RWANDA, CHECHNYA, BOSNIA, Iraq. Some parts of the world have ceased to be defined by their geographical location.When compiling this second edition of the Oxford Forum it was frustrating to think that just two decades ago the above list would have generated little beyond innocent confusion (and perhaps an embarrassed search for an atlas) even from astute followers of current affairs. How quickly a place can become transformed into a horror story.
In many respects, though, it is more troubling to contemplate a different array. Mention the likes of Colombia, Nepal, Lebanon or Uganda today, and most informed individuals will be aware that they are – or are on the brink of becoming – war zones. Some might even be able to recite an idiot’s guide to the hostilities – courtesy, perhaps, of some ‘special report’ in a Sunday newspaper, perused at an idle moment. Yet precious few will be able to proffer a detailed analysis of what is going wrong in these regions; precious few will be able to pontificate to the same degree so many can on those first four conflicts. An alarming question keeps cropping up: does it necessarily take a genocide, a secession or superpower involvement for us to want to be experts on a region?
If so, the outlook for the future is bleak. It is all very well to talk of ‘learning lessons’ every time a crime against humanity is committed, but if we aren’t prepared to provide ourselves with the knowledge needed to apply these lessons elsewhere, any study of past horrors is doomed to remain a morbid curiosity. Expertise is worthless if it cannot be applied broadly.
So the purpose of much of this edition is to provide expertise of value.Within our ‘Conflict’ section, detailed analyses of a handful of the world’s lesser-understood hotspots – from Tibet to the DRC – are interspersed with personal accounts of more infamous tragedies: those suffered by Iraq and Rwanda in particular. We hope the latter serve as a chilling warning to the potential consequences of comfortable ignorance.
Moreover, we have tried to take a constructive approach wherever possible. His Holiness the Dalai Lama uses his article to set out a vision for a world governed by non-violence and dialogue, as well as exploring more specific paths to peace between Tibet and China. Sir Marrack Goulding’s piece explicitly outlines a set of ten guidelines any would-be peacemaker should abide by.Yet each piece of analysis we include has at least one eye on the future, offering proposals to address the troubles in question.We do not wish for one second that every such conclusion be treated as gospel. Indeed, part of the problem for victims of under-analysed conflicts is the fact so few feel qualified to challenge received wisdom. As ever, the purpose of the Oxford Forum is to initiate debate that would not otherwise take place; with luck it might go some small way towards preventing more places being defined by their past.
Elsewhere in this issue, conflicts of a more trivial type are addressed and assessed – conflicts between business and the environment, between government and the media, between the economy and the arts. John Simpson, meanwhile, explains in an interview why he fears an obsession with simplifying global conflict is amongst a number of developments undermining his profession. We hope the militaristic focus on does not come across as sensationalist. Some theorists claim hostilities are an inevitable product of human interaction – citing the prevalence of international and interpersonal aggression as evidence for this.Were we to concur, this edition would simply be voyeuristic.
Yet instead we take the alternate view. Conflict is a problem to be solved – an anomaly, to be studied for its causes as a matter of urgency. This Oxford Forum is an attempt to hold it up to the light.
