write an essay on culture and peaceful coexistence

100 Words Essay On Peaceful Co Existence In Nigeria In English

Living together in peace rather than in constant hostility is termed as peace co-existence. Nigeria is a multi-ethnic and culturally diverse country. This is a country where peace seems rather like a dream for them to accomplish. There have been constant destructions, fights and wars.

The cause of this has been due to the activities evil men who have consistently taken undue advantage of the endemic ethnic biases or religious bigotries in the society to perpetrate their evil agenda. It is not only the fault of the government but the people as well who are equally corrupted. The stress in Nigeria has brought in a lot of concern world-wide and many countries are trying to help them but till date there has been no major effect.

Related Posts:

  UNIZIK Journal of Religion and Human Relations Journal / UNIZIK Journal of Religion and Human Relations / Vol. 13 No. 1 (2021) / Articles (function() { function async_load(){ var s = document.createElement('script'); s.type = 'text/javascript'; s.async = true; var theUrl = 'https://www.journalquality.info/journalquality/ratings/2406-www-ajol-info-jrhr'; s.src = theUrl + ( theUrl.indexOf("?") >= 0 ? "&" : "?") + 'ref=' + encodeURIComponent(window.location.href); var embedder = document.getElementById('jpps-embedder-ajol-jrhr'); embedder.parentNode.insertBefore(s, embedder); } if (window.attachEvent) window.attachEvent('onload', async_load); else window.addEventListener('load', async_load, false); })();  

Article sidebar.

Article Details

Main article content, national integration and peaceful co-existence in nigeria: the role of inter-ethnic/inter-religious marriages, christian emeka chukwu.

It is no longer news that Nigeria as one united political and geographical entity has continued to experience inter-religious and inter-ethnic sentiments bickering, misunderstanding, mistrust which have constantly snowballed into crisis of tremendous proportion. As a result, many innocent lives and properties worth billions of naira have been lost. This ugly situation has continued to threaten the corporate existence of Nigeria and retrogressively affected the socioeconomic development of Nigeria. However, when there is no genuine effort to bring about genuine national integration, peaceful coexistence will definitely be a mirage. One of the factors or strategies identified as capable of fostering national integration and  guaranteeing peaceful co-existence is inter-ethnic, inter-religious and even inter-communal marriages among the people of different ethnic groups and adherents of different religions in Nigeria. This paper clarifies concepts in the write-up and also points out how intermarriages can foster peace and unity. It also recommends that traditional and religious leaders should be encouraged to inspire those they watch over to embrace this type of mixed marriage in order to achieve sustainable national development and most importantly promote peaceful coexistence among different ethnic groups in Nigeria

AJOL is a Non Profit Organisation that cannot function without donations. AJOL and the millions of African and international researchers who rely on our free services are deeply grateful for your contribution. AJOL is annually audited and was also independently assessed in 2019 by E&Y.

Your donation is guaranteed to directly contribute to Africans sharing their research output with a global readership.

• For annual AJOL Supporter contributions, please view our Supporters page.

Journal Identifiers

Essay On Peaceful Coexistence For Students

In a world marked by diversity, understanding and promoting peaceful coexistence becomes an imperative step toward creating societies that thrive on harmony, mutual respect, and progress.

Peaceful coexistence is a philosophical principle that pertains to the ability of diverse individuals, communities, or nations to live together in harmony, mutual respect, and understanding, with zero reliance on violence or aggression to resolve conflicts. It is an ideology that champions the repudiation of war, advocates for mutual tolerance, recognizes diversity and promotes non-violence.

Table of Contents

Essay: Peaceful Coexistence – A Pathway to Harmony and Progress

The importance of peaceful coexistence.

The significance of peaceful coexistence cannot be understated in our world today. Peaceful coexistence fosters social harmony, a vital ingredient for any progressive society. It acts as a bulwark against violence and conflict, ensuring tranquility and stability in the community. Furthermore, it paves the way for a more just and equitable society, where every individual has an equal opportunity to thrive and prosperity is shared amongst all.

The Challenges to Peaceful Coexistence

Despite its importance, achieving peaceful coexistence is fraught with numerous challenges. Prejudice, discrimination, and inequality remain persistent issues that sow seeds of discord and conflict. Political and economic factors, such as corruption, poverty, and unequal distribution of resources, further fuel the flame of conflict, making peaceful coexistence a hard-fought battle.

Strategies for Promoting Peaceful Coexistence

Promoting peaceful coexistence requires a multi-faceted approach. Education and raising awareness about the virtues of tolerance, empathy, and understanding are critical in this regard. Conflict resolution mechanisms and mediation also play a crucial role in managing disputes peacefully and fostering understanding among differing parties. Additionally, the promotion of human rights and social justice serves as a cornerstone in our quest for peaceful coexistence, ensuring every individual enjoys equal rights and opportunities.

Personal Reflection on Peaceful Coexistence

As a Nigerian student, I believe peaceful coexistence starts with each one of us. By demonstrating empathy, tolerance, and respect in our daily interactions, we can instigate a wave of change that promotes peaceful coexistence. Schools, families, and communities must work in unison to inculcate these values in our younger generations, fostering a society that values peace, harmony, and mutual respect above all else.

In conclusion, peaceful coexistence is not a distant concept, but a tangible reality that we can achieve through mutual respect, understanding, and tolerance. As we promote peaceful coexistence in our personal lives and communities, we help sculpt a more just, equitable, and peaceful society for all.

Hello! Welcome to my Blog StudyParagraphs.co. My name is Angelina. I am a college professor. I love reading writing for kids students. This blog is full with valuable knowledge for all class students. Thank you for reading my articles.

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Article: The Role of Religion in Establishing Peaceful Coexistence in Society

2018, Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization

The world has become a global village where an occurrence in one corner of the world has resounding effects in all the other corners. Therefore, the need to develop a positive attitude toward understanding and interaction among all the world religions has increased manifold, particularly in view of the grave nature of threats posed to global order and peace. This paper deals with the issues of religious bigotry, intolerance and misunderstanding toward other religions. Religion does not teach violence and antagonism to its followers. The primary and fundamental teaching of all world religions promotes love, compassion, tolerance, peace, mutual respect, understanding and cooperation. In the past, many efforts have been made to create harmony among the followers of different religions by eliminating their differences and their unique identities shaped by their respective religion through the imposition of a uniform religious structure. This paper explains that there is no need to eliminate religious differences and identities in order to establish a good society but it also emphasizes the need to develop core respect and understanding the beliefs of others. These form the basis on which believers of different religions can live together. The followers of different religions and faiths need to join hands in initiating dialogue and interaction with each other in order to make this globe a peaceful place for every one regardless of his religion, creed and ethnic identities. This is the only way to eliminate the specter of terrorism and extremism. Keywords: peaceful coexistence, pluralism, interfaith harmony, positive attitude, terrorism, extremism, religion and peace

Related Papers

Role of Inter-Religious Harmony in Peaceful Society

Religious harmony performs a key role in preserving political and worldwide stability. Internationally it's far crucial to stay in a non-violent and harmonious environment, mainly in a society composed of believers of various races and religions. Relations among religions are normal. Failure to hold religious harmony can plunge society into battle and chaos. Therefore, the cause of this newsletter is to record in element the elements that affect the sustainable harmony among multi-religious societies. The record additionally emphasized that elements including acceptance, knowledge, cooperation, fairness, and justice are crucial elements in preserving religious harmony. Therefore, this paper pursuits to shape a solid idea of multi-sectarian harmony in society. It must additionally contribute to the improvement of a multi-religious society. Try to

Miraj Ahmed

Fatmir Shehu

The misunderstanding and misinterpretation of religion and its teachings by its followers and others have given the impression that religion is the sole source of all past and current conflicts faced by humanity. This assumption is perhaps encouraged due to the limited knowledge of other religions and the wrong impression spread because of peoples‟ ignorance of their own religion. The media presents religion with stories focused exclusively on hatred, war-making, and devastation. However, the value of peace has been considered as the core principle in the teachings of major world religions. The ongoing inter-religious activities initiated by both, religious individuals and institutions have shown very clearly that religion stands for peace and not war. This research sees inter-religious dialogue as the most important element on which the notion of peacebuilding stands. This study attempts to show that inter-religious activities are a great resource for building and sustaining peace between people of different socio-cultural and religious backgrounds in the long term. The paradigm of inter-religious dialogue is to provide people with a better understanding of religion and its teachings and should shift their views from hostility and enmity to mutual respect and better understanding. Descriptive and analytical methods will be employed by the researcher with the intention of providing findings that will serve as solid solutions for the contemporary conflicts witnessed by our contemporary societies.

Al-Qalam http://journal.alqalamjournalpu.com/index.php/index

Dr. Tayyaba Razzaq

Interreligious co existence is an essential propogation of mutual understanding and adequate relationship. In this age of disruption and discrimination' the need of interfaith harmony has increased manifold. Interreligious co existence is inevitable for world religions. It can enable suffering humanity to find out techniques and methods to sit together, in a much more acceptable atmosphere. The purpose of the research is to investigate the status of interfaith harmony in the world religions and the divinal concept & historical evidences of inter-faith harmony in Islam?Islam teaches mutual respect; the code of selfless service to the whole of divine creation and especially man and inculcates understanding and realization of basic truth. A Muslim, 'if he understands the acual meaning of Islam'can never talk of any religion disparagingly and respect all religions and their Prophets as it is included in the foundational believes. Islam teaches respect for Divine guidance and revelation, but in cautions enough to discriminate between the authentic record and the less correct versions. But whatever content of religious scripture may have taken, a Muslim is bound to show respect toward theses scriptures. Islam initiated an era of inter-religious, inter-faith and international tolerance and goodwill. The primary consideration and the ultimate target are to bring about universal peace in the world.The research article throws light on interfaith harmony in the world religions briefely and Islamic basic concept of interreligious co existence in the light of the religious dogma' in details. The descriptive methodology with analytical tone is adopted.

Ronald S Green , Chanju Mun

Religious communities are among the largest social networks in the world. With billions of people across the globe aligning themselves with these communities, the world's religions hold a great potential for spreading peace and justice throughout the planet. Unfortunately, religions have too often pitted their affiliates in wars against those of other world religions and we continue to suffer from those conflicts today. In contrast, most major religions propagate messages of peace, loving kindness, and an end to afflictions around the world. In the modern era of easy global travel and communication, it is clear that such goals can only be realized when people come to respect religious differences and celebrate common human values. This book is a resource for understanding the peace philosophies and activities of world religions. It is hoped that readers might gain an understanding of the potentials religions hold for uniting large numbers of people in order to curtail violence and suffering.

Religious Inquiries

In this article, rational arguments and religious teachings that underlie the necessity of peaceful coexistence with the followers of other religions will be discussed. Moreover, the core impediments to coexistence, such as lacking self-knowledge and being ignorant about the others, will be examined, and practical ways for effectively interacting with the followers of other religions will be suggested. Without a doubt, being rational and following the instructions of the Holy Quran and the teachings of the Holy Prophet and his family can result in the prevalence of peace for all human beings in the world. In this essay, we will present rational arguments for, and religious teachings on, peaceful coexistence, taking into account the conditions of the contemporary world.

Sheikh Dr. Taher Amini Golestani iipr.ir

Violence and extremism are of the most important topics in current research on religion and interreligious studies. The New World Order and the global peace, justice and ethics, cannot be understood without accounting for the role of religion and religious organizations and among the topics dealing with religion is the matter of violence done by the excuse of religion's orders. There is increasing research looking at and beyond religious causes of violence, as well as a hope that religion could offer genuinely effective tools to control violence. The question of control of violence is discussed in relation to the spheres of ethics (regulation of affect), theology (legitimacy of violence), and government (integration via religion). It is shown not only that religion offers possibilities for controlling violence, but also that control of violence via religion. This paper emphasizes on one of the important Islamic proofs narrated from Prophet Muhammad (S), called " The Promise of Muhammad to the Christians till the end of the World " and the impact of interreligious and intercultural role on peace and conflict resolution, as well as the role of global ethics. Sublime morality is also one point noted here as the resolution for war and conflict.

Raihanah Abdullah , HILAL WANI , Lee Wei Chang

Ghada M Awada

Th e study was set to examine the diff erences between religion and religiosity and to explore how communities can be protected against religious violence. Th e study also intended to investigate the motives and the eff ect that religious violence has had throughout history. Th e study employed the qualitative research method whereby the researcher carried out a meta-analysis synthesis of diff erent research fi ndings to make conclusions and implications that could answer the study questions. Using the literature review they conducted, the researchers carried out data collection. As such, the researcher employed the bottom-up approach to identify the problem and the questions along with the investigation framework of what they decided to explore. Th e fi ndings of the study revealed that religious backgrounds should be the cornerstone to realize the diff erence between religion and religiosity. Religion is of divine origin whereas religiosity is specifi cally a humanistic approach and a behavioral model. Th e religious violence phenomenon is formed by interlocking factors such as the interpretation of religious texts which clearly adopt thoughts and heritage full of violence camoufl aged by religion. It is recommended that governments use a strong strategy employing the educational system, summits and dialogs to successfully overcome religious violence. Th e summits on religion should result in starting a dialog that ensures acceptance of the diff erent religions.

The basis of religious and cultural dialogue and mutual understanding are to foster peaceful relations among nations and peoples. Religion must actively serve the purpose of peace and religion and cultural peace complement economic peace and political peace. Traditionally many people focus on how wars and conflicts are seemingly undertaken for religious reasons, or at least undertaken in the name of religion. Following UNESCO's lead in holding two conferences on "The Contributions of Religions to a Culture of Peace" (both held in Barcelona, Spain, in April 1993 and December 1994), -this paper will focus instead on how religious and spiritual traditions can contribute to promote culture of peace and create a more peaceful world. The paper will force to disclose the conceptual framework and inter-relation among religion, culture and peace through three important components.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Muhammad Burhanuddin Qasmi

Global Journal Al-Thaqafah

Ahmad Husni Haji Hasan

Roland Czada

Pursenla Ozukum

Fazrin Huda

Ad Dalil Journal

jamiu adelaja

Vorobjova, Marina. Religious Tolerance as the Basic Component of Inter-Religious Dialogue

Marina Kvist

Global Harmony Association

Professor Bishnu Pathak Phd

Russian Law Journal

Ohud Alzahrani

Mohd Rosmizi

IOSR(JH.SS)

manas kumar sahu

THE FOUNTAIN: JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES

Kansiime Noel

Naseem Ahmad

Semiu Ajani

Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology

Haruna Zagoon-Sayeed

Kocaeli Metropolitan Municipality: Department of Culture and Social Affairs Publications - 43

Asst. Prof. Dr. Saeyd Rashed Hasan Chowdury

Lee Wei Chang

Tanvir Hossain

International Multidisciplinary Journal of Pure Life (IMJPL)

Nazar Ul I Wani

Taissiya Marmontova

ESCAE JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND SECURITY STUDIES (EJMSS)

EJMSS ESCAE JOURNAL

Lateef Adeyemo

BEST Journals

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field We invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the  Constructive Conflict Initiative  and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems. 

By Angela Nyawira Khaminwa

Originally published in July 2003, Current Implications added by Heidi Burgess in December, 2019

See also our " Things YOU Can Do To Help" article on Coexistence  and the  Coexistence Infographic .

Current Implications

When Angela wrote this essay in 2003, she and the peace and conflict field were primarily framing "coexistence" in terms of recovery from war or other violent conflict.  Living now in the United States in 2019, it is clear that the same ideas are sorely needed to recover from our largely non-violent, but extremely destructive racial, gender, and political conflicts that are tearing the U.S. (and other developed democracies) apart.   More...

Coexistence is a state in which two or more groups are living together while respecting their differences and resolving their conflicts nonviolently. Although the idea of coexistence is not new, the term came into common usage during the Cold War. The policy of 'peaceful coexistence' was used in the context of U.S. and U.S.S.R. relations. Initially, it was a cover for aggression, but then it developed as a tool for reframing the relationship between the two powers. In the late '80s, the policy of peaceful coexistence included principles such as "nonaggression, respect for sovereignty, national independence, and noninterference in internal affairs."[1]

Coexistence has been defined in numerous ways:

• To exist together (in time or place) and to exist in mutual tolerance .[2]
• To learn to recognize and live with difference.[3]
• To have a relationship between persons or groups in which none of the parties is trying to destroy the other.[4]
• To interact with a commitment to tolerance, mutual respect, and the agreement to settle conflicts without recourse to violence.[5]

At the core of coexistence is the awareness that individuals and groups differ in numerous ways including class, ethnicity, religion, gender, and political inclination. These group identities may be the causes of conflicts, contribute to the causes of conflicts, or may be solidified as conflicts develop and escalate. A policy of coexistence, however, diminishes the likelihood that identity group differences will escalate into a damaging or intractable conflict.

Coexistence and Conflict

Conflict is ubiquitous and occurs at the individual, community, institutional, and national levels. Many conflicts are localized and expressed nonviolently. In fact, conflict can be constructive and in many instances it is fundamental to social change.[6] However, conflict that is widespread and expressed destructively or even violently appears to have increased over recent decades, impelling the global community to examine the root causes of conflicts and analyze conflict theory and management in greater detail. While times of coexistence do not exclude conflict, they do exclude widespread violence and acts intended to psychologically, socially, economically, or politically, destroy the other side(s).

The Coexistence Continuum

Coexistence exists before and after destructive or violent conflict. However, it is not static. Like all social environments, it fluctuates, depending on the level of social interaction. Coexistence exists in situations where individuals and communities actively accept and embrace diversity (active coexistence) and where individuals and communities merely tolerate other groups (passive coexistence). Communities that are not experiencing destructive or violent conflict can be located anywhere within this range.

Passive coexistence. This type of coexistence occurs where relationships are characterized by unequal power relationships , little inter-group contact, and little equity. In short, the principles of social justice are not apparent here. While this type of environment may lack violence, the continuation of unequal relationships is unlikely to lead to the resolution of conflict.[7] Institutions in this environment are not designed to support equality; consequently unjust and oppressive structures can be maintained. These structures often impede community growth, peace processes, and the development of democracy. Yet since inter-group conflict is not widespread, the groups can still be said to coexist without violence.

Active coexistence. In this type of coexistence, relationships are characterized by a recognition and respect for diversity and an active embrace of difference, equal access to resources and opportunities, and equity in all aspects of life. This type of coexistence fosters peace and social cohesion based on justice, equality, inclusion, and equity. In addition, institutions in this environment are designed to ensure fairness.

The Value of Coexistence

Finding peace in the whirlwind of war or non-violent, but highly destructive conflict is a difficult and sometimes impossible task: "... the continuation of killings that accompany wars tends to perpetuate hatreds and stimulate vengefulness, thus fueling the continuation of the conflict. Such emotions not only hinder efforts to settle the conflict, but produce conditions that make the renewal of war more possible."[8]

A state of coexistence provides psychological and physical conditions for individuals, organizations, and/or communities to reduce tensions, and for peacemakers to attempt to resolve the causes of the conflict. This period of nonviolence is especially useful post-war, as it provides an environment in which the causes of conflict can be addressed and peace can be envisioned, negotiated, and achieved. "The onset of a coexistence era allows common interests (such as economic ones) to emerge among the antagonists, giving both parties a strong stake in making the temporary stage a permanent one. It is this ongoing dynamic that ... makes the concept of coexistence a particularly useful one in the resolution of intractable ethnic conflicts."[9]

Coexistence in Many Contexts

While much of the scholarly writing on coexistence has focused mainly on international conflicts, its basic tenets -- recognizing diversity, the worth of the 'Other,' and nonviolence -- are applicable in other contexts. In fact, mediation at all levels (for example, interpersonal, organizational, and community) fosters coexistence as mediators encourage resolution and promote "the parties' mutual recognition of each other as fellow human beings despite their conflict."[10]

Getting to Coexistence

Coexistence work is that which brings individuals, communities, and/or nations away from violence and destructive conflict and towards social cohesion (see table below). This includes efforts that aim to address past wrongs, search for justice and forgiveness, build/rebuild communities, and explore ways for community structures and systems to embody fairness, justice, and equity.

These tools of coexistence are all geared towards preventing, reducing, and eliminating violence and highly destructive conflict in an effort to take societies towards increased integration. In addition to functioning as a framing mechanism, coexistence therefore becomes a term with which different types of peace work can be discussed. This usage implicitly promotes a multi-pronged approach to conflict prevention and resolution, one that looks not at a single field for a solution, but that acknowledges the need for cross-sectoral (such as conflict resolution, economic development, and public health) and multi-level (from grassroots to policy) efforts. This broad and inclusive approach is fundamental in the transition from war to passive coexistence and then to active coexistence, to the development of peace practice, and to the creation of sustainable peace .

As we move further into the 21 st century with an increasingly complex international political system and a multifaceted field of stakeholders, our language and concepts must adapt to the realities of conflict, violence, and combat. Efforts to mainstream the notion of coexistence in both the peacebuilding and conflict-resolution fields and in everyday interaction are a priority.

The opportunity that increased coexistence presents -- a reduction in violence, an active embracing of diversity, and collaboration within and across fields -- is of increasing value and significance worldwide. The promise of coexistence is that it provides a needed pause from violence, and a springboard into stronger, more respectful inter-group relationships.

When Angela wrote this essay in 2003, she and the peace and conflict field were primarily framing "coexistence" in terms of recovery from war or other violent conflict.  Living now in the United States in 2019, it is clear that the same ideas are sorely needed to recover from our largely non-violent, but extremely destructive racial, gender, and political conflicts that are tearing the U.S. (and other developed democracies) apart. For that reason, I have changed the text of Angela's original essay to include the term "destructive conflict" in addition to "violence" in most places where it appears. 

Consider Angela's definitions:

All of these things are absent from the relationship between races in the United States, between the Left and the Right, and to some extent (and with some people) between genders. The result has been unprecedented political polarization and stalemate, the rise of hate speech and crimes, the kidnapping and imprisonment of children on the southern border, the the very real threat that democracy and rule of law is being destroyed.  Clearly, these situations call for the pursuit of coexistence rather than the current into-the-sea framing where both sides are still trying to utterly discredit or even destroy the other. 

The same is true for the many very destructive, but still non-violent conflicts that are raging around the globe:  in the United Kingdom over Brexit, in much of Europe over immigration, EU economic policy and other matters, in China with respect to its treatment of the Uigurs, Tibet, Taiwan, and Hong Kong... All of these conflicts could be improved by fostering an attitude of co-existence and engaging in what Angela calls "co-existence work" to get there.

-- Heidi Burgess. December, 2019.

Back to Essay Top

---------------------------------------------------------

[1] Eugene Weiner, "Coexistence Work: A New Profession." In  The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence , ed. Eugene Weiner (New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 1998): 13-24. < http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0826411363 >.

[2] The Oxford Dictionary, 1997 ed., Frank R. Abate.

[3] Kumar Rupesinghe, "Coexistence and Transformation in Asia: Some Reflections." In Culture & Identity: Ethnic Coexistence in the Asian Context , ed. Kumar Rupsinghe (Washington, D.C.: The Sasakawa Peace Foundation, 1999): 3-37. < http://books.google.com/books?id=5Kl3HAAACAAJ >.

[4] Louis Kriesberg, "Coexistence and the Reconciliation of Communal Conflicts." In The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence , ed. Eugene Weiner (New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 1998): 182-198. < http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0826411363 >.

[5] The Coexistence Initiative. Organizational brochure.

[6] Morton Deutsch, The Resolution of Conflict (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977) < http://books.google.com/books?id=qmGEiPU-O-cC >; Lewis Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (Glenco: Free Press, 1956/1964) < http://www.amazon.com/Functions-Social-Conflict-Examination-Sociological/dp/002906810 >; Jay Rothman, Resolving Identity-Based Conflict in Nations, Organizations, and Communities (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1997) < http://unitednationstest.beyondintractability.org/bksum/rothman-resolving >.

[7] Touval, op. cit.

[8] Saadia Touval, "Ethical Dilemmas in International Mediation," Negotiation Journal 11:333-38. < http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1995.tb00749.x/abstract >.

[9] Weiner, op. cit.

[10] Robert Baruch-Bush, The Dilemmas of Mediation Practice: A Study of Ethical Dilemmas and Policy Implications. A Report on a Study for The National Institute For Dispute Resolution. NIDR, 1992. < http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/transform/bush.htm >.

[11] Weiner, op. cit.

Use the following to cite this article: Khaminwa, Angela Nyawira. "Coexistence." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2003 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/coexistence >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts.   More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of June 9, 2024 -- More links to interesting things we -- and our readers -- are reading.
• Talking with Friends and Family about the Election -- How should we deal with summer family visits when some of our relatives are "on the other side?" Like so many other things, "it depends."
• The Great Reset -- Peter Coleman suggests 8 steps that Columbia could follow to better understand what caused the chaos of last year, and how such conflicts can be conducted more constructively in the future.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability 

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability    Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project  Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors  c/o  Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

Powered by  Drupal

production_1

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Fifty Years Later, Andrei Sakharov’s Seminal Essay Is a Powerful Model of Writing for Social Change

By Masha Gessen

The following is adapted from a keynote address delivered on July 22, 2018, at the beginning of the Provincetown Fine Arts Work Center’s week devoted to “writers and artists as activists.” In cases, the author has revised the Times translation of the Russian original and reinstated original emphasis.

We are here to talk about writing for social change. Fifty years ago today, the New York Times devoted three full pages to an essay by the Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov, who was about to emerge as that country’s leading dissident and one of the world’s most visionary humanitarian thinkers. On Saturday, the Times published an essay about the essay , headlined “The Essay That Helped Bring Down the Soviet Union.” (I think Sakharov might have turned over in his grave at that title, both because he was an almost unimaginably modest man and because he would have found the Cold War framing that birthed the headline objectionable.) In the column about the essay, the Israeli politician and the former dissident Natan Sharansky writes that Sakharov “championed an essential idea at grave risk today: that those of us lucky enough to live in open societies should fight for the freedom of those born into closed ones.” The United States, Sharansky continues, has been retreating from this obligation, and, under Donald Trump , has shirked it altogether. That is indisputably true, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t do the Sakharov essay justice. The essay is a great piece of writing, and a great piece of writing for social change, not only because it is an exercise in thinking in public, on paper, but because it is an invitation to think—and to argue with the author.

Let me quote the end of Sakharov’s essay:

With this article the author addresses the leadership of our country and all its citizens as well as all people of good­will throughout the world. The author is aware of the controversial character of many of his statements. His purpose is open, frank discussion under conditions of publicity.

The essay was called “Thoughts on Progress, Peaceful Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom.” It was written by a forty-seven-year-old man who had spent a decade reconsidering his own life’s work, his world view, and his personal responsibility to humanity. Sakharov was a physicist who, starting in 1948, had played a leading role in developing the Soviet nuclear arsenal. “I never doubted that Soviet superweapons were vitally important for our country, and for maintaining an equilibrium of forces around the world,” he wrote in a different essay. But in 1957 he came to feel personally responsible for the contamination caused by nuclear-weapons testing. He began campaigning for a moratorium on testing. The Soviet Union’s most brilliant young nuclear physicist was, in the course of a few years, transformed into one of the world’s best-qualified crusaders against nuclear testing.

Of course, campaigning in the Soviet Union, a country without a public sphere, was tricky business. Sakharov could campaign precisely because he was integrated into some of the most powerful institutions in the country. He spoke out at top-secret, high-level meetings; he addressed the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, directly. All of this was fruitless. (An aside: while I was preparing this talk, I came across Sakharov’s recollection of an exchange with Khrushchev, in which the Soviet head of state took credit for the election of John F. Kennedy; according to Sakharov, Khrushchev lamented, “But what’s the damn use of Kennedy when his hands are tied?”)

The more helpless Sakharov felt, the more he seemed to notice how helpless other intellectuals felt to express their views, or to undertake their research. He started speaking out on behalf of geneticists, whose discipline was banned in the Soviet Union. This, in turn, led him to meet dissident thinkers. By 1968, he realized that he was in the process of reconsidering everything he had ever thought about the way the world worked. He began writing “Thoughts on Progress, Peaceful Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom.” He referred to it variously as a book or a brochure—since it was fated to be circulated only in “samizdat,” the underground self-publishing network, it fell outside the standard categories of books and articles—but probably its most important incarnation was in the Times . Following the publication of the essay abroad, Sakharov was stripped of his Soviet titles and honors and demoted far down the academic ladder. Around the same time, he had made the decision to donate all of his savings to the Red Cross and for the construction of a cancer hospital. So now he was also virtually penniless.

Sakharov’s writing process was evolutionary and collaborative. He circulated drafts of his ideas and incorporated feedback. The ideas in this essay were ones he would continue considering for many years to come. When he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in 1975, he wrote a lecture titled “Peace, Progress, and Human Rights,” a much more polished and, in some ways, clearer version of many of the ideas in the earlier piece. (Sakharov was not allowed to travel to Oslo for the ceremony, so the speech was delivered by his wife, Yelena Bonner.) He did not even include the 1968 piece in a collection of his political essays that he put together in the nineteen-eighties; presumably, he believed he had found better iterations of its ideas. But his fifty-year-old essay remains a historic document and an achievement. I want to focus on it in no small part precisely because it contains a lot of raw ideas and uncertainty, and these are two elements that are essential to thinking, good for writing, and very important for the potential for social change.

For the Russian version of the essay, Sakharov chose an epigraph from Goethe (the Times omitted it, or perhaps Sakharov added it to a later version):

He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm

To me, this choice of opening is oddly inspiring, but not because I share the sentiment. In fact, the sentiment is antithetical to the concept of human rights, which holds that people do not have to earn the right to live or the right to be free—these rights are theirs from birth, and no idea of “deservedness” can be applied to them. I don’t think Sakharov believed that people had to earn their lives or their freedom, either. I suspect he chose this epigraph to assert his own right to speak. There is something immodest about sticking one’s neck out and demanding attention to one’s ideas. Sakharov is making the claim that he has the right to speak, the right to think in public, because he is trying to think in the name of freedom. This is a beautiful claim. (It’s also interesting that when Sakharov uses the concept of human rights in this piece, he puts it in quotation marks. Twenty years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it was still a novel enough concept for someone living behind the Iron Curtain.)

Sakharov began by expressing deep anxiety about the future of humanity. “This anxiety is nourished, in particular, by a realization that the scientific method of directing policy, the economy, arts, education and military affairs still has not become a reality,” he wrote. By “scientific,” the scientist explained, he meant a method rooted in facts and based in analysis. Today, those of us who are deeply anxious about the future of humanity may not choose to use the word “scientific,” but we are similarly lamenting a lack of regard for facts, the loss of a shared sense of reality, and the absence of transparency in politics.

“The division of humankind threatens it with destruction,” Sakharov wrote. This was the height of the arms race, during the Cold War and the Vietnam War; Sakharov wrote specifically about the threat to humanity posed by the Vietnam War.

In the face of these perils, any action increasing the division of humankind, any preaching of the incompatibility of world ideologies and nations is madness and a crime. Only universal coöperation under conditions of intellectual freedom and the lofty moral ideals of socialism and labor, accompanied by the elimination of dogmatism and pressures of the concealed interests of ruling classes, will preserve civilization.

In a footnote, he reminded the reader that what he said did not mean that there could be compromise, rapprochement, or any kind of peace with racist, fascist, militaristic, Maoist, and other extremist ideologies. The Times incorporated the footnote in the body of the text. I don’t know whether this decision was based on “house style”—most newspapers reject the possibility of a footnote—or on other considerations. But incorporating the note in the text had the effect of flattening Sakharov’s attempt to create an intellectual hierarchy between peace that is desired and peace that is nonetheless morally untenable. Placing these paragraphs on the page one after the other made it, perhaps, easier for readers to hold the two contradictory thoughts at the same time. It also served to encourage passivity: if possibility and impossibility are weighted equally, your inaction is excused. Sakharov’s approach demanded that you do the impossible: create peace where compromise is immoral.

Sakharov went on to enumerate the threats to humanity. First among them was the threat of nuclear war. He acknowledged that nuclear parity between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. serves as a sort of deterrent, though clearly not enough of one to alleviate his anxiety. Fifty years later, we can no longer make the same statement about nuclear parity with respect to, say, the United States and North Korea. Yet our anxiety seems to have dissipated, perhaps simply because we have spent half a century with the knowledge that the world is capable of imminent suicide. Even over the roughly six months when Donald Trump was actively goading Kim Jong Un into nuclear war, we found other controversies to focus on. Sakharov wrote:

Every rational creature, finding itself on the brink of a disaster, first tries to get away from the brink and only then does it think about the satisfaction of its other needs. If humanity is to get away from the brink, it must overcome its divisions . A vital step would be a review of the traditional method of international affairs, which may be termed “empirical-competitive.” In the simplest definition, this is a method aiming at maximum improvement of one’s position everywhere possible and, simultaneously, a method of causing maximum unpleasantness to opposing forces without consideration of common welfare and common interests. If politics were a game of two gamblers, then this would be the only possible method.

Indeed, this still seems like the only possible method for most teachers and students of international relations and diplomacy, for political analysts and journalists. When we analyze Trump’s meeting with Putin, we talk about which one of them won. (I am guilty of this kind of commentary as well.) We almost always neglect to note that humanity lost. Moreover, humanity would have lost regardless of which one of them won (though the extent of the loss would have been different). Fifty years ago, Sakharov was arguing that as long as international politics are framed as a zero-sum game, humanity is imperilled. If politics is the process of finding evolving agreement on how people live together, then Sakharov was arguing for a truly political approach to understanding international relations, where success would be measured by whether the planet became a better place for all its inhabitants.

One of the things that made Sakharov a great thinker was his capacity for moral critique, which was all the more extraordinary if you consider how isolated he was, how little access he had to news or scholarship from outside the Soviet Union. Even more remarkable was his capacity for hope and vision. Here is how he was trying to imagine a new global politics: “International affairs must be completely permeated with scientific methodology and a democratic spirit, with a fearless weighing of all facts, views, and theories, with maximum publicity of ultimate and intermediate goals, and with a consistency of principles.”

What might that look like? At the end of the essay, Sakharov took a stab at a forecast. He was beginning to develop his concept of “convergence,” a gradual coming together of the socialist and capitalist systems. (Like most people who grew up in the Soviet Union, Sakharov was more likely to speak about the competition of two different economic systems rather than two competing ideologies or two political systems.) In the best possible scenario, he wrote, “Convergence will reduce differences in social structure, promote intellectual freedom, science, and economic progress, and lead to the creation of a world government and the smoothing of national contradictions.”

In this best possible of all worlds, Sakharov imagined that this coming together would occur between 1980 and 2000. He was well aware that he was calling for a psychological revolution, a moral one. And, though he was writing for citizens of the world, but counting only on being read by the few hundred or few thousand regular consumers of samizdat, he included a radical prescription for the American public. It came in the section on another threat to humanity: world hunger and overpopulation. He wrote:

At this time, the white citizens of the United States are unwilling to accept even minimum sacrifices to eliminate the unequal economic and cultural position of the country’s black citizens, who make up 10 per cent of the population. It is necessary to change the psychology of the American citizens so that they will voluntarily and generously support their government and worldwide efforts to change the economy, technology and level of living of billions of people. This, of course, would entail a serious decline in the United States rate of economic growth. The Americans should be willing to do this, solely for the sake of lofty and distant goals, for the sake of preserving civilization and humankind on our planet.

Sakharov saw clear parallels between the economic inequalities in the Soviet Union and the United States. In both societies, he estimated, the top five per cent enjoyed extraordinary privilege while a far larger group—his estimates were twenty-five per cent for the U.S. and forty per cent for the U.S.S.R.—lived in poverty. His greater concern, however, was with the inequality between countries. He proposed a twenty-per-cent tax on the gross national product of developed countries for a period of fifteen years. He imagined that this money could be used to help developing countries and have a healing effect on their politics while also “automatically” lowering the amount that developed countries spent on defense.

From behind the Iron Curtain, Sakharov saw the role of American racism in exacerbating the plight of the poor people of the world. Fifty years later, his observation is no less relevant. The U.S. has never been further from achieving a moral consensus that would compel its wealthier citizens, or its white citizens, to contribute in thought, deed, or gold to the welfare of humankind globally.

Sakharov could not have foreseen a new kind of coming together of cultures. Take, for example, Mariia Butina , a Russian woman who was recently arrested on suspicion of acting as a Russian agent. Her links to virulently racist and homophobic political circles in the U.S. have been interpreted as an expression of Russian influence on that politics. Just a few years ago, observers of these politics generally favored the opposite narrative: that American fundamentalists and other extreme social conservatives, having apparently lost their foothold in the U.S., were exporting their politics to Russia and elsewhere. The facts are less neat and more painful: there is a sincere meeting of the minds between American and Russian white supremacists, and this meeting of the minds has fostered an international movement in opposition to everything Sakharov was advocating. This movement—which traffics in white hysteria and fights so-called gender ideology and, of course, the queers—is a rare example of convergence in our world today, and the very opposite of what Sakharov envisioned.

Just as Putin has done in Russia, Trump and the Republican Party have used white demographic panic in the U.S. to shore up their power. That gets me to another threat to humanity that concerned Sakharov in this essay. He addressed the danger of cultural “dumbing down.” (The Times translation did not use this term, but I believe it’s closest to the Russian original.) He wrote:

Nothing threatens individual freedom and the meaning of life like war, poverty, terror. But there are also indirect and only slightly more remote dangers. One of these is the stupefaction of man . . . by mass culture with its intentional or commercially motivated lowering of intellectual level and content, with its stress on entertainment or utilitarianism, and with its carefully protective censorship.

Again, Sakharov was making the point that different threats, typical of different societies, were not equal in scale but posed similar dangers. While a police dictatorship may damage and even destroy people’s ability to think, a consumerist society can lull them into the same state. These words read as prescient in a time when Russia is run by what used to be its secret police, while the U.S. is headed by a reality-TV star. Many of the people who are dismayed by this President fall into the trap of increasingly reductionist rhetoric. Last week, for example, we saw the word “treason” become central to what passes for political conversation. While that turn in the debate reflects genuine concerns about what may prove to be actual crimes, it also represents yet another turn away from complexity.

It is also as far as possible from Sakharov’s vision of a global politics. When Sakharov wrote about totalitarian leaders, he accused them of a “combination of crime, narrow-mindedness and short-sightedness.” Consider the meaning of thinking about these acts and traits in combination: crime, narrow-mindedness, and short-sightedness go together and become one another. Crime is a rejection of laws—the product of the political process. The refusal to think broadly or imagine the future is a rejection of politics itself. Blatant disregard for future generations is an attitudinal trait that unites Trump, Putin, and many of today’s other dictators. Sakharov’s thinking here echoes Hannah Arendt’s concept of the “banality of evil,” which focussed on the willful rejection of thought and depth.

And yet he saw hope. A section in the essay titled “The Basis for Hope” began with the concept of “moral attractiveness.” Many of the specifics in Sakharov’s plan are no longer relevant: he was trying to deal with overcoming the contradictions between what then seemed like two competing economic and intellectual systems in the U.S. and the Soviet Union. But his larger concept seems as essential and as remote as it did fifty years ago: humanity needed to achieve a moral consensus that would enable people to live in peace, with ever less regard for borders. Each nation, and most human beings, would come to see their own investment in the survival of the other.

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

How successful was the policy of peaceful co-existence?

Lesson details, key learning points.

• In this lesson, we will learn about some of the 'hot flashes' during the Cold War, including the Korean War, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the war in Vietnam.

This content is made available by Oak National Academy Limited and its partners and licensed under Oak’s terms & conditions (Collection 1), except where otherwise stated.

Starter quiz

5 questions, lesson appears in, unit history / 20th century conflict: the cold war.

United States Institute of Peace

Home ▶ Projects

Pursuing Peaceful Coexistence with North Korea: An Essay Series

This ongoing USIP essays series explores how the countries involved in the Korean Peninsula can tangibly and realistically reduce risks and improve relations within a reality where North Korea possesses nuclear weapons and will not denuclearize in the foreseeable future. In other words, how can the United States and South Korea peacefully coexist with a nuclear North Korea?

Relations today between the United States and North Korea and between the two Koreas are poor, with no diplomatic or economic engagement and high levels of military tension and security risk. The North Korean regime, which remains impoverished, isolated and insecure, believes that the U.S.-South Korea alliance, with its far stronger diplomatic, military and economic posture, is indirectly if not actively pursuing an end to the regime’s existence. As a result, it has adopted an asymmetric approach through nuclear weapons to guarantee its survival and will continue wielding this program in the near, medium and likely long-term.

In response to the enduring North Korean nuclear threat, the United States has led the international community in reinforcing a pressure-based campaign against North Korea that involves diplomatic isolation, military deterrence and economic sanctions. While this type of approach has successfully deterred major conflict on the Korean Peninsula for the last 70 years, it has not changed North Korea’s defiant behavior, prevented North Korea’s military advancement, lowered security tensions, or improved mutual trust and understanding.

The current status quo is a dangerous, adversarial stalemate in which the two sides are not engaging to resolve disagreements but rather strengthening their military capabilities and posture in the name of deterrence, which is exacerbating a regional arms race and the potential for an inadvertent nuclear conflict. At the same time, the diplomatic estrangement is impeding the nongovernmental and people-to-people engagement that could improve the humanitarian and human rights crisis of the North Korean people.

USIP invited subject matter experts to offer creative perspectives on how the pursuit of peaceful coexistence with North Korea across the diplomatic, security, economic and people-to-people domains can help the United States and South Korea advance peace and security and reduce the risk of conflict on the Korean Peninsula in a tangible and realistic way. The essays in this series address, among other topics, risk reduction, arms control, health cooperation, joint remains recovery operations, economic assistance, a two-state system and climate change collaboration. These perspectives highlight an alternative to the current hostile stalemate that can reduce risks and advance peace in a more productive way.

Essay Series

How Congress Can Help Improve Relations with North Korea

Matthew Abbott argues that Congress can exercise its legislative and oversight powers to play a more active role in reducing tensions with North Korea, particularly by seeking to resume direct congressional engagement with North Korea and facilitating greater people-to-people engagement.

Increasing Information Access for the North Korean People

Sokeel Park discusses how knowledge-sharing and public diplomacy initiatives that challenge the North Korean government’s control over information can help facilitate a positive transformation of the country that improves security on the peninsula and in the region in a sustainable way.

It’s Time to Resolve the Korean War

Dan Leaf argues that making resolution of the Korean War an explicit U.S. policy objective is a necessary first step on the road to peaceful coexistence with North Korea today and could reduce the risk of deliberate or accidental conflict.

Three Conditions for Successful Engagement with North Korea

Mark Tokola writes that near-term U.S.-North Korea engagements that are win-win, founded on equality and not reliant on monitoring can spur incremental progress that leads to future broader agreements.

Building Trust through Health Cooperation with North Korea

Kee B. Park offers a new framework for sustaining health cooperation with North Korea based on humanitarian principles and a comprehensive, multi-year, multi-donor, and politically-protected approach.

Climate Change as a Path to Engagement with North Korea

Troy Stangarone describes how cooperation on climate change, specifically related to reforestation and mitigation, could provide a pathway for U.S.-DPRK engagement.

Increasing Stability in a Deterrence Relationship with North Korea

Adam Mount argues that the U.S.-South Korea alliance’s efforts to increase its military advantage over North Korea is producing a fragile standoff and that modest initiatives focused on North Korea’s tactical nuclear arsenal are the best way of moving beyond the standoff to a more stable peace.

A Framework for Meaningful Economic Engagement with North Korea

Brad Babson argues that engaging economically with North Korea could help address its security and human needs and would be instrumental in finding a path forward for its foreign relations.

Why Calls for Regime Change in North Korea Can Be Counterproductive

Lauren Sukin contends that indirect U.S. support for North Korean regime collapse is counterproductive, fueling North Korea's desire to maintain its nuclear arsenal, and that U.S. messaging should reduce this perception.

A New Approach to Recovering U.S. Servicemen’s Remains from North Korea

Donna Knox describes efforts to recover the remains of U.S. servicemembers from North Korea and suggests that NGOs taking the lead on this effort could sidestep, and eventually help overcome, U.S.-DPRK friction.

How to Reduce Nuclear Risks Between the United States and North Korea

Ankit Panda writes that coexistence with a nuclear-armed North Korea will require the proactive consideration of pragmatic risk reduction measures.

If You Want Peace, Prepare for War, and Diplomacy

Robert Einhorn underscores the limits of deterrence and argues for prioritizing risk reduction over denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.

Revisiting the Two-State System for Peaceful Coexistence on the Korean Peninsula

Bong-geun Jun argues that advancing a two-state system can mitigate the unification competition between the two Koreas that is fueling tensions and impeding peaceful coexistence on the Korean Peninsula.

Seeking Peaceful Coexistence with North Korea: What Would Kennan Do?

Paul Heer analyzes George Kennan’s views on North Korea, how they might be interpreted today, the applicability of his view of containment and his support for diplomacy leading to peaceful coexistence.

Exploring Peaceful Coexistence with North Korea

Frank Aum explores the concept of peaceful coexistence between the United States and a nuclear North Korea, arguing that the current status quo of hostility could lead to inadvertent conflict and that a new modus vivendi could reduce the risk of conflict, improve security, and build mutual trust in a tangible and realistic way.