You are here: Home » Conflict
Peace?
I wanted to call this section "Peace", because this is the positive statement, and is what most people want. But I apologise for calling it "Conflict". I want to highlight the areas of conflict in the world, and this does not sit easily under the heading of "Peace".
We humans are brilliant, aren't we? Brilliant at arguing. Brilliant at disagreeing. Brilliant at fighting. Brilliant at destruction. Brilliant at killing. So why aren't we so brilliant at peace?
The Earth Focus View
Talk - not War.
International disputes - and even some internal disputes - should be solved using Conflict Resolution by the United Nations (UN). And the UN must be given the wherewithal to do this work.
In the present development of human characteristics, where leaders tend towards aggression, force should only be used in absolute extreme cases, and as a last resort.
Recent examples of one or more nations using aggression against another (e.g. Afghanistan, Chechnya, Palestine) seem to have caused more violations of human rights than those which caused the aggression. Some of these violations of human rights are deliberate. This is certainly true of "collateral damage", where for each enemy person killed there appear to be 100s or even 1,000s of civilians killed. This is unacceptable. It is unethical. It is evil.
Landmines and "carpet bombing" are weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction and must be banned immediately.
Stephen J Gould
Born 10th September, 1941, in New York City.
Died 21st May, 2002
This is what Stephen J Gould said in a comment about human nature after the 11th September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York:
"The patterns of human history mix decency and depravity in equal measure. We often assume, therefore, that such a fine balance of results must emerge from societies made of decent and depraved people in equal numbers.
"But we need to expose and celebrate the fallacy of this conclusion so that, in this moment of crisis, we may affirm an essential truth too easily forgotten.
"Good and kind people outnumber all others by thousands to one… Every spectacular incident of evil will be balanced by 10,000 acts of kindness, too often unnoted and invisible as the ‘ordinary’ efforts of a vast majority.
"We have a duty, almost a holy responsibility, to record and honour the victorious weight of these innumerable little kindnesses, when an unprecedented act of evil so threatens to distort our perception of ordinary human behaviour."
Steven J Gould, September 2001
Stephen J Gould hit the nail on the head. As usual, he sees the world from a perspective that few people even think of. Evil can be so magnified in our minds that we tend to think that there is not much good in the world. Yet good is everywhere - mainly amongst "ordinary" people. Unfortunately, the more power people have, the more inclined to evil they tend to be. I wonder why?
Sometimes we are so immersed in our own bad situations that we are blinded from the good. I know - I have been there, and I find it difficult in anger to see the situation clearly.
So how do we go from Conflict to Peace? Certainly not by increasing conflict by means of war! Certainly not by smashing people's homes, communities, or even their countries by means of "smart" bombs, ordinary bombs, cluster bombs - or any other type of bomb, or gun.
War is Easy?
It could be said that going to war is the "easy" way to solve problems. Easy because the leaders just think short-term, then sit back safely and let their military get to work. The problems resulting from a war are too far from the leader's "radar screens" to even register - so they do not see the subsequent problems. When these problems occur, they say that you can't have a war without any casualties. And it's not only human casualties, it's animals and buildings, communities' whole infrastructures, too - peoples' livelihoods wiped out. And they call it "Collateral Damage"! A phrase that cleverly hides the real despair of the people on the receiving end.
And sending forces into war, as the UK & USA seem very keen on, causes more enmities than before! This leads to the ludicrous situation where members of the armed forces are dying, not for nothing, but dying while carrying out orders that are making the situation worse.
Unfortunately, dying for achieving absolutely nothing would be an improvement.
The USA's "War against Terrorism" is a war that is impossible to win. In fact it's a war that positively creates more terrorism - because it antagonises, even more, the very people who are upset about American Imperialism. The USA has launched a dangerous boomerang that is firmly on its flight path that will arrive back in the USA at its predetermined time...
What's the alternative, then?
Let's have "Avenues of Hope, rather than Avenues of Despair", as one person said in John Pilger's TV report "Palestine is still the issue" on UK Channel 4 TV on 16th September 2002.
But it takes faith, much expertise, intellect, and quite a long time, to turn a conflict into peace by engendering the trust of both "sides", gently persuading them to see the points they agree about, and continually working out an agreeable solution. This is called "Conflict Resolution".
People cannot resolve conflicts if they do not understand the problems that cause the conflicts. Quite often "outsiders" can see through the reasons - and solutions - to conflicts because they do not have the historical "baggage" that goes with it. It's not easy to admit that you are wrong in a conflict. Or to say "sorry". Or to forgive. Human instinct, especially of leaders, seems to be for war not Conflict Resolution. Who gets taught about Conflict Resolution at home, school, college, university? Not the ones who really need to know about it - the politicians!
Or, better still, Understanding and Support
Instead of exporting arms, why don't the Western countries export Peace?
Peace in the form of ensuring no country has any type of domination over their own people, or other people, including dominating the UN.
Peace in the form of helping countries to provide adequate affordable water, nutrition, healthcare, shelter, infrastructure and sustainable livelihoods for all - while acknowledging that traditional and tribal societies have a right to decide their own future.
If everyone received understanding and support there would be no need for terrorism.
How about it, UK? How about it, USA?
PS It would be much cheaper to fund peace than fund the budgets for the arms industries as they are at present. The present (nominal £40,000 million1) UK Defence Budget is 10 times the (nominal £4,000 million2) UK International Development Budget!
1HM Treasury Defence Budget
2HM Treasury International Development Budget
Make Diplomacy, Not War
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
New York Times, August 9, 2008
Iraq and Afghanistan are the messes getting attention today, but they are only symptoms of a much broader cancer in American foreign policy.
A few glimpses of this larger affliction:
· The United States has more musicians in its military bands than it has diplomats.
· This year alone, the United States Army will add about 7,000 soldiers to its total; that’s more people than in the entire American Foreign Service.
· More than 1,000 American diplomatic positions are vacant because the Foreign Service is so short-staffed, but a myopic Congress is refusing to finance even modest new hiring. Some 1,100 could be hired for the cost of a single C-17 military cargo plane.
In short, the United States is hugely overinvesting in military tools and underinvesting in diplomatic tools. The result is a lopsided foreign policy that antagonizes the rest of the world and is ineffective in tackling many modern problems.
After all, you can’t bomb global warming.
Incredibly, the most eloquent spokesman for more balance between “hard power” and “soft power” is Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Mr. Gates, who is superb in repairing the catastrophe left behind by Donald Rumsfeld, has given a series of astonishing speeches in which he calls for more resources for the State Department and aid agencies.
“One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win,” Mr. Gates said. He noted that the entire American diplomatic corps — about 6,500 people — is less than the staffing of a single aircraft carrier group, yet Congress isn’t interested in paying for a larger Foreign Service.
“It simply does not have the built-in, domestic constituency of defense programs,” Mr. Gates said. “As an example, the F-22 aircraft is produced by companies in 44 states; that’s 88 senators.”
With the Olympics unfolding in China now, the Navy and the Air Force are seizing upon China’s rise as an excuse to grab tens of billions of dollars for the F-22, for an advanced destroyer, for new attack submarines. But we’re failing to invest minuscule sums to build good will among Chinese.
For the price of one F-22, we could — for 25 years — operate American libraries in each Chinese province, pay for more Chinese-American exchanges, and hire more diplomats prepared to appear on Chinese television and explain in fluent Chinese what American policy is. And for the price of one M.R.E. lunch for one soldier, the State Department could make a few phone calls to push the Chinese leadership to respond to the Dalai Lama’s olive branch a few days ago, helping to eliminate a long-term irritant in U.S.-China relations.
Then there’s the Middle East. Dennis Ross, the long-time Middle East peace negotiator, says he has been frustrated “beyond belief” to see resources showered on the military while diplomacy has to fight for scraps. Mr. Ross argues that an investment of just $1 billion — financing job creation and other grass-roots programs in the West Bank — could significantly increase the prospect of an Israeli-Palestinian peace. But that money isn’t forthcoming.
Our intuitive approach to fighting terrorists and insurgents is to blow things up. But one of the most cost-effective counterterrorism methods in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan may be to build things up, like schooling and microfinance. Girls’ education sometimes gets more bang for the buck than a missile.
A new study from the RAND Corporation examined how 648 terror groups around the world ended between 1968 and 2006. It found that by far the most common way for them to disappear was to be absorbed by the political process. The second most common way was to be defeated by police work. In contrast, in only 7 percent of cases did military force destroy the terrorist group.
“There is no battlefield solution to terrorism,” the report declares. “Military force usually has the opposite effect from what is intended.”
The next president should absorb that lesson and revalidate diplomacy as the primary tool of foreign policy — even if that means talking to ogres. Take Iran. Until recently, the American officials in charge of solving the Iranian problem were not even allowed to meet Iranians.
“We need to believe in the power of American diplomacy, and we should not believe a military conflict with Iran is inevitable,” said Nicholas Burns, until recently the under secretary of state for political affairs and for three years the government’s point person on Iran. “Our first impulse should be a serious and patient and persistent diplomatic effort. Too often in our national debate we focus on the military option and give short shrift to the diplomatic option.”
So here’s a first step: Let’s agree that diplomats should be every bit as much of an American priority as musicians in military bands.
Links:
Peace Pledge Union: www.ppu.org.uk
Peace Direct: www.peacedirect.org
