|
Working
with Conflicts of Zone 11
-
example: "The war on
terrorism"
By
Else
Hammerich
Danish Centre for Conflict
Resolution
TFF
associate
June 4, 2002
THE CONFLICT WORKERS'
MISSION
When tense international crises occur, we tend to
react due to impulsive feelings and mainstream attitudes.
Prejudice, enemy images and ideas of retaliation and
revenge may thus form public opinions, and these may
again become part of the escalation of violent
hostilities.
The conflict worker2 however has the
possibility of using the methods of conflict resolution
in order to stay more balanced, think more deeply and
come up with sober arguments and alternatives to the use
of violence.
As conflict resolution is part of the nonviolent
mindset, our perspective is how to promote genuine and
sustainable security in this crisis.3
Security is the key word. It links to the most important
and global of all Human Rights of the UN charter, namely
the right to life.
As conflict workers we try to rise above war
propaganda, rumours, animosity and shortsighted clinging
to military escalation as the only means to obtain
security. We do not take sides with either of the
clashing parties. We side only with the civilian
populations, who must carry the untold sufferings of any
warfare and who have a justified and fundamental right to
security. We do not judge in order to distribute guilt,
but try to be aware of our own biases and look more
soberly at the causes of the conflicts and the
consequences of different strategies to cope with it.
In this paper we shall outline some of the tools of
conflict resolution and link them with the current
international crisis, which manifested itself through and
after the attacks on World Trade Center and Pentagon
September 11th 2001. We shall bring forward some
suggestions of how we may understand the events and how
we may anticipate the results of different approaches to
them.
1. BE AWARE OF
WORDS
When conflicts escalate we know that perceptions and
language are distorted within the warring
parties.4 The distortions are partly
spontaneous and partly organised in order to promote
public willingness to engage in warfare, bear the
economic burdens, and face the human misery of war,
toning down compassion. Enemy images, prejudice,
ignorance, fear and ideas of "an eye for an eye" are
cultivated and used to strengthen the citizens' fighting
spirit. Or, as one saying goes, when war breaks out truth
is its first victim.
In the current crisis even the headline war on
terrorism is a distortion. It is so widely used in
the media, that we almost see it as globally true and
adequate. But it is not. It is a political statement. The
inhabitants of an Afghan village may have seen it as an
attack on our homes. The Northern Alliance may
call it the war against Taliban. Some see it as
an aggression against the Islamic world. The name
war on terrorism is part of a strategy used by the
U.S. coalition and its sympathisers.
Terrorism as well is a concept used as if it
has an agreed upon meaning. But until now no
international assembly has been able to find a common
definition to it. Many would agree to a definition like
terrorism is a deliberate method by which violence
against innocent people is used to create fear and chaos
in order to obtain certain political goals. But when
it comes to who commits terrorism the harmony
stops. Can a state commit terrorism? Or is it only
non-governmental groups? Were the atrocities of the South
African apartheid system terrorism? Today most people
would say yes, but how about the U.S.' nuclear bombing of
Hiroshima? Russia's violence in Chechnya? And by the way,
who are freedom fighters and who are terrorists?
So in wartime words are used as weapons. They mould
our thinking, narrow our outlook and prepare us for
almost any escalation of violence. We should therefore be
careful of the language that we take in and the language
that we forward. By using a more thoughtful language we
open to more broad-minded perspectives.
We might also consider how we ourselves use the
language when we stand up for our nonviolent values. If
we judge and attack the advocates of military solutions
with names like warmongers, hypocrites, fanatics, state
terrorists, criminals, cynics etc., we cut off the
necessary dialogue not only with them but as well with
people, who are simply in doubt and who seek
clarification, trustworthy arguments and alternative
suggestions. We risk becoming part of the fighting. In
stead we could try to rise above it and become part of
the solution.
Nonviolence is not a passive abstaining from the use
of violence. It is an active effort of thought, speech
and action. None of us could claim to be perfectly
nonviolent, but we can at least try to pay attention to
the words we speak.
2. REACT
MINDFULLY
In classic conflict resolution we work with three main
ways of meeting attacks and provocations. Two of them are
"fight" and "flight".5 We are here speaking of
impulsive reactions, not of deliberate decisions to fight
or evade. The "fight" reaction could be retaliation,
violence, revenge, whereas "flight" could be to run or to
do nothing. A third possibility is to regain calmness,
take a pause for reflection and then decide on what to
do. This approach we name "to open" -we open to the
problem, trying to understand its reasons, and then to
choose adequate answers. By the first two reactions we
cut off our contact with the problem as well as with the
people who caused it. We act impulsively out of feelings
like anger and fear and do not address the problems
behind the aggression nor the aggressor. Neither do we
think much about the consequences of our response. These
reactions are very natural.
The third approach is much more demanding. It
means
- to get a grip on oneself and the strong
feelings raised by the attack
- to ask into the attack and the problems behind
it
- to consider the consequences of various responses.
The attack on WTC was so unexpected, gigantic and
brutal that feelings of fury and horror were
overwhelming, especially in the U.S. Nevertheless
-besides expressions of deep compassion - there was an
urge from a number of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates to the
government of the U.S., not to act impulsively but to
responsibly consider what measures to take, and to
reflect on the fact that violence causes more
violence.6
What conflict workers can do in these grave
circumstances is to appeal to their politicians and media
to act with awareness and responsibility for the common
-in these times even global - security, not accelerating
the circle of violence. And we can do more. We can try to
understand the crisis more deeply and thus provide the
public with balanced analyses, based on the tools of our
profession.
3. UNDERSTAND THE SPIRAL OF
VIOLENCE
Any conflict has three main characteristics: there is
an incompatible contradiction between the parties, they
have certain attitudes to each other and they show
certain behaviour.7 This is shown in the A-B-C
triangle of conflict.
The three aspects are equally basic, and they are
interrelated. The contradiction means that one goal
stands in the way for another, one party is an obstacle
for the other. In serious conflicts this will cause anger
and distrust, and violence, physical or verbal, may be
introduced. When this happens, we see a destructive
conflict, or as Johan Galtung puts it, Conflict the
Destroyer.8 When a conflict turns
violent, the original contradiction, the root
conflict is overshadowed by the meta-conflict:
to win or to lose, to inflict harm or to be harmed. This
blocks the original contradiction and thus creates more
hatred, more violence, further blocking, more hatred,
more violence, etc., etc.
The triangle becomes a spiral of violence,
which nobody really wants, inflicting endless sufferings
to the civilian populations and the soldiers involved. It
was against this spiral, the Nobel Prize Laureates and
many other thoughtful people warned, before the bombings
of Afghanistan.
Retaliation has no end. When conflict workers state
this argument, they are having a strong case, since most
people know that it is true. The experience of the
vicious spiral of violence is deeply and painfully rooted
in most cultures, and there will be sayings like
"violence breeds violence", in many languages.
But the events of the current war show that mere
knowledge of the spiral of violence is not enough to stop
it. When fear and hatred take over, their power is
awesome. When fear and hatred are cultivated for
political purposes, they are even stronger. These
feelings can even make the collective experience of
"violence breeds violence" evaporate. They are linked to
an emotional and intellectual powerlessness that seems to
give space for only harmful responses: either we give in
and make ourselves victims of the next terrorist attack
(flight) or we strike back with even stronger violent
means (fight).
What else is there to do? This is the question we meet
again and again. It seems that only the choice between
pest and cholera is left.
And yet we know that there is a third way, which is
not only better but also in fact indispensable in this
global situation, when nobody can assure safety of any
territory and any population by military means.
The most challenging task for conflict workers is
always and especially in this historical moment to offer
trustworthy and creative ways to stop the spiral of
violence and make way for more solid and life-affirming
solutions. If we wish to do so we have to go deeper into
an understanding of the crisis.
It seems that the leaders of the U.S. and its
coalition based their response to September 11th solely
on one of the triangle's corners, namely behaviour: the
terrorist behaviour, which -as all sensible people would
agree - must be stopped. There was not much asking into
the other two corners: How did this hatred develop? What
is the root conflict, what are the contradictions that
build up the conflict? There were numerous statements
that concentrated on the meta conflict: who will win this
fight, who has more power to harm the other, who is in
control? The root conflict was obscure and not an object
for thorough investigation.9
It is obvious that the majority of political comments
and media reports looked only at the surface of the
conflict triangle, and that they mostly focused on the
behaviour of the other part, and how to stop it. And the
decision to launch the "war on terrorism" was apparently
taken on this fragile basis.
What the conflict worker can do, is to cultivate a
broader outlook and to offer it to the public. We can
contribute to weaken the spiral of violence by insisting
on the wholeness of the problem.
4. INCLUDE TIME: BEFORE AND
AFTER THE OUTBREAK
The dangerous and complicated international conflict
was described, as if the terrorist attacks were the
beginning of it, and if the capture and punishment of the
offenders and their supporters were the end of it. The
conflict was narrowed down to the outbreak of violence
and the immediate response to it. But outbreak is only
part of a conflict.
In order to understand the conflict, a much longer
perspective of time is vital: before, during and after
the outbreak. Violence has causes that go far back
in time, and the way violence is met has consequences for
a long period of time, maybe for generations.
When we are imprisoned by fear and hatred, we seem to
forget causes as well as consequences, which is
understandable in everyday life, but extremely dangerous
when done by statesmen and media, who so to say have the
lives of vast numbers of people in their hands.
The response to violence must be based on analyses of
what went on before it, what its reasons were, and on
analyses of what could be the consequences of different
reactions. If reactions are based only on the outbreak,
it is likely that the spiral of violence is
accelerated.10
In the case of the attack on the WTC it was a
complicated affair to identify the "before", since nobody
stood forward as the attacker. But it was treated like a
simple affair, as Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda
network very quickly were pointed out as the
perpetrators.11 The U.S. counter attack in
Afghanistan was built on that premise. Most observers
seem to agree that the WTC attack was planned and
implemented by Al Queda network or some other groups,
rooted in a militant Muslim movement.
If this is the case it is possible to identify the
"before". In interviews and on videos bin Laden again and
again has stated the causes of his violent
intentions.12 He speaks of the American
presence in the Gulf area and of "the massacring of
Muslims in Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and Iraq".
And he speaks of the consequences of the coalition's
counterattack: "My cause will continue after my
death… They think they can solve this problem by
killing me. It's not easy to solve this problem. This war
has been spread all over the world".
His statements are clearly fuelling the spiral of
violence. But no matter how we judge them, they show
something concrete about the "before" and the "after" of
the crisis. It points to some serious and complicated
areas of conflict, which could nevertheless be dealt
with, and they point to how impossible it is to solve
contradictions and to provide sustainable security by
war.
5. SEE THAT THERE ARE MANY
PARTIES
Very few conflicts have only two participants, since
we live in networks of human relations. And Zone 1
conflicts practically never are restricted to two
parties. But they are often outlined as hostilities
between only two parties, maybe to make it easier to
"understand" the complicated problem and then take
sides.
Furthermore international conflicts are often
described, as if they had only one problem and one cause,
in this case "terrorism".
In it's most gross form the current war is described
as George W. Bush against Bin Laden. Other two-party
versions are "the coalition against terrorism" and "U.S.
against terrorist sponsor countries"- or "rogue
states".
The problem with this simplification is that it
amplifies enemy thinking and the urge to respond
violently. It steps up the notion of "we" who are right,
and "they" who are wrong, for which reason "we" have the
right -or even the obligation - to use violence against
"them". Simplification feeds the spiral of violence.
Another problem is that that the two-party version
simply is not true. It is not realistic, and therefore it
is of no use when we try to understand the crisis and
develop solutions to it. When we see only two adversaries
and only one problem we are not able to understand in
order to pave the way for realistic solutions.
This point is clearly stated by H.H. the Dalai Lama in
the following quotation: "If we understand the
reasons, causes and conditions, time factors and so on,
then we realise that there is no concrete object to
pinpoint as the main cause. If you do a research, you
cannot pinpoint a concrete object, and consequently you
can reduce your ill feelings…when the wars were
fought, it was through pointing out one concrete object
to be undesirable, without seeing how many
inter-connections there are. When using force to destroy
the opponents, it was presumed that there was only one
object. However, the reality is completely
different".13
Looking at the present conflict, a number of
participants and interests seem obvious, besides
"terrorism", the U.S. and the Al Queda network including
their supporters:
- Afghanistan with its traumatic history and
many opposing militias
- The neighbouring countries, especially Pakistan with
its ongoing Kashmir conflict with India
- Russia with its war in Chechnya
- Uzbekistan with its militant Muslim rebellions
- Israel -Palestine
- The Gulf area with many opposing interests
- The weapons production -the military industrial
complex and its interests14
- The oil industry and its interests
- The global gap between the privileged and the
under-privileged.
This list is by no means complete. Furthermore it is
not within the reach of conflict workers or the single
NGO to analyse the whole spectrum. To do that a team of
highly qualified experts must work together. What we
can do though is to show that the problems are far
more comprehensive than the headline "we against
terrorism", and to point out some of the important
factors.
But does this complexity not make it much more
difficult to find constructive responses to the problems?
Yes, definitely. In the short run it is much easier to
act on simplistic abstractions. But the consequences of
doing so are serious: more hatred, more violence, more
suffering, more blocking of the contradictions, etc.
5. STICK TO LAW AND
ORDER
After the crime of the attack on WTC and Pentagon it
is evident that the criminals must be found and held
responsible. But -as many thoughtful people have stated
-it should happen within the framework of international
law and without twisting the law or taking it in one's
own hands - those of the U.S. The problem is in fact
international .It should be dealt with internationally
and the UN given the leadership of identifying, getting
hold on and prosecuting the
perpetrators.15
It is likewise obvious that measures must be taken to
increase security internally in the countries. But not at
the expense of democracy and civil rights like the right
to express oneself freely - for instance against warfare
- and the freedom of assembly.
For the spiral of violence not to run wild it is
important to maintain laws and regulations that govern
the societies and the international community. The
conflict worker could also make a contribution to this
matter.
6. STICK TO THE TOOL OF
DIALOGUE
When violence breaks out it the conflict has escalated
to a step, where dialogue has stopped. The parties are no
longer in contact with each other, so the way is paved
for misunderstandings, misinformation, prejudice,
black-and-white perceptions, myths, hatred and enemy
images. Stepping up violence is the next phase.
To revive dialogue and to negotiate are crucial steps
out of the spiral of violence. There are probably no
other methods to obtain sustainable security. There are
several ways in which conflict workers can contribute to
the resumption of dialogue:
- Request our governments to take up communication
with "the enemy", being concrete and giving examples.
This is not an easy thing to do. We may face the risk
of being seen as naive.16 In polarised
situations there is not much space for middle way
people. There are tense periods, when it is very hard
to advocate communication with the opposing side,
especially if one's own country is directly involved
in war. But there are many more periods, when in fact
it can be done.
- Encourage our media to report in an unbiased way
of the conditions and convictions of the other side of
the battlefield, not only the leaders but the
civilians as well.17 Acknowledge reporters,
who do so ("the press" is always blamed in
general).
- Keep up or establish personal contacts with
civilian people from the opposing side and publish
their human stories. It can be fairly easily done by
e-mail.
- Stick to the tools of sober dialogue when debating
with people, who advocate warfare as the means to
manage the conflict. Be firm on the issue and open to
the person; avoid judging the other's motives. In
stead we can express our facts and opinions clearly
and ask into the consequences of the other's points of
view.
A HOPE
None of us can carry the weight of the world. Nor are
we powerless. Every single person -conflict worker or not
- who feeds some sensibility and some hope into the
hostile and confused atmosphere, which war brings about,
is very valuable. When we pool our resources we can
accomplish even more. This can be done in small groups or
on a larger scale. It is already being done.
In these days we see something encouraging: The
Internet is used to link people together who wish to
break the spiral of violence and suggest more
life-affirming and sustainable ways to security. After
September 11th and the military response to it, the lines
are glowing. Analyses, arguments, protests, alternatives,
sarcasm, collections of signatures, facts, revelations
and suggestions are distributed from one end of the world
to the other every single day -sometimes in overwhelming
doses. So much engagement, so much energy!
I am sure that these and many other nonviolent
activities that are carried out in this wartime are
having an impact. And we all wish to see that impact
become greater and more visible. How can it be done? A
unification of this great moving interaction is
impossible to imagine and even not to be wished for,
since the flow lives by its diversity and freedom.
But maybe some centres for conflict research and
resolution from various parts of the world could put
their heads & hearts together and organise a small,
practical network, which is able to react -and proact -
very quickly, as the international situation develops.
They could use their experience, knowledge and tools to
come up with some deep rooted analyses and some
trustworthy answers to the most challenging question:
what else is there to do? (- than escalating violence).
These answers should be of such awe-inspiring solidity
and creativity, that they would be widely quoted in the
media and even find their ways into the corridors of
power. And everybody, who wished, could use them. This
would definitely be helpful.
Of course it is not the solution to the grave
challenge we are facing. But together with all the other
initiatives it might be an important contribution.
I am writing this in the depressing days, when the
Northern Alliance and U.S. Airforce besiege the Afghan
town Kunduz. Some 30.000 Taliban troops including foreign
fighters are inside the walls. I do not know how many
civilians -the media do not tell. The commander of
the besieged troops is in contact with the commander of
the Northern Alliance and has asked for negotiations
under the auspices of the UN. He has put some concrete
negotiation positions, including safe corridors for
escape. The U.S. government has promptly refused
negotiations, demanding either capture or death of the
besieged troops. Rumsfeld gives three days for surrender,
or the town will be attacked -with horrifying
consequences for the soldiers and the civilian population
inside the walls.18
We are up against the logic of war with its terrifying
primitivity. Our immediate influence seems to be non
existent. What difference can a well meant and modest
article like this make?
In this downhearted moments I the think of a young
Serbian doctor, I met in Belgrade during the war in
former Yugoslavia. He was a realistic and courageous
person, who transported medicine to "the other side", the
besieged citizens of Sarajevo, Bosnia. When asked about
his immediate hopes for his country he answered
pessimistically. But then he said: "I no longer
believe in organised systems, I believe in the chaos
theory. I must do what my heart tells me is right to do.
My actions then will form some small particles that will
meet other particles, and hopefully some day become a
greater wave, which can lead to social changes".
Well, his particle is now transmitted, and that feels
good.
Endnotes
1 These tools may also be applied in Zone 2
conflicts. Zone 1= the area of the greater society,
governments, socio-economic conditions, international
affairs. In this area the conflict worker has normally no
direct relations, and no face to face communication. Zone
2 = our every day life, where we are directly in contact
with the people involved in a conflict. Zone 3 = the area
of learning how to deal with conflicts in Zone 2 and
understand conflicts in Zone 1.
2 By conflict worker we understand a
person, who is educated to understand human conflicts and
to support other people to understand their frictions and
find constructive solutions to them. The conflict worker
may thus function as a dialogue partner, a mediator, a
trainer, a facilitator and a moderator of meetings. But
also as an analyst of Zone 1 conflicts.
3 Nonviolence is not the same as pacifism,
and a conflict worker is not .the same as a pacifist. He
or she might be, but not necessarily.
4 See Danish Centre for Conflict
Resolution: "The Art of Conflict resolution", Copenhagen
1999, and Else Hammerich "Meeting Conflicts Mindfully",
Dharamsala 2001.
5 See note 2
6 See www.thecommunity.org
7 According to Norwegian peace researcher,
Professor Johan Galtung. See www.transcend.org
8 There is also the promise of Conflict the
Creator, conflict seen as a challenge. When the
triangle's corners transform into an attitude of
openness, a behaviour of restraint and the contradiction
is softened by creativity. See note 2.
9 This goes for political statements of
primarily the U.S. government, and for a majority of
Western mainstream media. At the same time there were
many sober comments from knowledgeable journalists,
experts and private people. And there were politicians,
who spoke up about underlying causes of the crisis: the
global injustices, the gap between the rich and the poor
and the need to take action to fill up the gap, to gain
sustainable security.
10 Of course the immediate safety of the
U.S. population had to be secured. And the offenders had
to be found and held responsible. The discussion here is
about the character of the exterior response.
11 Until now Bin Laden has not taken the
responsibility, though he has spoken of the attack with
sympathy. Only a few members of the U.S. government and
partly Tony Blair have seen the proofs.
12 See for instance interview by Jason
Burko in the Observer, November 11th
13 Said in a lecture to the trainees of
Tibetan Centre for Conflict Resolution, November 29th
2000. Printed in Else Hammerich: Meeting Conflicts
Mindfully, Dharamsala 2001.
14 A concept invented by President Dwight
D. Eisenhower to signify the close collaboration between
the weapons producers, the armed forces and politicians -
and pointing out its dangers.
15 Knowing the vast difficulties of the UN,
especially the problematic composition of the Security
Council. For instance it includes no nations of the
Muslim world. To start a reform of the UN could be part
of the solution of the present crisis.
16 Or even as traitors. This is happening
right now, in the U.S. as well as in Muslim countries. So
nonviolence is - as Gandhi put it, not for cowards.
17 During the war in Afghanistan CNN was
the only international media, who had a reporter placed
in the Taliban area. He produced extremely useful and
unusual information, an example of broad-minded
journalism.
18 Indian Express, November 21st.
©
TFF & the author 2002
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|