Resolving international disagreements

Written 2006/07/31, last edited 2021/05/18
Contact: David K. Clarke – ©

The way national governments too often choose to resolve a dispute.

This photo was taken during the US siege of Fallujah.

International relations might be improved by one nation helping another. Develop friendship rather than hatred?

This bridge was built in Vietnam with financial help from Australia.

People and corporations solve disputes by peaceful means. Governments are inclined to use force. Why?

If intelligent individuals disagree over something they try to resolve their disagreement peacefully, even amicably. At worst they take their disagreement to an independent arbiter or a court to get a resolution. Well run businesses and corporations behave similarly. Why should national governments behave like primitive warring tribes? Why shouldn't they too be bound by the rule of law?

I believe that the only reason is the greed for power. National leaders do not want to have any authority above them. They would rather hold onto their power no matter what the consequences to their citizens.

Resorting to war often achieves nothing. What has been achieved by the invasion of Iraq other than increasing fear and hatred between Islamic peoples and the West? The 'war against terrorism' has only boosted recruitment to organisations such as Al Qaeda.

Most international disagreements are between governments more than between peoples, yet it is the peoples who have to supply the soldiers, and it is the people who suffer from the war. The governments look after themselves while their peoples pay the price, in more ways than one. Why do we put up with it?

At the very least there should be international courts with the power to control the behaviour of nations, but I also believe that a form of World Government would go a long way to solve this type of problem.

National leaders often claim to be religious, yet they betray their religious convictions

One of the central tenets of most, if not all, of the great religions, certainly of Christianity and Judaism, is the Golden Rule. It will be worded something like, 'Treat other people as you would like them to treat you'.

President George W. Bush claims to hold his religious convictions very seriously, yet does he follow the Golden Rule? Does he follow Jesus' advice to 'love your neighbour' and 'turn the other cheek'?

Wouldn't it be more Christian to try to resolve problems by methods similar to those used by Mahatma Gandhi?