Rifkind addressed a full house at the Frontline Club on Monday 21st Novemeber at a discussion about the future of conflict. Rifkind was joined by fellow panellists Paul Rogers, a professor in the department of Peace Studies at Bradford University, Julia Ebner, a Policy Analyist at Quilliam, and Julian E. Barnes from the Wall Street Journal, chaired by Jenny Kleeman, a British film-maker and journalist.

Paul Rogers identified a key issue in current conflict: ‘we’ve entered into an era of a revolution of frustrated expectations globally’, where people’s living standards are not rising with their expectations.

Julia Ebner believes a ‘global jihadist insurgency’ and a ‘far-right renaissance in Western countries’ are provoking a ‘phenomenon of reciprocal radicalisation’, where each party’s actions (such as anti-Muslim hate crimes and fundamentalist terror attacks) feed into the other’s grievances. For Ebner the solution lies in tackling those grievances and in tackling the ‘black-and-white narratives that are propagated from both sides’ which result in a worldview of the West and Islam being at war with each other.

Ebner was particularly concerned by the impact of fake news sites, as well as the echo chambers that are all too prevalent on the social media landscape in what she termed our ‘post-factual society’. Rifkind expressed similar concerns about social media, saying it ‘stimulates extremism, people… wind each other up and they get amplified… it’s hugely problematic in terms of stimulating extreme identities’. Barnes pointed to the ‘explosion of encryption technology and the ability very easily for groups or individuals to get very high-powered encryption that’s very difficult for intelligence services in the UK or the US to break.’

Although all of the panellists agreed that the so-called ‘war on terror’ has failed, Barnes said we should expect to see more of a focus on this under Trump, with Russia as a potential ally. Continuing the war on terror may be playing into the hands of Islamic terrorists who want war: Rogers argued that ‘if they present themselves as the true guardians of Islam under attack by crusader Zionist forces, then essentially it helps to be attacked’.

The panellists emphasised the importance of preventative work against conflict; but how do we get politicians to realise earlier that conflict is not the answer and to act early when politicians’ interests naturally lie in short-term success? Rifkind pointed out that ‘foreign policy is often about crisis management, it’s often about reacting rather than anticipating’, citing the Gaza conflict as a key example of this. Ebner, meanwhile, argued that the solution does not lie in politics at all, but within civil society, where we should ‘tell better stories than extremists are telling’.

IS is funded partly by Western Gulf states, and Barnes wonders if we might expect Trump to cut business from such countries ‘we very much could see more pressure [on allies which are known to fund terrorist groups] on this transactional approach’. However, IS campaigns are relatively cheap to run, and is able to maintain taxation within the territory, so a decline is as likely to come from a lack of appeal. None of this solves the underlying problems of the Arab world that made it so popular (the ‘revolution of frustrated expectations, as Rogers put it), such as unemployment. The underlying problem of marginalisation is here to stay, according to Rogers, who also named climate change as a major cause of future conflict and migration. Ebner added that uniting against climate change ‘could be part of the solution – it could also provide civil society with a common cause, an abstract enemy…rather than human beings fighting against human beings’.

Will World War III be mankind versus climate change? One can only hope.

L-R Jon Snow, Gabrielle Rifkind and Giandomenico Picco

Snow introduced the discussion with a statement. He said with reference to war:

“You are not dealing with a conflict, you are dealing with a people.”

With this, the human and humane undertone to the evening’s discussions were set. Evidently a central theme in their book, Rifkind described how her and Picco’s shared understanding was that in conflict resolution, “whoever you are dealing with, underneath there is a human being”.

Rifkind said they named the book after McNamara’s iconic film The Fog of War. McNamara, former US United States Secretary of Defense, admitted to never getting “into the mind of the enemy”. Evidently, this is a shortcoming alien to Picco’s approach. Despite himself being kidnapped four times, he spoke unscathed about the art of negotiation.

While Rifkind emphasised the complexity of each conflict resolution process, Picco focused on the need to engage with important players. He said:

“You have to enter the mind of the individual, understanding his narrative first . . . his personal narrative.”

He gave examples of negotiating with Rafsanjani and later Khatami by focusing on their individual character interests. The idea that Iran, where Picco and Rifkind first met, sits outside possible conflict resolution was debunked by Picco with the little known fact that Iran has negotiated with the West 12 times in the last 30 years. And according to Picco, “we, the West, have always got what we wanted.”

Thus the concept of the impossibility of a truth but rather an individual truth was brought to light. On the term impartiality Picco fervently said, “I do not like to use words that do not exist.” He continued to highlight the need to be discerning:

“Listen a lot and listen very carefully, bearing in mind that most of the things that are said are not relevant or not true, and every individual is profoundly different. . . . Trying to define people by groups is not very productive.”

Snow agreed and pointed out that “the best journalists are politically motivated. . . . They want to change the world.” To which Picco responded:

“As long as you take your side and take responsibility for what you say and what you do, the world changes.”

In retrospect, Picco referred to Cold War conflict resolution as a kid’s game in comparison to what it is today. Rifkind explained:

“In the Cold War it was much easier to have moral clarity, who was right who was wrong. . . . We still want goodies and baddies.”

This dichotomy has been weakened and Snow challenged mainstream media in the West which is currently and wholeheartedly siding with Ukraine. He offered up a Russian insight into the conflict and Rifkind added:

“With the idea of the Ukraine leaning towards the EU we are immediately more sympathetic. . . . If you are serious about managing conflict you have to put competing narratives into the same space.”

Towards the end of discussions, Picco notably expressed hope in future Saudi–Iranian relations, predicting talks between the two, pointing to the intelligent people on both sides.

One audience member wanted to know the potential audience for the book. Rifkind answered, “Of course we would like people at the centre of power to read it because it is a different way of thinking about conflict.”

The evening’s questions could have carried on well after closing time. In the book signing queue that followed someone asked Rifkind, “Why do you do what you do and why carry on doing it?” She responded tellingly, “Its easier to live in a world with conflict if you can find a way to get involved.”

Watch the event and listen again here:

https://soundcloud.com/frontlineclub/the-fog-of-peace

https://soundcloud.com/frontlineclub/the-fog-of-peace

In war there is rarely a single action or answer that will bring peace. As we are seeing with the conflict in Syria, the process of negotiation and resolution is incredibly complex. As the focus swings from intervention to international conferences, how do you begin to forge an agreement?

In a unique account of the process of conflict resolution, The Fog of Peace: The Human Face of Conflict Resolution offers an insight into psychological theories, geopolitical realities and first-hand peace-making experience.

The authors will be joining us to share their analysis of international diplomacy and the complexities of conflict resolution. They will be exploring the question of intervention and examining the impact of the changing nature of warfare and technology.

Chaired by Channel 4 News presenter, Jon Snow.

With:

Gabrielle Rifkind is the director of the Middle East programme at Oxford Research Group. She is a group analyst and specialist in conflict resolution immersed in the politics of the Middle East. Rifkind combines in-depth political and psychological expertise with many years’ experience in promoting serious analysis and discreet dialogues with groups behind the scenes.

Giandomenico Picco served as under-secretary general of the United Nations and was personal representative of the secretary general for the United Nation year of dialogue amongst civilisations. He led the task force negotiations to end the Iran-Iraq war and the freedom of Western hostages from Lebanon. Over decades he helped securing the freedom of 127 individuals unjustly detained from 4 different countries.