Peace Process

In the broadest and simplest practical terms, a peace process can be understood as an effort made by interested parties to achieve a lasting solution to a conflict. In stronger moral terms, it is an undertaking made to replace the psychologically and socially debilitating effects of destructive, bloody, human interaction with the creative benefits of all that civilized behavior has to offer. But what is peace, what are the necessary elements of such a process, who are the interested parties, and what must they do to achieve a lasting solution?

If peace is understood as merely an absence of war, then a military or security solution may be all that is required to implement a peace process. In this most narrow definition of peace, a tyrant could undertake a peace process by imposing his or her will on a society through repressive and draconian measures. Although security measures may be a necessary element of a peace process, establishing peace in the modern world of international norms requires the establishment of a society in which the citizens can enjoy the protection and freedom afforded to them by humanitarian and human rights law.

Peace, then, can be understood as both good governance and an absence of war, and a peace process must seek to achieve these ends through a combination of security measures and a program of social and political reform. These might include a peacekeeping force, policing in compliance with international standards, and the establishment of democratic institutions that can deliver rights and freedoms to all sections of society, with particular reference to those people or communities who previously resorted to violence in an attempt to obtain political or social justice. Such peacekeeping measures, of course, are almost everything from the application of economic, social, and cultural rights without discrimination to the right to life, freedom from torture, an effective criminal justice system, and a constitution that delivers political equitability, perhaps through some form of power sharing.

In practice, the interested parties to a peace process may be limited to those who will be economically or politically advantaged through the establishment of peace. This would hopefully include the parties to the conflict themselves; states neighboring the conflict with historical, ethnic, or economic ties; and other international players with a regional, global political, or economic strategic interest. In principle, however, [Page 671]the interested parties should also include those states with regional and global responsibilities for the maintenance of peace and the application of human rights with regard to the parties in conflict. This, of course, is almost everyone from the aggrieved citizen and victim of the conflict to his or her state, the state's immediate neighbors, and relevant regional and global intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). However, given the limited effectiveness of these IGOs, an array of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) can also be expected to be interested parties and participants in any peace process.

So, in principle, everyone should do everything they possibly can to advance a peace process by leading parties in conflict away from violence to good governance and all that it implies. In deeply divided societies, this can include bottom-up peace-building activities aimed at improved community relations and reconciliation, such as interschool activities, common history texts, interfaith education, integrated schools and contact groups for children, youths, trade and professional organizations, and so forth. From the top-down, such peace-building activities must be supported by the state with guidance and material support from experienced NGOs and IGOs. But “top-down, bottom-up” is in practice a false dichotomy, as each requires the support of the other to be truly effective.

...