A) The Process of Escalation

Here lets assume two cultures that are in conflict as the starting point. As with most conflicts, it is pointless to try to find the 'original' offender, since in reality both have likely offended and been offended repeatedly by the time the conflict becomes obvious. So, jumping in at any point will do to illustrate the process of escalation.

Culture is a complex fabric. It is rarely internally consistent in a purist sense. It is founded on the answers to the basic questions 1) What is real and what is imaginary, 2) What is good and what is bad. These questions do not have scientific answers. Further, the answers (for any given group of people) change with time; they are dynamic rather that static. To aid members of society in understanding the answers to the basic questions, a frame work of values develops. These values, religious and social, help the members of society evaluate their daily experiences in terms of real-imaginary and good-bad.

In cultural conflicts the flash point is often at this values level. Our world's diversity of human cultures provides us with many examples of value systems. The simplest way to illustrate the diversity is to use continuums such as:

right-wrong vs.. honorable-shameful

individual vs. group

naturalist vs. spiritualist

mystery vs. clarity

institutional vs. personal etc.

Each culture can be 'rated' on each of these scales. Obviously, these comparisons are simplistic and to be of any use, they must be clearly described.  For excellent resources on intercultural relations, check out the resources available at Intercultural Press Inc. On the web at interculturalpress.com

So much for the simplistic intro to cultural anthropology. Since my objective is to illustrate the process of conflict escalation I will select the right-wrong vs. honorable-shameful continuum. I cannot say that this is definitely the major issue in the current conflict between the US and the 'terrorists'. However, I do know that it is a major and recurring issue in US foreign policy in the Arab/Muslim region. There are others of the values continuums above that are also part of the US/ Arab conflicts, but let us keep our illustration simple.

Now we have enough background to present a simplified scenario to illustrate conflict escalation:

Country A is a society of law, right and wrong are the corner stones of its private and public life. It is rightly proud of its significant contributions to a vision of 'justice for all.' Its people like to watch movies that deal with the issues of right and wrong, bad guy and good guy. Often in the process of the struggle to find just solutions, the hero must be willing to fill what ever social role is required to reach his goal of justice.

Country B is a society of heritage, honor and shame are the corner stones of its private and public life. It proudly honors the tremendous contributions its historical figures have made to thought and philosophy.  Its people like to watch movies that show the heroic character of men who paid the price of honor and those who failed and became the victims of shame. Often in the struggle to find the honorable way, the hero must be cunning and unorthodox.

In the course of interaction in our new global-village type world, some members of Country B infringed on the laws of Country A. (As this is just an entry point to examine the process of escalation, the details of the violation are unimportant to our discussion.)

Country A's authorities respond with a desire to see justice served. In the process, some important members of Country B are dishonored publicly.

The whole of Country B feels the sting. Just like the violation you and I, raised in a just culture, felt when a grade four teacher gave a detention to the whole class because one person shot a spit ball.

A member of Country B does the honorable thing and seeks to redress the shame they have all felt. He becomes a local hero. In the process the rights of some of the citizens of Country A are infringed upon and the whole of country A bands together to support each other in seeking compensation through the highest diplomatic channels.

Country B's leaders and citizens are shocked that this incident is turned into a recrimination against their whole society. Such blatant scorn, an attack on all that is honorable, cannot be ignored. Diplomatic options are exercised in an effort to avoid armed conflict. But Country A, resolute in its defence of all that is right, will never negotiate with criminals.

Violence erupts. Country A declares a just war on terrorism. Country B declares a moral war on the oppressive evils of Country A .

This example has been striped of most of  the details of the violent and unjust acts, that often span many years, so that only the skeleton of escalation shows. Real life is far more 'messy' than this. But, the skeleton is still there under it all.

I believe that much the current US-Arab conflict(s) have an underlying skeleton of this nature.

B) The Process of Resolution

This is the hard part; very hard. This is the costly part. No proposed solution that ignores or minimizes the underlying skeleton of escalation will ever lead to an effective solution.

What is an effective resolution? For the Roman Empire it was 'pacification of the barbarians.' A euphemism for 'beat the brains out of them 'til they give up or are too wasted to ever bother us again.' But, eventually, under the Roman Solution, the Huns or Vandals surrounded Rome.

I believe that effective resolution means the establishment of a mutual relationship that changes with time in response to the needs of all parties and the larger environment, is freely contributed to and benefited from by all parties in a manner felt to be equitable by all parties, and a framework capable of supporting the resolution of conflicts in a way that is satisfactory to the value systems of all parties.

Finding an effective resolution is like finding the decimal value for 'pi.' Most of us are happy with 3.14. Some times we need 3.1415. Although there is never a complete answer, we live with it because it's close enough for what we need.

In the same way, there is never a perfectly effective solution (as I have defined it). But we can get close enough that we can live comfortably with it for what we need.

So much for escalation. Lets illustrate the process of resolution. This process is not primarily intellectual, though there are intellectual aspects. It is primarily relational. Its implementation requires the development of skills more than the acquiring of facts and relies more on the development of mature values than on physical power or strength.

One of the excellent books on this topic is Miroslav Volf's Exclusion & Embrace (Abingdon Press). He dedicates an entire book to what I will very briefly outline below.

Lets pick up where our very simplified scenario above left off and look at a very simplified outline of a resolution.

Country A realizes that there will be tremendous losses on both sides and the deep historical and cultural richness that will be lost if one or both of the combatants are eliminated and decides to seriously seek an effective resolution. And so an offer is made to Country B. Not an offer to avoid war and total destruction, since that is still demanding and hostile in its very nature, but an offer to work together to build a future that will include the heritage of both Country A and Country B. A future of an effective relationship. This step requires Country A to be willing to forgive the wrongs done by Country B and its citizens; the first price of peace.

Country B is not sure they should trust Country A after such a history of insults, yet the offer seems sincere and the opportunity to publicly forgive Country A would certainly restore some dignity. This requires Country B to gamble on trust that Country A will not turn around and dishonor them again; Country B's first price of peace.

Country A realizes the deficit of trust that it has built up with Country B and commits itself to rebuilding that trust through genuine respect for the people and leadership of Country B. To signal its sincerity, a public awareness campaign through out Country A re-educates its people; "Although there have been many conflicts in the past, the people and leaders of Country B are not terrorists or insane. Rather, we are working together to provide a future for all of us. In this process we are benefiting from the contributions of the People and Leaders of Country B."

Country B senses the sincerity and in appreciation for the major change in direction in respect levels, responds with tentative commitments to co-operation. To maintain the momentum of the resolution process, Country A commits itself to a mutual system for dealing with future conflicts. The process, worked out together over several years and agreed upon by all, recognizes the deep differences in values and does not try to 'resolve' them into one system, but allows them both to coexist in mutual relationship.

Country B, finally convinced of Country A's commitment to a mutually satisfying relationship, responds with a similar program of its own to re-educate its own people.

Country A changes its legal code to make acts of shaming Country B an offence under the legal code.

Country B starts a public education program that promotes the great number of honorable members of Country A that have contributed to the philosophical and religious development of our modern world. Some of Country B's prominent citizens even receive citizenship in the great country of A.

And so begins an unending process of relationship and conflict resolution.  Again, real life is far more messy. Yet, the skeleton of resolution remains the core issue that must be dealt with in the resolution of conflict. Of course I have ignore, for simplicity sake, the political and economic management of the resolution process.

Let me comment that if you have seen the steps above as a series of agreements to be signed or political moves to make, you have missed the entire point. Conflict resolution is an issue of relationship, not contract or politics. Relationship has to do with character, valuing, contributing, etc.

C) What if ...

So what if Country B does not respond with tentative peace, but rather continues with 'terrorism'? Or, what if Country A does turn around and disgrace the leaders of Country B again. This is a very real and common scenario.

First, effective resolution must always be voluntary. To force another to accept a unilateral solution not only precludes effective resolution in the current crisis, but also mitigates against resolution of other and future conflicts; since from that point on every one knows that in the end they will be forced to settle on unilateral terms.

Second, it is just as wrong to flatten a country because of repeated offences (or failure to continue on the road to resolution) as it is to flatten your next door neighbor because he keeps running his mower on your side of the property line. That's what we have town councils and courts for.  Whether the offense is large of small, the only way to resolution is to avoid unilateral or vigilante style justice.

Third, ALL countries and leaders MUST be accountable to the world community before there can be a truly just response to international offences.

As a real world example, as long as the country of Israel is not required to implement Security Council resolutions but some others are, there is no justice and hence no way for resolving the conflicts in which Israel is involved in an effective way. Also, as long as the former leader of Yugoslavia is required to answer to a tribunal for his actions against the people of Kosovo, but the leaders of America are exempt from prosecution in every court around the world  there can only be vigilante style justice when American leaders are involved.

Fourth, espionage against citizens and institutions of other countries is a violation of the basic rules of effective relationships. It is little more than dressed up terrorism. The CIA is seen as a government sponsored terrorist organization from the other side of the fence. Respect and espionage just don't mix.  And with out respect, there can be no effective resolution of conflicts.

Finally, perhaps the greatest price of peace for the western world is to get off the 'what's best for us' trip and commit to accountability to the world community for our use of resources (threatens our inflated living standard), our use of economics (threatens our sense of security), our use of military (threatens our position of world dominance), our use of intelligence and intelligence agencies (makes us feel vulnerable), our post war country boundaries, our use of foreign aid, our use of media, etc. Not that any of these has to be given up. Not at all. Just made accountable.

There is no secret key of knowledge that will end the escalation of hostility, aggression, and terrorism in our modern global village. There is only a lot of hard work in an on going effort to understand and value people with differences to build effective relationships.  Effective relationships are possible and well worth the effort.  Be part of the solution to conflict. In response to hostility use communication, understanding, negotiation, cooperation, and mutual respect in the context of real efforts at equitable justice.

Ken

Kenneth Betts is a consultant working in the Middle East where he has lived for 20 years.

Please feel free to quote anything in this article as long as the site http://meabt.com is cited as the source. Permission to republish can be obtained by contacting kwbetts@meabt.com.