Ancient Greece and Modern Conflict Management - Essay Example

Ancient Greece and Modern Conflict Management Introduction Conventionally, disputes and conflicts are quenched through negotiations and truces. The main purpose of any negotiation process is to enable conflicting parties to reach a balanced compromise that will suppress the need to fight. Typically, unbalanced negotiations that one party compromises more than another party amounts to unfairness, and causes subsequent retaliation thus progressing the underlying conflict. In contemporary legal and moral contexts, negotiation feature as one way of enhancing understanding and friendship between parties with differing opinions. During disputes, each party has specific needs and wants. Conflict ensues because both differing parties do not agree about whose wants and needs takes precedence over the others’. Negotiation strives to create an environment where prioritization of interests can be achieved. In case prioritization fails, negotiation will help conflicting parties reach an agreement through balanced compromise of their respective interests. According to Smith (2000), such balanced compromise of interests creates fairness. However, conflicting parties may fail to agree because both sides may hold substantially different understanding and perspectives of fairness. An example of such a situation is seen in the ancient Melian-Athens conflict features in the Melian Dialogue by Thucydides. Prior to engaging in any negotiation or in understanding why two conflicting parties are engaging in a negotiation, it is appropriate to appraise the causative aspects of an underlying conflict. In addition, it is advisable to acknowledge the social, political and economic context in which conflicts and subsequent negotiations are taking place. Melian Dialogue by Thucydides covers events surrounding tribal conflicts in ancient Greece. Despite being a single empire, Greece was divided along its ethnic lines. Buckley (2010) said that there were two major divisions, the Athenians deriving its roots from the Ionians and the Spartans from the Dorian heritage. Sparta adopted an oligarchic political structure characterized by a few wealthy members of the society commanding and ruling the rest of the citizens. On the contrary, Athens was democratic and the wealthiest nation in Greece. In this case, both parties held contrary political, economic and social opinions which lead to growing tension between them. Sparta had allies, including Melos while Athens also had its allies. Increasing tension sparked a 10-year conflict marking the first phase of Peloponnesian war between Sparta and its allies on one side and Athens together with its allies on the other. In the middle of the chaos, a moment of piece ensued for 7-years. During this time, Athens perceived Melos as an enemy because it supported Sparta. In ancient context, disputes that could not be resolved through dialogue progressed to the warring stage. At this stage, conflicting parties would fight until a winner emerged, meaning total destruction of the enemy. Thucydides Dialogue covers negotiations between Athens and Melos, which failed leading to eventual massacre and destruction of Melos According to Cartledge (1986). In the dialogue, there is an apparent difference in conception of justice and fairness between Athens and Melos. This difference in conception of fairness led to disagreement; hence compromised on the role of negotiation in the conflict resolution. First, Athenians believed that they had a responsibility of preserving the imperial dignity of Athens. The imperial dignity was the reason why Athenians enjoyed social, economic and political privileges like democracy. The only way they can continue enjoying the privileges would involving shouldering the burdens of preserving an empire. Preserving the empire’s dignity requires sweat and toil plus sacrifices in the battle field. Athens was faced with imminent danger from its enemy, Sparta. Since Sparta was strong and undefeated in battle, the only way to weaken it would involve destroying its allies, especially Melos. Melos believes that it shared a common history with Spartans, and it was their social responsibility to join the Spartan alliance. According to Albin (2001), Athens knows that increasing strength of Sparta poses unprecedented dangers to its own existence. During the 7 years of peace between the two phases of Peloponnesian war, Athens reverted to strengthening its security by forging alliances with other nations. On the list of priority was Melos. Now that Melos was participating heavily in Spartan alliance, it could not easily join Athens. On the other hand, Athens knew that the only way to solve the Melos problem was through total destruction of the latter. On the other side of the argument, Melos was fancy about the idea of receiving protection from Sparta in case of any attack from Athens. Melos knows for sure that it cannot defend its territories by itself. With respect to its fairness perception, Melos argues that it is stable and prospering with its oligarchic political structure and that it has strong bonds with Sparta which cannot be severed through enemy coercion. Failure to yield to Athenian’s demands would lead to war and slavery, which Melos would not survive. According to Maria and Volk (1970), Athens maintained that it is extending fairness to Melos but Melos is refusing the offer being fully aware of the consequences. The only way that Melos could save itself was to join Athens and submit to its democratic systems. Melos believed that it had a just cause. In case Melos should join Athens that would constitute an act of betrayal, and may face dangers from Sparta. In addition, joining Athens was contrary to its traditional desire to maintain the dignity of oligarchy as inherited from their forefathers. In this context, Melos shares the same interests with Athens. The interests include a desire to preserve its cities through security and alliance with Sparta and the interest to preserve the dignity of its socio-political customs. At this juncture, there is an apparent difference between Athens and Melos regarding the justifiable definition of fairness. Based on the work of Jowett (2003), Athens knows for sure that its fall would cause the most terrible example of vengeance in human history from Sparta. As acknowledged earlier, Athenians believed the only way to ensure preservation of itself was through the burdens of preserving and expanding an empire inherited from its forefathers. On the contrary, Melos argues that they are not enemies with Athens and that the only reason of fighting together with Sparta was to ensure its security and preservation. In this case, Melos believes that there would be fairness if Athens pardons them and in return, they promise to be neutral and remain at peace with Athens. On the contrary, Athens believes it is mighty at sea and the only way to defend itself from its enemies would be to strengthen its navy. This means that alliance with Melos, which is an island, would lead to a strong navy hence fostering its security profile. According to John and Gillies (2006), Athens believes fairness will be arrived at if Melos listens to its plea for submission. Any chance of letting Melos remain in alliance with Sparta undermines its desire to foster security during peace times. Undeniably, Melos believes that justice and fairness will be arrived at only when Athens honor Melos plea for a fair cause. However, Athens asserts that fairness will be arrived at only through the path of expediency. Athenians maintained the conception that in times of danger and peril, expediency and prudence takes precedence of justice and honor and fairness. After taking part in the role play simulation, I understood that conflict resolution process encompasses numerous steps. These steps, which include exploring the depth and breadth of needs and wants, acknowledgement of needs and wants of both parties, control of violence and finally engagement in negotiations, are all necessary in ensuring success in conflict resolution process. All the first three steps are necessary. However, the forth step of negotiation is instrumental in giving birth to solutions of disagreements. However, one must acknowledge the fact that failure to reach an objective and balanced agreement about the concept of fairness undermines outcome of negotiations. After analyzing the Melian Dialogue by Thucydides, it became apparent that whenever warring sides hold contrary opinion of fairness and justice, no meaningful success can be achieved in negotiation processes. In addition, it became apparent that the concept of fairness adopted by both Athens and Melos were far from what modern contexts of socio-political situations understand. In modern contexts, fairness and justice are defined from the principles of moral and political philosophy. Based on the numerous theories of justice, fairness is arrived at when each party present in a negotiation process receives exactly what he deserves. This means that the party in dire need receives more than the one with an advantage. According to Smith (2000), decisions regarding to fairness are solely derived from moral and philosophical ethics. Based on this premise, one can appreciate the fact that there is a substantial difference between concepts of fairness today and in ancient times of Thucydides. In conflict-filled regions like the Middle-East and Somalia, conflict persists because negotiating parties have different understanding of fairness. As seen in the Thucydides dialogue, peaceful solutions cannot be derived from negotiations where parties hold diverse understanding of fairness and justice. Despite the plea coupled with objective causes presented by Melos, it is sad to know that Melian cities were totally destroyed and all soldiers massacred by Athenians after the failed negotiation. At this juncture, I concluded the maybe we should not even advocate for negotiation in dispute resolutions. Apparently, negotiations are not always fare and may force one party to submit to the other because of lack of uniform understanding about fairness. Reference List Jowett, B. (2003). The Melian Dialogue: Excerpt from Thucydides. Shsu.edu. Retrieved [April 25, 2014] from http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Melian.html Cartledge, P. (1986). Might and Right: Thucydides and the Melos Massacre. London: Oxford University Press. Buckley, T. (2010). Aspects of Greek History 750-323BC: A source-based approach. Harrisburg: Routledge Publishing. John, W. & Gillies, R. (2006). The History of Ancient Greece: Its colonies and Conquests. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Maria, T. & Volk, C. K. (1970). The Melian Dialogue in Thucydides: A Structural Analysis. Harrisburg: John Wiley & Sons. Smith, B. (2000). Harvard Business Review on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. Albin, C. (2001). Justice and Fairness in International Negotiation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More