Getting through chaotic moments

Everyone experiences the confusion, frustration and chaos which conflict can bring. Everyone can learn how to move through those moments of chaos with calm resolve as well. There are a number of components to chaos that you need to be aware of in order to move through such situations. As you read these you will most likely know them. The difficult part is applying your knowledge. You must apply it as often as you in order to excel at getting through those chaotic moments.

Emotions and communication are the two factors that are often the most poorly managed. Case in point is the situation in Syria. At first the people protested against the government. During these protest emotions of panic set in, non-violent communication was lost and bullets were fired. This same situation continues to this day. That is a very simple breakdown but in reality that is exactly what transpired.

To get through the chaos you need to be able to keep things as simple as possible. The complications will work themselves out. Breaking the situation in small goals is the best plan. For example in Syria the small goal was a ceasefire agreement. Neither side adhered to that which brings the entire situation back to chaos and even further distrust. However the ceasefire agreement is crucial and must be implemented. What we are faced with is how a ceasefire agreement is to be implemented.

The average person in Syria most likely wants an end to the violence. As usual the ones that seek to destabilize a society are in the minority. The question now becomes, how do you reach a peaceful resolution when both sides are locked on destroying each other? This question is a very difficult situation.

The common element in poor conflict resolution rest with the people involved. With the case of Syria there has to be a different set of voices now. The current voices are distrusted and have too much history attached. In order for a peaceful environment to take root there needs to be new leadership. The issue will always be the same but the people need to change.

Whether or not the people can transcend the history is the main obstacle. For example we can look at the Palestine/Israel wars. These people have carried the history, violence, revenge, hatred and distrust for generations. The face of the war has become ambiguous, inhumane and demonized. There have been small breakthroughs with the Israel/Palestine war, 1994 was one. Since then there has been stalemates and regression. The people are in dire need of new visions, leadership and voice.

To transcend conflict, an open mind is crucial. New perspectives and a willingness to focus on the future is vital as well. All too often relationships get mired in what I call “stacking bodies”. This is when people bring up past wrongs as they race to stack up the most injustices incurred. This tactic is very common yet rarely works to resolve a conflict, (I have never experienced this tactic working).

Getting past stacking bodies is a challenge that must be overcome. If history is not let go of, the conflict will only spiral into further frustration.  The emotional attachment to those past injustices will gain more moments to fuel the anger. To get past this tactic takes a certain amount of resolve and hard work. Focusing on the immediate situation will help. The moment you start to talk about the context or situations that began the chaos you have started stacking bodies.  This is where the hard work is most needed.

Emotions and attachments need to be managed so that a peaceful solution can be found. Doing so is made more difficult when the other side will not or is not able to do the same. However someone has to have the intelligence and the willingness to let go of old tactics.

Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain are all on a similar path.

What happens in Syria if the current government is toppled?

We have many examples to look at, Egypt and Libya are two.  There will be a struggle of communicating effectively and making progression swift enough. Both of these will combine to erode the legitimacy of any new government.

In Egypt the military is still in power. In Libya the government is an ad hoc group that was a natural progression. Now in Libya the international support has dried up leaving it twisting in the wind. In both situations the people are left to seek other options other than what is being offered at the moment. These options will come from armed groups because we live in a reality where might makes right.

This might makes right attitude can only be culled by the mass peaceful rally of the people. We have learned from Poland, Czech Republic and Egypt that if the people stand united in peaceful mass rallies, the use of violence is defeated. The defeat of violence will give space for peace.

Next there needs to be a strong effort to communicate the planning process. This process has to have a constant avenue for public inclusion. Such inclusion provides transparency, legitimacy, stability, and unity. With these four elements, society will hold a great deal of patience as a new government is brought to power.

There is no mystery to how or why revolutions take place. The people simply no longer trust the leaders, they feel alienated by their own government and they lived with fear of the government too long. This combination of reality factors in every revolution. At the moment mistrust and alienation are quickly rising in Libya.

A peaceful transition is still very possible in Libya. What needs to be done is a major show of support by the international community in the form of leadership visits, major funding of programs, and infrastructure building. Within this support, armed groups will have a point of reference to hold trust in as the governance processes are continually worked on.

The capacity is there and so is the determination of the people to achieve peace. What is missing is the work needed to connect the people with the government on a unified vision of the future. At the moment there is no such unified vision, nor is there an avenue for dialogue to discuss this vision.

Communication builds trust, it can also destroy trust as well though. Due to that, the communication must settle on finding a cohesive and agreeable path forward to peace. At the moment the communication between the government and the people of Libya needs greater support and effort.

With all of the above, we can see exactly the same situation in Syria. Poor communication, mistrust, no clear vision of the future, alienation of the people and ultimately violence can be mapped out to see how Syria fell into such chaos. The road back to peace will begin with lowering the weapons, increased communication, inclusion of the people and building a common vision of the way forward.

Iran vs Israel 21 Feb 2012

Simplicity and peace can be both allies and enemies at the same time. Take any situation where violence occurs or threats are made, now try to make sense of why such events continue. Simple reasoning states that a person just has to walk away or put down the weapons. However actions are only the manifestation of thought. Thought is where the true battles take place.

The realm of thought is the labyrinth we must find peace in. Today we have the reaction of Iran to the threat of attack from Israel. This cycle of insanity has to end. It is our choice to have it end using peace or we can go through the hell of war. Either way, peace will be the end result. If we decide to go the route of war, no one may live to experience the peace.

To find a way through this I looked at the constitutions of both Iran and Israel. Israel, like Britain has no formal constitution. However, Israel has their Proclamation to Independence as well as basic laws which culminate into a form of constitution.

The reason I took this route is because at some point there needs to be a leap of faith taken to secure peace. To do that, you have to see a point to leap for. Such a point is most often found within the culture, identity and laws of a country. The core of a modern society is founded in the grand ideology of its identity. That identity is supported by the laws of a society

For Iran the point of faith that must be held to is this portion of their constitution:

Article 2

The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:

Section 6. the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God; in which equity, justice, political, economic, social, and cultural independence, and national solidarity are secured by recourse to:

Sub section 3. negation of all forms of oppression, both the infliction of and the submission to it, and of dominance, both its imposition and its acceptance.

If you want to be negative, you can easily find faults with the above exert from the Constitution of Iran. However it is just as easy to see where peace can be held onto. This is your choice, I am for peace so I decide to see the positives.

For Israel there are a number of laws to point to. Having such a system is problematic because a clear definition or ideology is impossible to make. Due to the many points of reference it is easy to argue about which law takes precedent over another. However we need a point of reference to have as a point for peace. So I have made these two sections of the Basic laws of Israel my points to leap towards.

Protection of life, body and dignity  4. All persons are entitled to protection of their life, body and dignity.  

Personal liberty  5. There shall be no deprivation or restriction of the liberty of a person by imprisonment, arrest, extradition or otherwise. 

Many will say that these points are only valid within the countries themselves. Well to that I would say, if you do not feel your laws are valid enough to be a model for international peace in the world then what good are they?

To stay on point here, both countries have laws that no person is to be oppressed. Any threat of violence is an act of oppression. Now please do not start arguing about who started the fight, that is a waste of time, energy and intelligence. Besides, we have been doing that very thing for thousands of years and all it has given us is death, hatred and hell.

Each country is in a state of mind where they feel threatened. Escalating the violence is fuelled by revenge, hatred, fear, mistrust and narrow mindedness. Peace needs expansion of ideology and tactics. Continuing on the same path as we have for centuries will give us peace only when complete destruction has been achieved. Using the laws of each country solidifies the points of peace that will provide a foundation of negotiations.

Based upon the passages from each set of laws, there is a common understanding of a persons right to live peacefully. No one is enjoying that due to the constant oppression each country is waging. Such actions are contrary to the very laws of their own country. "Be the change you wish to see". Simple to say, apparently impossible to do.

Each country speaks to a foundation of peaceful existence very quickly in their respective laws. These laws must be used as building blocks for peace. It is these laws which must be pointed to so that trust can be fostered.

We have lived with the threat of war for too many years. Clearly the leaders of this region can not bring peace by themselves. Due to that reality the rest of us have to stand up for all the civilians who crave peace. For that to transpire, the world has to step in to police and disarm the entire region.

Chaos and insanity are now the norm in Syria.

How many does it take to lead a country to complete chaos? For Syria, that number is still being counted as it appears everyone is jumping on that band wagon. The craziness has only just begun. Within a few months there will be no way of distinguishing who is on what side and of course no one will have the courage to do what is necessary to stop any of this.

I spent a great deal of time looking at reports and emails to gather information about the situation. With each piece of information I grew more and more frustrated. We have known for months that there are extremists inside Syria fighting the government. Some reports indicate that the Syrian government has brought them in and other reports indicate that a weakening of the border is a factor.

To be as clear as I can, the fact that civilians will die by the thousands should be more important than who or what crazy bastard organization is involved. What we have here is a classic bar room brawl. The situation is already so mixed up that no one has a clue as to what side anyone is on.  This is going on now in Syria. With that understanding, does anyone think the government in Syria has any control?

We are looking a failed state very soon. With that destabilization, the surrounding countries are in grave danger. Due to this danger, the sovereignty argument for non-intervention is no longer valid because the threat to international peace is now within reach. Easing the violence is not even possible for the Syrian government anymore. Two months ago they could have but not now and with each passing day, controlling the peace becomes more and more difficult.

As it stands right now China is the wild card among the Permanent Five members of the Security Council. Russia has stated that force will be used if the Syrian government does not quell the violence. The other three, France, RUSA and UK have already voted in favour of intervention. Tougher Sanctions, more observers will most likely be the next move. What should be done?

Well if I were in charge, demand China, Russia and a host of other countries to build a peacekeeping force of no less than 60 000soldiers. March them in and secure the border as soon as possible, no one gets in or out. This will stop or at least slow the flow of weapons and extremists. As soon as the border is secured, get the negotiations going.  Have the Peacekeepers enforce the current laws of Syria that pertain to breaches of the peace. This will help sweep the country clean of any and all small to medium weapons.

Will that happen, never. The world just does not have the will to actually do such a thing. Basically civilian lives are not worth the time, effort or cost. The funny part is the time factor. No one is willing to engage in a peacekeeping mission if they have no sense of how long it will take. However, many countries are willing to get into a huge fight without a sense of how long that will take to end. The frustration I feel because of that mentality leaves me speechless at times.

Syria is without a doubt a perfect example of the term “cluster fuck” and it is going to get worse. Sanctions and observers will not stop this war in Syria any more than it has stopped the shit show between Palestine and Israel. We need a complete lock down accompanied by the largest disarm, demobilize and reintegration program ever thought possible.

Elections in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

28 Nov 2011 was the date for the people to decide the leader of that country. Since that date there have been many reports concerning the lack of legitimacy of those elections.  Millions of votes were found illegal as well as procedural violations cited. As I am writing this article many protesters are now in the streets complaining about the election. At this very moment, the government has shut down radio stations and detained those that protest.

None of this is a shock because we had understood the reality of life in that country. However the situation needs to be resolved. As sad as it is, the current government must be allowed to govern, even though there is no doubt that the current leader has abused power.  That leaves us with the question of what to do?

Now as I have said many times, life is insane and this is one of those situations where a persons’ morals are in direct conflict with reality. We can be certain that any challenge to power will be met with violent force. The use of violence is not the choice of a peaceful person but when you are left with no options you must defend yourself. With that in mind it must be understood that no government rules without the will of the people.

The method or tactic being used by the current leader to hold power/control, is a combination of fear, corruption, loyalty and entitlement. In order to defeat the current leader there has to be a sustained focus on the use of those tactics and strong alternatives to every policy being offered. These alternatives have to be communicated. This is the task for the people of the country and they are doing many of these. The opposition is also using the other four tactics as well and that is where the international community can help.

We all have opinions but when it comes to international politics there has been a code of not talking publicly about who should lead what country. That is one reason why Russia and China do not speak about changing the leadership in Syria. Anyway, the NGO community does not have such restraints so many governments use that avenue to voice such concerns. For me I have no idea if the current leader would is any better or worse than the opposition leader and that needs to be a focus.

The focus for achieving peace in the DRC needs to be concerned with the independence of the Electoral Commission and strong education concerning peaceful societies. The institutions of the country and the average citizen need to be given great support so they feel safe in voting how they want. Right now is the time to begin that support in preparation for the next election.

All too often we only focus months before the date of elections. This not so alarming in a peaceful society but in a post-conflict society this lack of attention is harmful. As we witnessed in the past election, the Electoral Commission was poorly organized during the election. Also the opposition leader openly supported the use of violence no matter what the outcome.

The international community needs to step up the efforts to educate the people and those working in government. The education has to be focused on the responsibility of the people and the institutions to support the rule of a free and fair society. The chaos of conflict will grip any country as long as the ideology of disconnection exists. We have to get the people to practice the knowledge which holds a country in peace. That time is now because it can not be done in a months time, it will take years. As it stands now we have years before the next election in the DRC. Get to work now.

Duality of Responsibility

“The duality of responsibility we have” is a phrase that circled in my thoughts for many years. At that time in my life I had no idea it was even a subject of thought for old dead white guys (the usual philosophers).  As I moved through life I found out that most of them touched on this subject in many ways.  A few popular themes are conscience and sub-conscience, life and death. Machiavelli dealt with business life and home life, although most only focus on his point of “the ends justify the means, business at all cost” philosophy. The manner in which I think about duality is the responsibility to the self and the responsibility to society.

Within that framework I look at myself and the world, just so I can keep things in order to find a way through chaos. This is my method. You most likely have a different one. It would be a boring world if we did all think alike. Although I do wish that people did not suffer because of our differences of ideology. Within this method there are the struggles where self- preservation is in opposition to society.

Ghandi met that duality with starvation. People who put their lives on the line to ensure the safety of others are acts that take place every day around the world, these are the acts of martyrs, intended or not. The thought process of doing something to improve society at the cost of the self is the conflict of dual responsibility, eg., Mohamed Bouazizi.

Take any warlord and you will see self-preservation at the cost of society. Although they speak to the protection of society because they know that is the treasure of power. We can look at the situations in Syria and see both sides speaking to the needs of society. We can look at the United Nations Security Council and see each side making arguments for society. These are the leaders speaking. The people on the street also speak of society yet they also speak about their own lives.

If the question is asked, “why protest” the answer is usually, “We are tired of the corruption, insecurity, no jobs, no choice, no voice and what future is that? The desires of the self, met with the desires of the society.  

We can see self-preservation in the acts of countries as well. The RUSA is an easy target for such acts, just about every war they have started since 1962 has been about self-preservation. Israel is constantly barking about self-preservation.  

This method of understanding the world is helpful to see what the goals are of those that you face. Is the person or people out to ensure their own purpose or are they seeking to ensure the purpose of everyone. Even within that we have those that act with serious intent to secure the safety of society, but do so in a harmful manner, for example Hitler or a serial killer that preys on people they deem harmful.

At some point there will be a choice between yourself and society. People who choose to take public transit for example to help lower pollution are acting in benefit of society, buying fair trade products, recycling, donating to charities and other acts.

At the end of it all, this helps me sort through the garbage. I can listen to the words of others as they speak to helping society and then balancing that with how those words reflect the personal benefits. Just like the sales pitch we got from mobile phone companies, “buy these because in case of an emergency you can reach someone.” All of a sudden that emergency has now become, “Oh my god, what restaurant/bar are you at?” We sold out to the advertising campaign founded on safety but in reality it was to make a dollar. That example has more to it than the duality of responsibility though, a good idea gone to hell because of sell outs and suckers.

Going through the debate on duality of responsibility helps me see what my motivations are. I can ask why I have a desire to act in one way. I can understand if it is self-preservation or not. Perhaps I am not sure, which tells me I need to get clear, otherwise a huge mess is about to unfold. When that happens the task of peace just explodes.

A way Out

Life is fraught with challenges and chaos. During such times it can be difficult to see purpose or as most people ask “a way out”. Now for all the peace and knowledge I have, it is a reality that there is a different route for each person to find that way out. However, we are all human and there are some commonalities that occur.

For me, the way out is to find what my heart and mind understand as good. Doing this allows me to laugh easier, smile more and take the many hits that life will throw at any time. Sometimes the good is not easy to see and I have questioned if it is there. Just because I do not understand does not mean good is absent. All it means is, I need to look further or the search has no meaning to me.

Knowing when to stop searching is a vital component to life. In life there is death and death is not as ugly as we make it out to be. How death arrives can be very ugly. A marriage going through a divorce is one of the ugliest deaths two people can go through. A country separating, governments falling and banking systems collapsing are all deaths that we go through.

In each case peace will be put to the test. In a marriage there can be the moments of infidelity. In the other cases there are moments of oppression and constraint. With each case there is a loss of trust between or amongst people involved. We often ask ourselves, “What is the purpose of this relationship?” “Why does this have to be so difficult?”

The purpose and the difficulty are entangled together in the same answer. The answer is we are alive and it is our choice. Now the answer goes a great deal deeper because we have limits within ourselves but at the very first step we must deal with reality.

We are alive and it is our choice to care. What you care about will always bring difficulties. These difficulties are steps and with each step you will encounter more difficulties. In the run of life you will misjudge a number of times, perhaps fight challenges where you should not have, let go of things that you should have kept, but these are all part of life. In life you will make mistakes, you just hope your friends really know who you are and can see that in their heart.

Sometimes that is not possible and life just got more difficult as you deal with the pain of mistrust. In these times it is often when a person needs new information. If no new information is obtained, that person will use the same knowledge to get through the difficulties as they have in the past. Doing the same things is getting back on the hamster wheel with no real progress. For example, a broken marriage may lead a person to have an affair, protests lead a government to shoot its own people, ailing banks to close on loans, corporations to cut jobs and a host of other typical acts.  None of these acts are all the helpful as they often do more damage and make matters worse. However they are popular methods of dealing with difficulties as we seek a way out.

As we seek a way out, the source of the challenge holds many answers.

transformative peace

All systems of life are complex. No matter what a person does there is history, emotion, reason, impact, understanding, judgement and many other elements that will lead into future decisions and possibilities. The complexity comes down to asking, why did I act the way I did, what was my desired outcome, did I get that, how should I have acted, what should I do differently next time, etc.. Also there is an element of conscientiously and unconscientiously knowing what you are actually trying to achieve. Many have no idea what they truly want to accomplish in life, other than to have an easy life.  How do you know?

To be as honest as possible I am one that has no idea what I really want for myself. The one thing I have always strived for is to understand the world as deeply as possible. This leads me to seek out situations where everything is unknown – chaos. I seek such situations so I can help others more than anything else. As I think about that though, I question many things because I can see how I have acted in ways which have caused harm. Once that harm has been caused no amount of life will change that. That leaves me with the knowledge that I am not a peaceful person. Even though I work to bring a greater understanding of peaceful methods of managing difficulties, to decrease the amount of violence in the world and educate others on peace, I am a student as well with much to learn. Enough about me.

As society roles along we seek to understand and manage the complexity of our interactions. In this we are building our culture, our identity and the world. Most of us manage the complexity of interactions well enough that we get through life with relative ease. For others the journey is a bit more complex. This is where the larger society must assist.

As far back as life has existed for us, we have always had some sort of structure of behaviour. For any two people that interact there has to be an understanding of social agreement. Even if that agreement is to kill one another there still exist the understanding as to how each other will act. In the rational world you still may want to kill but understand that doing so is contrary to ensuring a safe and secure society. Due to this we have built systems to deal with those that do harm.  

At the outset there had to be some sort of ethical code which we all agreed upon. This code of ethics/law has evolved into the court systems many countries have today. Yet before the current system there existed a great many other systems. One such system that is being put back into use is the idea of restorative justice/transformative peace.

The current system of courts is an adversarial system mixed with retributive justice. One side works as hard as it can to destroy, defeat or prove the other side wrong/false. Once a person is found guilty they are sentenced. Off they go and that is about all the society does. The transformative system is similar in many ways but one. Transformative peace seeks to heal the entire community.  It is a co-operative system that looks to understand, learn, improve and heal as one. For example;

A person does harm in the community and is captured. That person is taken before the community.  The focus of discussion is on how society has failed in such a manner to allow a person to feel the best thing to do was to commit that harm. Transformative peace looks at the entire society and seeks to change both the person and the elements of society which contributed.

Of course there are elements of the adversarial/retributive system that address the same issues but they do so in a manner where the entire societal element remains broken. Society continues to erode in such a system because the focus is more on the individual.  The circumstances of the individual  environment is not seen as a large contributor to their character in the current system.

No matter what a person does there are circumstances of history, emotion, reason, impact, understanding, judgement and many other elements that will lead into the decisions made and possibilities seen.  Transformative peace seeks to understand the circumstances to improve the chances for everyone else to not choose harmful actions.

Reality of friendship

In the realm of peace there comes a moment in the lives of people where a decision has to be made to sacrifice.  On a personal level, in the chaos of war, sacrifice maybe your life for the protection of your friends.  These sacrifices are the foundations of why soldiers become so close to each other.   To experience, know and believe that your friends will go to such lengths, as you would do the same for them, is a very humbling state of mind.  Using that understanding we can gauge the situation in which the world is in.  The question being: is there any country that would defend another to the point of certain death?

The short answer is no.  That level of friendship does not exist in the world of international politics.  Some may point to the actions taken in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Those wars were not about defending a friend; they were about self-preservation at the cost of your friend.  Iraq is in a far worse state than before the war. Afghanistan is no better today compared to what life was like fifteen years ago.  To be honest, at no time were the countries involved ever in grave danger. 

Now the argument is made that soldiers died and that is an indication of our sacrifice.  I have lost many friends due to war and I can tell you that most people in Canada do not know or understand such a cost.    Our soldiers died and we honour that sacrifice because they were in harm’s way, our country was never at harm.  I recall one particular media personality saying in 2007 that Canada has not been at war since 1945. Life continued on as much in the same manner in 2011 as it did in the past forty or so years.

At this moment I can hear a litany of opposition saying, how dare you say such a thing?  Vicarious feelings and crocodile tears are what those people offer.  The hypocrisy of mentality today is solidified in the minds of people.  They will talk of dedication of friendship as a BFF which may only last a year, all the while forgetting that the last F is forever.  A small matter, perhaps yet it is a reality to how far the world has slipped when it comes to true friendship.

This self- attachment to external drama being conveyed as personal experience is bullshit.  Perhaps such a world is too stressful for those people?  Perhaps they are not capable to see the joy of having such deep understanding and commitment? Perhaps the character of today is more fragile?  Whatever it is, I hope it gets resolved so that we can regain our strong sense of what true friendship is all about.

And I do know I am as guilty of such bullshit myself.  I did not play in the World Junior Hockey tournament but I can understand the feelings of Swedish, Russian Canadian and the players for Finland.

Syrian Intervention

The revolutions that are ongoing in Syria have been deemed an internal problem by almost every world leading organization.  The UN Security Council quickly decided that Syria is experiencing a civil war.  As I have mentioned before that designation allows the Security Council the moral standpoint of non-intervention.  However, there still exists the pesky ideology of “Responsibility to Protect”.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), ideology was born in 2001.  It was the brain storm of the “soft” or “smart” power countries.  The crux of this ideology is that sovereignty can be broken if there is cause enough to do so. Criteria for breaking sovereignty would be a ruling government failing to stop a violent uprising or conducting a violent rampage upon its own people, for example Yugoslavia and Rwanda.  There are other cases that can be pointed to as well such as Cambodia and Somalia. 

There is no magical number or line in which we can point to and say this is the line for action.  The world is just not that easy or simple.  Also there are many scales of account to consider.  A civil war is by nature a challenge to the ruling government.  As brutal as it may seem such a condition of chaos must be allowed to play itself out, case in point is Ireland, Egypt, Tunisia and Georgia.  The murky cases are Libya, Kashmir Region, Sri Lanka and others.  Even the countries named here are debated whether or not they indicate civil war, terrorism, gang violence, failing states or what have you.

 With all of this judging of circumstances we have the politics of intervention.  The questions swirl around about; why should we intervene, is there capacity to intervene and who should lead the intervention.  In addition to those questions there is always predicting how long it will take to quell the violence.  I myself have come to understand that the only answer is – as long as it takes.  It may take months, years or even decades.  To be completely honest time is a reason the UN Security Council stays out.  Well not just time but the longer the war the higher the death count.  Few countries have the will to be engaged in a single combat for extended periods of time, unless it is happening in their own area. 

With the case of 5 000 dead in Syria and counting, is a significant portion of the population.  The Arab Observers have seen enough and are being recalled due to an unsafe environment.   The Arab Council had seen a need for intervention as it did with Libya.  The different between Libya and Syria is the location of Syria, the area is extremely volatile.

Now on the surface of all that is peaceful this would be the exact area where the UN Security Council should deploy.  This region holds the crucible of tension in most wars today – religion/ideology.  The only reason I can see for not having a greater presence is the hypocrisy in political will of the world leaders.  Killing 5 000 people because they asked for a different government is a crime against humanity in my view.

The debate about who fired the first shot will forever go on.  In some sense that is an important fact yet, the thousandth shot is just as important.  In such a debate this is called “stacking bodies”.  The side that has the most bodies is the side that has incurred the most harm, therefore is justified in all their actions.  In the world of peace relations, justification is not an excuse for killing.  Killing is part of the “eye for and eye” game theory.  In the end we are all dead if we follow that theory through. 

I say it is time that the people of Syria be relieved and the world step in to stop the killing.

Transitional chaos in Libya

The people of Libya have completed another phase of revolution.  The violent overthrow of the past government is complete.  Now the new government is in the dire situation of producing results demanded by the people.  The first demand is to bring law, security and predictable government more quickly.

In the pursuit of those demands the new government of Libya has asked the international community to release the financial sanctions put upon Libya.  What is surprising is that the financial sanctions are still enforce while the weapons sanctions have been lifted.  Think about that piece of idiocy for a moment.  A country that is well stocked with weapons to the point where stock piles are found daily is allowed to bring in more weapons.  Yet the money to run government, police, hospitals, schools, transit and a host of other infrastructure is still on hold.  Who makes the decision to lift the sanctions – UN Security Council.

It is even more absurd when you hear the list of priorities for the return to peace.  Number one is the locating and documenting existing weapons in Libya.  Second is the reintegration of the 75 000 fighters into society.  Third priority is to quell the rise in gang violence.   

There were enough more guns and ammunition to oust the last leader yet they need more to secure the peace?   In addition, you will not have any money to pay the police, military, doctors, teachers or government agencies to run these operations.  To be fair, there are funds made available.  It is just frustrating to see that weapon sanctions get lifted before financial sanctions. 

As the Libyan government deals with the transition, the public needs to be engaged as well.  The people need an outlet to express their experiences.  There needs to be a reintegration program on a mass scale that the entire society can go through.  In the past these have been called Truth and Reconciliation Commissions.  No matter what the name is, such programs are needed. 

The biggest test is going to be the elections, which are supposed to take place next June.  Already people are becoming agitated with the slow progress of transition.  This is to be expected as a violent revolution is a very highly intense atmosphere and peace is not.  People want change now and that is impossible.  What needs to be done is to engage with the people.  There needs to be mass discussions on the vision of Libya.

These discussions will allow the people to vent off the anger of what appears to be slow progress.  Having a person in place for the people to scream at, take that energy and produce positive feedback.  This is the realm of community development.  It may be the smallest of items that will bring the anger to a level that is acceptable.  Perhaps the local market has been destroyed or the schools or mosque or even a popular community area.  Whichever it is, a discussion with the community will provide answers. 

One thing they certainly do not need is more weapons.

Peaceful game theory

Last night I got into a discussion on what game theory is.  Now I have been a student of theories my entire life, as I see it.  All that information got snarled up before I could say a word, so it was not easy to define game theory in a flash. However I did realize that we were playing a card game so I used that as my analogy.

Game theory is the study of strategy used to get results.  It is a plan to win a chess game, to win a hockey game, an election, war or even to get a job.  The strategy you employ (whether you know your strategy or not) is the game theory you use to obtain your goal.   Everyone uses game theory.  One of the most popular theories is fight or flight.  That has been changed to fight, freeze or flight due to the fact that some people get so nervous that they can do nothing but collapse/freeze.

When we have events such as the Jasmine Revolution, we can look to see what the theory was and map it out.  Did Mohamed Bouazizi know that his actions would spark the Jasmine Revolution, would cause a number of other events in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and the Occupy movement all over the world?  You would have to believe that he did not.  However his own personal actions had been rooted in the theory that if he set himself on fire the government would take notice and make changes to the current system.  That was his game theory and he was right.

Now this is a very simple example of game theory.  There are much more complex psychological strategies which have been studied.  Yet the currents and streams of thought on the subject all deal with plans that a person or group uses to achieve a goal.

Game theory is often studied along with the art of decision making and information gathering.  These three elements are all part of strategy.  You need the right information to make the best decision so that the correct strategy is used.

For example we can ask why a government would rather shoot its people than allow protesting.  The initial reason is to gain control of the populous.  Governments feel threatened by large mobs of protesters so that mob has to be put down.  That is one level.  The other level is the personal one where the person in charge, Prime Minister, President or General also feels that their life is in danger or their job.  This personal level hinges on dignity, power and self-image.  The leader feels that the people should be grateful for the life provided and a large protest is a slap in the face.  Also the leader sees a possibility that they will be ousted from power so that has to be fought.  Next there is the image that no one else has the right to hold the position that the leader now holds, it is theirs and the mob is trying to steal it.

How leaders deal with these perceptions is where game theory comes in.  They must ask themselves, what is the best method to end the protest, to retain power and to regain the admiration of the people.  Shooting them is a popular choice because it does work, for a time.  Shooting and killing is the theory employed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Burma, Columbia, Libya, DRC and the list goes on.

For peaceful examples we have Poland Solidarity Movement 1980, Czechoslovakia Velvet Revolution 1989 which lead to the peaceful 1993 seperation of the Czech Rebublic and Slovakia, and the Ukraine Orange Revolution 2004.  Each has taken place in the last few decades.  We can go further back for examples of peaceful revolutions yet these are perfect enough.  As you can see the use of peace as a strategy is a successful game theory and it often results in a stronger country.  Of the peaceful examples Ukraine had a number of setbacks, yet the initial game theory of peaceful demonstration worked. 

That is a quick summation of game theory.  My theory in the game of understanding is that by using such broad examples it is easily understood. 

Just as I was writing this I have learned that Vaclav Havel has died this morning.  He was the person put up as the leader for the Velvet Revolution. Rest in peace my friend you did a great job, we need more like you. 

Iraq and Afghanistan

These two countries are in a similar state today yet in 1999 that was not the case.

Ten years ago Iraq was on its way to becoming a peaceful country.  The president was predictable and co-operative enough to provide for stability.  There was a great hope in the region that the world was comfortable with the balance of power and progression of peace.  Then along came the RUSA and bombed the hell out of that entire security net.  The world should never let this fact be idle chatter. 

Afghanistan is different than Iraq.  Ten years ago the people of Afghanistan lived under constant instability for decades.  Today the situation is the same.  The people live with daily threats of violence, political instability and the chaos of an unknown future.

These two wars are still being fought yet the main combatant is leaving because they can no longer handle the cost – mentally, physically or economically.  In short they lost all will and capacity.  In this act of leaving now the impact will not be fully felt for years.  The violence in both Iraq and Afghanistan will increase as the power vacuum take shape.

This is the reality we must prepare for.  Iraq and Afghanistan will be lawless, violent and brutal places to live.  Ten years ago we had peace within our sights in Iraq.  A stable Iraq is a dream right now as much as a stable Afghanistan is.

Where do we go from here?

That question is very difficult to answer.  I do know that we will be living with the stagnation of chaos for some time, years for sure, decades possibly.  Peace in both countries will now be in the care of a very fragile national government with the assistance of patch work NGOS.  Peace will be fought for using a chaos of organizations with no singular clear vision or plan.  The people will be torn in a great many directions as they seek certainty.  All the while the United Nations will be seized with the issues in both countries and that is where stagnation of chaos will supplant itself for years to come.

If the five members of the Security Council actually had a collective mind, one that was built on co-operation and peaceful discourse of civilian life, we would have a vastly different world.  I do think there would still be wars but not on the scale of what we have today.

Looking back in history we can equate the two situations to Vietnam 1975, Cambodia 1975, Burma 1960 and even Afghanistan in 1989.  If peace were the ultimate goal in either of those countries the world would be a vastly different place.  We can always wonder what life would be like if the policies of Soviet Russia(1978) met with the policies of the RUSA in 2002?  Both wanted the Taliban out, both wanted a peaceful national governing system, both wanted an independent Afghanistan and both wanted enough to send its own soldiers.  Peace is not always the ultimate goal, revenge and dominance usually is.

Iraq and Afghanistan are areas that produce more violence.  Soviet Russia had sought peace in Afghanistan during the 1980's only to provide a venue for a RUSA proxy war.  The result is what we have today.  The same situation in Iraq/Iran in the 1970's played out as proxy wars.  Today we should have great concern for what both Iraq and Afghanistan will progress into.  Mostly this concern is due to a very weak resolve of world leadership. 

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been won by the people that are there now and will be there next year.  Sadly I must say that even my home country of Canada has lost its first war in Afghanistan due to politcal mismangement and political cowardice.

Fear, Security, Power, Rights and Dreams

When a government uses fear to control, uses threats of violence to persuade and speaks to the need for the use of physical force to defend freedom, we are all in for chaos and hell.

There is no greater threat to peace than physical violence.  There is not greater threat than an insane person with the capacity to use violence.  Right now all I can see are the ones that have the capacity to use violence are the ones that are insane.

As individuals we are all very much alike.  As we begin to form groups we lose a little bit of our commonalities.  These groups we gravitate to become insulated and the fear of the other starts.  Russia is now in the midst of such a battle, Libya has gone through such a battle and may have a further war developing due to the desires of group power struggle.  Europe is going through a very difficult time and the causes are so complex that a solution is lost due to the search for blame. 

In these situations, the words that divide us have become so vague that mistrust builds exponentially.  We are experiencing a nuclear explosion of mistrust around the world.  It is difficult to find a government that is trusted by its people.  This mistrust builds fear, which is met with a need for security, which is secured through a show of power, which is justified through our right to protect, which was developed from a dream that we should live peacefully. 

We are caught in a prisoner’s dilemma.

That is why I wrote about game theory a few days ago.  We are involved in a game of Russian roulette.  There is only one strategy in that game, be in or out.  To phrase it another way as it was once stated, with us or against us.  Such a game is pure chaos.  To be part of such a game acknowledges that you have no hope for the future; it is an all or nothing end game.  The problem we face is that the leaders are at the table playing roulette yet they are pointing the gun at the citizens.  In turn the citizens know that the gun only has a limited number of bullets so fire away.  This is the enduring spirit of the dream that peace will prevail.

We have seen peaceful demonstrations all over the world, many that were countered with bullets and all with some degree of public disdain –such as the occupy protests in Canada.  The part in which the peaceful protesters play in this game is very dangerous.  The protesters know they can be killed but they also know that a just society is possible.

In Egypt and Tunisia, ultimately the soldiers would not fire upon people.  We had seen this same peaceful resolve during the Russian August coup in 1991 and I believe that we have witnessed the same resolve in Russia during the past weeks.  Libya was not so lucky, neither is Syria, Yemen or the DRC.

We are indeed living through an interesting time period.  The political games that are now taking place have deep connections to history.  Political lines are being redrawn, new identities being forged, flawed ideology are being brought to light and discarded, hopefully the result will provide for ideology and strategy for peace.