Opinion Archive

What to Make of (Never) Ending Conflicts

August 13, 2008

Efficient and effective conflict resolution is the most important role of both national and international institutions. At the national level, the failure to create a system of resolving society's run-ins (criminal, economic and political) perpetuates underdevelopment. It is, in fact, the main reason why the establishment of the Rule of Law is so important to social development the world over.

We have "issues"

Mexico's dilapidated legal system does not provide either efficiency or effectiveness in conflict resolution and its political system has adopted the ill-advised habit of using social conflict to further political gain. In Mexican political parlance it is referred to as "pressuring" the opponent.

These types of power plays have become common because they work. In keeping with people's tendency to react to incentives, Mexican interest groups have understood that if they cause enough damage they can expect to get what they want. This is the social blackmail that keeps the nude demonstrators on Reforma and teacher henchmen on the streets of Oaxaca. Taxi drivers who want to keep their monopoly rents have just used these same tactics in Los Cabos. This debilitating conflict "resolution" mechanism is one of the reasons Mexico is so stubbornly underdeveloped.

The US has always understood the importance of effective (if not always efficient) conflict resolution. Its system of checks and balances grants the judiciary the credibility to be the final arbiter in disputes. If there is enough of a social outcry there is always Congress, which can create and change laws. But the Courts are generally allowed to do their job because people believe in them. Tellingly, when Al Gore narrowly lost the US presidential election based on a split decision by the Supreme Court, he conceded, despite having won the popular vote. When PRD candidate López Obrador narrowly lost his election after a unanimous decision on behalf of the Federal Electoral Tribunal, he took to the streets on a massive scale to pressure the system into giving him what he wanted. Guess which attitude is better for economic development.

Me Tarzan...

On an international level, no matter how much lip service is paid to the need for an effective framework of laws, unregulated violence rules. It was once thought that the US could play the role of "global policeman", a sort of honest broker with guns. But the leadership in Washington was never able to temper its view of its own immediate national interests. Confidence-building measures were never enacted. Worse, the US did not follow the rules set forth by the international institutions Americans had themselves created. So, they lost all credibility and the US came to be seen by the two most cynical powers, China and Russia, as their (im)moral equal.

...you Jane

The upshot is that the Russians have invaded Georgia and there's nothing the West can do about it. The Putin/Medvedev government waited until the world's attention was on the Olympics. They struck before an unpopular American president, who himself invaded two countries (one without UN authorization), left the White House. The European Union, with its multiple, differing national interests, is not in a position to counterbalance the Russians. Hence, it is safe to say that the eastward march of NATO has ended.

It is very likely that the West missed a historic opportunity to invite Russia into both NATO and the EU when it was still reeling from the fall of Communism. Each of those institutions has very effective conflict resolution mechanisms. Certainly, the process would have been complicated, as well as expensive. But the resurgence of this strong, spiteful Russia, with its oil money and a Siberia-sized chip on its shoulder, will probably cost much more.

"To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war": Churchill

The failure of conflict resolution mechanisms at the local level, in countries like Mexico, and at the international level, in conflicts like the invasion of Georgia, bode ill for the advancement of all people. That is why we must always be on the lookout for bold, sincere efforts at resolving festering conflicts. In this past week that gave us the invasion of Georgia, New York Times editorialist Nicholas Kristoff published an initiative he has discussed with the Dalai Lama regarding a comprehensive peace plan for Tibet. It concedes all of the major sticking points that China had demanded from the Tibetan spiritual leader, including recognition of full Chinese sovereignty. It is still unlikely that the Chinese government, still bolstered by its Olympic power trip, will open genuine negotiations with the Tibetan government in exile. But with the Dalai Lama coming to Mexico City next month, we might get a chance to support at least one fair resolution to a terrible conflict.

For the latest thought-provoking article by Agustin Barrios Gomez please go to our Opinion Column page

Return to top