Upload
stephen-goodman
View
226
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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”
What is due the grandchildren of your enemy?
Alleviating fear Confidence-building
Non-violence: expulsion of “bad” violence
Means: “good” violence
What is due the grandchildren of your enemy?
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
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
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
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
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
Peaceful 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
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
ConciliationBargaining
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
ConciliationBargaining
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
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”
What is due the grandchildren of your enemy?
Alleviating fear Confidence-building
Non-violence: expulsion of “bad” violence
Means: “good” violence
What is due the grandchildren of your enemy?
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
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