The human tendency to live in societies makes it inevitable to experience conflict, which is associated with misunderstandings. At the moment, approximately a third of the world’s population lives in conflict-affected regions (Justino). Even though violence is common, there exist various ways through which it can be resolved. Many articles have been written that discuss political violence, its history, the affected people, and the manner in which it can be resolved.
Steven Pinker provides details on the decreasing rates of violence globally and gives an insight into the factors that have influenced the situation. He also explains how humans have managed to suffer from repetitive conflicts through history, and associates the tendency with human nature. Humans have adapted to the situation over time and managed to survive such conflicts over time through different effects. One such way is through the Flynn effect, which involves a range of change in IQ (Pinker 13). This theory implies that people’s ability to reason increases over time and allows people to reduce violence by making better choices. This means that the younger generation lives in a more complex world associated with such improvements, thereby enabling them to think critically and resolve their issues.
Pinker also mentions that the next belief is that the deterioration of a good intention into those of violence as witnessed in the past. Throughout the book, he delves into numerous topics considered peculiar including the reason for enlightenment, human nature, and the causes of death as time progressed (Pinker 34). From wars to crusades, a group’s intention is more likely than not, to change into violence due to group mentality also known as herd behavior (Pinker, 12). Lastly is the invention of the printing press, which allowed the spread and conservation of information in the form of books.[Need an essay writing service? Find help here.]
In the paper Partition as a Solution to Ethnic War, Sambanis breaks down the partition theory, where he describes it as the cause of debate amongst intellectuals on its resourcefulness in resolving the ethnic conflict because of the two groups in the debate (438). The initial group of theorists suggested that when everything fails, separating fighting factions is a favorable solution giving that they have the higher population. The second group suggests that unless warring factions retreat demographically into defensible strongholds, efforts at rest ring peace and order would fail because of the elevated security risk (Sambanis 438). Sambanis rejects the notion that partitioning is a way of addressing conflict and considers it ineffective. He discusses how partitioning would be functionally impractical as forced relocation cause great distress while simultaneously infringes on numerous human rights. Similarly, partitions bring about numerous succession and migration issues, which will trigger future conflicts. Other than this, the states may experience an increased period of war because the rivalry amongst the groups and endorsements that might that might trigger animosity again. [“Write my essay for me?” Get help here.]
Sambanis states that not only are the partitions likely to increase conflict among small ethnic groups but also occur with a limited degree of heterogeneity (Sambanis 479). Moreover, the difference between ethnic and no ethnic conflict is insignificant in dictating the extent and severity of the conflict. As a solution for instances such as these, the best option is supporting ethnic diffusion rather than segregation, allowing individuals the choice to travel, work, and continue living (Sambanis 947). Similarly, the combination of two large ethnic groups into a multicultural framework would reduce ethnic tension.
In addition, Roy Licklider’s article expounds on the use of negotiation as a means of settling the civil conflict in the post-World War II era. A civil war is seen as a conflict involving two groups within the same country that meet any three of his required criteria which are; a political leader dreading to work with the opposition in fear of reprimand, many independent groups in the regions, and lastly at least 1000 battle deaths per year (Licklider 682). Giving examples, he explains how the same conflict ended in different countries that used negotiations to resolve their issues comparing them to those that resolved theirs on their own. The major issue of negotiated settlements is the level of compromise each party is willing to make and involves the sharing and distribution of power. Here, the longevity of the peace is dependent on the strength of the accord created to satisfy the needs of the discussing parties. The main aim of conflict resolution is reducing the number of casualties in the afflicted area (Licklider 684). However, it is important to note that some outsiders participate in conflict resolution for personal gain (Licklider 687). In spite of this, negotiated settlement are better and less destructive than the use of military intervention.
Similarly, Benjamin Valentino discusses the controversial topic of using military interventions as humanitarian relief for countries in need. Unlike settlements, this mode of action involves the country’s deployment of boots on the ground and consumes more money to than providing basic relief (Valentino 66). This being the case, such humanitarian ventures have a more negative effect than providing help. In many cases, military intervention causes more damage to the civilians as they become victims of their helpers as it conflict intensifies and too difficult to differentiate friendlies from enemies.
In addition to being a time-consuming solution, the military interventions are very expensive. The amount of money spent on the logistics and weapons in a military endeavor stands high compared to the lives saved. Governments will spend millions of dollars saving merely a fraction of a nation’s population. In retaliation to President Bush, Saddam killed thousands of people in a show if retaliation (Valentino 65). As such, military interventions should be last resorts because making use of it results in greater harm than good. Instead of using the money for increasing the conflict, countries should invest in low-cost preventive measures (Valentino 68) that would not only assist but also protect the lives of the civilians caught up in war.[Click Essay Writer to order your essay]
These authors convey a crucial message regarding violence and the factors that influence it. As violence gradually decreases its intensity over time, it enables humanity to apply better reasoning, thereby solve situations better than was done in the past. Unlike the use of a military invention, which may turn violent resulting in a higher mortality rate, mediation should be highly considered as an ideal approach to conflict resolution. The use of force results in dangerous situations after the use of mediation fails. The best way to end a conflict between two parties is letting them solve it with minimal arbitration, allowing them to come to respectable understandings and reasonable compromises.
Justino, Patricia. Conflict and Violence. Institute of Development Studies, 2017, Accessed 25 April 2018
Licklider, Roy. “The Consequences of Negotiated Settlements in Civil Wars, 1945 -1993.” American
Political Science Review, 1995, vol. 89, pp. 681– 690
Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature. Vikings. 2011, Penguin Group, 2014
Sambanis, Nicholas. “Partition As A Solution To Ethnic War.” George Washington University, 2013, vol. 52, pp. 437- 483
Valentino, A., Benjamin. “The True Cost of Humanitarian Intervention.” Hein Online, 2011, vol. 61, pp. 60–73