Introduction
Since the ancient days, nations and political entities have locked horns and violence has erupted over different issues such as resources, boundaries, religious differences among other reasons. As depicted in the films Schindler's List, The Grey Zone, Munich, and Paradise Now, the manner in which these differences have been solved has almost always tended towards more violence. The general tendency of mankind when it comes to organizing the political is to revert to violence. Even when civil order breaks down, the movement is not towards reconciliation and peace but towards violence, retribution, vengeance and retaliation. Enemies of the state become targets for violence and elimination; enemies of the group are marked for violent reprisal and political life degenerates into the brutal interplay of violent forces. In spite of this taking place, there is still room for hopefulness and ethics for peaceful resolution of differences in political life.
Peaceful resolution of political differences is possible when each of the warring parties resolves to love rather than control the other. According to Sauter and Carafano (2011) when nations try to control and exercise power over people outside their jurisdiction they cause resentment among those people. This imposition causes the allegedly “superior” country to impose its ideals and realities over people without ever giving room for the other party to express itself (creativeassociatesinternational.com). The willingness to listen to one’s enemies’ opinion, respect it, compromise and adopt it is one way that political differences can be solved in a peaceful manner.
Conflicts can be resolved in a peaceful manner by following established structures. These structures include court systems, family and clan systems, religious codes, debate and discourse among others. This peaceful resolution of conflicts can be institutionalized and formalized including being written in a country’s statutes (Schaap, 2003). Election petitions are a classic way of resolving political differences in a peaceful manner through court systems. When the court is made an arbiter in such cases, it is supposed to be impartial and deliver justice. When justice is delivered all the parties to a given case are supposed to accept and abide by the ruling (Schaap, 2003). In the film titled Munich directed by Spielberg (2006) depicting how the Israeli government plotted and pursued a secret retaliatory mission against the Black September group, the involvement of a court system was the most feasible way of resolving the impasse peacefully. Use of an international justice system would ensure that innocent people were not killed in the retaliatory attacks and that peace was maintained.
Peaceful resolution of conflicts is also possible because of the integration and the greater cooperation that exists between countries. There are world bodies such as the United Nation and regional bodies that encourage and participate in mediation talks to solve conflicts. The greater the extents of cooperation between countries for instance to the point of establishing a regional currency such as the Euro for European Union member countries, the greater the economic loss if some member countries were to involve themselves in violent conflict (Bercovitch, 1995). This means that more countries are willing to participate and offer financial and intellectual support to see peaceful resolution of conflicts. In cases of fighting terrorism it would be appropriate for target countries such as United States to engage other countries and world bodies to oversee peaceful resolution that arise due to counteraccusations of terror attacks.
It would be prudent if countries targeted by terrorism such as the United States collaborated with the governments of countries that allegedly breed terrorists with the aim of quelling the rebel groups and militias (Byman, 2002). Terror attacks are rarely masterminded by governments against citizens of another government. They are usually planned and carried out by rebel groups such as Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab among others. Other than attacking other countries these rebel groups also target their own countrymen. Involvement in violent attacks to flush out terrorists usually leads to heavy civilian casualties as it happened in Iraq when the USA was fighting the Al Qaeda terror group for allegedly masterminding the September 11 bombings in US. Though in this case, the then Iraqi leader, Sadaam Hussein was said to encourage the terror attacks, peaceful quelling of terror groups involving collaboration with locals can lead to the successful arrests of leaders and members of terror groups.
The establishment of several non-governmental organizations with the aim of maintaining world peace should encourage peaceful resolution of conflicts. One of the most prominent organizations is the Carter Foundation which was founded by former US president Jimmy Carter. This foundation has participated in the resolution of several border disputes. The Carter Foundation peacefully resolved the border disputes for the Beagle Channel between Chile and Argentina and that between Peru and Equator in the Amazon region (Byman, 2002). Currently the foundation is working on resolving the border disputes in the province of Abyei which has elicited a dispute between North and South Sudan, as well as internal boundary disputes between Bosnia and Herzegovina. These peaceful resolutions attest to the fact that it is possible to resolve political disputes and they must not necessary degenerate into violent conflicts.
The resolution of conflicts through violence is economically hurting to all the countries that participate in the countries. A lot of money is spent in sustaining violent attacks through purchase and maintenance of military equipment, intelligence, transport of equipment and soldiers among other expenses. The US government spent about $1.9 trillion on Iraq war! This amount can be subdivided among US citizens with each getting $6,300 per U.S. citizen (Sauter & Carafano, 2011). These colossal sums of money were spent amidst reports that Iraqi never had the alleged weapons. The amount could be put into better use such as helping poor third world countries improve their economies or even improve the American economy.
The other way to resolve conflicts peacefully is for the parties involved to moderate their convictions. When the parties involved think in absolutes and hold onto strict convictions without ever considering the perspectives and viewpoints of other people this is a sure way of resolving the conflict through violence (Bercovitch, 1995). Extremist thinking usually leads to hasty and reactive reasoning that is usually driven by misconceptions and blanket condemnations. This usually leads to the implications of civilians in conflicts involving countries leading to massive losses.
Conclusion
The general tendency of mankind when it comes to organizing the political is to revert to violence. However, this should not always be the case. Conflicts can be resolved in a peaceful manner when none of the conflicting parties seeks not to control the other but to love and to accommodate the views of the other. This calls for each of the parties to soften its stand and moderate their convictions. Huge amounts of money are also spent in funding violent wars such as was the case with US funding the Iraqi war in early 2000s. There are also non-governmental organizations such as the Carter Foundation which have proved to be effective in the peaceful mediation of conflicts. Moreover, collaboration with the governments that host terror groups such as Al Qaeda could be an effective way to ensure peaceful resolution of conflicts.
References
Bercovitch, J. (1995). Resolving international conflicts: The theory and practice of mediation. Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Byman, D. (2002). Keeping the peace: Lasting solutions to ethnic conflicts. Baltimore [u.a.: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
Sauter, M., & Carafano, J. J. (2012). Homeland security: A complete guide. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schaap, A. (2003). “The Time of Reconciliation and the Space of Politics” Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, The University of Melbourne, Australia Working Paper 2003/8 Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE. Retrieved 29 June 29, 2013 from: http://www.cappe.edu.au/docs/working-papers/Schapp1.pdf
Spielberg, S. (Director). (2006). Munich [Motion picture]. USA: Universal Studios Home Entertainment.
Understanding Conflict and Peace Retrieved 29 June 29, 2013 from: http://www.creativeassociatesinternational.com/CAIIStaff/Dashboard_GIROAdminCAIIStaff/Dashboard_CAIIAdminDatabase/resources/ghai/understanding.htm
