CAUSES OF VIOLENT CONFLICT, ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO ITS ANALYSIS AND WAYS OF MITIGATING IT.
Articles reviewed.
- Kelman, HC. 2008. A social-psychological approach to
conflict analysis and resolution. In D. Sandole, S. Byrne, I.
Sandole-Staroste, & J. Senehi (Eds.), Handbook of conflict analysis and resolution.
- Paul b. Stares and mona yacoubian ,. Rethinking the “war on terror” New approaches To conflict prevention
And management In the post-9/11 world
The discourse of conflict analysis and resolution of
international conflict can be informed by social-psychological theory and
research. Looking at conflict through socio-psychological
perspective brings out four aspects/themes of conflict that is deemed
to have implications for international conflict resolution. First, Conflict
as a process driven by collective needs and fears, which
are perceived in terms of survival, and conflict resolution, should address
both side’s fears and needs. Secondly, Conflict as a an inter-societal
process requiring attention to economic, psychological, cultural and
social-structural dimensions, which means that international conflict might
not be necessarily inter-governmental. Thirdly, Conflict as a multifaceted
process of mutual influence, where it is not merely contest of coercive power,
but also include economic coercion e.t.c and finally, Conflict as an
interactive process with an escalatory self-perpetuating dynamic, meaning
that conflict can perpetuate biases that might increase conflict, creating
vicious circle[1].
Furthermore,
the author indicates that two
types of social-psychological processes contribute to conflict escalation: normative and perceptual.
Normative processes include social factors that encourage conflict behaviour,
while Perceptual processes refers to cognitive process for interpreting information
related to conflict, making it hard to accept other’s perspective, hence
one-sided, self-centred views. Normative
process limits options available to negotiators in such a way that they
maintain status quo, in addition to this, conflict norm of zero-sum game puts
pressure on negotiators making them not compromise for fear of appearing weak
before the public. Perceptual process on the other hand increases chances of
escalation of conflict as it makes it difficult for the parties to accept each
other’s perspectives. This is where they develop mirror image of self and
other, where the other is seen as inherently evil and aggressive while they see
themselves as virtuous and peaceful.
Stares and Yacoubian in their article “Rethinking the War on Terror,” outlined an alternative approach to conflict prevention and management in post 9/11 world. They explained that unlike previous major wars that occurred in the world, war on Islamist militants has no clearly defined boundaries, frontlines nor is it state-centric. Additionally, they highlight that since war on terror headed by the United States transcends state boundaries, new strategies need to be adopted to confront it[2]. Furthermore, they give three levels of Islamists militant groups which are; international jihadist with global agenda e.g. Al-Qaeda, national insurgents with national agenda e.g. Hamas, and finally miscellaneous organisations that offer help and assistance.
To understand how militants work and how to
overcome them, the authors viewed them through epidemiological approach to
allow for effective response. This is where they likened the growth and
dynamics of militants to epidemic/or/ global health problem, and by doing so
people can understand and approach it applying counter epidemic strategy, e.g.
ideological “immunisation” through mass media e.t.c likening militants to epidemic strategies used
in containing epidemic can be used to containing how the latter starts and
spreads. The following counter epidemic measures were given:
·
Contain-just
like disease outbreaks are contained and quarantined by health officials,
militants can be contained and counter-measures like mass media can be used
against them and prevent them from gaining momentum
·
Protect
the most vulnerable- target “immunisation” is applied e.g. just like
public education can be used to prevent spread of disease infections, education
can be used to help the vulnerable in the society to give them a chance to make
a living, quell propaganda by militants e.t.c
·
Remedy- the
same way environmental conditions is looked at in order to understand how
diseases spread so that proper intervention can be carried out, environment
like political suppression, alienation of population need to be assessed so
that its impact on the rise of militarism can be carefully approached and dealt
with[3].
However, they acknowledge there is a difference
between epidemic and militants in such a way that people infected are willing
to report the case and seek treatment, on the contrary Islamic militancy is
hard to access.
They came to conclusion on how future handling of
war on terror requires involvement of many players including NGO’s, businesses
and states forming mutually beneficial partnerships. In addition to this, they
also suggested that states need to adopt their structures to these new
imperatives so that war on militarism can be won.
REVIEW
Causes of
escalation of international conflict and how to mitigate it have been
approached form a different angle, far from the mainstream, by these two
articles. While one gives socio-psychological reasons for escalation of
violence, one uses epidemiological approach on how to stop it. Of the two
articles, Yacoubian and Stares’ “Rethinking war on terror”, with its approach
to terrorism as an epidemic and ways of containing it, though interesting,
appears to assume that when dealing with terrorism states can agree and work
together easily. Unlike disease epidemic, where governments work together to
contain its spread and reduce fatality through exchange of scientific
knowledge, issues relating to militants is guarded as it covers aspects of
defence, religion, economics, and politics, which many states do not feel
comfortable in sharing as it is not only sensitive but also lacks urgency as
compared to disease epidemic. States can refuse to share information on
militants operations on basis of sovereignty and national security but cannot
refuse to disclose scientific knowledge on disease epidemic because, it is an
issue deemed as humanitarian crisis, with an urgency attached to it to save
human life.
Additionally,
in today’s globalised and highly politicised world, there are so many
differences among states when it comes to terrorism and war on terror. For
example, some groups categorised as terrorists because of the activities that they
conduct by one, are seen as liberators and political organisation by others,
e.g. Hamas, thus it is quite difficult to come to negotiation table with one
party believing that the other is inherently evil and aggressive. Additionally,
groups like Hezbollah and Hamas might be conducting terrorist activities as way
of bringing social and political change, e.g. creation of state of Palestine,
and hold beliefs and positions on religious and political issue not necessarily
accepted by others. This makes them militants in one view and activists in
another, thus things are not as easy as the authors claim it to be, it’s far
much more complicated.
Furthermore, after September 11, with the world
divided amongst “us” and “them” or “us” and “axis of the evil”, stereotypes and
negativity has already been planted and this coupled with globalisation and
free and fast flow of information, this news is delivered to grassroots level
enforcing prejudices, instead of creating understanding.
Theoretically, this approach appears to be
wonderful and easy to apply, but in reality, it is quite costly and not easy to
get states with conflicting interests on board. For example, going to Muslim
majority countries and adopt one of the proposed countermeasures like “ideological
immunisation” can be likened to a double edged sword. Some extremists claim
that they are forming crusades in order to preserve Islam as it was practiced
centuries ago, and by targeting madrassas and Mosques to counter militants, the
state using this method might give wrong signals, that the “West” is intruding
in religious institutions and brain washing the masses. This is what the
government of some states might not want happening in their country, as it
might backfire and give legitimacy to militants, further worsening the
situation.
Overall, the article, by drawing comparison between
how to handle epidemics and militants did a great job, the symmetry couldn’t
have been better. It’s a unique approach that is worth knowing and
understanding.
Kelman’s
article gives an in depth analysis of what causes escalation of conflict in
such a way that it is easy to understand and grasp the idea communicated. Importantly
the article by using socio-psychological analysis shows that it is the people
who lie at the heart of the conflict and they are the only ones with the
capability to stop it, even though complex systems can prolong violence. By
putting people at the core of his analysis, Kelman, gives an opportunity for
people to understand deeper roots of the conflict, bridging the structure which
can be state, military, and the people on the ground.
Socio-psychological
approach towards violent conflict though very detailed and understandable from
view point of psychology lacks integration with other major theories of
international relations, conflict resolution e.t.c. with less emphasis and linkage with the above mentioned fields
it might be marginalised by not only by some scholars but also negotiators and
statesmen. This is because it comes off as an alternative against the already
established ones seen as mainstream, e.g. Realism, Marxism, e.t.c.
In
conclusion, the two articles gave an alternative approach to an issue dominated
by mainstream thinking, it does not only broaden the scholarship view of their
work, but it also enriches it and give statesmen and negotiators as well an
opportunity to understand and react appropriately to international conflicts.
Comments
Post a Comment