Peace as a necessity is absolute and a yearning that most people would simply not deny. Yet it is difficult to understand how peace can be achieved because historical experience has shown that the quest for Peace has often been preceded by wars and countless loss of lives. Does this mean then that War is the natural condition of human life and Peace is its by-product? For instance, it is therefore difficult to imagine why the war on Iraq had to be waged, just to restore peace in the country. Difficult to comprehend, is it not? Would Peace exist without conflict? Would wars need to be fought at all if Peace was desired by all people? These dilemmas should help us discern that the question of peace is not so easy and apparent.
Empirical truth has demonstrated that while Peace is a shared yearning for different nations and peoples, each of them interprets Peace into their own situational realities. Peace then becomes defined in rather concrete terms as a necessary condition to enable and empower them to enhance the quality of life. This condition covers a spectrum of issues, and for instance at the macro level it involves sovereignty as derived from the principles and values of self-determination, democratic governance, economic growth and development and so on; while at the micro level it involves issues such as child labor, domestic violence, taxation, health policies and so on. In essence Peace covers all aspects of human life. And often, it is possible that the desired Peace of one nation may be in direct conflict with the Peace of another nation, unless Peace is perceived from the condition of a ‘Shared Humanity.’
The inherent tension between Peace as Security and Peace as Rights is a leading cause for most of the world’s conflicts. While the manner in which these differences are resolved should naturally affect future relations, the problem itself lies in the way conflicts are addressed. Hence, in spite of all the moral goodness Peace represents, Peace is a highly politicized concept because of the different realities it is expected to relevantly exist within. At best Peace itself has become the source of conflict. As tragic as it may sound, wars are being fought over which kind of Peace should prevail. Should it be Peace as State Security or should it be Peace as Peoples Rights. And so even more ironic is the fact that ‘Peace’ has become the choice to deal with wars that are being fought over peace.
The populist notions of Conflict studies these days are therefore making an erroneous judgment by shifting the soul of its existence and relevance from addressing the roots of the conflict to being reactively preoccupied by the consequences of the unfolding conflict. In so doing, it has allowed itself to become a tool of the powers that be who seek to establish hegemony where Peace in-effect is reduced to ‘suffer peacefully.’ Ideally, it would be momentous to restore Conflict studies as an essential means to provide sound analysis that gives rise to a praxis that is valued around a shared humanity. The concept of shared humanity naturally demands a new understanding of State Security and Peoples Rights; because any rigid positioning to oppose it would only mean the continuance of conflict caused by Peace. And usually it is almost impossible to find a solution to a conflict that is being waged because of Peace. A shared humanity would mean a JustPeace.
The need to make conflict studies relevant once again is however compounded by modern challenges of globalism and state narcissism. Inspired by the picturesque landscape of Caux, Babu Ayindo a comrade and fellow traveler and I began on this writing journey in 1999 titled: From Cold War to Hot Peace? The Politics of Conflict Resolution. What began as a presentation has over the years been developed into an ongoing critique of the conflict studies, which we keep updating through the email, from lessons learned in our varied experiences. Considering that we were both post-graduates of Conflict Transformation, we were fortunate to have access to professors and peace activist from all around the world. In our critique, we articulate that the language of peace has been usurped by the powers that be, which has been co-opted into the state system and then repackaged as foreign policy. We believed then and we believe now that the present Eurocentric concept of Conflict Resolution being exported around the world fails to satisfy the language of justice; and have been responsible for eroding many peoples movement for rights in the third world.
To enable Peace to be all that it truly represents in enabling a Shared Humanity, where all people can live in dignity, there is an urgent need for Conflict studies to truly represent and develop the values of Peacebuilding as lived and experienced in all human cultures. Concepts such as Conflict Resolution which are being incorporated into State governance through its administrative bodies can no longer be exclusive and state-centric. Peace after all is about people and hence if it is to be relevant, Conflict Resolution or rather Conflict Transformation, since conflicts need to be transformed and not necessarily resolved, must be rooted in peoples lives, so that it can truly transform societies. In other words, Conflict Transformation needs to transform power-relationships from one of imbalance to one of equality.
Unless Conflict Studies resolves the issue of Justice in the search for Peace, it is quite evident that Peace will continue to be the major cause for conflict in this world. A Hot Peace indeed!
