‘Peacekeeping and (the Pursuit of) Positive Peace’

We approach peace the wrong way; we often begin with sweeping questions about human nature and institution-building, we try to effect huge change all at once, and when we find that these approaches are fruitless, we give up and declare that positive peace is impossible. We complain that from our privileged place in academia, we cannot do anything to work for peace since we live so far from violent conflict, and then we are shocked by the gap between academic thought and on-the-ground practice. But we are looking for answers in the wrong places, and we do not live far from violence.

Violence exists in the everyday. Every time we choose to say “mankind” rather than “humankind”, every time we read a newspaper article about the “global south” without questioning its positionality, every time we engage uncritically with exploitative capitalism through the food and clothing industries—we are connected to violence. However, unlike those living in communities affected by open conflict, each of us has the power to choose peace, every day. We choose peace when we select our words with compassion and care; we choose peace when we engage with subaltern voices; we choose peace when we decide to actively take the side of the oppressed, every time.

I am aware that this kind of language is often dismissed by practitioners as unrealistic and even unacademic. I disagree. Rather, this language of the everyday allows us to see that the ultimate job of the peacemaker is to help create an environment where everyone can choose peace in their everyday lives. If we embraced this attitude we would be free to accept local difference, to listen to all voices, and to question hierarchies. The only universal truth that should matter to us is that the ultimate freedom and privilege is the ability to choose peace.

Instead of attempting to eradicate violence or to condemn individuals from a moral standpoint, we can begin to ask: what is it about this situation that does not allow this person to choose peace? Which pathways are closed to them? Many of the major contributions to peace theory are compatible with this framework. Human needs theory asserts that people desire peace, at least insofar as it provides security. If the status quo does not afford them that, they are not free to choose peace. Social-psychological perspectives remind us that narratives, images, and beliefs matter. By asking what parts of these narratives and beliefs are blocking the pathway to peace, we can discover both the root causes of conflict and the way to free parties from conflict without overwriting local identities – a practice built on its own kind of violence. Finally, conflict transformation scholarship reminds us that reflexivity is essential to the success of any peacebuilding endeavor, and that we must analyse not only the peace we hope to achieve, but the peacefulness of our own practices which we employ to achieve it.

Peace begins in the everyday, and the responsibility for it rests with each of us.

A hopeful-looking picture of the university taken a month ago by Charlotte Perkins

Understandably it will take time to remove all violent acts, however, if violence persists while peace is trying to be achieved, no one will trust either party and legitimacy will be removed from the negotiations. After a certain amount of time where negative peace has taken root, only then can there be a discussion on how to enact positive peace. It must be applied I believe gradually and with clear communication as to the how and why. If an actor is immediately changing their views or behaviors, the community surrounding them will be uneasy and possibly rebel against their decisions. Change is never an overnight job and so often peacekeeping missions have been dealt with in lazy or quick fashions that do not allow the community to absorb the new type of peace they will have.

Dialogue is the first necessary task in creating positive peace. However, the discussion must be held with a council of representatives from the opposing actors. There should not be an abundance of them however each actor should contribute individuals who represent the civil society and the government to balance the central and periphery sectors of a state. There needs to be some type of mediator but they would be there as a facilitator and posit probing questions that dig into the causes of the conflict, not to perpetuate but uncover the deeply rooted grievances. While this may seem dangerous in terms of biases, I think that a mediator will provide some structure to the discussions as well as help make sure the actors are listening to one another. These discussions would occur over time, meanwhile, during these discussions, groups of organizations would be on the ground improving the civil societies. This type of involvement would only be enacted upon the consent of the warring states and these organizations would not be aligned with a particular country. Most NGOs would be involved and other organizations that are rooted in humanitarian concerns rather than economic or political support. The removal of involved nations would lessen the likelihood of an asymmetrical power dynamic and a future reliance upon that stronger nation.

Positive peace is applicable in all situations, but certain steps must be taken for the positive peace to have a longer impact. Positive peace cannot be achieved without the right kind of support and cooperation from the actors and their resources. The idea of positive peace must also be based in the society that it is meant to be implemented in. Peace is a vastly different concept across the world and what one group may consider peace, the other may not. Therefore, that is why it is crucial to involve the civilians into the discussions and into the process of creating peace. Positive peace while it may be an idea at the government level, the implementation of it, is up to those on the ground. Civil societies are the ones who will decide and determine how they act around others and how their community responds to conflicts that might arise.

West Sands, St Andrews by Isabel Paris

The idea that ‘peace’ can be applicable has inherent connotations of intervention, something that has been thought of outside of the current situation. A scientific quick fix. Rather than being self-led the word applicable suggests that ‘peace’ is something that can be copy and pasted around the world for a diverse variety of problems. It does not ask who will be applying it to a situation and to who is it being applied to? This leads to a further criticism; that no matter whether it is applicable or not, should ‘peace’ be allowed to be applied? Just because there is an option to try and intervene and create a long-lasting peace, should this happen? Most importantly I believe this question forgets to ask whether this peace is consensual?

The importance of consent is increasingly significant in relation to positive peace, the idea that the institutors and structures in which the West deems as peace-perpetuating, create long-lasting peace. Ultimately this is critical as without internal support or permission, this can continue the conflict by further diminishing the importance of some groups’ voices within a society or act as the continuation of a Neo-Colonial intervention.

I interpret ‘positive peace’ to mean the practical side of peace, the institutions and organisations, in which peace occurs through their effective control of crime and justice for example among other patterns, institutions and systems. To me, positive peace can be found in our schools, judicial system and through our structure of free rights here in the UK. I would be naïve of me not to argue that the UK, similar to every tiny village and superpower state, has people who feel they do not live in a peaceful place, for them their rights are not met, their voices aren’t heard, the opportunities to excel – stunted. For these people, the institutions and systems which seem to perpetuate what may seem like peace to me, may seem to continue their lives in hell. These systems and intuitions can always be improved as peace for one, does not mean peace for all.

So, if you ask me again, is positive peace applicable in a peace & conflict studies-manner; say, as an external intervention through the creation of a new legal system and a free media structure into a community recovering from war, then, yes, it is applicable. The idea can indeed be inserted into these people’s lives through the creation and re-design of institutions and therefore can perpetuate an injected culture of ‘peace’. This, however, does not mean ‘positive peace’ should be. In lieu, there must be consent and homegrown ownership and creation of attempts towards peace. Just because these institutions represent peace in one are doesn’t mean that for the citizens of another that they want this. This does not undermine the idea that most people in the world would like to live in peace, instead it highlights the issue that if there is a belief that ‘peace’ can simply be applied through institutions, building and bureaucracy, then the idea of applying ‘positive peace’ itself is perpetuating many of issues which create conflict and silencing voices on the ground.

The is a wall of street art in Swakopmund, Namibia – all the pieces were relating to peace, opportunities and equality. I took the picture when I was there last summer, it was a very interesting place. I thought it was particularly apt as there is façade of peace and prosperity (in many ways it is not a façade) in Namibia, yet fundamental inequalities that continue the cleavages within the society despite the growth and strength of institutions and systems of democracy across the country, whilst it also related to the module with our research into Namibian conflict resolution approaches.

As a citizen of Japan, one of the top five donor states in UN peacekeeping missions, I have been very honored about my country’s rich ‘contribution’ to peacebuilding and often adopted the dual categorization in processing evaluation of their performance, thinking in mind that ‘oh, Japan help so many local people with getting skills for career, that’s brilliant’, or ‘locals now have greater chances to study English which could enhance their knowledge or capability as global human capital.’ This sense of honor is significantly paternalistic, and these stances often taken by donor states and neo-liberal scholars, have been critically studied by academics. Galtung develops his idea of positive peace as absence of structural violence which refer to economical, institutional, or cultural, and absence of subordinate relationships between centre and periphery often applied in developed states and developing states and I strongly agree with his thought that it is crucial for achievement of positive peace to dig down root causes on grassroots level.

Represented by Galtung, on academia, I have seen many ‘critical’ approaches towards donor states paternalistic or neo-colonial projects on ground pointing out the subordinate relationship between donor states and donor-recipient states. However, are they ‘critical’ enough? I am doubtful. Although they adopt ‘critical’ approach, they are still trapped in the binary classification of donor states and donor-recipient states. When portraying, peacebuilders often connotate peacekeepers sent by donor states and classify ‘locals’ as just as ‘locals’ who get support ‘peacebuilder’. I recognize that it is extremely challenging that we go beyond the classification because we all come from either of the sides, but scholars should do self-reflection on its positionality as prover of discourse of how positive peace could be achieved. They should stop categorization and recognize they are equally on the same stage.

As well as the scholars, we as students unfortunately often engage this ‘critical’ lens under our conscious. Our critical attitude also derives from the structural violence and we are ultimately systemically implanted in the trap. However, before deepening down peace issues critically, it is vital that we also should engage self-reflection for the initial step as well as scholars on our critical lens which are hugely affected by positionality; where you come from, what education background you come from or what language you speak or etc. Now, each one of us must stop the application and engage self-reflexing on your own to start thinking of construction of positive peace.

Akane in St Andrews

A nation cannot truly achieve peace until both physical and structural violence is eliminated from society. However, conflicts rooted in the presence of structural violence in a society cannot be resolved under the Westphalian system, as it is made up of rigid state-centric ideas of sovereignty and self-interest. By focusing on state security rather than human security, states are not held accountable for humanitarian issues and concentrate on state interests only, leaving little room for official or private actors to confront the sources of conflict. The state being given primacy as the key actor in the Westphalian system and the inflexibility of this world order has perpetuated long-lasting conflicts that are caused by examples of structural violence such as political and social division, inequality, poverty, and the disparity of resource. In nations without long-lasting conflicts, these characteristics have remained present in society and continue to cause violence and injustice in first and third world countries alike.

States are by nature of humans, power-seeking and are determined to accomplish national interests through power. Violence is therefore inevitable in all societies, whether direct or indirect/structural, and war and armed conflict is bound to break out because human nature deems that states are power-seeking.

Positive peace involves not only the absence of direct violence between states and mass killings of groups of people, but also the lack of structural violence, or the slow, large-scale and unintentional suffering caused by economic and political structures that breed exploitation and repression. Positive peace is the building of a society based on equal rights, dignity, and where cultural violence has no place. In order for such peace to be obtained on a large scale within nations in the Westphalian system, there would need to be a movement to a post-Westphalian international society where a diversity of actors interact in a legitimate and fair system.

The Westphalian system is unable to understand and confront issues that fall outside of the fixed state structure’s realm. Deep-rooted conflicts that are rooted in fundamental human needs break out where there is social inequality or other structural violence present and the need for political participation and the recognition of one’s identity are denied. Communities turn to violence in order to preserve their values and culture. Due to the nature of the Westphalian system, regional and global powers subtly accept injustices in society in order to not disturb a global and regional military power and ideological balance. The long-lasting conflicts that result from the presence of structural violence in societies are those that endanger the security of in increasingly archaic international system which was formed during a time of interstate threat and conflict.

The Westphalian system has failed to allow nations to obtain a positive peace within their societies, leaving them full of social division, inequality, poverty, and the disparity of resources. Perhaps it is time for a replacement system. But for now, your best chance at finding positive peace is within yourself.

My St Andrews dog Eddie who lives a happy and peaceful life, by Jacqui Kaplan

I think that a post-conflict environment is an opportunity to correct the wrongs and establish positive peace. To do this however, peace must be built on every level by readdressing grievances. For example, at the individual level it’s important to educate people, implement structures for society which are fair and just while initiating forgiveness between people involved in a conflict. At the government and state level, it’s important to reach compromises which all parties agree to and are truly committed to. Thus, creating positive peace involves readdressing the underlining power dynamics. The closet example of where positive peace is implemented, not in the full sense but in some way, I think is Bhutan. Despite its ethnic conflicts in the 1990s, it has a stable government where resources are distributed fairly, and education is universal. However, Bhutan is not an aspiring world power nor a victim of power politics. Thus, I do not think that positive peace is realistic, especially not a post-conflict environment where peace is rebuilt in the shadow of current state models.

What are the dimensions of success and failure in peacekeeping?

There are many ways to measure success and failure of peacekeeping. To measure successful peacekeeping, evaluating the process of the mission and the fulfilment of the aims of its mandate is useful. Another way would be to evaluate the conflict after hostilities have ceased. Thus, has the peace lasted after the conflict ended? Have root causes of the problem been addressed and have peacebuilding measures to reintegrate communities and resolve hostilities been implemented? Therefore, judging the success of the mission on the basis of the peace established and the stability of the post-conflict environment informs us of the success of peacekeeping. Finally, success can be measured by evaluating if the peacekeeping efforts prevented the conflict from spilling over borders and involving more actors, while protecting the international peace and security of states. Failure is easy to point out but harder to define. I think that it is easy to understand failure in terms of success, but it is important to remember that not all cases are black and white. Sometimes, even though peacekeeping missions may fail in terms of resolving root causes, or meeting a mandate, they succeed in saving people caught in crossfires or helping locals. We often overlook the advantage of an international presence in a conflict zone which is important. Furthermore, we must remember that peacekeeping missions are the product of UN member state contributions and their failure to provide resources and lack of interest usually lies at the centre of failed missions.

Where do you see the future of internal conflict and external intervention, and what external interveners need to keep in mind while, before and after intervening?

I think the future of internal conflict and external intervention are interlinked. How one deals with internal conflict is directly related to external intervention. If the internal conflict has the potential to disrupt the balance of international order, external intervention is likely. For example, a British businessman suing china for the virus, can potentially demand external intervention. However, external intervention does not mean military intervention, it can also be extended through mediation and diplomatic efforts to contain a conflict. For external interveners, it is important to be as unbiased as possible. I say ‘as possible’ because I’m convinced that in most cases, interveners always have some interest in the conflict. However, neutrality can be imposed by forming a diverse and inclusive force made of different countries, genders, and ethnicities. Furthermore, external interveners must have full knowledge of the conflict, motives, and participants to understand the problem and bring about a comprehensive and agreeable solution. Lastly, interveners must remember that intervention is not only to establish a temporary peace, but also to create permanent peace. Each conflict is unique and thus they must not apply ‘quick fixes.’ Hence, it is important to change stereotypes of how conflicts are understood and viewed before intervening and setting goals. It is also important to hold interveners accountable which impacts their decision to intervene in a conflict, their techniques and actions and their efforts at post conflict rebuilding.

Here is a picture that my grandfather took a long time ago. I think it fits the thoughts well

This term stems from Galtung who stressed peace research as the conditions for moving closer to peace or at least not drifting closer to violence. Galtung defines negative peace as the “absence of violence, the absence of war”. However, whilst this negative peace often puts an end to violence, at least temporarily, it does not go far enough in cementing long-term peace and addressing the root causes of conflict. In turn, positive peace is needed to resolve these issues and go beyond purely ending violence. Galtung defines this positive peace as “the integration of society”, which has commonly been known as the end to structural violence. Examples of positive peace policies include improved human understanding through communication, peace education, international cooperation, dispute resolution, arbitration, and conflict management.

Recently we have been discussing the different approaches to peacekeeping – liberal, grassroots, hybrid – in an attempt to understand what approach is most suitable to resolving peace. Personally, the main thing I have learnt from our discussions is the importance of positive peace. It is not just applicable in the modern-day; it is crucial in understanding conflicts and addressing the root causes of them. Whilst negative peace is still required, mainly in conflicts which require an abrupt end to violence, it cannot address the problems which caused the conflicts initially. Therefore, a combination of both positive and negative peace is required in order to create a long-term sustainable peace.

Through applying positive peace, we are promoting an investment into the presence of structures and institutions which concentrate on creating and sustaining peaceful societies. In terms of how it is applicable, we can turn to the case of Rwanda. The genocide which took place in Rwanda caused the deaths of over 800,000 Rwandans, as well as leading 3 million to be displaced. With the root causes evident in the divisions between the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups, positive peace was needed in order to focus to the integration of this society.

The benefits of positive peace can be seen in the way Rwanda has recovered since the genocide. Considering the devastation caused by the Rwandan genocide, Rwanda itself has achieved economic growth. This has stemmed from the current President Paul Kagame’s investment into positive peace. For example, there has been a significant investment into education and health. As a result of this, school enrolment in 2018 had reached 94.79%. This also impacted the levels of poverty as the percentage of the population living in poverty going from 75% to the current level of 39.1%. Whilst this is still considerably high, this is a significant deduction due to the investment in health. Rwanda’s economic GDP has also grown significantly.

Although Rwanda still has a long way to go in its recovery, it has developed significantly from the use of positive peace. Whilst negative peace was crucial in causing the “absence of violence”, positive peace went beyond this in addressing the problems which have caused this vast poverty and inequality. Therefore, I believe that a positive peace is applicable today. Through combining both negative and positive peace we are able to create a more sustainable long-term peace, allowing states to address the root causes of conflict rather than only focusing on ending violence.

When I think of how we can implement positive peace and how to address the root causes of conflict, I always think about my experience in South Africa. I coached netball in the different communities there. They all spoke about how much progress had been made in South Africa, yet all the communities were still divided based on their skin colour. I think it’s an example of a place which needs positive peace in order to address the root causes of the conflict and bring the different communities together. Picture from Table Mountain, Cape Town

This kind of successful peacekeeping requires a deep understanding of the local culture, including its history, moral values, and social traditions. Specific cultural knowledge is necessary for peacebuilding to be designed in such a way that not only highlights the structures that perpetuate violence and conflict, but also fixes these problems using methods that the local people relate to and are capable of maintaining after the peacekeepers depart.

If culture, history, morality, language, representation, and many other factors are not considered, peacekeeping cannot be called successful because it will not be sustainable and long lasting. Likewise, when intervention is external and funded by foreign (usually Western) donors, there will always be a lack of trust between those in need of aid and those who supposedly have their best interests at heart. In the future, external intervention must be rid of the personal interests of the donors who fund it, and far more time must be spent preparing for missions, rather than rushing towards quick fixes to incredibly complicated problems.

A picture from outside Ella’s window in New York City

Until states are no longer deterred by an open mandate (which to me, seems like an unobtainable goal), I feel that creating a positive peace as a result of a peacekeeping mission will be near impossible. States want out at the earliest opportunity – often for very legitimate reasons such as economic strain or the risk to life of their peacekeepers – meaning that positive peace is not achieved.

On top of this, I feel that post-colonial issues surrounding peacekeeping make positive peace a challenge to achieve. Issues such as a lack of understanding, implementation of western values and a lack of consent all raise the question of whether a sustainable peace is achievable, particularly in the short period of time that a peacekeeping force would remain on the ground after a conflict.  

Measures of peace used by the international community, such as a successful election or a ceasefire tell us little in terms of the situation for communities, families and individuals. Until there is a change in perspective with regards to what peace means, I feel that it will be border-line impossible for a peacekeeping force to create a positive peace environment.

This picture symbolises my (rather pessimistic) response

Peacebuilding’s goal of creating positive peace by constructing justice on the ground needs to acknowledge internal factors, such as social structures, that need to be addressed. Often, peacebuilding is strictly focused on creating liberal peace, which involves instituting democratic structures with liberal market values. This is usually seen as a way to create positive peace with justice, but as examples in specific countries show, more often than not, the creation of liberal peace only perpetuates negative peace.

Liberal peace is often put in place by peacekeeping missions, and this decreases the ability for positive peace because peacekeeping’s temporal capacity tends to rely on short-term solutions to stabilize tensions within a country. For example, the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) aimed to create liberal positive peace but ultimately created negative peace by stabilizing the state without addressing the structural violence within. UNMIK established legal and institutional structures for building civil society, which contained some emancipatory aspects, however, after institutional structural formation, the peacekeeping mission excluded civil society from political practices. In addition, the mission attempted to promote inter-ethnic reconciliation, however, ignored important aspects of everyday peace on the ground level. To truly create applicable positive peace, liberal peace needs to not only be emancipatory but also aware of the negative perpetuations that might still exist after emancipation. Johan Galtung acknowledges this by explaining that true positive peace addresses human security, rather than simply the absence of violence from a top-down level. This is why positive peace, though difficult to apply, is essential to the creation of actual conflict resolution at the root of the problem.

This is demonstrated by the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia. The mission had the goal of creating democratic elections within Cambodia to stabilize the political and social structures within the country. At first, positive peace seemed possible to create because the mission’s mandate did not refer to Chapter VII of the UN Charter on enforcement action, however, this lacked affectivity. It failed to address the internal ethnic and political party tensions that perpetuated structural violence within the country. In addition, the UN mission failed to address the need to create long-term institutional change, rather than a one-off democratic election that would introduce democracy within the region. UNTAC also failed to implement positive peace because the mission was perceived as a neutral arbiter among political parties. While neutrality is often helpful, when creating positive peace, neutrality often acts as a blatant disregard for structural violence being perpetuated. Hence, the UNTAC mission attempted to create positive peace, however, the methods it enabled were not able to apply positive peace within the region. Thus, positive peace is and can be, applicable, but it depends on the methods being used and the context in which peacebuilding is taking place.

However, to help building positive peace, the UN can only play a limited role in the current international system. We firstly need to be aware that structural violence is embedded in almost any states and regions in many social aspects, which means the potential conflicts will always be haunting around in human society, there is no absolute ‘positive peace’.

What the UN and international society can do is to recognize the most disturbing factors against the sustainable peace and help the local society to tackle them. Some factors are easier to be tackled than others, but the most difficult ones in my opinion are the structural poverty and dependency caused by the region or state’s peripheral position in the international system, the clashes of identities between communities based on the history and cultures, and the discrimination and violence against certain social groups under a hierarchical social discourse. The first one can only be improved through a profound reform of the international economic structure, it is a difficult and complex process and as long as the UN is still based on the states system, the influence of the ‘center states’ on the institution would not allow the UN to involve in any such process which may undermine their superior status in the system.

To tackle another two factors require prolonged social restructure based on communications, educations, and knowledge productions in order to modify or breakdown the long-lived historical and cultural social discourses, to do this, grassroots and local approaches are necessary, parties pushing such social changes must have a profound understanding about the local society. Obviously, the UN nowadays lacks a concrete tool to do so. To conclude, to build a relative sustainable and positive peace is a complex and difficult task involving fundamental reform of the international system and domestic social structure, we see the struggles in Northern Ireland, Hong Kong, Sudan, Israel/Palestine and every part of the world, the UN and international society can help to solve some problems but not all.

Here is a picture I took when I was in Harvard and participating in an interesting programme. I think it is fun to share!

What are the dimensions of success and failure in peacekeeping?

According to Norrie MacQueen, success and failure in peacekeeping is often measured by three standards of the intervention operation: intervention as ‘process’, intervention as ‘deep resolution’, and intervention as ‘system management’. Intervention as process refers to an operation’s responsibility as fulfilling its mandate, whatever that may be, which usually has to do with reducing violence and creating negative peace in the short term while providing some humanitarian assistance. So, in that case, an intervention would be considered successful if it did what it officially set out to do, and this would be measured right after its completion. Intervention as deep solution indicates the success of an intervention depending on whether a long-term peace-building plan is implemented and maintained, and whether there is visible progress of a positive peace in the post-conflict zone long after the physical violence ceases. It is thus much more complex and is distinctly more post-Westphalian, as it undermines the traditional ideal of national sovereignty through an extended and demanding intervention operation. Intervention as system management focuses on international system preservation and focuses on global order and stability more than the maintenance of peace within a specific state. This understanding is far more Westphalian, and its success aims to serve large international interests, often at the expense of the chance for positive peace in local contexts.

Where do you see the future of internal conflict and external intervention, and what external interveners need to keep in mind while, before and after intervening?

For now, the state of internal conflicts in today’s world seem to be increasing in complexity and difficulty, which means external intervention will have to adapt and be subject to lots of criticism and probably on many accounts, some level of failure. One of the most important things for interveners to keep in mind is how the local technique has proved to be effective in mitigating issues of both negative and positive peace. So has intersectionality and diversity on all levels of peacekeeping work. Finally, negative and positive peace go hand in hand, and I believe they cannot exist without each other, much like justice and peace. A truly peaceful world will only be achieved when positive peace is enjoyed by people everywhere, and this will consequently sustain a negative peace as many of the structural causes of conflict will be mitigated.

A picture I took out of the top floor of my hall first year (really makes me miss St Andrews)

Also, conducting counterfactual analysis makes it easier to make an evaluation- achievements, and failures of a peace operation are compared against a hypothetical situation where no action is taken by the international community. Also, it is crucial to ask who benefited the most for peacekeeping. The more actors involved could mean more various self-interests are involved, and often leaders see crises as opportunities not only to advance their interests but also to hurt their rivals. The peacekeeping should carefully carry out its mission to balance the interest and to prevent the powerful actor takes advantage of the mission.

One example can be Yemen. Recent talks between Saudi Arabia and Houthi rebels provide a window for peace in Yemen and relief for the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. However, that window could close soon, especially if heightening U.S.-Iran tensions spill into Yemen. Another example is Ethiopia’s transition under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed remains a source of hope. However, as ethnic strife surges, some warn that the country could be divided as Yugoslavia did in the 1990s, with disastrous consequences for an already troubled region.

In both cases, it is important to keep impartiality neutrality-not taking sides or being perceived to be taking sides during the conflict. It also means not engaging controversies of a political, racial, religious, or ideological nature. In a similar sense, operational independence should be kept to be independent of the political, economic, military, or other objectives of any action.

This picture is a collage of West Sands to the pier (edited by my friend SangWook Park from Goldsmiths when he visited St Andrews)

Clearly this is a complicated question as conflict and violence still are prevalent around the world. However, one must explore what kind of peace is being sought, a negative peace or positive peace? Negative peace, as defined by Johan Galtung, is the absence of direct violence or ‘the absence of war’. Positive peace, on the other hand, is considered to be more sustainable because it confronts structural and cultural violences, not only physical violence. Martin L. King in his ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’ explains that positive peace is not only ‘absence of tension’ but the ‘presence of justice.’ Is this ideal form of positive peace applicable? Or is it only an ideal, unrealistic vision of the world? 

Positive peace is a very appropriate and relevant concept that should be used in peace resolution theory and practice. Although it is unrealistic for the world to achieve complete positive peace, as there will always be power imbalances, it is something that should be aspired to when attempting to resolve conflict. Conflict can not reach a lasting resolution without confronting the root causes, which means confronting existing cultural or structural violence. By looking at past failed attempts to resolve ‘intractable conflicts’  the necessity of addressing roots of conflict becomes apparent. A popular example is the persisting tensions in Israel and Palestine. The Oslo Accords were an attempt to end fighting following the first intifada. Although it prompted a temporary halt in direct violence, it avoided addressing three main causes of conflict that stem from identity as well as nationalism. Jerusalem, refugees, and settlements were avoided. By not addressing these three main hindrances to peace, which stem from the root causes of conflict (nationalism and identity) conflict restarted and tensions continue to this day. By avoiding root causes, often in the form of structural or cultural violence, one is simply putting a bandaid on a symptom of the conflict which ultimately will not keep the conflict down forever, and violence will recur. 

There have been attempts towards a more positive peace with the second generation of peace as well as liberal peace. However, some would argue that the notion liberal peace appears in theory to bring positive peace but on the ground and in practice it simply brings negative peace. For conflict resolution to improve and create a sustainable and lasting peace, roots of conflict must be addressed. Although it is difficult to bring complete global justice and positive peace, it is a great means to a more sustainable peace, although not necessarily a realistic end.

Picture by Olivia Philips

This is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, positive peace focuses on how we think peace should look like — not how it is like in actuality. Even in peaceful societies, there are attitudes, institutions, and structures that perpetuate violence. This has come under scrutiny in the wake of the recent coronavirus outbreak: in the United States, black and hispanic residents are face the most risk contracting coronavirus; in the United Kingdom, black, asian and the minority ethnic groups face the same fate. These communities, prior to the coronavirus, have been at the intersection of various socioeconomic inequalities. The coronavirus has only highlighted the fact that not everyone has the luxury of working from home, and not everyone can afford to lose their jobs. The challenge only grows if you are an immigrant and undocumented. Positive peace is in itself an aspirational concept on paper, and it is hard to talk about positive peace when we have trouble achieving it in our seemingly peaceful societies today.

Secondly, the distinction between positive and negative peace dangerously assumes a path dependency — that negative peace needs to be achieved for positive peace to happen, and vice versa. In reality, conflicts are often complex, and steps towards positive and negative peace happen concurrently on the ground. Most of the successes of the UN focus on the eradication of physical violence and the enforcement of negative peace. However, critics often highlight that efforts to establish a positive peace have been futile. It is not hard to see why most UN peacekeeping missions have been labelled as failures when we look at them through the lens of positive and negative peace. The question we should be asking is why we choose to measure peace through this cartesian dichotomy, when peace and conflict are in themselves difficult to define. By choosing to think of peace as negative or positive and assuming a path dependency between the two, we trap ourselves in a box of our fallacious thinking. 

That’s not to say that positive peace is not helpful. There is nothing wrong for trying to reach for an aspiration. Still, we need to remember that reality is often complicated. In the words of Ludwig Wittgenstein: My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)

The philosopher Isaiah Berlin, who famously made the distinction between positive and negative liberty, mentions in his essay the Hedgehog and the Fox: the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. Much of our analysis on positive and negative peace has been hedgehog thinking. We need to move beyond thinking about peace in cartesian terms, to a more comprehensive one — that includes both foxes and hedgehogs.

The credits for the image are attributable to Thinkstock

Positive peace offers a powerful conceptual framework for calling into question the impact of structures and institutions as well as provides critical space to engage in dialogue about healing and recovering from trauma. Managing a cease-fire or demobilization alone does not ensure a lasting peace, especially in communities who have likely endured serious physical and psychological wounds from the violence and atrocities of war. It is a fair question to ask whether positive or lasting peace can even be achieved. Indeed, complicated variables such as the interests of external powers will continue to play a critical role in interfering with internal state affairs and jeopardizing any presence of positive peace. However, these realities do not and should not diminish the importance of striving for positive peace.

Many communities have demonstrated the importance of positive peace through organizing community gatherings where discussions are facilitated about the violence suffered and trauma afflicting the local people. Through these intimate conversations where individuals sometimes directly confront members of their community who have engaged in violent acts against them, some are able to begin a healing process that goes beyond the mere absence of violence. Moving forward, we need to think more about how to engage local communities and perspectives in the peace process. Any pursuit of a more sustainable peace requires local people–not just the elites within those communities – to have an active role and voice. Furthermore, when evaluating the successes and failures of a peacekeeping mission, taking positive peace seriously also encourages us to think about if structural systems and inequalities have been addressed. Otherwise, the temporary absence of war does little to suggest that there will not be an immediate backsliding of political freedoms or stability within a territory.

A scene of Sun Moon Lake in Taiwan after a summer rainstorm

‘Peace’ itself is such a contested and subjective term. It has come to be defined in opposition to what dominant western liberal scholarship perceives as conflict and its root causes. Common conceptions of ‘peace’ therefore often miss the mark. There is no one definition of peace and the dominant understanding of what ‘peace’ is needs to be transformed. In order for it to be transformed it needs to be understood, negotiated, and mediated, in a space designed for multiple voices and free communication. A main issue with the understanding of peace that has driven the international ‘peacebuilding’ agenda has failed on this front as peace has been understood, negotiated, and mediated in spaces designed for a minority worldview yet have been enforced on a majority. The peace that informs the structures and institutions of the global system today often perpetuates the structural violence that leads to conflict in the first place. Even the idea of positive peace, which states that peace not just absence of violence but rather the  presence of social justice and equality, integration of human society, and provision of human needs, can be debated and contested as it operates within a more normative framework. While we can’t claim to ‘know’ what peace is, and how it should be applied, and what it means for whom, elements of positive peace still provide an important framework for challenging systems of oppression. The presence of justice, socio-economic equality, political participation, and other facets of positive peace are widely applicable and even crucial to aim for when taking into account the realities of people in the here and now, struggling to get by day to day in conflict zones and broader oppressive systems across the world. One has to ask, does the fact that positive peace may not be the perfect understanding of what peace means for every person, render it inapplicable? I don’t think so. 

There is no example at present of an ideal type positive peace. Every peacebuilding mission or conflict resolution initiative from Cyprus to Somalia can be rendered unsuccessful to a large degree. However, this is due to the western, liberal oriented frameworks surrounding missions that have failed to properly realize the injustices and structural violence that are the real root causes of conflict, and in turn have perpetuated oppression and re-opened space for violent conflict and contention. A peace that demands we look at the deeper root causes and emphasizes justice as a prerequisite to peace (whatever one’s understanding of it is), is not only applicable but is necessary if we want to actually address and transform conflict and violence in all its forms. To achieve positive peace, we need to look beyond traditional actors, agencies, and systems. We can start at the grassroots level, asking individuals what they need and desire. We need to emphasize justice and slowly begin to work with individuals, civil society, and the international community on the large, yet crucial task of restructuring institutions and structures on every level so they include multiple voices and perspectives. At the same time, we need to address human needs in the here and now, focusing on minimizing hunger and unemployment and maximizing access to healthcare and equal education opportunities. Yes, it is a big and demanding project. However, just because something is huge, and challenging, and perhaps uncomfortable, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to achieve it. 

Photo by Isabelle Houghton

This is important because diverse interests are met and catered to. It becomes a more “democratic” process. The wide goals set by the UN are the same or similar in all post-conflict areas. This is the cookie cutter approach, which is wrong. The UN should take into account the differences in each region and form aims specific to that region. Apart from this, procedures need to put in place to achieve these aims of positive peace. The procedures and the processes need to be decided with a particular time-frame in mind as well. This will help ensure that the aims are being met in actuality. 

What are the dimensions of success and failure in peacekeeping?

Success and failure in terms of peacekeeping is determined very narrowly. It depends on whether the goals set in the mandate have been met. However, these goals are almost the same in all peacekeeping mandates, which tells us that this isn’t an efficient barometer for success. Every country and region is different. Therefore in order to achieve success, international forces must work with local people to ensure their goals are being met. The goals must be set depending on what different factions within the country want and need as opposed to what the UN wants. Apart from this, previously peacekeeping has assumed that the holding of democratic elections indicates that the mission has been successful. This is again a narrow way to assess success and failure. In order to assess success or failure of the mission, a holistic view should be taken. Apart from elections, overall development of the economy, education, women’s rights and other such things should be considered. In order to ensure that the country is actually stable and secure after the mission is completed taking the needs of all sectors into account is necessary. In addition to this, the mission must equip the country with tools it needs so it can prevent itself from falling back into a situation of conflict. This could be ensuring strong leaders, strong education system, sustained economic growth, promotion of human rights (depending on a particular country). 

Where do you see the future of internal conflict and external intervention, and what external interveners need to keep in mind while, before and after intervening?

The lines between internal conflict and external intervention have gotten more and more blurred through the years. We have seen that intra-state conflicts have increased in number as opposed to inter-state conflicts. We have also seen that external intervention in these intra-state conflicts has increased. In the future, the lines are going to be even more blurred. We have seen in recent cases such as Syria, the number of external parties involved in the intra-state conflict. Each of these external parties representing different interests. I see that in the future, external powers will increasing help parties within a conflict with modern weaponry. This has already been seen in Libya 2011. The main aspect that intervening powers need to keep in mind while intervening is neutrality. They must have the main aim of protecting civilians, whether they are on the same side as them or not. Before intervening, it is important to assess the “right intention.” They must intervene only when there is large scale loss of life and to protect civilians. While after intervening, it is important to ensure that the country has a plan of rehabilitation.  It is also important that intervening powers (after rehabilitation) uphold the principles of sovereignty and not further intervene in the country. 

Image from the UN Peacekeeping website

Advocates of this view might then be surprised, at first, that, according to the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP)’s Positive Peace Index, there has been an average increase of about 2.6 per cent in positive peace globally since 2009. The same people will quickly be able to revert to their original assumptions, though, as the PPI’s map also emphasizes the inegalitarian distribution of positive peace: Shades of dark blue (“very high” levels of positive peace) are found primarily in Europe, North America and Australia. Africa, on the other hand, as well as large areas of the Middle East and South East Asia, are coloured in light blue. Global divisions thus pertain, and positive peace continues to be a privilege only some of us enjoy.

In my opinion, however, one core reason for why these divisions exist, why positive peace has made few global advancements in the past and thus continues to be perceived as a utopian ideal, is the way in which we measure it.

The first critique I want to offer in support of this argument is one that is directed against such indexes as that of the IEP and the indicators they choose to measure positive peace. While it is clear that the choice of indicators, no matter the index, can always be contested, it is also blatantly evident that it will at the same time not just influence our perception of which countries have achieved positive peace, but also how countries with low levels of positive peace should achieve it, specifically which areas they should focus on to improve their score. This becomes particularly problematic when indexes, such as the IEP’s, pick indicators largely congruent with Western notions of political and economic liberalism. The IEP, for instance, has eight pillars of measurement: (1) well-functioning government, (2) equitable distribution of resources, (3) free flow of information, (4) good relations with neighbours, (5) high levels of human capital, (6) acceptance of the rights of others, (7) low levels of corruption, and (8) a sound business environment. When breaking down the IEP’s analysis of a slowly, but steadily improving positive peace, we see that this development largely comes down to the economic factors, such as a sound business environment, which increased by more than 7% since 2009, while other indicators, like the acceptance of the rights of others, well-functioning government or corruption, have either not improved by more than 1% or even deteriorated. Measuring positive peace in such a way is especially problematic for peace building and conflict resolution processes, as it reiterates outdated notions of Liberal Peace Theory, stating that peace and democracy will automatically follow economic development, while at the same time discrediting potentially more successful grassroots approaches adapted to the local and cultural environment in which they are applied.

The second critique I propose here goes beyond contesting indicators of positive peace, to the very core of the indexes’ structure, and that is to measure positive peace within the confinements of individual countries. In my opinion, we cannot aspire to think positive peace globally as long as we keep measuring it nationally. In fact, the very reason why most Western countries are able to maintain such high levels of positive peace is often precisely because other parts of the world do not. Global mechanisms of exploitation, which helped the West into a position from which it can gracefully establish good relations with neighbours or accept the rights of others, are often based on the remnants of colonial principles such as “divide and rule,” which still today prevent other areas of the world from doing the same. Thus, an important reason why the West has high levels of positive peace internally (or a symbiosis, in Galtung’s terms) is because of a global antibiosis that establishes positive peace for one party at the expense of the other.

To conclude, I believe that we can render positive peace already a little less utopian and more achievable if we just change these two things: Distancing ourselves from measuring it purely via Western, liberal criteria, as well as adopting a global view for the development of positive peace that acknowledges the structural violence at the international scale.

IEP’s Positive Peace Index 2019: http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads/2019/10/PPR-2019- web.pdf

Yes, as opposed to positive peace all together, we have actually seen these things successfully happen. Governments have been restructured to be less corrupt, negative and bigoted views have been altered to foster more cohesive environments, and cease-fires have taken place relatively frequently throughout history. However, we know that while these respective ways societies have been reframed have shown to be possible and effective, each change is certainly no easy feat.

In other words, I argue that as long as the components that make up the framework for positive peace are so difficult to attain on their own, positive peace will be an overarchingly extensive challenge for states and regions to instill. Moreover, we know that in societies where there isn’t even a presence of ongoing political or ethnoreligious conflict, restructuring societal systems is extremely difficult. For this reason, positive peace may be even less applicable in places that need it most where conflict is more deeply woven into the society. 

All together, positive peace has been defined by the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) as having factors from the equitable distribution of resources, sound business environment, high levels of human capital, good relations with neighbors, free flow of information, well-functioning government, low levels of corruption, and acceptance of the rights of others. While my home country, the United States, should in no way be seen as a perfect country, I feel I’ve been lucky as it is a place where factors of an objectively well-operating society are prevalent. However, reflecting on this place where for instance there are high levels of human capital and a relatively well-functioning government, there are still so many factors of positive peace that the US is far from attaining. Referring to the IEP’s definition of positive peace, I will name the suitable distribution of resources, acceptance of the rights of others, and good relations with neighbors as examples of areas that the United States falls short. In regards to the distribution of resources, inequality is extremely present as economically, the middle class has been disappearing over the last forty years, in terms of acceptance of the rights of others, there are severe issues with women’s autonomy over their bodies, and neighbor relations in the country are ridden with hate for minorities/lgbtq+.

Conclusively, as ideal as positive peace sounds, when we break it up we see that states, whether or not they can be categorized as stable in general, are all far from attaining positive peace in their own ways. For this reason, we should refrain from putting this enormous pressure on any fragile state and instead, advocate for small victories that may each be more achievable, yet impressive their own right.

The former can be interpreted as a ‘negative peace’. Success simply stems from the absence of physical violence. The latter can be described as ‘positive peace’. To achieve such sustainable success, not only the absence of violence, but also the creation of long-term harmonious social relations as well as political and economic equity in the post-conflict society is vital.

Going into the 2020s, UN peacekeeping operations must therefore lay their focus on a more complex, balanced and long-term commitment than the traditional notions of peacekeeping imply. Both military and socio-economic factors have to be accounted for, while cooperation with domestic players, national and transnational agencies and organisations as well as with the individual becomes vital. In other words, the root cause of a conflict can be only tackled through a grassroot approach. The challenge hereby is switching from a shallow to a steep, bottom-up approach. To do so the UN should realise it is not alone out there and through cooperation and coordination ‘positive peace’ does lie within close proximity.

The Blue Helmet, a symbol for UN peacekeeping

As such, it becomes crucial to understand the nature of peace and especially that of positive peace. As put forth by Gultang in his work, positive peace is described as peace achieved through peaceful means, not based on the fear of violence but through structural integration, optimism and preventive approaches. Positive peace as given by Gultang promises sustainable peace that will bring stability and co-operation on unprecedented levels. However, I think that this seems more idealistic than practical.

On the scale of international system, politics has always revolved around notions of power, security and with the onset of economic liberalisation and globalisation, these notions have become even more prevalent in distinguishing states in a more interconnected world. These notions are surfaced in traditional theories, and even in post-modernist and critical theories as social constructs or manifestation of discourse in the real world. Regardless, it is undeniable that these notions play a key role in shaping politics, organizing the international order, and framing the way we see issues on a global scale. This innate hierarchical and ordering system indicates that there will always be some sort of structural tension in the global order.  The deep and enduring inequality in global distribution that this creates is likely to last and creates large avenues for conflict. In such an aspect, the only thing possible that could hold violence back, would the fear of the consequences that violence brings rather than a full desire for peace. This inequality and the resultant tension is even seen in the international efforts seen after reframing of issues to take a wider global security agenda. When it comes to climate change and peace-keeping, different levels of efforts are seen from different countries with priority given to their own core interests rather than the placement of individual security being put on par with that of state.

Visions of humanity released a positive peace report in 2016 that has clearly indicated an improvement of positive peace in countries globally since 2008. However, the report still notes that negative peace takes up significant portion of peace achieved globally. In line with this, I argue that a combination of negative peace and positive peace will be the stability that international relations will plateau at. In such a climate that has relied on the ‘freezing of conflict as peace’ to be the backbone of international integrity, achieving total positive peace might be challenging and near impossible, at least for the near future.

Image: from ‘Army Recognition’, a military journal

It is the classic tried and tested method of divide and conquer. I find it to be highly unlikely that those in power, be it monetary or otherwise, will suddenly have a change of heart and decide to hand it over for the public good. Even in cases where people do have the necessary tools and time to try and combat inequality, there are a myriad of safeguards to maintain unequal power relations, and these are often institutionalised in our laws and modes of governance.

Whilst this paints a bleak picture, just because something is difficult or seems unattainable, it does not mean we should accept it and not try to change it anyway. I believe any steps towards a positive peace will require a drastic re-evaluation of our identities, on an individual, immediate community and international society level because often, these groupings form the foundation of our tacit acceptance of negative peace. Focusing on our differences, rather than our similarities, makes our individualism and the suffering of “others” more palatable. Secondly, we need to do away with the privileging of the neo-liberal agenda which has often further entrenched violence, structurally and physically. It is very much an agenda of war, not peace. Galtung’s six tasks “eliminating the direct violence that causes suffering, eliminating the structures that cause suffering through economic inequity… ceasefire…building direct, structural and cultural peace” (though by no means perfect) form a good alternative basis to the neo-liberal agenda for a path to a positive peace.

One benefit of the current coronavirus crisis is the fact that it has put everything, including our economy on pause. This could be a good opportunity to reflect on how things were going before, and how we would like them to be after. In the UK for example, from what I have seen, very few have called for a re-evaluation of how we treat and pay the so called “essential workers”, while others are so drunk on ideology and state-sponsored sentimentality that they think a 99 year old man (who should be self-isolating) walking with a zimmer frame to raise money for a PUBLIC institution as if it was a charity, is something to be celebrated. Meanwhile, others are fervently awaiting the return to normality, unaware or unwilling to care about the fact that said normality, while it meant comfort for them, was wholly uncomfortable and unliveable for others.

This highlights how a re-education of society is required, one that is focused on human security for all, and one that teaches us to care and stand up for each other despite identity divisions. It must also teach us how to be critical, and constantly question power structures, and so naturally, must be decolonial. However, due to the far-reaching consequences that this would have, I do not see any government or elite body allowing it any time soon. It is almost too perfect a system which has safeguarded against its own destruction.

Perhaps it will not be violent and perhaps it will not be a change in the status quo, but it will mean that the clash between social classes, faiths, ethnicities, and any other divisions, will be able to continue. Therefore, a negative peace leads to a peace without justice and, for many people, without even peace.

Consider the American Civil War as an example. While this is an older event about a century before the inception of the United Nations, it does serve to showcase the argument concerning negative peace. Once the war was over and the fighting ceased, the victorious Union began the process of reconstruction and it was during this period where African Americans first enter elected office and are first able to be equal citizens in practice as well as in law. This changed, however, when President Lincoln was assassinated, as his successor ended reconstruction and allowed each formerly rebel state to implement whatever laws they desired. This led to the establishment of the Jim Crow laws which enforced segregation, effectively banned African Americans from holding political office or having economic opportunities, stuck minority children in underfunded schools, and re-institutionalized violence and oppression against the African American minority. It was during this time that lynching became widespread, where groups such as the Ku Klux Klan experienced popularity and support, and where the rights of African Americans were tossed aside.

Without a concerted and focused effort to establish justice from a higher/more powerful entity, the conflict will continue. Perhaps that conflict will be different or somehow ‘better’ than the first one, but conditions of oppression force the oppressed into certain functions, certain ways of life, and can even see them punished simply for existing as themselves. That is no way to define peace. Negative peace is, in most cases, not peace at all. Perhaps in that sense it has a very fitting name, where whatever peace is established becomes negated by the fortification of the status quo.

Positive peace, in contrast, is applicable to the establishment of a just peace. It represents the only way forward to ensure that, in the aftermath of every conflict, there is at least some movement towards a more equitable and fair society. That is, ultimately, the only good which can arise out of conflict – the elimination of a status quo which caused the original conflict. This also happens to be the most difficult process of all, as violence can be managed by further utilization of violence, but creating an equal society must be done from the bottom-up while continuously suppressing those reactionary voices which desire a return to the status quo.

The current bias towards negative peace causes many harmful patterns to perpetuate. Firstly, the focus on negative peace perpetuates instability in nations that peacemaking is occuring. Countries with positive peace are more likely to adapt and recover from internal and external shocks in the future. This has an economic value as well, as positive peace bars the need for future intervention. The creation of positive peace lowers the potential for opportunists and spoilers to undermine the collective gains achieved during the peace process. Negative peace ignores the need to build conflict management institutions and to shift societal norms to accept these institutions. Additionally, because negative peace does not address injustices occurring, it often perpetuates structural violence against marginalized individuals by ignoring or undermining their lived experiences, just because these individuals are not likely to cause physical violence in the near future. The focus on negative peace also undermines larger peace efforts coming from other sources such as NGOs or grassroots organizations. 

While a shift to focusing on positive peace is very necessary, there are some real obstacles to this process. Firstly, peacemaking actors, often international bodies and outside actors have less incentive to engage in positive peacemaking, which requires much more time and financial resources. Additionally, based on the timing of the peacemaking project, sometimes it is necessary to first establish negative peace to even work on establishing positive peace. It is difficult to work towards lasting peace and justice in an active armed conflict environment. However, because the costs of not doing so are too high, it is necessary for scholars and policymakers to shift the lens of peacemaking, so that the objective of positive peace is kept in mind throughout the entire process. Coalitions at all levels of governance must work with grassroots peace movements to understand how to create lasting justice in communities.

The UN must address conflict from the ground up. It must look at each aspect of the conflict and work to establish systems to ameliorate it. Is conflict caused by economic imbalance? Cultural differences? Land or resource dispute? The UN must look at each facet. The lack of this care is a main source failure in UN peacekeeping. The UN must also commit greater care and oversight to the particular resources expended in peacekeeping missions. There are far too many cases of abuse and negligence of UN peacekeepers. These transgressions break the trust of native people and undermine any authority the UN has to bring stability. The UN also must commit sufficient time and resources to peacekeeping missions. It is extremely dangerous for the citizens when the UN does not commit fully to the cause.

This has two major consequences. During the mission, the people on the ground are not properly cared for. They do not have sufficient access to food products, shelters, and other essentials. Insufficient amounts of peacekeepers mean they are also unable to properly quell violence, leaving the people vulnerable. If the UN does not commit sufficient time to the cause, they leave the nation vulnerable to future flare ups, leaving the people in a constant cycle of violence. To be successful in the future, the UN must be totally committed to giving specialized care and attention to each country it enters, and making sure it develops a stable future for its inhabitants.

Part of the reasons positive peace is unachievable, at least under the current international system, is that the international system remains focused on Western ideas regarding conflict and the creation of states. Furthermore, the international community’s efforts at conflict management are impeded by the West’s desire to ignore the damaging legacies of Western colonialism and imperialism.

The cases we have studied in this module demonstrate different failures to achieve positive peace. The ‘peace’ imposed by the international community remain fragile and typically recreate preconditions for conflict, specifically colonial legacies and structural violence. This can be attributed to the dominance of liberal peace. While it would be inaccurate to claim that there is no alternative approach, alternatives have their own limitations that prevent them from achieving positive peace. From Colombia to Somalia and on to Bosnia, no state has achieved something that could be called positive peace.

Positive peace remains a goal to be strived for, even if it cannot be achieved. It sets a high bar for peace approaches, but individual initiatives can move societies closer to this goal. In order to achieve a truly positive peace the international state system would have to be uprooted and rebuilt from scratch. This is unlikely, as powerful states that benefit from the system are likely to defend the status quo. What this alternative would look like remains a mystery. Again, this is not to say that improvements and reform should be discouraged. The intention is merely to note the difficulty such change will require.

Positive peace is applicable if one believes that using it as a standard that will likely never be reached is valuable. If one views positive peace as a practical exercise, then it is less applicable, as its practicality is currently limited by the structure of the international system and the actions of the dominant states within it.

Security here means the provision of a safe environment whereby citizens are not under militant duress. To me, the fact that the mission was deemed an increasingly successful effort for peace says a lot about the UN’s priorities and may even suggest as a Western-run organisation that they choose what they want to be defined as human rights or ignored simply because they have the power to. 

Nigerian military peacekeepers from ECOMOG were dispatched to become involved in peace operations alongside the UN, although not directly related, and would become criticised for their abuse of power. Al Jazeera’s (2018) documentary on ‘Peacekillers’ details the atrocities committed by these peacekeepers as filmed by Sorious Samura and remaining often unheard until some cases were picked up by the UN Tribunal years later. I believe this is very telling of a supposedly ‘successful’ mission ignoring much of its responsibilities while on the ground in Sierra Leone. The mandate for UNAMSIL was to provide security and assistance – what they ignored was ECOMOG’s blatant violation of human rights on the citizens of Sierra Leone and thus it is hard to agree personally that the mission was a success.

Many online sources avoid mentioning this aspect of security in Sierra Leone when the peacekeeping mission is brought up. They speak of ECOMOG’s success in helping UNOMSIL militarily but ignore the atrocities during UNAMSIL. The Human Rights Watch declared Nigerian peacekeepers from ECOMOGs work during this time period as not conducive to the notion of increased human rights which I believe should be looked into more than it has been. 

UNAMSIL eventually created a Special Court to try some for war crimes but was severely limited in numbers, with many ECOMOG soldiers guilty of human rights violations that remain unpunished to this day. This raises the question for me of how the UN can say this mission is a ‘model for successful peacekeeping’ when security was not provided for the citizens and human rights were violated by these Nigerian peacekeepers in the form of beatings, rape, murders etc. – against the mandate of UNAMSIL to provide assistance in the form of protecting rights. In my opinion, it is wrong to assume that the mission should be deemed positively when it was actively complacent in the degradation of human rights of Sierra Leone’s citizens who they swore to protect from harm.

(Image of weapons from the SLAFRC highlighting the extent of military based peacekeeping already existing before UNAMSIL was authorised. This gives some background as to the extent of firearms on the ground in the streets of Sierra Leone and how much damage could be inflicted (Issouf Sanago. 1998. No-Title Available. Reproduced in Shola Lawal. 2019. “Nigerian Peacekeepers Haunted by the Ghosts of Executions Past.” Mail & Guardian, 13 December 2019. https://mg.co.za/article/2019-12-13-00-nigerian-peacekeepers-haunted-by-the-ghosts-of-executions-past/ )

The Indo-Pakistan War erupted in 1947 and lasted until 1948 when India brought forward a resolution to the UNSC to create the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP). The UNCIP called for a ceasefire and truce agreement and in January 1949 created the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) with the primary mandate to oversee that Pakistan and India respect the newly agreed upon ceasefire. Following the implementation of the UNMOGIP there have been many major conflicts between India and Pakistan that violate the terms of the ceasefire, ending most recently in 1999. Since then the two states have been engaged in a tit-for-tat strategy consisting of more minor ceasefire infractions. This means that the UNMOGIP has been recently considered a ‘frozen mission’ because their mission has no end date and the violence is no longer as discernable as it once was. Therefore the UNMOGIP acts as more of a reminder to the two sides not to escalate to more violent methods.

If we were to analyze the mission mandate of the UNMOGIP in a more literal sense then I would argue that they have been largely successful since 1999 in preventing any major breaches of the 1949 ceasefire agreement; however, this does not mean that there has been peace in this region. Following President Modi’s reversal of Article 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution in 2019, often revered as the cornerstone legislation that guarantees the K&J province their autonomy, the Indian government enforced a massive crackdown against unrest throughout the province. They have implemented a forced communications blackout, military enforced curfews, arrested 3,800 citizens and labelled thousands of citizens as ‘miscreants’. Despite the obvious potential for human rights violations no major nation has spoken out against these actions. The United Nations has only re-expressed their wish for Pakistan and India to de-escalate tensions and none of the three global superpowers have issued any strong condemnations against India’s actions. China has expressed some disagreement; however, this stems out of self-interest to warn India from entering into their own disputed territory, the Aksai Chin. 

Since the UNMOGIP is meant to specifically ensure peace between India and Pakistan, I would argue that it has been successful; however only to a certain extent. Their ability to ensure relative coexistence between India and Pakistan does not mean they have been able to ensure peace or proper treatment for the citizens of the Kashmir and Jammu region. 

Representation of how solving one problem does not mean that there are not larger problems to address 

Stock image courtesy of Imgur

The mandate of UNAMSIL highlights three key goals – the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of combatants on both sides (DDR). This is especially important as a high number of them were children being forced to fight, a major failing in the eyes of human rights supporting parties and nations. The mission suffered several setbacks, most notably the attack in Freetown where hundreds of peacekeepers were kidnapped, and the city briefly taken over. The Security Council responded by updating the mandate, increasing military personnel, in March 2001 there were 17,500 military personnel. This did make them more effective, as they could control and secure demobilisation centres – vital to the success of the DDR objective.

Despite the issues UNAMSIL faced, this is a success story. Measuring success based on the main goals of the mandate – DDR, securing central government and police, and humanitarian aid – it can be seen in general to have succeed. The UN itself reports that some 75,000 ex-fighters were demobilised and disarmed and offered the reintegration programme that included paid for education courses, skills training, and toolkits in craft trades to support economic recovery. Half a million of the displaced population were able to voluntarily return to their homes with the aid of UNAMSIL. These examples demonstrate recovery, facilitated through the role of UNAMSIL.

More compellingly, a survey carried out by Yale University and New York City College, in 2005 asked 900 Sierra Leonians how they felt UNAMSIL had performed. Overall nearly 100% said that the UN’s presence had greatly improved security, and 84% said the disarmament process was very good/good. This indication of support from people other than the UN is more indicative of a success– the people it was designed to help said it achieved the goals it set out to. This survey however did highlight two major issues going forward, that there were frequent reports of sexual exploitation from peacekeepers, and also that it was not an African led movement. This does reflect the idea of western intervention and an overlooking of women’s safety within UN missions, something that is detrimental to trust and reputation of UN missions going forward. This arguably does not directly impact the achievement of the objectives and success therein, though it does show neglect in oversight.

Overall, UNAMSIL was successful in achieving DDR, ending the conflict, and stabilising the country. They entered to protect human rights and end the violence which they arguably did. The future of the youth and children in Sierra Leone were protected, though there is need for improvement in protection for women and girls.

Sources

UNAMSIL Mandate https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/past/unamsil/mandate.html

Yale University and New York City College Survey, 2005, Public Opinion Survey of UNAMSIL, https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/past/unamsil/factsheet5_survey.pdf

MINUSTAH was established 30 April 2004 after the Haitian president, Jean Bertrand Aristide was ousted by insurgents (Kolbe 2015, 2). MINUSTAH’s actions in Haiti were directed toward its mandate of “enabling a secure and stable environment, supporting the current political process, and guaranteeing respect of human rights,” as well as assisting with the earthquake in January 2010 and Presidential elections in 2011 (Kolbe 2015, 2) (United Nations Peacekeeping “MINUSTAH Fact Sheet”).

It is precisely because of its mandate to protect human rights that MINUSTAH is a failure. If human rights are ignored at the level of individual interactions, seen in reports of sexual abuse, rape, and transactional sex by MINUSTAH peacekeepers, their broad respect is nonexistent.

MINUSTAH and the UN provide a larger context of separation and power difference that drives these relations between two individuals (King et al. 2020, 2). An intersectional feminist lens helps provide a frame in which the interaction between economic inequality, culture, and gender can be observed to illuminate the problem (TED 2016). Haitian culture prioritizes traditional gender roles, and undesired sex is normalized and expected even in marriage (Kolbe 2015, 4). MINUSTAH peacekeepers take advantage of their position of power and economic privilege to get what they want, offering money, food, school fees, or anything else to these women who would be hard-pressed to refuse (Kolbe 2015). 

King et al. point to SEA as a MINUSTAH failure because it undermines the authority of the UN and the legitimacy of its mission, but is it not enough that this abuse is a failure simply because of the harm it brought to each woman, man, or child involved? (King et al. 2020, 15). MINUSTAH provides a jarring example of what is really important in our discipline. SEA is a tragedy simply because it is an individual horror. The grandeur of the UN is meaningless in the face of those victims of rape and sexual abuse.

The following UN mission in Haiti (MINUJSUTH), for example, has clear information on its website about a reporting system and its no tolerance policy for abuse, but this minimizes the victims and does not point to a culture of true understanding and healing from the abuse of the last mission (United Nations “Conduct and Discipline”). 

MINUSTAH was fundamentally a failure at the individual level, for a high school student was filmed and sexually assaulted inside a peacekeeper base, an 18-year-old woman was choked and raped after being pulled over on an isolated road, and children as young as seven years old were abused, all while peace and justice were celebrated on high from the Security Council (Kolbe 2015, 3). 

An official UN photo of a peacekeeper and Haitian women that does not betray the fraught relationship between the two groups. Photo: Abassi 2015

Bibliography

Abassi, Logan. UN/MINUSTAH. 21 October 2015. Quick Reaction Force. Photo. https://www.flickr.com/photos/minustah/31008963735/. 

King, Carla, Sabine Lee and Susan A. Bartels. 2020. “’They Were Going to the Beach, Acting like Tourists, Drinking, Chasing Girls’: A Mixed-Methods Study on Community Perceptions of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by UN Peacekeepers in Haiti”. Stability: International Journal of Security & Development 9: 1-22. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/sta.766. 

Kolbe, Athena Rebecca. 2015. “’It’s Not a Gift When It Comes with Price’: A Qualitative Study of Transactional Sex between UN Peacekeepers and Haitian Citizens”. Stability: International Journal of Security & Development 4: 1-26. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/sta.gf.

TED. 2016. “The urgency of intersectionality | Kimberlé Crenshaw.” 7 December 2016. Video, 18:49. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akOe5-UsQ2o. 

United Nations. “MINUSTAH: Mission des Nations Unies Pour la Stabilisation en Haïti – Mandat”. Accessed on 19 October 2020. https://minustah.unmissions.org/mandat.

United Nations. “MINUJUSTH: United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti – Conduct and Discipline”. Accessed on 19 October 2020. https://minujusth.unmissions.org/en/conduct-and-discipline. 

United Nations Peacekeeping. “MINUSTAH Fact Sheet”. Accessed on 19 October 2020. https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mission/minustah.

Following the Hutu uprising against the Tutsi monarchy in 1959, Tutsis fled to neighbouring countries, formed the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) and staged several attacks attempting to return to Rwanda. The Arusha Peace Agreement (1992) was negotiated between Major-General Habyarimana and the RPF. To oversee this, UNAMIR, established by the UNSC under resolution 872, replaced UNOMUR and incorporated NMOG. UNAMIR’s mandate included implementing the Arusha Agreement, protecting Kigali, and assisting refugees (UN Peacekeeping); critically, “the Council did not approve all the elements of the mandate recommended by the Secretary-General, but instead decided on a more limited mandate” (Carlsson et al., 1999).

UNAMIR was too slow to provide an adequate response to the crisis; its mandate was “merely symbolic and highly impractical” (Barnett, 1997). Troops deployed to Rwanda arrived months late, and the UNSC Independent Inquiry claims this was due to “lack of political will by Member States to act…” which, in turn, “affected the (…) decision-making by the Security Council” (Carlsson et al., 1999). The states’ “indifference” (Barnett, 1997) to the crisis stemmed from the fact that they did not see Rwanda as important to their own interests or security (Barnett, 1997); this includes the total lack of US government support.

UNAMIR was underequipped with its 2,500 soldiers, who lacked the correct weaponry, compared to the 60,000 Rwandans fighting with stones and machetes (Dallaire and Poulin, 1996). Furthermore, Belgium withdrew from the mission, further reducing UNAMIR’s numbers. In terms of action taken, or lack thereof, UNAMIR failed to counter Rwanda’s media outlets (including Radio Mille Collines) used to propagate hate, despite its ability to do so.

Perhaps the gravest error was UNAMIR’s diplomatic misjudgement in implementing the Arusha Agreement and its failure to learn from the previous Bosnian genocide of thousands of Bosniaks (Kabunduguru, 1999). The pressure placed on Habyarimana to sign the Agreement plays another large factor in the ensuing violence, because the elites felt powerless. As Kuperman (1996) states, “mediators should refrain from applying such pressure unless they or another third party are willing and able to enforce the peace.” The UN, as illustrated, was unable to do this, due to its “lack of (…) political commitment” (Carlsson et al., 1999).

Many sources, including Dallaire and Poulin (1996), talk about what the UN “should” have done, as opposed to how it acted, and Kuperman (1996) claims lessons must be learned from UNAMIR to prevent future genocides unfolding:

“sometimes, doing the wrong thing is far worse than doing nothing at all.”

Rwandans: victimised by their own people and the UN

Gilles Peress/Magnum Photos

Cowell, Alan. (2019) Rwanda Marks 25 Years Since the Genocide. The Country Is Still Grappling With Its Legacy. [online]. The New York Times. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/world/africa/rwanda-genocide-25-years.html. Last accessed 20/10/2020.

Bibliography

Barnett, M. (1997). The UN Security Council, Indifference, and Genocide in Rwanda. Cultural Anthropology. 12 (4), p.551-578.

Carlsson, I. Sung-Joo, H. Kupolati, R. (1999). Report of the Independent Inquiry into the actions of the United Nations during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/1999/1257. Last accessed 21/10/2020.

Dallaire, R. (1994). “Genocide Fax” [online]. Available: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/816325-19940111a2-unam-rwdp.html#document/p1/a138279. Last accessed 20/10/2020.

Dallaire, R and Poulin, B. (1995). UNAMIR Mission to Rwanda. Joint Force Quarterly. p.66-71.

Kabunduguru, M. (1999). Peacekeeping and the UN: Lessons from Rwanda. Asia Pacific School of Economics and Management Working Papers [online]. 99-3. Available: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/156617015.pdf. Last accessed 20/10/2020.

Kuperman, A. (1996). The Other Lesson of Rwanda: Mediators Sometimes Do More Damage than Good. SAIS Review. 16 (1), p.221-240.

Scheffer, D. (2004). Lessons from the Rwandan Genocide. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. 5 (2), p.125-132.

The National Security Archive. (2014). The Rwanda “Genocide Fax”: What We Know Now [online]. Available: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB452/. Last accessed 24/10/2020.

United Nations (UN). (1999). Rwanda – UNAMIR Background [online]. Available: https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mission/past/unamirS.htm. Last accessed 21/10/2020.

Whilst Ethiopia is one of a select few countries to have successfully resisted being colonialised, Eritrea was not as fortunate. Eritrea was colonised by Italy and eventually ending up under Ethiopian rule. Eritrea achieved independence in 1993, but tensions with Ethiopia built, culminating in war from 1998 until both parties signed an Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities (ACH) in 2000, which also sought the establishment of UNMEE.

UNMEE’s mandate included monitoring the ceasefire and redeployment of troops, establishing a Temporary Security Zone, de-mining activities, providing humanitarian aid and chairing the Military Coordination Commission (MCC) where Eritrean and Ethiopian representatives engaged in face-to-face discussions attempting to resolve the conflict. Relations between the parties and UNMEE deteriorated after Ethiopia began disputing the agreed border delimitation, resulting in Eritrea restricting UNMEE’s operation via helicopter and personnel bans and eventually stopping fuel supplies (Cammaert and Sugar 2015).

Consequently, UNMEE ended in 2008, although it stopped functioning long before that. From my perspective, a successful UN mission would have helped to facilitate peace and UNMEE, in many respects, should have been a recipe for success – it was an interstate dispute requiring the monitoring of a ceasefire and facilitation of peace discussions to resolve a border dispute, whereby both parties had agreed to UN presence. Indeed, UNMEE did have some minor success. For example, UNMEE’s demining activities were successful in disposing of mines and the provision of mine risk education to locals. Additionally, the MCC was partially successful insofar as it facilitated some discussions between the parties, but this did not foster any significant improvement in interstate relations. 

However, I think that UNMEE’s most significant failure was its failure to encourage and facilitate active participation in the peace process from both the disputant parties. Despite the MCC, Eritrea and Ethiopia failed to meaningfully interact with one another, with a lack of attention paid towards building trust and normalising relations between the two nations. Subsequently, the lack of willingness to engage with one another was fundamental to UNMEE’s failure to achieve resolution and reflects UNMEE’s failure as a facilitator. From a critical perspective, it’s possible that local and non-official facilitation and processes would have been more beneficial. Furthermore, I would argue that UNMEE demonstrates the dangers of UN neglect and disinterest in its missions, particularly from the security council and core member states, who failed to encourage and support both parties and UNMEE. This is evident in the extent to which UNMEE was ignored after Eritrea started placing significant restrictions on the mission, impeding its ability to fulfil its mandate. That being said, it is difficult to assess what difference greater support from the Security Council could have achieved when at least one party (Eritrea) appeared reluctant to engage in the peace process.

Ultimately, UNMEE was failure, with conflict persisting until a peace agreement was reached in 2018 without UN support. 

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and Eritrean President Isaias Afwerk embrace each other following recent peace agreement between the two nations was signed.

Copyright belongs to Ghideon Musa Aron VISAFRIC/via REUTERS https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-eritrea-un/u-n-hails-renewed-ties-between-eritrea-and-ethiopia-no-word-on-sanctions-idUSKBN1K0325