DP1 Students: IA Engagements!

Contested Meanings of Peace, Conflict, and Violence

Johan Galtung (the Undying)

If Johan Galtung was a videogame character, he would be an Elden Ring boss, because he just. doesn't. die.

Joking aside, Galtung is THE central figure in the field of peace & conflict studies. In addition to practically founding the field, he continues to influence its growth and development, and many of the core ideas in this unit can be traced back to Galtung either directly or indirectly. He has taught in New York, Oslo (in his home country of Norway), Hawaii, and Malaysia (and online!)

So, do not be afraid to name drop this guy! (But only when it's accurate, 'kay?)

Different Definitions of Peace

As with most things in the course, try to avoid the simplest definitions for things. In the peace and conflict unit, look for opportunities to apply multiple definitions of a term if the question allows.

Positive Peace

Positive peace is one of those ideas that emphasizes that something simple can actually be really, really complex. Positive peace is defined by the presence of something: justice, fairness, equality, harmony, etc.

What makes it so difficult to achieve is the fact that it's quite complex and idealistic. States coming out of a civil or interstate conflict often lack the resources and mindset to work towards a positive peace. Furthermore, the presence of inequality and other problems even in peaceful states makes positive peace a major challenge. Some might even say it is more of an ideal than an actual, achieveable outcome.

For more on how positive peace might factor into peacebuilding efforts, see this page.

Negative Peace

Negative peace is defined by absence, namely the absence of open conflict. Note that this means that other forms of conflict can still exist, just not like... actual violent conflict.

In a comparison between positive and negative peace, this one may seem like the weaker or less desirable of the two, but really negative peace is a valid, laudable goal of its own. In cases of violent conflict, a negative peace is a significant milestone, and arguably positive peace cannot be achieved without first sustaining a negative peace.

It's worth noting that a negative peace might be achieved by less peaceful means -- a military victory, for example. Often, though, a negative peace is achieved by some form of peacemaking process (see this page for that side of things.)

Ey yo, what about those other freaky deaky types of peace from the Groff & Smoker article we read?

Inner-Outer Peace

Inner-outer peace refers to the idea that peace is not only an external state of being, but also an internal one. It recognizes that true peace cannot be achieved if there is turmoil or conflict within ourselves, and that achieving inner peace can have a positive impact on our relationships with others and the world around us. Inner-outer peace emphasizes the importance of practices like meditation, mindfulness, and self-reflection in promoting personal peace, as well as the value of promoting peace at all levels of society.

Feminist Peace

Feminist peace is a perspective that focuses on the role of gender in promoting or inhibiting peace. It recognizes that women and gender minorities are often disproportionately affected by conflict and violence, and that their experiences and perspectives are critical to building a sustainable and just peace. Feminist peace emphasizes the need to address gender-based violence, promote women's participation in decision-making processes, and challenge patriarchal structures that perpetuate inequality and conflict. It also recognizes that promoting gender equality and human rights is essential for achieving lasting peace.

Holistic-Gaia Peace

Holistic-Gaia peace is a concept that is rooted in the idea of interconnectedness and interdependence between all living beings and the environment. It recognizes that peace cannot be achieved in isolation from the natural world, and that the well-being of humans and the planet are deeply intertwined. Holistic-Gaia peace emphasizes the need to address environmental issues, such as climate change and pollution, as a means of promoting peace, as well as the importance of recognizing the intrinsic value of all life forms.

Different Definitions of Conflict

Conflict, like peace, is a difficult concept to nail down. Conflict can happen at all levels of global politics and between all different kinds of actors. There are superpower conflicts, conflicts between a state and civil society, conflicts between governments and protest movements, etc. There are also conflicts between ideas, like the ideological conflict between neoliberal development goals and sustainability, where the objectives of development and opinions on what matter differ. It's also worth noting that not all conflicts are bad: some are justified and necessary (like combatting injustice.) A democratic state has conflict built into its political system, where different figures and parties compete for seats in the legislature and higher offices.

Are all conflicts violent? Not necessarily (see section on violence below.) Are all conflicts legitimate? Not necessarily, and its the illegitimate conflicts that can be most problematic.

It's worth going back to our "misconceptions of conflict" activity from last fall (reading from our textbook embedded below.)

2.0-misconceptions-of-conflict.pdf

Different types of Violence

I think you should be noticing a pattern here: none of these concepts are simple and they all have different elements and ways they can be expressed and observed. Violence is no different.

The one thing that all of these definitions share is a link to the use of some form of power, whether that is military or physical force, institutional advantage, influence, etc.

Direct Violence

Structural Violence

Cultural Violence

There's a lot more about the types of conflict, causes of conflict, and other related topics in the pages on Causes and Parties to Conflict and Evolution of Conflict.

Can violence ever be justified?

Just War Theory

So... violence is bad, right? And killing people is, like, really bad. How then can violence be justified: how can something that is wrong be done for the right reason. That is the essential question that early thinkers attempted to grapple with when they came up with the idea of a Just War.

The earliest theorists of Just War Theory came out of the Catholic church, and tried to square the rationale for conflict with the teachings of Jesus (spoiler alert: dude didn't like fighting very much.) As time went on, just war theory shifted more and more to focus on humanitarian rationales for conflict.

Which conflicts are just?

Trying to apply Just War Theory to modern conflicts can be tricky. The aspects of a just war, seen to the left, can be hard to meet in modern conflicts due to technological stalemate, different reasons for going to war, and the idea of exiting (hey, USA, please read that last part very carefully.)

Was foreign intervention (humanitarian intervention) in Syria necessary to correct a "grave, immediate, ongoing evil?" Arguably, yes, after Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people. However, did the intervening countries go into Syria with a plan for success? Did they have an exit strategy? Nope.

The war in Iraq (2003 onward) has similar issues, with the added challenge that peaceful methods had not failed. There was no immediate danger, but the Bush administration made it look like there was.

You can see the importance of a just war in Russia's invasion of Ukraine; they tried to justify their actions by saying they were saving Russian-speaking people (which is like, most of Ukraine) from being exterminated, and that they were going to "De-Nazify" the country, trying to link the Ukrainian government to a great evil from the past. Does it seem like there is an exit strategy, or is Russia just going to stick around Ukraine forever.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

One of the newest additions (2005) to the language of global politics, relatively speaking, the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine has become mired in controversy. The basic idea is that states have a responsibility to protect their populations from mass atrocities such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. However, if a state is unwilling or unable to protect its population, then the international community has a responsibility to intervene through appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian, and other peaceful means. As a last resort, military intervention may be necessary, but only under strict conditions and in accordance with international law.

This lines up with old idea of Just War Theory in several ways: direct intervention is meant to be a last resort; the use of force needs to be proportional and appropriate; and the actions must be taken with the clear goal of creating, and then preserving, peace.

R2P also can be said to go further than Just War Theory by placing the responsibility to protect on the entire international community. Whereas Just War was originally meant as a way to justify and explain conflicts between kingdoms or states, or rival rulers, R2P

How many times has R2P been used?

Over 80 times! Mainly in Africa and the Middle East. While Libya is the most famous and extreme example, R2P has typically been called upon in smaller-scale situations and has involved a lot less military intervention.

R2P in 2022

The UN Security Council specifically cited R2P in FOUR resolutions throughout 2022: two times regarding South Sudan, and once each for the Central African Republic (CAR) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

R2P was used to justify extending sanctions on South Sudan, and to extend the timeline for UN Peacekeeping operations in all three states. This shows us that R2P can be invoked in a coercive way ("change what you're doing or else we santion you") as well as a cooperative way ("let's extend this mission and keep working together for peace.")

What's the takeaway?

The big message here is that despite all the yelling about Libya and countries saying they'll never support R2P... well, it's still happening. R2P has been invoked every single year since 2010.

In most cases, R2P resolutions have reaffirmed existing activities (like peacekeeping) while in others it has authorized limited humanitarian intervention, or created conditions for diplomatic aid and security to be provided without military intervention.

What went wrong with Libya!?

The Decision to Intervene

In 2011, a coalition of states, led by France, the UK, and the US, intervened in Libya to protect civilians from the government's violent crackdown on opposition protests. The intervention was authorized by the United Nations Security Council under the R2P principle. This should be seen as a legitimate decision: the UN would be considered a "valid authority" due to its status as the largest IGO, and due to the UNSC's peacekeeping mandate.

However, the implementation of the intervention quickly became controversial. UN Peacekeepers were not the right choice for actually carrying out the intervention; instead, the responsibility to act was taken up by NATO forces (specifically from France, the UK, the US.) This is where things began to go wrong. Some argue that the intervention went beyond the scope of the R2P principle and became a regime change operation, with the goal of ousting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi from power. This could be interpreted as lining up more with the views and goals of the US and UK in particular, who had a negative history with Gaddafi, rather than the goals of R2P. The intervention involved sustained airstrikes against Libyan military targets, and ultimately led to Gaddafi's overthrow and death.

What next?

The aftermath of the intervention has also been criticized, as the country descended into chaos and violence following Gaddafi's overthrow. The country has been plagued by armed conflict, political instability, and the proliferation of militias, which has had severe humanitarian consequences for civilians in the country.

There are several factors that contributed to the failure of the intervention in Libya. One major issue was the lack of a clear plan for post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction, which led to a power vacuum and the proliferation of armed groups. Tying this back to R2P, this means that action was taken without necessarily having a long-term plan for peace in mind. Another factor was the failure to engage with all relevant parties and stakeholders in Libya, including tribal leaders, regional actors, and civil society groups, which undermined the legitimacy and sustainability of the intervention.

In summary, the intervention in Libya under the R2P principle was controversial and faced several challenges, including questions about its true motives and the lack of a clear plan for post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction. This led to states like China and Russia, who are UNSC members, to publically state that they would never authorize another action under the "umbrella" of R2P. The situation in Libya today serves as a cautionary tale for future interventions under the R2P principle, highlighting the importance of careful planning, engagement with all stakeholders, and a focus on long-term stability and reconstruction.

Page updated

Report abuse