Examine arguments for and against violent or deadly conflict
INTRODUCTION
A violent conflict involves at least two parties using physical force to resolve competing claims or interests. Violent conflicts may occur among individuals or groups not affiliated with a government, but the term is most commonly applied as a synonym for war. At whatever level it occurs, a violent conflict usually involves more than one confrontation.
Violent conflicts differ in intensity but share some common characteristics. According to the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, non-violent conflicts, sometimes called rivalries, may persist for years as the parties involved state their disagreements and threaten one another. Such conflicts often become violent when at least one side applies force to resolve a crisis, after which the violence may range from sporadic to highly
Several schools of thought dominate debates about the origins of violent conflict. One theory involves human nature. For example, in Jewish and Christian traditions, human disobedience against God led to an imperfect world in which human nature proves inherently violent. Some evolutionary biologists, by contrast, argue that competition for resources among human predecessors left humans prone to violence. Another school of thought involves "relative deprivation." Here, people are prone to violent conflict if they feel that they are not receiving what they deserve relative to other individuals or groups. Social scientists such as Margaret Mead have argued that violent conflict was an invention, like language, and can be abandoned.
There are few violent conflicts so popular that everyone in a society supports it, thus, even when support is unusually widespread, there will always be a few who dissent from popular opinion and object to their country engaging in violent conflict, arguing that violent conflict is immoral and unethical. Quite often, they are attacked for their stand and accused of being unpatriotic, immoral, naive, and even treasonous.
Although some might agree with the "unpatriotic" label and claim that patriotism is a misplaced loyalty that is relatively rare. Instead, those who oppose either conflict generally or some specific violent conflict will instead argue that it is the support of war which is immoral, naive, or even a betrayal of their nation's deepest and most important values.
Although they may be wildly wrong and profoundly mistaken, it would be a serious error to fail to recognize that people who personally adopt an anti-conflict stance normally do so for what they regard as very moral and rational reasons. Understanding the anti-conflict arguments better will go a long way towards healing the division between both sides on a conflict.
Presented here are both general and specific arguments. The general arguments are those which tend to be used against the morality of any conflict at all, concluding that conflict is pragmatically due to its consequences or inherently immoral. The specific arguments allow that some conflicts at some times may be moral and/or justified, but they are used to object to some conflict in particular as failing to meet just standards.
Here under presented are general arguments against violent conflicts;
Generally one would ask whether pacifism is a result of being naive, or of being committed to nonviolent principles. Or whether an incredibly moral and difficult position to adopt, or is it rather a treasonous and uncaring philosophy. The truth is probably somewhere in between, which may explain why society cannot quite decide how to react to pacifism and pacifist critiques of society's violence.
Secondly one would wonder whether killing innocent people is wrong or right. One of the most common anti-conflict arguments is the fact that violent conflicts result in the deaths of innocent people and, therefore, violent conflict is necessarily immoral. This objection accepts that a state may have a vested interest in pursuing attackers and even killing them, but points out that the justice involved with such actions is quickly offset when innocent lives are put at risk or even lost.
Thirdly there is an argument whether life is sacred or not. The pacifist position against violent conflict or violence generally is often based upon the deontological argument that all of life or just all human life is sacred, and hence it is immoral to ever act in a way which would cause the deaths of others. Quite often the reasons for this position are religious in nature, but religious premises involving God or souls are not absolutely required.
Further more there are some proponents who argue about modern conflict & "Just conflict" Standards. There is a long-standing tradition in Western culture of differentiating between "just" and "unjust" conflicts. Although Just conflict theories were developed primarily by Catholic theologians and most explicit references to a Just War theory today tend to come from Catholic sources, implicit references to it can be found widely because of the way in which it has become incorporated into Western political thought. Those using this argument try to make the case that today, all conflicts are unethical.
Also others advance arguments that violent conflicts cannot achieve political & social Goals simply because so many conflicts are defended by relying upon the need to achieve important political or social goals where some are selfish and some altruistic, it is only natural that one important rebuttal to conflict is to argue that even if it seems that such goals might be achieved, in fact the use of conflict will ultimately prevent them from ever becoming a reality. Thus, conflicts are unethical because they hinder rather than help in attaining important ends.
Additionally conflicts risk the future of the human race because of the limited nature of violent conflict, even at its most brutal, ended after World War II with the development of nuclear weapons. Between those and the vastly improved biological and chemical weapons which have become standard in the military arsenals of so many nations, the destructive capacity of even a single conflict has grown to such proportions that no one can pretend to be uninvolved and unaffected. Thus, the potential devastation means that conflicts today are immoral acts.
Another argument is that violent conflict should not be a government power as some scholars have argued that the power to conduct violent conflict is so immoral that it should perhaps be denied to governments completely. This is a deontological position although it does object to the extreme consequence of modern conflict, it takes a further step and argues that conflict has become something which is inherently outside the moral sphere of state activity.
From the general arguments presented above, it takes us to specific arguments of violent conflicts as below highlighted;
First of all it is argued that conflicts of aggression are wrong. One of the most common objections to individual conflicts is to condemn acts of violent aggression. It is possible, but unlikely, for different countries to attack each other simultaneously, so that means that some nation has to initiate the violence and begin the conflict itself. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is always an aggressor and hence someone who has acted immorally.
Secondly conflict violates international law as it is not unusual for those who want to stop a conflict from happening or to stop a conflict which has already begun to appeal to a "higher authority," namely international law. According to this argument, the actions of states with respect to each other cannot be arbitrary, instead they must conform to more impersonal standards of the international community. Otherwise, those actions are unethical.
Lastly there is an argument that violent conflict is contrary to national self-interest. This is a common argument used to object to a particular conflict is that the conflict somehow fails to serve "national interests." This is a favorite objection of isolationists who argue that their country should never involve itself in foreign disagreements, but even those who approve of engaging closely with other nations may object when that engagement involves sending the military to achieve some change through force and violence.
However many arguments have been advanced by various people in support of violent conflicts as here below presented;
First all some proponents who support use of violent conflict argue that in case a given country or group of people violate the genocide convention, which mandates that in case of attempt to destroy an ethnic group, that action should be stopped or punished. For example massacre of thousands in Kurdistan, violent conflict can be used to avert the situation.
Secondly if a group of people gives aid and comfort to and harbours forces of international gangsters or Non-state actors who engage in violence against civilians for instance, violence can be dispensed to solve such a situation.
Also in case there is aggression against neighbouring states or occupation of their land for example Iran-Iraq war, invasion of Kuwait and so on, violent conflict can be used to solve the problem.
Further still the genocide convention requires all its signatories to do what they can to stop acts of genocide and punish those responsible. That is why the US did not originally recognize the Rwandan genocide as genocide because if they did they would have had to go in. therefore violence can be used in such circumstances.
Also humanitarian reasons can be advanced for use of violence to solve a situation. For instance in Iraq where the country had become an almost perfectly Orwellian state. Millions starving while elite lived in palaces. Iraqi secret police were murdering and torturing thousands. Having a satellite was punishable by death. Public torture and public executions with families forced to applaud. In such a situation violent conflict is an answer.
Finally in case of violation of non proliferation treaty, a group of people fools around with weapons of mass destruction, violence can be used to avert the dangers.
HOW TO PREVENT DEADLY CONFLICTS
Preventing deadly conflict on a global scale is something that humanity has strived for since the beginning of civilization. Sadly, the track record of the human race has shown that this is not an easy task. Conflicts between nations and peoples are constantly threatening to tear this world apart, and it would seem that nothing can be done to prevent that. Human beings can solve these deadly conflicts as presented below;
First of all foster open communication and this should be given for resolving any conflict, whether it is between two warring nations or two feuding neighbors. People talk all the time, but they rarely actively listen to those they perceive as their enemies. Many global conflicts are based on ideological differences rather than outright hatred, yet this fact is lost on far too many people. By actively listening to each other and considering diplomatic solutions, perhaps nations can learn there are always reasons for conflict beyond anger and hatred.
Secondly, respect each others' differences as goes hand-in-hand with fostering open communication. It is easy to vilify or dehumanize an enemy and decide that he or she is evil. It is not so easy to imagine why people became enemies in the first place. Many conflicts arise from cultural misunderstandings, prejudice, and arrogance. A culture may look at another culture and decide that it is inferior or even dangerous, when in fact it is just different. A diplomatic approach can turn would-be enemies into allies and friends if people would just understand that cultural differences do not have to be reasons to go to war.
Finally, consider military intervention as a last resort. It should go without saying that when diplomacy fails, nations will resort to military intervention to resolve conflicts. This obviously does work occasionally, but even when it does there is always the loss of human life and damage to a nation's infrastructure to contend with. When it does not work, it results in war. To make matters worse, wars in the 21st Century are not always fought against other nations. A nation that deploys their military to defeat a terrorist organization could end up sending troops to various countries all over the world, angering said nations and exacerbating the problem. It is in the best interest of all nations to hold off on military deployment as long as possible so that a peaceful solution can be reached.
CONCLUSION
The effective practitioners’ response to violent conflict is to address the underlying factors in the conflict. Religion can be a factor in violent conflict and must be addressed appropriately by practitioners when it is. Religion can also be an important moral and practical source to counteract violence and facilitate peace building. Practitioners should engage religious actors to that end.
REFERENCES
Omar, A ( 1997): Overcoming religiously motivated violence / Cross Currents, Washington, DC.
Griffiths, F.and Lynne ,P.(1998): The UN and conflict prevention: From rhetoric to concrete action, Sage books.
http://www.ehow.com/about_6682368_definition-violent-conflict.htm(24/07/2011)
A violent conflict involves at least two parties using physical force to resolve competing claims or interests. Violent conflicts may occur among individuals or groups not affiliated with a government, but the term is most commonly applied as a synonym for war. At whatever level it occurs, a violent conflict usually involves more than one confrontation.
Violent conflicts differ in intensity but share some common characteristics. According to the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, non-violent conflicts, sometimes called rivalries, may persist for years as the parties involved state their disagreements and threaten one another. Such conflicts often become violent when at least one side applies force to resolve a crisis, after which the violence may range from sporadic to highly
Several schools of thought dominate debates about the origins of violent conflict. One theory involves human nature. For example, in Jewish and Christian traditions, human disobedience against God led to an imperfect world in which human nature proves inherently violent. Some evolutionary biologists, by contrast, argue that competition for resources among human predecessors left humans prone to violence. Another school of thought involves "relative deprivation." Here, people are prone to violent conflict if they feel that they are not receiving what they deserve relative to other individuals or groups. Social scientists such as Margaret Mead have argued that violent conflict was an invention, like language, and can be abandoned.
There are few violent conflicts so popular that everyone in a society supports it, thus, even when support is unusually widespread, there will always be a few who dissent from popular opinion and object to their country engaging in violent conflict, arguing that violent conflict is immoral and unethical. Quite often, they are attacked for their stand and accused of being unpatriotic, immoral, naive, and even treasonous.
Although some might agree with the "unpatriotic" label and claim that patriotism is a misplaced loyalty that is relatively rare. Instead, those who oppose either conflict generally or some specific violent conflict will instead argue that it is the support of war which is immoral, naive, or even a betrayal of their nation's deepest and most important values.
Although they may be wildly wrong and profoundly mistaken, it would be a serious error to fail to recognize that people who personally adopt an anti-conflict stance normally do so for what they regard as very moral and rational reasons. Understanding the anti-conflict arguments better will go a long way towards healing the division between both sides on a conflict.
Presented here are both general and specific arguments. The general arguments are those which tend to be used against the morality of any conflict at all, concluding that conflict is pragmatically due to its consequences or inherently immoral. The specific arguments allow that some conflicts at some times may be moral and/or justified, but they are used to object to some conflict in particular as failing to meet just standards.
Here under presented are general arguments against violent conflicts;
Generally one would ask whether pacifism is a result of being naive, or of being committed to nonviolent principles. Or whether an incredibly moral and difficult position to adopt, or is it rather a treasonous and uncaring philosophy. The truth is probably somewhere in between, which may explain why society cannot quite decide how to react to pacifism and pacifist critiques of society's violence.
Secondly one would wonder whether killing innocent people is wrong or right. One of the most common anti-conflict arguments is the fact that violent conflicts result in the deaths of innocent people and, therefore, violent conflict is necessarily immoral. This objection accepts that a state may have a vested interest in pursuing attackers and even killing them, but points out that the justice involved with such actions is quickly offset when innocent lives are put at risk or even lost.
Thirdly there is an argument whether life is sacred or not. The pacifist position against violent conflict or violence generally is often based upon the deontological argument that all of life or just all human life is sacred, and hence it is immoral to ever act in a way which would cause the deaths of others. Quite often the reasons for this position are religious in nature, but religious premises involving God or souls are not absolutely required.
Further more there are some proponents who argue about modern conflict & "Just conflict" Standards. There is a long-standing tradition in Western culture of differentiating between "just" and "unjust" conflicts. Although Just conflict theories were developed primarily by Catholic theologians and most explicit references to a Just War theory today tend to come from Catholic sources, implicit references to it can be found widely because of the way in which it has become incorporated into Western political thought. Those using this argument try to make the case that today, all conflicts are unethical.
Also others advance arguments that violent conflicts cannot achieve political & social Goals simply because so many conflicts are defended by relying upon the need to achieve important political or social goals where some are selfish and some altruistic, it is only natural that one important rebuttal to conflict is to argue that even if it seems that such goals might be achieved, in fact the use of conflict will ultimately prevent them from ever becoming a reality. Thus, conflicts are unethical because they hinder rather than help in attaining important ends.
Additionally conflicts risk the future of the human race because of the limited nature of violent conflict, even at its most brutal, ended after World War II with the development of nuclear weapons. Between those and the vastly improved biological and chemical weapons which have become standard in the military arsenals of so many nations, the destructive capacity of even a single conflict has grown to such proportions that no one can pretend to be uninvolved and unaffected. Thus, the potential devastation means that conflicts today are immoral acts.
Another argument is that violent conflict should not be a government power as some scholars have argued that the power to conduct violent conflict is so immoral that it should perhaps be denied to governments completely. This is a deontological position although it does object to the extreme consequence of modern conflict, it takes a further step and argues that conflict has become something which is inherently outside the moral sphere of state activity.
From the general arguments presented above, it takes us to specific arguments of violent conflicts as below highlighted;
First of all it is argued that conflicts of aggression are wrong. One of the most common objections to individual conflicts is to condemn acts of violent aggression. It is possible, but unlikely, for different countries to attack each other simultaneously, so that means that some nation has to initiate the violence and begin the conflict itself. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is always an aggressor and hence someone who has acted immorally.
Secondly conflict violates international law as it is not unusual for those who want to stop a conflict from happening or to stop a conflict which has already begun to appeal to a "higher authority," namely international law. According to this argument, the actions of states with respect to each other cannot be arbitrary, instead they must conform to more impersonal standards of the international community. Otherwise, those actions are unethical.
Lastly there is an argument that violent conflict is contrary to national self-interest. This is a common argument used to object to a particular conflict is that the conflict somehow fails to serve "national interests." This is a favorite objection of isolationists who argue that their country should never involve itself in foreign disagreements, but even those who approve of engaging closely with other nations may object when that engagement involves sending the military to achieve some change through force and violence.
However many arguments have been advanced by various people in support of violent conflicts as here below presented;
First all some proponents who support use of violent conflict argue that in case a given country or group of people violate the genocide convention, which mandates that in case of attempt to destroy an ethnic group, that action should be stopped or punished. For example massacre of thousands in Kurdistan, violent conflict can be used to avert the situation.
Secondly if a group of people gives aid and comfort to and harbours forces of international gangsters or Non-state actors who engage in violence against civilians for instance, violence can be dispensed to solve such a situation.
Also in case there is aggression against neighbouring states or occupation of their land for example Iran-Iraq war, invasion of Kuwait and so on, violent conflict can be used to solve the problem.
Further still the genocide convention requires all its signatories to do what they can to stop acts of genocide and punish those responsible. That is why the US did not originally recognize the Rwandan genocide as genocide because if they did they would have had to go in. therefore violence can be used in such circumstances.
Also humanitarian reasons can be advanced for use of violence to solve a situation. For instance in Iraq where the country had become an almost perfectly Orwellian state. Millions starving while elite lived in palaces. Iraqi secret police were murdering and torturing thousands. Having a satellite was punishable by death. Public torture and public executions with families forced to applaud. In such a situation violent conflict is an answer.
Finally in case of violation of non proliferation treaty, a group of people fools around with weapons of mass destruction, violence can be used to avert the dangers.
HOW TO PREVENT DEADLY CONFLICTS
Preventing deadly conflict on a global scale is something that humanity has strived for since the beginning of civilization. Sadly, the track record of the human race has shown that this is not an easy task. Conflicts between nations and peoples are constantly threatening to tear this world apart, and it would seem that nothing can be done to prevent that. Human beings can solve these deadly conflicts as presented below;
First of all foster open communication and this should be given for resolving any conflict, whether it is between two warring nations or two feuding neighbors. People talk all the time, but they rarely actively listen to those they perceive as their enemies. Many global conflicts are based on ideological differences rather than outright hatred, yet this fact is lost on far too many people. By actively listening to each other and considering diplomatic solutions, perhaps nations can learn there are always reasons for conflict beyond anger and hatred.
Secondly, respect each others' differences as goes hand-in-hand with fostering open communication. It is easy to vilify or dehumanize an enemy and decide that he or she is evil. It is not so easy to imagine why people became enemies in the first place. Many conflicts arise from cultural misunderstandings, prejudice, and arrogance. A culture may look at another culture and decide that it is inferior or even dangerous, when in fact it is just different. A diplomatic approach can turn would-be enemies into allies and friends if people would just understand that cultural differences do not have to be reasons to go to war.
Finally, consider military intervention as a last resort. It should go without saying that when diplomacy fails, nations will resort to military intervention to resolve conflicts. This obviously does work occasionally, but even when it does there is always the loss of human life and damage to a nation's infrastructure to contend with. When it does not work, it results in war. To make matters worse, wars in the 21st Century are not always fought against other nations. A nation that deploys their military to defeat a terrorist organization could end up sending troops to various countries all over the world, angering said nations and exacerbating the problem. It is in the best interest of all nations to hold off on military deployment as long as possible so that a peaceful solution can be reached.
CONCLUSION
The effective practitioners’ response to violent conflict is to address the underlying factors in the conflict. Religion can be a factor in violent conflict and must be addressed appropriately by practitioners when it is. Religion can also be an important moral and practical source to counteract violence and facilitate peace building. Practitioners should engage religious actors to that end.
REFERENCES
Omar, A ( 1997): Overcoming religiously motivated violence / Cross Currents, Washington, DC.
Griffiths, F.and Lynne ,P.(1998): The UN and conflict prevention: From rhetoric to concrete action, Sage books.
http://www.ehow.com/about_6682368_definition-violent-conflict.htm(24/07/2011)
posted by mwesigye herbert at 2:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home