Reducing Mistrust

Abstract

The possibility of a clear connection between conciliatory gestures and the reduction of mistrust between adversaries mentioned at the conclusion of the previous chapter briefly returns the argument to the issue of ‘success’ and the impact, or ‘effectiveness’ of conciliatory gestures. Up to now, the discussion of effectiveness, has concentrated upon short-term issues such as whether the initiative has been recognised as credible and worth responding to by the target, and whether an accommodative sequence of mutually reinforcing benign behaviour occurs. There are, however, longer-term considerations involved, especially in considering the effects of accommodative sequences. Surely another criterion of ‘success’ is whether a particular conciliatory initiative is one which brings about at least some positive changes in the attitudes, aspirations and expectations of leaders, elites and constituents within the adversaries? Admittedly, it seems unlikely that any major or permanent changes will be effected by a single conciliatory move, even one as dramatic as Sadat’s trip to Israel, so that changed attitudes, expectations and beliefs will clearly be largely dependent upon subsequent patterns of behaviour. No single conciliatory gesture is likely to wipe away years of fear, suspicion and hostility developed during a protracted and violent conflict; this will only result from a prolonged and self-reinforcing peace process, often extending beyond even the point of a successful negotiation producing a compromise solution.

‘Shall I join with other nations in alliance?

If allies are weak, am I not best alone?

If allies are strong with powers to protect me,

Might they not protect me out of all I own?

Is a danger to be trusting one another

One will seldom want to do what other wishes

But unless some day somebody trust somebody

There’ll be nothing left on earth excepting fishes!’

The King and I. Act I, Scene 3