![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
|
|
What other conflicts are avoidable? There is another point of view, which is that conflicts arise through failures of all the parties involved: failures of understanding, or failures of communication. The hypothesis, like that of conflict being due to excessive aggression, clearly does explain some conflicts. It is the basis of many intervention strategies, too, that are the subject of a later week. However, it presumes that if the parties could really understand what each other parties thought, or communicate accurately to each other what they think, the solution to the conflict would immediately appear and the conflict would defuse. But many conflicts reflect real conflicts in values or conflicts over resources that are precious to all parties. Open communication may sometimes make these conflicts even more intense--as we shall see in the family conflict week, there is a knack in dealing with difference that does not always involve flaunting it. Structural conflict Conflict may be built into a situation, such that individuals who find themselves in that situation become involved in the conflict. The Montagues and the Capulets, in Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, were locked into a conflict that was, in fact, part of a wider structural conflict that affected much of Europe, that between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines. Because Romeo was a Montague and Juliet was a Capulet, their love was seen as a sort of treachery by other family members on both sides and it led to tragedy because the conflict was stronger than either of them. Boundaries A common reason for structural conflict is that a society is beginning to differentiate but there are no boundaries to keep the increasingly divergent groups apart. Boundaries are important in conflict, both as a means of reducing conflict and as means of inflaming it. The Berlin wall, because it separated two people who thought of themselves as being the same and German, and not different and either capitalist or communist, inflamed conflict. The boundary between England and Scotland, separating different legislatures and established religions, made the Union between England and Scotland possible, because it recognized the independent identity of the Scots. What justifies aggressive conflicts? God Conflicts can be justified if they bring others into the light. Might Might is right, because the mighty deserve to become mightier still. There is some justification for this. A ruler offers his or her citizens protection from external conflict. A mighty ruler offers stronger protection than a weak ruler. So if a mighty ruler deposes a weak one, it may be of benefit to the population. Might is a kind of power and, like power, it may as easily be used for good as for bad ends. It is typically exercised by one (autarchy) or a few (oligarchy) people. There is the constant danger that the ruling few may exercise their might not for the good of all, but for the good of the few with whom they have contact. Tyrants may, as they did in Athens, quickly degenerate from being benign rules to, well, 'tyrants'. Might has within it the seeds of its own destruction. As Lord Acton, a British foreign minister, is supposed to have said. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". The mighty become preoccupied by their own survival. This means that survival, by whatever means, becomes more important than the good that may have been their motive in the first place. The mighty own the propaganda machine, including the history books, and their motives may be given a spin that obscures them--and not just from others. The mighty themselves may become duped into believing their own propaganda. One spin that modern tyrannies have used is 'prevention'. George Bush's and Tony Blair's final reason for invading Iraq, when the other reasons had collapsed, was to prevent Iraq from 'attacking democracy'. Threat Possibly the most common reason for aggression, and therefore conflict, is that someone feels threatened. Threat is a commonly accepted justification for conflict, but only if there is proportionality between what is threatened and the violence with which that threat is answered. For example, a violent response to burglary or personal attack must be proportionate. Legislatures throughout the world recognized self-defence as a defence against a charge of unlawful killing or wounding, but contain tests of proportionality, for example that the violent response must not be excessive or unreasonable. Causing death or grievous bodily harm is excessive unless one believes that not to do so would result in one's own death or grievous bodily harm or the death or grievous bodily harm of those under one's protection. Prevention or the pre-emptive strike George Bush is just one of a succession of leaders who have justified an invasion by saying that it is a pre-emptive strike to prevent military action against their own nationals. Hitler used a similar argument to justify his invasion of Sudetenland, and it is said that the Tutsi massacre in Rwanda was triggered by Hutus fear that the Tutsi would rise up and kill them. Prevention was the justification for the arms race in the Cold War of the 1950s and came under intensive study then. Particular interest was shown in what came later to be known as 'escalation': the processes that led to progressive increases in threats and attacks. Games theory was used to create models of escalation, and we will return to these in a later week. Long-term benefits Conflict may be justified by the claim that the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term costs. For example, many countries currently assume that the summary execution, without trial, of known or suspected terrorists is legitimate because, in the long run, it will prevent harm to many more people. Suppression of religion, razing of villages, and 'ethnic cleansing' have all been justified in this way. However, the imposition of curfews, house arrests, stop and search actions, and the detention of suspected terrorists are all coercive measures that have been imposed by the UK government in Northern Ireland to reduce the conflict there. They were justified on the principle that short-term loss of freedom was necessary to bring order out of chaos. This might have worked if the community had decided what order it wanted, and had been policing itself. Justice Theories of jurisprudence include provisions for recourse to aggressive conflict, for 'just wars'. Rawls has famously outlined some of the principles of justice:
All of these justifications have been provided for the current Gulf War. There has been considerable discussion of procedure and of the UN mandate 1441 and the claim that due procedure has been followed. There is the implicit claim that 'Saddam Hussein' should be punished for the trouble that he has caused (but not the Iraqui people who have borne the main brunt of the trouble). Finally the conflict would be distributively just if, as the Americans have carefully claimed, the oil revenues from Iraqui oil fields are taken over by the Americans and their proceeds 'given back to the Iraqui people'.
|
|
||||
This project
is funded by the Leonardo da Vinci programme, project number UK/01/B/F/PP/129_387,
2000-2003 |