The West Mediate, We Buddhist Meditate:
The West Mediate, We Buddhist Meditate:
Critics of Assumptions, Approaches, and Values in Western Conflict Resolution Study
In today’s so-called modern world where Western dominion is in every aspect of life, believing and practicing Buddhism’s philosophy, I encounter constant pressure from Western ideology. As I am currently studying International Studies in the West, I found its view and values continuously invading my belief and practice of Buddhism, especially, in the field of Conflict Resolution. Fortunately, my applied field experience in working with the Tibetan Government-in-exile in Dharamsala allows me to breathe again and it has motivated me to develop this paper to demonstrate that there exists an alternative view and practice.
In reconciling my ideal as an engaged Buddhist and a student of International Studies and Conflict Resolution in the Western academic setting, I often find myself disagreeing with the way its principles are modelled and taught. In this paper, I will elaborate Buddhism’s principles and its application in order to criticize and reflect upon Western conflict resolution and international studies conceptual framework.
In order to do so, first, I will describe a brief background of the Tibetan Government-in-exile’s ‘the Middle Way approach’ to solving the Tibet-China issue in order to outline a Buddhism’s conflict resolution method as an alternative to Conflict Resolution in a Western Paradigm.
Secondly, to assess the soundness of Western conflict resolution approach, I will draw on Buddhism’s principles of Non-self, Dependent Origination, and Causality in order to illustrate how Buddhists view the world and reality. Then, I will demonstrate that, to Buddhists, Western conflict resolution theory is a result of a misleading perception which obstructs us from seeing the interconnectedness and illusion-like nature of reality. Then, I will articulate the consequences of such misperception by compare and contrast it with the Tibetan Government-in-exile’s approach. Here, Western Conflict Resolution’s assumptions and its impacts will be discussed.
Lastly, I will examine Western values of time and efficiency and present that these values put pressure against different tradition of life such as that of the Buddhists who perceive time and efficiency as relative notions since they uphold that non-violence is more important. In the paper, I will explicate this argument in details
The Tibetan’s Middle Way: Buddhism Conflict Resolution
As a Buddhist and a student of Conflict Resolution, I am interested in finding out whether the 2,500 year old teaching of the Buddha can be used in conflicts of today’s world. With good Karma, from November 2005-Janurary 2006, I had an opportunity to volunteer with the Tibetan Government-in-exile, in Dharamsala, India. In studying the Tibetans’ struggle, I find the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in-exile’s ‘the Middle Way approach’ very inspiring. To me, this is an outstanding illustration of how Buddhists put the principles of Buddhism into used appropriately.
The Middle Way Approach is proposed by the Dalai Lama to peacefully resolve the issue of Tibet. It is the middle path in between the present status of Tibet under China’s rule and Tibet’s independence. The Middle Way Approach is the policy and means to achieve a genuine autonomy for Tibetans within the framework of the People’s Republic of China. Later, through a referendum, the Tibetan community and the Tibetan Government-in-exile adopt the Middle Way Approach as its policy to solving the Tibet-China issue. The Tibetan Government-in-exile briefly explain the fundamental concept of the Middle Way by stating that:
The Tibetan Government-in-exile do not accept the present status of Tibet under the People’s Republic of China. At the same time, they do not seek independence for Tibet. Treading a middle path in between these two lies the policy and means to achieve a genuine autonomy for all Tibetans within the framework of the People’s Republic of China. This is called the Middle-Way Approach, a non-partisan and moderate position that safeguards the vital interests of al concerned parties—for Tibetan: the protection and preservation of their culture, religion and national identity; for the Chinese: the security and territorial integrity of the motherland; and for neighbour and other third parties: peaceful borders and international relations. (CTA 2005: 1).
History of the Middle Way Approach:
The Middle Way Approach articulated by the Dalai Lama has originated from the two significant documents. The first one is the ‘Five’Point Peace Plan’ the Dalai Lama present in 1987 addressed to members of the US congress. In this proposal, the Dalai Lama offered China the option of (1) transforming Tibet into a demilitarized Zone of Peace. They key points are that, in order to achieve a peaceful agreement, China is to (1) cease stockpiling nuclear weapons and waste in Tibet; it was progressively to dismantle its military installations, (2) the population transfer policy would have to be abandoned, (3) Beijing must respect the Tibetan people’s fundamental human rights and democratic freedom, (4) the environment would be allowed to return to its natural state (5) The Chinese and the Tibetans would embark on ‘earnest negotiations’ on the realistic way, in a spirit of frankness and conciliation and with a view to finding a solution that is in the long-term interest of all: ‘the Tibetans, the Chinese , and all other people concerned’ (Donnet 1994: 177).
The second document that the Middle Way Approach is based upon is the Strasbourg proposal. On 15 June 1988, the Dalai Lama was invited to address a group of European Parliamentarians in Strasbourg. For the first time, he implicitly renounced formal independence for Tibet. He proposed that ‘the whole of Tibet known as Cholka-Sum should become a self-governing democratic political entity founded on law by agreement of the people’ existing ‘in association with the People’s’ Republic of China’ (CTA 2005: 23).
The Strasbourg proposal did not seek complete independence, but it also did not accept the limited autonomy of the Chinese political system. Rather it called for Tibet to have a new status as a kind of autonomous dominion (Goldstein 1997: 88). “The Dalai Lama is trying to stop the influx of non-Tibetans into Tibet since they are convinced that their culture, religion, and language cannot flourish if Tibet is swamped by the Chinese population” and this is a priority goal to be achieved “whether independent from or part of China” (Goldstein 1997: 112).
In short, the Dalai Lama sees that the preservation of Tibetan culture and way of life is more important than gaining independence for Tibet. In the following parts, I will elaborate Buddhism’s philosophy behind this perception and compare it with Western Conflict Resolution’s approach.
Illusion is Real
To explain the Buddha’s Middle Way principle which inspires the Dalai Lama’s Middle Way Approach, I will first elaborate the three concepts of Buddhism which are the foundation of the Middle Way principle. The three concepts are the Doctrine of Dependent Origination, the Law of Causality, and the concept of Non-self. The elaboration of these three concepts will be used as a reflectional framework to demonstrate the soundness of the Middle Way approach as well as assess Western conflict resolution.
The heart of Buddhism’s view in understanding the cause of the nature lies in the Doctrine of ‘Paticca Smuppada’ or ‘Dependent Origination’ and the law of ‘Idappaccayata’ or ‘Causality’. The Doctrine of Dependent Origination does not search for the ‘first cause’. The search for the first cause of anything is a useless attempt as one will never be able to find the true first cause, and if one identifies something as the first cause, it is obviously not the true ‘first cause’. The principle of Dependent Origination suggests that there is no ‘first cause’ since the ‘first cause’ itself is a product of another cause and so on (Saddhatissa 1989: 1).
Alongside Dependent Origination, the Buddha also taught “Idappaccayata” or “Causality”. The law of causality recognizes that all things are “the ephemeral products of various causes and conditions, everything is interconnected and is cause and effect to one another” (Saddhatissa 1989: 1). What we perceive as reality is in fact an illusion-like reflection of constant changing reality. Our observations are only ‘partial impressions’ as we experience them as separate and attribute to them false notions of time and space. Causal law applies to the three periods of time: past, present and future. The circle of causality is endless, there never was a beginning and there will never be an end (Saddhatissa 1989: 1).
Buddhism asks us to look at ourselves and search for ‘true self’ then we can understand the true nature of reality surrounding us. To Buddhists, ‘true self’ is ‘non-self’. Buddhism’s principle of Non-Self (Anatta) explains that “everything does not have permanent substantial core, everything is interdependent as explained in the law of causality and Dependent Origination, there is no substantial true self in any matters, non-substantiality equal emptiness, emptiness from self, that is non-self” (Dhammajitto 2001: 58).
Emptiness is not a mere nothingness; rather it is a real mode of being of things. In an ultimate sense, things and events are devoid of any intrinsic reality. Both their existence and identity are contingent in that they are derived from other factors within a complex interconnected world. In other world, it is within an interconnected world of dependent origination that cause and effect, identity and difference, entity and non-entity, function within cohesive system. The world of dependent origination demonstrates a rich dynamic system where things and events do come into being and do cease to exist (Jinpa 2002: 170).
In order to perceive thing correctly and act properly, Buddhists practice viewing the world using these concepts. Based on the laws of Causality and Dependent Origination, Thich Nhat Hanh (1995), a Buddhist monk and a Nobel Peace prize nominee elaborates the concept of peace in the following way:
Our capacity to make peace with another person and with the world depends very much on our capacity to make peace with ourselves. If we are at war with our parents, our family, our society, or our church, there is probably a ware going on inside us also (1995: 10).
To Hanh, the only way to achieve peace is, in his word, to “be peace” (Hanh 1987: 1).
The Buddhist perspective in the Middle Way Approach the Dalai Lama proposes is the very core principle of Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha)’s concept of ‘The Middle Way’. Based on the three notions I mentioned above, the Buddha articulated the principle of the Middle Way which elaborates on how to understand reality properly in order to live accordingly. Knowing that everything is lack of true self, ceaselessly changing, and interconnected to one another, the Buddha taught his disciples not to cling on to the notion of ‘me’, ‘mine’, ‘us’ or ‘them’ because if we see others as separated beings or certain possessions as ours we are not seeing reality correctly. This misperception will lead to attachment, conflict, and suffering. By correcting the misperception one will understand that everyone and everything are interrelated; to harm other is to harm oneself, one’s belongings are merely an assumptions since there no true possession etc. Once the minds of Buddhism practitioners are cultivated this way, compassion will consequentially arise. As in the case of the Dalai Lama, whose mind has been so developed that despite so much harm the Chinese has done to him and his country, He still holds a great compassion toward the Chinese. By not clinging to the ‘self’ of Tibet as a country, he sees that there are other things to be pursued which are more important than sovereignty and independence. After all, according to Buddhism’s principle, everything is interconnected and, therefore, true independence does not exist.
Western Worldview and Buddhism
What is ‘the West’? “It is the name of the enterprise of global domination, name after its original geographical location”, answers John McCumber (2005: 197). “The West is the region of the world which, having been through the Renaissance and inspired by the Protestant reform of Christianity, turned gunpowder to the task of subduing the rest of the world”, write McCumber (2005: 197). McCumber reviews the history and describes that the relationship between the West and the rest of the word is founded upon an unequal position:
When the West began serious encounter non-Western cultures in the fifteenth century, it encountered them as cultures without form –and so without reason –and so without truth. Since the only purpose of dialogue was the conveyance of truth, this meant that there was no dialogue between Europeans and non-Westerners, but merely an imparting of ‘truth’ from the former group to the latter (McCumber 2005: 206).
In term of Western Conflict Resolution study, Paul E. Salem (1993) observes from an Arab perspective that “the Western community of conflict resolution theorists and practitioners operate within a macro-political context which colours their attitudes and values” (1993: 363). Debbie Roberts adds to Salem’s statement by arguing that this attitude is “unconscious, and is largely related to the West’s dominant position in the world” (Robert 2001: 1).
In summarizing the process in which the West has derived its view, Salem asserts that, essentially, through Nietzsche’s grand nihilism and Skinner’s behaviourism and other explanations of human motivation and action, the West developed a reductionist scientific way of attaining knowledge which, in turn, has downgraded religious, ideological, moralistic, and other explanations (1993: 365-366). The West uses scientific epistemological discourse to marginalize other worldviews and way of acquiring knowledge or proving views (Keough 1998: 186).
Western epistemology has been developed great deal, from Aristotle to post-modern and new science (Salem 1993: 366). Aristotle’s logical notion on which most Western thought was subsequently built, that a thing must be either ‘A’ or ‘Not A’; from the postmodern or new science point of view, it could be ‘A’ here, and ‘Not A’ somewhere else (Salem 1993: 366).
To Buddhism, there is no ‘A’. ‘A’ is an assumed perception and illusion created by human’s misperception of reality. According to Buddhism’s law of Dependent Origination, Causality, and Non-self, ‘A’ is connected to everything and is constantly changing. ‘A’ is part of everything and everything is ‘A’. What is important is once one perceives ‘A’ as an independent self, one is misperceiving reality. Parallel to this metaphor, with an attempt to scientize knowledge through reductionism, Western theories and concepts perceived reality distortedly yet taken it as truth. In order to apply Western Conflict Resolution knowledge and models into other cultural contexts, Salem concludes that Western Conflict Resolution must “undergo considerable cultural adaptation” (1993: 369).
After the Cold War ended, the proliferation of intrastate conflict required a reassessment of the processes of Western Conflict Resolution. A study on conflict resolution in the West has proliferated due to the Cold War tension but now “strategies that were relied upon earlier in order to avoid wars between states are either largely irrelevant for dealing with most intrastate conflicts or are difficult to implement effectively” (George 2000). Prominent writer of international politics and conflict resolution, John Burton (1991) identifies that, in conflict resolution, “resolution refers to outcomes of a conflict resolution that must satisfy the inherent needs of all parties” (1991: 62).
Opposed to Burton, some Western Conflict Resolution academics suggest that the reason why it is hard to achieve lasting resolutions for both parties in intrastate disputes is because cultural differences between disputants have not been emphasized adequately. Morgan Brigg argues that cultural differences in disputes are not emphasised enough due to “the predominance of western cultural norms” in the mindset of conflict resolution practitioners (2003: 298). Olson and Rothman state that the 1995 Dayton Peace Accords failed to address the underlying issues of the Bosnian conflict: identity difference. The Accords only settled the conflict through an interest-based approach, and disregarded identity-based issues which resulted in the conflict re-emerging in Kosovo a couple years later (Rothman and Olson 2001: 290). In synchronization, Brigg, Olson, and Rothman perceive that identity and cultural specific backgrounds of the parties in the conflict must be addressed in order to solve conflict constructively.
It has been argued that Western Conflict Resolution does not succeed in different cultural contexts. In finding how to improve their understanding and techniques, Western Conflict Resolution is heading toward an even deeper trap. Buddhism’s principle of non-self allows us to see that identity and even culture are not ‘self’ and shall not be clung to. For Western academics to suggest that conflict resolution practitioners must identify, underline, and analyse culture and identity as major cause of the conflict is an attempt to grab firmer on a wrong cause of conflict. Instead of eliminating ‘self’, Western Conflict Resolution promote further attachment to ‘self’.
Western Conflict Resolution has basic tools that underlie agency of Conflict Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation, and Arbitration (Holsti 1974: 465). These techniques base their approaches on the view that “needs and interests are what each negotiating party is looking to satisfy” (Raider, Coleman, and Gerson 2000: 506).
However, if Western Conflict Resolution claims that their goal is to bring an end to conflict by removing the causes (Maill, Ramsbotham, and Woodhouse 1999: 21), aiming to satisfy both parties through mediation-style approach does not remove the causes of the conflict at all since the technique focuses and operates only at the parties’ interest level (Mayer 2000: 219).
Buddhism approaches conflict differently. To Buddhism, to remove the cause of the conflict is to remove the excessive interests of the parties. The Buddhists believe that human can be developed to reduce material and negative mental needs and to become more content with minimal resources. Being able to become contend with minimal material resources, one will then live in harmony with all the surrounding environments. This is a conflict prevention way of living. Buddhism presents meditation as one of many means to achieve this goal. To prevent and end conflict, instead of ‘mediate’, the Buddhists ‘meditate’. The Dalai Lama is an excellent example of this approach. Everyday he meditates to develop his mind to be able to mindfully differentiate between what is ‘need’ and what is ‘greed’ and to cultivate his compassion toward all living beings.
Mindfulness meditation was originally delineated in the Buddha’s first sermon, known as Anapanasati Sutra. The Buddha’s first sermon outlined sixteen practices, divided into four sets, the first focus on body awareness, the second on feeling the body, the third on the mind, and the last on mental objects versus reality (Bowling 2003: 265). “Knowledge and technique are heavy. More knowledge and technique are even heavier. Those of us with degrees and experience and wisdom and especially recognition from others find it difficult to empty ourselves” (Bowling 2003: 276). Through meditation approach, Buddhism guides us to be empty, empty from greed, anger, delusion, and ultimately, attachment to self, in order to see beyond self and be generous, compassionate, and understanding. To Buddhists, self management is conflict management.
Western Conflict Resolution fixed their sights on achieving interests of parties as a way of solving conflict. It is the concept of managing and dealing with conflict, with parties, with others, but not with oneself. Buddhism believes that humans can be developed. When one is in conflict with another, Buddhism asks us to see that it is because we are not fully developed. Human development in Buddhism means removal of greed and insatiable desire to become content with minimal provision of material, as this way of living will nurture oneself and the nature (Payutto 1995: 169). This approach to peace creates peace within oneself, society, and nature as a whole.
In Buddhism tradition, we resolve conflict from inside instead of outside. As Thich Nhat Hanh points out, “the most basic work for peace is to return to ourselves and create harmony among the elements within us –our feelings, our perceptions” (1995: 10). In enlightening the path toward peace, Hanh asserts that “we must recognize and accept the conflicting elements that are within us... It takes time, but the effort will always bear fruit, when we have peace within, real peace is possible” (1995: 10). As much as Buddhism involves a philosophy and spiritual enlightenment, it is basically a way of living. True Buddhists engage the philosophy in every activity, including conflict resolution, not out of a sense of it being the most efficient way to achieve results, but that it is the right way to live among others and the nature.
Labelled as ‘religion’, one might perceive that Buddhism only aims to achieve spiritual liberation and has little to do with worldly matters. This view is fundamentally incorrect. Western philosophies of the Enlightenment stress that it is important to separate oneself from religious beliefs. Many, such as Nietzsche and Skinner argued that we can attain knowledge and prosperity for human kind through means of science and experiments. Tibetan approach knowledge differently, as Robert Thurman describes:
Unlike in the modern West, where efforts are directed outwardly, toward material progress, in Tibet, energies were directed inwardly, toward progress in the development of an inner universe, toward spiritual progress. The soul was thought of as a subtle, relative, totally and inextricably interconnected process, powerfully influencing and influenced by its environment. So it was the soul that mattered, the soul that was to be developed. It was the soul that needed industry investment, cultivation (Thurman 1998: 34).
Key words of Western Values, such as equality, respect, liberty, and tolerance, become expanded and perfected when interpreted in a Buddhist light as the following paragraph elaborates:
A true Buddhist practitioner’s interpretation of liberty is more than just external freedom. As we shall see, it is more concerned with humanity’s internal development. Tolerance, which can be a very sterile concept in our western framework, is expanded to the level of compassion and an overwhelming concern for the welfare of all sentient beings. Respect for the individual is so great that violence is not even a consideration in human relations (Boyd 2005: 49).
Realism and Economic Nationalism Versus the Tibetan’s Middle Way
“No historian thinks well of human nature”.
- Lord Acton (Hill 2000: 549).
Studying Conflict Resolution in the Western academic setting, I often find myself struggling to advance my disagreement with realism’s arguments and assumptions of world politics. I find the explanations and arguments of the realists more systematic and more methodically explained using history of constant conflicts in the international arena as proving examples. However, I still do not agree with realism theory, especially in the assumption that, in the world of anarchy, state will seek supremacy fight for its survival as its highest goal. My experience with the Tibetans only confirms my belief that realism’s assumption is flaw and pessimistic.
The basic structure of the tradition of international ethics during the twentieth century is that of realism and its premises concern egoism, anarchy, power, and morality in international relations (Donnelly 1992:85). Realism arises on the assumption that the core of human nature lies in the egoistic passion, “which incline men and women to evil” (Haque 2003: 1). In term of morals, realism is fundamentally guided by the ethical assumption of "necessity"—“the necessity for expanding the power and capability of the state to ensure national security in the anarchic atmosphere of world politics” (Hendrickson 1997 cited in Haque 2003: 1). The proponents of realism such as Machiavelli and Hobbes hold this influential view of realism without having to refer their views in any “moral stance” (Clegg 1980 cited in Haque 2003: 1). To realists, national sovereignty is so important that moral is discretionary.
In the Tibetan context, realism theory cannot explain why the Tibetan Government-in-exile choses to seek for autonomy using the Middle Way Approach, a non-violent policy, rather than pursue independence. The Tibetan Government’s non-violent approach offers evidence that a state may pursue unorthodox means to reach what appears to realist as sub-optimal ends. As oppose to Realism’s assumptions, Tibetan Government-in-exile decided to negotiate with the Chinese Government for greater autonomy because, elaborating on the non-violent rationale, the Tibetan Government-in-exile stresses that the preservation of Tibetan’s way of life is more vital than the survival of the Tibetan State.
Similar to realism, Economic Nationalism’s central idea is that economic activities are and should be subordinate to the goal of state building and the interests of the state. To economic nationalists, all nationalist ascribe to the primacy of the state, of national security, and of military power in the organization and functioning of the international system. Some nationalists consider the safeguarding of national economic interests as the minimum essential to the security and survival of the state (Gilpin 1987: 31-32). Jacob Viner (1958) has cogently argued that economic nationalist (he called mercantilists) writers share convictions concerning the relationship of wealth and power:
I believe that practically all mercantilists, whatever the period, country, or status of the particular individual, would have subscribed to all of the following propositions: (1) wealth is an absolutely essential means to power, whether for security or for aggression; (2) power is essential or valuable as a means to the acquisition or retention of wealth; (3) wealth and power are each proper ultimate ends of national policy; (4) there is long-run harmony between these ends, although in particular circumstances it may be necessary for a time to make economic sacrifices in the interest of military security and therefore also of long-run prosperity (Viner 1958: 286 cited in Gilpin 1987: 32).
As oppose to economic nationalism, the Middle Way approach as uphold by the Tibetan Administration stresses survival of Tibetan cultures and the freedom to choose to their own way of life prior to wealth, power, primacy of state, national security, and even the survival of the state.
Pierre-Antoine Donnet (1994) has been working as a journalist in Asia for many years. He articulates information on the Tibet issue and interview many people including the Dalai Lama. Nonetheless, Donnet does not understand the philosophy of the Dalai Lama, “Walking a way from the interview with the Dalai Lama, I couldn’t help wondering about the appropriateness of making ‘such a major concession’”, writes Donnet, after talking to the Dalai Lama about the Middle Way Approach (1994: 179). Donnet decides that the Dalai Lama is pursuing a sub-optimal end by compromising his true goal, independence of Tibet. “The Dalai Lama’s moderation takes on the appearance of a wise formula that my ultimately provide the opening for peaceful coexistence between China and Tibet”, summarizes Donnet (1994: 179). Put that together with the belief that sovereignty is the highest goal of a nation, willing to compromise this goal for peace is admirable –‘what a sacrifice! Great man, the Dalai Lama is!’, Donnet perceives.
What Donnet does not realize is that independence for Tibet is not the ultimate goal. Independence of Tibet was consciously perceived as the highest aim by many like Donnet who see things with basic assumptions like: Chinese invaded Tibet, Tibet lost its independence and the Tibetan want it back. Like Donnet, in Western conflict resolution view, the Dalai Lama has lowered his bottom line to foster a compromise solution. But this is not true; for the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile, the optimal values are Tibetan’s way of life and freedom to religion and these cannot be compromised.
The aim of the Tibetan government-in-exile is to preserve a Tibetan homeland that is strongly Tibetan in language, culture, and demographic composition. Tibet, according to this view, should allow the free expression of Tibetan culture and religion (Goldstein 1997: 125). For Dharamsala, this is the optimum end. In this sense, it is relatively less important whether they gain independence or only political autonomy. “If the Chinese side treats us as real brothers and sisters, on a totally equal basis, if they are willing to share our suffering as well as our happiness, there is no reason for us to insist on separation” says the Dalai Lama (Donnet 1994: 179). The Tibetan’s intention is so foreign to Donnet that he cannot comprehend it. What Donnet thinks was the Tibetan’s aim is in fact his own creation. Donnet takes something he could not understand, and made a new conceptual repertoire out of it.
Western Values of Time and Efficiency
“The penchant for efficiency is steeped in Western culture, where ‘time is money’, rather than time being relationship” (Robert 2001: 1). “Saving time and working efficiently are unassailable principles of the modern world”(Keough 1998: 189). “Efficiency-oriented value grows in Western culture along aside the quest for modernity”, writes Ngamvittayapongsa (2003: 1). She examines Western’s way of life and argues that seeking efficiency is a major value of the West. It put immense pressure on other cultures which uphold different way of life, as the following paragraph explains:
By tying the goal in life with materialistic outcome, they breed value of achieving efficiency in every area of activity and lifestyle. This value motivates human to work against time. The impact of this efficiency-oriented value is that human give priority to the accomplishment of the work much more than the value of the actual learning and development process which require much time. Activities such as education, thus, tend to destroy the learning process of human by focusing on the efficiency as a standard of education. It encourages competitiveness rather than detail-oriented mentality, calmness, sympathy, and compassion (Ngamvittayapongsa 2006: 1)
From his experience as an academic and practitioner of Western conflict resolution, Daniel Bowling (2003) finds that the Western world’s way of living and viewing puts exasperating pressure on different approaches of conflict resolution. He asserts that Gandhi’s non-violent approach, though touching and proven successful in his time, was perceived sceptically by many for its non-assure-able length and outcome of the process (Bowling 2003: 275).
Change takes place through time, but not within our cultural fixation on linear time as the only temporality; rather, it is within a developmental temporality that transcends and includes linear time. Time is rapid when it lives in a single dimension; time slows down when we distinguish its multiple dimensions. Western conflict resolution academics and the process of conflict resolution are distorted by their cultural reduction of temporality to the single dimension of linear time” (Bowling 2003: 276).
In the issue of Tibet, the aims and the middle way approach that the Dalai Lama has been upholding is the practices of Ahimsa (non-violence) and compassion in which has been perceived by the world as the praiseworthy approach. However, many argue that the approach is slow and ineffective. But the Dalai Lama and many Tibetans believe that with violence, once can achieve short term goal, but never true peace.
Another World is Possible: Revolution won’t be of the flesh, it will be of the mind
“Not only that we need new models for methodology, but we also need to imagine differently, to allow conflict resolution to have a heuristic quality, imagining possibilities that are novel, daring to think differently” (Robert 2001: 1).
It is reprehensible to believe that our understanding of the world is “objective truth” (Burr 1995: 3; Gergen 1985: 266–7 cited in Jorgensen and Phillips 2002: 8). As I have discussed above in the case of Donnet, one usually perceive the world in a certain way and it could be fundamentally different from others. As a result, two people might perceive the same event or issue in the totally different manners. Problems arise when one uses power to dominate the other, thus marginalize and devalue the other’s way of viewing the world. “It will remain difficult for any other voices to be heard until that(dominating) voice loses some of its power to define what we hear and how we name the world”, write Cohn, in calling for the marginalized group to emancipate themselves from the dominating worldview (1996: 339). My experience in Dharamsala allows me to see that time and efficiency are not the highest priorities of everyone. For the Tibetan government-in-exile and the Dalai Lama, it would be great if the Tibet issue could be settled as soon as possible but they choose to adopt the Middle Way Approach which could take a long time. Their adherence to non-violence engenders compassion within them that is so great they refuse to seek solution by other means even though it might create a faster result.
What appear as the pursuit of a sub-optimal goal to the realists, like the Middle Way Approach, is in fact not what it seems. The Tibetan government-in-exile prioritizes objectives different from that of the realists and economic nationalists; to the government-in-exile, the preservation of Tibetan’s way of life is more important than independence.
My experience in Dharamsala with the Tibetan government-in-exile allows me to see how the Tibetans apply Buddhism’s principles and approach conflict differently. When we see conflict with our eyes, we see violent and problem. But if we look at conflict with our heart and compassion, we can see that we all want peace and this insight will allow us to see the possibility of creating another world.
=============
Reference List:
Bercovitch, Jacob. 2002. ‘Introduction: Putting Mediation in Context’. In Bercovitch ed. Studies in International Mediation. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bowling, Daniel.2003. ‘How the Personal Qualities of the Mediator Impact the Process of Conflict Resolution’. In
Bringing Peace into the Room. Eds. Bowling, Daniel. And Hoffman, David A. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boyd, Helen R. 2005. The Future of Tibet: The Government-in-Exile Meets Challenge of Democratization. New York: Peter Lang.
Brigg, Morgan. 2003. ‘Mediation, Power, and Cultural Difference’. Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 20(3): 287-306.
Burton, John. 1991. ‘Conflict Resolution as a Political Philosophy’. Interdisciplinary Peace Research. 3(1): 62-72.
Central Tibetan Administration. 2005. The Middle Way Approach: A Framework for Resolving the Issue of Tibet. Dharamsala: Department of Information and International Relations, CTA.
Dhammajitto, Prayun. 2001. Greek Philosophy: Source of Western Wisdom. Bangkok: Suangnuenmeema.
Donnelly, Jack. 1992. ‘Twentieth Century Realism’. In Traditions of International Ethics, eds. T. Nardin and D. Mapel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donnet, Pierre-Antoine. 1994. Tibet: Survival in Question. Delhi : Oxford University Press.
Goldstein, Melvyn C. 1997. The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama. Berkeley: University of California Press.
George, A.L. 2000. ‘Strategies for Preventive Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution: Scholarship for Policymaking’. Political Science and Politics, 33(1): 15-19.
Gilpin, Robert. 1987. The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hanh, Thich Nhat. 1987. Being Peace. Berkeley: Parallax Press.
Hanh, Thich Nhat. 1995. Living Buddha, Living Christ. London: Random House.
Haque, M. Shamsul. 2003. ‘The revival of realism in international politics after September 11 and its ethical impact.’ International Journal of Politics and Ethics, Spring 2003 v3 i1 p135(21)
Hill, Roland. 2000. Lord Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Holsti, K.J. 1988. ‘Path to Peace? Theory of Conflict Resolution and Realities of International Politics’. In Tharkuk ed. International Conflict Resolution. Dunedin: Westview Press.
Jorgensen, Marianne W. and Phillips, Louise J. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.
Jinpa, Thubten. 2002. Self, Reality and Reason in Tibetan Philosophy: Tsongkhapa’s Quest for the Middle Way. New York: RoutledgeCuzon.
Keough, Noel. 1998. ‘Participatory Development and Practice: Reflections of a Western Development Workers’. Community Development Journal 33(3): 187-196.
Keown, Damien. 1996. Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Kimmis, Stephen and Wilkinson, Mervyn. 1998. ‘Participatory Action Research and the Study of Practice’. In Action Research in Practice: Partnerships for Social Justice in Education. Ed. Atweh, Bill., Kemmis, Stephen., and Weeks, Patricia. 1998. London: Routledge.
Maill, Hugh. Ramsbotham, Oliver. And Woodhouse, Tom. 1999. Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management, and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Mayer, Bernard. 2000. The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohn, Carol. 1996. ‘Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals’. In Classics of International Relations, ed. J. Vasquez. NJ: Prentice Hall.
McCumber, John. 2005. ‘Dialogue as Resistance to Western Metaphysics’. Social Identities 11(3): 197-208.
Ngamvittayaponsa, Orasri. 2003. ‘Crisis of Energy: The Trap of Global Development’. (online) accessed 15 May 2006. Available at: http://www.midnightuniv.org/middata/newpage19.html
Payutto, P.A. 1995. Buddhism Sustainable Development. Bangkok: Kledthai.
Robert, Debbie. 2001. ‘Implications for Conflict Transformation through the work of Sallie McFague’. In Peace and Mediation: A Feminist Theological Perspective. (online) accessed 15 May 2006. Available at: www.peacetheology.org/papers/roberts.html
Rothberg, Donald. 1993. ‘A Thai perspective on socially engaged Buddhism: A conversation with Sulak Sivaraksa’. Revision 15 (3): 121-128.
Rothman, Jay and Olson, Marie L. 2001. ‘From Interest to Identities: Toward a New Emphasis in Interactive Conflict Resolution’. Journal of Peace Research, 38(3): 289-305.
Saddhatissa, Hammalawa. 1989. Dependent Origination. Wilshire: Dotesios. (online) accessed 15 May 2006. Available at: www.departments.colgate.edu/greatreligions/pages/buddhanet/theravada/originat.txt
Salem, Paul E. 1994. ‘In Theory: A Critique of Western Conflict Resolution from a Non-Western Perspective’. Negotiation Journal, October 361-369.
Thurman, Robert. 1998. Inner Revolution. New York: Riverhead Books.
Critics of Assumptions, Approaches, and Values in Western Conflict Resolution Study
In today’s so-called modern world where Western dominion is in every aspect of life, believing and practicing Buddhism’s philosophy, I encounter constant pressure from Western ideology. As I am currently studying International Studies in the West, I found its view and values continuously invading my belief and practice of Buddhism, especially, in the field of Conflict Resolution. Fortunately, my applied field experience in working with the Tibetan Government-in-exile in Dharamsala allows me to breathe again and it has motivated me to develop this paper to demonstrate that there exists an alternative view and practice.
In reconciling my ideal as an engaged Buddhist and a student of International Studies and Conflict Resolution in the Western academic setting, I often find myself disagreeing with the way its principles are modelled and taught. In this paper, I will elaborate Buddhism’s principles and its application in order to criticize and reflect upon Western conflict resolution and international studies conceptual framework.
In order to do so, first, I will describe a brief background of the Tibetan Government-in-exile’s ‘the Middle Way approach’ to solving the Tibet-China issue in order to outline a Buddhism’s conflict resolution method as an alternative to Conflict Resolution in a Western Paradigm.
Secondly, to assess the soundness of Western conflict resolution approach, I will draw on Buddhism’s principles of Non-self, Dependent Origination, and Causality in order to illustrate how Buddhists view the world and reality. Then, I will demonstrate that, to Buddhists, Western conflict resolution theory is a result of a misleading perception which obstructs us from seeing the interconnectedness and illusion-like nature of reality. Then, I will articulate the consequences of such misperception by compare and contrast it with the Tibetan Government-in-exile’s approach. Here, Western Conflict Resolution’s assumptions and its impacts will be discussed.
Lastly, I will examine Western values of time and efficiency and present that these values put pressure against different tradition of life such as that of the Buddhists who perceive time and efficiency as relative notions since they uphold that non-violence is more important. In the paper, I will explicate this argument in details
The Tibetan’s Middle Way: Buddhism Conflict Resolution
As a Buddhist and a student of Conflict Resolution, I am interested in finding out whether the 2,500 year old teaching of the Buddha can be used in conflicts of today’s world. With good Karma, from November 2005-Janurary 2006, I had an opportunity to volunteer with the Tibetan Government-in-exile, in Dharamsala, India. In studying the Tibetans’ struggle, I find the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in-exile’s ‘the Middle Way approach’ very inspiring. To me, this is an outstanding illustration of how Buddhists put the principles of Buddhism into used appropriately.
The Middle Way Approach is proposed by the Dalai Lama to peacefully resolve the issue of Tibet. It is the middle path in between the present status of Tibet under China’s rule and Tibet’s independence. The Middle Way Approach is the policy and means to achieve a genuine autonomy for Tibetans within the framework of the People’s Republic of China. Later, through a referendum, the Tibetan community and the Tibetan Government-in-exile adopt the Middle Way Approach as its policy to solving the Tibet-China issue. The Tibetan Government-in-exile briefly explain the fundamental concept of the Middle Way by stating that:
The Tibetan Government-in-exile do not accept the present status of Tibet under the People’s Republic of China. At the same time, they do not seek independence for Tibet. Treading a middle path in between these two lies the policy and means to achieve a genuine autonomy for all Tibetans within the framework of the People’s Republic of China. This is called the Middle-Way Approach, a non-partisan and moderate position that safeguards the vital interests of al concerned parties—for Tibetan: the protection and preservation of their culture, religion and national identity; for the Chinese: the security and territorial integrity of the motherland; and for neighbour and other third parties: peaceful borders and international relations. (CTA 2005: 1).
History of the Middle Way Approach:
The Middle Way Approach articulated by the Dalai Lama has originated from the two significant documents. The first one is the ‘Five’Point Peace Plan’ the Dalai Lama present in 1987 addressed to members of the US congress. In this proposal, the Dalai Lama offered China the option of (1) transforming Tibet into a demilitarized Zone of Peace. They key points are that, in order to achieve a peaceful agreement, China is to (1) cease stockpiling nuclear weapons and waste in Tibet; it was progressively to dismantle its military installations, (2) the population transfer policy would have to be abandoned, (3) Beijing must respect the Tibetan people’s fundamental human rights and democratic freedom, (4) the environment would be allowed to return to its natural state (5) The Chinese and the Tibetans would embark on ‘earnest negotiations’ on the realistic way, in a spirit of frankness and conciliation and with a view to finding a solution that is in the long-term interest of all: ‘the Tibetans, the Chinese , and all other people concerned’ (Donnet 1994: 177).
The second document that the Middle Way Approach is based upon is the Strasbourg proposal. On 15 June 1988, the Dalai Lama was invited to address a group of European Parliamentarians in Strasbourg. For the first time, he implicitly renounced formal independence for Tibet. He proposed that ‘the whole of Tibet known as Cholka-Sum should become a self-governing democratic political entity founded on law by agreement of the people’ existing ‘in association with the People’s’ Republic of China’ (CTA 2005: 23).
The Strasbourg proposal did not seek complete independence, but it also did not accept the limited autonomy of the Chinese political system. Rather it called for Tibet to have a new status as a kind of autonomous dominion (Goldstein 1997: 88). “The Dalai Lama is trying to stop the influx of non-Tibetans into Tibet since they are convinced that their culture, religion, and language cannot flourish if Tibet is swamped by the Chinese population” and this is a priority goal to be achieved “whether independent from or part of China” (Goldstein 1997: 112).
In short, the Dalai Lama sees that the preservation of Tibetan culture and way of life is more important than gaining independence for Tibet. In the following parts, I will elaborate Buddhism’s philosophy behind this perception and compare it with Western Conflict Resolution’s approach.
Illusion is Real
To explain the Buddha’s Middle Way principle which inspires the Dalai Lama’s Middle Way Approach, I will first elaborate the three concepts of Buddhism which are the foundation of the Middle Way principle. The three concepts are the Doctrine of Dependent Origination, the Law of Causality, and the concept of Non-self. The elaboration of these three concepts will be used as a reflectional framework to demonstrate the soundness of the Middle Way approach as well as assess Western conflict resolution.
The heart of Buddhism’s view in understanding the cause of the nature lies in the Doctrine of ‘Paticca Smuppada’ or ‘Dependent Origination’ and the law of ‘Idappaccayata’ or ‘Causality’. The Doctrine of Dependent Origination does not search for the ‘first cause’. The search for the first cause of anything is a useless attempt as one will never be able to find the true first cause, and if one identifies something as the first cause, it is obviously not the true ‘first cause’. The principle of Dependent Origination suggests that there is no ‘first cause’ since the ‘first cause’ itself is a product of another cause and so on (Saddhatissa 1989: 1).
Alongside Dependent Origination, the Buddha also taught “Idappaccayata” or “Causality”. The law of causality recognizes that all things are “the ephemeral products of various causes and conditions, everything is interconnected and is cause and effect to one another” (Saddhatissa 1989: 1). What we perceive as reality is in fact an illusion-like reflection of constant changing reality. Our observations are only ‘partial impressions’ as we experience them as separate and attribute to them false notions of time and space. Causal law applies to the three periods of time: past, present and future. The circle of causality is endless, there never was a beginning and there will never be an end (Saddhatissa 1989: 1).
Buddhism asks us to look at ourselves and search for ‘true self’ then we can understand the true nature of reality surrounding us. To Buddhists, ‘true self’ is ‘non-self’. Buddhism’s principle of Non-Self (Anatta) explains that “everything does not have permanent substantial core, everything is interdependent as explained in the law of causality and Dependent Origination, there is no substantial true self in any matters, non-substantiality equal emptiness, emptiness from self, that is non-self” (Dhammajitto 2001: 58).
Emptiness is not a mere nothingness; rather it is a real mode of being of things. In an ultimate sense, things and events are devoid of any intrinsic reality. Both their existence and identity are contingent in that they are derived from other factors within a complex interconnected world. In other world, it is within an interconnected world of dependent origination that cause and effect, identity and difference, entity and non-entity, function within cohesive system. The world of dependent origination demonstrates a rich dynamic system where things and events do come into being and do cease to exist (Jinpa 2002: 170).
In order to perceive thing correctly and act properly, Buddhists practice viewing the world using these concepts. Based on the laws of Causality and Dependent Origination, Thich Nhat Hanh (1995), a Buddhist monk and a Nobel Peace prize nominee elaborates the concept of peace in the following way:
Our capacity to make peace with another person and with the world depends very much on our capacity to make peace with ourselves. If we are at war with our parents, our family, our society, or our church, there is probably a ware going on inside us also (1995: 10).
To Hanh, the only way to achieve peace is, in his word, to “be peace” (Hanh 1987: 1).
The Buddhist perspective in the Middle Way Approach the Dalai Lama proposes is the very core principle of Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha)’s concept of ‘The Middle Way’. Based on the three notions I mentioned above, the Buddha articulated the principle of the Middle Way which elaborates on how to understand reality properly in order to live accordingly. Knowing that everything is lack of true self, ceaselessly changing, and interconnected to one another, the Buddha taught his disciples not to cling on to the notion of ‘me’, ‘mine’, ‘us’ or ‘them’ because if we see others as separated beings or certain possessions as ours we are not seeing reality correctly. This misperception will lead to attachment, conflict, and suffering. By correcting the misperception one will understand that everyone and everything are interrelated; to harm other is to harm oneself, one’s belongings are merely an assumptions since there no true possession etc. Once the minds of Buddhism practitioners are cultivated this way, compassion will consequentially arise. As in the case of the Dalai Lama, whose mind has been so developed that despite so much harm the Chinese has done to him and his country, He still holds a great compassion toward the Chinese. By not clinging to the ‘self’ of Tibet as a country, he sees that there are other things to be pursued which are more important than sovereignty and independence. After all, according to Buddhism’s principle, everything is interconnected and, therefore, true independence does not exist.
Western Worldview and Buddhism
What is ‘the West’? “It is the name of the enterprise of global domination, name after its original geographical location”, answers John McCumber (2005: 197). “The West is the region of the world which, having been through the Renaissance and inspired by the Protestant reform of Christianity, turned gunpowder to the task of subduing the rest of the world”, write McCumber (2005: 197). McCumber reviews the history and describes that the relationship between the West and the rest of the word is founded upon an unequal position:
When the West began serious encounter non-Western cultures in the fifteenth century, it encountered them as cultures without form –and so without reason –and so without truth. Since the only purpose of dialogue was the conveyance of truth, this meant that there was no dialogue between Europeans and non-Westerners, but merely an imparting of ‘truth’ from the former group to the latter (McCumber 2005: 206).
In term of Western Conflict Resolution study, Paul E. Salem (1993) observes from an Arab perspective that “the Western community of conflict resolution theorists and practitioners operate within a macro-political context which colours their attitudes and values” (1993: 363). Debbie Roberts adds to Salem’s statement by arguing that this attitude is “unconscious, and is largely related to the West’s dominant position in the world” (Robert 2001: 1).
In summarizing the process in which the West has derived its view, Salem asserts that, essentially, through Nietzsche’s grand nihilism and Skinner’s behaviourism and other explanations of human motivation and action, the West developed a reductionist scientific way of attaining knowledge which, in turn, has downgraded religious, ideological, moralistic, and other explanations (1993: 365-366). The West uses scientific epistemological discourse to marginalize other worldviews and way of acquiring knowledge or proving views (Keough 1998: 186).
Western epistemology has been developed great deal, from Aristotle to post-modern and new science (Salem 1993: 366). Aristotle’s logical notion on which most Western thought was subsequently built, that a thing must be either ‘A’ or ‘Not A’; from the postmodern or new science point of view, it could be ‘A’ here, and ‘Not A’ somewhere else (Salem 1993: 366).
To Buddhism, there is no ‘A’. ‘A’ is an assumed perception and illusion created by human’s misperception of reality. According to Buddhism’s law of Dependent Origination, Causality, and Non-self, ‘A’ is connected to everything and is constantly changing. ‘A’ is part of everything and everything is ‘A’. What is important is once one perceives ‘A’ as an independent self, one is misperceiving reality. Parallel to this metaphor, with an attempt to scientize knowledge through reductionism, Western theories and concepts perceived reality distortedly yet taken it as truth. In order to apply Western Conflict Resolution knowledge and models into other cultural contexts, Salem concludes that Western Conflict Resolution must “undergo considerable cultural adaptation” (1993: 369).
After the Cold War ended, the proliferation of intrastate conflict required a reassessment of the processes of Western Conflict Resolution. A study on conflict resolution in the West has proliferated due to the Cold War tension but now “strategies that were relied upon earlier in order to avoid wars between states are either largely irrelevant for dealing with most intrastate conflicts or are difficult to implement effectively” (George 2000). Prominent writer of international politics and conflict resolution, John Burton (1991) identifies that, in conflict resolution, “resolution refers to outcomes of a conflict resolution that must satisfy the inherent needs of all parties” (1991: 62).
Opposed to Burton, some Western Conflict Resolution academics suggest that the reason why it is hard to achieve lasting resolutions for both parties in intrastate disputes is because cultural differences between disputants have not been emphasized adequately. Morgan Brigg argues that cultural differences in disputes are not emphasised enough due to “the predominance of western cultural norms” in the mindset of conflict resolution practitioners (2003: 298). Olson and Rothman state that the 1995 Dayton Peace Accords failed to address the underlying issues of the Bosnian conflict: identity difference. The Accords only settled the conflict through an interest-based approach, and disregarded identity-based issues which resulted in the conflict re-emerging in Kosovo a couple years later (Rothman and Olson 2001: 290). In synchronization, Brigg, Olson, and Rothman perceive that identity and cultural specific backgrounds of the parties in the conflict must be addressed in order to solve conflict constructively.
It has been argued that Western Conflict Resolution does not succeed in different cultural contexts. In finding how to improve their understanding and techniques, Western Conflict Resolution is heading toward an even deeper trap. Buddhism’s principle of non-self allows us to see that identity and even culture are not ‘self’ and shall not be clung to. For Western academics to suggest that conflict resolution practitioners must identify, underline, and analyse culture and identity as major cause of the conflict is an attempt to grab firmer on a wrong cause of conflict. Instead of eliminating ‘self’, Western Conflict Resolution promote further attachment to ‘self’.
Western Conflict Resolution has basic tools that underlie agency of Conflict Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation, and Arbitration (Holsti 1974: 465). These techniques base their approaches on the view that “needs and interests are what each negotiating party is looking to satisfy” (Raider, Coleman, and Gerson 2000: 506).
However, if Western Conflict Resolution claims that their goal is to bring an end to conflict by removing the causes (Maill, Ramsbotham, and Woodhouse 1999: 21), aiming to satisfy both parties through mediation-style approach does not remove the causes of the conflict at all since the technique focuses and operates only at the parties’ interest level (Mayer 2000: 219).
Buddhism approaches conflict differently. To Buddhism, to remove the cause of the conflict is to remove the excessive interests of the parties. The Buddhists believe that human can be developed to reduce material and negative mental needs and to become more content with minimal resources. Being able to become contend with minimal material resources, one will then live in harmony with all the surrounding environments. This is a conflict prevention way of living. Buddhism presents meditation as one of many means to achieve this goal. To prevent and end conflict, instead of ‘mediate’, the Buddhists ‘meditate’. The Dalai Lama is an excellent example of this approach. Everyday he meditates to develop his mind to be able to mindfully differentiate between what is ‘need’ and what is ‘greed’ and to cultivate his compassion toward all living beings.
Mindfulness meditation was originally delineated in the Buddha’s first sermon, known as Anapanasati Sutra. The Buddha’s first sermon outlined sixteen practices, divided into four sets, the first focus on body awareness, the second on feeling the body, the third on the mind, and the last on mental objects versus reality (Bowling 2003: 265). “Knowledge and technique are heavy. More knowledge and technique are even heavier. Those of us with degrees and experience and wisdom and especially recognition from others find it difficult to empty ourselves” (Bowling 2003: 276). Through meditation approach, Buddhism guides us to be empty, empty from greed, anger, delusion, and ultimately, attachment to self, in order to see beyond self and be generous, compassionate, and understanding. To Buddhists, self management is conflict management.
Western Conflict Resolution fixed their sights on achieving interests of parties as a way of solving conflict. It is the concept of managing and dealing with conflict, with parties, with others, but not with oneself. Buddhism believes that humans can be developed. When one is in conflict with another, Buddhism asks us to see that it is because we are not fully developed. Human development in Buddhism means removal of greed and insatiable desire to become content with minimal provision of material, as this way of living will nurture oneself and the nature (Payutto 1995: 169). This approach to peace creates peace within oneself, society, and nature as a whole.
In Buddhism tradition, we resolve conflict from inside instead of outside. As Thich Nhat Hanh points out, “the most basic work for peace is to return to ourselves and create harmony among the elements within us –our feelings, our perceptions” (1995: 10). In enlightening the path toward peace, Hanh asserts that “we must recognize and accept the conflicting elements that are within us... It takes time, but the effort will always bear fruit, when we have peace within, real peace is possible” (1995: 10). As much as Buddhism involves a philosophy and spiritual enlightenment, it is basically a way of living. True Buddhists engage the philosophy in every activity, including conflict resolution, not out of a sense of it being the most efficient way to achieve results, but that it is the right way to live among others and the nature.
Labelled as ‘religion’, one might perceive that Buddhism only aims to achieve spiritual liberation and has little to do with worldly matters. This view is fundamentally incorrect. Western philosophies of the Enlightenment stress that it is important to separate oneself from religious beliefs. Many, such as Nietzsche and Skinner argued that we can attain knowledge and prosperity for human kind through means of science and experiments. Tibetan approach knowledge differently, as Robert Thurman describes:
Unlike in the modern West, where efforts are directed outwardly, toward material progress, in Tibet, energies were directed inwardly, toward progress in the development of an inner universe, toward spiritual progress. The soul was thought of as a subtle, relative, totally and inextricably interconnected process, powerfully influencing and influenced by its environment. So it was the soul that mattered, the soul that was to be developed. It was the soul that needed industry investment, cultivation (Thurman 1998: 34).
Key words of Western Values, such as equality, respect, liberty, and tolerance, become expanded and perfected when interpreted in a Buddhist light as the following paragraph elaborates:
A true Buddhist practitioner’s interpretation of liberty is more than just external freedom. As we shall see, it is more concerned with humanity’s internal development. Tolerance, which can be a very sterile concept in our western framework, is expanded to the level of compassion and an overwhelming concern for the welfare of all sentient beings. Respect for the individual is so great that violence is not even a consideration in human relations (Boyd 2005: 49).
Realism and Economic Nationalism Versus the Tibetan’s Middle Way
“No historian thinks well of human nature”.
- Lord Acton (Hill 2000: 549).
Studying Conflict Resolution in the Western academic setting, I often find myself struggling to advance my disagreement with realism’s arguments and assumptions of world politics. I find the explanations and arguments of the realists more systematic and more methodically explained using history of constant conflicts in the international arena as proving examples. However, I still do not agree with realism theory, especially in the assumption that, in the world of anarchy, state will seek supremacy fight for its survival as its highest goal. My experience with the Tibetans only confirms my belief that realism’s assumption is flaw and pessimistic.
The basic structure of the tradition of international ethics during the twentieth century is that of realism and its premises concern egoism, anarchy, power, and morality in international relations (Donnelly 1992:85). Realism arises on the assumption that the core of human nature lies in the egoistic passion, “which incline men and women to evil” (Haque 2003: 1). In term of morals, realism is fundamentally guided by the ethical assumption of "necessity"—“the necessity for expanding the power and capability of the state to ensure national security in the anarchic atmosphere of world politics” (Hendrickson 1997 cited in Haque 2003: 1). The proponents of realism such as Machiavelli and Hobbes hold this influential view of realism without having to refer their views in any “moral stance” (Clegg 1980 cited in Haque 2003: 1). To realists, national sovereignty is so important that moral is discretionary.
In the Tibetan context, realism theory cannot explain why the Tibetan Government-in-exile choses to seek for autonomy using the Middle Way Approach, a non-violent policy, rather than pursue independence. The Tibetan Government’s non-violent approach offers evidence that a state may pursue unorthodox means to reach what appears to realist as sub-optimal ends. As oppose to Realism’s assumptions, Tibetan Government-in-exile decided to negotiate with the Chinese Government for greater autonomy because, elaborating on the non-violent rationale, the Tibetan Government-in-exile stresses that the preservation of Tibetan’s way of life is more vital than the survival of the Tibetan State.
Similar to realism, Economic Nationalism’s central idea is that economic activities are and should be subordinate to the goal of state building and the interests of the state. To economic nationalists, all nationalist ascribe to the primacy of the state, of national security, and of military power in the organization and functioning of the international system. Some nationalists consider the safeguarding of national economic interests as the minimum essential to the security and survival of the state (Gilpin 1987: 31-32). Jacob Viner (1958) has cogently argued that economic nationalist (he called mercantilists) writers share convictions concerning the relationship of wealth and power:
I believe that practically all mercantilists, whatever the period, country, or status of the particular individual, would have subscribed to all of the following propositions: (1) wealth is an absolutely essential means to power, whether for security or for aggression; (2) power is essential or valuable as a means to the acquisition or retention of wealth; (3) wealth and power are each proper ultimate ends of national policy; (4) there is long-run harmony between these ends, although in particular circumstances it may be necessary for a time to make economic sacrifices in the interest of military security and therefore also of long-run prosperity (Viner 1958: 286 cited in Gilpin 1987: 32).
As oppose to economic nationalism, the Middle Way approach as uphold by the Tibetan Administration stresses survival of Tibetan cultures and the freedom to choose to their own way of life prior to wealth, power, primacy of state, national security, and even the survival of the state.
Pierre-Antoine Donnet (1994) has been working as a journalist in Asia for many years. He articulates information on the Tibet issue and interview many people including the Dalai Lama. Nonetheless, Donnet does not understand the philosophy of the Dalai Lama, “Walking a way from the interview with the Dalai Lama, I couldn’t help wondering about the appropriateness of making ‘such a major concession’”, writes Donnet, after talking to the Dalai Lama about the Middle Way Approach (1994: 179). Donnet decides that the Dalai Lama is pursuing a sub-optimal end by compromising his true goal, independence of Tibet. “The Dalai Lama’s moderation takes on the appearance of a wise formula that my ultimately provide the opening for peaceful coexistence between China and Tibet”, summarizes Donnet (1994: 179). Put that together with the belief that sovereignty is the highest goal of a nation, willing to compromise this goal for peace is admirable –‘what a sacrifice! Great man, the Dalai Lama is!’, Donnet perceives.
What Donnet does not realize is that independence for Tibet is not the ultimate goal. Independence of Tibet was consciously perceived as the highest aim by many like Donnet who see things with basic assumptions like: Chinese invaded Tibet, Tibet lost its independence and the Tibetan want it back. Like Donnet, in Western conflict resolution view, the Dalai Lama has lowered his bottom line to foster a compromise solution. But this is not true; for the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile, the optimal values are Tibetan’s way of life and freedom to religion and these cannot be compromised.
The aim of the Tibetan government-in-exile is to preserve a Tibetan homeland that is strongly Tibetan in language, culture, and demographic composition. Tibet, according to this view, should allow the free expression of Tibetan culture and religion (Goldstein 1997: 125). For Dharamsala, this is the optimum end. In this sense, it is relatively less important whether they gain independence or only political autonomy. “If the Chinese side treats us as real brothers and sisters, on a totally equal basis, if they are willing to share our suffering as well as our happiness, there is no reason for us to insist on separation” says the Dalai Lama (Donnet 1994: 179). The Tibetan’s intention is so foreign to Donnet that he cannot comprehend it. What Donnet thinks was the Tibetan’s aim is in fact his own creation. Donnet takes something he could not understand, and made a new conceptual repertoire out of it.
Western Values of Time and Efficiency
“The penchant for efficiency is steeped in Western culture, where ‘time is money’, rather than time being relationship” (Robert 2001: 1). “Saving time and working efficiently are unassailable principles of the modern world”(Keough 1998: 189). “Efficiency-oriented value grows in Western culture along aside the quest for modernity”, writes Ngamvittayapongsa (2003: 1). She examines Western’s way of life and argues that seeking efficiency is a major value of the West. It put immense pressure on other cultures which uphold different way of life, as the following paragraph explains:
By tying the goal in life with materialistic outcome, they breed value of achieving efficiency in every area of activity and lifestyle. This value motivates human to work against time. The impact of this efficiency-oriented value is that human give priority to the accomplishment of the work much more than the value of the actual learning and development process which require much time. Activities such as education, thus, tend to destroy the learning process of human by focusing on the efficiency as a standard of education. It encourages competitiveness rather than detail-oriented mentality, calmness, sympathy, and compassion (Ngamvittayapongsa 2006: 1)
From his experience as an academic and practitioner of Western conflict resolution, Daniel Bowling (2003) finds that the Western world’s way of living and viewing puts exasperating pressure on different approaches of conflict resolution. He asserts that Gandhi’s non-violent approach, though touching and proven successful in his time, was perceived sceptically by many for its non-assure-able length and outcome of the process (Bowling 2003: 275).
Change takes place through time, but not within our cultural fixation on linear time as the only temporality; rather, it is within a developmental temporality that transcends and includes linear time. Time is rapid when it lives in a single dimension; time slows down when we distinguish its multiple dimensions. Western conflict resolution academics and the process of conflict resolution are distorted by their cultural reduction of temporality to the single dimension of linear time” (Bowling 2003: 276).
In the issue of Tibet, the aims and the middle way approach that the Dalai Lama has been upholding is the practices of Ahimsa (non-violence) and compassion in which has been perceived by the world as the praiseworthy approach. However, many argue that the approach is slow and ineffective. But the Dalai Lama and many Tibetans believe that with violence, once can achieve short term goal, but never true peace.
Another World is Possible: Revolution won’t be of the flesh, it will be of the mind
“Not only that we need new models for methodology, but we also need to imagine differently, to allow conflict resolution to have a heuristic quality, imagining possibilities that are novel, daring to think differently” (Robert 2001: 1).
It is reprehensible to believe that our understanding of the world is “objective truth” (Burr 1995: 3; Gergen 1985: 266–7 cited in Jorgensen and Phillips 2002: 8). As I have discussed above in the case of Donnet, one usually perceive the world in a certain way and it could be fundamentally different from others. As a result, two people might perceive the same event or issue in the totally different manners. Problems arise when one uses power to dominate the other, thus marginalize and devalue the other’s way of viewing the world. “It will remain difficult for any other voices to be heard until that(dominating) voice loses some of its power to define what we hear and how we name the world”, write Cohn, in calling for the marginalized group to emancipate themselves from the dominating worldview (1996: 339). My experience in Dharamsala allows me to see that time and efficiency are not the highest priorities of everyone. For the Tibetan government-in-exile and the Dalai Lama, it would be great if the Tibet issue could be settled as soon as possible but they choose to adopt the Middle Way Approach which could take a long time. Their adherence to non-violence engenders compassion within them that is so great they refuse to seek solution by other means even though it might create a faster result.
What appear as the pursuit of a sub-optimal goal to the realists, like the Middle Way Approach, is in fact not what it seems. The Tibetan government-in-exile prioritizes objectives different from that of the realists and economic nationalists; to the government-in-exile, the preservation of Tibetan’s way of life is more important than independence.
My experience in Dharamsala with the Tibetan government-in-exile allows me to see how the Tibetans apply Buddhism’s principles and approach conflict differently. When we see conflict with our eyes, we see violent and problem. But if we look at conflict with our heart and compassion, we can see that we all want peace and this insight will allow us to see the possibility of creating another world.
=============
Reference List:
Bercovitch, Jacob. 2002. ‘Introduction: Putting Mediation in Context’. In Bercovitch ed. Studies in International Mediation. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bowling, Daniel.2003. ‘How the Personal Qualities of the Mediator Impact the Process of Conflict Resolution’. In
Bringing Peace into the Room. Eds. Bowling, Daniel. And Hoffman, David A. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boyd, Helen R. 2005. The Future of Tibet: The Government-in-Exile Meets Challenge of Democratization. New York: Peter Lang.
Brigg, Morgan. 2003. ‘Mediation, Power, and Cultural Difference’. Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 20(3): 287-306.
Burton, John. 1991. ‘Conflict Resolution as a Political Philosophy’. Interdisciplinary Peace Research. 3(1): 62-72.
Central Tibetan Administration. 2005. The Middle Way Approach: A Framework for Resolving the Issue of Tibet. Dharamsala: Department of Information and International Relations, CTA.
Dhammajitto, Prayun. 2001. Greek Philosophy: Source of Western Wisdom. Bangkok: Suangnuenmeema.
Donnelly, Jack. 1992. ‘Twentieth Century Realism’. In Traditions of International Ethics, eds. T. Nardin and D. Mapel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donnet, Pierre-Antoine. 1994. Tibet: Survival in Question. Delhi : Oxford University Press.
Goldstein, Melvyn C. 1997. The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama. Berkeley: University of California Press.
George, A.L. 2000. ‘Strategies for Preventive Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution: Scholarship for Policymaking’. Political Science and Politics, 33(1): 15-19.
Gilpin, Robert. 1987. The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hanh, Thich Nhat. 1987. Being Peace. Berkeley: Parallax Press.
Hanh, Thich Nhat. 1995. Living Buddha, Living Christ. London: Random House.
Haque, M. Shamsul. 2003. ‘The revival of realism in international politics after September 11 and its ethical impact.’ International Journal of Politics and Ethics, Spring 2003 v3 i1 p135(21)
Hill, Roland. 2000. Lord Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Holsti, K.J. 1988. ‘Path to Peace? Theory of Conflict Resolution and Realities of International Politics’. In Tharkuk ed. International Conflict Resolution. Dunedin: Westview Press.
Jorgensen, Marianne W. and Phillips, Louise J. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.
Jinpa, Thubten. 2002. Self, Reality and Reason in Tibetan Philosophy: Tsongkhapa’s Quest for the Middle Way. New York: RoutledgeCuzon.
Keough, Noel. 1998. ‘Participatory Development and Practice: Reflections of a Western Development Workers’. Community Development Journal 33(3): 187-196.
Keown, Damien. 1996. Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Kimmis, Stephen and Wilkinson, Mervyn. 1998. ‘Participatory Action Research and the Study of Practice’. In Action Research in Practice: Partnerships for Social Justice in Education. Ed. Atweh, Bill., Kemmis, Stephen., and Weeks, Patricia. 1998. London: Routledge.
Maill, Hugh. Ramsbotham, Oliver. And Woodhouse, Tom. 1999. Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management, and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Mayer, Bernard. 2000. The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohn, Carol. 1996. ‘Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals’. In Classics of International Relations, ed. J. Vasquez. NJ: Prentice Hall.
McCumber, John. 2005. ‘Dialogue as Resistance to Western Metaphysics’. Social Identities 11(3): 197-208.
Ngamvittayaponsa, Orasri. 2003. ‘Crisis of Energy: The Trap of Global Development’. (online) accessed 15 May 2006. Available at: http://www.midnightuniv.org/middata/newpage19.html
Payutto, P.A. 1995. Buddhism Sustainable Development. Bangkok: Kledthai.
Robert, Debbie. 2001. ‘Implications for Conflict Transformation through the work of Sallie McFague’. In Peace and Mediation: A Feminist Theological Perspective. (online) accessed 15 May 2006. Available at: www.peacetheology.org/papers/roberts.html
Rothberg, Donald. 1993. ‘A Thai perspective on socially engaged Buddhism: A conversation with Sulak Sivaraksa’. Revision 15 (3): 121-128.
Rothman, Jay and Olson, Marie L. 2001. ‘From Interest to Identities: Toward a New Emphasis in Interactive Conflict Resolution’. Journal of Peace Research, 38(3): 289-305.
Saddhatissa, Hammalawa. 1989. Dependent Origination. Wilshire: Dotesios. (online) accessed 15 May 2006. Available at: www.departments.colgate.edu/greatreligions/pages/buddhanet/theravada/originat.txt
Salem, Paul E. 1994. ‘In Theory: A Critique of Western Conflict Resolution from a Non-Western Perspective’. Negotiation Journal, October 361-369.
Thurman, Robert. 1998. Inner Revolution. New York: Riverhead Books.
posted by sukthawee | 4:37 PM
<< Home