Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
But to learn your thoughts on these, are any of them (what one could call) 'resolved?'

If not, do you consider the intervention or mediation of others to be of net benefit?
Ken,

From my viewpoint, which I surmise is quite different from the America, resolving conflicts is seen differently. Stop or reduce the violence, encourage reconciliation, even compromise (surrender to some) and let the passage of time help. I suspect we see things in a longer time frame than you do; we certainly did in the past.

Lebanon - the civil war ended, a communal resolution of sorts emerged and yes with many issues unresolved.

Northern Ireland - civil insurgency much reduced, to a tiny Republican core, with an overwhelming majority wanting peace and yes a wide resolution on key issues: NI remains part of the UK and non-majority government.

Upper Silesia - irregular violence ended by the international forces presence, begrudging acceptance of the borders and as history teaches us resolved in 1945 with the German population being expelled.

Crisis de-escalation has been paramount in each case cited, although in some places like the Caucasus it has clearly not been a factor.

The intervention or mediation of others in conflicts takes many forms, from the 'Blue Berets' to the quieter, low profile work of Italian priests in Mozambique IIRC and the Scandinavians elsewhere.