MEANING OF PEACE BUILDING
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Describing Peacebuilding
3.2 Distinguishing Peacemaking, Peacekeeping and
Peacebuilding
3.3 Concepts of Peacebuilding
3.4 Dimensions to Peacebuilding
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutored Marked Assignment
7.0 References / Further Readings
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Peace building is one of the United Nations cardinal
models of peace process. The concept was made globally popular in Boutro-Ghali’s
An Agenda for Peace. Boutros Ghali wrote this paper in 1992, while he
was the United Nations Secretary General. Peace building involves addressing
not only the triggers, which are the immediate variables that
mechanize the outbreak of any armed conflict. For
instance, the killing of some political leaders as it occurred in Nigeria,
during the first coup triggered power struggle in the Nigerian military within
the framework of regional divides, which culminated in the counter coup saga
and eventual outbreak of civil war in the country. Since then peace situation in
Nigerian state has remained more fragile and viable peacebuilding measures
should be the primary responsibility of all and sundry. These triggers or
proximate causes of conflict are only those factors that could be said to be responsible
for the outburst of a given conflict. Root causes are the major structural or
underlying causes of such conflict, which are instrumental, but not sufficient
to accentuate violent situation. By and large, peace building does not only
take care of the triggers, but also addresses the root causes of the conflict
in order to generate a true and sustainable reconciliation and peaceful
co-existence.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
• Describe Peace building and its
categories;
• Distinguish peace making,
peacekeeping and peacebuilding;
• Explain Peacebuilding and some
of its basic concepts;
• Discuss various dimensions of
peacebuilding.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Defining Peacebuilding
Peace building can be categorized into two:
Pre-conflict peace building and post conflict peace building. Thus, what is
peace building? According to the British army (1997:2), peace building usually
involves: Actions which support
political, economic, social and
military measures and structures aiming to
strengthen and solidify political settlement in order to redress the causes of
conflict. These mechanisms to identify and support
structures that tend to consolidate peace,
advance a sense of confidence and well-being and support economic reconstruction.
Boutros-Ghali in his An Agenda for Peace categorized peace building into two: Pre-conflict
and post conflict peacebuilding. According to him, pre-conflict peace building
includes such measures like ‘[de] militarisation, the control of small arms,
institutional reform, improved police and judicial systems, the monitoring of
human rights, electoral
reform and social and economic development.’
Similarly, Rechler (1997:61) sees pre-conflict peace building as: Preventive
measures that aim to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor; to promote
and implement human rights and the rights of the minorities, and to promote
durable development and the realization of a just and fair social order in
which there is no discrimination based on race or sex.
Pre-conflict peace-building is a kind of early
warning mechanism to monitor conflict triggers or catalysts and address the
underlying root sources of conflict, which may be considered as latent or a
conflict situation that is still in ‘sleeping phase’. According to the
Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA), pre-conflict peace building
is:
…a proactive process that requires identification of
conflict incidences; analysis of conflict structure, actors, and trends;
adoption of relevant responses and management mechanism; and restoration of
trust and confidence of conflict parties in each other. (IDASA 2004:29- 30).
According to Albert (2001:130), Peacebuilding is an
art of: “Repairing” relationships, institutions and social facilities and
putting in place schemes that can help the disputing communities to be united once
again Here, it is quite important to distinguish the interrelated concepts of peacemaking,
Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding to stimulate our better understanding of the
subject matter. This task shall be our central focus in the next segment of
this unit.
3.2 Distinguishing Peacemaking, Peacekeeping
and
Peacebuilding
Peace can be generated through various means, which
may include peace workshops, negotiation or through a choice of conflict
handling styles. If two parties are in conflict, for instance in an organization
where there is conflict between two or more employees, the employer may use
confrontation to settle the conflict if he or she considers joint
problem-solving approach as time consuming or less
productive. Such an intervention may achieve peace but such peace is negative.
It is quite imperative for peace practitioners or intervenors to always adopt a
shift from a negative peace to positive peace in order to address the causes of
conflict for genuine reconciliation rather than encouraging hot peace or ‘sweep
under the carpet’ peace philosophy. Sustainable peace is
characterized by a notion, which denounces any
attempt or action that operates within the confines of physical and structural
violence, eliminating discrimination, and promotes friendly interdependent bahaviour
among various parties (Reychler, 2001: 12).
Peacebuilding consists of a wide range of activities
associated with capacity building, reconciliation, and societal transformation.
Peacebuilding is a long-term process, which occurs
after violent conflict has subsided or
ended. It is that peace process that follows exhaustion of peacemaking and
peacekeeping.
Several international agencies and organizations
including local and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well
as community based organizations (CBOs) partake in peacebuilding activities,
understanding that it is an umbrella concept, which plays some critical roles
in the aftermath of peacemaking and peacekeeping through delivery of long-term
transformative efforts. Peacekeeping is only a pro-active response to imposing
some order and enforcement actions in the separation of the parties in armed
conflict. On other hand, peacemaking is the process of bringing the disputing
parties or
combatants to some agreement. Peacemaking is thus: The
process of forging a settlement between the disputing parties. While this can
be done in direct negotiation with just the two disputants, it is often also
done with a third party mediator, who assists with process and communication problems,
and helps the parties work effectively together to draft a workable peace
accord.
Usually the negotiators are official diplomats, although
citizens are getting in the peacemaking process more and more. While they do
not negotiate the final accords, citizen diplomacy is becoming an increasingly
common way to start the peacemaking process, which is then finalized with
official diplomatic efforts (seewww.coorado.edu/conflict/peace/example/acon7268.htm ) Peacemaking is a diplomatic iniative aimed at
bringing to an end any violent attitude that may be dominating the conflict
relationship between parties. This is with the hope of making the parties in
conflict to see reasons on why they should seek for diplomatic means and
nonviolent dialogue in the resolution of their conflict resulting ultimately
into signing of a peace agreement. An example of peacemaking process was the
Camp David Accords on September 17, 1978, which was facilitated by former
American President, President Jimmy Carter. The Accord was a conflict
transformation effort by Mr. Jimmy Carter to commit Mr. Menachem Begin, the then Prime Minster of Israel and Mr. Anwar Sadat, the then Egyptian President to the path of
enduring peace. But Mr. Begin shown less commitment to the peace process. Mr.
Carter however employed some psychological strategies to make the leaders to reason
in choosing the path of peace rather than armed conflict. Through Carter’s
diplomatic artistry, personal and emotional elements of the
parties, a peace deal was signed.
The concept of peacekeeping became fully entrenched
in the global peace processes and institutions when it was developed in 1940s
by the United Nations but the concept predates the establishment of the UN. Peacekeeping
is a third-party intervention to help the parties in changing their violent
attitude in the prosecution of the conflict to a less violent or peaceful one
by separating them and keeping them apart. Peacekeeping
according to Alan James, involves a: Traditional-looking
military force, composed of a
number of battalions and the authority of a commander.
The battalions will have been
detached from or supplied by various national armies,
and the commander is appointed by, and is responsible to, the international
authority which has arranged the operation. (James, 1990: 1).
Peacekeeping, in classical terms was built on some
basic assumptions, which according to Brian Urquhart include: The consent of
the parties involved in the conflict to the establishment of the operations, to
its composition and to its appointed commanding
officer; The continuing and strong support of the operations
by the mandatory authority, the Security Council; A clear and practicable
mandate; The non-use of force except in the resort in self defence. Self
defence, however, including resistance to attempts by forceful means to prevent
the peace-keepers from discharging their duties; (less often noted) the
willingness of the member states, and especially the permanent member of the
Security Council, to make available the necessary financial and logical support.
(Urquhart, 1990: 9)
Traditional Peacekeeping activities have been
undergoing a series of review in recent time. For instance, the conduct of
peacekeeping operations is (was) exclusively the responsibility of the UN but
now a number of regional bodies have been engaging in peacekeeping initiatives,
and ECOMOG is a good example. Peacekeeping is very essential for conflict
de-escalation. It is worth knowing that not all peacekeeping operations are
carried out by military forces because some are civilian in nature.
Peacekeeping operations do not only provide security, but also involve some
other non-military initiatives. (See SAIS on http://cmtoolkit.sais-jhu.edu/ ) Peacebuilding goes beyond separating the disputants or settle
their dispute but also builds opportunities–base that heals the wounds. It promotes
more friendly relationship among old combatants. It also creates institutions
and socio-facilities aimed at assisting the former disputants to respect their
mutual needs and interests for peaceful society where meaningful development
can take place.
Peacebuilding plays very important roles in the
promotion of peace and conflict resolution by focusing more on the ways through
which the agreement will be implemented. It also builds opportunity networks in
the reconstruction of social, economic, and political structures to allow for
creation of sustainable capacity for peace and long term conflict transformation
decorum between the parties. As a matter of fact, peacebuilding includes early
warning and response efforts, violence prevention, conflict resolution, peace
advocacy, civilian and military peacekeeping, military intervention,
humanitarian assistance, ceasefire agreements, and the establishment of peace
or buffer zones.
Fig. 1.1
Source: Review of the UK Government Approach to Peacebuilding and Synthesis
of Lessons Learned From UK Government Funded Peacebuilding Projects (1997-2001)
Available on www.dfid.gov.uk
There is a difference between post-conflict
peacebuilding and long-term
peacebuilding. Post-conflict peacebuilding is more
associated with peacekeeping while (often) focusing more on demobilization and reintegration
programs, and immediate reconstruction needs (Doyle and Sambanis). Meeting
immediate needs and handling crises is no doubt crucial. But while peacemaking
and peacekeeping processes are an
important part of peace transitions, they are not
enough in and of themselves to meet longer-term needs and build a lasting
peace.
Long-term peacebuilding is aimed at providing
opportunities to meet the long term needs of the old combatants by primarily
focusing on ways to address the underlying factors or root causes that in the
first instance fertilized the conflict. Several conflict transformation
energies are to be channeled to move parties away from confrontation and
violence, and
towards political and economic participation,
peaceful relationships, and social harmony.(ibid)
3.3 Concepts of Peacebuilding
Peacebuilding addresses issues of reconstruction,
rehabilitation, reconciliation demilitarization among others. In this segment
of the study unit, we shall discuss some of the basic concepts of
peacebuilding. Reconciliation creates an avenue for the old combatants and
displaced population to express their pains and agony, address the root causes
of the conflict in the promotion of mutual cooperation through justice, truth,
mercy and forgiveness. Reconciliation remains a difficult task in peacebuilding
because (in most cases) the parties will need to see some prospects in the
whole reconciliatory exercise before they consent.
Reconciliation as a concept of peacebuilding has
received less attention in the literature in international relations and peace
and conflict studies. In the context of this study, reconciliation refers to a
process through which a disputing party seeks to establish structures and
procedures capable of facilitating an enduring peace and mutual understanding
with her old enemy in post conflict environment. Reconciliation isn't simply about
apologizing for the past. It is also about recognizing that there is a valid
claim on the part of the offended that his or her interest has been trampled
upon while his or her needs not respected by the other (offender) party. We
need to understand reconciliation not only as a peacebuilding process, but also
as a viable mechanism that enhances dynamic social systems and creates
opportunities for social energies and
directions.
Reconciliation is of course a relatively new concept
in the new field of peace and conflict resolution. Due to the newness of the
concept, it does not have any universally agreed definition. Reconciliation
consists of at least four basic properties, which include truth, justice, mercy, and peace. The realist notion on
reconciliation is somehow unfair to peace practitioners because it is
obviously, to realists a response to rhetorics of the lackadaisical and
deformed traditional judicial institutions and processes resulting from
desanctification of the legal process and stupendous corruption of the legal
system. Thus, in such situations, realists believe that offenders are usually
anxious of seeking for political and economic manipulation of justice to avert
any form of unfavourable outcome of legal proceedings to avoid punishment.
Reconciliation is often forced on the disputing
parties basically with the hope of achieving peace, even if the peace is a
negative one while the peace facilitator may have at the back of his mind that
such peace process is adopted to reduce tension in the relationship of the
disputants with the desire to restore mutual understanding of the disputants
through communication. An example of this is a daughter whose father disapproved
her wedding with a beloved man of her choice basically due to identity problem-
for the man belonging to another ethnic group or religious faith. Such daughter
may decide to go ahead with the wedding plans disregarding her father’s
decision. The daughter’s action may cause a conflict between her and her
father. Here, the peace facilitator may decide to adopt a (customary)
reconciliatory method, by telling the daughter to seek for her father’s
forgiveness as if she deliberately offended her father, basically with the aim
of achieving peace. He will need to go a step further after the apology and
forgiveness to assist the old disputants build their mutual respect for each
other’s needs rather than positions through effective communication to achieve
the so
desired positive peace. .
Apology and Forgiveness
Apology and forgiveness are very important elements
of reconciliation and peace building. They are two sides of the same coin of
emotions. The two concepts usually reflect the feelings and convictions, which characterize
the conflict transformation initiatives and relationships of the disputing
parties as one party will demonstrate a sense of maturity by portraying himself
/ herself as offender while the other party shows courage by portraying himself
or herself as the victim. But in some circumstances, the offender presents
himself or herself as victim in order to win public sympathy and support.
Apology and forgiveness enable former disputants to appreciate the pains and
agonies that each of them suffered in the course of the conflict, which
disrupted their
communication, harmony and friendship.
Tendering sincere apologies and the courageous
granting of forgiveness form the integral parts of any long-term resolution of
any recalcitrant conflict situation and pro-active efforts towards
peacebuilding. They form the basis for concrete reconciliation and sustainable
peace. Offenders are supposed to know that they should admit responsibility
for their actions, which might have caused injury or
harm to their victims. If long term conflict resolution should be made, the
offender is supposed to show remorse for the crime he/she perpetuated against
the other party and tender unreserved apology and denounce any further crime
against the victim in the nearest future. In the same vein, the other party
considered as victim should demonstrate a large heartedness by forgiving the
offender. Through this healing process will begin. The offender should also pay
a restitution to make the victim’s forgiveness a long lasting one. Thus
restitution will further repair damage suffered by the victim as the victim is
compensated for the specific consequences of a violation. Restitution also
carries important symbolism as the offender
actually tries to redeem his/her trustworthiness
with concrete actions.
Reconstruction enables the post conflict society to have ‘another opportunity’
through rebuilding of social infrastructures that were destroyed as a result of
the bloody conflict. Lack of essential social amenities can regenerate a
conflict situation and a lot of efforts should be geared towards creating a
lively post conflict society.
Rehabilitation process affords the ex-combatants, the displaced population
and refugees opportunities of demobilization and reintegration through
provision of some strategic peace building measures like employment
opportunities, creativity and vocational skill
development, trauma-healing advice and support among
others. There are several other concepts of peacebuilding, which include
trustbuilding, communication among others. Students are hereby advised to engage
in further readings or in the appreciation of some other relevant materials for
better understanding of the subject matter, concepts and
practice of peacebuilding.
3.4 Dimensions to Peacebuilding
a) The Structural Dimension
The structural dimension of peacebuilding centers
its focus on the social conditions, which promote violent conflict. It is
widely acknowledged that sustainable peace is a product of social, economic,
and political opportunities on equal terms, which take care of the needs of the
entire people or parties. However, most of the armed conflict situations are hinged
on systemic roots. These root causes are somehow complex, which may include
skewed land distribution, environmental degradation, and unequal political
representation Meanwhile, there can never be sustainable or positive peace, if
the root
causes of conflict are not attended to by the
parties or the third party mediator(s). Considerable energy should be geared toward
analyzing the structural causes of the conflict and set off social structural
change. The promotion of substantive and procedural justice through structural means
is consequent upon institution building and the strengthening of civil society.
The transformation process include designing
strategies to address social-economic and political injustice and inequality
that pervaded the landscape of the conflict state, and reconstruction programs
and activities should be embarked upon to help in addressing some of the developmental
variables that can cause regeneration of conflict.
Effective restorative justice systems should also
support the reconstruction. Viable democratic structures, independent judiciary,
and good governance should be encouraged and respect for human rights and
peace-enduring attitudes be promoted.
b) The Relational Dimension
The second integral part of building peace is to
limit the effects of war related hostility through the repair and
transformation of damaged relationships. The relational dimension of
peacebuilding focuses mainly on reconciliation, forgiveness, trust building,
and future imagining. It strives to play down poorly functioning communication
and optimally
increase mutual understanding between the parties.
Reconciliation enables the parties to exhibit their
pains, agonies as well as guilt resulting from the conflict. Parties should
demonstrate a sense maturity in the way that they make known their experience
to each other, and should take responsibility for their roles and actions. The parties
should also engage each other in restorative dialogues with basic
principles of validation, accountability and
healing. The parties should also improve their communication relationship and
perception about each other with the aim of achieving positive and enduring
peace and harmony, which must guarantee the respect for mutual needs of the parties.
c) The Personal Dimension
The personal dimension of peacebuilding focuses on
desired changes at the individual level. If individuals don’t enjoy any healing
process, it may result in greater political and economic consequences. Peacebuilding
efforts must also be geared towards treating mental, psychological and
spiritual health problems that may follow the end of an armed conflict.
Integration, rehabilitation and re-entry measures must be proactive enough to
take care of the psychological needs of war victims and the former combatants. These
trauma healing techniques should assist the victims to put behind their
experience about the armed conflict. Through healing these war victims can
start to live a better life again. Thus, crime arising from the conflict may
make them (victims) powerless and become more vulnerable. Traumatic situations
make person not only powerless but he is likely to experience the threat of
death and injury. Building of peace should also include appreciation of the
psychological and emotional aspects of the conflict. The social fabric that has
been destroyed by war must be repaired, and trauma must be dealt with at the
national, community, and individual levels. Pains and suffering must be addressed
adequately. Strong family units that can rebuild community structures and moral
environments are also crucial.
SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
Compare and contrast pre-conflict peace building and
post conflict peace building; drawing your case studies from Africa.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In Peace and Conflict Resolution, experts and
students often use the three concepts – peacekeeping, peacemaking and
peacebuilding intertwinely but many of whom are confused because of the
inter-related nature of the three concepts. Peacekeeping is basically interested
in imposing order and barriers in the separation of the combatants from further
articulation of violence. Peacekeeping is not sufficient in the facilitation of
enduring peace. Then, peacemaking will bring the parties to peace dialogue and
diplomatic negotiation purposely to reconcile them, which will culminate in the
signing of peace agreement by the parties. Thereafter, it is quite necessary to
put in place some conflict transformation measures that create trust-building
opportunities and improve the communication networks of the parties, and adopt
strategies for reintegration, rehabilitation and healing. Building peace also involves
addressing the root causes of the conflict and creating longterm actions for
sustainable peace and harmony between the parties.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, we have discussed the relationship
among peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding through our conceptual
evaluation of the concept. We also showcased differing definitions of
peacebuilding as some other related issues were also briefly touched. We also explained
some of the concepts of Peacebuilding and dimensions to
Peacebuilding
6.0 TUTORED MARKED ASSIGNMENT
How effective are peace building objectives of
Nigerian Government to address the underlying problems in the Niger Delta?
7.0 REFERENCES / FURTHER READINGS
Adekanye, J. Bayo (2003), “Terrorism and
Globalization: How should the international community respond? An African
Perspective”, African Journal of
Peace and Conflict Studies, Vol.
1, No. 1 June.
Albert, I.O. (2001), Introduction to Third Party Intervention
in Community Conflict (Ibadan:
PETRAF/John Archers).
Boutros-Ghali, B. (1992), An Agenda for Peace (New York: United Nations).
Doyle, Michael and Nicholas Sambanis. "Building
Peace: Challenges and Strategies After Civil War," The World Bank Group.
(see http://www.worldbank.org/research/conflict/papers/building.pdf )
Peacekeeping has proven to be one of the most effective tools available to the UN to assist host countries navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace.
Peacekeeping has unique strengths, including legitimacy, burden sharing, and an ability to deploy and sustain troops and police from around the globe, integrating them with civilian peacekeepers to advance multidimensional mandates.
UN Peacekeepers provide security and the political and peacebuilding support to help countries make the difficult, early transition from conflict to peace.
UN Peacekeeping is guided by three basic principles:
- Consent of the parties;
- Impartiality;
- Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate.
Principles of UN peacekeeping
There are three basic principles that continue to set UN peacekeeping operations apart as a tool for maintaining international peace and security.These three principles are inter-related and mutually reinforcing:
- Consent of the parties
- Impartiality
- Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate
Consent of the parties
UN peacekeeping operations are deployed with the consent of the main parties to the conflict. This requires a commitment by the parties to a political process. Their acceptance of a peacekeeping operation provides the UN with the necessary freedom of action, both political and physical, to carry out its mandated tasks.
In the absence of such consent, a peacekeeping operation risks becoming a party to the conflict; and being drawn towards enforcement action, and away from its fundamental role of keeping the peace.
The fact that the main parties have given their consent to the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping operation does not necessarily imply or guarantee that there will also be consent at the local level, particularly if the main parties are internally divided or have weak command and control systems. Universality of consent becomes even less probable in volatile settings, characterized by the presence of armed groups not under the control of any of the parties, or by the presence of other spoilers.
Impartiality
Impartiality is crucial to maintaining the consent and cooperation of the main parties, but should not be confused with neutrality or inactivity. United Nations peacekeepers should be impartial in their dealings with the parties to the conflict, but not neutral in the execution of their mandate.
Just as a good referee is impartial, but will penalize infractions, so a peacekeeping operation should not condone actions by the parties that violate the undertakings of the peace process or the international norms and principles that a United Nations peacekeeping operation upholds.
Notwithstanding the need to establish and maintain good relations with the parties, a peacekeeping operation must scrupulously avoid activities that might compromise its image of impartiality. A mission should not shy away from a rigorous application of the principle of impartiality for fear of misinterpretation or retaliation.
Failure to do so may undermine the peacekeeping operation’s credibility and legitimacy, and may lead to a withdrawal of consent for its presence by one or more of the parties.
Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate
UN peacekeeping operations are not an enforcement tool. However, they may use force at the tactical level, with the authorization of the Security Council, if acting in self-defence and defence of the mandate.
In certain volatile situations, the Security Council has given UN peacekeeping operations “robust” mandates authorizing them to “use all necessary means” to deter forceful attempts to disrupt the political process, protect civilians under imminent threat of physical attack, and/or assist the national authorities in maintaining law and order.
Although on the ground they may sometimes appear similar, robust peacekeeping should not be confused with peace enforcement, as envisaged under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.
- Robust peacekeeping involves the use of force at the tactical level with the authorization of the Security Council and consent of the host nation and/or the main parties to the conflict.
- By contrast, peace enforcement does not require the consent of the main parties and may involve the use of military force at the strategic or international level, which is normally prohibited for Member States under Article 2(4) of the Charter, unless authorized by the Security Council.
Judgments concerning its use need to be made at the appropriate level within a mission, based on a combination of factors including mission capability; public perceptions; humanitarian impact; force protection; safety and security of personnel; and, most importantly, the effect that such action will have on national and local consent for the mission.
Today's multidimensional peacekeeping operations are called upon not only to maintain peace and security, but also to facilitate the political process, protect civilians, assist in the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants; support the organization of elections, protect and promote human rights and assist in restoring the rule of law.
Success is never guaranteed, because UN Peacekeeping almost by definition goes to the most physically and politically difficult environments. However, we have built up a demonstrable record of success over our 60 years of existence, including winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988.
No comments:
Post a Comment