The theoretical support for the Peace Centre of Arantzazu is contained in a book in which all the reflections on which its information activies are based. The following five points summarise these reflections within Baketik.

·Peace. This is the basic objective around which its activities revolve. We start from a wide-ranging notion of peace. It does not just refer to the absence of war or violence, but also to the ability to manage conflicts, either more personal/family-type conflicts or those of a more 'social’, political or international type, in a non-destructive manner. Peace is like a star, a reference point that is always impossible to fully achieve, but one that lights up our darkness so we can improve as the human race. This peace, which is inachievable in full, is, however, a combination of many factors. Our starting point is that there is no "complete" peace, rather that peace consists of “bits” of peace and “bits” of justice, i.e. elements that enable us to live closer to (or further away from) the ultimate reference point, which is complete peace. Our greater or lesser ability to approach conflicts from an ethical and constructive perspective is the 'medium' that each of us uses to add or remove these “bits” of peace and “bits” of justice for the common good of peace.

·Conflict. This is the most important thing that people have (being, as it is, very limited) to grow and improve. It is a permanent factor, one that is inherent to our existence. Without conflict there is no society or human relations. It is a school for life. A conflict is "the opposition of needs, objectives, interests or perceptions between two or more parties". It calls into question the private or collective 'truths' with which we feel secure and invites us to look for wider-ranging truths. Nevertheless, this invitation can be accepted or rejected because we can react by retreating into our private truth (dogmas, imposition, violence...) or open ourselves up to the possibilities of a more shared truth (dialogue, empathy, agreement...). Our capacity to live together, to be human, and life itself, are put on the line in conflicts because they open up the door to a better situation or to the worst of ourselves, and of our own human condition/situation. Conflict is not necessarily a negative thing, it has positive potential. The problem is not the conflict, but on what basis we face up to it, how we deal with it, and how we prepare it.

·The ethical element. This is the main challenge that we face up to in conflicts. Ethics is an “effort to respond to the demands that the defence of human dignity create”. Not losing respect for that dignity is what enables us to not stop being human, despite the adverse nature of conflict. We can approach the problem on the basis of a destructive conflict or from an ethical basis. We can consider that our cause has an absolute value, or that it is found in human dignity; believing that the end justifes the means or that it is ethics that justifies ends and means; have the aim of beating and defeating or convincing and agreeing; being committed to “an eye for an eye” or “arm in arm”; thinking that the method is imposition or dialogue; seeing our opponent as an enemy or a peer; and choosing between victimism or pluralism.

Facing up to a conflict requires a conscious and personal review of these bases, because the choice of one or other determines everything. Baketik considers this ethical review as the first cornerstone in the treatment of conflicts, understanding that ethics is not a "made-to-measure suit" about our ability to live together but a framework within which we test our actions and decisions.

·How people accept conflict. This is the reaction to conflict that each person has. How we approach it, how we see it, how we tell it, what it means in our lives. Where do I stand in this conflict? As well as proposing an ethical basis, we are considering the need to reflect on the conflict in the first person as the next step. In other words, analysing the perspective that each person has on it.

Our way of looking, taking on board and situating ourselves within the conflict could be part of this. Therefore, conflict is not approached without an inward personal conflict, with ourselves, how we feel represented. My acceptance of conflict is defensive and aggressive or understanding and open; my reaction is anger or patience; I tell the problem with a one-sided bias or from a perspective of multilateral complexity; my intention is to impose and take revenge, or speak and sort things out; my version of the solution is rigid or flexible... These are some of the considerations that any serious dispute throws up in our faces. How people see conflicts involves an inevitable inward-looking effort on the part of people, and this has a direct effect on the evolution and the outcome of a dispute.

·The management of conflicts. This is the 'outward-looking' work in terms of relating to others. We can prepare conflicts in three ways: in a reactive and violent way, passively and submissively, or proactively and ethically. The desire to do this ethically will lead us to face up to at least four basic dilemmas: “facilitate or aggravate”, “include or exclude”, “cooperate or compete” and “insist or desist”.

In conflicts that have no alternative to a struggle because there is no reasonable expectation of a solution or because a serious injustice has been committed through an inflexible imposition, the management of conflicts (so as not to slip into non-ethical measures) requires –as a basic criterion– the separation of events from persons. That is, complete firmness against injustice, inequivocal respect vis-à-vis the individual, and the determination to insist on ethical measures that are sensible, bold and intense (“ethical insistence”).

In any event, an essential element in the management of conflicts is the ability to listen. If people do not listen there is no communication or dialogue, no inclusion or cooperation, and there is no understanding of the problem and no chance of finding a shared solution. Listening means putting ourselves in the shoes of the other person and understanding his/her circumstances, suffering and real needs. It is the key element in identifying what brings us together rather than what separates us, as a method for overcoming obstacles and searching for common ground.

These five bases are, in summarised form, the proposals put forward by Baketik. They are applicable both to someone who is part of a conflict and someone who is a third party and wishes to help solve it. They also help in the different phases of a conflict: for prevention in the ‘latent’ phase, for calming things down when things get more intense, for removing obstacles when things get stuck, and for redress and reconciliation in the reconstruction phase.

The objective of this proposal is to contribute to peace, helping to find mutual interests and cooperation between people/sides who are in conflict; its basic principles in an ethical question in relation to the bases from which we approach the conflict; the starting point is a personal (inward) reflection on how people see and experience each part of the problem; and finally, it involves a personal management that looks outwards, a great effort to ease tension, dialogue, listening and empathy. This is basically the ethical management of conflicts.

In summary, in the Peace Centre of Arantzazu we want to highlight the fact that, in a conflict, the essential things happen inside of us, and if we know how to handle this and take advantage of it then there is a unique opportunity to grow, improve, be more happy and more human, or simply just be a normal human being. And not only for this, but also to help sort out disputes and make a real contribution to improving peoples' co-existence, either in the intimate, family dimension or at a greater distance, be it public or political. Nevertheless, what happens inside us needs an ethical management, looking inwards and outwards; this is a serious task that is difficult, contradictory, limited and imperfect.