This weeks Economist coined a new term – Non Solutionism. More bravely, it did so in the context of promoting a new policy in the Israel-Palestine conflict. For the Economist,the dream of a two state solution is now so unrealistic that it prefers focusing on improving the lot of Palestinians on a more immediate basis.
Non Solutionism is defined by The Economist more or less by looking at the behaviour of the protagonists in the conflict, most notably Israel under Netanyahu. The parties agree to a rather vague long-term end point to the conflict, that of two states living side by side. Many details are unclear, and a stepwise process nominally seeks to negotiate each of these details so that the end point can eventually be reached. Meanwhile facts are being created on the ground that do not exclude the professed desired end point but make it more difficult to achieve and more likely to skew the details of any negotiated settlement in favour of one side. There is no incentive to accelerate progress towards an end point while these facts are moving the goalposts.
Netanyahu’s actions fit this description neatly. Most of the time he professes lukewarm support for a two state solution. He claims a willingness to negotiate but states, reasonably, that there currently is no “partner for peace” on the other side. He gives the impression of moving the process forward when possible, for example with the hopelessly one-sided proposals drawn up with Jared Kushner with no Palestinian input at all. This is generally enough to maintain support from key international allies.
Meanwhile the ground is constantly shifting in Israel’s favour. Palestinian rights are eroded step by step, perhaps most notably when Netanyahu declared Israel as a Jewish state despite 20% of its population being Arabs. Settlements spread, taking more and more of the best land and leaving the rump of the potential second state less and less viable. Varying between those living in Israel, the West bank or Gaza, Palestinians have limited rights and very limited economic prospects, all justified by credible imperatives of security. If this is not apartheid, I don’t know what is.
The Palestinians and their Arab brothers do not help their own cause. Indeed, The Economist reasonably argues that there is Non Solutionism going on there too. Old man Abbas sits in Ramallah with no legitimacy but an incentive to maintain a status quo with possibly corrupt income for cronies. Hamas has no credible plan either beyond exploiting the exploitation to build support. Egypt is happy to continue to take dollops of much needed US aid in returning for keeping a lid on things.
So The Economist says that enough is enough. We hide behind the fig leaf of a moribund peace process, meanwhile tolerating human atrocity and despair. Its recommendation is to call out the peace process for the sham that it is, abandon any thought of a two state outcome for the time being, and instead focus on immediate improvements. That implies demanding that Israel follows international law and principles of human equity in all of the territory it currently controls. Any progress forced upon Israel should also improve the leadership of both sides, and help to give pause to the zealots and voice to those demanding fairness in the US and elsewhere.
I am not an expert in the conflict, but I like the courage and the logic of The Economist. My only qualm is that the change of policy in some way seems to reward Israel for its actions in creating favourable conditions until now. But I accept that sort of thinking only perpetuates the status quo, and the opportunity for Israel to create even more favourable conditions.
When I thought it through, Non Solutionism is present in many situations; indeed most of us practise it again and again. As a parent, our adolescent child rebels and demands more than we are willing to offer and more than their maturity warrants. What do we do? We procrastinate. We make vague promises for the future. We lock them in to our system while we have most of the power. We are experts in Non Solutionism.
Even more simply, how do we behave when we have an impulsive boss throwing tasks around? We say yes, but delay, expecting that the task will be radically changed or even superseded if we wait. If pressed, we might ask questions of clarificationor seek to wrap the task into a more complex context. This is also Non Solutionism.
Many businesses follow similar logic. The most notable examples are banks. Banks like it best when their clients teeter along the edge of failure, because that maximises their income. At least in the US, a bank is reluctant to offer a credit card to somebody who pays all their bills on time: that client is gaining free credit at the bank’s expense. They much prefer someone who lets the balance hover near its limit, incurring more and more interest charges. By the time they pull the plug, the client has paid interest much higher than any final bad debt. During this process, of limited demands and apparent tolerance, the bank is using Non Solutionism. It is exactly the same with overdrafts and loans to businesses.
Other examples abound. Putin is an expert. Look at how he uses patience and cynicism in his treatment of Lukashenko, and previously in Ukraine. Moldova, bordering the EU, has been a divided country with a frozen conflict for thirty years. In some ways it defies logic: consider the incentives of the protagonists and the use of Non Solutionism as a strategy and it is all too understandable.
In the US, Mitch McConnell is a prime exponent of Non Solutionism. His guiding principle is for congress to pass as few laws as possible, since he thinks big government is bad and his pet interests are well served by legal neglect. He has a great ally in partisanship and the filibuster rules. He outmanoeuvred Obama, essentially timing him out after Obamacare and the rescue act after the financial crisis. Biden witnessed this and his determined not to fall into the same trap: expect a lot more use of reconciliation in the next eighteen months.
Benign neglect is not always a silly strategy, as we parents can attest. It works when the alternative is impulsiveness, or pandering to a fad, or risking uninvited consequences. But Non Solutionism as a default strategy can also be disastrous. If equilibrium is unstable then the strategy can hamstring action: consider climate change. It can also be judged based on its human effects, such as the never-ending suffering of Palestinians.
I have a theory to propose: Non Solutionism will occur more frequently and for longer than logic seems to dictate. If you are betting, bet on Non Solutionism. The theory is similar to my idea that cock-ups are far more frequent than conspiracies.
An example of my theory in action is to look at tobacco companies. Logic suggested they were doomed from the 1960’s, when evidence that cigarettes caused cancer became clear. Instead, they thrived until very recently. The reason is Non Solutionism. They made vague promises and participated in a process, all the time delaying and seeking short-term advantage. They had witting and unwitting allies on the other side: which politician wants to lose billions of tax revenue or to upset millions of constituents? The result is that tobacco company shares were great investments for many years, for anybody whose ethics permitted such a cynical bet.
For those of us interested in stifling Non Solutionism, the first step is to recognise it. That can be tough: consider that we have all fallen for it in Israel for a generation. Once recognised, the next steps are short-term focus and project management. Rather than allowing people to hide behind vague long-term goals, instead organise behind promoting well-defined short-term targets and actions. Sadly, liberals are not often good at this, as the Guardian proves week after week.
I have sold all my oil company shares, but this was premature. At least, if I follow my own logic, it can reduce any anxiety about my primary financial asset, my Shell pension. Non Solutionism usually wins.
No comments:
Post a Comment