International relations work like marriages: There are multiple sets of values, multiple sets of resources, and numerous overlapping goals - goals which will at times come into conflict. The study of international relations is in large part the study of preventing war; there will always be conflicts, it is how these conflicts are handled that is important.
To use the marriage example, a wife might be annoyed at her husband for leaving the toilet seat up. She could say, "It bothers me that you leave the toilet seat up. Would you please not do that in the future?" Or she could say, "You idiot, you always leave the toilet seat up." The two different approaches show two different ways of managing conflicts. The second assumes leaving the seat up is a sign of inherent inferiority, while the first does not. In the second, leaving the seat up becomes a proxy for a more deeply set animosity.
On the international scene, prejudice and policy at times become intertwined. It was certainly in Milosevic and Tudjman's short-term political interest, for example, to blame the failure of Yugoslavia on ethnic grounds, rather than dealing with the more complex issues of economics and modernization. Such leaders use the second form of conflict management. Instead of saying, "Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Macedonia have different goals but must work together to create a viable system," they said, "The Muslims (or Serbs, Croats, etc.) are responsible for our trouble - blame them." Using propaganda to capitalize on the existing dissatisfaction, the leaders were able to focus this diffuse anger into violence, with disastrous results.
The prevention of wars (like the prevention of divorces) can be grassroots or "treetop" - focusing either on the numerous small issues or the few big ones. Treetop methods (diplomacy) are often maddeningly frustrating. Despite a concerted effort, the leaders in the Middle East have yet to arrive at an agreement over Palestine. Like a warring husband and wife, they cannot come to agreement over the big issues: Jerusalem, refugees, security, settlements, and borders, no matter what anyone does. This makes grassroots activism seem all the more attractive.
Marriage counselors will often try to get the husband and wife cooperating on small issues - leaving the toilet seat up, not washing dishes - in hopes that the big issues will follow. Organizations like Seeds of Peace or UNICEF try to do just that. By bringing people together from both sides, rapprochement can be built little by little until the leaders realize the futility of further hostility. If only people could take some time to understand each other, the thinking goes, they would stop fighting and eventually live together in peace.
Often, it is taken for granted that hate and violence stem directly from ignorance. There is an implicit understanding that people who hate others simply have not had enough education, experience, or perspective to know anything else. Perhaps if more Bosnians and Serbs knew each other, this view suggests, much of the violence could have been prevented.
In marriages, the partners know each other intimately. Even though the husband and wife might understand the other thoroughly, they still may not be able to live together in peace. Likewise with countries. Before the war, about a quarter of the marriages in Bosnia were between ethnicities. During World War II, many of the Jews who were deported were well-known members of their communities. The problem is that all it takes is a committed minority and a complacent majority for violence to happen. Increasing the understanding between the two sides will not ensure peace as long there are enough people to fight and enough people to stand by watching.
In one of my favorite children's books, The Butter Battle Book by Dr. Seuss, two different peoples enter an arms race and face nuclear annihilation over which side to butter toast. One side insists the top is superior while the other demands that toast be buttered on the bottom. It matters little that the two sides have complete understanding of the nature of their conflict - as long as they are willing to fight, there is little anyone can do except defuse the situation. It is not that each side lacks an understanding of the other, rather both sides have lost perspective on what is important and what is not.
War and marital problems cause people to lose perspective. In times of stress, it becomes of immense importance that a wife does not help wash the dishes or that a husband never buys groceries. Issues of ultimately tiny importance become so big as to threaten the very marriage itself. Likewise, land or religion or skin color can become more important than life itself and people will be willing to make huge sacrifices in the name of dubious ideals.
In the final analysis, there must be a combination of treetop and grassroots activism to bring peace. Leaders must define their vital interests and be willing to compromise on everything else. There must be understanding between the two peoples - then, at least, there is the possibility of empathy. Without understanding, there is only prejudice. Additionally, in times of trouble it is especially important to define what is important and what is not, which issues can be negotiated and which cannot.
Grassroots activism can be extremely frustrating. The results are almost always impossible to see for many years and the people who most need to sit down and talk with the other side are often the ones most entrenched in their way of seeing things. Though deeper understanding of another does not necessarily imply deeper empathy or ensure good relations, it at least gives the opportunity for this to happen. If husband and wife do not understand each other, a good relationship can happen only through accident. Unlike married partners, countries cannot choose to simply move out when things get bad. Even if they see eye-to-eye, there will still be conflict. It is how these conflicts are handled that is important.
