Comments on: Principles of building peace

By: DJ

DJ — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:11:24 +0000

I have a personal aversion to labor analogies. When my union went on strike to demand higher wages, the end result was the workers spent six weeks earning nothing, and came away with a nickel less what they had before. As to the analogy of the boat, sawing it in half is only the logical solution in an adversarial conflict. A better solution is for both parties to make the best of what’s available and both hang on to the boat as a floatation device from outside. And that’s the key: the idea that there are limited resources and THEY are getting more than THEIR share– kills people.

Joe, I think what your referring to is a mob effect. I’ve seen it. certainly the JVP rebellion of 1987-1989 (60,000 killed) was an example. I’ve also seen it when a bus hit some pedestrians by accoident, and the onlookers went nuts, lynched the driver, burned the bus, and blocked the highway. It is a real risk. But from what I’ve seen, in the political context, it’s usually instigated by leaders for their own benefit. It may never be eliminated, but it can be minimized by face-to-face contact and dialogue, which leads to seeing the “other” as human.

By: Joe Hartley

Joe Hartley — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:22:56 +0000

While I’m a big believer in rationality, one factor that I never see taken into account is the pscyhological factor of coming up from years of oppression.

Apparently the Bushies did not expect the Shi’a to do the arithmetic and realize that they had a crushing majority in Iraq and were neither about to return to Sunni dominance (and their oppression of the Shi’a) nor to avoid the pleasures of retribution against the oppressors. Nor, as far as I can tell, did anybody think about Sunni fear of the Shi’a once the Sunnis were stripped of power.

It would be difficult under the best of circumstances to effectuate such a resolution, and virtually impossible if the pressures were simply removed and the feelings of oppression and fear allowed to seek new and unpredictable levels. The Argentines and Chileans are still stumbling along after their experiences with the modern terror state; the Iraqis were under even more severe oppression for a lot longer.

I don’t have any solution to guarantee a pleasant outcome from such situations, but the rage and fear when oppression is lifted need to be factored into any rational political solution or the rationality will simply be swept away in a flood of revenge and recrimination.

By: Eli Stephens

Eli Stephens — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:04:30 +0000

Letâ€™s suppose we accept that the combatants act rationally, and we explore and discover the roots of the conflict.

Nothing wrong with that. But what’s wrong with the premise is the unproven (and invalid) assumption that, when two parties act rationally, that a peaceful solution can be found. Silly example: there’s a boat that will hold one person, two people on an island about to drown. The only “rational” solution is that they fight it out to see who gets to take the boat to safety. The “compromise” “negotiated” solution is to saw the boat in half and give each one half. Then they both drown.

Likewise in a labor action. Sometimes, negotiation and compromise can produce a “rational” solution. But when the boss wants to lay off half the workers, or cut their wages in half, and the workers can’t accept that, sometimes they have to go to “war” (strike) and “fight it out.”

Simple fact.