Communication and International Conflict Management

Summary: This article attempts to address the importance of communication in managing conflicts. The role of mass communication in the international community has highlighted its key function in providing information and knowledge, as well as its capacity to mobilize and connect people with ongoing events. Political units have realized that achieving their interests relies on mastering communication technology. Since states’ interests often conflict, this inevitably leads to disputes where superiority lies with those possessing advanced communication tools and who can effectively utilize them to achieve their goals.

Introduction: One of the most significant developments in contemporary international relations is the recognition of communication as a regular and continuous action of governments in both peace and war. The communication process can significantly contribute to conflict resolution, and it represents the core of deterrence strategies. A war may emerge simply due to one party sending a signal or symbolic message that is interpreted by others as a precursor to a declaration of war, thereby igniting the conflict.

International disputes have influenced communication methods regarding their functions, content, and reach, as these methods are tools in the hands of decision-makers. Communication has become a critical component in shaping international relations, serving as a manifestation of these relationships whether in times of détente or tension. In managing disputes, every state employs tangible elements such as economic, human, and military power, as well as intangible or moral aspects where communication plays a crucial role.

1. The Nature of the Relationship between Communication and Politics in General

Communication and its forms are political tools; the relationship between politics and communication is inseparable, despite ongoing debates about this connection. Some assert that communication is vital for the ongoing monitoring of power and that it acts as a parallel force to politics because media serve as a mirror reflecting the actions of governments. Conversely, others believe that communication should serve the state to contribute to establishing stable and robust socio-political systems.

It is well-known that the functions of a political system are determined based on a binary classification: inputs and outputs. Inputs consist of demands directed to the system and the support it receives, while outputs are decisions and policies used by the system to meet these demands. The role of communication is to connect these inputs and outputs.

The regulation of the political system focuses on communication, where a state’s ability to manage affairs correlates with its capacity to process information. “Wiener” articulated the relationship between cybernetics, politics, and communication by stating that if we perceive politics as a system, then communication is the nerve that controls this system. Additionally, a system’s ability to exert control and authority relates to its capacity to manage information, suggesting that communication and control are synonymous. Every time we communicate, we effectively exert some control.

One cannot discuss political processes without highlighting the element of communication as it represents the core of political interaction in various political phenomena. The decision-making process, especially rational decision-making, relies on communication and the exchange of information between decision-makers and the affected community. “Bai” emphasized that there is an intrinsic relationship between the communication process and the political process; if the world of politics is founded on power, the desires of those in power must be effectively communicated to those they expect to respond. Furthermore, if the political domain is based on the legitimacy of authority, it necessitates the existence of means to symbolically express the values and procedural norms within such systems.

As the political sphere involves participation, it entails creating channels to convey citizens’ interests and demands to decision-makers. If politics hinges on choosing between alternatives, it must ensure that decision-makers and stakeholders are well-informed about the available options.

Communication in a political system resembles the nervous system in the human body, as stated by “Karl W. Deutsch.” For governments to operate efficiently, they must establish highly efficient communication channels for transmitting political decisions and ensuring the flow of information to and from decision-making centers.

Moreover, the evolution of communication in our era has enriched diplomatic practices and opened new horizons. It has enabled diplomats to communicate more effectively with their governments, rendering them no longer the sole means of conveying information. Instead, available communication tools have become faster and more adept at tracking and understanding news, enabling comprehensive coverage of global events that allows governments to provide instructions to their representatives worldwide. Conversely, today, it is challenging for states to conceal what happens within their borders. The information provided by various communication tools regarding events and international affairs constitutes a significant resource for foreign policy makers, who must be aware of their surroundings.

Dr. “Mohammad Msalha” outlines several aspects emphasizing the connection between communication and its tools on one hand, and political actors on the other:

1. Knowledge: Foreign policy makers utilize communication media to gather information about international events and the reactions of international actors, even though they have official channels for some information. Mass media have a broader capacity for collecting and disseminating information than government communication channels.
2. Assessment: Various communication media enable politicians to evaluate events and draw insights from the analyses presented by professionals within those media.
3. Importance: Based on the focus and neglect of specific issues by communication outlets, political actors can identify significant events to prioritize, thereby exerting public opinion’s influence on policymakers. The disproportionate attention received by one event encourages public interest in it over others.
4. Public Opinion: Media serve as a measure of prevailing public opinion trends, providing policymakers insights through articles and commentaries reflecting diverse public views.

2. External Communication (International)

Today, communication is an international concern, as the world becomes increasingly interconnected due to modern communication technologies, which have rendered our world akin to a global village. Communication is divided into internal and external categories, similar to politics; however, this segregation does not imply a separation between them. Just as there is a difference between domestic and foreign policies, there is a difference between internal and external communication. A general understanding of communication concepts is essential for those studying international communication; hence we will discuss the essence of communication without delving deeply into its diverse definitions and models.

Communication is one of the channels of political action; it, more precisely, refers to the activities of a state that emerge from three avenues: violence, deceit, and communication. In its broadest sense, communication refers to the transfer of concepts aimed at persuasion and belief. It is a two-way process fundamentally based on fostering connections in action or, at the very least, support. Some define communication as a process, with the English lexicon defining the term “process” as any phenomenon demonstrating continuous change over time or any ongoing operation.

Any individual engaged in communication must grasp the significance of the dynamics of communication; otherwise, negative consequences may arise, particularly for those entrusted with international communication responsibilities in this ever-changing dynamic world.

External (international) communication refers to intentional efforts to disseminate ideas and opinions among the populations of other states, aiming to have them adopt, support, or sympathize with the issues raised by the communicating state. Most countries today actively employ international communication to serve their foreign policy goals. Experts in the field often interchangeably use the terms international media and international communication. When utilizing international communication, governments consider the realistic assessment of the political impacts that various media—such as newspapers, radio, and television—can have.

The importance of international communication as a foreign policy tool has grown for major countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, which have heightened interests and roles in international politics. Consequently, these nations strive to reinforce diverse means for their foreign policies, particularly communication channels, to achieve their interests, expand their influence, and enhance their political roles on the international stage.

External communication has significantly evolved since World War II, both quantitatively and qualitatively, as well as across its methods, organizational structures, and levels. The realm of international communication has witnessed numerous innovations and developments that have led to the emergence of a singular global community, or as “McLuhan” termed it, a global village. This transformation is attributed to technology transcending geographical distances and temporal constraints, erasing their relevance. Just as past periods were marked by important innovations and discoveries, such as the Bronze Age, the Steel Age, the Industrial Revolution, and the Atomic Age—reflecting the most impactful breakthroughs in human life—today’s era undeniably merits the title of the Information Age or the Information Revolution.

This dynamic revolution initiated with the astonishing leap in computing technologies and information processing, merging with the incredible progression of communication means (telephones, televisions, and satellite stations) into a singular framework.

The unprecedented accumulation of knowledge has accelerated the transition from scientific understanding to applicable practices with greater ease and lesser time. Additionally, the astounding speed of disseminating and globalizing this knowledge stems from this merger. Ultimately, the emergence of the international information network known widely as the Internet has capitalized on advances in connectivity among various platforms locally, regionally, and globally—establishing a colossal electronic entity housing billions of information and data (economic, political, artistic, environmental) along with an enormous array of options free from any form of censorship accessible to knowledge seekers.

Countries have recognized the significance of the international communicative function, prompting them to regularly review and evaluate their foreign media policies on a scientific and objective basis. This assessment aims to refine tools and methods to face a fiercely competitive and rapidly changing world that is unforgiving towards the complacent. The endeavor to win international public opinion necessitates persuasive communication strategies that are not accessible to everyone. The main characteristics of international communication can be summarized as follows:

1. Requires considerable planning, particularly regarding objectives and messaging.
2. Necessitates dedicated attention and structures compatible with the nature and type of communicative relationship between information source and target audience. The message becomes independent of the sender once transmitted, and altering it might lead to contradictions and loss of trust among the target audience, which may belong to diverse cultural and intellectual streams. Thus, international communication must possess several attributes, such as: predictability, caution, moderation, and foresight.

Some researchers believe that various factors determine the success or failure of international communication:

1. The necessity of scientific and methodical planning for international communication.
2. The critical need for a robust connection between international communication and diplomatic efforts.
3. International communication should emerge from a language of interests, avoiding emotional and reactionary rhetoric, as external communication aims to create beneficial relationships and connections grounded in shared interests.
4. The importance of coordination and integration between international communication and a range of supplementary tools, such as:
   • Cultural policy and the process of cultural exchange and cooperation (e.g., training grants).
   • Tourism policy: viewed as a vehicle for communication and cultural openness to others.
   • Economic policy: aimed not only at achieving material interests but also at enhancing the image of a given state among other nations through cooperation and economic assistance.

3. Communication and Conflict Management

Conflicts are not isolated events merely covered by the news; they represent a complex and intertwined structure that includes various aspects and dimensions, happening within a specific context. Conflicts are manifestations of their societal and temporal origins, emerging within a particular framework. Often, conflicts are interpreted through the lens of international systems; the international system consists not only of states but also encompasses the intricate pattern of relationships among them. The term “system” denotes a collection of interconnected units.

A “conflict” is generally defined as the pursuit of opposing goals by multiple entities utilizing peaceful means or armed force. It is important to differentiate between conflicts understood as “disputes” over negotiable interests that can be resolved through specific agreements and deeply rooted conflicts revolving around fundamental human needs, which can only be resolved by removing the underlying causes of their emergence. Conflict management aligns somewhat with the term “conflict regulation” and serves as an overarching term covering a positive perspective in dealing with disputes.

A hallmark of the international system is its dynamism and continual change. Political units strive to modify their means and mechanisms to keep pace with ongoing transformations. Conflict is no longer merely an army facing another in a distant locale; it heavily relies on communication, with both local and global public opinion playing significant roles. Richard Nixon noted in his 1960 book “Six Crises” that while “military power is vital, it is insufficient if not bolstered by economic and political strategies, as well as effective communication.”

This perspective has become evident, as media in the United States and Europe have been designated as the “fourth dimension,” in addition to the traditional elements of power—namely, economy, military, and diplomacy. The United States has aggressively challenged European media monopolies to establish a broad global market for American media, effectively redrawing the international media landscape to create new spheres of influence dominated by the US, consistent with its intended leadership direction in global affairs.

“Zbigniew Brzezinski” affirmed this approach, positing that the United States, having achieved military superiority, must maintain it through control over international communication networks. “Brzezinski” was among the early theorists to recognize the increasing and influential role of mass media in international relations. It is imperative that the decisive factor in managing conflicts is political; leadership translates to the decision-making core concerning disputes, with communication constituting a variable dependent on politics.

Conflict management reflects the prevailing system’s nature, the ownership structure in the communication sector, the qualitative role communication plays within society, the overarching media philosophy, communication expertise levels, and the availability and quality of physical and human resources. Establishing a media-based approach to conflict management encompasses not only informational and intellectual resolution but also addressing the linguistic dimensions of conflict. Language is not neutral; words carry meanings and possess different communicative implications. Consequently, every conflict entails a struggle over the terms used or their content.

The intrinsic significance of communication has escalated, establishing it as one of the strategic tools employed in conflict management. This explains why communication is intertwined with the machinery of the state, irrespective of the existing regime’s nature. Contemporary experiences have demonstrated that communication tools have effectively become a benchmark to gauge the overall performance efficiency of existing political systems.

Recent conflicts have revitalized the importance of broadcasting, highlighting the pivotal role of television and satellite communications. The American administration employed television (the most powerful tool for international communication) as its primary means for covering the Gulf War, as television relies on the spectacle strategy to present reality, dramatizing events. Simultaneously, it engages in a complex process of mythologizing reality. Understanding this reading and mythologizing requires recognizing the strategies of dominant powers and their constant preoccupation with serving their interests.

The televised coverage of the Gulf War sought not to present it as a tangible humanitarian disaster but merely as abstract events reminiscent of fantasy, like any scenario or computer game. This was accomplished through extravagant wartime broadcasts focusing on technological aspects. French researcher Jean Baudrillard, in his book “The Gulf War Did Not Take Place,” argued that the war served as an opportunity to generate a specific image that marginalized the human dimensions of warfare. The American media management of the conflict allowed it to monopolize information pertaining to the war, storing, controlling, and distributing it effectively. The ultimate goal was to achieve absolute American control over the media narrative regarding the war on local (within the US), continental (especially Europe), and international (Asia, Africa, Middle East) levels, and thus rein in public opinion to align with American interests.

Conclusion: The reality of conflicts has evolved alongside advancements in communication technologies. This rapid and remarkable evolution is unlikely to slow down, potentially reaching a point where individuals may question, as Toffler did, whether further acceleration is desirable or, conversely, if it remains humanly feasible. This form of dialogue is not philosophical or contentious, nor is it an intellectual exercise of logical issues proposed for discussion; it constitutes hard facts requiring acceptance. The military factor is no longer sufficient for managing conflicts; its success now hinges on the adept usage of communication tools, proving their indispensable nature.

References

• “Communication and Conflict Transformation through Local, Regional, and Global Engagement” by Peter M. Kellett and Thomas G. Matyók

• “Mediation and Communication in International Relations” by J. Bercovitch and J.Z. Rubin

• “The Handbook of Conflict Communication: Integrating Theory, Research, and Practice” by John G. Oetzel and Stella Ting-Toomey

• “Conflict Resolution and Communication” edited by Peter M. Kellett and Diana G. Wheeless

• “International Mediation: Communication Strategies in Peace Processes” by Lesley G. Terris

• “Strategic Communication in International Conflict” by Thomas A. Hollihan and Kevin Baaske

• “Negotiation and Conflict Management: Essays on Theory and Practice” edited by I. William Zartman

• “The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide” by Bernard Mayer

• “Peacemaking: From Practice to Theory” edited by Susan Allen Nan, Zachariah Cherian Mampilly, and Andrea Bartoli

• “Communication in International Negotiation” by Fen Osler Hampson and I. William Zartman