Theories of Peace

Goal: to use the concept of the enemy to construct a theoretical framework for analyzing peace

Peace: Creation and maintenance of

relationship of proven value and worth

Types of Peace•Separate: Disentangle; Co-Existence

•Associate: Entangle; Partnerships

Goal of Peace•Restore: reestablish trust, value

•Build: create trust, value

Tractable Conflicts

I. Peace: mediated, resolved conflictsOpponent: an adversary, rivalType of Conflict: conflict of interestsPeaceful Outcome: win-win resolution

II. Peace: fair, just, & cooperative relationshipsOpponent: an oppressorType of Conflict: unbalanced relationshipsPeaceful Outcome: mutually beneficial relationships

Intractable Conflicts

III. Peace: defeat of the enemyEnemy: antithesis of peaceType of Conflict: protracted, intractable differencesOutcome: irreconcilable differences

Spring 2001

PEACE STUDIES FRAMEWORK TRACTABLE CONFLICT COMPONENTS OF PEACE

1 Peace: mediated, resolved conflicts

Opponent: an adversary, rival

Justice: equity within competing relationships

Rectifying Injustice: inequity

Type of Conflict: conflict of interests

Peaceful Outcome: win-win resolution

Security: institutional protection

Removing Threat: competing interests

Non-violence: freedom from war

Means: democratic institution, conflict resolution processes

2 Peace: fair, just, & cooperative relationships

Opponent: an oppressor Justice: equality and fairness

Rectifying Injustice: exploitation

Type of Conflict: unbalanced relationships

Peaceful Outcome: mutually beneficial relationship

Security: power Removing Threat: exploitation

Non-violence: freedom from structural violence

Means: education, confrontation, conciliation, bargaining

INTRACTABLE CONFLICT COMPONENTS OF PEACE

Conflict Transformation: creation of “we-ness”—

trust (must transform the conflict into one that is tractable)

Transcenders: Establishing connects

Transformers: Developing trust

Foundations for “We-ness”

3 Peace: defeat of the enemy Enemy: antithesis of peace

Justice: rightness of my goals and aspirations

Injustice: interference in your pursue of your goals and aspirations

What is due the grandchildren of your enemy?

Rectifying Injustice

Basic Human Right

Type of Conflict: protracted, intractable differences

Outcome: irreconcilable differences

Security: victory (eternal vigilance)

Threat: the presence of the “other”


Alleviating fear Confidence-building

Non-violence: expulsion of “bad” violence

Means: “good” violence


Renouncing violence

Establishing consent

Chantal Mouffe:

1. The constitutive other and the impossibility of a world without antagonisms

2. Difference vs. Negating Identity

3. We/them -- Friend/enemy

4. Displacement of the enemy with the adversary.

Tractable Conflicts





Transcenders:

If the enemy is someone who was potentially one of us and from whom we have been separated by violence, then the first task is to reestablish the human bonds that once connected us.

Transformers:

By definition, intractable conflicts cannot be resolved. Still, they can be transformed into tractable ones that are, in principle, capable of resolution. The only way to do this is to construct a context that includes the sacrificially expelled other.

Tractable Conflicts





Boulding’s Definition of Peace:Boulding’s Definition of Peace:Peace as Not War: a setting in which conflict and

excitement, debate and dialogue, drama and confrontation do not get out of hand and become destructive

Positive Aspects: 1. Condition of good management 2. Orderly resolution of conflict3. Harmony associated with mature relationships

Negative Aspects:1. Absence of turmoil2. Absence of tension3. Absence of conflict4. Absence of war

Boulding’s Approach1. The goal is to make peace more probable and war less likely.

2. The concept of the “causes of war” is rejected because war and peace are multi-causal, subject to quite strong random influences, and sharp discontinuities at the breaking points.

3. The variable of war-peace system, particular the international system, can be classified roughly by the way in which they contribute either to the strain or to the strength of the system.

4. Conflict activities are those in which we are conscious that an increase in our welfare may diminish the welfare of others or an increase in the welfare of others may diminish our welfare.

5. The difference between peace and war is mainly defined in terms of the taboo line – the line that defines what we can do but refrain from doing from what we can do and do.

Boulding’s Paradigm

All

Human

Activity

Non-conflict

Conflict

War

Peace

Peace and WarPeace and War1. War and Peace are not merely the absence of the other,

but positively definable states of a system.

2. Example: awake and asleep; neither is simply the opposite of the other.

3. Peace and war can be represented as differing phases in a system.

4. A different system of acting and thinking characterizes the war and peace phases.

Perception of Reality in War & Peace

Peacetime1. Good and Evil have many shades of gray.

2. The present is pretty much like other times.

3. Great forces (nature, God, civilization) are not particularly involved in our disputes.

4. After the present period, things will go on pretty much as they always have.

5. Life is complex with many problems to be solved that have varying importance from day to day.

6. All people act pretty much the same and act from the same motives.

7. We can talk with those we disagree with.

Wartime1. Good and Evil are reduced to us and them with no bystanders.

2. The present has a special quality—a final battle of good and evil.

3. The great forces of the cosmos are for us against them.

4. When the war is over things will be vastly different.

5. There is only one problem with ultimate importance that must be solved

6. "We" and "They" are qualitatively different. They wish for power. We act in self defense and with respect for common decency.

7. They lie and are so evil that only force can settle the issues

Boulding’s Paradigm

All

Human

Activity

Non-conflict

Conflict

War

Peace

a) Constructive ambiguity: If a conflict is likely to become less important in the future, then leave its resolution ambiguous.

Conflict Transformation

Good News: It produces the best (most rewarding and most enduring) solutions. Bad News: It is problem-solving in a reconciliation framework (we-ness).

1) Goal: Create new solutions that are beyond the scope of what immediately seems possible.

2) Assumption: We can agree about where we want to go.

3) Method: Turn the conflict into political (economic, social) problem that we acting together can solve.

a) Conflict is irresolvable because: i) There are incompatible interests – real or perceived. ii) Parties are too angry to talk constructively. iii) There exist fundamental differences in values about the subject of the conflict

or about process for resolving it. iv) The parties hold different versions of the “truth” about what already has or

will happen in the future and about the facts involved. v) The parties have differing views of what their relationship is or should be. vi) There exist misunderstandings that are hard to sort out.

b) The conflict becomes a complex riddle or puzzle that has to be solved mutually or cooperatively:

c) Diagnosing the conflict by sorting out the various interests, values, preferences, realities, emotional investments, and so on:

What do I want?

Why do I want it?

What are the various ways that I can satisfy what I want?

What do they want?

Why do they want it?

What are the various ways that they can satisfy what they want?

Do we fully understand each other needs, reason, beliefs, and feelings?

Is the conflict based upon misunderstanding or a real conflict of interests, beliefs, preferences, or values?

What is the conflict really about?

4) Developing alternatives solutions to the problem: figuring out what it would take to work things out.

a) Expanding the pie: i) Claiming vs. creating value

b) Creating new compensation frameworks: i) Finding new ways to compensate a party for yielding on a issue

c) Bridging: i) Identifying interests that can be satisfied by redesign the framework or

context.

April 2003 Approaches to Conflict Reduction

Conflict Management

Good News: At the end of the day, you are alive. Bad News: Whether you live through tomorrow is uncertain.

1) Goal: To prevent conflicts from escalating into total conflict.

2) Assumptions a) It is better to aim low and succeed than to aim high and fail. b) Many of the most achievable improvements in the situation accomplish little and

put prior advancements in jeopardy.

3) Method: Create a hiatus in which neither side tries to destroy the other: Create “live and let live attitude in the places where people interact by removing or managing the factors that cause threat (coexistence)

a) Degree of integration b) Degree of imposition or coercion

4) Strategy a) Appeal to self-interest: one’s own existence is dependent upon the existence of

the other. b) Create moral anchors that allow both sides to see the human face of the other. c) Encourage alignment based upon interests other than sectarian identity. d) Contain issues that could increase polarization.

Conflict Resolution

Good News: Many conflicts are non-zero sum. Bad News: Not all problems are non-zero sum.

1) Goal: Remove the resistances or obstacles to an overall resolution or settlement.

2) Assumption: The gap between the parties can be traversed with small steps.

3) Method: Fractionating the conflict into resolvable issues by based the various interests involved.

a) Shared interests b) Different interests

i) Different valuations ii) Different expectations iii) Different attitudes about risk

iv) Different time preferences v) Different capabilities

c) Opposing Interests

4) Strategy a) Logrolling

i) Creating a package linking less valued concessions to more valued gains. ii) Concessions that avoid losses are more effective than concession improve

upon gains. b) Entrapment: Once people made a concession or agreement, they tend to act and

think in ways that justify this move.

Approaches to Conflict Reduction/De-escalationApproaches to Conflict Reduction/De-escalation

1. Conflict Management

2. Conflict Resolution

3. Conflict Transformation

Approaches to Conflict Approaches to Conflict Reduction/De-escalationReduction/De-escalation

Conflict Management

Good news: At the end of the day, you are alive.

Bad news: Whether you live through tomorrow is uncertain.

Goal: To prevent conflicts from escalating into total conflict.

Assumptions:

1. It is better to aim low and succeed than to aim high and fail.

2. Many of the most achievable improvements in the situation accomplish little and put prior advancements in jeopardy.

Method

Create a hiatus in which neither side tries to destroy the other: Create “live and let live attitude in the places where people interact by removing or managing the factors that cause threat (coexistence)

• Degree of integration

• Degree of imposition or coercion

Strategy

1. Appeal to self-interest: one’s own existence is dependent upon the existence of the other.

2. Create moral anchors that allow both sides to see the human face of the other.

3. Encourage alignment based upon interests other than sectarian identity.

4. Contain issues that could increase polarization.

Conflict Resolution

Good news: Many conflicts are non-zero sum.

Bad news: Not all problems are non-zero sum.

Assumption: The gap between the parties can be transverse with small steps

Goal: Remove the resistances or obstacles to an overall resolution or settlement.

MethodFractionating the conflict into resolvable issues by

based the various interests involved.

Shared interests

Different interestsDifferent valuationsDifferent expectations Different attitudes about risk Different time preferences

Different capabilities

Opposing Interests

Strategy: 1.Logrolling:

• Creating a package linking less valued concessions to more valued gains.

• Concessions that avoid losses are more effective than concession improve upon gains.

2.Entrapment: Once people made a concession or agreement, they tend to act and think in ways that justify this move.

3.Constructive ambiguity: If a conflict is likely to become less important in the future, then leave its resolution ambiguous.

Conflict TransformationGood News: It produces the best (most rewarding

and most enduring) solutions.

Bad News: It is problem-solving in a reconciliation framework (we-ness).

Goal: Create new solutions that go beyond the scope of what seems immediately possible.

Assumption: We agree about where we want to go.

Method: Turn the conflict into political (economic, social) problem that we acting together can solve.

Why is the conflict irresolvable?1. There are incompatible interests – real or perceived.

2. Parties are too angry to talk constructively.

3. There exist fundamental differences in values about the subject of the conflict or about process for resolving it.

4. The parties hold different versions of the “truth” about what already has or will happen in the future and about the facts involved.

5. The parties have differing views of what their relationship is or should be.

6. There exist misunderstandings that are hard to sort out.

Method (continued)2. The conflict becomes a complex riddle or puzzle that

has to be solved mutually or cooperatively.

3. Diagnosing the conflict: sorting out the various: various interests, values, preferences, realities, emotional investments, and so on .

What do I want?

Why do I want it?

What are the various ways that I can satisfy what I want?

What do they want?

Why do they want it?

What are the various ways that they can satisfy what they want?

Do we fully understand each other needs, reason, beliefs, and feelings?

Is the conflict based upon misunderstanding or a real conflict of interests, beliefs, preferences, or values?

What is the conflict really about?

Strategy:Strategy:

1. Expanding the pie

• Claiming vs. creating value

2. Creating new compensation frameworks

• Finding new ways to compensate a party for yielding on a issue

3. Bridging

• Identifying interests that can be satisfied by redesigning the framework or context

Peace/War System

Strength

Str

ain

Stable Peace

Unstable Peace

Unstable War

Stable War

StrainStructural Variables:

1. Images of the past2. Professionalization of conflict

Dynamic Variables:1. Arms Race2. Differential Growth

a. Populationb. Economic

Strength: Structural Variables:

1. Memories of the past2. Professionalization: mediators, etc.

Dynamic Variables: 1. Travel and communication

2. Web of economic interdependence—cross-cutting

Peace/War SystemPeace/War System

European UnionEuropean Union

European Coal and Steel CommunityEuropean Coal and Steel Community

Treaty of Paris, April 18, 1951

1. Coal and steel were the fundamental building blocks of industry.

2. The heavy industries of the Ruhr had been the traditional basis for German power. Three times in the previous seventy years, France and Germany had fought over the coal reserves of Alsace-Lorraine.

3. Integrating the coal and steel industry would ensure that Germany and France developed common interests that would help prevent military and economy rivalry.

Vision of Jean Monnet & Robert Schuman To sneak up on peace

Functionalism: upgrading common interests

Functional spillover

Technical spillover

Political spillover

Principal Objectives:Principal Objectives:

1. Establish European citizenship

2. Ensure freedom, security, and justice

3. Promote economic and social progress

4. Assert Europe’s role in the world

Three Pillars:Three Pillars:

Pillar 1: primarily economic (EC & EMU)

Pillar 2: joint action in foreign and security affairs

Pillar 3: justice and home affairs

Institutions:

The European Commission

The Council of the Union

The European Parliament

The Court of Justice

The Court of Auditors

Original Six Countries: France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands

Today: 15 member states; 13 candidate countries

Tractable ConflictsI. Peace: mediated, resolved conflicts

Opponent: an adversary, rivalType of Conflict: conflict of interests





Curle’s Approach

1. The most useful categories for thinking about peace are peaceful and unpeaceful relationships.

2. The goal is to transform unpeaceful relationship into peaceful relationship.

3. Conflict occurs when one side desires something that can be obtained only at the expense of what another side desires. His view is objectivist and concerns incompatible interests.

4. The key variables are (1) balanced and unbalanced and (2) high and low levels of awareness.

5. Exploitative imbalance is a particular prevalent form of unpeaceful relationship and is his principal concern.

Curle’s Paradigm

Unbalanced,

low awareness

Unbalanced,

high awareness

Balanced,

high awareness

No conflict

Education

Confrontation

ConciliationBargaining

Development

Static Unstable Dynamic

Bal

ance

d

Negotiation: Conciliation Bargaining

Sustainable Peace

Un

bal

ance

d

1. Education/Conscientization Confronatation

Curle's Paradigm

Latent Conflict Overt Conflict

Low Awareness High Awareness

Unpeaceful Relationship Peaceful Relationships

Curle’s Paradigm

Unbalanced,

low awareness

Unbalanced,

high awareness

Balanced,

high awareness

No conflict

EducationEducation

Confrontation


Development

Paulo Freire: Pedagogy of the Oppressed

1. The purpose of education is to empower people to be the creators of their own history.

2. The method is dialogical. No one is absolutely ignorant.

3. Identification of generative themes that give rise to “limit situations.”

4. Exploration of “untested feasibility.”

5. Dialogue is the exercise of freedom.

Curle’s Paradigm

Unbalanced,

low awareness

Unbalanced,

high awareness

Balanced,

high awareness

No conflict

Education

ConfrontatioConfrontationn


Development

I. Non-Violence—A Response to ViolenceCriteria for Effectiveness

1. Active force against force2. Effective against violence

II. Source of Power: Role of ConsentHow do you think about your power?

III. Methods of StruggleA. Non-Violence Protest & PersuasionB. Non-Cooperation

1. Social2. Economic3. Political

C. Non-Violent Intervention

IV. Mechanism of ChangeA. ConversionB. AccommodationC. Coercion

Confrontation

Tractable Conflicts





Spring 2001

PEACE STUDIES FRAMEWORK TRACTABLE CONFLICT COMPONENTS OF PEACE

1 Peace: mediated, resolved conflicts

Opponent: an adversary, rival

Justice: equity within competing relationships

Rectifying Injustice: inequity

Type of Conflict: conflict of interests


Security: institutional protection

Removing Threat: competing interests

Non-violence: freedom from war

Means: democratic institution, conflict resolution processes

2 Peace: fair, just, & cooperative relationships

Opponent: an oppressor Justice: equality and fairness

Rectifying Injustice: exploitation

Type of Conflict: unbalanced relationships

Peaceful Outcome: mutually beneficial relationship

Security: power Removing Threat: exploitation

Non-violence: freedom from structural violence

Means: education, confrontation, conciliation, bargaining

INTRACTABLE CONFLICT COMPONENTS OF PEACE

Conflict Transformation: creation of “we-ness”—

trust (must transform the conflict into one that is tractable)

Transcenders: Establishing connects

Transformers: Developing trust

Foundations for “We-ness”

3 Peace: defeat of the enemy Enemy: antithesis of peace

Justice: rightness of my goals and aspirations

Injustice: interference in your pursue of your goals and aspirations


Rectifying Injustice

Basic Human Right

Type of Conflict: protracted, intractable differences

Outcome: irreconcilable differences

Security: victory (eternal vigilance)

Threat: the presence of the “other”


Alleviating fear Confidence-building

Non-violence: expulsion of “bad” violence

Means: “good” violence


Renouncing violence

Establishing consent

Components of Peace

JusticeJust War Theory, International Law, Arms Control

SecurityRealist Political Theory

Non-violence Pacifism

Basic Human Rights

•Physical security

•Subsistence

•Effective participation

•Free physical movement

Tractable Conflicts





Theories of Peace

Documents

Transcript of Theories of Peace