Think small, think negative. America is bogged down in a seemingly purposeless war in Afghanistan while facing a fleeting enemy, the Taliban. Authoritarian regimes in the Arab world – Bahrain, Libya, Syria, etc. – refuse to allow for self-determination and continue to massacre civilians. Rohingya (a minority under grave threat in Burma) in Bangladesh are afflicted by rapes, abject poverty, malnutrition, exploitation, and forced migration despite their status as refugees. Al-Qa’eda is intent upon further attacks regardless of the $2B manhunt that finally concluded for its now deceased icon, Osama bin Laden. In the above instances, war surely is politics merely by other means, as argued by Clausewitz, and the respective debate surrounding the gamut of international issues has one dominate narrative: states need to leverage their positions (military, economic, etc.) to address conflict through disincentives or severing of relations. This method of thinking, though, is long overdue for a challenge.
With the endless numbers of policy experts, one should truly be aghast at the absence of creative ways to bring about positive change in conflict. Just look at the billions of dollars the US spends on intelligence operations to collect information and influence its enemies and adversaries; for example, when you read of covert operations, you read of assassinations, kidnappings, bombings, and electronic intrusion. What amount of effort actually encourages peace?
Think creatively, think positive. States’ efforts focus heavily on creating an advantage over a specific adversary through manipulation, force, or information collection, whereas they could affect decision-making through positive means. For example, if capitalized upon, the ramifications of improved Egyptian-Iranian relations are enormous, allowing the US to shake free from its dependence upon the Sunni fear of Iran (freeing it from its reliance on Saudi) and to push for positive change on a litany of matters:
Similarly, states could look writ large to bolster positive relationships through increased interdependence: as one sees in the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’, continual reliable interaction builds trust (hence, why US isolation from Iran does not encourage positive change). Another creative approach would be using inherent altruism or positive messaging to benefit absolute peace and good will through public or shared campaigns, or even covert operations (not be construed as encouraging intellectual malaise).
Although the above are only a few suggestions, we need to hold our governments and policy makers accountable, demanding new approaches that look to positively address conflict through creative means and dispense with the ‘tried and true’ methods that only lead to waste.
