Searching For Peace

Contents

Series Preface Preface – TRANSCEND: A Philosophy of Peace – and One Way of Enacting It

xi xiii

INTRODUCTION: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW I.1 Conflict, War and Peace: A Bird’s Eye View Johan Galtung I.2 Peace: The Goal and the Way Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen PART 1

3 16

TOWARDS A THEORY AND PRACTICE OF PEACE BY PEACEFUL MEANS

1.1 Peacemaking as Realpolitik, Conflict Resolution and Oxymoron: the Record, the Challenge Carl G. Jacobsen with Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen 1.2 Beyond Mediation: Towards More Holistic Approaches to Peace-building and Peace Actor Empowerment Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen with Carl G. Jacobsen

27

49

1.3 11 September 2001: Diagnosis, Prognosis, Therapy 87 Johan Galtung 1.4 Our War Culture’s Defining Parameters: Their Essence; Their Ramifications (external; domestic; ‘racism’; ‘borders’; ‘international law’) 103 Carl G. Jacobsen and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen 1.5 The State/Nation Dialectic: Some Tentative Conclusions Johan Galtung

126

viii

SEARCHING FOR PEACE

1.6 Beyond Security: New Approaches, New Perspectives, New Actors Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen with Carl G. Jacobsen

142

1.7 Crafting Peace: On the Psychology of the TRANSCEND Approach Johan Galtung and Finn Tschudi

151

PART 2

THE TRANSCEND EXPERIENCE: DIAGNOSIS, PROGNOSIS, THERAPY

2.1 TRANSCEND: 45 Years, 45 Conflicts Johan Galtung The 45 Years The 45 Conflicts

173

2.2 45 Conflicts; 45 Perspectives Johan Galtung 1. Peace Service: A TRANSCEND Perspective 2a. East–West Conflict, Cold War I: A TRANSCEND Perspective 2b. East–West Conflict, Cold War II: A TRANSCEND Perspective 3. Community Race Relations: A TRANSCEND Perspective 4. Cuba: A TRANSCEND Perspective 5. North–South Conflict: A TRANSCEND Perspective 6a. Israel–Palestine: A TRANSCEND Perspective 6b. Israel–Palestine: A TRANSCEND Perspective 6c. Israel–Palestine: A TRANSCEND Perspective 6d. Israel/Palestine/Middle East: A TRANSCEND Perspective 7. Cyprus: A TRANSCEND Perspective 8. Independence Struggles: A TRANSCEND Perspective 9a. Ulster: A TRANSCEND Outcome Perspective 9b. Ulster: A TRANSCEND Process Perspective 10. Kashmir: A TRANSCEND Perspective 11. Korea: A TRANSCEND Perspective 12. Pax Pacifica: A TRANSCEND Perspective 13. Hawai’i: A TRANSCEND Perspective 14a. The Gulf Conflict 1990–91: A TRANSCEND Perspective 14b. The Gulf Conflict 1998: A TRANSCEND Perspective

189

173 179

189 191 192 194 196 198 200 203 205 207 209 211 213 215 217 219 221 223 225 227

CONTENTS

15. 16. 17. 18. 18a. 18b. 18c. 19. 20. 21a. 21b. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29a. 29b. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

The Kurds: A TRANSCEND Perspective Japan–US: A TRANSCEND Perspective Japan–Russia: A TRANSCEND Perspective The Conflict in and over Yugoslavia: A TRANSCEND Perspective The Yugoslavia Conflict 1991/95: A TRANSCEND Perspective The Yugoslavia Conflict, 1998: A TRANSCEND Perspective The Crisis in and around Kosovo/a: A TRANSCEND Perspective Hindu–Muslim Relations: A TRANSCEND Perspective Anomie/Atomie and ‘Sects’: A TRANSCEND Perspective Sri Lanka: A TRANSCEND Perspective Sri Lanka: A TRANSCEND Perspective Somalia: A TRANSCEND Perspective The Mayas: A TRANSCEND Perspective Reconciliation Conflicts: A TRANSCEND Perspective China: A TRANSCEND Perspective The Christians and the Muslims: A TRANSCEND Perspective Tripartite Europe: A TRANSCEND Perspective Ecuador–Peru: A TRANSCEND Perspective Caucasus: A TRANSCEND Outcome Perspective Caucasus: A TRANSCEND Process Perspective ‘Comfort Women’: A TRANSCEND Perspective Okinawa: A TRANSCEND Perspective Rwanda/The Great Lakes: A TRANSCEND Perspective Hostage Crises: A TRANSCEND Perspective Albania: A TRANSCEND Perspective Lebanon: A TRANSCEND Perspective Euskadi: A TRANSCEND Perspective Gibraltar and Ceuta-Melilla: A TRANSCEND Perspective Colombia: A TRANSCEND Perspective Inter-Class Conflict/Globalization: A TRANSCEND Perspective Inter-Generation Conflict and Sustainability: A TRANSCEND Perspective

ix

229 231 233 235 237 239 241 244 246 248 250 252 254 256 258 260 262 264 266 269 271 273 275 277 279 281 284 286 288 291 293

x

SEARCHING FOR PEACE

41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

Afghanistan: A TRANSCEND Perspective Angola Civil War: A TRANSCEND Perspective The Sami Nation: A TRANSCEND Perspective The Christians and the Heathens: A TRANSCEND Perspective The US, the West and the Rest: A TRANSCEND Perspective

295 297 299 301 303

Notes

306

Index

322

INTRODUCTION

A Bird’s Eye View

CHAPTER I.1

Conflict, War and Peace: A Bird’s Eye View Johan Galtung

A Bird’s Eye View There is a standard natural history, with many variations and subtypes, leading to violence and war, that is, organized group violence, which indicates how violence can be avoided or at least reduced. That prototype includes two stages preceding the violence. The first stage is a conflict (parties with contradictory goals), a ubiquitous phenomenon in human and social reality, a major driving force. Or, more correctly: unresolved conflict, leading to frustration because of blocked goals, and a potential for aggression against parties perceived as standing in the way. The second stage is polarization, the reduction to two groups, Self and Other, with positive interaction within and negative interaction between the groups. Under extreme polarization Other is dehumanized, satanized and Self exalted as supreme, sacred or secular. This prototype is as much a part of human reality as high exposure (pathogens) + low resistance (immunity) leading to disease. Like disease, violence is caused by the preceding stages in the prototype; like disease violence can be prevented by removing the cause(s). Conflict is removed as a cause by transformation so that the conflict can be handled by the parties non-violently, creatively, empathically. Polarization is removed as a cause through depolarization, peace-building, flattening the gradient from Self to Other, relinking. As violence is polarizing, violence should be minimal. By transforming the conflict the ‘bellogens’ frustration + aggression are removed; depolarization adds to this a ‘paxogen’ corresponding to the immune system. In UN jargon these two activities are known generically as peacemaking and peace-building. In medical jargon they are similar to primary and secondary prophylaxis, removing pathogens and strengthening the self-healing capacity of the body. Then there is peacekeeping, which aims at controlling violence, reducing it, possibly even removing it to the point called ceasefire. In medical jargon that would be curative therapy, removing the symptoms of disease, as distinct from the two types of 3

4

SEARCHING FOR PEACE

preventive therapy mentioned above. In peace as in health the total therapy is in the package, not in any one part of it. The flow chart would look like this: CONFLICT → POLARIZATION → VIOLENCE/WAR incompatible dehumanization hurt/harm body goals Self–Other gradient mind or spirit contradiction

attitude deep structure/culture

behaviour basic needs

We have added some explanatory categories: conflict has to do with contradictions among incompatible goals, polarization has to do with attitudes which may be translated into behaviour like a prejudice, but can also start as behaviour like discrimination. Violence is a form of avoidable behaviour – physical, verbal or both (body language) – which hurts/harms. Direct violence can be mapped on a sentence with subject (the perpetrator), verb (the action) and object (the hurt/harmed victim). With no subject we would talk about indirect or structural violence. Beneath are the deeper levels of explanation: the deep, more long-lasting structures and cultures defining long-lasting contradictions and attitudes and the basic human needs defining more permanent behaviour (in medical theory deep = generic/genetic). Let us now have a second glance, reviewing the prototype. Basic question: are these antecedents (if that is what they are) necessary causes, sufficient causes, both or neither? Do they really explain violence? Let us start with ‘necessary’. Is there always an unresolved conflict underlying violence? The imperial powers were extremely violent in their overseas conquest. But they had no prior conflict with those peoples, they did not even know them, they ‘discovered’ them. The conflict was over the unlimited submission required of them (by the papal bull Inter Caetera) as subjects, economically as labour, culturally as converts. If they submitted, they could be admitted as slaves (today: secondclass citizens); if they did not, military power, violence or war was used against them. Suggestion: if violence is the smoke, conflict is the fire. Search and you’ll find. Is polarization always underlying violence? Polarization means social distance, horizontally (like countries separated by borders), vertically (like classes separated by unequal power), or both. Social distance means human distance. Even the most violent bully probably has somebody he (usually a he) would not harm or hurt. He recognizes a common identity = identification. The bully has

CONFLICT, WAR AND PEACE: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW

5

a buddy even if the family is not exempt from his violence. Somebody is untouchable, protected by identification. For Gandhi identification includes all humanity; for Buddhism all sentient life (capable of experiencing a dukkha–sukha gradient, from suffering to well-being). Romans spoke of homo res sacra hominibus. Needless to say, the less polarized will employ the more polarized for the dirty job of violence, the riff-raff of any society, and on top of that train them to kill. Scratch the surface and you will find elements of polarization. The ‘sufficiency’ part is much more problematic. Will an unresolved conflict with the frustration of goals unattained for one or all parties always lead to aggression, violence? In a basic conflict, with basic needs among the goals, aggression is more likely. But even so there may also be suffering in silence, seeing the predicament as an unavoidable part of the human condition, dwelling in human nature. This holds particularly for structural conflicts, built into the social structure between those high up who want to remain on top, and those lower down who do or do not reconcile themselves to their fate: the dangerous classes, ‘dangerous’ because they may one day wake up and see reality. But in actor conflicts, where there is a very concrete actor on the other side (and real conflicts are mixes of the two) the subject standing in the way is easily identified, and ‘what can we do about It’ becomes ‘what can we do about Him’. Will polarization always lead to violence? Of course not, it can go on for ages, as between countries with no ties. And between classes the polarization is already structural violence if those lower down are really hurt/harmed, that is, their basic needs are molested or at best left unsatisfied by the structure. Will direct violence be added? If basic needs are deeply insulted, yes. But states and nations have kept apart for ages without violence, as have class structures, between peoples, between countries. Moreover, can we ever be close to everybody? What has to be added for unresolved conflict + polarization to lead to violence? One answer (and that is enough, we are dealing with sufficiency here) would be a culture of violence, making violence seem natural/normal, lowering the threshold. One such culture of violence is provided by the hard reading of the Book, the kitab of the Abrahamitic religions, the Old Testament (but also the Christian New Testament, although there the focus is more on faith and the Kingdom of God in heaven and/or inside us than on acts and Zion for the Jews). Conflict is seen as dual, between two parties, like God and Satan, one good, one evil, fighting over one issue. It can end in only one

6

SEARCHING FOR PEACE

way, in a massive, violent encounter, possibly with Evil triumphing over Good on Earth, but Good continuing in Heaven. We refer to it as the DMA syndrome: Dualism–Manicheism– Armageddon. If a conflict is constructed as a contradiction between two parties, one worthy of survival and the other not, predestined to meet in a major battle, then this ‘natural law of violence’, its DMA inevitability, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as in Marxism; embedded in the deep culture. The dangerous sufficiency mix, the nitrate–carbon–sulphur mix, would include a violent culture turning an actor frustrated by an unresolved conflict into a bad actor, a bully; a violent structure already pre-polarizing society; and some kind of precipitating event, the hammer blow on the dangerous mix. Bad actor + bad culture (violent) + bad structure (polarized) = violence. That now gives us four components in a preventive therapy: 1. Identify the bad actors (e.g. by past behaviour) and arraign them in court, hold them in detention, incapacitate them. 2. Change a violent culture into a peace culture. 3. Change a violent structure into a peace structure. 4. Be on guard against precipitating events. But violence-prone actors and precipitating events there will always be. Better build on peace cultures and structures.

The First Narrative: Just Violence/War This is a mainstream narrative, following the arrows. In the beginning is not the word, but an issue between two or more goals held by one or more parties. A goal can be put in words, but they may not convey the intense emotions of hopes and fears fuelling the pursuit of the goal, be it positive, something to attain, or negative, something to avoid. And the more so the more the goals are related to the sine qua non of human existence: the basic needs, survival, well-being, freedom, identity. Polarization enters because other parties are seen as standing in the way of goal-attainment. A social/human distance is created for such parties. At the root may be the problem of legitimacy. My goal-attainment is legitimate; his is not, even if he says it is. Projecting on him hidden, evil goals makes his proclaimed goals a cloak, and I have won the first round by constructing not only his goals but also him as evil/illegitimate. Evil-doers should be incapacitated, depriving Other of the capability to enact his evil motivations. But the problem with violence is that it molests the most basic of basic human needs, survival itself. There will be a reactio to a violent actio.

CONFLICT, WAR AND PEACE: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW

7

One possibility is that violence makes Other see himself as at least partly evil, amends his ways and gives up the goal. This is the rationale for the legal use of punishment = violence. A second possibility is escape; Other becomes unavailable. A third possibility is for Other to suffer violence with no resistance, common when violence is institutionalized, direct or structural; possibly with extermination at the end of the road. A fourth approach is violent resistance by Other; revenge. And a fifth approach is non-violent resistance by Other. Violence introduces a conflict after the root conflict, a metaconflict between molest! and remain unmolested!, which then leads to a meta-polarization and feeds into the root conflict in the wellknown vicious circle of violence breeding violence. In the first three cases Self gets what he wants; and so he does if he wins, overcoming violent or non-violent resistance. This is called a ‘military solution’, i.e. a lull before next round. Again, the key element is probably legitimacy. The beaten Other may draw the conclusion that he was wrong, illegitimate; and that provides the happy ending for Narrative 1 for Self. But Other may also draw the conclusion that his goal in the root conflict was legitimate and demand a revanche, a new deal. And/or, Other may draw the conclusion that his goal in the metaconflict – survival – was legitimate and demand retribution. This is where the narrative makes a loop via deep culture for legitimacy feedback, and the next round gets a fresh start. The narrative now becomes drawn out if the capacities to incapacitate are relatively equal, the ‘equal playing field’; more likely to serve, as in sports, the goal of fairness in identifying the winner than deterrence, abstaining from playing. The archetype is the duel/battle for individual/collective decision-making in conflict according to ‘the winner takes all’. There is an underlying metanarrative identifying being victor with being legitimate. Watching that violence/war unfold is watching justice at work, according to this narrative. Violence, war, is a morality play. God is on the side of the winner. Or if not God, then Evolution. Or, in globalization, the Market is on the side of the winner. He who loses deserves to do so. Justice has been done. The more equal the playing field, the higher the suffering. What, then, makes a fully fledged war with conflict and metaconflict, polarization and meta-polarization and meta-meta come to an end? Remember that a war presupposes capability, motivation and targets of incapacitation, so why end the game? The first scenario is incapacitation of one side; both being incapacitated is unlikely. The winner dictates the terms.

8

SEARCHING FOR PEACE

The second scenario is capitulation by one side short of incapacitation; simultaneous capitulation being unlikely. But he may be suspected of saving capabilities for revenge/revanche; hence better make the capitulation unconditional. The third scenario is cease-fire by mutual agreement because the costs are too high and incapacitation/capitulation is not in sight. The question is, who demands it from a position of strength, and who from weakness? The fourth scenario is choking the violence/war by running out of targets (or making them unavailable), by running out of capabilities (arms, ammunition, money, food), by running out of motivation. Simultaneous choking is unlikely, but the choking point does not have to be the same for the parties. The fifth scenario is in occidental deep narrative: a war is monoclimactic, the end comes after the climax. Male orgasm as metaphor. With both parties driven by this narrative a climax ushers in one of the scenarios above and a victor is declared. The narrative attributes justice to violence/war. The war is not only mutual carnage; it has a function. If God sides with the winner, then the war makes God reveal His will. If Evolution by definition sides with the winner/the fittest, then war makes Evolution reveal its arrow. If some float to the top, buoyed by the Market, and some sink, then so be it. It is what they deserve.

The Second Narrative: Intervention on the Side of Justice But imagine there is no end in sight; the war is protracted. Or worse: the party on the side of God (read: our side), or higher on Evolution (read: having democracy), or more embodying the Market (read: access, privatization) is not winning. Time has come to open a second narrative: intervention by outside, so-called third parties. To mingle in the strife they have by definition to be big powers lest they get badly hurt. Even so they may limit intervention by doctrines of ‘force protection’. Being now parties to the conflict the question is: what goals do they have, and are the goals legitimate? Being big they may be suspected of having big, even ulterior goals. ‘Humanitarianism’ provides formulas for legitimacy, but is hardly sufficient to allay suspicions of ulterior goals. A conflict, and particularly a violent conflict, shakes any system. There may be loose bits and pieces floating around, morsels for outside parties to pick up. Big powers may be suspected of doing that: reconstruction, even reparation contracts, trade privileges, political clientelism, cultural cloning, military bases/allies.

CONFLICT, WAR AND PEACE: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW

9

We are now entering the narrative of the conflict between the intervenor and the intervened. The narrative will probably be that they enter on the side of justice to level the playing field, helping the righteous side to a righteous victory over the unworthy, and in addition reducing innocent suffering. Basically they have to embody the three principles of legitimacy around which these morality tales are spun: the three selectors, God, Evolution and the Market. They have to enter so that God can make His choice, Evolution can run its course by rewarding the most evolved, the most ready to embody Market principles. For what follows, see above. It all hinges on the ability of the intervenor to be seen as legitimate and not just as one more party with a ‘what is in it for me?’ motivation. For that reason it is essential to enter late enough to give the parties a chance, also to exhaust each other so that the military risk to the intervenor is less, yet before the evil side is winning. If the good side is winning, there’s no problem. If not, and with good timing, the scenarios may combine into victory for the intervenor who dictates the terms of a cease-fire, of how to depolarize and the terms of conflict resolution (in favour of the Good party). The third possibility is almost too horrible to contemplate, but it does happen: the evil side wins not only over the just side, but also over the intervenor in the name of justice. The narrative dissolves in a nightmare. At stake is not only the justice of Good overcoming Evil. Good, being too weak, could not win alone. But if Good, reinforced by super-Good, cannot win either, then what is the moral? That we live in the worst of all worlds and the End is nigh? Possibly, and that would be compatible with the Armageddon metaphor. But there are at least three other interpretations. First, bad, could it be that the intervention was self-choked, having insufficient capability, or motivation, or that they ran out of targets? There was lack of nerve, lack of will? Second, worse, could it be that the credentials of the intervenor, as catalyst in this justice-revealing activity, were not good enough? Worse still, could it even be that they were negative, that the intervenor was on the side of Evil? Third, worst, could it be that the use of war to serve justice, to obtain political-cultural goals, is basically flawed?

The Third Scenario: Transformation–Depolarization–Peace The first narrative (Clausewitzian) was about the quick or slow, but successful, pursuit of a political goal, the conflict goal, by

10

SEARCHING FOR PEACE

military means. For that purpose instant polarization may be used, trusting that violence itself is polarizing and will overcome bonds of economic ties, neighbourhood, friendship even kinship. The process will bypass deep polarization, go straight from unresolved conflict – unresolved because the other party refused to submit – to violence and war, and then pass through some loops of metaconflict and meta-polarization to victory. The second narrative was about the quick or slow but successful intervention into protracted warfare. It better be by ‘overwhelming force’ lest the three nagging problems at the end of the preceding section should surface. Is there a third narrative hidden somewhere in this prototype? Certainly, and like the first narrative it starts in the conflict end of the story, but unlike the second narrative it does not start with violence. It may be called the peace by peaceful means narrative, and has less backing in our deep culture, being more recent. But it is not entirely without archetypal backing. Jewish prophets, the words of Christ and of the Prophet are rich in proposals for conflict resolution. But there is a tendency for such proposals to be of the ‘or else’ variety, ultimately backed up by the wrath of the Almighty. The narrative does not exclude a peacekeeping prologue to reduce the violence, if possible down to zero, but not ‘peace enforcement’ to help one party win. But peacekeeping is not necessarily done by military force. ‘Overwhelming non-violent force’ may also be a formula, leaving no room for violence. The first chapter in this narrative is an image of an outcome for the conflict so compelling that the parties say, ‘This is much better than what the first and second narratives have to offer, especially given the suffering and the revenge/revanche factor that may follow in their wake.’ The second chapter is the story of peace-building, in other words depolarization, stitching torn tissue, substituting new tissue. This is much broader than ‘confidence-building measures’, which may also be cosmetic if not internalized in hearts and minds and institutionalized in the structures. Truth for the minds and reconciliation for the hearts! The third chapter is peacekeeping by non-violent or very soft violent means, e.g. police forces, similar to the prologue mentioned above. But there is also another scenario for the third factor. An image of conflict solution would make violence look irrelevant, misplaced, out of step. Weapons become dis-targeted, ‘decommissioned’. They may start ‘withering away’. We say ‘chapter’, but they are to be read simultaneously. And the ‘reading’ has to be aloud, in public, and massively so, based on solid knowledge of the texts.

CONFLICT, WAR AND PEACE: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW

11

Has this narrative ever had an empirical counterpart? Oh yes, but the two preceding narratives are read so loudly in the media that they tend to overwhelm public consciousness. The collective subconscious, the belligerent deep culture, has war reporting as a major conveyor belt. Empirically the third narrative is so frequent that it is not even told but taken for granted. This is the normal way things are settled. An image of a viable = acceptable + sustainable future emerges. People move from imaging to fantasizing to living it. And that’s it.

The Peace Narrative: Four Cases The white/black conflict over desegregation in the US South did not lead to a major war (although there was violence), with intervention (although there were elements of that) and a diktat (although there were and are elements of that in the schools). There was and is an image of a one person-one vote democracy, a colour-blind society. The image gains in acceptability, as can be seen in the countless desegregated facilities in the South, including restaurants, toilets, recreation areas. There was and is increasing depolarization of blacks and whites simply practising a future of togetherness, highly provocative for segregationists, but in the longer run irresistible. Crucial peacekeeping was non-violent until the process became to a large extent self-sustaining. And it all happened in a surprisingly short period of time. No doubt it mattered who propagated the conflict outcome image: the US Supreme Court, on 17 May 1954. The image negated the old ‘separate but equal’, in favour of ‘desegregated and equal’. The white/black conflict in South Africa did not lead to a major war either, only exchanges of violence between terrorism and state terrorism, nor to a major intervention to put an end to the violence and settle the conflict. People increasingly bought into the compelling image of one-person, one-vote democracy, with human rights. There was a major depolarization at the top: the Mandela–de Klerk tight, cooperative relationship. No doubt it was helpful that US desegregation had preceded the abolition of apartheid with no major backlashes of any kind. It is good to live in a virtual image; quite another to have a real case sufficiently similar to make the image really compelling. No doubt a peaceful Rhodesia-Zimbabwe next door was also useful. But the end of the Cold War is even more impressive as a case for the third narrative, the peace narrative. True, we have pointed out that the antecedents to violence/war are not sufficient causes, not even when unresolved conflict and heavy polarization combine with an arms race into a cold war. And the underlying conflict was

12

SEARCHING FOR PEACE

massive: over interests, who is the master in Eastern Europe; and over values, what is the good society – multi-party/capitalist or single party/socialist? Enacting the first narrative would have been catastrophic as seen in the places it was partly enacted, Korea and Vietnam. And: no powerful intervenor would have been available. Fortunately, what happened followed the third narrative. There were the images of outcomes projected by the two parties: all that is needed is that you become like me. This is not known as an acceptable solution but as imposition, victory. Then the idea of convergence started to take root, with social democracy or democratic socialism (the first ideology of Solidarnosc) as an obvious meeting ground. This was not to be, however, because of internal processes in the US consistently moving to the right politically relative to, say, the New Deal, and the Soviet Union, consistently moving towards demoralization and implosion because of its inability to overcome many contradictions. But there was another compelling image coming out of the peace movement and the dissident movement: no more danger of nuclear war/human rights, and democracy for all. The movements practised the future by depolarizing different and complementary segments of a heavily polarized East–West system. The resistance against nuclearism and post-Stalinism was done non-violently and successfully so. The Berlin Wall fell. We all knew it was over. The fourth case has a different flavour because of the time span between the first and second narratives, and the third. The Spanish civil war of 1936–39 between the Loyalists (to the democratically elected Popular Front government of republicans, socialists, communists, anarchists and nationalists in Catalonia and the Basque Country) and the Insurgents (under Franco, supporting and supported by los poderes fácticos, the real powers, land-owners, military, clergy) was also based on a massive conflict between two very different images of the good society. Put simply: communist (but with strong anarchist elements) versus fascist, the falange. Narrative 1 was enacted through many loops in a cruel war with massive polarization and one million dead. Narrative 2 came with much military aid to the Insurgents from Germany and Italy, and an International Brigade and a trickle of aid from the Soviet Union for the Loyalists. Who won? In the short run Franco, of course, enacting his image in an unstable, deeply traumatized society. But who won in the longer run? Neither one nor the other. A very compelling image was in the air from the Second World War, often twisted, thwarted: multi-party democracy, human rights, self-determination for minorities. Both sides gradually bought into this image, travelled abroad, lived it, received testimony from visitors. But time, say one generation, was needed to overcome the most acute phase of

CONFLICT, WAR AND PEACE: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW

13

the traumas. And that coincided roughly with the life of Franco. When he died in November 1975, lamented by few, no night of long knives was in sight. And the successors to the Loyalists and the Insurgents met in a multi-party endeavour to construct, successfully so far, non-fascist/non-Stalinist Spain, with only one small backlash: the Tejero incident of 23 February 1981. Why doesn’t this work in the Basque Country, in Ulster, in the Middle East/Israel–Palestine? Why is there no peace process, except as a propaganda term, with no real peace in sight, only some breaks in Narrative 1 violence? And enactment of Narrative 2 by Spanish and English police and military in the first two cases, and a denial of Narrative 2 by Israel in the third lest the playing field becomes level? First answer: for lack of a compelling image of the future. General autonomy for the Basque Country in Spain is less than what is wanted; moreover, it does not include the French Basques. In Northern Ireland the Good Friday Agreement does not provide for symmetry in arms. The IRA is up against the British Army + the Police Service for Northern Ireland (formerly the Royal Ulster Constabulary) (made up of about 93 per cent Protestants) + the para-military Ulster Defence Forces. And there is no serious image of how two states, Israel and Palestine, could live side by side, bearing in mind that any image has to be symmetric in such basics as the right to have a state (and a capital and a right of return). Second, a negative answer: the ritualistic demand for a cease-fire, even disarmament, only then depolarization around the table, only then conflict solution. Why should they do that when there is no light at the end of the tunnel, not even an image as an anchor for trying out of that outcome, virtually? Even if they are not planning any major violence, arms have at least a nuisance value. Why should they give that up? Rather much more can be said, but let this suffice. The basic conclusion is this: The first narrative leads to demands for revanche and revenge. The second puts the cart before the horse by demanding that people do at the beginning what they will only do at the end. The peace narrative is more promising. Which does not mean that it is infallible. Moreover, like natural medicine it cures without doing harm but needs more time than violent antibiotics. People have to engage in virtual tests of a concrete peace proposal. Much psychological mobility is needed; hence a need for something ‘compelling’, ‘irresistible’. The proposal has to be so good that the time factor can be considerably shortened. It defies reason to believe that such creative proposals should emerge from a ‘table’ accommodating people who have been in a tunnel killing each other according to Narratives 1 and 2. How can they suddenly switch to Narrative 3?

14

SEARCHING FOR PEACE

Ancient and not-so-ancient history speaks to us through Narratives 1 and 2. We sense primitive society using rituals of violence to settle conflicts. We sense traditional society adding God’s finger and His chosen instruments, the kings. We sense modern society with the state as successor to the kings for the execution of these atavistic rituals, adding the social darwinist idea of evolution, now with democracy-cum-market as the crowning achievement, The End of Evolution/History. There is more than the power of the most powerful state(s) at stake. There is a whole syndrome of interconnected beliefs down there in the collective subconscious with ‘bringing to justice’, in the battlefield and ultimately in the court room, as connecting elements. And we sense how subversive the idea of peace is, the third narrative, cutting out the atavism of violence, going straight to the solution, then solidifying it through depolarization and as much non-violent control of violence as possible. Peace becomes left-wing not because left-wing people are more pacifist, but because they believe less in the rest of the narrative. May it spread and be shared by all.

And What Do Mainstream Journalists/Politicians Make of This? 1. They leave out the unresolved conflict and polarization, and focus only on violence, which then looks irrational, autistic. Example: ‘Terrorism’ (see Chalmers Johnson’s Blowback). 2. They confuse conflict arena – where the violence/‘action’ is – with conflict formation the parties with a stake in the outcome. Example: The focus in Ulster is only on violent parties, not on 85 per cent of the population who want peace by peaceful means. 3. Dualism, reducing the number of conflict parties to 2 and the number of issues to 1 as dominant discourse. not looking for hidden parties presenting themselves as mediators and issues. Example: Omitting Germany as major conflict party in Yugoslavia, with her own goals (see Matthias Küntzel, Der Weg in den Krieg); omitting class and gender as major issues in Yugoslavia. 4. Manicheism, presenting one party as evil and the other as good, (re)enforcing polarization, denying the ‘evil’ a voice. Example: The standard image of Serbia, Indonesia, Saddam Hussein; taking sides, usually same as their nation-state government.

CONFLICT, WAR AND PEACE: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW

15

5. Armageddon, presenting the violence as something inevitable omitting alternatives, blaming evil party of autism. Example: NATO’s war against Yugoslavia (Serbia), omitting the many alternative causes of action, denying their existence. It is worth noting that dualism/Manicheism/Armageddon are basic elements in occidental, Judeo-Christian/Islamic, deep culture. 6. They omit structural conflict/polarization and violence, like ghettos, refugee camps, reporting only the direct violence. Example: 100,000+ dying from hunger and disease daily. 7. They omit the bereaved, easily ten per victim and their desire for revenge and revanche, fuelling spirals of violence. Example: Almost any conflict, except ‘our’ prominent bereaved. 8. They fail to explore the causes of protraction and escalation, and particularly the role of the media in keeping violence going. Example: Arms supplies to the parties, e.g. in Sri Lanka. 9. They fail to explore the goals of intervenors, how big powers tend to move in when the system is shaken loose by conflict and violence, picking up morsels, gaining footholds. Example: The ‘international community’ in Yugoslavia, missing the Camp Bondsteel story, the German protectorate policy. 10. They fail to explore peace proposals and compelling images Example: Omitting the Pérez de Cuéllar proposal of December 1991 for the Yugoslavia conflict; ignoring citizen groups. 11. They confuse cease-fire and conferences with peace and hold exaggerated expectations when ‘warlords’ meet for peace, following the standard government agenda: ceasefire–negotiation–peace. Example: Afghanistan, with no regard for peace images. 12. They leave out reconciliation, basic for depolarization. Example: any conflict, e.g. Ethiopia–Eritrea.

Index Compiled by Sue Carlton

ABC triangle xiv, 20–1, 22, 152–3 Abdullayeva, Arzu 267 Abkhazia 35, 41, 266, 267 absorption 133, 135 acceptability xxii, 131, 155, 161, 167, 225 Afghanistan 15, 42, 106, 139, 188, 262, 295–6 and enforced peace 38 jihad 304 mediation 52, 55, 67–72, 75 US presence 98 see also September 11th attack aggression 144, 151 aid, humanitarian 32, 37, 43, 62, 63, 280 Aideed, Mohammed 89, 92 Akhali movement 212 Al Qaeda 87, 99 Albania 47–8, 187, 239, 240, 242, 279–80 Albanians 36, 63, 67, 131, 160, 236, 239, 262 Albright, Madeleine 43, 44, 47, 97 Alexander VI 301 Allende, Salvador 87 alliances 78, 119, 219, 262 Alsace-Lorraine 36, 74 American Revolution 1776–1812 129 AMPO 50, 138, 183, 192, 193, 228, 231 anchoring 160–1, 162–4 Anderson, Mary B. 28–9 Andorra 134, 285 Angola 32, 188, 297–8 Annan, Kofi 164 anomie/atomie 185, 187, 246–7, 289

anti-globalization movement 102, 103, 124 antodaya 112 apartheid 11, 17 apology xvii, 216, 223, 257, 271, 283 Arab League 226, 228 Arabia, US military presence 97 Arafat, Yasser 36, 57, 162 Arbenz, Jacobo 255 Argentina 186, 227, 256–7 Armageddon 6, 15, 18, 89, 184, 185, 225 Armenia 40–1, 135, 267, 269 arms control 174 trade 50, 71 see also nuclear weapons assassinations 54, 92, 94, 161, 244 ATTAC (Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens) 111 attitudes xiv–xv, 20, 151, 152, 153 Australia 138, 227 autonomy 129, 131, 133, 135–6 in Balkans 236, 239 in China 258 East Timor 46 Kashmir 217, 218 Kurds 212, 228, 229 Nagorno-Karabak 41 Palestinians 34, 183, 201, 228 Sami 188 Somalia 252 in Sri Lanka 248, 251 Ulster 213 see also independence; secession; self-determination

323

324

SEARCHING FOR PEACE

Ayodhya 136, 244 Azad Kashmir 218 Azar, Edward 29 Azerbaijan 35, 39, 40–1, 267, 269 Babri Mosque 244 Balkans 36, 67, 192 see also Yugoslavia Barak, Ehud 54 basic human needs xv, xvii, 5, 6 Basque country 12, 13, 127, 137, 138, 248, 284–5 Bear Island dispute 41, 42, 47 Bedouins 225, 227 behaviour xiv–xv, 20, 151, 152, 153 Beijing 259 Bekaa valley 122 Belgium 275, 276 bi-national zones 162, 179, 264–5 see also peace zones Biafra 122 bin Laden, Osama 42, 68, 87, 89, 92, 96, 99 Bismarck, Otto von 36 Blum, William 91–2 Bolivia 179 borders and conflict 116–20, 131 joint territorial management arrangements 120 Bosnia 23, 31, 32, 38, 62, 106, 127 Bosnia-Herzegovina xvi, 62, 131, 236, 237, 262, 266 boycotts 101, 197, 207 Brand-Jacobsen, Kai Frithjof 29, 112 Braudel, F. 167 Brezhnev, Leonid 70 Brigate Rosse 89 Brundtland Report 147 B’Tselem 58 Buddhism 82, 244, 251 Bulgaria 239, 240, 242 bureaucracy 108 bureautocracy 108 Burkina Faso 131 Burton, John 29 Burundi 275, 276

Bush, G.H.W. 122 Bush, G.W. 89, 99 Cambodia 32, 106, 253 Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo 15, 66 Camp David 200 Camplisson, Joe 41 Canada 35, 117, 123, 227 capitalism 87, 118–19 and Marxism 107–12 and war culture 107 Castro, Fidel 196 Catalonia 12 cathexis shift in 155, 156, 162 see also cognitive consonance/dissonance Catholic Church 236, 260, 298, 301–2 Caucasus 137, 139, 186, 262, 266–70 cease-fires 8, 9, 15, 54, 61 Ceuta-Melilla 139, 187, 286–7 Charlottesville, VA 174–5, 183, 194 chemical-biological weapons 42, 225 Chiapas 48, 106, 135, 254, 255 Chile 87, 112, 179 China 139, 183, 186, 232, 258–9 and Afghanistan 295 Bear Island Dispute 41, 42 cooperation with Russia 105, 183, 192–3, 228 and Korea 219 racism 113 and Tibet 122, 186 Chomsky, Noam 112 Christians/Christianity 200, 202, 204, 238, 256 and heathens 188, 301–2 and Muslims/Islam 97–8, 186, 260–1, 262 CIA 297, 303 civil society xiii, xiv, 98, 199, 279, 292, 298 cooperation 218, 238, 283 empowerment of 73, 298 global 110, 124, 137, 265 civilian service 173–4 see also peace corps/service

INDEX

Clausewitz, Carl von 123, 193 Clinton, Bill 44, 162, 223 cognitive consonance/dissonance 158–66 cognitive expansion 156, 157–8 Cold War xiv, 176, 178, 183, 191–3 end of 11–12, 68, 101, 127, 236 zero-sum mindset 27, 49, 69, 105, 106, 107, 144–5 collective subconscious 18, 19, 167, 169 Colombia 37, 187, 288–90 colonialism 141, 147, 188, 211–12, 221, 248, 301 and decolonization 191 German 275 and retaliation 100 settler 183, 184, 200, 203, 223 Spanish 196 and structural violence 17 colonization 128–9, 147 Columbus, Christopher 301 COME (conscientization, organization, mobilization, empowerment) 77, 109 comfort women 187, 271–2 common security 28, 49, 104–5, 106, 110, 148, 149 Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) 32, 106, 262 communism 108, 112, 177, 191, 288 Community Race Relations 183, 194–5 complexification 155, 225 condominium 133, 137, 140, 158 Ecuador-Peru 264 Euskal Herria 187 Gibraltar/Ceuta-Melilla 286 Kashmir 218 Ulster 184 confederations 133, 135–6, 136, 138 Britain 154 Caucasus 268 China 258 Cyprus 184 Euskadi 285

325

Gibraltar/Ceuta-Melilla 286, 287 Israel-Palestine 83, 136, 201 Kashmir 218 Kurds 185, 229 Mayas 254 non-territorial 139, 140 Sami 188 Sri Lanka 248 Yugoslavia 237, 239, 243 see also condominium; federations confianza 77 conflict ABC triangle xiv, 20–1, 22, 152–3 diagnosis–prognosis–therapy (DPT) xxii, 22–4, 159, 181, 183–8, 189–305 different perspectives 79–84 and life-cycles xvi prevention 40, 51, 64, 65, 73, 84–5 solutions from within 85–6 understanding 40, 52, 60, 85 unresolved 3, 4, 5, 10 and violence 16–17, 151, 152, 165–6, 179 violence-provoking responses to 16, 17, 22 conflict autonomy 282 conflict resolution 51–72, 103, 272, 281 cultural approaches 53, 73 initiatives 41–2 top-down approach 52–3, 74, 75, 76 conflict transformation xv, xx, 3, 29, 78 by peaceful means 40, 60, 127–8, 149, 175 code of conduct xxii–xxiii creative approaches to 60, 74, 76–9, 169–70, 211, 230, 254 see also creativity dialogue method 153–69 and mediation 53, 75 programmes 180–1 and self-determination 127–9

326

SEARCHING FOR PEACE

Conflict Transformation Index (CTI) xxi conflict workers xxiii, 163–4, 167–8, 175 and conflict party xxiii, 155, 156, 159–60, 166, 168–9 Congo 276 conscientious objectors 173–4, 189–90 conscription 189 contradiction xiv–xv, 16–17, 20, 52, 152–3, 179 see also goals, incompatible Cook, Robin 44 cooperation 104, 149–50, 174, 220, 269 civil society 218, 238, 283 and peace-building 73–4, 77–8, 85 superpowers 49, 68–9, 71 Correlates of War project 27, 103 cosmology 19, 52, 83, 166 Council of Europe 176, 237, 243 coyuntura 77–8 creativity 21, 149, 211, 254 see also conflict transformation, creative approaches to Cree 35, 123 Crimea 35 Croatia 33–4, 35, 44, 66, 122–3, 131, 236, 242 Croats 33, 122–3, 131, 236 Crusades 260, 261, 304 CSCME (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Middle East) 184–5, 201, 203, 225, 228 CSCSEE (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Southeast Europe) 185, 237, 241 Cuba 183, 196–7 cuello 77 Currency Transaction Tax 111–12 Cyprus 138, 184, 209–10 Czech Republic 227 Czechoslovakia 176–7, 178 Dalai Lama 244 Damaskinos, Metropolit 260

Daoism 82, 258–9 Dayton Agreement 30, 32, 35–6, 42, 61–3, 262 de Bono, Edward 170 de Klerk, F.W. 11 debt-burden 110, 111 defence 174, 177 alternative 178 dehumanization of Other/enemy 18, 27, 60, 83–4, 114 demagogy 115 democracy xiii, xiv, 115–16, 252, 279 demonization/sanitization 33–4, 42, 45 Denmark 135, 268 depolarization 3, 9, 10–11, 11, 15 deportation, forced 44 development 144 and protective tariffs 118–19 development assistance, reciprocal 173, 174, 199 Diakonhjemmet International Centre, Oslo 29 dialogue 40, 77, 78, 176, 215, 228, 256–7 diamonds 298 diasporas 200, 203 diktats 11, 28, 40, 74, 118, 125 and humanitarian aid 32 and in Yugoslavia 62, 75, 145, 241 disarmament 28, 49, 105, 148, 174, 177 discourse 70–1, 80, 152, 155, 157, 191 DMA syndrome (Dualism–Manicheism–Arma geddon) 6, 18, 89, 184 Dodecanese Islands 117 Draskovic, Vuk 36 drugs trafficking 288, 289 dukkha and sukha xiii, 5, 16 D–S–C (direct, structural and cultural violence) triangle 22 Early Warning Index (EWI) xxi East Germany 178 East Timor 46–7, 48 East–West conflict 183, 191–3 see also Cold War

INDEX

ECO 262 economics, alternative 199 economism 183, 198 Ecuador–Peru conflict 41, 42, 47, 264–5 and bi-national zone 137, 162, 179, 186, 264–5 Egypt 79 Eifel, Germany 273 11th September attack see September 11th attack emotions 166–7 empathy xxii, 21, 78 empowerment 109, 112, 190 civil society 73, 298 peace actor 53, 65, 77 enosis 209 environment 81, 293 and security 142, 143, 147–8, 149–50 environmental movements 103 ESCAP 220 Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict 15 ethnic cleansing 35, 44, 209, 248 ethnic conflicts 112–13 Etoforu 233 Europe tripartite 186, 262–3 war culture 27–8, 37, 103 European Union 119, 138, 155, 169, 217 and Christianity 262 and Cyprus 209, 210 and Gibraltar 286 and Israel-Palestine conflict 205, 207 and Kosovo 241, 242 and Northern Ireland 214 Euskadi 284–5 Euskal Herria 187 evolution, and wars 7, 8, 9 exploitation 81, 107, 108, 144, 198, 201 as cause of violence 110, 167 and colonization 147 and sustainability 148 fascism 191, 288 federations 35, 133, 136, 138 Afghanistan 188

327

Caucasus 268 China 258 Macedonia 240 Somalia 252 Sri Lanka 250–1 see also confederations Fichte, J.G. 134 financial speculation 111, 117 Finland 268, 299 First World War 36, 43, 74 Fisher, Simon 29 France 169, 228, 276, 284 Franco, Francisco 12–13 Freud, Sigmund xv fundamentalism 34, 89, 94, 200, 203, 227, 295 Gaitán, Jorge Eliécer 288 Galtung, Johan 17, 20, 29, 39, 40–1, 116, 244 Galtung plan 176 game theory 103, 104 Gandhi, Indira 244 Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand xv, 5, 50, 60, 100, 103, 112 Gaza 34, 122 Gelashwili, Naira 267 Geneva Accords 68, 70 Geneva Convention 34 genocide xiii, 39, 106, 183, 184, 225, 275 Genscher, Hans Dietrich 241 Georgia 35, 38–9, 40–1, 266, 267, 269 Germany 38, 114, 122, 210, 227, 252, 253, 276 Gestalts 155, 157–8, 160 Ghamsakhurdia, Zviad 38 Gibraltar 139, 187, 286–7 global commons, and commercial rent 111, 117 global governance xv, xvii, 292 globalization xiii, 188, 196, 291–2 and capitalism 17, 87, 107 and justice/injustice 102, 124, 198, 304, 305 and militarization 49–50 of peace politics 174 globalization-free zones 98, 305 glory 162, 166, 223–4, 248

328

SEARCHING FOR PEACE

goals and dialogue 154–5, 156 incompatible 3, 4, 6–7, 52, 151–2, 179 God 7, 8, 9, 19 Golan Heights 34, 122, 226 Goldman, Emma 109 Good Friday agreement 13, 41–2 Gorbachev, Mikhail 162, 178 and Afghanistan 68, 69, 70, 295 unilateral disarmament 28, 49, 103, 105, 148 Great Lakes 139, 187, 275 see also Rwanda Greece 138, 209–10, 239, 240, 242 Greenland 128, 158, 268 GRIT (Gradual Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension Reduction) 177, 183, 191 Grossman, Zoltan 90 Guatemala 106, 135, 179, 254–5 Gulf War 30, 32–3, 44, 50, 122, 184–5, 225–8 see also Iraq Habibie, B.J. 46 Habomai 233 Hague Appeal for Peace 124 Halabja 227 Halifax Initiative 111 Hamas 36, 201 han/non-han 258, 259 hard-liners, need to involve 53–4, 74 Haroutunian, Ludmila 267 Hawai’i 136, 138, 184, 223–4, 248, 273 Hebron massacre 202, 204 Helms–Burton Act 121 Helsinki Final Act 34, 122, 228 Herder, J.G. von 134 Hill & Knowlton 33 Himalayas 137 Hindu Kush 137 Hindu-Muslim relations 185, 244–5 Hinduism 16 Hokkaido 137, 233

Honduras 135, 254 Hong Kong 136, 258 ho’o pono pono 257 hostage crises 187, 277–8 human rights xiv, 115, 128, 135, 140, 189, 190 Colombia 290 global 292 in Gulf area 226, 228 Kurds 185 Mayas 254 Palestinians and Israelis 60 Sami 188, 299, 300 and sects 246–7 Sri Lanka 251 humanitarian aid 32, 37, 43, 62, 63, 280 Hungary 227 Huntingdon, Samuel 110 Hussein, Saddam 14, 33, 42, 89, 92, 162 Hutus 39, 275 Iceland 134, 268 ICL/Praxis for Peace 21, 29, 47, 64, 109 ideology 19, 21 IGOs 138 IMEMO (Institute of World Economy and International Relations) 178 IMF 117, 291 imperialism 17, 18, 108, 183, 187, 196, 301 independence 128–31, 133, 136, 157, 160 Cyprus 209 Euskadi 285 and former colonial masters 147 Gibraltar and Ceuta-Melilla 287 Kashmir 218 Kosovo 46, 239, 242 Mayas 254 Tamils 248, 251 Ulster 214 see also autonomy; secession independence struggles 126, 184, 211–12

INDEX

India 112, 136, 145, 183, 192, 217–18, 244–5 Indonesia 14, 46 industrialization 146–8 injustice, global 102, 304, 305 Inner Mongolia 136, 258 inter-class conflict 188, 191, 212, 282, 291–2 inter-generation conflict 188, 293–4 International Correspondance League (ICL) 21, 29, 47, 64, 109 International Court of Justice (ICJ) 96, 128, 130, 131, 158 International Criminal Court (ICC) 96 international law 34–5, 46, 120–5 and comfort women 271 great power interests 123–4 and impartiality 125 impotence of 121–2 selective application of 122–3 and self-determination 266 International Monetary Fund (IMF) 117, 291 Internet, and peace studies 30 intervention 10, 15, 30–2, 110 donor-directed 39 guidelines for xxi–xxii humanitarian 32, 37, 252 and inadequate knowledge 38–9 legitimacy of 8–9, 94 and New Thinking 47–8 and overwhelming force 10 peacekeeping 27, 30–1, 65, 106–7, 228, 252 reversibility of xxi selectivity 31, 44, 46–7, 66 violent by US 90–4, 303 see also acceptability; reciprocity; sustainability Intifada 56, 57, 183, 200, 203, 205 Inuit 35, 123 IRA (Irish Republican Army) 13, 214 Iran 97–8, 135, 192, 262, 295, 296

329

Iraq 124, 139, 162, 192, 201, 225–8, 295 and Kurds 135 occupation of Kuwait 122 sanctions 97, 304 and UN resolutions 34, 42 weapons of mass destruction 124, 164 see also Gulf War Islam 295, 296 and Christians/Christianity 97–8, 186, 260–1, 262 fundamentalism 94 Islamabad meetings 71–2 Israel 122, 209 and international law 34, 122 racism 113 Israel-Palestine conflict 13, 139, 145–6, 183, 200–8, 228 and confederation 83, 136, 201 mediation 52, 54, 55, 56–61, 75, 205 peace package 208, 225–6 water distribution 58, 59, 60 see also Oslo Accords; Palestine Italy 280 IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) 264 Izetbegovic, Alija 32, 34, 36, 38, 45, 63 Jabutinski 200, 202 Jafari, Taghi 260 Jainism 244 Jakarta 46–7 Jammu 218 Japan 135, 139, 192, 273–4 and comfort women 271–2 and Hawai’i 223 and hostage crisis 277, 278 and Korea 219 racism 113 and Russia 137, 138, 185, 233–4 treaties with US 169 and US 185, 187, 231–2 Jews 130, 152, 200, 202, 204 and exclusivity 113 Orthodox 201

330

SEARCHING FOR PEACE

jihad 202, 204, 304 John Paul II 260 Jordan 227 Journal of Peace Research 173 Jung, Carl G. xv justice 7, 124, 158 Kashmir 106, 138, 184, 192, 217–18, 244, 251, 295 Katanga 122 Kautokeino uprising 299 Kelman, Herbert 29 Keynes, John Maynard 108 Khalistan 212 Khatami, Mohammad 97, 304 Khomeini, Ayatollah Rudollah 34 Khrushchev, Nikita 35 Kim Dae Jung 136 King, Martin Luther, Jr. xv Kissinger, Henry 66, 96 Kitab 5–6 Kollontai, Alexandra 109 Korea 12, 135, 139, 155, 184, 219–20, 233 comfort women 187 cultural identity 154 peace zone 137 Kosovars 45, 123, 242 Kosovo 106, 152, 185, 237, 239, 241–3, 262 escalating violence 64–5 mediation 47, 75 reconciliation xvi and secession 35 sustainable prescription for 47–8, 160 Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) 34, 42, 43, 44, 66 Krajina 35, 36, 44, 66, 123, 131, 242 Krieseberg, Louis 29 Krupskaya, N.K. 109 Ku Klux Klan 194 Kuftarou, Sheikh Ahmad 260 Kunashiri 233 Kurdistan 44, 139, 229 Kurds 201, 229–30, 254–5 autonomy 212, 228, 229 confederation 185, 229 human rights 185

in Iraq 135, 225 in Turkey 66, 210, 225 Kuriles 137, 185, 233–4 Kuwait 33, 34, 122, 225–6, 227 Ladakh 218, 251 land mines, ban on 123–4 lateral thinking 170 LDK (League for a Democratic Kosova) 65 Lebanon 34, 122, 136, 187, 226, 227, 281–3 Lederach, John Paul 29 Lenin, V.I. 108, 109 Libya 96, 99, 192 Liechtenstein 134 Likud 201 Lithuania 35 local authorities xiii, xiv, 199, 292 Lockerbie bomb 96 Lockheed Martin 118, 119 Luxembourg 134 Luxemburg, Rosa 109 Macao 258 Macedonia 65, 67, 236, 237, 239, 240, 242 McNamara, Robert 94 MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment) 119 Mali 131 Mandela, Nelson xv, 11 Manifest Destiny programme 196 Marduk 79 Martí, José 196 Martov, L. 109 Marx, Karl xv, 107, 108–9 Marxism 81 and capitalism 107–12 and war culture 107–8 Masoud, Ahmed Shah 71 Mayas 135, 186, 254–5 media 14, 248, 292 mediation 51–72, 305 cooperative approaches 73, 85 failure of 74–5, 85 focus on leaders 52–5, 57, 74, 75, 252 neglected interests 53–4, 57–8, 62–3, 70

INDEX

role of mediator 52, 53 see also conflict workers; peace workers Mesopotamia 79 Mexico 37, 135, 254 Microsoft 119 migration 135, 183 militarization, global 49–50 Miller, Morris 111, 117 Milosovic, Slobodan 36, 43, 45–6, 63, 89, 162 Moldova 35 Montenegro 160, 236 Morocco 286 Mossadegh, Mohammad 98 Mozambique 282 MRTA (Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement) 277–8 mujaheddin 70, 72, 295 Muslim-Croat Federation 61, 62 Muslims 33, 122–3, 136, 200, 202, 204, 248 see also Islam Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction talks 28, 105 mutual security 28, 49, 104–5, 105, 110, 148, 149 NAFTA (North American Free Trade Association) 117, 155, 231–2, 254 Nagaland 217 Nagorno-Karabakh 35, 40, 267 Nakichevan 35 Nansen Academy, Lillehammer 39 nation-absorption 135 nation-state 116, 117–18, 120, 252 see also nations; states national identity, and state integrity 126–41 nationalism 127, 185, 229, 246 nations and sacred space and time 126–7, 223, 248 and territory 129–30 see also state/nation interface; states

331

NATO 32, 106, 138, 169 and Bosnia-Herzegovina 262 expansion of 50, 183, 192, 193, 228, 263 and Gulf conflict 227 and international law 63–4, 67, 123 threat to security 144–5 war on Serbia 30, 36, 43–6, 62, 65–7, 241 natural resources 147–8, 300 nature, as threat 146–7 Navarra 284 Nazism 114, 191 neutral-nonaligned (NN) 138, 177, 236, 274 New Delhi 250 new world order 50, 55, 106, 122 New Zealand 138, 227 Newcomb, Stephen T. 302 NGOs xiii, xiv, 32, 37, 138, 199 and game theory 104 and government funding 119–20 and land mine ban 124 and mediation xv, 27, 51, 75–6 Nicaragua 121, 282 non-violence xv, xvii, 12, 60–1, 177–8, 183 conscientious objectors 173–4, 189–90 independence struggles 184, 211, 223 Kurds 229 see also peace, by peaceful means; peace-building Nordic Council 268, 300 Noriega, Manuel 89, 92 North Dakota 273 North Korea 192 Northern Alliance 71, 72, 295 Northern Ireland 47, 137, 138, 184, 213–16 and conflict transformation 127 dialogue/goals 154 media focus 14, 248 mediation 54, 74 and peace process 13, 41 Northrop Grumman 118 North–South conflict 183, 198–9

332

SEARCHING FOR PEACE

Norway 135, 174, 227, 268, 299 Nove, Alec 112 nuclear weapons 12, 177, 178, 183, 191 testing 221, 273 OAS (Organization of American States) 254, 265 OAU (Organization of African Unity) 32 Oeberg, Jan 29, 64, 66 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) 65, 263 Ogdoad 79 OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) 296 oil 245, 262 Angola 298 Central Asia 66, 192, 266, 267 Middle East 44, 201, 226, 228, 266 Okinawa 136, 139, 187, 273–4 Oman 227 Operation Alba 280 Orange Order marches 215 Orwell, George 34 OSCE (Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe) 105–6, 138, 183, 263 and bombing of Serbia 43 and Bosnian elections 32 and Caucasus 267, 269 and Euskadi 284 and Kosovo 241 as model 139 and Sami 300 Osgood, Charles 177 Oslo Accords 56–61 conflict-enhancing features 30, 32–3 failure of 35–6, 58, 200, 201–2, 203–4, 205 and hard-liners 54 and international law 33, 34 see also Israel-Palestine conflict Ossetia 35, 41, 267 Ottawa 123

Pacific Islands 138 Pakistan 262, 296 and Afghanistan 68, 70, 71, 295 and India 145, 183, 192 and Kashmir 217–18 and Taliban 68, 71, 295 Palestine 162, 200, 202, 204 international support for 56 recognition as state 33, 57, 97, 136, 201, 208, 225 territory 57, 58–9, 130, 162 see also Israel-Palestine conflict Paris Treaty 1990 176 patriarchy 17, 18, 187, 212 PATRIR 30 Pax Pacifica 184, 221–2 PDPA party 70 peace approaches xv–xvii by peaceful means xxii, 10, 21, 60–1, 124, 173, 178, 182 see also conflict transformation; cooperation cultures xv, xvii, 18–19, 37–8, 76–7, 103, 269 definition of xiv, xxii education xv, xvii, xix, 30, 103, 290 journalism xv, xvii, 29, 30, 290 as means and end 24, 112 movements xv, xvii, 101–2, 188 narratives 6–14 and non-state actors xiv, xvi research xix, 103, 107, 110, 173–5 and states xiii–xiv studies xvi, 28, 29–30 through violence 50 Peace Action, Training and Research Institute of Romania (PATRIR) 21, 29, 30 peace corps/service 173–4, 183, 189–90 peace workers 30, 78, 237–8, 290 peace zones xvi, xvii, 40 Angola 298 Caucasus 269–70 Colombia 187, 290

INDEX

Ecuador-Peru 137, 162, 179, 186, 264–5 Gibraltar and Ceuta-Melilla 287 Pax Pacifica 184 peace-building xvii, 3, 10, 29, 65 cooperative approaches 73–4, 77–8, 85 cultural approaches 53, 73 holistic approaches 75 organizations 182 peacekeeping xvi, xvii, 3–4, 10, 11 conflict-enhancing features 30, 32–3, 35, 46 and inadequate knowledge 38–9 realist approach to 37 peacemaking 3, 30–2 enforced settlements 10, 32–6, 61–7, 75, 86 Pentagon 87, 90, 94 people’s diplomacy 177, 183, 191 Pérez de Cuéllar, Javier 15, 34, 241 Perry, Matthew 273 Peru see Ecuador–Peru conflict PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) 57 Pol Pot 89, 92 Poland 174, 178, 192, 227 polarization 3–4, 5, 6, 9–10, 14, 200 and identification 4–5 political correctness 108, 115 Portugal 227 poverty 110, 117–18 Powell, Colin 89 Prague 176 PRIO (Peace Research Institute in Oslo) 174, 178 ‘Prisoners’ dilemma’28 104 Pristina 66 protests, non-violent 101 psychoanalysis 166 psychology, cognitive and emotive processes 156, 166–9 Pugwash 104 Purim 202, 204 Pyrennees 137 Quebec 35, 123

333

Rabat 286 Rabbani, Burhannudin 71 Rabin, Yitzak 54, 162, 205 racism 18, 112–16 Rambouillet Conference 63–7, 229 Rapoport, Anatol 104 Rauber, K.J. 260 Reagan, Ronald 70, 162 reciprocity 97, 247 in development assistance 173, 174, 199 in intervention xxi reconciliation xvi, xvii, 38, 39–40, 97, 98 Angola 298 inter-generational conflict 293 Lenanon 281, 283 and reparations 271 Yugoslavia 238, 243 reconciliation conflicts 186, 256–7 reconstruction 281, 282–3 reframing 156, 157–8 rehabilitation 272 religion 200, 202, 204, 281–2 non-violence 221, 238, 243, 244, 261 see also Catholic Church; Christians/Christianity; fundamentalism; Islam retaliation 90–4, 303–4 alternatives to 101 exit from 96–8 revanche 7, 13, 15 revenge 7, 13, 15, 92, 93 Rhodesia 136, 184, 211 Roma 130 Romania 239, 240, 242 Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF) 89 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 149 Ruder Finn 33 Rugova, Ibrahim 64 Russia 42–3, 44, 192–3 and Afghanistan 295 and Caucasus 266, 267 and China 105, 183, 228 and Cyprus 209 and Japan 137, 138, 185 and Korea 219 and NATO membership 106 and Sami 135, 299 see also Soviet Union

334

SEARCHING FOR PEACE

Rwanda 39, 44, 106, 275–6 see also Great Lakes Ryukyu Islands 273 SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) 138, 218, 251 Said, Edward 60 Sami 135, 188, 249, 268, 299–300 sanctions 97, 211, 304 sarvodaya 82, 112 satyagraha 103, 112 Saudi Arabia 226, 227, 295 Scheff, T.J. 167 Schopenhauer, Arthur 182 Scudder, Dylan 152 secession 34–5, 134, 136 China and 258 Kashmir 217 right to 112, 122–3, 130, 131 Tamils 248, 250 see also independence; selfdetermination Second World War 44, 74, 191 sects 185, 246–7 security alternatives 149–50 challenges to 142, 143–4 concepts of 142–3, 144, 148–9 environmental 148 role of state 150 security industry 145 and structural violence 144 as threat to Other 145–7 segregation/desegregation 11, 174, 194–5 self-determination 127–31, 134, 140 Basques 284 Caucasus 266 in China 258 Gibraltar and Ceuta-Melilla 286 Mayas 254 Tamils 250 Yugoslavia 236, 262 self-reliance 199, 222 Semipalatinsk 273 separation, period of 38, 39, 62

September 11th attack 30, 35–6, 59–60, 68, 87–102, 303 and choice of discourse 94–8 diagnosis 87–98 and prognosis 99–100 reactions to 95–6 retaliation discourse 90–4, 95–6 terrorism discourse 87–9, 94, 95–6, 97 therapy 101–2 see also Afghanistan Serbia 14, 192, 239, 242 NATO war against 36, 42, 43–4, 45 peace formulas 47–8, 65, 160, 236 Serbs 45, 63, 66, 67, 160, 242 demonization of 33, 122–3 refugees 44, 242 and self-determination 122, 131, 236 Sharon, Ariel 35, 54 Shevardnadze, Edvard 176 Shikotan 233 shir 170 sho 78 Sicily 273 Sikhs 212 Simla Accord 1972 217 Sinhalas 248–51 slavery 17, 100 Slavonia 36, 44, 131, 242 Slovenia 131 Smith, Adam 108 social democracy 112, 288 society, perceptions of 80–4, 246 Sodano, Angelo 260 solidarity 78, 104, 247, 252, 289, 303 global 124 inter-generational 293, 294 municipal 237, 242 Somalia 106, 170, 186, 252–3 clans 136, 186, 252, 253 humanitarian aid 31, 32 South Africa 11, 276 sovereignty 126, 129, 136, 228 functional 139, 140, 251 joint 41, 137, 140, 234, 265, 286

INDEX

transfer of 286 see also independence Soviet Union 176, 177 and Afghanistan 67, 68–70 Bear Island dispute 41, 42 and borders 131 and conflict transformation 127 demilitarization 28, 49, 105, 148 imperialism 196 and Japan 185, 233–4 and Korea 219 new state-borders 116 and protective tariffs 118 and secession 34 withdrawal from Afghanistan 70, 71, 75, 295 and Yugoslavia 236 see also Cold War; Russia; Stalinism Spain 196, 227, 254, 255, 284, 286 Spanish civil war 1936–39 12–13 Spencer, Metta 112 Sri Lanka 15, 106, 138, 185–6, 248–51 Srpska 61, 62 Stalin, Joseph 35, 176 Stalinism 107, 108, 109, 177, 183 Star Wars 50 state-absorption 135 state/nation interface conflict areas 132–3 and conflict transformation 131–41 options 133–9 and self-determination 127–31 states and internal war 131 and monopoly of power 126 multinational 126 and peace and war xiii–xiv, xvi role of 292 and security 150 size and viability 134 and symmetry 126, 136, 201, 202, 203 see also borders; nations; state/nation interface Stevenson, Adlai 105

335

Stormont 213 Sudan 31, 42, 44 Suharto, Kemusu 46 Sun Tzu 193 superpowers confrontation 145 cooperation 49, 68–9, 71 see also Cold War sustainability xxii, 131, 155, 161, 169 and Gulf conflict 225 and inter-generation conflict 188, 293–4 swaraj 60, 112 Sweden 135, 268, 299 Switzerland 126, 127, 136, 276 Syria 34, 122, 135, 192, 226, 227 Tahiti 273 Taipei 259 Taiwan 136, 139, 258, 259 taksim 209 Taliban 68, 71, 72, 295 Tamil Nadu 248, 250 Tamils 248–51 Tanzania 276 tariffs 118–19 Tashkent 35 Tashkent meetings 71–2 taxation, on financial transactions 111–12, 117 Tejero incident 1981 13 terrorism 14, 58, 59–60, 61, 68, 250, 303 definitions of 87–8 ideological 89 and international courts 96 as provocation 88–9, 90 state and non-state xiv, 88, 102, 303 tactical 88–9 see also September 11th attack TFF (Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research) 29, 30, 64 Thatcher, Margaret 105 Tiamat 79 TIAP 50 Tibet 44, 122, 136, 186, 258–9 Tito, Josip Broz 35, 236

336

SEARCHING FOR PEACE

TNCs (transnational corporations) xiii, xiv, 110, 117, 118, 138 Tobin, James 111 Tobin Tax 111–12 Tomkins, S.S. 166–7 Trans-Dniester 35 TRANSCEND xvii, xviii–xxi, 21, 29, 109, 131, 149 code of conduct xxii–xxiii creation of 175–6 definition of peace xiv dialogue method 153–69 escalating violence in Kosovo 64 and future development xx–xxi guidelines xxi–xxii impact of 182 modes of activity xix–xx and patience 39, 40, 177 programmes xviii–xix, 180–1 training programmes xx, 30 TRANSCEND Conflict Service (TCS) xx TRANSCEND Media Service (TMS) xx TRANSCEND Peace University (TPU) xx TRANSCEND Research Institute (TRI) xx transcendence 40, 77, 79, 110, 158, 159, 286 trauma 13, 162, 163, 223–4, 225, 248 Trotsky, Leon 109 Truth and Reconciliation process 206, 208, 216, 271–2, 290 Tudjman, Franjo 33–4, 35, 36, 38, 45, 63 Tulsi, Acharya 244 Turkey 66, 135, 226, 227, 262 and Cyprus 138, 209–10 and Kurds 135 and Yugoslavia conflict 239, 240, 242 Turner, Nat 100 Tutsis 275 Tutu, Desmond xv ubuntu 78

UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence) 211 Uganda 276 Ukraine 35, 192 Ul Nor 273 Ulster 13, 14, 47, 213–16, 273 see also Northern Ireland unemployment 154, 183, 188, 198, 291 UNESCO 129, 269, 299 Peace Prize 29 UNFICYP 210 UNHCHR 241 UNHCR 241 UNICEF 241, 297 Unidad Popular 87 unilateral disarmament 28, 49, 105, 148, 177 UNITA 297 unitary state solution 133, 136, 185 United Arab Emirates 295 United Kingdom devolution 154 and Gulf conflict 42–3, 225, 227 and India 217, 250 and Iraq 164 and racism 113–14 and Rhodesia 211 United Nations xiii, 68, 70, 138, 143, 183, 224 and Afghanistan 305 and Cambodia 106 Economic Commission for Europe 191 and Ecuador-Peru 265 and Euskadi 284 and Gibraltar/Ceuta-Melilla 287 and Gulf conflict 42–3, 226, 228 humanitarian aid 32, 37, 252 and Israel-Palestine conflict 201, 205, 207 and local warlords 37, 252 and Mayas 254 and NATO 64, 65, 67 and Northern Ireland 214

INDEX

Palme Commission 28, 49, 69, 104, 105, 148 peace research 107 peacekeeping forces xvi, 65, 226, 228 peacekeeping interventions 27, 30–1, 65, 226, 228, 252 and Rwanda 276 Security Council 31–2, 42, 50, 67, 205, 241 and Somalia 252 US dominance 33 and Yugoslavia conflict 65, 241 United Nations Volunteers 190 United States and Afghanistan 30, 72, 95, 295 aggression 90–4, 188, 303–4 anti-trust legislation 119 and Cyprus 209 and Gulf conflict 42–3, 164, 225, 227 imperialism 196 and India 250 and international law 121, 123 and Japan 69, 185, 231–2, 273 and Korea 219 and Mayas 255 nuclear weapons 177 and protective tariffs 118 racism 114 and Rwanda 276 and state terrorism 90 support from allies 102 and support for Israel 200, 201, 205, 207, 209 and UN 193 vulnerability of 99 war on terrorism 68, 89 white/black conflict 11 and Yugoslavia 236, 262 universality xxi UNOCAL 68 UNPKF 222 UNPREDEP 65 UNPROFOR 237 UNSCOM 42, 124, 164, 228 UNSG 228 uti possidetis 131 Uzbekistan 35

337

Vambheim, Vidar 30 Vasquez, John 27, 28, 37 Versailles, Treaty of 74 Vietnam 12, 101 Vilnius 35 violence causes 3, 4, 14–15, 77, 85, 110 culture of 5–6, 18–19, 83–4 direct and indirect 4, 5, 17 inevitability of 5–6, 15 structural 4, 15, 17–18, 127, 144 see also conflict; war violence triangle 17 vulnerability, and destructive power 99–100 war abolition of xv, xvii, 49–50 causes of 50–1, 77 delegitimization of 76–7 ending 7–8 just 6–8 and outside interventions 8–9 see also conflict; violence War Crimes Tribunal 45, 63, 125, 238 war culture 16, 27–8, 37 and capitalism vs. Marxism 107–12 challenges to 103–7 and racism 112–16 War Participation Index (WPI) xx Warsaw Pact 144–5, 176 water 201, 226, 228, 245 West Bank 34, 59, 122 Western European Union (WEU) 106 Western Sahara, self-determination 128 Westphalia peace 1648 xiii, 186, 262, 264 Wiberg, Haaken 116 women marginalization 81 and peace xviii and peace service 189, 190 World Bank 117, 279 World Health Organization 241

338

SEARCHING FOR PEACE

World Trade Center and capitalism 87 and structural violence 90, 94 see also September 11th attack World Trade Organization (WTO) 117, 138 Wye River Agreement 58–9, 200 xenophobia 18, 62 Xinjiang 136, 258 yin and yang 18, 82, 85 Yugoslavia 137, 139, 160 aid distribution 62, 63 and borders 131 division of 61–2 NATO war against 30, 42, 43–6, 145 new state-borders 116 reconstruction 67

see also Kosovo; Milosovic, Slobodan; Serbia Yugoslavia conflict 185, 186, 235–43, 262–3 mediation 52, 55, 61–7, 75 polarization xiv reconciliation project 39–40 transformation 127 see also Dayton Agreement Zapatistas 254 zero-sum mindset 16, 18, 27–8, 74, 104, 113 and Cold War 27, 49, 69, 105, 106, 107, 144–5 and mutual security 110 see also demonization/ sanitization Zimbabwe 136, 184, 211 Zimmerman, Ambassador 36