|
Home
Doors
Essays2007
Essays2008
Essays2009
Essays2010
Wisdom
Gallery
Links
Bios
Contact
|
..:: Conflict III ::..
"The
Resolution of Conflict"
By
Alan Schneider
We have come to the final installment in
this three-part series on human conflict, and perhaps the most
challenging one, both to write about, and to apply to life. To a
very great extent, history is the story of human strife and conflict. In
the preceding essays we have examined some of the causes of the origin and
development of conflict, and raised some very difficult questions
regarding whether conflict can or even should be peacefully
resolved, given the compelling Karmic influences at work at the most
fundamental generative level in all conflict situations. Yet, if most of
us are warriors, at least some of us are peacemakers, and peace
is often created out of the most tragic discord. As a methodology of
presentation, I have decided to begin with the worst-case scenario in
conflict – armed, violent modalities allowed to proceed unchecked to an
unmediated outcome.
This outcome will generally
be the eventual “victory” of one political element present, following an
unspecified interval of human suffering and loss of life on all sides.
On rare occasions, both or all of the conflicted parties will fight to
their mutual extinction or exhaustion of resources, leaving a wasteland
where once productive cultures may have existed. The Spiritual Truth of
conflict is that the only real victory for any of the
participants resides in the successful peacemaking effort that may
terminate the hostilities at some point before the apparent
political victory can be achieved by one faction or another involved. We
all have something meaningful and valuable to contribute to life and
each other, and these contributions are lost in violent death. It is one
thing when this loss occurs accidentally through mishap, but quite
another when it results from organized, willful mass destruction. Who
can say what levels of human achievement might have been reached by this
point in history had not so many violent conflicts resulted in the loss
of so much life? Would we be peacefully colonizing the Solar System, or
perhaps beyond? Would we have already conquered disease and poverty? How
many Einsteins, Gandhis, and Mother Teresas, to name but a few great
individuals in history, may have been tragically, needlessly killed to
sustain the Culture of Conflict previously identified in these articles?
This is the real cost of unchecked conflict – the cost to the apparently
victorious parties in terms of lost human potential represented by the
dead on all sides. This is why it can and must be said that
nobody ever wins.
How can we
learn from our violent, belligerent animal nature, and thus at least
partially transcend it? This is the crux of the question of
intervention, even in relatively non-violent conflict situations. How
can the contestants be shown the Karmic Truth of their actions? How can
they be convinced to stop posturing and look at what they are doing from
a morally responsible perspective?
I have said that conflict is
inevitable as long as at least one element involved feels it has a clear
tactical advantage, whether this is an accurate perception or not.
Certainly it is in the vested interests of the Culture of Conflict to
promote this perception of advantage on all sides of a conflict
situation. I have already maintained that the logical cost of aggression
is unacceptable in terms of lost human potential. The problem here is
that the application of logic in human affairs is a relatively recent
development overlaying literally billions of years of brute force
evolution and jungle law, dating back to the first amoebas – the
earliest creatures known to have been unable to synthesize their own
protein complexes from intrinsic sugar metabolisms supported by
photosynthesis. The amoeba was first a scavenger, then a predator on the
microscale of evolution, establishing a trend that has existed ever
after. It is this trend that supports the Culture of Conflict
today, and the one that the successful negotiator must counteract. This
is the biological origin of Jung’s battle of life, and forms the
underlying validity of his argument. In the face of this grim
observation, I say that we have evolved into creatures of choice, and
can choose to defy evolution and biology, and practice reason and
compassion. If such a choice be made, then the art of negotiation
becomes our first priority in the battle of life.
If active hostility has
already begun, the first challenge is the achievement of a cease-fire
agreement for a specified period of time, allowing for a cool-down
interval to take place while the cultural dynamics of the situation
continue to be assessed by the negotiation team. If a less
violent, but still hostile, conflict situation is the case, a strategy
of separation of the conflicted parties is the necessary first step –
essentially the same operation taking place under less extreme
circumstances. Frequently, the separation approach can be instrumented
as a long term solution if it can be rendered permanently – an example
would be transferring two or more hostile employees to different
facilities, or departments within a large enough single facility. If
this cannot be done for some reason, then the resolution strategies
begin to converge in both cases – dialog must be instituted among
the conflicted parties to begin the negotiation process.
In the case of active
military conflict, the participants must be convinced that it is in
their best interests to offer some initial concessions to each other. If
feelings of hostility are running high (as they probably will be) this
can be a most difficult first step to take, and a lot of angry outbursts
and protestations can be expected. These are the necessary
manifestations of emotional venting, and should be viewed as
constructive as long as they do not proceed to renewed violence. The
fear and resentment of out-groups is a normal consequence of the
powerful in-group identification that is frequently a causative factor
in violent conflict, and must be released verbally and emotionally in
order for the perception of the out-group entity as humanly present
in an equivalent sense to the in-group to take place. If the
participants do not become fast friends in the process, at least they
will gain some perception of their similarities as human beings in the
human condition, and this is a start! The concessions involved must be
tailored to what the participants respectively feel are most valuable –
medical supplies and/or treatment, improved access to identified
critical resources, yielding territory, and prisoner exchanges are some
possibilities. A thorough study of the cultural dynamics involved will
be invaluable in understanding what will be most effective as initial
concessions for the participants.
The considerations are much
the same for non-violent conflict. The participants must be shown each
others human similarities. Here, the initial concessions are more
frequently symbolic and involve social acknowledgement of the rectitude
of the respective participants’ sentiments. In any conflict, the
participants are each always partially justified in feeling as they do,
albeit usually not to the extent that they do. This
justification should be granted – initially under separate
circumstances, to be sure – thus creating an atmosphere of emerging
trust and respect for the negotiation team in the process. This
condition of mutual trust and respect from all conflict participants is
essential for the successful outcome of negotiations. The participants
will only accept the intervention of a third party that they have trust
and confidence in, since they have neither in each other. Diplomacy
frequently involves the administration of large amounts of ego salve as
an anesthetic to the wounded self, and if this will help bring the
participant to the negotiating table, it should be viewed as a positive
initial measure.
It is quite possible that
there will be elements of the Culture of Conflict – i.e. individuals who
have something to gain from the situation – nested on both or all sides
involved. One should expect these elements to work very hard to
undermine the negotiation process and the negotiators’ personal
credibility as well. The first phase of the cultural analysis of the
conflict must be an attempt to answer the question “Who has the most to
gain from the situation under the identifiable outcome scenarios,
particularly the ongoing one?” The gains involved may be as
simple as the gratification of hatred, or as complex as the manipulation
of hidden mineral rights, but they must be fully identified as quickly
as possible, whatever they are. Just as the participants are always
partially justified in their perceptions of the conflict, so at least
some of them will also have real vested interests in the outcome
scenarios. There were elements of the Culture of Conflict that
literally cursed the day that peace was made at the close of
World War II, because the lavish life styles they had engineered for
themselves were terminated thereby. Again, wars can be very
profitable for those who do not actually have to fight in them!
Perhaps the best method of
countering those with vested interests is to confront them with
hard evidence of their vestment, if this can be determined. An
efficient, cautious conflict investor may, however, have
elaborate measures in place to prevent this from happening, particularly
if there are potentially dire personal consequences that may result from
the discovery of their vestment. Depending on the severity of
conditions, it mat be appropriate to cross-examine suspected investors
regarding their motives and involvement whether much evidence is present
or not. Generally, these individuals carry a great emotional burden of
fear and guilt regarding their activities, and an effective, sustained
examination will reveal some of this. If lives and careers are hanging
in the balance, such measures are a service in the highest terms to the
real victims of the ongoing conflict situation – the participants
without substantial investment. Once an investor has been clearly
identified, the subsequent step is an unequivocal rebuke of their
position, thereby discrediting them and their arguments, which should
not be difficult by that point.
In the very unusual case
where there are no investors present, the negotiation will come down to
the painful process of determining a mutually tolerable series of long
term concessions for the participants, who will probably still be
nourishing the lingering belief that victory is possible somehow, under
some circumstance. In long term conflicts, this will be particularly
difficult for the participants, who may well feel that it will be easier
to go on in conflict than face the reality of all that has been lost
once peace is finally made. The apparently endless struggle in Ireland
between the rival Protestant and Catholic factions, which has spanned
generations on both sides, is a good case in point. Duration does not
matter: for peace to take place, concessions must be made, no
matter how humiliating or frustrating they may be. Humility is, after
all, a virtue, and frustration is the friend and partner of
enlightenment...
Once a set of concessions has
been delineated, and an agreement ratified, some type of oversight of
the concession process must be put in place as a guarantor of legitimate
ongoing participation. This is frequently accomplished by the
establishment of an independent oversight agency, acting as a long term
third party mediator. As the inevitable conflict recurrences manifest,
this agency can intervene appropriately, if necessary with binding
arbitration, to reestablish peaceful coexistence.
In this life
of turbulence and confusion, lasting peace is elusive. We are born into
struggle with each other, and destined to struggle within ourselves
– it is the task of the peacemaker to reveal to humanity that the
personal inner struggle is the root of the external social struggle.
This is the essence of the battle – we are challenged to see
that all that we blame the world for originates within us. When
we look into the enemies face, we see our own faces reflected
there. When we hate an individual or group, however justified that
hatred may seem to be, we are ultimately acknowledging that we hate
ourselves in the process. It is the condition of hatred that is the
real enemy, not the hated. It is the condition of fear that is the
enemy, not the perceived object of that fear. In some sense, love is
born of familiarity, where fear results from the strange and unknown.
The skilled negotiator understands this dynamic, and knows that the
familiarity of the conference table is the first step to healed human
relations and lasting concord on the battlefield of life.
- With Love, Alan -
(CR2007, Alan Schneider)
Return to Top
|