Intercultural cooperation is one of the greatest aspects that shape a peaceful co-existence amongst a group of people who embody different ethnical, cultural and lingual identities. Its success is dependent on the capability to tackle the different groups with great care and applying justifiable implications on all parties. As seen recently in the Globe and Mail, a group of foreigners living around the University of Columbia were involved in a series of complaints against the erection of a hospice on the campus (Sandole and Hugo 131).
From the fact that this project has since been stopped, there are several things that one is able to learn about the issue of intercultural cooperation here. Citing the issue of a hospice being a contradiction to some of their beliefs particularly from Asia, the residents have been granted what is considered a democratic ruling for their beliefs despite the amount of water held by their claim. They allege that erecting a hospice in their neighborhood is like putting a magnet to attract death in relation to their beliefs. The complainants having originated from China and other Asian countries live in a foreign land with different cultures as well and thus being given a chance to express themselves, depicts a high degree of cultural awareness.
The article greatly impacts the lives of the Asian communities and that of the students on the campus who originate from a variety of cultures. From these factors it is evident that the natives and students in the surroundings of the supposed erecting of the facility all have a say on the issue but at one point there has to be a pause being positioned in favor of one cultural side as the stage gets set for a common solution. In my opinion the facility is beneficial for both sides as the claim by the Asians seems to be deficient in weight. Nevertheless, should the other players fully succumb to this claim; their wish should thus be materialized (Globe and Mail).
Contrary to the above situation whereby there seems to be some understanding, intercultural conflicts in other situations breed a whole lot of trouble. As illustrated in the straight talk Africa channel, there needs to be stringent measures put on site to curb and peacefully arrange the intercultural cooperation field. Referring to the situation in Sudan whereby a series of cultural conflicts have stood ground in the recent past, a lot has to be put into consideration. The country consists of two major cultural groups which include the Arabs in the north, and the Nilotes in the south.
Basing on this ethnic difference the communities became sensitive on the issue of who gets what. It is evident that the north has been allocated numerous portions of the countries resources while the south lags behind. It is also clear that the impasse created is based on bad blood created by the two cultures with each culture justifying itself as the most eligible. With the south having held a referendum to separate itself from the north, it is clear the conflict building here is of high magnitudes (VOA News)
Preventing such conflicts can obviously pose a great challenge to anyone and therefore professional solutions are called for. By ensuring that there exists a common ground to which all cultures can confide in, is the first necessary step. Secondly each and every culture must get its own share of recognition and respect it deserves (Toomey and Kurogi 220-223). This means that no culture shall be treated special as this would lead to a series of retaliations from the others. The type of language used should also be unique and be made acceptable to all groups. This will avoid any future confrontations.