[jimmybot]

The assumption here is that peace between nations can somehow be resolved by just communication among private citizens and individual friendships; that conflicts are just misunderstandings or that we are too prejudiced or don't have enough sympathy. I can see how that is sometimes the case, but I don't see how that is always or even commonly the case. In many conflicts, there are very real underlying issues that need to be resolved and unless those fundamental imbalances are addressed, then there will not be peace.

For example, it looks like China is on a possible collision course with India and Southeast Asian nations over water rights. China's north is heavily populated, rapidly growing, and severely short of water. Tibet on the other hand is very rich in water resources that are upstream of major rivers in India, Laos, Vietnam, etc. As we speak there are gigantic projects diverting water from China's south to the north. It's likely not to be enough, and if China moves on to divert and dam rivers that cross international borders, there will likely be war.

This is just one example, but my guess would be that a resource-driven conflict that incites national pride on both sides will break those friendships rather than the other way around. If the fundamental reasons driving a conflict are not resolved, it's hard to see why friendships will be able to prevent war.

[chaosprophet]

I agree. In fact the China has already initiated the process of building a dam over one of the major rivers to flow into India (Tsangpo-Brahmaputra), and India has asked China to put a hold to this.

It is also to be noted that among the few Chinese people I have met, most seem to have a liking towards Indians and vice-versa. Also, you would not believe the extent to which Indians and Pakistanis would go to demonstrate their love for each other. A few years ago (2005, I think), when there was a bilateral cricket tournament between Pakistan and India in India (and the next year in Pakistan), Indians would literally drag Pakistanis to their homes as guests. This was repeated by the Pakistanis the next year.

Looking at the news reports and the way the Indian and Pakistani governments accuse each other, you would never guess such stuff could happen.

[krolley]

They would "literally" drag Pakistanis back to their homes? Seems quite harsh.

[chaosprophet]

Well the Pakistanis certainly weren't complaining. They were expecting to be greeted by armed policemen scrutinizing their every move (or atleast that's how one of them put it in an interview to a newspaper).

[lupin_sansei]

"The assumption here is that peace between nations can somehow be resolved by just communication among private citizens and individual friendships"

This only works when private citizens are allowed to influence government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory That's why 2 democracies have never gone to war.

[bandris]

A more detailed analysis:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

[sbt]

"The assumption here is that peace between nations can somehow be resolved by just communication among private citizens and individual friendships".

No, the assumption here is that facilitating communication will help resolve a conflict. A commendable initiative by Facebook.

[dagw]

The real assumption here is that facilitating communications will help drive up traffic and thus ad revenue. A commendable initiative by Facebook if you are one of their investors.

[dualogy]

Well, as has been demonstrated time and again, there is not always a conflict between "private" / "market" interests and "public" / "community" interests, nor need there be. (Arguably, there's almost never a clash unless the market interests are coupled to political ones, but let's not get into that...)

[dagw]

I'm not saying so much that there is conflict, but I very much doubt that the Facebook people truly believe that this will have any real effect on world peace or that their motives are anything other than money.

[dualogy]

Could well be actually...

or could not -- but what's the point of wondering what they "truly believe" if in the end we can never safely find out? ;)