Violent vs. non-violent approaches to global conflict resolution

1. Violent vs. non-violent approaches to global conflict resolution Ram Samudrala Dylan Chivian Jason McDermott Ling-Hong Hung Zach Frazier Tyler Roberts

2. What is the overall objective? non-violent approaches violent approaches punitive sanctions coercive diplomacy diplomacy, quid pro quo pacifism war No physical violence whatsoever? No institutionalised physical violence (war)? Reduced institutionalised physical violence (war)? And how do we achieve this objective?

3. Violent approaches “Solve” the problem in the short term if one party is strong Long term effects are unpredictable, possibly negative Decisive solution? Sometimes the only choice? Has worked before? WW II, the Balkans Has not worked before: WW I, Vietnam, Korea Violence always? begets violence?

4. Non-violent approaches Solve the problem in the long term Long term effects are not necessarily negative Not easy to see progress Sometimes may not work? Particularly effective against an “ethical” enemy Has worked before: Indian independence, U.S. civil rights Has worked before: apartheid, cold war? Illustrates problems can be solved without violence

5. What can be done to achieve initial objectives? Prevent war-like situation from happening in the first place? How? Support progressive behaviour only? More education? Reduction in poverty? Global dictatorship? Global population interaction? Isolationism? How much can individuals do?