Boundary-Spanning Dialogue
Northeast Asia Forum
Tokyo, Japan - February 2005

Final Report

In February 2005, Laura Harris (Comanche), AIO’s Executive Director, joined forces with Kate Cherrington (Maori), Vice President of the Advancement of Maori Opportunity (AMO) and AIO board member, to facilitate dialogue among a group of Northeast Asian students at the International Christian University (ICU) in Tokyo, Japan. Jacqueline Wasilewski, Ambassador Program Advisor and a Professor at ICU, organized the forum, entitled Boundary-Spanning Dialogue. The Project developed by Wasilewski enabled 25 students and civil society participants from Japan (including an Indigenous Ainu), Korea, China, Russia (including an Indigenous Evenki), Mongolia, and a Comanche from the United States to engage in dialogue regarding the issues facing the people of Northeast Asia in the context of what constitutes a “good” society in the region.

Harris and Cherrington were assisted in the facilitation by Liana Poutu (Maori), AMO board member, and Paul Hays, Professor at Kwansei Gakuin in Kobe, Japan. AIO President LaDonna Harris joined the group as a “participant advisor.” The AIO/AMO facilitation team utilized AIO’s unique Indigenous Leaders Interactive System (ILIS™), a methodology with more than two decades of experience and application in a variety of complex situations.

As a way for the group to get to know each other and to build their relationships with one another, the facilitators asked the participants to describe what they valued most about being a member of their community. The ILIS team was impressed but not surprised by how similar the values of this diverse group were to Indigenous values. Forum participants expressed values such as the importance of family, relationships with nature and the Earth, the need for peace and coexistence, perseverance, sense of community, significance of language and culture, respect for others and other cultures, the need to minimize the economic differences among people, an obligation to protect vulnerable people of society, and love. Two of the Russians said that they valued the Russian “search for truth” and the compulsion to try to save the world.

Through the ILIS, the forum participants were asked to identify the obstacles to intercultural/boundary-spanning dialogue in Northeast Asia. They expressed a real interest in this subject and were eager to share their opinions. The group named and described 78 obstacles and explored the relationships among eleven challenges that the group voted as the most important. In addition to the top ranking eleven obstacles, the group also discussed the ill effects of colonialism and oppression on many Asian countries. The participants talked about how extreme poverty, especially for ethnic minorities, combined with isolation, a lack of information and little political awareness hindered people’s ability to engage in transnational dialogue. The group also named the differences and diversity within and among the countries of Northeast Asia as limiting interactions, differences such as in culture, social structures, religion, language, communications styles and values.

After each contribution was recorded, the group then began the arduous task of understanding the relationships of influence between the obstacles. Using the RootCause Mapping™ software as a tool for recording the group’s decisions about these relationships, a chart of influence emerged (see figure 1). The group decided that the underlying problem, that obstacle that must be addressed first in order to overcome the other challenges of engaging in intercultural/ boundary-spanning dialogue in Northeast Asia, was the fact that there was no place or opportunity for diverse groups to interact.

The group then identified the next most influential obstacle as the fact that the histories of each country and ethnic group in the region are very different. The group felt that if these two challenges could be address successfully, then it would be easier to address the fact that there is a lack of resolution of wartime and colonial oppression. Finally, the forum participants decided that the remaining four obstacles held equal influence. Those included the discrepancy in economic development of the different countries, being unable to have a long-term perspective of peace and co-existence, deep seeded prejudice based on ethnicity and a vast difference of religions.

Utilizing their understanding of the relationships among the obstacles exerting the most influence, the participants proposed and clarified 32 possible actions that would help to overcome the obstacles to creating dialogue in Northeast Asia. A majority of the stake-holders seemed to believe that young people held the key to establishing exchanges and interactions in the region. They envisioned more student exchanges and the creation of a non-governmental organization developed specifically for dialogue that could raise public and private money. The group thought that an international day of reconciliation is called for in order to move forward and that building programs to empower ethnic minorities and increase economic equality was seen as essential. Additionally, the participants felt that a new generation of leaders must be nurtured who understood the mutual benefits that come from cooperation among countries. These leaders then would help governments to take responsibility for making policies that improved exchanges, like direct funding of exchange programs, freer movement between countries, and better trade and more economic cooperation throughout the region. Finally, the group decided that their host, the International Christian University, provided the perfect vehicle for continued dialogue and a platform from which some of these ideas could be actualized.

This first dialogue among the peoples of Northeast Asia was powerful and effective. The participants came to the forum with good intentions and ready to communicate. The participants actively sought to engage in discussion without defensive positioning and to embrace a proactive collaboration in finding concrete pathways for further dialogue. Through discussions and sharing of ideas, the group of stakeholders engaged in collective learning and entered into frank and open dialogue on the many emotional issues that surround interactions among the countries of Northeast Asia.

The group concluded that the rich diversity of the region was a terrific resource for the world. Better communication, better understanding and more interactions was the only way to utilize that resource. The participants felt that even though there was a long history of conflict and distrust, it was possible and imperative to find ways to coexist in peace and collaboration. Better relations and acceptance would bring not only peace and stability but also economic growth and sustainability. The stakeholders were adamant that the International Christian University was the perfect institution to take a lead role in providing opportunities for future discussions.

Americans for Indian Opportunity and the Advancement of Maori Opportunity were thrilled to be a part of this intercultural and boundary-spanning dialogue. The peoples, cultures and histories of Northeast Asia are compelling. The facilitators learned from this experience that simultaneous translation is vital to successful group discussion when working in more than one language. In this case, there were at least five languages represented. It was also clear that all written materials needed to be provided in more than just English. Most importantly, AIO/AMO learned that constant vigilance is necessary to ensure that the facilitation team is being sensitive to cultural norms. For instance, Japanese culture demands politeness to reduce conflict. It was of paramount importance that the facilitation team ensure that participants were able to honestly express themselves without worry of being polite or contradicting an authority figure. The team found that continuously “checking in” with the participants helped address this challenge. AMO and AIO will use what we have learned from this interaction to shape future work in other parts of the world.

AIO and AMO are grateful to the ICU for inviting us to facilitate this rewarding and challenging forum. In addition to the participants, we want to thank Dr. Wasilewski for including AIO in the project and to Paul Hayes for his expert assistance. We are extremely beholden to all those who volunteered to translate, particularly Elena Kozoulina. AIO/AMO also appreciates the staff and faculty who helped make our work much easier, especially with computer support. In addition, we appreciate the work of the Assistant Facilitators who graciously helped with room set up, copying and other tedious tasks. AIO and AMO look forward to working with this group again in the future.