Latest / Diplomacy and International Relations / Resentment in International Relations and Diplomacy

Transcript

Resentment in International Relations and Diplomacy · Diplomacy and International Relations

• 0:00
  Welcome, curious listener to the Deep Dive brought to you by
• 0:03
  Diplomacy and International Relations by Bastian Freiburg.
• 0:07
  Today we're plunging into, well, a pretty profound question.
• 0:11
  What if everything we thought we knew about conflict and peace is
• 0:15
  just too simple? Right what up?
• 0:18
  Resolving conflict means we have to dig much, much deeper than we
• 0:21
  usually do. Exactly beyond the headlines
• 0:24
  into those hidden forces that really fuel global disputes.
• 0:29
  So our mission for this deep dive is to sort of pull out the
• 0:31
  key insights from a really fascinating stack of sources.
• 0:34
  We'll look at Johann Galtung, you know, the pioneer of peace
• 0:37
  studies and also perspectives on things like resentment and
• 0:40
  collective memory in international relations, plus
• 0:44
  the practical tools of different diplomatic tracks.
• 0:46
  It should give us some real aha moments, I think.
• 0:49
  Ways to reframe how we look at global events.
• 0:51
  Definitely. And by the way, if you find this
• 0:53
  interesting and want to support what we do, maybe get access to
• 0:55
  some extra deep dives, you can subscribe to Diplomacy and
• 0:58
  International Relations by Bastion Freiburg.
• 1:00
  Just a small monthly fee. Yeah.
• 1:02
  And what's really illuminating, I find, is how these different
• 1:04
  ideas, you know, grand theories, raw emotions like resentment,
• 1:09
  they actually weave together. It gives you a much fuller
• 1:12
  picture of why conflicts stick around and maybe, just maybe,
• 1:15
  how we can genuinely move past them.
• 1:18
  Galton's work especially gives us this framework that really
• 1:21
  stretches our usual understanding of what peace even
• 1:24
  means. OK, let's start there then.
• 1:26
  Johann Galton, he's often called the founding father of peace
• 1:29
  studies. I mean, the output is
• 1:31
  staggering. Over 150 books, more than 1000
• 1:34
  articles. It's incredible.
• 1:36
  Really begs the question, how did one person manage to shape
• 1:39
  our understanding of peace and conflict so profoundly?
• 1:42
  Well, Galton brought this really unique perspective, almost like
• 1:45
  a medical lens to looking at conflict.
• 1:47
  What was truly revolutionary, I think, was his diagnosis,
• 1:51
  prognosis, therapy, framework, DPT he called.
• 1:54
  It OK DPT like a doctor. Exactly like a doctor, first you
• 1:58
  diagnose the root causes, what he termed the social or
• 2:01
  political wounds. Then you prognose, basically
• 2:04
  predict how things might unfold if you don't intervene.
• 2:07
  And finally you propose a therapy, a real, concrete
• 2:11
  solution. It forces you to go beyond just,
• 2:13
  you know, patching things up. So not just treating the
• 2:16
  symptoms. Right.
• 2:17
  Imagine a doctor just putting a bandage on a bullet wound, but
• 2:20
  ignoring the internal bleeding or the infection.
• 2:23
  That's often how international relations works, isn't it?
• 2:26
  Geltung insists. We find the actual social
• 2:28
  illness, not just the obvious signs.
• 2:30
  It's a totally different way to think about intervention.
• 2:33
  And apparently this was heavily influenced by his father, who
• 2:36
  was a physician. Yeah, his father taught him that
• 2:39
  peace isn't just the absence of illness, like the absence of
• 2:42
  war, but it's this continuous process of repair, always
• 2:46
  mending. That's a powerful idea.
• 2:49
  What? But OK, it still sounds a bit
• 2:50
  theoretical. How does Golton take this
• 2:52
  medical lens and apply it to actual messy, real world
• 2:56
  violence? Does he just categorize it or
• 2:57
  does it change how we might step in?
• 2:59
  He does both, and that's really the brilliance of it.
• 3:02
  He identified 3 forms of violence and crucially, he
• 3:05
  stressed how they're all interconnected.
• 3:07
  They feed each other. He used that famous iceberg
• 3:10
  analogy. The iceberg, right?
• 3:12
  I've heard of that. So first there's direct
• 3:14
  violence. That's the obvious stuff, the
• 3:16
  tip of the iceberg. Physical acts, killing, assault,
• 3:19
  war, what we usually see and think of as violence.
• 3:22
  OK, visible part. Exactly.
• 3:24
  But beneath the surface, hidden away, are the deeper roots.
• 3:28
  They're structural violence. This is the invisible kind.
• 3:32
  It lives in the systems, the inequalities that stop people
• 3:34
  meeting basic needs. It's often perpetuated by just
• 3:38
  neglect, not necessarily someone deliberately trying to cause
• 3:41
  harm. Think of political systems that
• 3:44
  deny freedom, like frozen autocracies, or economic systems
• 3:47
  where people die daily from lack of food or medicine.
• 3:50
  That's structural violence. Wow.
• 3:51
  OK, so it's built into the system.
• 3:53
  Precisely. And then also invisible is
• 3:56
  cultural violence. This is about the societal
• 3:58
  norms, the beliefs, the ideologies that actually make
• 4:01
  direct and structural violence seem acceptable or even normal.
• 4:06
  It fosters emotions like anger, fear, hatred.
• 4:09
  It spreads misunderstandings. You could almost think of
• 4:12
  cultural violence as the software running the hardware of
• 4:16
  structural inequality, and it kind of normalizes the direct
• 4:19
  violence, the tip of the iceberg.
• 4:21
  So the stories we tell ourselves, the beliefs.
• 4:23
  Exactly the beliefs that make it OK to harm others or just ignore
• 4:27
  their suffering. It's violence woven into our
• 4:30
  understanding. And the critical point is that
• 4:32
  structural and cultural violence are the roots of hidden
• 4:34
  conflicts. They only really become visible
• 4:37
  when they erupt as direct violence.
• 4:38
  Right, that iceberg model really paints a picture.
• 4:41
  So Galton shows us these invisible structures and beliefs
• 4:43
  causing harm. But these aren't just abstract
• 4:46
  concepts, are they? They must connect to real human
• 4:48
  feelings, the emotions that make conflicts last so long.
• 4:52
  How does that human element fit in?
• 4:54
  You've hit on something absolutely crucial there, and
• 4:57
  that leads us straight into the idea of resentment.
• 4:59
  In international relations, it's described as this really
• 5:03
  powerful emotional attitude, a kind of smoldering sentiment.
• 5:07
  It's maybe weaker than pure hatred or outright anger, but
• 5:11
  it's far more durable. It lasts longer.
• 5:13
  Smoldering like it just. Yeah, exactly.
• 5:16
  And it comes from perceiving that another group, another
• 5:18
  nation perhaps enjoys an undeserved status position.
• 5:23
  Basically, you feel they have high status or power they don't
• 5:26
  morally deserve. It's subtle, but it's this
• 5:28
  persistent animosity, like a slow burning grudge that can
• 5:32
  fester for generations. So.
• 5:33
  It's not just a quick flash of anger, but this deep, slow burn
• 5:36
  grudge. What's the real danger of that
• 5:39
  for, you know, international stability?
• 5:40
  Well, the danger is precisely because it lasts so long and
• 5:43
  it's often hidden. Resentment acts as an emotional
• 5:46
  stabilizer of negative prejudices.
• 5:48
  It connects those short term bursts of anger to long term
• 5:51
  national attitudes. You see examples like anti
• 5:55
  Americanism in China, France, Russia and some Arab countries
• 5:58
  or within the EU that southern resentment against solvent EU
• 6:02
  members like Germany often fueled by arguments over
• 6:05
  austerity policies. The key ingredients seem to be a
• 6:09
  perceived injustice and also an awareness of momentary
• 6:12
  impotence, feeling like you can't actually do anything right
• 6:15
  now to fix the perceived wrong. So you feel wrong but powerless
• 6:19
  to fix it. Right, so the feeling just
• 6:20
  lingers, maybe even gets stronger over time.
• 6:23
  It's like the silent acid eating away at relationships and
• 6:25
  alliances. It really helps explain why some
• 6:28
  conflicts just seem impossible to resolve.
• 6:30
  It sounds like it links straight into the attitudes part of Gul
• 6:32
  Tung's ABC triangle, those negative feelings fueling the
• 6:35
  conflict. But what about memory?
• 6:37
  We're always told we must remember the past, right?
• 6:40
  To avoid repeating it. But could remembering actually
• 6:43
  get in the way of peace? Sometimes.
• 6:45
  It sounds totally counterintuitive, doesn't it?
• 6:47
  But that's exactly where we bump into this provocative idea of
• 6:51
  the cult of memory. While remembering is often
• 6:54
  framed as this moral duty, some of the sources we looked at
• 6:57
  suggest that too much remembering can actually be more
• 7:00
  dangerous than forgetting. Really.
• 7:02
  More dangerous, yeah. The argument is that collective
• 7:06
  historical memory, the way it's actually used by groups and
• 7:08
  nations, has LED far too often to war rather than peace, to
• 7:12
  rancor and resentment rather than reconciliation.
• 7:16
  And often it leads to this determination to exact revenge.
• 7:21
  Think about the Bosnian war in the 90s.
• 7:23
  So much of that was fueled by dredging up centuries old
• 7:25
  historical grievances, the sores of history that hadn't healed.
• 7:29
  Or look at the dynamics in Israel, Palestine today.
• 7:32
  Historical narratives are incredibly powerful and often
• 7:34
  make current events feel like just the latest chapter in an
• 7:37
  ancient struggle. And memory can be twisted too,
• 7:40
  right? Absolutely manipulated.
• 7:41
  Think about how historical figures like Joan of Arc in
• 7:44
  France or William Wallace in Scotland get used by different
• 7:47
  political groups. Their memory is shaped to build
• 7:50
  national unity, be sure, but also sometimes antagonism
• 7:53
  towards others. History gets distorted.
• 7:56
  This cult of memory can even turn a wound into a weapon.
• 8:00
  We see extremist groups using terms like crusade to stir up
• 8:04
  hatred, deliberately distorting history to link today's
• 8:07
  conflicts to struggles from 1000 years ago.
• 8:09
  So even with the best intentions, focusing too much on
• 8:12
  past wrongs can solidify those grudges and maybe even spark new
• 8:15
  conflicts. That feels uncomfortable.
• 8:17
  It goes against everything we learned about history lessons.
• 8:20
  Is there ever such a thing as a duty to forget?
• 8:23
  Well, it's specific, very difficult situations.
• 8:25
  The argument is maybe yes. When collective memory basically
• 8:29
  traps communities in this cycle of perpetual pain and
• 8:31
  bitterness, the thinking goes, remembering does an injustice to
• 8:34
  the present. A really striking, though
• 8:37
  controversial example is the Pacto Dell or Vito, the pact of
• 8:39
  forgetting in Spain after Franco died in the 70's.
• 8:42
  The. Pact of forgetting?
• 8:43
  What was that exactly? It was basically an unofficial
• 8:46
  political deal. Both the right and the left
• 8:48
  agreed to mostly set aside the atrocities of the Civil War and
• 8:52
  the Franco dictatorship to focus on building a stable democracy.
• 8:56
  It meant practical things like renaming streets with royal
• 8:59
  names instead of republican heroes and passing an amnesty
• 9:02
  law. No, obviously it was
• 9:04
  controversial. Some felt justice was completely
• 9:06
  sacrificed. I can imagine, yeah.
• 9:08
  But many others saw it as absolutely essential for peace
• 9:11
  at that moment. It kind of demonstrated that old
• 9:14
  saying nothing dries quicker than blood.
• 9:16
  It was this very pragmatic choice piece now over endlessly
• 9:20
  litigating the past, a deliberate decision to try and
• 9:22
  look forward. OK, so if remembering can be
• 9:25
  weaponized and resentment is like this smoldering fire, yeah,
• 9:28
  how do we actually move towards peace?
• 9:30
  What practical tools does Galton give us beyond just
• 9:33
  understanding the diagnosis? Well, Galton developed what he
• 9:36
  called the Transcend method, and it builds directly on that
• 9:40
  medical DPT framework we talked about.
• 9:42
  It generally involves 3 phases. First, you identify the goals of
• 9:47
  all the parties involved. Crucially, you have to try and
• 9:50
  distinguish between their legitimate goals and maybe
• 9:52
  illegitimate ones. OK, understand everyone's aims,
• 9:55
  right? Second, you find the
• 9:56
  contradiction. That's the C in his ABC
• 9:59
  triangle. Attitudes, behavior
• 10:00
  contradiction. Attitudes are the feelings.
• 10:02
  Behavior is the action. But the contradiction is the
• 10:05
  deep underlying clash of goals that's really driving things.
• 10:09
  Simple views often just miss this fundamental
• 10:12
  incompatibility. Finding the real root of the
• 10:14
  problem. Exactly.
• 10:16
  And 3rd, and this is the really key part, you try to bridge or
• 10:20
  transcend that incompatibility between the legitimate goals.
• 10:23
  You need creative, empathetic, nonviolent, and importantly,
• 10:27
  lasting solutions that everyone involved can actually accept.
• 10:31
  It's about finding a whole new path, not just splitting the
• 10:33
  difference. And Galton really hammered home
• 10:35
  the importance of thoroughly and inclusively mapping the
• 10:38
  conflict. You have to involve everyone,
• 10:41
  even groups you might consider enemies.
• 10:43
  He criticized, for example, how the international community
• 10:46
  handled the Syrian conflict. At times he identified something
• 10:49
  like 7 distinct underlying conflicts going on
• 10:52
  simultaneously. Yeah.
• 10:53
  And argued that all the major players, internal factions like
• 10:56
  allow US, Sunnis, Kurds, plus external powers like Israel, the
• 11:00
  US, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UN all needed to be
• 11:04
  part of the process because they all have goals.
• 11:06
  Excluding major players whether it was Iran at one point or even
• 11:10
  ISIS at another basically dooms the process from the start
• 11:13
  because they're luncheon to make concerns if any aren't
• 11:16
  addressed. You have to understand all the
• 11:17
  perspectives. So it's about creativity,
• 11:20
  inclusivity, really understanding the whole complex
• 11:23
  map. This idea of transcendence
• 11:26
  though, finding a solution beyond just winning or
• 11:29
  compromise, it sounds almost, well, utopian, especially in a
• 11:34
  world that often feels very 0 sum.
• 11:37
  Are there real examples where this actually happened, or is it
• 11:40
  more of an ideal we should aim for?
• 11:42
  That's a fair question. It's definitely challenging.
• 11:44
  Galtun himself laid out five possible outcomes for any
• 11:47
  conflict in his fiber scheme. You've got the obvious ones,
• 11:51
  victory for side A, defeat for B or the reverse, defeat for A,
• 11:54
  victory for B. Then there's withdrawal, where
• 11:57
  the parties just separate and compromise, where everyone gives
• 11:59
  up something. The usual outcomes.
• 12:01
  Right, but Galtwing's ideal, the fifth one, is transcendence.
• 12:04
  This means finding a totally new perspective, something that goes
• 12:07
  beyond the original fight and creates a solution that meets
• 12:09
  the deeper needs of everyone involved.
• 12:11
  It often requires thinking way outside the box, maybe even
• 12:14
  redefining what the goals were in the 1st place.
• 12:17
  He gave some examples for that long running Ecuador Peru border
• 12:20
  dispute. He proposed creating a bi
• 12:22
  national zone with a natural park.
• 12:24
  Ah. Turning disputed land into a
• 12:27
  shared resource. Exactly.
• 12:29
  A truly transcendent solution, it transformed a source of
• 12:33
  conflict into shared benefit and Environmental Protection.
• 12:37
  Or for the clash between freedom of expression and freedom to
• 12:39
  insult, especially around religion.
• 12:41
  He suggested carefully distinguishing between the
• 12:43
  secular political sphere and the sacred religious sphere.
• 12:47
  Allow freedom in politics, but insist on respect for the
• 12:50
  sacred. Interesting distinction.
• 12:52
  And for Syria, he proposed what he called a Swiss solution, a
• 12:56
  federal system with significant local autonomy, maybe down to
• 13:00
  the village level, politically non aligned with international
• 13:03
  peacekeepers, and using compulsory arbitration for tough
• 13:07
  with issues like the Golan Heights.
• 13:09
  These aren't just compromises, they're creative attempts to
• 13:11
  meet deeper needs, not just achieve victory.
• 13:14
  That vision of transcendence really does sound like the
• 13:17
  ultimate goal, doesn't it? Yeah.
• 13:18
  Does this connect at all to how diplomacy actually works in the
• 13:21
  real world? Especially maybe the stuff that
• 13:24
  happens outside the big formal meetings.
• 13:26
  Oh absolutely. It aligns perfectly with the
• 13:28
  ideas of Track 1.5 and Track 2 Diplomacy.
• 13:31
  These work alongside the traditional Track 1 stuff.
• 13:34
  OK, break those down for a track 11.52.
• 13:37
  Sure, So track 1 diplomacy is what we usually think of the
• 13:41
  official government to government talks, heads of
• 13:43
  state, ambassadors, formal treaties, the high level stuff.
• 13:47
  Got it. Track 2.
• 13:48
  Diplomacy on the other hand, is completely informal.
• 13:51
  It involves non state actors, think academics, NGO's,
• 13:54
  religious leaders, respected community figures, people who
• 13:57
  can operate outside the official spotlight.
• 14:00
  Their focus is often on building relationships, trying to shift
• 14:03
  perceptions, tackling those root social, cultural, psychological
• 14:07
  issues. The resentments, the historical
• 14:08
  memories we talked about that often get ignored in formal
• 14:11
  talks. So track 2 is more about the
• 14:13
  groundwork, the human level. Exactly.
• 14:15
  And then track 1.5 Diplomacy kind of bridges the two.
• 14:19
  It brings mid level government officials, maybe not the top
• 14:22
  decision makers, but people with influence, into informal
• 14:26
  dialogues with these civil society groups from track 2.
• 14:29
  And these different tracks are crucial because they work
• 14:31
  together. They createspace for more
• 14:34
  innovative problem solving away from the rigid protocols of
• 14:37
  official meetings. They allow people to actually
• 14:39
  build trust. They can address those deeper
• 14:42
  social issues, the historical baggage, and importantly, they
• 14:45
  can keep channels open even when the formal track one talks
• 14:48
  completely breakdown. So they keep communication
• 14:51
  flowing even when governments aren't talking.
• 14:53
  Precisely. And that directly mirrors
• 14:55
  Galtum's emphasis on broad dialogue and finding solutions
• 14:58
  that tackle those underlying contradictions at multiple
• 15:01
  levels. OK, so Galtum gives us these
• 15:02
  practical steps, This vision for transcendence links to
• 15:05
  diplomacy. But he also tried to pull it all
• 15:07
  together, right into a kind of grand theory, a peace formula.
• 15:11
  How did he synthesize all this? He did.
• 15:13
  He actually developed a kind of peace equation.
• 15:16
  Now, it's not a strict mathematical formula you can
• 15:18
  just plug numbers into, but it's a powerful mental model, a way
• 15:21
  to visualize the forces involved.
• 15:24
  Peace, Equity X harmony, Trauma X conflict.
• 15:28
  OK. Equity times Harmony divided by
• 15:30
  trauma times conflict. Walk me through that.
• 15:33
  Sure. Think of it like a recipe or a
• 15:35
  compass for building real peace. It highlights 4 essential jobs.
• 15:39
  You need cooperation, you need togetherness, you need trauma,
• 15:42
  conciliation, and you need conflict solution.
• 15:45
  So for peace to really grow, you need to maximize the top parts
• 15:48
  of the fraction equity, which means justice, fair
• 15:52
  opportunities for everyone, and harmony, which means
• 15:54
  cooperation, mutual understanding, positive
• 15:57
  relationships. These build what Galtum called
• 15:59
  positive peace, the presence of good things, not just the
• 16:02
  absence of war. Right.
• 16:04
  Peace is more than just no fighting.
• 16:06
  Exactly, and at the same time you need to minimize the bottom
• 16:09
  parts. Trauma, the emotional wounds
• 16:11
  left by past violence and conflict, the current clashes
• 16:15
  over incompatible goals. Tackling these contributes to
• 16:18
  negative peace, basically stopping the direct violence.
• 16:21
  This formula really ties together everything we've
• 16:24
  discussed. You have to deal with the deep
• 16:25
  seated traumas and conflicts, yes, but you also have to
• 16:28
  actively build equity and harmony.
• 16:31
  Move beyond just stopping the bombs to creating something
• 16:33
  genuinely lasting and positive. And he applied this thinking
• 16:37
  practically. For instance, looking at East
• 16:38
  Asia, he argued they needed a strategy beyond just military
• 16:42
  deterrence, which he saw as inherently unstable.
• 16:45
  He proposed A6 member Northeast Asian community, something like
• 16:49
  the EU or ASEAN, to really foster dialogue, build economic
• 16:52
  ties, reduce tensions. He stressed the need for purely
• 16:55
  defensive defense strategies, postures that couldn't be seen
• 16:58
  as offensive, and greater independence from big external
• 17:01
  powers. More local decision making, non
• 17:04
  offensive stances maybe like Switzerland's neutrality.
• 17:06
  So, moving away from power politics.
• 17:08
  Towards cooperation and mutual benefit.
• 17:10
  Building that positive peace. That is a truly comprehensive
• 17:14
  vision. It really shows how deep theory
• 17:16
  can actually point towards practical ways forward.
• 17:18
  So what's the final take away for us, for the listener, as we
• 17:21
  process all this and think about global conflicts?
• 17:24
  I think Galton's ultimate message, his challenge to all of
• 17:26
  us really, is to shift our focus.
• 17:28
  Stop only asking how many were killed today or who's winning.
• 17:32
  He urged us to dig deeper, ask what is this conflict really
• 17:37
  about and maybe most importantly, what are the
• 17:39
  possible solutions. He wasn't just about analysis,
• 17:42
  he really pushed people produce those ideas.
• 17:45
  It's a call for proactive, creative, solution focused
• 17:48
  thinking for everyone, not just diplomats.
• 17:50
  What an incredible deep dive. So much to think about.
• 17:53
  They're going way beyond the surface level of conflict for
• 17:56
  you, the listener. Maybe the next time you hear
• 17:58
  about an international dispute, try asking some of these
• 18:00
  questions. What hidden forms of violence,
• 18:03
  structural or cultural, might be a play underneath?
• 18:06
  Could resentment be a silent factor, just eating away at
• 18:09
  trust? And maybe ponder this, Could a
• 18:11
  duty to forget in some specific cases or a multi track
• 18:14
  diplomatic approach offer pathways to genuine
• 18:17
  transcendence, moving beyond just stalemate or compromise?
• 18:21
  Definitely something to Mull over and explore on your own.
• 18:23
  If you enjoyed this deep dive, please do consider following
• 18:26
  Diplomacy and International Relations by Bastion Fryborg
• 18:29
  wherever you get your podcasts. And if you have a quick moment,
• 18:33
  leaving a five star rating really does help us reach more
• 18:35
  curious minds like yours. Thank you so much for joining us
• 18:38
  on The Deep Dive.