How Anarchy Works: Gadaffi’s Son brings conflict between Niger and Lybia

Assaadi Gaddafi: Interpol Photo

Today, February 12, 2012, the nation of Libya demanded the return of Muammar Qaddafi’s son, through extradition, from the nation of Niger. The goal of Libya is to get Qadhafi’s son back in Libya so they can try him. The goal of Niger is to not send him back. Niger says it does not want to send him back because he may be executed. Niger may also feel that the execution would be politically motivated so the country of Niger does not want to be caught in the middle or facilitating such political maneuvering within Libya. There is no law between nations. Nations exist on this planet in a state of anarchy. Each nation does whatever it pleases and there is no government, no law, and no formal restriction to their activity. Yet it works. There were fewer people killed from wars between countries (where there exists no law) then were killed by their own government within countries (where there exists a formal law). Perhaps it is simply easier to kill people within the country them between countries but I suspect that it is a matter of power corrupting and there is no greater corrupting power than that of central government.

When individuals or nations live in a social environment with no government at all over them, it is anarchy. Interpol is the international police organization, like the United Nations, it has no authority of its own. Rather, it acts as a supporter for any of its 190 member nations. Criminals wanted from various nations are tracked around the world and brought back, when appropriate and possible, to face charges. Still, Interpol takes its orders from the nations and restricts its activities based on individual nations as well. If they are not welcomed by one nation to come in and apprehend a criminal for a second nation, they won’t. In the same way, the United Nations is restricted from its activities by all of its member nations. What I am saying is that neither Interpol or the United Nations has any real power to act like a government. Therefore, the nations of this world are in a state of anarchy. I’m all for it.

This leaves Libya and Niger to work things out for themselves just like two people might work something out for themselves. I don’t know who’s stronger or what Libya can do to force or convince Niger in some way to release Qaddafi’s son to them. Likely this will be a stalemate until the rewards are large enough to entice Niger or the punishments are large enough to entice Niger to release him.

Libya will try to rally global opinion. If Libya wants it may send in its own elite forces to deal with Qaddafi’s son.but in the end, without a central government over the world (and I am so thankful there is no central government over the world) Libya and Niger will be at a stalemate.

“Worker kills 3, then self”: Latent Conflict and Sudden Destruction

CrazyMaking: What Latent Conflict feels like

Violence occurs all around us, and often. Today, Friday the 13th, a worker for no well known reason shot three co-workers in North Carolina, then went home and killed himself. Read the story if you like. These things happen so often, all around the world, it is “crazy making” to people who are just watching. Yet, don’t each of us feel tensions and power plays all around that bring stress? Most of these feelings are diffused by personal strength and values, religious belief, comic relief, and also distractions like fun, excitement, movies, and even drugs and alcohol. So, how can these be understood in the “pattern of conflict”?

Before I share that pattern as applied here, I invite you to read what appear to be real suicide notes. I worked for years in Hospice and know there were people, who for various reasons, wanted to die. Still, I had never read a suicide note until I read these. Suicide Notes.

What is “latent” conflict? It is the anger, frustration, rage, angst, and just bad feelings between any people. Maybe they never speak even though they are near each other. Perhaps they put on a smile but underneath are seething. Perhaps they are paid wages to be nice even though their emotions are on the verge of blowing up. This “holding back” of emotions is sometimes called “emotional work” and it is draining. But then there are people who cannot control the feelings or do the emotional work anymore. This man who killed the others in NC is just such one. The ones who committed suicide were others who could no longer “handle it” for the most part. I want to be clear that those who committed suicide due to illness and pain are not the same as the others and do not represent “social conflict” as I consider it.

The ones that do represent social conflict see themselves as helpless and hopeless. They see themselves as powerless to face others in society or personal life. School shootings, random bombings like the one in Oslo last year 2011, snipers shooting innocent people, and workplace violence almost all fit in the “high power” differential or “perceived” high power differential situation.

When nations or communities have large differences in the way groups are rewarded, or the way groups are able to access equality of opportunity, this type of power differential exists. These conflicts are latent and only in the mind. The best way to handle it is not to kill ourselves or others but to talk about it with friends and family and others in a open and expectant manner. After talking, strategies for change and growing in power for the weaker side can be pursued.

Peace to all those who have experienced such tragic situations.

China: One Chinese Man’s Conflict and Eminent Domain

Friday, January 6, 2012: Site United Nations, 1st Ave., New York City

The man and the woman stood outside the United Nations complex on first Avenue in New York City. Their looks and language were Chinese. Their story was a simple and sad one. During the great expansion of the city of Shanghai, now well over nine years ago, this man’s mother’s home was torn down in order to make way for urban development. He told me that he had worked in the city of Shanghai but that his new home was a kind of “tenement” or very cheap housing that the Chinese government built for him and his mother outside of the city. None of these facts have been verified whatsoever. For now, it is just a story of conflict.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

the goals of the man and woman are multilayered. Obviously there is a goal to be seen and be heard by people who might be sympathetic thus sharing some of the pain. This is not truly conflict behavior, yet. Then there is the goal to gather like-minded people in order to support his cause and give it legitimacy in the eyes of the world and UN  (I keep referring to the man because he was the one who spoke the most but the woman was also very polite and I was thankful for the little bit of Mandarin Chinese I picked up over the years as I spoke with her). Legitimacy is power. It is not as powerful, at least at first, compared to those with tanks and guns and the ability to buy anything they want at any price at any time from just about anybody. That is coercive power. Looking a little deeper, legitimacy of human rights does not require a majority vote. So this couple may have been trying to do more than share their pain and gain legitimacy. They may have been trying to exercise another type of power which comes through association and brings norms and values that are more widely held to bear on the situation. The UN has no intervention power in such cases and countries with low “freedom” rankings sit on decision making committees regarding Human Rights violations.

This couple represents the weaker side of the conflict, trying to gain strength at this time.

The Chinese government is being accused through public demonstration of wrongdoing and of injustice. Most of us in the West who are not overt Marxists would believe that there is no real court or area where this person could be heard and get a fair ruling. However even in the United States the practice of eminent domain, taking private property from private citizens so that other private citizens can make profits and pay taxes (supposedly) is happens legally from time to time. The recent Supreme Court decision in the Kelo case may come to your memory.

As far as I know, the Chinese government isn’t saying a thing about this man or other protesters in NYC like the Falun Gong. The voice of the most powerful is rarely heard in conflict because they rarely need to speak. In many ways, their coercive power makes them “nearly untouchable” and they can easily be out of touch with people and ideals they say they “serve”.

This is observable in areas where the government rules by guns and corruption as well as in more nominally free countries where the government rule is “short-circuited” by cronies. Cronies are people who use friendship, religion affiliation, and/or family in the government to create a aristocracy in use for their own benefit by creating special privileges of access and information to decisions that affect everyone. This is sometimes done all in the name of or under the guise of “democracy”.

The stated goal of this man and woman is to get some compensation for the loss of their home and their mother. This implies that the Chinese government is not willing to recognize their claim. This blog in no way implies that the Chinese government needs to, should, or in any way is obligated. No guilt has been proven. No wrongdoing is implied by me. This is just simple reporting of the many types of “conflicts” that are all around us every day and how to best understand them through a model that applies power differential.

Whenever you view a conflict the main things to look for are: Rival goals that cannot be shared (these may be present right along the side of goals that can be shared and are non-rival), the strength of each party relative to one another and the goal, and the norms and values and laws of the cultural context in which the conflict occurs. Once you know these three things you will have a very good idea of exactly how beneficial that conflict will be in terms of the goal and the context of the goal. The more even the total powers, the better the results related to the goal.

For example, let’s take soccer and two great soccer teams playing in the World Cup. The rival goal is to win. Only one team can win. The other team will lose. Both teams are usually strong enough relative to each other to provide a good and exciting game where the results are far from certain. The rules, norms, and values on the field are well known, considered fair by both teams, and are fairly enforced by the umpires. What this means is that soccer, as a game, will continue to improve and get more exciting over the years. Usually, when we think there is a limit to how good something could get, it is just this set of circumstances that allows for the “surprise” that drives performance beyond any limits we had ever imagined. Go conflict!