Great men and women who have walked in this world have stated at various points in human history that violence breeds violence. And yet we continue to witness and experience men and women of great nations use violence as their primary means to resolve human trials and tribulations. This has only resulted in more violence. If the use of violence is futile, why then does it continue to remain the chief response to conflict? This is a question that has not been answered at all; and yet great men and women who have come before us, continue to remind us of the futility of violence.
Despite the perpetual exercise of force, one critical lesson is re-emerging, that the use of military force can no longer guarantee absolute victory. This has been clearly demonstrated in the recent Sri Lankan military campaign against the Tamil Tigers. Military victories do contain and maybe weaken the perceived enemy, but it is limited and cannot completely neutralize them. In fact an objective study will show that military approach has had counterproductive results; and only pushes any genuine non-violent attempts to resolve problems to the periphery.
The futility of force as demonstrated in Sri Lanka, Palestine and other conflict zones can serve as a learning point for all armies and governments, and perhaps it is an opportune time to reaffirm a public discourse that calls for the transformation of the traditional thinking that perceives militaristic and security-centric paradigms as the means of settling political differences. The irony of military approaches is evident by the fact that after all the operations and bloodshed, it would still require a political process to settle the issue. The need to engage in a political process is inevitable.
A serious implication emerging from these lessons involve the realization that freedom, democracy and justice cannot be build through the use of force. The symptoms of many of today’s protracted conflicts while appearing to be very clear on the surface is in fact very complex and connected to a combinations of other issues which may have developed over time. What is needed is the identification and clearer understanding of the root causes and to differentiate them from the consequences while addressing them. The implications of these insights should not be ignored any longer. The task of addressing conflicts requires a more challenging and constructive political process of engagement, persuasion and negotiation.
It is pertinent that stakeholders are no longer confined only to power blocs and armed groups and it has become increasingly evident to widen the ambit of and political process towards resolution by involving different sectors of society at multiple levels of any process. It becomes far more crucial for civil society actors to initiate public discourses in an open and free manner on defining issues that determines the future of the people. Groups that encourage and engage in honest critical and constructive dialogue is more likely win people’s trust and would be in a better position to persuade and convince the other.
In a world where governments are being compelled to become more accountable and with societies becoming better informed, the use of force is becoming increasingly futile. The theatre of struggle has moved from the jungles to the negotiating table in which the weapon is no longer the barrel of a gun or a bomb from a warplane, but the art of diplomacy and persuasive negotiation. The art of war is now engaged in a battle for ‘hearts and minds’ in which there is no more room for force.
