Iran, North Korea, and Unintended Consequences
By George Wolfe, the Coordinator of Outreach Programs for the Ball State University Center for Peace and Conflict Studies. He is also a trained mediator and the author of The Spiritual Power of Nonviolence: Interfaith Understanding for a Future Without War.
Peace education can be most concisely defined as “the study of conflict resolution through nonviolent means.” Here resolution includes reconciliation, which seeks not merely to resolve conflict but also to restore working relationships between conflicting parties. One can also define peace studies as “the investigation of how to minimize the influence of the law of unintended consequences.” Compare, for example, four formal methods for dealing with conflict, these being (1) mediation, (2) arbitration, (3) litigation, and (4) physical violence which, of course, includes war. During mediation, all the issues that are aired remain confidential. A facilitator sits with the parties in conflict and helps them articulate their differences so they clearly understand each other’s respective complaints. An effort is then made to find common ground on which to forge an agreement both parties can accept. When utilizing the second strategy, the conflicting parties go before an arbitrator who has the authority to impose a solution. While the solution may not be legally binding, the parties are usually in a subordinate position to the arbitrator who is often a boss or superior administrator.
Litigation involves settling the dispute through the legal system. Attorneys are hired or assigned to represent and speak for the persons in conflict, and a judge then imposes a ruling that can be legally enforced. The fourth strategy, physical violence or war, abandons all forms of negotiation and strives to force a solution on one’s adversary. During mediation, the parties in conflict have full control over the outcomes as mediation allows both parties to accept only what they can agree to. The risk for unintended consequences surfacing is very low. As one proceeds through the methods of arbitration and litigation, the risk of unintended consequences increases since an arbitrator or judge may impose a solution and not require agreement by the involved parties. The outcomes from violent confrontations are the most unpredictable, with war in particular being especially sloppy and disastrous. One of the unintended consequences of the preemptive U.S. invasion of Iraq has been the accelerated nuclear ambition of Iran and North Korea. The United States launched the second Iraq war believing Iraqi president Saddam Hussein possessed biological weapons of mass destruction.
This belief turned out to be false. Would the United States have invaded Iraq had Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them? Iranian and North Korean leaders believe the answer is no. Although Iran and North Korea have long had an interest in nuclear technology, America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 motivated both nations to accelerate their nuclear capabilities as a deterrent should the United States or Israel choose the pre-emptive option. And Iran’s motivation is further heightened by the suspicion that Israel, with the help of the US, already possesses nuclear weapons.
While generals and politicians often speak as if the outcomes of military operations are surgical and under their control, history teaches otherwise. The law of unintended consequences is given free rein when we choose the path of violence.
This article was published in The Star Press, Muncie, Indiana, on Nov. 15, 2011.