Faten Ghosn interview
Dr. Faten Ghosn
It has been a good number of years since we conducted an interview at Sonshi.com. But, as the popular saying goes, "Good things come to those who wait." Dr. Faten Ghosn's guidance in our interview is good in many ways, namely her discussion on immediate, specific steps to promote more peace in the world. We are pleased and honored to have her with us today.
Dr. Faten Ghosn is an Associate Professor of the University of Arizona and is a recognized expert in the interaction of adversaries, and how strategy can determine the direction and effectiveness of such interaction. She earned BA and MA degrees in public administration from the American University of Beirut and a PhD in International Relations & Comparative Politics from Penn State University.
In addition to research work, Dr. Ghosn teaches political science courses such as "Scientific Study of Conflict" and "International Politics of the Middle East." She is highly rated by her students due to her knowledge of the subjects she teaches, and thus, according to them, commands great respect. She is the perfect candidate to educate us on the path toward conflict resolution in situations that are stifled by division and discord.
For example, in her must-read article titled, "Know your enemy (Hint: it's not Muslims)," Dr. Ghosn quoted Sun Tzu and outlined how his principle of understanding the real enemy -- in this case, radicalization and mental health -- can put us on the right path to mitigating the risk of future terrorist attacks.
Dr. Ghosn is a breath of fresh air in the midst of hateful rhetoric too pervasive in American discourse that, as she advised, we all must do our part to convey and promote a more sensible, strategic, and diplomatic approach to terrorism. Instead of limiting our options by increasing our offensive words, it is time we limit those words and increase our options.
Below is our interview with Dr. Faten Ghosn. Enjoy!
Dr. Faten Ghosn is an Associate Professor of the University of Arizona and is a recognized expert in the interaction of adversaries, and how strategy can determine the direction and effectiveness of such interaction. She earned BA and MA degrees in public administration from the American University of Beirut and a PhD in International Relations & Comparative Politics from Penn State University.
In addition to research work, Dr. Ghosn teaches political science courses such as "Scientific Study of Conflict" and "International Politics of the Middle East." She is highly rated by her students due to her knowledge of the subjects she teaches, and thus, according to them, commands great respect. She is the perfect candidate to educate us on the path toward conflict resolution in situations that are stifled by division and discord.
For example, in her must-read article titled, "Know your enemy (Hint: it's not Muslims)," Dr. Ghosn quoted Sun Tzu and outlined how his principle of understanding the real enemy -- in this case, radicalization and mental health -- can put us on the right path to mitigating the risk of future terrorist attacks.
Dr. Ghosn is a breath of fresh air in the midst of hateful rhetoric too pervasive in American discourse that, as she advised, we all must do our part to convey and promote a more sensible, strategic, and diplomatic approach to terrorism. Instead of limiting our options by increasing our offensive words, it is time we limit those words and increase our options.
Below is our interview with Dr. Faten Ghosn. Enjoy!
Sonshi: Your research focuses on adversaries and their interactions. What are the common traits of these relationships that incite hostility and the common traits that foster cooperation?
Ghosn: In any interaction, from the personal to the international level, the most important factors impacting such interactions relate to the nature of the relationship between the actors. That is, are they friends (i.e. allies)? Or they enemies (i.e. rivals)? The type of relationship between adversaries will influence their perception of each other, which in turn will impact their outlook on whether or not they are able to cooperate with one another.
Therefore, it is not surprising that most of the data supports the fact that if two allies find themselves in a similar disagreement to two rivals, the former will be more likely to cooperate while the later are more likely to fight, even though the disagreements might be quite similar. Perceptions, along with misperceptions, are extremely important in determining behavior between adversaries. As a result, in many cases even though it might be in the best interest of an actor to negotiate, their past/history with their adversary, as well as the level of domestic distrust for the opponent due to their rivalry, could prevent them from negotiating and reaching an agreement that would make both sides better off than the status quo.
This is why it is important for leaders not to dehumanize the enemy and invoke fear among the masses, for there may be times when it is necessary to negotiate with enemy.
Sonshi: What you say regarding relationships makes sense because someone can interpret the exact same message differently depending upon who said it. One might sense hostility to even a true statement from an enemy versus sensing the truth in even a hostile statement from a friend. This leads us to our next question: can a nation have true friends and enemies? In other words, what would there have to be (attributes, events, timing, etc) where a nation can justifiably see another nation as its friend or as its enemy?
Ghosn: Well, it depends on how you view the world. According to Realists, who believe that we live in an anarchic self-help system, there are no permanent allies or enemies. It all depends on power and interest. On the other hand, Liberalists tend to view the world as a web of complex interdependence, and through repeated interactions, issue linkages, institutions (which can create transaction costs and punish cheaters), laws, and norms we can have more cooperation in the world. Who is right? We tend to find evidence for both and as a result, I would argue that a nation that wants to protect its national interest, both in the short run as well as in the long run, must do what Roger Fisher and William Ury famously said in their Getting to Yes book, “separate the people from the problem.”
Sonshi: Yes we agree one should attack the issue and not the person. As such, how can a nation (or person) start to make progress when both sides have viewed each other as enemies? In other words, what would be a good first, controllable step in the road toward being friends? (Sun Tzu has a line in The Art of War where the nations Wu and Yueh were bitter enemies but helped each other like left and right hands when they were stuck in a storm on a boat together.)
Ghosn: You hit the nail on the head. The problem of Enemy Images, as Janice Gross Stein maintains in her work is that they are not only a potential for instigating conflict (e.g. Rwanda), but also can be an obstacle of conflict management (e.g. US and Iran for the past 2 decades). Interestingly though, Charles Kupchan in his book “How Enemies Become Friends” published in 2010, looks at how enemy relations have evolved into friendships, and he maintains that the first necessary step in all the 20 cases he looked at was unilateral accommodation; followed by reciprocal and positive responses (i.e., trading concessions).
For the friendship to cement there needs to be some form of social integration by increasing the transactions and interactions between the parties, and last but not least generating new narratives and identities about each other through elite statements and the media.
In a nutshell, according to Kupchan and others, it is difficult to end adversarial relations without diplomacy.
Another important element is for politicians and pundits to stop using enemy images for political purposes. It only endangers a country’s national security for it limits the options that a country can take, and this is more profound of an issue in democracies.
Sonshi: So many to touch on based on your answer here, which would conform with Sun Tzu's principles so well. In particular: (1) unilateral accommodation, (2) reciprocal and positive response, (3) diplomacy, and (4) not limiting options. Let's start with unilateral accommodation. Sun Tzu said, "Replace the enemy's flags and standards with our own. Mix the captured chariots with our own and treat the captured soldiers well. This is called defeating the enemy and increasing our strength." This is found in Chapter Two. We can't help but think that the other "enemy" Sun Tzu is indirectly talking about here is anger, cruelty, and lack of control. He is defeating such common yet destructive mindsets by unilaterally going in the opposite direction: treating captured soldiers well. In other words, despite the seriousness of war, he took it upon himself to offer an olive branch and in the process increase in strength. His mixing of such idealism and practical advantage is prevalent in The Art of War. Along those lines, what is one unilateral accommodation that the US can give (or have given) that would assist in decreasing violence in the world?
Ghosn: This is a tough question. However, the first thing that popped into my mind is for the US, and I should say, for politicians in the US, to stop using inflammatory language that incites fear, anger, and/or dehumanizes no matter what other groups or states do. This is something that we can do unilaterally; it requires nothing from our adversaries, or even our allies. And more importantly, it is extremely essential that we take the lead in this as the incitement of hatred and fear towards other ethnic/religious groups and states has had domestic as well as international repercussions on our citizens and soldiers, while bringing no strategic advantage for our security, and nation as whole.
Sonshi: US politicians certainly can stop the fear mongering, but perhaps they don't have any incentive to do so when many of their constituents prefer them to speak out against Islam. For too many Americans, terrorists and Muslims are one and the same. However, an aspiring medical student Omar Alnatour pointed out: "According to the FBI, 94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States from 1980 to 2005 have been by non-Muslims. This means that an American terrorist suspect is over nine times more likely to be a non-Muslim than a Muslim ... [in addition] 5 out of the past 12 Nobel Peace Prize winners (42 percent) have been Muslims." How can we best educate everyday Americans to educate each other, including the politicians, on the reality instead of the rhetoric?
Ghosn: French Philosopher Henri Bergson said, "The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend." I think this quote summarizes the issue that you raise. Despite the overwhelming evidence that majority of domestic terrorism in the United States is carried out by right wing extremist groups (and here is a report from START Center at the University of Maryland) if one were only to focus on what is being presented in the main stream media and statements by politicians it is not surprising that most Americans are confused about what to believe, and that many in fact believe that most of the terrorist incidents in the US are carried out by Muslims.
However, more and more we are seeing articles being written about this that challenge the mainstream narrative (see articles here, here, and here). Over the years, there have been double standards in how media outlets, and sometimes government officials, define and treat the same act depending on who the perpetrator is. This has been the case in the US, where we quickly identify acts by radical Islamist groups as terrorism but are hesitant to do the same for a similar act carried out by a white individual and/or a right wing group.
This came to light last month in the UK, when two incidents happened within two weeks of each other, both involving a van running over and killing innocent civilians and in both cases there is alleged religious motivation. However, the media treated these two events differently with the first attack, which was carried out by individuals who happened to be Muslim, as a terrorist incident, while the second attack, which was carried out by a white man, as an attack by a "jobless 'lone wolf". The double standards in the media outlets were not lost on people in the UK and around the world, for what is interesting is the fact that in each of the cases the British authorities quickly announced they were treating it as an act of terrorism.
In the US, things have not been as clear cut, and this is quite dangerous in the long run. There are several reasons for this.
First and foremost, overwhelming majority of law enforcement agencies consider anti-government violent extremists (i.e. right wing groups), and not radicalized Muslims, as the most dangerous threat that the US faces domestically (see here, here, and here). This of course, puts our men and women (police and military) as well as our government employees and officials in danger as they are just as likely to be the targets as minority groups.
Second, these groups have been increasing their attacks on minority groups in the US (see this report on the rise and challenge of these groups) and according to many scholars and analysts this could be just the tip of the iceberg. Third, all of this only feeds to a culture of dehumanization and an acceptance of violence in our mainstream politics. This is a slippery slope that we need to be careful of and must avoid.
As a result, politicians who prefer to utilize fear mongering tactics and ignore facts must be wise and must step up and recognize that while there might be some short term benefits to maintaining this tactic, ultimately they have all taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And as Sun Tzu said: "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
Sonshi: One of our favorite Sun Tzu quotes is related to yours but more nuanced can be found in Chapter Four: "Winning battles such that the whole world cries, 'Excellent!' is not the highest excellence." Our objective isn't praise but the accomplishment of that objective, which doesn't necessarily involve loud and impressive battles but rather quiet and unappreciated negotiations (since they are unknown) that prevent those battles in the first place. It is interesting you mentioned that our police force and government employees are in a dangerous position as they are among the targets of domestic terrorism. Along with political leaders not feeding that fire, do you think it's a good idea to educate our young people on tolerance and appreciation of diversity in public schools? Or should we do something else?
Ghosn: Absolutely! It starts at home and at school. We live in a globalized world, one in which the United States helped to push for and create. But most importantly, as we celebrate our 241 years of independence, let us remember who we are as a nation and how we came to be. This country has always been known as a "melting pot." Every individual and family that has immigrated to this country, going all the way back to the first settlers, did so in the hopes of finding new opportunities and a better way of life. All religions and faiths teach and preach tolerance and appreciation, yet they seem to be absent from our day to day interactions with each other these days. Many have blamed the rise of social media, as it has facilitated what has been called "consequence-free hostility" that has emboldened individuals to be mean and disrespectful, which unfortunately has led to an increase in cyber bullying among kids and which in turn has been attributed to several incidents of suicide. Civility, respect, and dialogue are key for us as a community and as a nation, and we must start in our homes and our schools.
Sonshi: That was well put. It is in our homes and schools where we have significant potential influence, before we can even fathom approaching world peace. For our last question, we will ask an open-ended one. If you have US President Trump's ear and future US Presidents' ears, what would you like to say to him or her?
Ghosn: The position of the president of the United States of America comes with a lot of responsibility and power, and is probably one of the most difficult jobs in the world; I do not envy President Trump or any future president for the difficult decisions that he or she must make every day. Since WWII, every president, be they Republican or Democrat, has tended to focus on putting aside political differences when it comes to issues of national security and the safety of our nation and its citizens. And this is probably more important today than ever. We need to stay vigilant, strong and cohesive as a nation. We cannot afford to be polarized, divided and distracted. As a result, I will leave President Trump (and any future president) with the following quote from Sun Tzu:
“Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:
1 He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
2 He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
3 He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
4 He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
5 He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.”
[End of interview]
Ghosn: In any interaction, from the personal to the international level, the most important factors impacting such interactions relate to the nature of the relationship between the actors. That is, are they friends (i.e. allies)? Or they enemies (i.e. rivals)? The type of relationship between adversaries will influence their perception of each other, which in turn will impact their outlook on whether or not they are able to cooperate with one another.
Therefore, it is not surprising that most of the data supports the fact that if two allies find themselves in a similar disagreement to two rivals, the former will be more likely to cooperate while the later are more likely to fight, even though the disagreements might be quite similar. Perceptions, along with misperceptions, are extremely important in determining behavior between adversaries. As a result, in many cases even though it might be in the best interest of an actor to negotiate, their past/history with their adversary, as well as the level of domestic distrust for the opponent due to their rivalry, could prevent them from negotiating and reaching an agreement that would make both sides better off than the status quo.
This is why it is important for leaders not to dehumanize the enemy and invoke fear among the masses, for there may be times when it is necessary to negotiate with enemy.
Sonshi: What you say regarding relationships makes sense because someone can interpret the exact same message differently depending upon who said it. One might sense hostility to even a true statement from an enemy versus sensing the truth in even a hostile statement from a friend. This leads us to our next question: can a nation have true friends and enemies? In other words, what would there have to be (attributes, events, timing, etc) where a nation can justifiably see another nation as its friend or as its enemy?
Ghosn: Well, it depends on how you view the world. According to Realists, who believe that we live in an anarchic self-help system, there are no permanent allies or enemies. It all depends on power and interest. On the other hand, Liberalists tend to view the world as a web of complex interdependence, and through repeated interactions, issue linkages, institutions (which can create transaction costs and punish cheaters), laws, and norms we can have more cooperation in the world. Who is right? We tend to find evidence for both and as a result, I would argue that a nation that wants to protect its national interest, both in the short run as well as in the long run, must do what Roger Fisher and William Ury famously said in their Getting to Yes book, “separate the people from the problem.”
Sonshi: Yes we agree one should attack the issue and not the person. As such, how can a nation (or person) start to make progress when both sides have viewed each other as enemies? In other words, what would be a good first, controllable step in the road toward being friends? (Sun Tzu has a line in The Art of War where the nations Wu and Yueh were bitter enemies but helped each other like left and right hands when they were stuck in a storm on a boat together.)
Ghosn: You hit the nail on the head. The problem of Enemy Images, as Janice Gross Stein maintains in her work is that they are not only a potential for instigating conflict (e.g. Rwanda), but also can be an obstacle of conflict management (e.g. US and Iran for the past 2 decades). Interestingly though, Charles Kupchan in his book “How Enemies Become Friends” published in 2010, looks at how enemy relations have evolved into friendships, and he maintains that the first necessary step in all the 20 cases he looked at was unilateral accommodation; followed by reciprocal and positive responses (i.e., trading concessions).
For the friendship to cement there needs to be some form of social integration by increasing the transactions and interactions between the parties, and last but not least generating new narratives and identities about each other through elite statements and the media.
In a nutshell, according to Kupchan and others, it is difficult to end adversarial relations without diplomacy.
Another important element is for politicians and pundits to stop using enemy images for political purposes. It only endangers a country’s national security for it limits the options that a country can take, and this is more profound of an issue in democracies.
Sonshi: So many to touch on based on your answer here, which would conform with Sun Tzu's principles so well. In particular: (1) unilateral accommodation, (2) reciprocal and positive response, (3) diplomacy, and (4) not limiting options. Let's start with unilateral accommodation. Sun Tzu said, "Replace the enemy's flags and standards with our own. Mix the captured chariots with our own and treat the captured soldiers well. This is called defeating the enemy and increasing our strength." This is found in Chapter Two. We can't help but think that the other "enemy" Sun Tzu is indirectly talking about here is anger, cruelty, and lack of control. He is defeating such common yet destructive mindsets by unilaterally going in the opposite direction: treating captured soldiers well. In other words, despite the seriousness of war, he took it upon himself to offer an olive branch and in the process increase in strength. His mixing of such idealism and practical advantage is prevalent in The Art of War. Along those lines, what is one unilateral accommodation that the US can give (or have given) that would assist in decreasing violence in the world?
Ghosn: This is a tough question. However, the first thing that popped into my mind is for the US, and I should say, for politicians in the US, to stop using inflammatory language that incites fear, anger, and/or dehumanizes no matter what other groups or states do. This is something that we can do unilaterally; it requires nothing from our adversaries, or even our allies. And more importantly, it is extremely essential that we take the lead in this as the incitement of hatred and fear towards other ethnic/religious groups and states has had domestic as well as international repercussions on our citizens and soldiers, while bringing no strategic advantage for our security, and nation as whole.
Sonshi: US politicians certainly can stop the fear mongering, but perhaps they don't have any incentive to do so when many of their constituents prefer them to speak out against Islam. For too many Americans, terrorists and Muslims are one and the same. However, an aspiring medical student Omar Alnatour pointed out: "According to the FBI, 94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States from 1980 to 2005 have been by non-Muslims. This means that an American terrorist suspect is over nine times more likely to be a non-Muslim than a Muslim ... [in addition] 5 out of the past 12 Nobel Peace Prize winners (42 percent) have been Muslims." How can we best educate everyday Americans to educate each other, including the politicians, on the reality instead of the rhetoric?
Ghosn: French Philosopher Henri Bergson said, "The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend." I think this quote summarizes the issue that you raise. Despite the overwhelming evidence that majority of domestic terrorism in the United States is carried out by right wing extremist groups (and here is a report from START Center at the University of Maryland) if one were only to focus on what is being presented in the main stream media and statements by politicians it is not surprising that most Americans are confused about what to believe, and that many in fact believe that most of the terrorist incidents in the US are carried out by Muslims.
However, more and more we are seeing articles being written about this that challenge the mainstream narrative (see articles here, here, and here). Over the years, there have been double standards in how media outlets, and sometimes government officials, define and treat the same act depending on who the perpetrator is. This has been the case in the US, where we quickly identify acts by radical Islamist groups as terrorism but are hesitant to do the same for a similar act carried out by a white individual and/or a right wing group.
This came to light last month in the UK, when two incidents happened within two weeks of each other, both involving a van running over and killing innocent civilians and in both cases there is alleged religious motivation. However, the media treated these two events differently with the first attack, which was carried out by individuals who happened to be Muslim, as a terrorist incident, while the second attack, which was carried out by a white man, as an attack by a "jobless 'lone wolf". The double standards in the media outlets were not lost on people in the UK and around the world, for what is interesting is the fact that in each of the cases the British authorities quickly announced they were treating it as an act of terrorism.
In the US, things have not been as clear cut, and this is quite dangerous in the long run. There are several reasons for this.
First and foremost, overwhelming majority of law enforcement agencies consider anti-government violent extremists (i.e. right wing groups), and not radicalized Muslims, as the most dangerous threat that the US faces domestically (see here, here, and here). This of course, puts our men and women (police and military) as well as our government employees and officials in danger as they are just as likely to be the targets as minority groups.
Second, these groups have been increasing their attacks on minority groups in the US (see this report on the rise and challenge of these groups) and according to many scholars and analysts this could be just the tip of the iceberg. Third, all of this only feeds to a culture of dehumanization and an acceptance of violence in our mainstream politics. This is a slippery slope that we need to be careful of and must avoid.
As a result, politicians who prefer to utilize fear mongering tactics and ignore facts must be wise and must step up and recognize that while there might be some short term benefits to maintaining this tactic, ultimately they have all taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And as Sun Tzu said: "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
Sonshi: One of our favorite Sun Tzu quotes is related to yours but more nuanced can be found in Chapter Four: "Winning battles such that the whole world cries, 'Excellent!' is not the highest excellence." Our objective isn't praise but the accomplishment of that objective, which doesn't necessarily involve loud and impressive battles but rather quiet and unappreciated negotiations (since they are unknown) that prevent those battles in the first place. It is interesting you mentioned that our police force and government employees are in a dangerous position as they are among the targets of domestic terrorism. Along with political leaders not feeding that fire, do you think it's a good idea to educate our young people on tolerance and appreciation of diversity in public schools? Or should we do something else?
Ghosn: Absolutely! It starts at home and at school. We live in a globalized world, one in which the United States helped to push for and create. But most importantly, as we celebrate our 241 years of independence, let us remember who we are as a nation and how we came to be. This country has always been known as a "melting pot." Every individual and family that has immigrated to this country, going all the way back to the first settlers, did so in the hopes of finding new opportunities and a better way of life. All religions and faiths teach and preach tolerance and appreciation, yet they seem to be absent from our day to day interactions with each other these days. Many have blamed the rise of social media, as it has facilitated what has been called "consequence-free hostility" that has emboldened individuals to be mean and disrespectful, which unfortunately has led to an increase in cyber bullying among kids and which in turn has been attributed to several incidents of suicide. Civility, respect, and dialogue are key for us as a community and as a nation, and we must start in our homes and our schools.
Sonshi: That was well put. It is in our homes and schools where we have significant potential influence, before we can even fathom approaching world peace. For our last question, we will ask an open-ended one. If you have US President Trump's ear and future US Presidents' ears, what would you like to say to him or her?
Ghosn: The position of the president of the United States of America comes with a lot of responsibility and power, and is probably one of the most difficult jobs in the world; I do not envy President Trump or any future president for the difficult decisions that he or she must make every day. Since WWII, every president, be they Republican or Democrat, has tended to focus on putting aside political differences when it comes to issues of national security and the safety of our nation and its citizens. And this is probably more important today than ever. We need to stay vigilant, strong and cohesive as a nation. We cannot afford to be polarized, divided and distracted. As a result, I will leave President Trump (and any future president) with the following quote from Sun Tzu:
“Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:
1 He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
2 He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
3 He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
4 He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
5 He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.”
[End of interview]