Message-ID: <KF16+VnvVlA@ssc.msu.edu> Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 15:22:54 EDT From: Don Osbor <mailto:don.osborn@SSC.MSU.EDU> Subject: Unity (was re: Massacre & Devt.) To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Greetings! I'm not sure how we got on to the topic of *intervention* to bring about unity, but some interesting points have been raised which permit a broader exploration of the topic of unity and development. Basically, I think we are talking about several different things: "Unity" imposed from within or without, unity generated from within or with outside input, and measures to limit the suffering and death caused by war.James McCoy wrote on 4/25: >Having lived in Sri Lanka several years ago and Uganda more recently,
>I really do not believe intervention to bring about unity provides
>much beyond temporary relief for the opposing forces to regroup. ..
Frank Baitman wrote on 4/29: >There are a couple of exceptions that I think deserve discussion, however.
>Foreign intervention in Bosnia and in Somalia. (Albeit, Somalia is a bit
>different because massacre was not necessarily ethnic). But in each case,
>foreign intervention (beyond humanitarian means) seems to have minimized
>the suffering. Time of course will tell.
I would agree with James that "unity" imposed from outside is at best a temporary measure: if root causes of strife are not addressed, there will be no real peace. Yet Frank is right that intervention is essential in some cases to provide relief from symptoms. I would therefore disagree with James' conclusion that the best course for outsiders (esp. the West) is to >...... stay out of the way, provide limited humanitarian assistance
>so both sides and all constituents realize the suffering, and make no
>promises of external assistance to rebuild what is destroyed by the
>short-sighted actions of the warring factions. Some sort of unity will
>eventually result and it will probably be more enduring than some
>brokered or imposed concilliation.
As we know, innocent people suffer while extremists drag a society into a spiral of violence. This is everyone's concern. Moreover, what is often needed in cases of violent conflict is some kind of help to break the spiral of violence. This may require some kind of intervention and mediation. Conflict specialists can address this point better that I. Furthermore, I am dubious about the "some sort of unity" which would eventually result from letting violent conflicts run their course...
James wrote: >................................................................ It
>is only when one or both of the competing factions have been defeated
>or destroyed that any sort of unity will be achieved. One could
>argue that such unity is repression or domination -- which it is --
>but case after case world-wide supports this observation. .............
Such "unity" imposed from within also just postpones a time of reckoning. Case after case of uprisings worldwide today, as well as the break-up of the former USSR and some electoral efforts at succession (successful in Slovakia, unsuccessful in Quebec), also show this. This and the assessment of the Atlantic article James cited (which I have yet to read) that "complete equality" however noble an idea leads to instability and back to repression, would seem to paint a bleak picture of the future of humanity.
Are we (including Western societies!) really faced with a dire choice between false "unity" built on inequality, unstable egalitarianism, or violence in quest of some ephemeral dominance or independence?
I think not. On a micro level evidence seems to show that unity can be built and sustained. A case in point is pastoral and farming groups in West Africa. Although the groups have different languages and "ethnic" identities, and much in their respective production activities places them in potentially conflictual situations, they often work out means of getting along--a kind of locally "generated" unity, if you will. Actually, West Africa, with the glaring exception of Liberia, is an interesting area to look at for relatively stable co-existence of ethnicities (even in cases of insurrection--Ibos in the Biafran War in Nigeria, Twaregs in the north of Mali--unity has been restored without physical or structural reprisals afterwards).
Another case is that of religion, as Tom Hodges and I have mentioned in recent postings. Tom wrote on 4/26 concerning the record of Baha'i communities in various parts of the world: >................................................ I realize it is now
>unfashionable to talk about religious belief being an instrument for
>overcoming religious and ethnic prejudices, but one must look at the
>real world. Baha'is communities have consistently demonstrated this
>capability as have some other religious communities in some places.
This may be considered a kind of "generated" unity with "outside" input (outside in the sense that a religion arises in one part of the world and is technically not indigenous to other regions to which it spreads). In this case the assistance is in a religious doctrine which emphasizes principles of unity, equality, justice, etc. When people choose to follow this path, they choose to abide by its principles--individual attitudes and behaviors, and social outcomes are measurably affected (even if behaviors sometimes fall short of the ideal). Unity of disparate social groups which might otherwise have been at odds, or at least disinclined to interaction, is one outcome.
The example of Gal Oya in my earlier posting in this thread may also be considered "generated" unity with some outside assistance.
The difference between the unity generated "from within" (the West African example) and that generated with "outside input" (the Baha'i and Gal Oya examples) is that the former may be culture-specific and non-transferrable. Worth understanding and helping to preserve, yes, but not necessarily an answer to problems elsewhere. The latter (whether religion or ideology) is transferrable, but must be accepted and cannot be imposed (or else it yields only an imposed "unity").
The question remains how such empirically observed local level phenomena can translate to larger contexts.
Efforts to establish unity on a macro scale can be observed in the ongoing experiments of the European Community and the Baha'i community (Ervin Laszlo mentions both in his _Multicultural Planet_ (Oxford: Oneworld, 1993)). The EC effort is interesting because it is both generated, in the sense that no outside force is intervening to impose solutions on the governments there, and imposed, in the sense that the planning and decisions for EC integration takes place at a level distant from the average European. Here unity is the product of a vision perhaps shared, but not originating from the local level. An interesting question is whether the EC is developing local roots, or whether it will have the fragility of other regional groupings.
The Baha'i vision is older and more universal. Along with its moral and ethical teachings and mystical and spiritual elements, it has clear teachings about the inevitable unity to which humanity as a whole is headed. Although this vision did not originate at the local level either, it is accepted at the local level by all Baha'is ("The earth is one country..." is a matter of faith). In this, perhaps people of this religion can contribute to all efforts to generate unity on national, regional, and international levels. Other belief systems which contribute to evolving "ideas, ideals, and friendship" condusive to unity, justice, and peace may similarly contribute.
In short, there are different kinds of unity. "Unity" imposed from outside, we seem to agree, has no future, although some of us find that there is a place for intervention where disunity leads to violence and suffering. I argue that locally imposed "unity" has no future either (no justice, no peace, no unity). I further suggest that unity that is "generated" exists, is sustainable, and offers hope, although we have yet to see that translate (or connect) to sustained unity (cum justice & peace) on larger scales.
James concludes: >Just one point of view...I'm sure there are many others. Please keep
>in mind the difference between reality and idealistic optimality.
Reality has its positive as well as negative aspects. And aspiring to idealistic optimality is necessary, or else what hope have we? One needs both realism and idealism--isn't that why we are involved in development?
Don Osborn mailto:osborndo@pilot.msu.edu