatives will be asked to provide a brief stating your party’s position and goals. Also before the mediation begins, you will be asked to answer questions according to a customized PeaceMatrix™ set of questions to facilitate the process of seeking solutions, which will be continued as mediation begins on the scheduled date.

How do PeaceMatrix™ mediator and dispute resolution services work?

Mediation using the PeaceMatrix™ system, through its Architect Daniel Ben Abraham, helps parties  see each other’s viewpoints and negotiate peace resolutions, by creating a geometric diagram of the dispute mapping out all key viewpoints, with questions across 26 key categories. The diagram functions as a learning tool, teaching tool, debate, negotiation, mediation, peace building and solution organization system in one.  By building the diagram, the parties are guided to  see each other’s positions on a number of key issues, and work to develop questions to answer together. Through these questions, the parties are then guided to address and seek to resolve their outstanding issues.

How does the PeaceMatrix™  mediator and dispute resolution services help resolve and build peace in ethnic, cultural, religious, ideological, national and political conflicts and disputes?

Representatives from all sides work with Daniel Ben Abraham, to address the conflict and seek to find and implement peace resolutions by developing a PeaceMatrix™ diagram of the dispute, which can then be related to all the peoples involved in the dispute. The diagram is used to help aid communication, negotiations, and solution development. It is also used to allow all members of each party to be able to see all positions. The , PeaceMatrix™ is a question-based diagram, which breaks down and analyzes the dispute according to 26 question categories addressing all areas of the human experience in which disputes lie.

Why mediate your dispute using the PeaceMatrix™ system?

There are many different forms of negotiation facilitation, mediation, and dispute settlement services. There are many mediators and mediator services for helping resolve ethnic and cultural disputes, religious disputes, tribal, neighborhood, community, legal, political and cultural disputes. Many times, the territories of the dispute will have their own laws, legal, or political systems for addressing a dispute. If the parties

PeaceMatrix™ mediation and dispute settlement is new, and different. It involves the best of traditional mediation, as well as the PeaceMatrix™ diagram dispute resolution system.

Each side can choose to utilize any representative(s) and expert(s) as it wishes to help present and represent their positions and goals in both written brief and oral presentation as requested and guided by the process. The Architect helps guide the parties through negotiate by examining positions and goals and the key 26 categories of human interaction of the PeaceMatrix™ system.

The dispute resolution process, categories, and questions help the parties see all sides, all perspectives of the dispute, as well as look for new opportunities in these key areas where all conflicts exist. It allows the other parties and their constituents to see all perspectives. It allows the parties to propose and examine new ideas and solutions. The PeaceMatrix™ system looks at the different cultural, ideological, and moral perspectives, communication challenges, definitional challenges, as well as historic interpretations and cultural text interpretations, among others.  It is an ongoing process than can proceed as long as necessary to help resolve the dispute and build peace.

The mediation and peace-building process facilities or enhances other forms of communication, including:

  • Diplomacy

  • Politics

  • Executive leadership

  • Debate forums

  • News media

  • Social media

  • Informative websites

  • Books and other written materials

  • Research papers

  • Moderated discussion forums

  • Blogs

  • Educational institutions

  • Local and domestic law, tribal and religious law

  • Non-government organizations

  • The United Nations

  • International dispute resolution systems, and,

  • International law and its courts, bodies and systems

Additional types of PeaceMatrix™ services and methodologies include:

The PeaceMatrix™ by Daniel Ben Abraham is the only mediation service available to utilize the PeaceMatrix™ system. When you are unable to find a resolution, and especially you don’t know why, the PeaceMatrix™ may have the answer.

Mediation Service methodologies

  • Circumventing Impasses in dispute and conflict resolution

The PeaceMatrix™ has a unique system for circumventing impasses that obstruct other peace deals and conflict resolutions. it leaves no stone unturned in the search for solutions.

  • PeaceMatrix™ modeling

PeaceMatrix™ modeling is a way of mapping out the dispute visually so that the parties can see all aspects of the dispute from all sides. This can help the parties realize new opportunities.

  • Common goal-setting

Often times, the parties who come to mediation will have to maintain a relationship afterward. For this, it is ideal that communication, mutually-acceptable goals are set for the future. The mediation process can help reach agreement for and set those goals to foster peace.

  • Communication building

Many times, the parties are unable to achieve peace because they do not have effective communication systems. part of the process here is to seek out additional means and methods of communicating and connecting the parties or their leadership, to enhance the information amongst and between the parties to facilitate peace.

  • Culture building

Peace can be developed in a number of ways, allowing the parties work together to build a new moral and cultural framework of mutual respect, coexistence, and cooperation.

  • Shared moral framework building

The PeaceMatrix™ process can also help the parties find new moral principals to share, so they can together work toward common goals from the same perspective of right and wrong.

What types of domestic and international disputes and conflicts is this form of mediation and dispute resolution service best for?

Ethnic, religious, racial, and tribal dispute resolution and mediator services

In religious disputes, the parties are concerned with a spiritual or higher power, or deeper meaning of life than simply the material world. Yet, the matter often involves the material world in some way. In ethnic, racial, and tribal group matters, the fabric of the parties is deep within the fibers of their being. Yet still, through open-minded and effective dialogue, there can be progress made.

Cultural and group rights dispute resolution

Cultural and group rights may involve certain artifacts, territorial rights, ceremonial rights, or other valuable interests. When these conflict, it is up to an effective mediator to help resolve the dispute by leading the parties toward their shared goals. This involves working with group leaders, representatives, experts in various areas, including historical and archeological, and also governments, government agencies, lawyers, courts, and organizations both domestic and abroad.

Inter-tribal and Intra-tribal negotiations and dispute resolution

Tribes often share fundamental aspects of life, land, resources, and also opportunities. Being able to work through differences and find better ways to coexist and cooperate is important for the well-being and progress of all involved. Often times there are opportunities for resolution and advancement that the parties merely need to be able to envision, to be able to work towards.

Negotiations between local ethnic, tribal and cultural groups, organizations and governments

Sometimes tribal and ethnic groups need to work with and cooperate with governments and government agencies to effectively resolve problems and challenges to improve the lives of their people. This process of communication and cooperation can be greatly facilitated by a mediator able to find and address the key issues.

Agreements, solution and policy development for international, local, ethnic, tribal, cultural, religious, political, racial and ideological groups and organizations

When the parties have an agreement in principle, it needs to be clarified, developed, and documented so that the parties can be clear in their intent, and plans for moving forward in cooperation. Such plans and agreements need to be carefully drafted in order to address current and potential future issues. Sometimes there are implications that require government agencies, non governmental organizations, or other international and domestic bodies’ involvement to be most effective.

Process of PeaceMatrix™ international dispute settlement system:

If both parties agree to utilize the PeaceMatrix™ to engage in negotiations to help resolve the dispute and hire the system, the following will occur. Once begun, the mediation and dispute resolution process generally may take 5-10 business days.

  1. Both sides will provide written descriptions of the dispute and goals to the Architect.
  2. Both sides will make arrangements to use the PeaceMatrix™ as a peace building and dispute resolution system.
  3. Both sides will define parameters for the process with the architect, which are reduced to a written agreement describing the process to be engaged in, and the rules for proceeding, as well as terms if the rules are not followed by one or both sides.
  4. Payment terms are discussed and agreed-to. If the parties do not have the necessary funds, there are many governments, donors, and organizations who may assist in financing such a worthy cause as peace and dispute resolution.
  5. The Architect will work with both sides, sometimes together, sometimes each individually, to help map out and resolve the dispute elements and come up with a solution framework.
  6. Better understanding and potential solutions are hopefully reached with the parties’ cooperation. Because of the process, improvement can be made through increased understandings even if no ultimate final detailed peace resolution is reached immediately, allowing the parties to reconsidered and build on progress made.
  7. If appropriate, the solutions can be written out in an agreement or other guiding text, set of rules, description of future plans, or even a cultural framework of shared values moving forward.

Frequently asked questions

  • Are determinations binding?No. We work together to explore greater understanding of the problem from an outside perspective and possible solutions. The parties and their leaders are always free to accept or reject any solution in whole or part.


  • In what language do discussions take place?

Because of the mediator’s role, all discussions must take place in English, or translated to English. If you do not speak English fluently, you must arrange for translators and interpreters to be part of the process.

  • How much does it cost?

Mediation, negotiation, and peace-building process costs start at approximately $10,000 USD per week. It may be shared evenly between the parties, two or more. This is a small price to pay rather than each side spending more continuing the conflict. There are many people with an interest in resolution who may be able to spend money no better way than to help foster understanding and peace for their community who may donate, grant, loan, or contribute to the parties to help pay for PeaceMatrix™ services.

  • What if we do not have the funds?

Mediation that helps bring the parties closer to peace is worth the price. If you do not have funds, you may contact and apply to a number of organizations, international bodies, and government agencies who may grant or support such costs to fund the mediation.

For example:

  • Do the parties sign an agreement at the end?

They can, if they choose to. We can also work with your team, your attorneys if you are represented, and your experts in preparation of various other documents, guidelines, agendas, goals, descriptions of values, and other materials to provide to the communities as part of the resolution, as the parties see fit. Though please note, while we may discuss many of your options and facilitate the process, we cannot provide you with legal advice.

More about the PeaceMatrix™ system:

The 26 starting Question Categories of the system are as follows:

A INTRODUCTION – What is the best summary and scope of the dispute for peace?

B PARTIES AND TERMS – What are the most important definitions and party identities for understanding and peace?

C HISTORY AND CURRENT SITUATION – What is the best understanding of the history and current situation for peace?

D WANTS – What is the best understanding of the full spectrums of each party’s wants for peace?

E DISPUTE – What is the best understanding for peace of why the parties’ wants are problematic and where the dispute actually lies?

F COMMUNICATION – What is the best understanding of the level and nature of communication between the parties for peace?

G UNKNOWN – What are the most important things each side does not understand that would be helpful to know for peace?

H CULTURES – What about the parties’ values, cultures, human natures, animal natures, beliefs, ideologies, customs, national, local, and tribal interests and other unknown forces and motivations is most important for understanding and peace?

I WRITINGS – What are the most important understandings about the relevant key writings, documents, rules and laws for peace?

J MORALS – What are the most important understandings about the parties’ different subjective moral codes for peace?

K IDEAL VALUES – What would and should the parties’ culture, morals, values and rules be for peace, shared or individual?

L WHY NOT IMPROVE – What is most important to understand for peace about why each side might want or not want improvement or a resolution?

M AUTHORITIES – What is most important to understand for peace about the key authorities and decision makers?

N BENEFITS FROM DISPUTE – What is the best understanding for peace of who and what interests most benefit from the dispute continuing?

O COMMON GROUND – What is the best understanding for peace of the common ground, common interests, common goals, common threats and enemies?

P COOPERATION OBSTACLES – What is the best understanding for peace of obstacles that stand in the way of the parties’ cooperation for mutual constructive benefit?

Q UNILATERAL OBSTACLES – What is the best understanding for peace of obstacles affect the parties pursuing their own best interests and achieving contentment unilaterally (besides the other side)?

R RESOLUTION OBSTACLES – What is the best understanding for peace of obstacles stand in the way of the parties finally resolving the dispute?

S WHY RESOLVE – What might happen is the dispute is not resolved, and what are the motivations for seeking peace?

T PAST SUCCESSES – How have similar challenges been attempted to be resolved, improved, or actually resolved, elsewhere and in the past?

U SELF-IMPROVE – What can the parties do to unilaterally improve their positions without harming the others’?

V WORKING BACKWARDS – What are ideal future scenarios for peace, and how can we work backwards from these? If the dispute would have been resolved by a future point but for certain factors, what are they?

W MORE PARTIES – Who else can be brought to the negotiating table and how would they help peace?

X SOLUTIONS – What are all possible peace proposals, ideas, and solutions?

Y NEW VALUES – What rule, doctrine, or morality is created by each positive scenario and possible peace outcome?

Z CHANGES – What changes/additions should be made to this PeaceMatrix™?

Appendix A of Starting Question Categories

Here’s more detail about each Starting Question category. The letters and number are less important than the effectiveness of the process in bringing the right ideas and analysis from the question progression.

The Starting Questions and some next level questions will be mandatory, and sure to be improved over time. The subsequent levels (sub-level) questions exampled in this book and below may include fundamental questions, developmental questions, elemental questions, and vulnerability questions, and more. I left off the “for peace” from subsequent questions, but it’s on the end of each question, as and when appropriate. Chains and branch structures are fluid per the system rules, adapting to the specific situation. Hopefully more details and application examples are coming in Volume II.

A INTRODUCTION – What is the best summary and scope of the dispute for peace?

The first Starting Question, A, is the “Introduction Chain”. We need a way to define each PeaceMatrix™ for each dispute we are working on, to give it a title, a goal, a summary, a scope, parameters and limitations, in order to be effective. We can’t accomplish anything without a defined goal.

Don’t underestimate the importance of setting, examining, and clarifying the proper scope and goal. A question in a vacuum may be unanswerable, but when we create a scope and a goal, “the best understanding for peace”, that question then suddenly becomes answerable, because we know what we’re trying to accomplish by seeking an answer. We can’t understand right or wrong in a vacuum, because without a clearly defined scope and a goal for resolution, we have no fixed point to stand on, no direction. This PeaceMatrix™ chain helps provide some of that perspective. Only in the scope of a defined dispute with another group, and a goal for its resolution, do we have the context to properly examine the necessary questions. And a defined goal makes an infinite problem finite, because everything becomes relevant to the desired outcome.

The title of the PeaceMatrix™ and the introduction define the full scope of the dispute and its goal. The Introduction Chain allows us to do all of this. If at some point, the scope is insufficient or too broad or misguided, it can be changed. The scope will be the dispute in the broadest possible sense, involving each aspect that must be understood or solved for the entire problem to be solved. Metaphorically, the goal and scope seek to address the full disease, not the symptoms, of the problem, and path to peace.

A-Chain is a top-level analysis, like Z, looking at all issues regarding the nature of the PeaceMatrix™ itself. The PeaceMatrix™ system is used to explore and determine its own proper scope. If a PeaceMatrix™ appears unhelpful because of too many factors outside the scope of the PeaceMatrix™ that have their own separate problems and obstacles, that is indication that an additional, different, broader or narrower scope PeaceMatrix™ may be advised, to supplement.

The introduction will state the dispute as objectively as possible, aware that facts can often be biasing, depending on which facts are communicated and which facts are omitted. The introduction must be presented to give a general sense of the overall problem from a neutral, multi-sided, and open-minded perspective. The introduction need not be in question form, and will be susceptible to suggestions and changes as the process develops.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

Why is this the best scope for peace? What is the best scope for each peace scenario? What other scopes may be better for peace? Why is this the best introduction for peace? What other introductions may be better for peace? Why is this the best title for peace? What other titles may be better for peace? What is the best title for peace? What is the best summary for peace?

B PARTIES AND TERMS – What are the best understandings of important definitions and party identities for peace?

The Parties and Terms Chain identifies and defines these for the PeaceMatrix™. Many times, each party to a dispute identifies and sees themselves differently than the other side sees them. That’s an obstacle to peace. Whether the first party is correct, or the second party is correct, or a little of both, the shared understanding will bring the parties closer to peace. Parties may also have different terminology and meanings for the basic concepts of the dispute, even if they speak the same language, let alone if they don’t. These gaps must be bridged if people are going to communicate effectively regarding a dispute.

So, Parties and Terms Chain is a glossary – a multi-perspectived glossary of all key parties and terms. It should analyze who each party to the dispute is, and what each primary term means, from each possible perspective. It should examine each party as they see themselves and each term, and how each other party sees that party or term also. The major concepts of the dispute are defined here according to how each party views and understands them.

Who the parties are to a dispute may be difficult to properly assess. Why are Parties and Terms one chain? In American politics, what is a “liberal” or “conservative”?  “Right?” “Left?” “Republican?” “Democrat?” Is it a value system? An ideology? A group? A party to a dispute? A term to be defined? These questions are interconnected, and some of those very questions may lie at the heart of the dispute. When a group may be a party, it is better to include them and then do an analysis of whether their inclusion is correct. A party may be anyone who has an interest in the outcome, and/or ability to affect the outcome. That’s why the Parties and Terms Chain is one chain. Seeking to understand a party includes everything about the nature and dynamics of the party necessary to be understood for peace. What is the full spectrum of understandings of the identity of Party A?

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

Who should be the proper parties to achieve peace? Which parties are best to build peace in this PeaceMatrix™? Who is party A? Why are they a party? What is the full spectrum of viewpoints within the group known as Party A? Why is it better for peace to view them as one party versus multiple sub-groups? What is the definition of Term Z according to party A? What is the definition of Term Z according to party B? How does Party A define Party B? How does Party B define Party A? Why does Party A define Party B as such? What are the most benevolent things about Party A? What are the most constructive things about Party A? What are the most harmful things about Party A? How unique is Party A? What is unique about Party A? Why are Party A people? Why is Party A unique? Why is Party A a nation/tribe/culture/group/religion/faction? Why is Party A not a nation/ tribe/culture/group/ religion/faction? How many other parties are similar/different to Party A? How similar/different are other peoples to Party A? How do the moderates of Party A view the extremists of Party A? How do the moderates of Party A distinguish themselves from the extremists of Party A? What are the similarities/differences in values between moderates and extremists of Party A?

C HISTORY AND CURRENT SITUATION – What is the best understanding of the history and current situation for peace?

To understand a conflict, you must know its history and what’s happening currently. C-Chain examines the historical context necessary for understanding the dispute through to the present situation. There is no dividing line between these, so they also go together.

Our over-emotionalized current events news and social media focus provides a dangerously short-sighted and distorted perspective, often at the cost of the bigger picture, aka reality. We must be conscious of history for a proper understanding. However, even facts are not so simple as we examine passionate conflicts. When narratives become politicized, historic facts become so controversial, that diplomats and world leaders will not speak of actual recorded history because of whom it may offend. This can unintentionally add to conflict by avoiding perspectives that require analysis. Self-censorship can sweep problems under the rug, but ultimately prolong them.

This Chain takes the consciousness that revolves around current, emotionalized events of a conflict, and as it develops them, it transfers branches to other Chains probably more than any other Chain, as those questions and elements fit other, more constructive pieces of the puzzle. It diffuses emotional current events into more constructive chains.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

What is the best understanding of the history of Party A for peace? What is the best understanding of why? What is the best understanding of the conflict for peace? What is the best understanding of the current situation for peace? What is the best understanding for peace of why the current situation is happening? What are the key elements to understand the current situation for peace? How beneficial to humanity is each Party’s history? What is the value to humanity of each party’s history? What is the history of the people in the relevant territory? What are the harms to humanity from each party’s history? How indigenous is Party A? What is each party’s contribution to the advancement of mankind? How longstanding is Party A? How peaceful is Party A’s history? What must be understood about the current situation for peace? What elements in the current situation identify key problems (or provide key opportunities) for peace?

D WANTS – What is the best understanding of the full spectrums of each party’s wants for peace?

Understanding what a party wants is more complex than it sounds. Individuals often don’t know what they want, and even when they think they do, are often not happy when they get it, and want something else. DO the parties want meaning, happiness, an ideological goal, or something different? Even more so for a group, with all of its ideological, emotional, group-think, political forces and interests, spectrums of ideologies and values and interests across its members, and countless other fluid factors. We need to examine the full spectrum of a party’s wants, not just the extremists, nor just the moderates.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

What does the first party want according to the first party? What does the first party want according to the second party? What does the second party want according to the first party? What does the second party want according to the second party? Why does the first party want these? What factors determine what each party wants and why? In what ways does Party A want the same thing most other people have? In what ways does Party A want something fewer other peoples have? Why are Party A’s wants about its very survival as a unique people? What is the full spectrum of Party A’s wants according to moderates of Party A? What is the full spectrum of Party A’s wants according to polarized elements of Party A? What distinctions exist between the wants of Party A’s leadership and its people?

E DISPUTE – What is the best understanding for peace of why the parties’ wants are problematic and where the dispute actually lies?

We need to be able to pinpoint precisely where the parties are diametrically opposed, and if they are. This section should pinpoint where the conflict actually lies, the impasses, where the parties are diametrically opposed, as well as distinguish where there is an apparent, but no real impasse. Is it like the example of two people wanting the same one apple. Which, by the way, we solved, remember? This Chain identifies the exact nuances of impasses, so they can be circumvented.

Every key contentious issue should be identified here, explaining its role in the scope of the entire dispute. It pinpoints exactly where wants and goals are incompatible and where are they not. This Chain pinpoints exactly where the dispute lies and doesn’t lie so that workarounds and compromises can be fleshed out. Many things that may appear to be an impossible impasse are not really so when closely examined. Sometimes a party’s wants appear diametrically-opposed but aren’t really, or don’t have to be. There is a saying, “I didn’t know how I would cross the river, but when I got there, the river was dry.

Our problems are so convoluted, that we must not ignore the fact that we probably cannot even see the exact problem clearly. Think of the example of the apple both parties wanted. When leaders round up support, they generalize, and the exact point of incompatibility may be obscured. Are the parties exactly and precisely and absolutely diametrically opposed? Or, is there a possible workaround, some means of mutual satisfaction, focus on other interests, even if we have to adjust or clarify the wants of one or both parties.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

Why are the parties diametrically opposed on this issue? What is the exact point of contention on each major issue as best understood for peace? Why might the parties not be diametrically opposed on this issue? How might these questions differ between the party’s wants and needs? How do we know each of the underlying assumptions is correct? How might the parties be satisfied with alternatives? What would need to be the situation for the parties be satisfied with alternatives?

F COMMUNICATION – What is the best understanding of the communication of the parties for peace?

Have you ever played the game telephone in kindergarten? Where you sit in a circle and each person whispers the word into another’s ear, and by the time it goes around the circle, you have a completely different word? Because we’re playing it now. And the stakes are a bit higher.

There is a communication war going on, and unless you really strive to seek out and listen to alternative, independent, and diverse sources of news, you are not getting the full picture.

The F “Communication” chain should seek to understand everything about the parties’ communication necessary for peace. F-Chain should analyze the level, nature, and quality of exchange of ideas, viewpoints, emotions, and possible solutions amongst and between the parties, as well as with third parties; including their leadership, media, education, discourse, and diplomacy.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

How can the parties best communicate for peace? How effectively do the parties communicate? How can the parties understand each other better? How biased is each mode of communication? How diverse is the communication?  How well do the parties hear the other side’s viewpoints? How effective is the free marketplace of ideas, from which ideas can be chosen based on their merit? By what methods do the parties communicate? By what methods do the parties communicate with each other? By what methods do the parties communicate amongst themselves? How effectively are different viewpoints among each party communicated? What are the most accurate sources of information for each party? How much understanding of opposing viewpoints does Party A’s people have? How good is Party A’s understanding of Party B’s position? How much understanding of opposing viewpoints do/can the party’s people tolerate? How well does Party A tolerate opposing viewpoints?

G UNKNOWN – What are the most important things each side does not understand that would be helpful to know for peace?

Imagine if you could know what you don’t know. Imagine you could at least identify what either or both sides don’t know, isolate it, and define its characteristics for analysis. Imagine you could each tell the other side what you think they don’t know. The PeaceMatrix™ is a scientific approach to peacebuilding. And in that, we factor in known variables, and unknown, as best we can. This section analyzes everything not known or not understood by either or both or all parties. Often, conflicts can persist because the parties don’t know something, or can’t know something, or one side knows something that another does not.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

What are all possible future results of this course of action? What perspectives is Party A unaware of? What resources will change in availability in the future? What future events may affect the conflict? What future events may affect party A, B, or both? What unknowable future events may be relevant to understand for peace? What would happen if the conflict continued? What are the flaws in our/their facts/beliefs/moral positions? What positions does Party A wish Party B understood? What do both parties wish they could know, but can’t? What does Party A feel they know, but really don’t know?

H CULTURES/IDEOLOGIES – What about the parties’ values, group psychological factors, cultures, human natures, animal natures, emotions, biochemistries, spiritual aspects, beliefs, ideologies, mindsets, primitive human drives, customs, ethnicities, national, local, and tribal interests and other unknown forces and motivations is most important for understanding and peace?

Why study cultures/ideologies as a separate chain? Perhaps because, as Nietzche said, “In individuals, insanity is rare. But in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” Twain said, “if one finds itself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.

This very important Chain seeks to understand each parties’ ideologies, group mentalities, shared viewpoints, values, cultures, human natures, beliefs, views, emotions, customs, mindsets, primitive drives, and national, local, political, and tribal interests. All these are another way of saying our motive, state of mind, common mind, and compelling forces and dynamics as a group. It is the motivations behind our actions, why we do what we do, as a group or as individual members of the group. It is the nature and qualities of that party’s ideology and collective mind space. It can be of the entire population, or just a leadership.

Ideology is incredibly powerful at shaping a person’s, and group’s viewpoint and actions, and that power can separate humans from our logic and reason. Ideologies must be identified, explored, categorized, and understood, whether unique to the group or part of a group, or common to a broad segment or even all of human nature. We have to understand ideological dynamics like why how ideologies and cultures form, change, how they control their adherents and how they can be controlled. We must understand why and how ideological power and money flows to its extremes, so moderates can fix these problems.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

How does the group identity interact with individual identities? What is the best understanding of each ideology for peace? What is most valuable to this culture? What are the main sources of meaning in the lives of Party A? What is most valuable to this culture ranked in order of priority? Why does this group do what they do? How do ideology/political forces/motivations flow within the group/affect the actions of the group? How do Group A’s political/social power structures work? How does energy/power flow to those leading/developing the ideology? How old/rare/unique/valuable/benevolent/constructive

/contributing is Party A? How much has this culture contributed to the advancement of humanity? How are the goals/wants/interests of the ideology different than the individuals? What values and beliefs does the ideology rely on? What are the unique values/faults/merits/contributions of the culture/group/ideology/viewpoint? What are the valuable contributions of the ideology? What are the benefits/harms of the ideology/culture/viewpoint? How longstanding is the culture/nation/tribe/religion/people/viewpoint? How has the culture/tribe/religion/nation/group/faction/people improved the world? How has the culture/tribe/religion/nation/group/faction/people advanced humanity? What civilizations have been built based on the culture/ideology? What are the values and faults of each culture/ideology/religion/group? How has the culture/tribe/religion/nation/group/faction/people provided a foundation for other peoples/groups/cultures/nations/factions/ideologies? How aggressive/dominant is this culture/ideology? How aggressive/dominant is this culture/ideology in its own indigenous homeland? How aggressive/dominant is this culture/ideology in other peoples’ indigenous homelands? How well does this ideology get along with others? How peaceful is the group/religion/ideology/viewpoint? If Party/group A’s ideology behaved like a living organism, what would it do to survive and grow? How could we manage that in a way that preserves peace? What shared culture can the parties build or agree to for peace? What are the elements of that?

I WRITINGS – What are the most important understandings about the relevant key writings, documents, rules, and laws for peace?

Writings Chain seeks to analyze and understand the key elements of the dispute affected by treaties, laws, doctrines, agreements, religious texts, and other writings. To put all writings in one category makes perfect sense. This is a separate category because writings are fixed, and yet broad enough to cover all of these in one. This Starting Question carries an entirely different set of issues than viewpoints held. This examines not only the writings, but their effects and ramifications. You obviously are not looking to examine every writing, but those key to the elements that maintain the dispute, and their vulnerabilities. For one side, the key writing at issue may be a written law, for another, it may be a leader’s proclamation or historic text. Some writings are more easily changeable such as a research paper, opinion piece, or textbook which teaches certain viewpoints or facts. Others may be difficult to revise, for instance, historical doctrines. Or, even more difficult, to revise are laws or international treaties, which may need to rewritten, reinterpreted, or revised with the agreement of multiple groups or nation-state parties. U.N. resolutions or international treaties or declarations may need to be written, and go through a political process including approved by vote. The interpretation of cultural texts naturally changes over the centuries. How that can be accelerated is also examined here.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

Why is this writing important to the dispute? How does this writing affect the dispute? What new writings/amendments/reinterpretations may be helpful? How could we change, reinterpret, enhance or add to this writing? What new writings might help make peace?

J MORALS – What are the most important understandings about the parties’ different subjective moral perspectives for peace?

Many times, in conflicts, both sides believe they are each the right, moral, and just side. The question, is, why? “Justice” may mean different things to different groups. This section seeks to analyze and understand why there is a discrepancy between moral perspectives. Two sides may each think they are the good, moral, and just side, but disagree on the application of morality or justice, which moral principle to apply, or why, just as examples.

If a parent believes in giving the kid with the best behavior the most ice cream, that’s one moral perspective. If the parent believes in giving the biggest kid the largest portion, that’s another moral perspective. Both kids could claim to be morally due the larger portion, so we need to dissect underlying reasons.

In conflict, two parties may both recognize an inherent right to self-defense as a moral principle, but they may disagree on how that right applies in the particular situation. Or they may disagree on the facts or moral interpretation of who is the party defending themselves and who is the aggressor. If we can identify those underlying understandings, then we can perhaps bridge the gaps. Sometimes, we need to find the rule so we can see if the rule can be applied universally. One side may believe self-defense is valid for one-side only, or may believe in another moral principle or right that supersedes their opponent’s self-defense. Or they may disagree on the facts which warrant self-defense. One side may see an arms build-up or advancement as an act of aggression, while another sees it as self-defense. Some may believe only use of military force constitutes aggression, thereby each seeing the other as an aggressor, and their own actions as “defensive”. Maybe one side’s dominance has kept peace, and the other side’s arms build-up even to the same level as the first will challenge that stability. And Parties’ positions are likely to be self-serving without universal grounding. Meaning, when another interpretation serves their interests, they will change the moral positions or rule applied.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

Why does Party A view itself as the moral party? What are the moral rules each party invokes? What moral rule support’s Party A’s position? What underlying morality/principle is that moral rule based on? How can each moral rule be applied to other conflicts/future situations? How does that differ from the moral rule of the other side? What are all the moral rules that others may apply to this dispute? What factors decide which moral rule we should apply? Where else has this moral perspective been applied? Where else could this moral perspective be applied? What would happen if this moral perspective were applied to other situations or universally? Which countries/peoples/groups would support universal application of this moral rule?

K MORAL BUILDING – What would and should the parties’ ideal culture, morals, values and rules be for peace, shared and individual?

K-Chain examines what our morals should be, ideally, under various peace scenarios. It is a corresponding question to the former Starting Question on Morals, and one of the Solution Chains. It allows analyzing what the ideal morals, values, and meanings of the parties would be and should be under various peace scenarios. It looks at how gaps between the relative moralities between the parties may be bridged, and what ideal moralities would look like. The Ideal Morals chain may theorize or hypothesize about new and shared moral codes, values, meanings, or understandings between the parties. As Dr. Jordan B. Peterson wrote in his essay, “Peacemaking Among Higher-Order Primates” (2006) “the peacemaker must be a master of meaning.” If we can find and build meaning in a new, improved, shared, and aligned moral compass, it may be a path to peace.

This category is a Solution Chain because it allows the painting of a hypothetical picture of what peace scenarios could look like, giving moral meaning to the rules of a proposed future resolution that serves as a path forward based on mutually-accepted moral principles. We then work backwards to understand the differences between the solution hypothetical and the current situation to identify what changes and developments are needed to the parties’ respective moral codes to be aligned. If you align the parties’ moral codes, you have taken a foundational step towards peace.

Let’s take a very simple example. Bob asks Frank to help carry Bob’s television up a flight of stairs. Halfway up, Frank accidentally drops the television, and it breaks. The parties agree about the fact that Frank dropped the television, and agree that it was accidental. But they disagree on who should be responsible. Bob says it is moral for Frank to pay for a new television because Frank dropped it. Frank says he should not have to pay for a new television because he was trying to help and did work for free for Bob, and he should not be worse off for trying to help. Frank also insists the world would be a worse place if people could be worse off for trying to help, and it would discourage people from trying to help others. The question becomes, which law or moral rule to apply. What should our morals ideally be? And of course, then, the question is, why?

Mapping out the underlying basis of conflicting moral perspectives can be invaluable to the understandings necessary for peace. One goal of the PeaceMatrix™ is to align differing moral perspectives, and then ideally, to build a shared moral perspective within the framework that both parties can subscribe to.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

What moral principles could the parties agree on? What are the challenges in the parties agreeing on a specific moral principle? How can the parties adopt a new moral principle? What moral principles do the parties already agree on? How could agreed-on moral principles be built into a code of acceptable shared values? How could that code then be expanded? How could these shared moral values supersede divisions?

L WHY NOT IMPROVE – What is most important to understand for peace about why each side might want or not want improvement or a resolution?

Someone once said, the only way to ever get anyone to do anything, is to get them to want to do it. What if some on each side don’t want peace? What if they don’t want to take a specific step towards peace? This chain analyzes potential future outcomes, and the interests involved in those future outcomes. This section analyzes all the interests that may, intentionally or unintentionally, knowingly or unknowingly, oppose a resolution, or support continuing the conflict.

The longer conflicts between groups go on, the more they naturally develop interests that benefit from continuing the conflict, eventually even from worsening it. Examples may include media benefitting from a conflict, a military industrial complex, 3rd party funded groups, or political gain from mobilizing a party or financial resources against the “other”. Factions on each side may oppose resolution because they benefit ideologically, politically, financially, or even spiritually from a conflict. Other interests may not want peace for completely well-intended reasons, and those reasons must still be known.

Identifying those persons, entities, organizations and interests that might gain from the conflict continuing is a critical component of peace, as well as understanding the legitimacy of reasons for opposing resolution. Certain interests may not want resolution, improvement, a specific potential path toward improvement, a specific solution, a specific plan, a specific scenario, or resolution at all. Once identified, solutions may be sought by addressing them. Maybe these parties can be removed from the conflict, or their interests changed, renegotiated, worked into a possible resolution, or otherwise addressed. Sometimes identifying these opposing interests can identify the key stumbling blocks to resolution or improvement. And, identifying the interests may prove more valuable than identifying problematic individuals, because even if those individuals are removed, if the interests remain, other individuals will step into their shoes.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

What are the interests that oppose each potential solution? Who are the individuals who oppose each potential solution? Why does each party oppose each potential resolution? How do we address those who oppose this form of resolution? How can we minimize opposition to each solution?

M LEADERSHIP – What is most important to understand for peace about the key authorities and decision makers?

This chain seeks to understand who the key leaders, authorities and decision-makers are on all sides, formal and informal, their politics, elections, structures, chains of command, advisors, supporters, influences, interests, motivations, thought-processes, where those authorities and powers derive from, what process exists for achieving leadership and change-affecting positions, how leaders are changed, what motivates leadership and collaborators, and how the authorities affect the dispute. This category focuses on politics, interpersonal communications, psychology of leadership, election laws and power structures, and the key characteristics of the individuals in power, the changes in power, and those who would ideally be in power.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

What are the authorities’ interests? How are they similar and different from the broader group? How can the leadership structure be used to further peace? Who has authority to resolve the dispute/ accept a peace deal on each side? Who has authority to make any change that may affect the situation? Who speaks for the party, group, or ideology? How and why does the power structure change? What power does the individual have over the group or ideology? Why does the authority control the ideology? Why does the ideology control the authority? How does the authority interact with each key ideology? How many different leadership viewpoints are on each side? How can different authorities emerge? Why is it difficult to change leadership? What characteristics of the authority or authority structure create opportunities for peace? What characteristics would the ideal authority have? Why would the ideal authority have these characteristics?

N SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND RESOURCES – What are the best understandings of all science, technology, and resources necessary for peace?

Obviously there are resources on and in the air, water, and ground that have huge significance to peoples’ lives, political and economic forces, and other factors in conflicts. There is also the wealth of science and technologies held by the parties which affect the dispute. The world need not be zero sum game. If there were a way to use science, technology, or resources to improve the situation and to make peace, what would that look like? Is there a better way to use the PeaceMatrix™ to help solve the dispute? This Chain opens the door for cooperation by a focus on the resources available and ideal situations possible from those resources. As such, N is also a Solution Chain.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

How could the parties better exchange/utilize land/ water/ resources /science/technology for peace? What common interests can science/technology/resources create? What projects can the parties get involved in together? What projects can help both sides/hurt neither side? What technologies and resources has Party A already developed? How has Party A advanced a certain technology/resource/science? How can both parties achieve more from a resource together?

O COMMON INTERESTS – What is the best understanding for peace of the common ground, common interests, common goals, and common threats and enemies?

The world is not zero-sum game, if we are smart enough. What if the illusion from zero sum game was lifted from conflicts, and taken away from the demagogues who rise to power on these premises? To build peace, we need examine how both sides win.

The Common Ground Chain explores all common interests and goals across all sides and parties. Even warring parties may have some interests in common. For example, two warring villages may work together if a forest fire is spreading toward both of them, so both survive. Not to mention, fighting a fire together may help bring peace closer psychologically through struggle shared. Shared struggle can also help build a common culture.

This Chain seeks to identify and understand all common goals, avenues of cooperation, and mutual constructive benefit, whether resolving all, some, or even none of the underlying dispute. By identifying these, bridges may be built, which may organically lead to more bridges. In this Chain, we pretend the other side is not the obstacle. Resolution may be bought closer if the perceived challenge can be shifted, from the other side to the accomplishment of a mutual goal.

A key part of this chain is that it creates new shared enemies, instead of each other. These new enemies may be hunger, poor economy, spiritual stagnation, drought, lack of meaning, cultural dilemmas, limited mindset, ingratitude, educational limitations, resource limitations, etc.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

What hypothetical goals, if achieved, would help people on multiple sides of the conflict? In what ways can the parties enhance cooperation? What are the parties’ common goals? From what results would both parties’ benefit? What short term goals, rules, preconditions, temporary or ala carte agreements may bring complete resolution a step closer? What can one side can do to stop harming an interest of the other side? What quid pro quo or partial resolution would affect part of the problem? What steps might build trust? What steps might alleviate tensions? What steps might accomplish a temporary goal? What is a common enemy or threat to both parties? How can the parties put the oppositional focus on this common threat instead of each other? What challenge/activity/goal can the parties partake in that channels their oppositional energy towards something constructive?

This Chain paints positive future scenarios, and thus also works as a Solution Chain.

P OBSTACLES – What is the best understanding for peace of obstacles facing the parties?

In this Chain, we list and explore every obstacle and challenge to a better situation besides the opposing party; including obstacles to the parties’ cooperation for mutual constructive benefit, and obstacles for resolution.

This Chain should identify and examine obstacles to any potential idea or path to advancement, and obstacles in pursuit of any goals identified in the other Chains. These may take the form of language barriers, cultural barriers, laws, economic barriers, travel restrictions or distance, ideological violence, political or technological challenges. Then, each such obstacle should be broken down to its smallest elements to understand why it exists and how it might be circumvented. This section should examine any possible steps that may improve or alleviate any obstacle toward any subgoal.

This section examines all obstacles that stand in the way of cooperation, unilateral improvements, and final resolutions. It looks at X Chain, K Chain, other solution chains, and allows breaking down and examining obstacles and challenges found in those. This is also the processing chain for V Chain “working backwards”, so we can examine for future scenarios developed there, their obstacles and problems here.

This Chain also analyzes obstacles to the unilateral solutions in U Chain. Sometimes we must look at parties’ individual and unilateral opportunities to improve their situations, as long as they don’t harm the other side. If you took the opposing party out of the picture, which is an important exercise, what else stands in the way of the goals of the party? What are the other goals of the party and what stands in the way of those? When seeking unilateral improvement of one’s situation, an entirely different set of obstacles affects these paths toward progress. These are typically inward looking, self-reflective, and can include the group’s own leadership, governing process, culture, or self-improvement process.

Examples of subsequent level questions may also include: What obstacles stand in the way of unilateral improvement of party A’s situation? What obstacles stand in the way of a final resolution?

Q CULTURE-BUILDING – What common culture can the parties build together which preserves their own, and also unites them?

One of the goals of each PeaceMatrix™ is to enhance the human cultural experience. This involves a culture learning about and enhancing and preserving the essence of its own culture while modernizing and adapting it to preserve it. It also involves two or more cultures or ideologies building a common culture and set of values which supersedes the parties’ divisions to build bridges and peace.

Such new shared understandings and cultural value systems can be built completely from the start, or on only a few basic principles and then expanded upon. For instance, two groups in conflict can build ties based on a shared love of competitive sport like soccer, or ability to share or cooperate on a natural resource, and then later add elements to that established cultural foundation. Another example may be hospitality, the idea that guests are treated well, even if part of the opposing group. From a few basic principles, a shared culture can be built, all at once or one step and value at a time, added on through a process of mutual approval. Much of the world of peacebuilding is to build and unify cultures, so that what keeps them together is stronger than what divides them, and so divisions cannot be so easily manipulated. In metaphysical terms, this involves the combining and unifying of different ideologies. It means taking away the parts that define them by conflict with another. These values can be written out and explored through this chain, developed, and woven into the fabric of society with the ideas developed in this chain. And because it looks at solution scenarios, it is a solution chain. It can address all of the issues of culture/ideology, or work beyond those in bridge-building and culture-building.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include: What values can the cultures/ideologies agree on? What beliefs/key elements do the cultures/ideologies have in common? What are the key emotions behind the parties’ cultures? What activities can they engage in together sharing those emotions constructively? In what ways can the parties help each other? In what ways can the separate ideologies strengthen each other? What would be ideal sources of meaning for Party A? What would be ideal sources of meaning for the shared parties? How could we build these new sources of meaning? What cross-cultural rules can the parties agree to? What enjoyable activities, learning, and growing together can they share?

R COMMUNICATION BUILDING – How could the parties better communicate for peace?

Building new and improved means, channels, methods, mediums and levels of communication is often key to building connections and minimizing conflict. This Solution Chain takes the communication problems identified in the Communication Chain and looks for ways to communicate better, between parties, among parties, between parties and their leaders, and in any way possible.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include: What new communication systems could the parties implement? How could each party best improve/diversify their sources of information? How might we incentivize the parties to communicate better? How might each party understand the full scope of that party better? How could the parties communicate more constructively?

S WHY RESOLVE – What might happen is the dispute is not resolved, and what are the motivations for seeking peace?

This Chain examines all potential future negative consequences of the conflict continuing or worsening, to increase people’s desire to resolve the dispute. Any potential negative scenario can be listed and examined, from failure to constructively move forward and resolve. If ideologies behave like independent living organisms, their interests to survive and gain power are often independent from the goals of the members of the ideology. In addressing the reasons for resolution, think of the interest of the ideology independently, as well as the members of the group.

T PAST SUCCESSES – How have similar challenges been attempted to be resolved, improved, or actually been resolved elsewhere and in the past?

This Chain examines all analogous or similar challenges that have been resolved in whole or part, or tried to be.  There may not be a need to reinvent the wheel, if others elsewhere found ways to possibly solve even parts of such problems. What was tried elsewhere? Was it successful or not, and why or why not? What are the various aspects of the problem we have seen elsewhere? Cultural war, communication war, terrorism? Maybe a situation elsewhere naturally resolved, and we need to better understand why.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

What has worked for even part of that problem? Why did a potential solution not work? Did an opposing ideology change, die off, combine with another? Did a group become more moderate, or change its goals, or power dynamics, and if so, why and how? Did societies accept their differences, or combine into one culture, or absorb one another, and if so, why and how?”

U SELF-IMPROVE – What can the parties do to unilaterally improve their positions without harming the others’?

This Starting Question seeks to lay out each of the parties’ unilateral paths to progress that does not require the other side’s cooperation and does not harm the other side. This section should explore any unilateral action that may change the dynamic. These should all be constructive.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

What are the party’s own best interests separate from the conflict? Why can’t they pursue them, separate from the conflict? Why might the party not differentiate between problems caused by the other side and other problems? What are the goals/projects/achievements and improvements each party may pursue without involvement/cooperation of the other parties? Without affecting or harming the other parties?

V WORKING BACKWARDS – What are ideal future scenarios for peace, and how can we work backwards from these?

This Chain allows the painting of every potentially ideal hypothetical future scenario that may be acceptable to all parties, as vague or specific as may be helpful. Steve Jobs said that you have to start with a customer experience first and work backwards to the technology. There is great value on starting with the end goal in mind.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

“If the dispute would be resolved at a future date, what does that resolution look like?” Or, “If the dispute would have been resolved by a future point in time but for certain factors, what are those factors?” Imagine the parties living together in peace with all of their cultural, economic, security or other interests completely secure. Then, the parties can work backwards from those future scenarios to see the path of how they might have gotten there in a new light. Once you know what the potential outcome(s) look like, it may be easier to figure out their details, and the paths of reaching them by working backwards. This Chain is a metaphysical process of exploring future positive scenarios with a collective consciousness, and is also a Solution Chain. Examples of sub-questions may include: If the parties resolved their differences, what would that look like? If party A no longer threatened party B, what are all the possible reasons that would happen?

W MORE PARTIES – Who else can be brought to the negotiating table and how would they help peace?

Sometimes the parties inside a dispute have difficulty finding a solution, and the solution must come from outside. In international legal dispute mechanisms, we have mediation, good offices, and other third parties join the negotiations. Maybe a perspective that would be unhelpful from the opposing side could be more effective, reliable, or acceptable if it came from outside. Sometimes parties trust a third party to do something they do not trust the opposing side to do. Third parties may or may not be part of the ultimate solution. Sometimes a deal that cannot be made between two parties may be made between the collaboration of three or more.

As an illustrative example, imagine two parties, one with a printing press, another with ink, may be unable to make a deal between the two of them, both arguing over wanting the resources of the other. But by bringing in a third party who has a supply paper, the three together have the tools necessary to make a deal (illustrative example, to print a book) whereas two parties alone could not. This Chain allows the bringing in of more assets, parties, seats at the negotiating table, resources, and more interests that can be combined to seek a resolution. This chain also considers all third party (non-party) involvement and interests that may be helpful to achieve any goal related to the dispute.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

If a third party could help an aspect of the problem, who would that be and why? What third party could provide something one side wants from another? What could a third party offer that an opposing party wont or can’t? What elements are missing from resolution of this dispute that a third party could provide? Who is that third party?

X SOLUTIONS – What are all possible peace proposals, ideas, and solutions?

X is the primary Solution Chain. This section congregates and focuses on any and all ideas and potential solutions, partial or complete, for resolution, including questions and hypothesis related to them, whether discussed in another section also or not. This section allows the whole world to help examine, develop, and enhance any and all possible ideas and solutions, recently-presented or currently-being-negotiated solutions, and proposed and partial peace plans. Content can be merged with parts of other branches, or developed in another branch and moved to X-Chain, when and as appropriate.

In the diplomatic world, when authorities decide on one course of action towards resolution of a conflict, all opposing forces might unite against it, to gain political power from such opposition. In this Chain, we explore every and work towards every potential solution simultaneously. This prevents opposing forces from uniting. This section allows listing and examining all possible ideas and solutions, peace plans, peace proposals, solution ideas, small and large, believable and not, flawed, problematic, impossible-seeming, outside-the-box, and so on. It may involve any idea or component of a potential future solution.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

What are all the solutions/treaties/accords that have been proposed? What are the strengths/weaknesses of every peace proposal thus far? What are the benefits/challenges of each possible peace solution? How could party A implement peace solution A? How could Party A work around obstacle A?

Y NEW VALUES – What rule, doctrine, or morality is created by each positive scenario and possible peace outcome?

Any proposed solution in the previous Chain needs to be embedded in values and culture in order to remain lasting. In short, our solutions must have meaning to us if we are to adopt and keep them. This Chain allows examination of any rule, doctrine or principle created by each potential solution scenario, hypothetical, and possible outcome of any potential solution examined elsewhere. Parties often need more than just a resolution scenario or new rule, but rather it must be tied to some meaning, morality, fundamental doctrine or understanding connected to their values, morality, or fundamental view of the world to accept this new situation or outcome. A solution must appeal to the values of the parties in order to last. If these values do not exist, then they must be created. This can be done, for instance, by focusing on a common challenge, value, or meaning. Often this must be combined with politics, leadership, and other factors, and written into the culture and ideology.

Examples of subsequent level questions may include:

If this hypothetical is the solution, then what is the value system behind it? How can the potential solution be part of the new common culture of the parties that supersedes their prior divisions? What is the meaning that binds the new potential solution together for both parties?

Z CHANGES – What changes/additions should be made to this PeaceMatrix™?

This Chain allows the current ongoing PeaceMatrix™ for this dispute to be improved, with changes or additions to questions, categories, scope, rules, process, or any other aspect. This includes examining the need for changes to, or even need for a new, different, or additional PeaceMatrixes™. An additional PeaceMatrix™ can have broader scope, narrower scope, more parties or less parties. This Chain corresponds with A Chain, which lays out the scope, summary, and goal of the PeaceMatrix™, allowing for adjustments to the system at any point.