Richard Rubenstein, from the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia, believes conflicts arise when people's basic human needs are not satisfied.
"At my institute we tend to analyse conflicts in terms of people's basic human needs not being satisfied, not only in the physical sense but also in terms of identity, recognition, autonomy and personal development. When these needs are not satisfied, people are going to act anti-socially. That's why we think conflict resolution is such an important discipline. It's a way of identifying those needs and inventing ways to satisfy them," he says.
A professor of conflict resolution and public affairs, he has written eight books, three of them on religion and conflict and others on how the media covers conflicts.
Prof. Rubenstein was in Malta as a Fulbright specialist and is working with the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in order to establish a joint Master's degree programme in conflict resolution and Mediterranean security, which will begin in October.
"This will be a dual 13-month degree, both from George Mason and the University of Malta. The teaching is shared 50/50. The Maltese lecturers will teach negotiation, Mediterranean security, human rights, economics and conflict. We will teach the basics of conflict resolution, religion and conflict, identity and conflict, culture and conflict, and conflict resolution processes. It takes off in October and we're very excited."
He says the two institutions will also be working on some joint research projects and organising conferences "and I hope some practice together as Malta is the perfect place to have analytical processes and peace negotiations". "I'll be teaching here and coming and going. I sent a memo to my colleagues asking who would like to teach here and 21 out of 21 volunteered!"
He explains that the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution is the oldest and largest conflict study programme in the US. Its graduate programme consists of 300 students, offering Master's and doctoral degrees in conflict resolution while its undergraduate programme also consists of 300 students. Almost all faculty members do some form of conflict resolution practice besides teaching it.
The conversation turns to the revival of Islamic militancy and violence, which is on the increase, especially since the September 11 attacks. To what extent, however, are such conflicts religious?
"There are clearly some conflicts in the world that are not really religious at all, such as the Catholic Protestant conflict in Northern Ireland, where religion is a badge of ethnicity. There are other conflicts that do involve religious beliefs but even those are not simply belief driven. They involve differences of religious beliefs in which religion has been politicised by situations that tend to do that."
Prof. Rubenstein stresses that beliefs alone are not responsible for conflicts but the beliefs in the historical context are. "So if religion is an essential part of people's identity, and they feel their identity is threatened, they are going to rebel. If this identity is subordinated to other groups, socially and economically, particularly if it's humiliating, then a rise in religious militancy is guaranteed. Most people at my institute believe you can't explain conflicts by just repeating the phrase 'religious fanaticism'. The important thing is to analyse the conditions that produce such fanaticism."
Was it possible to negotiate with groups like al-Qaida or the Taliban?
"With al-Qaida I'm not so sure; with the Taliban, yes. The reason I say I'm not so sure about al-Qaida is not because they are nasty, which they are, but because I think we have to distinguish between groups that represent only themselves (and have a small base of support) and groups that, despite the high intensity of their rhetoric, are actually representatives of a mass movement."
He adds: "The Taliban are actually representatives of a lot of Pashtuns in Afghanistan, in the same way as Hizbollah are representative of a lot of people in Lebanon."
On al-Qaida he says if he were in charge - "it's a good thing I'm not" - he would not rule out negotiating with somebody who is close to the group. "I think I would discuss the root causes of alienation between the West and the Islamic world," he explains. "I don't think the only thing you can do with a group like al-Qaida is to hunt those folks down and kill them. If some of them want to talk I would talk to them. Conflict resolution is not bargaining. It means I'm meeting you to find out what you really want, what this conflict is really about."
He says he believes the US and many other governments get themselves in trouble sometimes by assuming that they have a peace plan in their pockets or that they have the answer to the social problems of Pakistan or Afghanistan or Israel and Palestine, or Iraq, when very often what's needed is the opportunity to talk to each other.
"It often helps if the talking is facilitated by somebody impartial and to allow those involved in a conflict to make their own decisions about what kind of society they want. It is important to understand just how much al-Qaida is driven by revenge and destruction or the extent to which they actually have a political programme."
He says that, unless one talks to people who have some understanding of what certain groups are actually about or what they want, then one won't be able to interpret things like Osama Bin Laden's demand that the US withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia, for example.
Prof. Rubenstein believes it is always important to keep the lines of communication open, no matter which conflict we are dealing with.
How does one negotiate with somebody like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who says he wants to wipe Israel off the map and who is determined to acquire the capability to produce nuclear bombs?
"One might ask how was it possible to negotiate with Stalinist leaders in the Soviet Union, who were saying things just as threatening and irrational as Mr Ahmadinejad.
"In the Cold War you didn't always negotiate, sometimes you fought, sometimes by proxy, but you kept lines of communication open so that negotiations could take place when the time was right. One year, Ronald Reagan was calling the Soviet Union the evil empire, the next year he was in Reykjavik negotiating with them. It is true Mikhail Gorbachev presented a change in opportunity but informal negotiations had already been taking place."
During the Cold War, he points out, many people thought the Soviets were actually crazy, which is the same label many people apply to Mr Ahmadinejad today. "Ahmadinejad is definitely not my favourite person but he is not all there is to Iran. It's a complicated situation. I've talked to many Iranians regarding how they feel about the overthrow of the Mossadeq government in 1953 and how far an apology by the US would go in healing that relationship."
He says he would like to organise a seminar involving Iranian, American and European scholars on the Holocaust. "Sometimes citizen diplomacy is the way to go," he says.
"I know some people in my field are trying to facilitate talks between the Turks and Armenians, and some progress has been made over what the Armenians call the genocide. We try and find ways of healing screwed up relationships that don't involve negotiations." A successful model for conflict resolution, he argues, such as the one used in Northern Ireland, can be exported to another conflict, if this is done "intelligently".
"I don't think the 1998 Good Friday Agreement would have been reached if prior to that there hadn't been 15 years of conflict resolution work going on in Northern Ireland. I know a lot of people who were working with both sides quietly and persistently for a long time.
"They helped the parties re-think the conflict, by in particular helping the Republicans to abandon their dependency on the Republic of Ireland and helping the Protestants to abandon their dependency on Britain. When the two sides began to seriously think about cohabiting, that opened the door for a settlement."