intervention

last night's australian story - "friends in deed" - was excellent. it told the story of three men who played significant roles in the 10 nation Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI) led by australia. the three men were ben mcdevitt, the afp assistant commissioner responsible for the police side of the mission, diplomat nick warner and john frewin from the military. mcdevitt arguably had the toughest jobs of ridding the solomon islands police force of corruption, basically rebuilding it from scratch, and bringing about the arrest of rebel militia leader harold keke, which was almost miraculously accomplished without a shot being fired. due largely to the efforts of mcdevitt, warner and frewin, the solomons has returned to peace and the rule of law. it's a wonderful success story accomplished by level-headedness, determination, bravery and ingenuity. a very big hats off to these great ambassadors of our country.

while watching the program last night, my mind snagged on the term 'failed state', which was used to describe the solomon islands before the intervention. for whatever reason, my word association processor immediately came up with 'failed marriage', and it got me thinking about separation/divorce from the perspective of what i was watching. while there's not a lot of similarity between a state and a marriage, i think there are some interesting parallels in the larger context of failure and intervention.

to a certain extent we have the attitude that internal conflicts in other countries need to be sorted out by themselves, but there is an acknowledgement that what is happening, especially in near or neighbouring countries, impacts on the region and our own national interest. however, we don't seem to have this same acknowledgement that relationship difficulties between a couple significantly impact others (more than just the immediate family), but usually view it as just something the couple need to sort out (or not). sadly, it's often worse in a christian context, because marriage difficulty is usually treated as anathema, something to be left at home and not mentioned at church where you are expected to wear the facade that everything is happy and rosy and you're living the 'victorious life'.

so is 'outside intervention' a good idea in the context of relationships? i think it can be, but definitely not if it is pre-emptive intervention. in the case of the solomon islands, the government knew they were in dire straits and asked for assistance. i think its a tragic indictment on our lack of real involvement with each other that this kind of request for help is rarely made by couples, and when it is, the assistance is almost always sought from a counsellor or therapist who doesn't know the couple outside of the therapy room. while professional input of this kind is often helpful (though just as often not), doesn't it make more sense for people who know the couple well and have a significant degree of 'personal interest' in the relationship to be the ones helping out? why does it seem more difficult for a couple to go to the people close to them for help? this is a community issue because it's not just a case of the couple not wanting to talk about what's going on, but often also a clear, though usually unspoken, message from others that, for whatever reason, they don't want to know about it, so the ones going through the difficulties feel isolated and left to sort it out themselves.

another aspect of the solomon islands intervention was that it was a 10-nation assistance mission. i think this is another helpful example for 'relationship intervention', because if more people are involved there are more ideas and perspectives brought to the table, and the impact of any individual self-serving agendas is also reduced. while in this context you can't really talk about others solving any of the problems (and even in a country context it is the people themselves who must have the will to change for the peace to last), a mix of friends and family, most productively, i think, together (ie. in a kind of 'intervention meeting'), can offer a combination of advice and feedback to the couple which is greater than if each was to do so individually. of course, there is a (pretty small) limit to the number of people for which this would be helpful, as it would just become chaotic and do more harm than good.

one other example from the solomon islands case i think is pertinent is the gun amnesty. apart from the surrender of harold keke, probably the most significant turning point for the solomons was the rebels handing in their weapons. these were then melted down and the remains buried, with a plaque erected at the site as a reminder of the chaos and violence that widespread proliferation of guns can lead to. anyone who is or has been in a long term relationship knows about the weapons partners use against each other, proliferating and growing in strength as time goes by if not 'disarmed'. for a relationship in crisis (and even for those not on the rocks), i think a kind of weapons amnesty might be a good idea. this could be something like an informal ceremony with others present in which the partners would 'give up' their weapons, stating the things they use to try to wound the other and promising not to use them again. i think it's important that it's not done the other way around, each partner accusing the other of using this or that, and also that there is no rejoinder to each 'confession'. the aim is not to continue the battle, but to lay the weapons on the table and by doing so remove their potency.