We Reside in a World Marred by Conflict, Violence and War
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.0 Background Res Ipsa Loquitur - We reside in a world marred by conflict, violence and war. Conflict has been described as a normal human phenomenon (Boulding 2000, Darby 2001 and Lederach 1995) but not a phenomenon to which humans are destined. Individuals are as predisposed to violence and war as they are to peace (Adams, 1989). The "greatest challenge facing humanity on its journey into the new millennium ... [will be] the transformation of a culture of violence into a culture of peace" (Brenes & Wessells 2001 :99). Since the end of the cold war, there have been more inter- and intra-state conflicts and wars, and incidents of violence than occurred before the fall of the Berlin wall; of these, most have been intra-state. During the Cold War era, the two super powers did not engage each other directly, although some might cite the Cuban Missile crisis as an example to the contrary. They did, however, instigate wars and military coups mostly in third world nations in efforts to achieve their own domestic, political or military objectives (Hedges 2002 and Power 2002). Lederach (1997: 17) notes, "most wars are located in settings on the margins of the world community that are struggling with poverty, inequities and underdevelopment". Lederach (1997) further suggests that the Cold War has left a legacy of legitimacy for a culture of war and violence as a means of resolving conflict, through asymmetric and potentially more devastating means. Although used in greater context since the September 11 th 2001 attack on the World Trade Center (Meigs 2003; Williams 2003; Gray 2002), the concept of asymmetry is not new (Rippon 1958). "Some observers believe the Gulf War marked the beginning of Pax Americana in which the world will acquiesce in a benign American hegemony" (Nye 2003:251), predicated on a culture of war and violence within an asymmetrical 1 context. As the sole super power, there is every indication that the United States will continue to reinforce a culture of war (Power 2002) as a legitimate means of resolving differences based upon the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence as opposed to a culture of peace manifested through trans-cultural conflict prevention and resolution methodologies. Commensurate with Leberach's (1997) observation, Archer and Gartner (1984) propose that war legitimizes violence for both men and women. In a similar vein, Ember and Carol (1994) note a high correlation between the frequency of war and interpersonal violence, suggesting that war socializes males toward aggression in preparation for formal warrior training. Grossman (1996) concurs with this concept of training military personnel for war and violence, but not re-training for peace through repatriation after military service. Thus, war influences the way in which males and females interrelate and legitimizes the dominant roles that the former have maintained in that relationship (D. Adams, personal communication, 4 July 2004). Rutherford (2004:20-21) also comments on this male dominance as it is portrayed in the media and mimicked in life, in the world of 007 [James Bond], life was organized by the rule of the phallus, meaning that masculine principle of challenge, command, and conquest in which sex and violence were inextricably linked - 'hot babes and cool weapons'.... Bond as the hero was poised, efficient, effective, the quintessential tough man. The villains were unremittingly evil. ... The Bond pictures were a foretaste of the coverage of the invasion of Iraq. True, there were no 'Bond girls' in Iraq. Well, not quite: the British Forces did call the assault on Basra 'Pussy' and 'Galore'. Decisions to create cultures of war and violence or a culture of peace are individual, but they are not made in isolation from the social, political, economic and cultural environments that give them shape, structure and meaning. Likewise, decisions to engage or not to engage in interpersonal violence are individual, but are not made in isolation from their social, political, economic and cultural environments that give them shape, structure and meaning. The nexus is the motivation. This 2 research explores this relationship between cultures of war and violence, and a culture of peace. This motivation can be both a means and an end. In the former, the motivation is diverse, including differing wants, needs, beliefs, loyalties, values and ideologies; inaccurate perceptions of intentions or behaviours; competing goals; geopolitical factors including limited or disproportionate distribution of property, resources and wealth; availability of technology; and, disparities in power, amongst others (Pedersen 2001; Sanson & Bretherton 2001). In the latter, the motivation is a perceived benefit derived such as ultimate control or domination. Violence that is focused on the 'means' may not fulfill the 'ends' and vice versa (Maxwell 1998). Hence, contemporary conflict resolution methodologies may not be successful if they do not address the motivation and the culture of the perpetrator and victim from which it is derived because the process of changing the learned behaviour may become more problematic and, perhaps, unattainable. There is a burgeoning body of research that demonstrates that behaviour, violent or peaceful, is learned (Baron & Richardson 1994, Buss 1995 and Huessman 2002), and victims and victim-states of today learn to become bullies and warring states of tomorrow (Gottfredson, Hirschi, & Grasmick 1993, Randall 1997 and Salmivalli & Nieminen 2002) if sustainable means to resolve the conflict are not identified and implemented. As an example, the defeat of Germany coupled with the humiliating 'peace terms' post World War I victimized this nation. Twenty years later, the combatants were at war again; Germany had moved from the position of victim state in 1919 to bully state in 1939 (Lindner 2002). A similar argument can be made between Serbians, Muslims and Croatians in the Balkans (Hedges 2002), and Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda (Dallaire 2003), and between dependence and independence factions in Indonesia and East Timor (Rippon, Girouard, & Lowey 2004). Referring to the current US war against Iraq, Rutherford (2004: 159) comments on how humiliation of the Arab world is fostering 3 new learned war-like behaviours for some Muslims who, otherwise, would have remained moderate non-combatants. Whatever his sins, Saddam Hussein was widely admired as an Arab strongman with an Arab army who had resisted Anglo American pressure for a decade. Now he was gone. 'It's a day of shame', claimed a Palestinian engineer. 'On this day Arabs have become slaves. The only man who dared to say "no" to the Americans' face has vanished today. What is left is a bunch of bowing and scraping Arab leaders'. Once more the Arabs have been humiliated and deceived like the crushing defeat we faced during the 1967 war with Israel', noted a businessman in Amman. ... Yet it was a commentator on al-Jazeera who summed up the mood, his gloom provoked by the brief shot of a marine putting the American flag over the head of a statue of Saddam Hussein: 'Everything that happens from now on will have an American smell'. Absent in these examples has been sustainable methods of resolving differences through peaceful means before they escalated into inter- or intra-state conflicts, violence and war. In this most recent case in point, in Arab humiliation can be found the seeds of the protracted intractable jihad against the unholy Pax Americana - the Arab version of the evil empire and the Islamic sequel to the mythical reality of 'The Empire Strikes Back' in which the jihadists are the righteous martyrs and the Americans the barbaric aggressors. How does the process of transformation from martyr and aggressor to collaborator evolve to a sustainable level of peacefulness? How do leaders mature nation-states from cultures of war and violence to a culture of peace? As hypothesized, how do individuals at a micro level learn peacemaking and peacekeeping behaviours that ultimately become a part of their respective cultures at a macro nation-state level? This research focuses on the maturation process of transforming individuals at the micro level through education and praxis for peace and a culture of peace. 4 1.1 Culture and Conflict The challenge of dealing with conflict is not new. Based on local cultures and environments, social groups have developed their own strategies for dealing with differences, and means of managing these disagreements have evolved as social groups reorganized into communities and nation-states. Unfortunately, not all have been non-violent. As an example, the Coast Salish First Nation of British Columbia ostracised those who violated minor customs; for major violations, the offender could 1 be killed (T. Jones , personal communications, 12 August 2002). In these and other societies, as sub-group elites became more complex and removed from the general population, traditional methods of resolving conflicts changed. Segregation resulted in different languages evolving with different interpretations as lingua franca was replaced with lingua vernacular (Calvet 1998). In-groups and out-groups (Chattopadhyay, Tluchowska, & George 2004; Searle-White 2001) emerged which, in turn, led to more conflict as dissimilar means of resolving differences progressed and became the norm within each respective culture. Lund, Morris and LeBaron-Duryea (as cited in Pedersen 2001) suggest a model for resolving conflict that is more culturally-centered may have greater utility and opportunity for success than one that is more diverse and attempts to accommodate all cultures or does not take culture into consideration. In intercultural conflict resolution even when different cultural groups share the same values, their behavioural expression of these values may differ. Not only can different behaviours have the same meaning, the same behaviour can have different meanings (Pedersen 2001 :183). History is replete with examples of culturally-centered initiatives being taken to diminish inter- and intra-state conflicts, including Charlemagne's efforts to unite the Roman Empire under one religious ideology, the Catholic Church.