How to Prevent — or Stop — a War | Gabrielle Rifkind | TED

Summary

The speaker, an expert in international conflict resolution, discusses the consequences of recent wars involving Western countries and argues that war is the greatest human rights abuse. They emphasize the importance of early mediation, understanding the motivations of opponents, and addressing the security concerns of all sides. The speaker highlights the need for dialogue, even with adversaries, to prevent conflicts from escalating. They advocate for empowering institutions like the UN to act early and mediate conflicts, suggesting that liberal democracies should focus on being mediators and bridge builders rather than weapons suppliers.

Takeaways

• 🌍 War is the greatest human rights abuse and doesn't make the world safer.
• ⚔️ The 21st century has seen major conflicts like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and the fight against ISIS.
• 🔍 Despite military efforts, none of these wars addressed the root causes of conflict, leaving chaos in their wake.
• 💡 There are alternatives to war, such as early mediation and understanding the enemy's perspective.
• 🧠 Marginalization, humiliation, and exclusion are key drivers of war, and addressing them is crucial for peace.
• 🤝 Dialogue with adversaries is essential, even with violent actors, to prevent or resolve conflicts.
• 💬 Western governments could have avoided some conflicts by addressing security concerns of all sides, like in Ukraine and Russia.
• 🇺🇳 The UN needs to be empowered for early mediation and war prevention, with permanent peace-building teams in conflict zones.
• 🌱 Liberal democracies should focus on being mediators and bridge-builders, not just suppliers of weapons.
• 🚫 War can be prevented if addressed early; it is not inevitable, and millions of lives can be saved by stopping it quickly.

Q & A

What is the main argument presented by the speaker regarding war?

The speaker argues that war is the greatest human rights abuse and does not make the world safer. Instead of resolving conflicts, it unleashes chaos and misery, and the focus should be on prevention, mediation, and addressing the root causes of conflict.

How does the speaker view the outcomes of recent wars involving the US, UK, and their allies?

The speaker views these wars as failures, noting that in Afghanistan the Taliban regained power, in Iraq civil war followed a short-lived victory, the war in Libya led to chaos in the Sahel, and the war against Islamic State did not address the root causes of extremism.

What alternative approaches to war does the speaker suggest?

The speaker advocates for early mediation, addressing the security concerns of all sides, and creating diplomatic channels to communicate with the political leadership of adversarial nations. The speaker emphasizes understanding the motivations of 'the enemy' to prevent conflict.

Why does the speaker believe it is important to talk to adversaries?

The speaker believes that refusing to talk to adversaries dehumanizes them and prolongs conflict. Examples include how early talks with groups like the IRA and FARC helped resolve conflicts, and how refusing to engage with President Assad of Syria worsened the crisis there.

What does the speaker say about NATO’s role in the Russia-Ukraine war?

The speaker argues that NATO's expansion toward Russia's borders contributed to the conflict, suggesting that addressing both Russia's and Europe's security concerns before the war could have prevented it. The speaker notes that Putin warned of war if NATO approached Russia’s borders.

How does the speaker propose handling the current Russia-Ukraine conflict?

The speaker proposes that ending the war will require engaging with President Putin, understanding his red lines, and exploring opportunities for a ceasefire. The speaker emphasizes the importance of finding a diplomatic solution rather than solely focusing on military strategies.

What does the speaker say about the conflict between Israel and Hamas?

The speaker acknowledges the difficulty of engaging with Hamas after the massacre on October 7 but argues that Hamas will need to be included in future peace processes. The speaker highlights Marwan Barghouti as a potential unifying figure for Palestinians, despite his controversial past.

What does the speaker suggest about the role of the UN in conflict prevention?

The speaker calls for empowering the UN to play a more active role in conflict prevention, proposing statutory early mediation and the establishment of permanent peace tables in conflict-prone regions. This would help address tensions before they escalate into full-blown wars.

What does the speaker mean by saying 'war is like a cancer'?

The speaker compares war to cancer because it spreads quickly and becomes harder to stop the longer it goes untreated. The speaker stresses the importance of addressing conflict early to prevent it from escalating and save lives.

How does the speaker believe liberal democracies should position themselves in global conflicts?

The speaker believes liberal democracies should act as mediators and bridge builders rather than self-appointed global policemen or suppliers of weapons. They should focus on conflict prevention, mediation, and understanding the security concerns of all parties involved in disputes.

Outlines

00:00

🕊️ War as the Greatest Human Rights Abuse

The speaker, with two decades of experience in conflict resolution, reflects on how war is the ultimate human rights violation and fails to make the world safer. They emphasize that wars, such as those in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and against Islamic State, have led to chaos, violence, and unresolved root causes. Despite this, many accept war as inevitable. The speaker advocates for war prevention through early mediation and understanding the enemy's mindset, drawing on their experience in high-level back-channel diplomacy.

05:01

🌍 Bridging East and West through Diplomacy

The speaker argues that Western governments could have played a more effective mediating role in Ukraine, positioning it as a bridge between Russia and the West rather than pushing it into a Western sphere of influence. They assert that peace is only possible by engaging with adversaries like President Putin and recognizing mutual security concerns. The speaker also highlights the need to engage with violent actors, as seen in past conflicts with the IRA, FARC, and ETA. In Ukraine, engaging with Russia and understanding its goals is crucial for a ceasefire.

10:04

🤝 The Missed Opportunities for Peace

The speaker outlines key moments when mediation could have led to different outcomes in conflicts, such as after testing battlefield strength. Once missed, parties become entrenched in the horrors of war. They emphasize the importance of early intervention and mediating at critical junctures. Strengthening the UN's role in early mediation and creating permanent war prevention teams could prevent wars before they escalate. The speaker proposes embedding peace teams in conflict-prone regions like Sudan, Taiwan-China, and the US-China to act proactively.

🛑 Rethinking Western Roles in Global Conflict

The speaker concludes by advocating for liberal democracies to focus on being mediators and bridge-builders rather than global enforcers or arms suppliers. They argue that instead of supplying weapons, Western nations should invest in peacemaking and mediation, using resources to prevent war. The speaker compares war to cancer, stressing that it should be treated early to save lives, challenging the notion that war is inevitable.

Keywords

💡War

War is defined as an intense armed conflict between states, governments, societies, or paramilitary groups. In the transcript, war is portrayed as the greatest human rights abuse and a source of chaos and misery. The speaker argues that war often fails to make the world safer, despite being justified as a moral endeavor. Examples include the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine, which, according to the speaker, led to long-term instability and loss of life.

💡Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution refers to methods and processes involved in facilitating the peaceful ending of conflict. The speaker has worked in this field for two decades and emphasizes it as a crucial alternative to war. Through the Oxford Process, the speaker advocates for creating back channels and engaging with political leaders to explore opportunities for de-escalation and mediation before conflicts escalate.

💡Security Concerns

Security concerns refer to the fears and issues nations or groups have regarding their safety, sovereignty, and geopolitical position. The transcript discusses how addressing security concerns from all sides is vital to preventing war. The speaker highlights NATO’s actions near Russian borders as a key example, arguing that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was partly driven by unaddressed security fears.

💡Mediation

Mediation is a process of resolving disputes by involving a neutral third party to facilitate dialogue. The speaker advocates for early mediation as a crucial tool in war prevention, suggesting that engaging in mediation before conflicts reach the point of no return could save lives. The speaker suggests that more should have been done to mediate between the Taliban, Assad, and other hostile parties before wars escalated.

💡Dehumanization

Dehumanization is the psychological process of demonizing the enemy, making them seem less than human, which can justify violence against them. In the transcript, the speaker mentions how war dehumanizes both sides, making it harder to engage in peace processes. This is cited in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Russia-Ukraine war, where each side views the other as irredeemable enemies.

💡Moral Justification

Moral justification refers to the reasoning used to frame an action, such as war, as necessary or virtuous. The speaker critiques this concept, noting that wars are often initiated under the guise of good versus evil, but the results are widespread chaos and suffering. The wars in Iraq and Libya are examples where moral arguments were used to justify intervention, but the aftermath was far from the intended moral outcome.

💡Back Channels

Back channels are unofficial and confidential communication pathways used to negotiate and de-escalate conflicts without public scrutiny. The speaker references using back channels to engage with political leadership at high levels. This approach is part of the Oxford Process’s strategy, as it enables conflict resolution specialists to understand the perspectives and red lines of adversaries discreetly.

💡Geopolitical Architecture

Geopolitical architecture refers to the overarching strategic arrangements and relationships between nations and regions that influence global stability. The speaker discusses how a lack of a common European security architecture led to increased tensions with Russia. A balanced structure that considers the security needs of all involved parties could have prevented the current crisis in Ukraine.

💡Early Intervention

Early intervention involves taking diplomatic, political, or strategic action at the initial stages of a conflict to prevent its escalation. The speaker emphasizes the importance of early intervention through mediation and dialogue. For instance, if the international community had engaged the Taliban during the early stages of the Afghan conflict, the protracted war might have been averted.

💡Human Rights

Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world. The speaker argues that war is the ultimate human rights abuse, as it results in loss of life, displacement, and destruction of livelihoods. The repeated theme is that, despite wars being framed as defending human rights, they often end up violating the very principles they claim to protect.

Highlights

War is the greatest human rights abuse and does not make the world safer.

The United States, the United Kingdom, and their allies have been involved in four major wars in the 21st century: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and against the Islamic State.

Despite military efforts, none of these wars addressed their root causes, leading to long-term instability and suffering.

There is a need for war prevention, early mediation, and understanding the enemy's mindset.

Marginalization, humiliation, and exclusion are key drivers of war, and war itself dehumanizes people.

It is essential to address the security concerns of all sides, not just our own, to prevent conflicts.

The West could have played a mediating role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict instead of encouraging Ukraine into its zone of interest.

To end the war in Ukraine, there must be negotiations with President Putin to understand his red lines and explore ceasefire opportunities.

Talking to the 'bad guys' and including all sides in peace processes is critical for ending conflicts, as shown in past examples like the IRA and FARC.

The release of Marwan Barghouti, a Palestinian leader, could be a step toward resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Strengthening the United Nations to enforce statutory early mediation and war prevention teams is essential for conflict resolution.

Liberal democracies should focus on being mediators and bridge builders rather than acting as the world’s self-appointed police or suppliers of weapons.

Investing in peacemaking and mediation instead of military intervention could prevent wars and save millions of lives.

War is like a cancer that spreads quickly, but if treated early, it can be stopped, preventing widespread destruction.

There are multiple opportunities for mediation in conflict, especially early on, before parties become hardened by the horrors of war.

Preventing war is possible, and we must reject the notion that it is inevitable.

Transcripts

I have worked in international conflict resolution

for the past two decades.

I am not a pacifist,

but in the end, war is the greatest human rights abuse

and does not make the world safer.

We think we go to war for good moral reasons.

We're fighting for good to triumph over evil.

Instead, we unleash a cascade

of chaos and misery.

In the 21st century,

the United States,

along with its allies and my country, the United Kingdom,

have been involved in four major wars:

Afghanistan, Iraq,

Libya, Islamic State.

And we have provided funding

and supplied military equipment to Ukraine and Israel.

So let's consider the outcome of some of these wars.

The Afghan war was a 20-year war,

and we left the Taliban in power.

The war in Iraq,

we had an immediate military victory,

which was short-lived, civil war

and contributed to the war in Syria.

The war in Libya unleashed chaos and violence in the Sahel region.

The war against Islamic State weakened it militarily,

but none of the root causes were dealt with.

All of you in the audience

know war is horrendous,

but maybe many of you believe that it is inevitable.

I would like to persuade you today

that there are many things that we can do.

Even if we commit to arming countries militarily like porcupines.

We can commit ourselves to war prevention,

early mediation

and getting into the mind of the enemy.

I direct the Oxford Process.

It's a conflict resolution organization,

and what we try and do is create back channels

to the political leadership at the highest levels

of those who are in positions of power

and can decide the future of the outcome of the war.

I come from a group psychoanalytic background,

but I'm passionately committed to putting together the human mind

and geopolitics, its power relationships

and what does and doesn’t lead to war.

We know marginalization,

humiliation and exclusion are some of the key drivers of war.

We also know that war dehumanizes people.

Some of the conflicts I've worked on are the Palestine-Israel,

the Iranian nuclear issue and now the Russia-Ukraine war.

So what can we do to prevent war?

We need to address the security concerns of all sides,

not just our own security.

Russia invaded Crimea in 2014

and then all of Ukraine in 2022.

It was morally justified for us to support a country

whose sovereignty had been breached.

But now, hundreds of thousands of people are dead and wounded.

And we do have to ask,

what else could we have done?

President Putin warned that if NATO edged up on the Russian border,

war would be the result.

In 2008,

President Bush stated Ukraine would join NATO.

Germany and France pushed back

as they knew it would create a new crisis between Russia and the West.

Would the US have tolerated a hostile military presence on its border

in Mexico and Canada?

We might have avoided this war

if we'd addressed the security concerns both of Russia and Europe,

and established a common European security architecture

before the war,

and it will need to happen afterwards.

Western governments

could have played more of a mediating role

supporting Ukraine to be a bridge between east and west,

not just encouraging Ukraine into our zone of interest.

Ukraine has difficult geography.

It will always need to find a way to coexist with its Russian neighbor.

What else could we do?

We need to come off our moral pedestal

and stop deciding what is good and evil.

We need to talk to the bad guys,

the men of violence, if we are to end war.

We understood we had to talk to the IRA in Northern Ireland,

FARC in Colombia and ETA in the Basque Country.

But usually we want to speak to the good guys, the people like us,

the people in gray suits.

Back in 2001, after the Afghan war,

and as part of the Bonn peace process,

if we had brought the Taliban in when they were weaker,

things may have looked different.

Western governments, including the US and the UK,

refused to talk to President Assad.

They said it was talking to evil.

By not talking to him,

we created a greater evil

as thousands and thousands more people died.

Today, many of you will have the Ukraine-Russia war

and Hamas-Israel on your minds, and what can be done.

This is the work Oxford Process does quietly behind the scenes

to explore where there are opportunities to end war.

But it requires the blessings of Western governments,

and they often don't have an exit plan.

To end the war in Ukraine,

we will need to talk to President Putin.

We will need to understand his red lines, what his endgame is,

what opportunities there are for a ceasefire.

After the heinous massacre of 7 October,

engaging with Hamas is unthinkable

to many Israelis.

Following the terrible carnage in Gaza,

Hamas has even more support

and will need to be included in some kind of future process.

Now both sides have dehumanized each other.

One way through is the release of Marwan Barghouti,

a Palestinian leader who has spent the last two decades in an Israeli prison.

He supports a future Palestinian state sitting side by side with Israel,

and he has the leadership qualities to unite the Palestinian people,

which will be essential.

For some, he's the new Mandela.

For others, he has blood on his hands.

In war, everybody has blood on their hands.

(Applause)

The Americans are now talking about a two-state solution,

which would involve normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

And yet again,

we cannot just speak to our friends and exclude our enemies.

And Iran and its allies will only sabotage the process.

Each one of you here today wants to make a difference.

But we can feel small

and impotent in the face of war.

But how we behave individually

is a microcosm of how we behave in war.

None of us like to engage with people who think differently to us.

We all divide the world into good and evil.

People we want to talk to and people we don't.

But we need to engage with everybody

and understand the radical differences

that exist between us.

And we need to start today.

What else can we do?

We need to act early

and put in place early mediating processes.

In war, there's an opportunity for mediation.

In some wars, when the parties are on the precipice

and they're more open to compromise.

Then there's a second opportunity

when they've tested their battlefield strength

and realized they have not achieved their original objectives.

When these opportunities are missed,

the parties become hardened by the horrors and trauma of war.

They believe they have sacrificed too much

to compromise and make peace.

So what can we do to make these ideas real?

Today, the UN is a weakened institution,

and many have lost faith in it.

But if we're to be serious about peacemaking,

we will need to strengthen it again.

One way through is to empower the UN

to have statutory early mediation

when countries are on the edge of tipping to war.

And then three months later,

when they've tested their battlefield strength.

The UN would also appoint permanent war prevention teams

embedded in the countries at risk of going to war,

high-level mediators and permanent peace tables.

We would establish them in such areas as Sudan,

Pakistan-India, Taiwan-China,

Palestine-Israel, the US-China.

We would be committed to prevention and early intervention.

(Applause)

So in conclusion,

liberal democracies should see themselves

first and foremost as mediators and bridge builders

and help countries manage their radical differences.

Not the world's self-appointed policeman or supplier of weapons.

Instead of providing drones and missiles,

we could contribute more resources and expertise to mediation

and peacemaking.

We would put all our passions and pragmatism

into avoiding war.

War is like a cancer.

It spreads quickly.

Once it has progressed far enough,

nobody knows how to stop it.

Treat it quickly, even prevent it,

millions of lives can be saved.

We behave as if war is inevitable.

It is not.

Thank you, my friends.

(Applause)