International Peacebuilding

An introduction

Alpaslan Ozerdem, SungYong Lee

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317400110
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Peace & Global Development
• Index: Politics & International Relations

International Peacebuilding offers a concise, practical and accessible introduction to the growing field of peacebuilding for students and practitioners.

This new textbook comprises three parts, each dealing with a key aspect of peacebuilding:

• 
  
  

• Part I defines the core concepts and theoretical discussions that provide the philosophical grounds for contemporary peacebuilding activities.

• 
  
  

• Part II divides the procedures of peacebuilding into three phases and examines some of the important features of each phase.

• 
  
  

• Part III examines the key areas of the practice of peacebuilding.

The volume approaches peacebuilding from the viewpoints of individual actors or institutions, introducing a range of theoretical discussions with which students can critically examine contemporary peacebuilding practice, as well as presenting detailed case studies for key issues highlighted in the text. In doing so, the book aims to provide more concrete ideas on how peacebuilding programmes are planned and implemented in the field and which major issues should be addressed by peacebuilding practitioners.

This book will be essential reading for all students of peacebuilding, conflict transformation and post-conflict reconstruction, and recommended reading for students of international organisations, international security and IR in general.

Part I
Concepts and theories of peacebuilding

1
Peace and armed conflict

Peacebuilding is concerned with the promotion and consolidation of peace through deterring and resolving violent conflicts. This goal raises a number of conceptual questions, such as: What sorts of peace are the projects pursuing? On the wider scale of (absolute) war to (absolute) peace, where should we place the type of peace being pursued? What types of conflicts are we trying to address? In the specific cultural and social context in which the conflict is taking place, which methods of achieving peace are likely to be most useful? Moreover, given that each conflict has its own specific context, intervening in a conflict for peacebuilding purposes without understanding the nature of the conflict concerned would be a mistake. Regardless of its good intentions, an intervention has the potential to further damage relationships between disputants and lead to an escalation of tensions. In developing effective peace-building programmes, therefore, it is essential to have a thorough understanding of the concepts of peace and armed conflict.

This chapter aims to introduce a number of conceptualisations that have widely been utilised in Peace and Conflict Studies. Since the 1960s, the complexity in the concepts of peace and conflict has been analysed in various ways, and the consequent conceptual developments have determined the key features of mainstream peace-supporting activities over the previous decades. For instance, the evolution of international peace intervention over the past fifty years reflects the philosophical foundational shift that has taken place over the same period: the way in which the once-dominant concept of negative peace has gradually given way to contemporary conceptualisations of positive peace.

Out of a variety of the current approaches towards peace and peacebuilding, this chapter will primarily discuss:

• Approaches towards peace: theoretical debate on negative peace, positive peace, non-Western approaches to peace and levels of peace;
• Sources of violent conflict (cultural factors, social/economic factors and contemporary issues);
• Academic discussions on the forms of violence (intended/unintended violence; manifest/latent violence; physical/psychological violence; and direct/structural/cultural violence).

Peace: approaches and types

Although peace is primarily defined as a “state existing during the absence of war” (Collins English Dictionary 2003), it is a broad and elusive concept, and understandings of its meaning may vary. For instance, while some may assume that ‘truth,’ ‘beauty’ and ‘love’ are synonymous with peace, others believe that ‘harmony,’ ‘repose,’ ‘truce’ and ‘friendship’ lie at the heart of the concept. More frequently, ‘human rights,’ ‘justice’ and ‘freedom’ are regarded as its central values (Sandy and Perkins 2008). Hence, in attempting to understand peace-related discussions or projects, it is useful to identify exactly to which types of peace these debates or programmes subscribe.

Negative peace, positive peace and non-Western approaches towards peace

In peace studies, the distinction between positive peace and negative peace is one of the most widely accepted criteria. This distinction was first suggested by Johan Galtung (1967), one of the founders of peace studies as an academic discipline. Galtung criticised traditional Western approaches towards peace, categorising them as forms of ‘negative peace’ and called for a more comprehensive and functional conception of peace. This idea has been explored and developed further in many academic works.

Negative peace

Negative peace denotes “the absence of organized collective forms of violence” (Galtung 1967: 4). From this viewpoint, a wide range of states, from the temporary cessation of combat and separation of two enemies to the establishment of stable peace, are considered forms of peace. Moreover, this definition acknowledges spontaneous or individual violence as acceptable conditions of a peaceful society.

Many academic debates and publications in peace studies are based on the above assumption, especially those that ascribe to the realist perspective. For instance, Raymond Aron, a well-known French philosopher, argues that peace is a state of “more or less lasting suspension of rivalry between political units” (1966: 151). Consequently, peace research based on negative peace ideas focuses on eliminating or minimising active violence. Examples of strategies that employ this line of reasoning include peace mediation for the resolution of civil conflicts, military intervention to provide buffer zones between two warring enemies and the demilitarisation of ex-combatants in the post-conflict period (Barash and Webel 2009). Moreover, since the concept of negative peace defines peace as the ‘absence of violence,’ the characteristics of the violence under consideration need to be identified in order to clarify the meaning of peace. Hence, in defining what constitutes peace, the following questions are frequently asked: “What type of violence? Violence by whom? And Peace with whom?” (Galtung 1996: 226).

In the West, the concept of negative peace has a long tradition. The meaning of peace as the ‘absence of war’ is found in the New Testament and is in evidence in the classical depiction of the Greek goddess Irene, whose name is also the Greek word for peace. Since the Roman era, peace has been commonly understood in terms of absentia belli (the absence of war), with the ‘state’ being the fundamental unit of analysis. Hence, external peace has commonly referred to a condition in which the state is not engaged in external wars (e.g. a regional war, an interstate war or a world war), while internal peace has indicated that the state has no internal war (e.g. no insurgency or civil war).

Moreover, it has been commonly believed that peace can be maintained through a ‘social contract,’ and, indeed, one of the origins of the word ‘peace’ is the Latin word pax, which is also the root of the word ‘pact.’ The idea here is that the state of peace (defined as an absence of war) is founded on “contractual, conscious, and mutually agreed upon” relationships (Young 2010: 354). Nevertheless, although violence has traditionally been considered the opposite of peace, it has also been understood as a useful tool to achieve or protect peace. The Roman phrase ‘sivispacem, para bellum’ (‘if you want peace, prepare for war’) reflects the notion that peace can be established and maintained by deterring potential aggressors through the building up of defensive strength (or sometimes, offensive defence).

It was during the Cold War period, when realist views of peace became a dominant perspective in academic debates, that the basis of contemporary international relations was formed. As mistrust and rivalry between the liberal (or capitalist) camp and the communist (or socialist) camp determined the interactions between states during this period, academics saw no good opportunities for pursuing more than the absence of war in the international community. Hence, most of the peacebuilding operations conducted by the United Nations (UN) and other international/regional organisations during this period drew upon this version of the concept of peace. Examples of this include most traditional forms of international peace-supporting activities such as third-party mediation, traditional UN peacekeeping operations, military intervention for providing buffer zones between warring enemies and demilitarisation of ex-combatants in post-conflict period.

Positive peace

A number of Western thinkers and scholars believe that the traditional concept of negative peace is not useful in the promotion of stable peace. According to them, approaches based on negative peace are likely to fail to reflect and address the fundamental issues that lie behind the violence. Moreover, these approaches inherently possess potential for appropriation “in the interest of the status-quo powers at the national or international levels, and … become a conservative force in politics” (Galtung 1967: 2).

Hence, the necessity of a wider and more comprehensive conceptualisation of peace had been raised for many years, which Galtung terms ‘positive peace.’ Since, in this context, ‘positive’ represents the most ideal condition of peace that a person can think of, positive peace has no agreed definition. Instead, people have proposed their own versions of positive peace according to their positions. For instance, although he did not use the term of positive peace, Albert Einstein defined peace as “not merely the absence of violence but the presence of just, of law, and of order” (cited in Sandy and Perkins 2008: 6), while Reardon (1988: 16) regards peace as “the absence of violence in all its forms,” which includes physical-psychological, explicit-implicit, direct-indirect and individual-structural violence. Moreover, Barash and Webel (2009: 7) propose positive peace as “a social condition in which exploitation is minimised or eliminated and in which there is neither overt violence nor the more subtle phenomenon of underlying structural violence.” Nevertheless, there are some key elements of positive peace that are commonly found in these definitions. These include peace zones (space safe from violence), peace bonds (positive relationship between social actors), social justice (fair and equal treatment of all social constituents), eco mind (harmonious coexistence between human and environment) and link mind (people’s awareness of interdependency) (Boulding 2000; Galtung 1996; Standish and Kertyzia 2015; Synott 2005).

Theories based on positive peace generally pursue the creation of proactive and optimistic values in society and seek to transform negative social relations into positive ones, work towards the harmonious coexistence of different peoples, promote reconciliation between conflicting parties and reconstruct nonviolent patterns of behaviour through empathetic understanding. For instance, structural peace refers to conditions of

(1) reciprocity, as opposed to mental conditioning of one by the other; (2) integration in the sense of all relating to all, as opposed to fragmentation; (3) holism, the use of many faculties, as opposed to segmentation; and (4) certainly inclusion as opposed to exclusion, marginalization, and/or second-class citizenship.

(Young 2010: 352)

Nevertheless, there is no consensus on the definition of positive peace yet and its scope still continues to expand.

Non-Western approaches towards peace – There are various approaches towards peace and peacebuilding that reflect non-Western perspectives. Although they have not been pro-actively reflected in recent academic discussions for conceptualising peace, these views frequently offer highly important elements required for building solid and durable peace.

In Hinduism, for instance, the term shanti, while literally meaning ‘peace,’ specifically means much more than the external or material dimensions of peace. Instead, the concept adopts as a key element of peace the notion of a person’s “inner peace, with oneself, with no part of the body-mind-spirit doing violence to other parts” (Galtung 1996: 226). Moreover, ahimsa refers to “no harm, including to self (inner peace) and to nature” (ibid.). In the Bhagavad Gita, one of the most important Hindu epics, the story of Arjuna emphasises that fighting should be based not on hatred or personal desire, but on selfless duty or compassion for others (Barash and Webel 2009).

The concept of peace in the Confucian cultural tradition, such as hep’ing in China, denotes “harmony between the international, social, and personal spheres as a necessary condition” for peace (Young 2010: 355) rather than mere nonviolent relations between different social actors. In addition, traditional Confucian teachings emphasise the value of obedience and order both within the person and society in the belief that true peace can be achieved only through social harmony and balance. Hence, conflict resolution in many societies in East Asia is more about correcting misarranged relations than compromising contradictory interests or perspectives.

The concepts of peace in many Muslim countries are strongly influenced by religious tradition and they frequently emphasise justice as a key element. The utmost peace can be achieved only through one’s submission to Allah and only within Dar ul-Islam (the House of Submission). In Khalifah (the Islamic community), all people are equally blessed by God regardless of their background, race, language or history. In addition, justice, “the placement of everything in their proper order” is an essential part of the concept of peace in the Islamic world (Ali IbnAbiTalib cited in Mirbagheri 2012: 85).

While these perspectives present dissimilar points of emphasis, they enable recent academic discussions to develop the concept of positive peace in more diverse and nuanced ways. In addition, the illumination of such non-Western perspectives of peace creates wider opportunities for peacebuilding practice to reflect the needs and opinions of local actors in conflict-affected societies that, in most cases, do not share Western cultural backgrounds.

Levels of peace

Another useful framework for understanding the conditions of peace is ‘level,’ which views peace as a ‘ladder’ of stages. Although categorisation of the levels of peace varies among scholars and analysts, many studies commonly refer to the following four levels: frozen peace, cold peace, normal peace and warm peace (see Table 1.1).

Frozen peace

This level refers to a situation in which coercion is the primary means of dealing with conflict. While on the surface things appear to carry on as normal, the causes of conflict (both underlying and immediate) have not been resolved and the probability for violence to erupt remains high. An authoritarian regime’s imposition of a ‘state of emergency,’ which curbs basic human rights and behaviours, best describes the level of frozen peace. This level of relationship is characterised by a one-way flow of communication (orders are transmitted from the dominant group to the dominated group) and there is no cooperation or participation to achieve social goals. As a result, it is frequently debated whether frozen peace can be considered a type of peace at all. Palestine under the control of Israel is frequently discussed as an example of this level of peace.

Table 1.1 Levels of peace

	Frozen peace	Cold peace	Normal peace	Warm peace
Main issues in conflict	Unresolved	Mitigated but not fully resolved	Resolved	Resolved or transcended
Channels of communication	Unilateral communication by authoritarian actors	Only official level	Mostly official level with early-stage transcommunity or national ties	Highly developed transcommunity or national ties
Collaboration	None or exploitation	Exploratory	Possible	Active
Possibility of return to war	High	Present	Possible	Unthinkable

Source: This table is adapted from Miller (2005: 232).

Cold peace

At the level of cold peace, parties in disagreement recognise each other’s rights to existence, access resources and so on. Although there is a level of interaction and cooperation between disputants, the underlying and immediate issues surrounding the conflict generally remain unresolved. While the probability of returning to violence is reduced at this level, it has not disappeared completely and might easily be triggered. Cold peace is often regarded as a step towards the resolution of a conflict and offers an opportunity for achieving a sustainable and higher level of peace. The relation between North Korea and South Korea is frequently cited as an example of this level of peace.

Normal peace

At this level, the major issues that had caused serious tensions or violent conflicts between disputants have been largely resolved or mitigated, and the relations between them are more or less normalised (or indifferent). The possibility of cooperation is higher than in conditions of cold peace, and in international relations cases, transnational collaboration between civil societies emerges. Examples of this level of peace are the improvement in the relationship between China and the US in the early 1990s and the social settlement in post–civil war El Salvador.

Warm peace

Warm peace describes a situation in which the issues pertaining to rivalries and incompatibilities between states or within society have been addressed. This level of peace is characterised by cooperation between the various actors, effective organisation of civil society and the existence of active co...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Illustrations
• List of Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction
• Concepts and theories of peacebuilding
• Peace and armed conflict
• The peace process
• The liberal peacebuilding model
• The three phases of peacebuilding
• Conflict resolution
• Post-conflict reconstruction
• Conflict transformation
• The practice of peacebuilding
• Political and security peacebuilding
• Socioeconomic peacebuilding
• Transitional justice and reconciliation
• Conclusion
• Useful online resources
• Index