Getting World Peace
Hi everyone - so I had this random idea. What if world peace can only be achieved by the ignorant? Let me explain. There is a scene in the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy where the protagonists visit this planet inhabited by one man who lives in a cabin and who is, for all intents and purposes, crazy. One particularly knowledgeable character explains that it is this individual who runs the universe. Who else could?
I wonder if this is truer than Douglas Adams thought. I have been researching negotiation strategies and I have an idea about a new model for Israeli/Palestinian negotiations. In short, it involves "beginning with the end in mind" - hashing out ideological differences on both sides and being really clear about the vision each side has for the future of Israel and Palestine. This will surely reveal gaping chasms of disagreement, but I think we may also find some interesting points of agreement (say, a mutual desire of long-term stability) that could serve as the foundation for negotiations on practical matters. A key part of this idea is that negotiations happen in total secret and regularly. The idea is to lower the stakes of the talks and reduce the need for political posturing. Repetition of dialogue produces the well-known effect of "extending the shadow of the future." An increased shadow of the future raises the costs of current defections, creates a regularity of stakes, makes information about the other side's actions more reliable, and generally builds trust.
These negotiations would need to take place in secret to insulate them from public pressure. But then I realized - would these diplomats - who are involved in open, honest discussions - report to their superiors on the discussions of that day? If they did, wouldn't superiors give their diplomats feedback and suggestions on how to proceed? If they did, wouldn't those impositions reflect the very thing secrecy is trying to insulate them from? They would bring to bear the expectations and biases of the societies and their governments, the politics, the history, and national identities of millions. It would defeat the purpose of the negotiations.
And so I ask myself now, isn't trying to insulate these negotiators very similar to trying to make them ignorant? And so I wonder whether the only people who can resolve disputes are those who know nothing. It's almost like putting them behind Rawls' veil of ignorance.
I have two misgivings about this thought: 1) If the negotiators were totally ignorant of what their governments and people want, any decision that was made would be rejected as a non-representative decision. Or the government would adopt it and the people would overthrow the government. 2) While writing my first misgiving, the second one seems to have slipped my mind.
Do you think this model makes sense - of insulating negotiators from political pressure to reach purer solutions? On the one hand it seems like it could remove all the white noise. On the other hand, it seems like it could remove all sound and leave the negotiations without reference points, making them useless for reaching a solution.
All the best,
Zvi
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Zvi, I think you have a profound thought. As Uriel and I are dicovering, there is no way to get beyond the conflict if one does not reach to its inner depths of the problem and that is the question of belief. Personally, I could not comprehend the idea of the Jewish people's right to a state until Uriel presented it to me in such clear terms. And in the end isn't this want the Israeli populace wants more than anything else, to be recognized as a people with a safe place to live? Palestinians are no different, they too want a safe place to live where they self-determinedly can be who they want to be.
If this is the case, then no matter what amount of land each side gets there will be no resolution if each people is not willing to recognize the other's belief of what it means to be who one is.
I disagree with you on one point though. These "ignorant diplomats" cannot be connected to the state or governments or any other political institutions. They must be people truly designated to one cause, and that is to establish a peaceful settlement in which each group acknowledges the other. States, governments, societies all have interests very different than this and therefore will not realistically try to bring this type of peace.
The cynic asks well who really wants peace, to be who i am is more important. To them, I answer we all want to be recognized and we all want peace, and these two things are not necessarily in opposition with each other. I believe time and events have made it seem as though they are in opposition and it will take only the "ignorant" to distill the realities out of the muddiness of this bloody conflict.
ali
Post a Comment