War- Can’t we just get along?

HS103: War

A new version of war has taken the world by storm. Terrorism it seems is the new buzz word for individuals willing to start or engage in an already prevalent conflict. To be a terrorist seems to be the ideal for individuals looking for a higher purpose in life, regardless of the motivation and influence. It is also a highly useful term for the state to classify individuals who are not toeing the line as far as the state is concerned. At a grander scale the latter classification presents an opportunity for the state to exercise new found powers to ensure the safety of other individuals under its protection. But is this classification really needed? Is the states on going crackdown on deviance a catalyst for deadlier or at the very least increased terrorist activity or will terrorism persist regardless of the actions taken by the state to either appease or destroy it?

Unfortunately the answer is not so obvious, depending on the perspectives taken terrorism can be seen to have its merits. I am not however, implying that attacks on civilians and the lost of innocent life can be justified in any manner. The argument here revolves around the justifications of being a terrorist more importantly what can be methods employed to prevent terrorism from causing more negative implications. To understand this perhaps the assumption that the reasons terrorists have for terror are justified must be taken.

The answer lies not in further complicating situations with violence and endless negotiations, nor can we use intimidation tactics by the more powerful on the less powerful, neither can we enforce a system which is alien to that particular group of individuals. I believe the warring parties must be given space to mediate and work out their differences, free from external influences. Could we trust each other to allow the societies or places with conflict to sort themselves out? But that could mean a rise of an eventual government who might not be within the ideals of democracy set out by the west. As in the case of Vietnam which became communist after the end of the Vietnam civil war after the pull out of the United States. A rise of an individual ala Osama or Saddam who might aspire to conquer the world or violently change it to suit their ideals could also emerge, but let us not forget, the latter was at one point supported by the Americans, while the former is fighting against the Western ideas being imposed on the things that were previously familiar to him. In both cases the involvement of a foreign power is central to the starting or aggravating the conflict. Would foreign intervention in these conflicts, though meant to solve it, put us back where we started?

The European continent has had centuries of strife before they achieved a level of cooperation and understanding that allowed them to have peace. Although this peace is only 60 years old, it is a stable peace with the majority of its members happy and content with their territories and relations with one another. Again this was only achieved after endless conflicts for hundreds of years, after resettlements and the rise and fall of great empires. The rest of the world it seems has not been given such an opportunity to flower and progress in a similar fashion. Since the dawn of the colonial age many parts of the world have been stunted in this development of resolution of conflicts amongst the many different nations as well as within the nations themselves.

This stunted development is not only due to the colonization by European powers but also as a result of the ensuing world wars which ultimately resulted in the end of the colonial era. Since then these countries and regions have not been able to progress at the same rate as the Europeans. Even though they have some way to go before that level is eventually reached, it seems that the values of the Westerners which they accumulated after many years is being imposed on the countries or regions facing conflicts. Often times these imposed solutions do not take into account the regional or factual specifications of each conflict. Although there are periods of seeming success in the resolution of such conflicts but it is more likely to result in the marginalisation of some sections of the society unwilling to accept the imposed values. Often these imposed values are seen as a bigger source of conflict rather than the original conflict. This of course leads to rebellions that are often made up of groups of individuals. Hence comes the age of terrorism where violence and attacks on innocent civilians is he only means of voicing discontent such is the case now with Iraq, where militias have been formed and are attacking the “coalition of the willing” daily. Ironically these militias are deadlier than Saddam’s forces not for their added firepower but rather for the fact that they answer to no one.

It is apparent that some of these problems have arisen as a result of foreign or western involvement in local affairs and this involvement has permeated the region, economically, socially and politically. So deep is the ripple of involvement that it becomes extremely difficult for the society to carry on with these values. Hence they attempt to create a hybrid but in essence it is just adding to the fault lines already prevalent in a volatile society.

Therefore perhaps the only way for conflicts to resolve themselves, it would require the two parties to mediate with one another without the intervention or influence of others. Perhaps only when this is allowed to take place will we see more viable solutions in conflict zones which are more readily adopted by both sides in their reconciliation. Of course the drawback might include hundreds maybe thousands of casualties.

The world would not stand and watch such atrocities like genocide and ethnic cleansing, and would be compelled under humanitarian reasons to intervene. How far should then our intervention be? Just to save the injured civilians? Or eliminate the conflicts in the first place? The latter is true as history suggests. But we have seen the longer lasting fall out of this result. Perhaps we should consider a new solution, suppose an arms embargo was imposed and strictly adhered to. Suppose the 2 factions did not have access to arms, as impossible as that may sound, perhaps if arms are taken out of the equation together with external influences, the factions in conflict could finally pursue the option of diplomacy, or some form of peaceful negotiation. Perhaps when both sides can be seen as and can view each other as equals, the search for a peaceful solution and more importantly an end can be found.