Wisdom-based Foreign Relations
The wisdom norm of relations
Wisdom is not an abstraction, not an -ology, or an -ism. Wisdom is the epitome of the personal. We see this in the literature’s personification of wisdom (such as in the Book of Proverbs chapters 1-9) as an attractive, prudent, virtuous, and competent woman who offers sage advice to others about the life in the world that she shares with God. (In the literature, she is contrasted to another attractive woman, a temptress whom fools follow to their destruction.) In the Christian New Testament, the personal silhouette of wisdom is manifest in the understanding of Jesus Christ as the wisdom of God. And it is probably true that more books have been written about Jesus’ views on relationships than any other religious figure.
The wisdom norm of relations is dependent on the personal mien of wisdom. Thus in the literature wisdom is found plying her craft not in ivory towers but in the midst of human interaction (it’s a prominent theme). Although, as religious traditions indicate, we may pray to God for wisdom, the literature explains that wisdom may be searched out and found among human beings in their varied relationships with each other, and, importantly, not just among the like-minded but also among those who are different and who are learning from each other. This becomes crucial, of course, to the specialists who work in the field of international relations. Frankly, however, the word relations in this designation today denotes much more about conceptual connections between the abstract entities called states than it does about relationships between the real entities who are the peoples of those nations. (There’s a sad irony in this. The rise and spread of “democracy” the past couple hundred years was meant, in part, to help nations see themselves not only as states but as peoples.) So let’s think about different domestic populations, or societies, for a minute.
The wisdom norm of relations can pay huge dividends for the peoples of nations who are quite different from one another and who may have, almost as a default setting, some pretty distorted ideas of each other. Any two people who have ever begun a friendship with each other from quite different cultures or religions knows how much work it took to ditch the caricatures, stereotypes, confused feelings, ignorance, and every other thing that sought to hinder the friendship. Raise the ante to the arena of diverse domestic populations and it’s easy to see why, for international agreements, getting to Yes can be terribly difficult.
Diverse domestic populations, however, can learn wisdom from engaging with each other in ways in which even their cultures or religions may not be able to help them. The British wisdom theologian David Ford (Cambridge) suggests that wisdom emerges not so much from what is said between two or more people who are different, but from their cries. “Wisdom cries” for a hearing in the “intensities of life,” Ford writes in his fascinating book Christian Wisdom. People cry for what they desire most, for “love, justice, truth, goodness, compassion, children, health, food and drink, education, security, and so on.” And “Christian wisdom” he writes, “is discerned within earshot of those cries…. The insistence of the cries lends urgency to the search for wisdom. The persistence of the cries, together with the diversity and, often, novelty of their challenges, constantly expands the search and refuses to allow it to rest in any closure.” In other words, wisdom comes when, together, we openly and honestly listen to each other’s cries for justice, peace, cooperation, and so on. That is, wisdom is not an end. It is a way, a non-ideological way, to justice, peace, cooperation.wisdom is concerned not so much with concepts as with situations
It may take getting used to a little less reliance on our ideological orientations than we think, but this mutual searching for wisdom is especially significant for reaching international agreements between peoples who are very different indeed. I believe diplomats and negotiators have a special role to play in serving to make this happen. (I have found both the English School and some constructivist approaches to international relations, in their emphases on international society and the social dimensions of life, a pleasant relief from the ideological checklists, reified abstractions, and causal materialism that has shaped and given direction to political science theory and practice, and that thus has seen international life much more in terms of system than society.)
The idea of cooperative and peaceable relations has become so normative for the diverse groups who live under Western democracies that we may take it for granted, and we might assume that there is no hope for cooperative and peaceable relations with those who are not like us, such as with the Muslim populations of the Middle East, unless they too become like Western democracies. And vice versa. But that is simply not true. The Muslim world is not without resources here. There is a powerful idea in the Quran, for example, which, if I understand surah 49:13 correctly, affirms that human diversity (male, female, tribes, nations) is part of God’s design for us get to know one another. The implication seems to be that God could have made us all the same but in His infinite wisdom chose to make us different, that in our relationships we might learn ways of getting along together. This surah, then, seems to have much in common with the wisdom norm of relations.
A primary idea of the wisdom tradition that may be helpful, here, is that wisdom is concerned not so much with concepts as with situations. Thus for international relations the wisdom way stresses human situations over ideological checklists. Whereas political ideologies (realism, idealism, neoconservatism, and others) emphasize aligning nations around conceptual thinking like iron filings oriented by a magnetic field, wisdom emphasizes situational thinking.
Conceptual thinking is of course so basic to human integrity and activity that we would never want to be without it. We need our ability to think abstractly; I am not arguing against that. For international relations, however, situations between parties need to be explored and sorted, and explored and sorted by the parties themselves, that wisdom for resolving tensions and problems may be searched out and found by the parties in question.
The creative thinking, then, that searches out wisdom for international agreements comes not from afar. As necessary as outside mediation is in some situations, such as between the Israelis and the Palestinians, wisdom-based solutions for international situations cannot be found apart from engagement between the actors themselves, for wisdom comes to light in moments of understanding between them. (Some of these ideas about “situations” I have adapted from Abraham Heschel’s God in Search of Man.)
For mediators, however, the wisdom norm of relations, being a personal thing, helps them gain an intimate understanding of quarreling parties in ways that conceptual thinking cannot. It helps them immerse themselves in the situation that is being experienced by the parties themselves and the peoples they represent. “There is little prospect of mediating any conflict,” writes seasoned Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross in The Missing Peace, “if one does not understand the historical narrative of each side.”relational diplomacy keeps mediators and negotiators aware of two common traps
Chris Seiple, president of the Institute for Global Engagement (IGE), often talks about “relational diplomacy,” which IGE practices and which it believes is as crucial as traditional diplomacy is between states for understanding situations, ending quarrels, and reaching cooperative agreements. In tough situations between parties, relational diplomacy keeps mediators and negotiators aware of two common traps. One is what Seiple calls “mirror-image engagement,” in which we expect people of other cultures to think and act like us. The other is “monolithic engagement,” in which we expect the entire people or government to think and act the same. “These basic reminders need to take place daily,” Seiple writes, because it is easy to forget that other peoples and governments have different worldviews than we do. Relational diplomacy encourages listening to and learning from others, and in the process “respect is demonstrated and ‘they’ will listen, learn, and respect back. A relationship has begun.” (See “The Art of Relational Diplomacy,” Chris Seiple, on the Web.)
In a similar sense, Michael Schluter, founder of the Relationships Foundation and Concordis International, talks about the need for parity in tough situations, which he sees as “a real problem between the Arab world and the U.S. or Britain. I think there is a feeling on the Arab side that the West does not really show them respect, doesn’t hold them in sufficiently high regard to listen to them carefully, to treat them as equals. Obviously there are inequalities in terms of economics, military technology, and average living standards. But from a relationships point of view I don’t think we should measure a country’s ‘development’ simply by its income level…. So on parity there is a real issue here. I think it is fundamentally a question of respect. If we in the West could approach the Arabs with more humility, as if we are really interested in what they are thinking and what is important to them, I think we would find a much stronger basis for cooperation.” (See: Michael Schluter conversation with Charles Strohmer on this site.)
Both Seiple and Schluter and their organizations have some remarkable successes in tough situations. IGE’s ongoing and often experimental liaison work between politicians, religious leaders, and policy advisors in Washington and Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province is a case in point, as was the work of the Relationships Foundation and Concordis International in South Africa and Rwanda, and in Sudan with support from the U.S. State Department. Both Schluter and Seiple, however, are quick to point out that building honest and open relationships that lead to breakthroughs in negotiations takes time, is messy, and requires an inordinate amount of patience and persistence. In the process, however, as Seiple notes, “a space is created where differences are named even as common values are found and strengthened. Now you are ready to have a principled and practical effect based on mutual respect.”
Because relying on the wisdom norm of relations can be a lengthy, demanding, and thorny process, international mediators are, in my book, the unsung heroes of conflict resolution. Former Senator George Mitchell, currently President Obama’s Special Envoy for Middle East peace, is a poignant example. During the 1990s, he was dedicated to serving as U.S. Special Envoy to Northern Ireland, and became a key actor in resolving the violent, decade’s-long conflict in Northern Ireland. In what has been called a triumph of patience, Mitchell, and not without personal cost, immersed himself in relationships with the fighting parties until he was able to demonstrate a shrewd understanding of the situation and lead the peace talks through endless arguments about procedures and agendas to what became known as the Good Friday Agreement (1998). (Alongside the formal diplomatic track, see Marc Gopin’s inspiring book To Make the Earth Whole, for mature insight into what he calls “citizen diplomacy” and its importance in mediation and peacemaking across tough religious and political lines in the Middle East.)
In short, the wisdom norm of relations cries to policymakers and leaders: “Go beyond the abstract notion of ‘nation against nation’, see the peoples of the nations as neighbors, and search out international policies with them to enhance their lives.”
