PEACE BUILDING
War and Conflict
Around the world, we see conflict, violence, and war. Perhaps it seems worse now than in the
past few decades or maybe it seems like it hits us close to home. Either way, the pervasive fear
for one's life, the loss of loved ones through military conflict, and the uncertainty about the
future are detrimental to a society's well-being and to the health and happiness of the people.
This is exactly what conflict resolution and peace building organizations work to address and
remedy. Shall we learn more about these strategic alternatives to violent conflict?
hat is Peace Building?
peace building is a process intended to resolve current conflicts and prevent future conflicts by
addressing the causes of the problem and building a comprehensive strategy to encourage lasting
peace. Successful peace building not only stops or prevents violent conflict, it changes the way
disagreement is handled in a society or between nations. It focuses on the desire to maintain
peace while acknowledging problems and disagreements as a normal part of human interaction.
Rather than rushing to violence, peace building teaches the different parties how to address their
problems rationally, how to find solutions cooperatively, and how to identify new problems early
enough to address them before further problems arise.
What it Means to Build a Lasting Peace
It should be noted at the outset that there are two distinct ways to understand peacebuilding.
According the United Nations (UN) document An Agenda for Peace [1], peacebuilding consists
of a wide range of activities associated with capacity building, reconciliation, and societal
transformation. Peacebuilding is a long-term process that occurs after violent conflict has slowed
down or come to a halt. Thus, it is the phase of the peace process that takes place after
peacemaking and peacekeeping.
Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs), on the other hand, understand peacebuilding as
an umbrella concept that encompasses not only long-term transformative efforts, but also
peacemaking and peacekeeping. In this view, peacebuilding includes early warning and response
efforts, violence prevention, advocacy work, civilian and military peacekeeping, military
intervention, humanitarian assistance, ceasefire agreements, and the establishment of peace
zones.
In the interests of keeping these essays a reasonable length, this essay primarily focuses on the
narrower use of the term "peacebuilding." For more information about other phases of the peace
process, readers should refer to the knowledge base essays about violence prevention,
peacemaking and peacekeeping, as well as the essay on peace processes which is what we use as
our "umbrella" term.
In this narrower sense, peacebuilding is a process that facilitates the establishment of durable
peace and tries to prevent the recurrence of violence by addressing root causes and effects of
conflict through reconciliation, institution building, and political as well as economic
transformation.[1] This consists of a set of physical, social, and structural initiatives that are
often an integral part of post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation.
It is generally agreed that the central task of peacebuilding is to create positive peace, a "stable
social equilibrium in which the surfacing of new disputes does not escalate into violence and
war."[2] Sustainable peace is characterized by the absence of physical and structural violence,
the elimination of discrimination, and self-sustainability.[3] Moving towards this sort of
environment goes beyond problem solving or conflict management. Peacebuilding initiatives try
to fix the core problems that underlie the conflict and change the patterns of interaction of the
involved parties.[4] They aim to move a given population from a condition of extreme
vulnerability and dependency to one of self-sufficiency and well-being.[5]
To further understand the notion of peacebuilding, many contrast it with the more traditional
strategies of peacemaking and peacekeeping. Peacemaking is the diplomatic effort to end the
violence between the conflicting parties, move them towards nonviolent dialogue, and eventually
reach a peace agreement. Peacekeeping, on the other hand, is a third-party intervention (often,
but not always done by military forces) to assist parties in transitioning from violent conflict to
peace by separating the fighting parties and keeping them apart. These peacekeeping operations
not only provide security, but also facilitate other non-military initiatives.[6]
Some draw a distinction between post-conflict peacebuilding and long-term peacebuilding. Post-
conflict peacebuilding is connected to peacekeeping, and often involves demobilization and
reintegration programs, as well as immediate reconstruction needs.[7] Meeting immediate needs
and handling crises is no doubt crucial. But while peacemaking and peacekeeping processes are
an important part of peace transitions, they are not enough in and of themselves to meet longer-
term needs and build a lasting peace.
Long-term peacebuilding techniques are designed to fill this gap, and to address the underlying
substantive issues that brought about conflict. Various transformation techniques aim to move
parties away from confrontation and violence, and towards political and economic participation,
peaceful relationships, and social harmony.[8]
This longer-term perspective is crucial to future violence prevention and the promotion of a more
peaceful future. Thinking about the future involves articulating desirable structural, systemic,
and relationship goals. These might include sustainable economic development, self-sufficiency,
equitable social structures that meet human needs, and building positive relationships.[9]
Peacebuilding measures also aim to prevent conflict from reemerging. Through the creation of
mechanisms that enhance cooperation and dialogue among different identity groups, these
measures can help parties manage their conflict of interests through peaceful means. This might
include building institutions that provide procedures and mechanisms for effectively handling
and resolving conflict.[10] For example, societies can build fair courts, capacities for labor
negotiation, systems of civil society reconciliation, and a stable electoral process.[11] Such
designing of new dispute resolution systems is an important part of creating a lasting peace.
In short, parties must replace the spiral of violence and destruction with a spiral of peace and
development, and create an environment conducive to self-sustaining and durable peace.[12] The
creation of such an environment has three central dimensions: addressing the underlying causes
of conflict, repairing damaged relationships and dealing with psychological trauma at the
individual level. Each of these dimensions relies on different strategies and techniques.
The Structural Dimension: Addressing Root Causes
The structural dimension of peacebuilding focuses on the social conditions that foster violent
conflict. Many note that stable peace must be built on social, economic, and political foundations
that serve the needs of the populace.[13] In many cases, crises arise out of systemic roots. These
root causes are typically complex, but include skewed land distribution, environmental
degradation, and unequal political representation.[14] If these social problems are not addressed,
there can be no lasting peace.
Thus, in order to establish durable peace, parties must analyze the structural causes of the
conflict and initiate social structural change. The promotion of substantive and procedural justice
through structural means typically involves institution building and the strengthening of civil
society.
Avenues of political and economic transformation include social structural change to remedy
political or economic injustice, reconstruction programs designed to help communities ravaged
by conflict revitalize their economies, and the institution of effective and legitimate restorative
justice systems.[15] Peacebuilding initiatives aim to promote nonviolent mechanisms that
eliminate violence, foster structures that meet basic human needs, and maximize public
participation.[16]
To provide fundamental services to its citizens, a state needs strong executive, legislative, and
judicial institutions.[17] Many point to democratization as a key way to create these sorts of
peace-enhancing structures. Democratization seeks to establish legitimate and stable political
institutions and civil liberties that allow for meaningful competition for political power and
broad participation in the selection of leaders and policies.[18] It is important for governments to
adhere to principles of transparency and predictability, and for laws to be adopted through an
open and public process.[19] For the purpose of post-conflict peacebuilding, the democratization
process should be part of a comprehensive project to rebuild society's institutions.
Political structural changes focus on political development, state building, and the establishment
of effective government institutions. This often involves election reform, judicial reform, power-
sharing initiatives, and constitutional reform. It also includes building political parties, creating
institutions that provide procedures and mechanisms for effectively handling and resolving
conflict, and establishing mechanisms to monitor and protect human rights. Such institution
building and infrastructure development typically requires the dismantling, strengthening, or
reformation of old institutions in order to make them more effective.
It is crucial to establish and maintain rule of law, and to implement rules and procedures that
constrain the powers of all parties and hold them accountable for their actions.[20] This can help
to ease tension, create stability, and lessen the likelihood of further conflict. For example, an
independent judiciary can serve as a forum for the peaceful resolution of disputes and post-war
grievances.[21]
In addition, societies need a system of criminal justice that deters and punishes banditry and acts
of violence.[22] Fair police mechanisms must be established and government officials and
members of the police force must be trained to observe basic rights in the execution of their
duties.[23] In addition, legislation protecting minorities and laws securing gender equality should
be advanced. Courts and police forces must be free of corruption and discrimination.
But structural change can also be economic. Many note that economic development is integral to
preventing future conflict and avoiding a relapse into violence.[24] Economic factors that put
societies at risk include lack of employment opportunities, food scarcity, and lack of access to
natural resources or land. A variety of social structural changes aim to eliminate the structural
violence that arises out of a society's economic system. These economic and social reforms
include economic development programs, health care assistance, land reform, social safety nets,
and programs to promote agricultural productivity.[25]
Economic peacebuilding targets both the micro- and macro-level and aims to create economic
opportunities and ensure that the basic needs of the population are met. On the microeconomic
level, societies should establish micro-credit institutions to increase economic activity and
investment at the local level, promote inter-communal trade and an equitable distribution of land,
and expand school enrollment and job training.[26] On the macroeconomic level, the post-
conflict government should be assisted in its efforts to secure the economic foundations and
infrastructure necessary for a transition to peace.[27]
The Relational Dimension
A second integral part of building peace is reducing the effects of war-related hostility through
the repair and transformation of damaged relationships. The relational dimension of
peacebuilding centers on reconciliation, forgiveness, trust building, and future imagining. It
seeks to minimize poorly functioning communication and maximize mutual understanding.[28]
Many believe that reconciliation is one of the most effective and durable ways to transform
relationships and prevent destructive conflicts.[29] The essence of reconciliation is the voluntary
initiative of the conflicting parties to acknowledge their responsibility and guilt. Parties reflect
upon their own role and behavior in the conflict, and acknowledge and accept responsibility for
the part they have played. As parties share their experiences, they learn new perspectives and
change their perception of their "enemies." There is recognition of the difficulties faced by the
opposing side and of their legitimate grievances, and a sense of empathy begins to develop. Each
side expresses sincere regret and remorse, and is prepared to apologize for what has transpired.
The parties make a commitment to let go of anger, and to refrain from repeating the injury.
Finally, there is a sincere effort to redress past grievances and compensate for the damage done.
This process often relies on interactive negotiation and allows the parties to enter into a new
mutually enriching relationship.[30]
One of the essential requirements for the transformation of conflicts is effective communication
and negotiation at both the elite and grassroots levels. Through both high- and community-level
dialogues, parties can increase their awareness of their own role in the conflict and develop a
more accurate perception of both their own and the other group's identity.[31] As each group
shares its unique history, traditions, and culture, the parties may come to understand each other
better. International exchange programs and problem-solving workshops are two techniques that
can help to change perceptions, build trust, open communication, and increase empathy.[32] For
example, over the course of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the main antagonists have sometimes
been able to build trust through meeting outside their areas, not for formal negotiations, but
simply to better understand each other.[33]
If these sorts of bridge-building communication systems are in place, relations between the
parties can improve and any peace agreements they reach will more likely be self-sustaining.[34]
(The Israeli-Palestinian situation illustrates that there are no guarantees, however.) Various mass
communication and education measures, such as peace radio and TV, peace-education projects,
and conflict-resolution training, can help parties to reach such agreements.[35] And dialogue
between people of various ethnicities or opposing groups can lead to deepened understanding
and help to change the demonic image of the enemy group.[36] It can also help parties to
overcome grief, fear, and mistrust and enhance their sense of security.
A crucial component of such dialogue is future imaging, whereby parties form a vision of the
commonly shared future they are trying to build. Conflicting parties often have more in common
in terms of their visions of the future than they do in terms of their shared and violent past.[37]
The thought is that if they know where they are trying to go, it will be easier to get there.
Another way for the parties to build a future together is to pursue joint projects that are unrelated
to the conflict's core issues and center on shared interests. This can benefit the parties'
relationship. Leaders who project a clear and hopeful vision of the future and the ways and
means to get there can play a crucial role here.
But in addition to looking towards the future, parties must deal with their painful past.
Reconciliation not only envisions a common, connected future, but also recognizes the need to
redress past wrongdoing.[38] If the parties are to renew their relationship and build an
interdependent future, what has happened must be exposed and then forgiven.
Indeed, a crucial part of peacebuilding is addressing past wrongdoing while at the same time
promoting healing and rule of law.[39] Part of repairing damaged relationships is responding to
past human rights violations and genocide through the establishment of truth commissions, fact-
finding missions, and war crimes tribunals.[40] These processes attempt to deal with the
complex legal and emotional issues associated with human rights abuses and ensure that justice
is served. It is commonly thought that past injustice must be recognized, and the perpetrators
punished if parties wish to achieve reconciliation.
However, many note that the retributive justice advanced by Western legal systems often ignores
the needs of victims and exacerbates wounds.[41] Many note that to advance healing between
the conflicting parties, justice must be more reparative in focus. Central to restorative justice is
its future-orientation and its emphasis on the relationship between victims and offenders. It seeks
to engage both victims and offenders in dialogue and make things right by identifying their needs
and obligations.[42] Having community-based restorative justice processes in place can help to
build a sustainable peace.
The Personal Dimension
The personal dimension of peacebuilding centers on desired changes at the individual level. If
individuals are not able to undergo a process of healing, there will be broader social, political,
and economic repercussions.[43] The destructive effects of social conflict must be minimized,
and its potential for personal growth must be maximized.[44] Reconstruction and peacebuilding
efforts must prioritize treating mental health problems and integrate these efforts into peace plans
and rehabilitation efforts.
In traumatic situations, a person is rendered powerless and faces the threat of death and injury.
Traumatic events might include a serious threat or harm to one's family or friends, sudden
destruction of one's home or community, and a threat to one's own physical being.[45] Such
events overwhelm an individual's coping resources, making it difficult for the individual to
function effectively in society.[46] Typical emotional effects include depression and post-
traumatic stress disorder. After prolonged and extensive trauma, a person is often left with
intense feelings that negatively influence his/her psychological well-being. After an experience
of violence, an individual is likely to feel vulnerable, helpless, and out of control in a world that
is unpredictable.[47]
Building peace requires attention to these psychological and emotional layers of the conflict. The
social fabric that has been destroyed by war must be repaired, and trauma must be dealt with on
the national, community, and individual levels.[48] At the national level, parties can accomplish
widespread personal healing through truth and reconciliation commissions that seek to uncover
the truth and deal with perpetrators. At the community level, parties can pay tribute to the
suffering of the past through various rituals or ceremonies, or build memorials to commemorate
the pain and suffering that has been endured.[49] Strong family units that can rebuild community
structures and moral environments are also crucial.
At the individual level, one-on-one counseling has obvious limitations when large numbers of
people have been traumatized and there are insufficient resources to address their needs.
Peacebuilding initiatives must therefore provide support for mental health infrastructure and
ensure that mental health professionals receive adequate training. Mental health programs should
be adapted to suit the local context, and draw from traditional and communal practice and
customs wherever possible.[50] Participating in counseling and dialogue can help individuals to
develop coping mechanisms and to rebuild their trust in others.[51]
If it is taken that psychology drives individuals' attitudes and behaviors, then new emphasis must
be placed on understanding the social psychology of conflict and its consequences. If ignored,
certain victims of past violence are at risk for becoming perpetrators of future violence.[52]
Victim empowerment and support can help to break this cycle.
Peacebuilding Agents
Peacebuilding measures should integrate civil society in all efforts and include all levels of
society in the post-conflict strategy. All society members, from those in elite leadership
positions, to religious leaders, to those at the grassroots level, have a role to play in building a
lasting peace. Many apply John Paul Lederach's model of hierarchical intervention levels to
make sense of the various levels at which peacebuilding efforts occur.[53]
Because peace-building measures involve all levels of society and target all aspects of the state
structure, they require a wide variety of agents for their implementation. These agents advance
peace-building efforts by addressing functional and emotional dimensions in specified target
areas, including civil society and legal institutions.[54] While external agents can facilitate and
support peacebuilding, ultimately it must be driven by internal forces. It cannot be imposed from
the outside.
Various internal actors play an integral role in peacebuilding and reconstruction efforts. The
government of the affected country is not only the object of peacebuilding, but also the subject.
While peacebuilding aims to transform various government structures, the government typically
oversees and engages in this reconstruction process. A variety of the community specialists,
including lawyers, economists, scholars, educators, and teachers, contribute their expertise to
help carry out peacebuilding projects. Finally, a society's religious networks can play an
important role in establishing social and moral norms.[55]
Nevertheless, outside parties typically play a crucial role in advancing such peacebuilding
efforts. Few peacebuilding plans work unless regional neighbors and other significant
international actors support peace through economic development aid and humanitarian
relief.[56] At the request of the affected country, international organizations can intervene at the
government level to transform established structures.[57] They not only provide monetary
support to post-conflict governments, but also assist in the restoration of financial and political
institutions. Because their efforts carry the legitimacy of the international community, they can
be quite effective.
Various institutions provide the necessary funding for peacebuilding projects. While
international institutions are the largest donors, private foundations contribute a great deal
through project-based financing.[58] In addition, regional organizations often help to both fund
and implement peacebuilding strategies. Finally, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) often
carry out small-scale projects to strengthen countries at the grassroots level. Not only traditional
NGOs but also the business and academic community and various grassroots organizations work
to further these peace-building efforts. All of the groups help to address "the limits imposed on
governmental action by limited resources, lack of consensus, or insufficient political will."[59]
Some suggest that governments, NGOs, and intergovernmental agencies need to create
categories of funding related to conflict transformation and peacebuilding.[60] Funds are often
difficult to secure when they are intended to finance preventive action. And middle-range
initiatives, infrastructure building, and grassroots projects do not typically attract significant
funding, even though these sorts of projects may have the greatest potential to sustain long-term
conflict transformation.[61] Those providing resources for peacebuilding initiatives must look to
fill these gaps. In addition, external actors must think through the broader ramifications of their
programs.[62] They must ensure that funds are used to advance genuine peacebuilding initiatives
rather than be swallowed up by corrupt leaders or channeled into armed conflict.
But as already noted, higher-order peace, connected to improving local capacities, is not possible
simply through third-party intervention.[63] And while top-down approaches are important,
peace must also be built from the bottom up. Many top-down agreements collapse because the
ground below has not been prepared. Top-down approaches must therefore be buttressed, and
relationships built.
Thus, an important task in sustaining peace is to build a peace constituency within the conflict
setting. Middle-range actors form the core of a peace constituency. They are more flexible than
top-level leaders, and less vulnerable in terms of daily survival than those at the grassroots
level.[64] Middle-range actors who strive to build bridges to their counterparts across the lines of
conflict are the ones best positioned to sustain conflict transformation. This is because they have
an understanding of the nuances of the conflict setting, as well as access to the elite leadership.
Many believe that the greatest resource for sustaining peace in the long term is always rooted in
the local people and their culture.[65] Parties should strive to understand the cultural dimension
of conflict, and identify the mechanisms for handling conflict that exist within that cultural
setting. Building on cultural resources and utilizing local mechanisms for handling disputes can
be quite effective in resolving conflicts and transforming relationships. Initiatives that
incorporate citizen-based peacebuilding include community peace projects in schools and
villages, local peace commissions and problem-solving workshops, and a variety of other
grassroots initiatives.
Effective peacebuilding also requires public-private partnerships in addressing conflict and
greater coordination among the various actors.[66] International governmental organizations,
national governments, bilateral donors, and international and local NGOs need to coordinate to
ensure that every dollar invested in peacebuilding is spent wisely.[67] To accomplish this,
advanced planning and intervention coordination is needed.
There are various ways to attempt to coordinate peace-building efforts. One way is to develop a
peace inventory to keep track of which agents are doing various peace-building activities. A
second is to develop clearer channels of communication and more points of contact between the
elite and middle ranges. In addition, a coordination committee should be instituted so that
agreements reached at the top level are actually capable of being implemented.[68] A third way
to better coordinate peace-building efforts is to create peace-donor conferences that bring
together representatives from humanitarian organizations, NGOs, and the concerned
governments. It is often noted that "peacebuilding would greatly benefit from cross-fertilization
of ideas and expertise and the bringing together of people working in relief, development,
conflict resolution, arms control, diplomacy, and peacekeeping."[69] Lastly, there should be
efforts to link internal and external actors. Any external initiatives must also enhance the
capacity of internal resources to build peace-enhancing structures that support reconciliation
efforts throughout a society.[70] In other words, the international role must be designed to fit
each case.
[1
