There are all kinds of conflicts happening around the world, even at this very moment. Why do conflicts occur? It is possible to resolve them? Professor Yuji Uesugi explores the possibilities of resolving conflicts in which interests of parties involved complicatedly intertwine.
Conflict over rules
For people to coexist, a set of rules is necessary. Rules bring order to society, and as long as order is maintained, people can live in peace. Although having rules would somewhat limit the actions taken by people, a new kind of freedom could be obtained with order in place. However, what if people felt that the rules were preventing them from self-realization or putting them at a disadvantage? Would they not think that these rules are malicious to begin with, and try to change them?
In fact, clashes between those who are fighting against unjustifiable rules and those who are trying to oppress the former are causing many of the conflicts happening in the world today. For those who are tied down to unjustifiable rules and are under oppression, conflicts are a form of resistance to correct absurdity and injustice. Mahatma Gandhi, who led the Indian independence movement British colonial rule, won independence through non-violent civil disobedience. Currently in Syria, the Assad regime and anti-government rebels are fiercely fighting against each other. Further, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (IS) has started to challenge the framework of existing sovereign states, which could be said to be triggered by oppositions against the Assad regime. As a way to rebel against oppression, they have taken weapons into their hands in order to protect something very valuable to them and to realize very important goals.
International relations theory perspective
A nation protects its territories, regions and sovereignty from threats because its very existence depends on how it can avoid pressure and interference from other countries and ensure rights to self-determination. Being able to make decisions on governance, resource distribution, and choices in life, or in other words, having the freedom to establish satisfactory rules is a deeply-rooted desire of a nation. These rules reflect a nation’s values, embodying its unique identity.
Yet, a nation, which is supposed to allow collective self-realization of its people, often times only functions for a particular group of people or is controlled by an elitist group with authority. The basic to rule making is to aim for maximized value with as little restrictions as possible. However, what is considered a restriction and which value has priority differ depending on the person. As a result of these differences, disputes occur over rules, and conflicts over authoritative positions which extort rules onto others unfold.
True nature of the Iraq War
Let’s think about this, taking the Iraq War for example. The Saddam Hussein regime, which ruled Iraq, collapsed from American attacks. The regime’s capsizing reversed the situations of those who were affiliated with the regime, such as the Baath Party and the military, and those who had been oppressed. An opportunity arouse for exiles, Shiite Muslims, and the Kurds, an ethnic minority, to establish rules for themselves, and people who benefitted from the Hussein regime were removed. While every interest group sought to ensure their rights to self-determination and expand their own share, building a foundation to benefit Iraq as a whole never happened. In such a situation, IS was able to expand its power by drawing in supporters of the former regime.
When considering the situation in Iraq, the power relations among and interferences from surrounding countries, such as Syria, Iran, and Turkey, should also be taken into account. Pursuit of self-interest by stakeholders, including the United States and major oil companies over oil concession, has significant impact on the confusion in Iraq as well.
What is conflict resolution?
How can self-realization be maximized whole keeping restrictions to the minimum? Efforts to iron out the differences in views of stakeholders and find solutions are exactly what lead to conflict resolution. To understand what kind of self-realization and threats stakeholders want to place most value on or remove provides clues for resolving conflicts. However, interests change over time, which is why conflict resolution is like solving a simultaneous equation where interests of multiple parties fluctuate in a complicated manner.
Moreover, even if we understood why conflicts occur, solutions cannot be drawn easily. As a measure becomes more comprehensive by involving as many stakeholders as possible, a solution in line with reality can be drawn, but clues on how to resolve the conflicts become harder to find since the simultaneous equation gets very complicated. Vice versa, if the number of stakeholders is limited, the clues become easier to find, but the possibilities of being exposed to unexpected oppositions from stakeholders whose voices were not included become higher. Even facing such dilemma, searching for a realistic resolution is what conflict resolution is about.
*This article is based on an interview with Professor Uesugi in 2016, published in Shindo No.83, a publication by Waseda Weekly.
Yuji Uesugi
Professor, Faculty of International Research and Education, Waseda University
Professor Yuji Uesugi specializes in conflict resolution, peacebuilding, and international peace operations. He graduated from the International Christian University, and received his Master’s degree from George Mason University. Professor Uesugi holds a PhD in International Conflict Analysis from the University of Kent. Prior to his current position, he served as vice president for the Okinawa Peace Assistance Center and as associate professor at Hiroshima University. His publications include Introduction to Conflict Resolution and All-Japan toward the World.
