peace and trust essay

Essay on Peace

500 words essay peace.

Peace is the path we take for bringing growth and prosperity to society. If we do not have peace and harmony, achieving political strength, economic stability and cultural growth will be impossible. Moreover, before we transmit the notion of peace to others, it is vital for us to possess peace within. It is not a certain individual’s responsibility to maintain peace but everyone’s duty. Thus, an essay on peace will throw some light on the same topic.

Importance of Peace

History has been proof of the thousands of war which have taken place in all periods at different levels between nations. Thus, we learned that peace played an important role in ending these wars or even preventing some of them.

In fact, if you take a look at all religious scriptures and ceremonies, you will realize that all of them teach peace. They mostly advocate eliminating war and maintaining harmony. In other words, all of them hold out a sacred commitment to peace.

It is after the thousands of destructive wars that humans realized the importance of peace. Earth needs peace in order to survive. This applies to every angle including wars, pollution , natural disasters and more.

When peace and harmony are maintained, things will continue to run smoothly without any delay. Moreover, it can be a saviour for many who do not wish to engage in any disrupting activities or more.

In other words, while war destroys and disrupts, peace builds and strengthens as well as restores. Moreover, peace is personal which helps us achieve security and tranquillity and avoid anxiety and chaos to make our lives better.

How to Maintain Peace

There are many ways in which we can maintain peace at different levels. To begin with humankind, it is essential to maintain equality, security and justice to maintain the political order of any nation.

Further, we must promote the advancement of technology and science which will ultimately benefit all of humankind and maintain the welfare of people. In addition, introducing a global economic system will help eliminate divergence, mistrust and regional imbalance.

It is also essential to encourage ethics that promote ecological prosperity and incorporate solutions to resolve the environmental crisis. This will in turn share success and fulfil the responsibility of individuals to end historical prejudices.

Similarly, we must also adopt a mental and spiritual ideology that embodies a helpful attitude to spread harmony. We must also recognize diversity and integration for expressing emotion to enhance our friendship with everyone from different cultures.

Finally, it must be everyone’s noble mission to promote peace by expressing its contribution to the long-lasting well-being factor of everyone’s lives. Thus, we must all try our level best to maintain peace and harmony.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of the Essay on Peace

To sum it up, peace is essential to control the evils which damage our society. It is obvious that we will keep facing crises on many levels but we can manage them better with the help of peace. Moreover, peace is vital for humankind to survive and strive for a better future.

FAQ of Essay on Peace

Question 1: What is the importance of peace?

Answer 1: Peace is the way that helps us prevent inequity and violence. It is no less than a golden ticket to enter a new and bright future for mankind. Moreover, everyone plays an essential role in this so that everybody can get a more equal and peaceful world.

Question 2: What exactly is peace?

Answer 2: Peace is a concept of societal friendship and harmony in which there is no hostility and violence. In social terms, we use it commonly to refer to a lack of conflict, such as war. Thus, it is freedom from fear of violence between individuals or groups.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Follow our work by receiving our newsletter.

Kofi Annan Foundation

Peace & trust, peace & trust.

Societies emerging from violent conflict face many challenges as they aim for political stability and socio-economic development. Above all, these societies have to deal with the legacy of the past: widespread human rights violations, continuing communal or ethnic tensions, the collapse of the justice system, the failure of the security services and the erosion of state legitimacy. Countries have sought to manage that legacy with the support of the international community using various approaches such as truth-seeking, reconciliation initiatives and transitional justice mechanisms. These approaches have become part of the standard framework of peace agreements and processes. But do these approaches work? The Kofi Annan Foundation questions current practices and proposes ways that better help war-torn societies to build lasting peace.

Key Publications

Our report, produced in 2018 together with our partner Interpeace and support of the Government of Finland and the Robert Bosch Stiftung, argues that reconciliation requires a tailor-made approach and lasting attention from all segments of society: if we invested a fragment of what is spent in war on reconciliation, lasting peace might well be enjoyed by many more citizens around the world.

Get the report

This summary, produced in 2019, includes the core chapters of the full report “Challenging the Conventional: Making Post-Violence Reconciliation Succeed”, as well as a brief overview of the four case studies on reconciliation in Guatemala, Northern Ireland, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Africa.

The Kofi Annan Foundation and the International Centre for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) partnered for this report, “Challenging the Conventional: Can Truth Commissions Strengthen Peace Processes” to explore the interplay of peacebuilding and truth seeking.

Published in 2014, the report was the outcome of case study research and a high-level symposium that brought together policy makers, practitioners, and scholars.

This report. available in English, Spanish and French, highlights critical issues that peace mediators and transitional justice practitioners should take into account when considering a truth-seeking mechanism as part of a peace process, among them: 1) clarity of purpose from different stakeholders; 2) the context, especially political conditions and motivations; 3) the timing and sequencing; 4) the distinction between human rights obligations and what is “merely” good practice; and 5) the credibility and capabilities of those leading the process.

Articles / Show all

Harnessing Music Education for Peacebuilding and Gender Equality in Colombia: A Guide

Fostering Collaborative Solutions at the Nexus of Climate, Environment and Peace

Climate, Environment and Conflict: When Crises Interconnect

From Awareness to Action | Youth Driving Change for Peace and Social Cohesion

Prévenir l’extrémisme violent : un manuel de formation à l’intention des jeunes

Preventing Violent Extremism: A Training Guide

New funding to boost the Foundation’s work in peace and democracy

Using music schools as platforms for peace in Colombia

Three perspectives on ethics-driven digital peacebuilding

Exploring ethics-driven approaches to digital peacebuilding at Geneva Peace Week

Our initiatives, bridges to peace uganda the “bridges to peace” initiative contributes to the kofi annan foundation’s latest effort to build peace and trust amongst communities most affected by violence. in uganda, we have been working closely with our partners at the uganda muslim youth development… view initiative, voices of reconciliation and equality the kofi annan foundation has partnered with fundación nacional batuta and alianza para la paz to strengthen colombian youth’s resilience to violence through musical education. the “voices of reconciliation and equality” project uses music to promote peace, build resilience, and encourage gender equality amongst children and adolescents in two communities most affected by violence – saravena in arauca and puerto asis in putumayo. [gdlr_divider type="solid"… view initiative, key posts in this category.

Only show articles with

December 2, 2021

Peace Is More Than War’s Absence, and New Research Explains How to Build It

A new project measures ways to promote positive social relations among groups

By Peter T. Coleman , Allegra Chen-Carrel & Vincent Hans Michael Stueber

PeopleImages/Getty Images

Today, the misery of war is all too striking in places such as Syria, Yemen, Tigray, Myanmar and Ukraine. It can come as a surprise to learn that there are scores of sustainably peaceful societies around the world, ranging from indigenous people in the Xingu River Basin in Brazil to countries in the European Union. Learning from these societies, and identifying key drivers of harmony, is a vital process that can help promote world peace.

Unfortunately, our current ability to find these peaceful mechanisms is woefully inadequate. The Global Peace Index (GPI) and its complement the Positive Peace Index (PPI) rank 163 nations annually and are currently the leading measures of peacefulness. The GPI, launched in 2007 by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), was designed to measure negative peace , or the absence of violence, destructive conflict, and war. But peace is more than not fighting. The PPI, launched in 2009, was supposed to recognize this and track positive peace , or the promotion of peacefulness through positive interactions like civility, cooperation and care.

Yet the PPI still has many serious drawbacks. To begin with, it continues to emphasize negative peace, despite its name. The components of the PPI were selected and are weighted based on existing national indicators that showed the “strongest correlation with the GPI,” suggesting they are in effect mostly an extension of the GPI. For example, the PPI currently includes measures of factors such as group grievances, dissemination of false information, hostility to foreigners, and bribes.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The index also lacks an empirical understanding of positive peace. The PPI report claims that it focuses on “positive aspects that create the conditions for a society to flourish.” However, there is little indication of how these aspects were derived (other than their relationships with the GPI). For example, access to the internet is currently a heavily weighted indicator in the PPI. But peace existed long before the internet, so is the number of people who can go online really a valid measure of harmony?

The PPI has a strong probusiness bias, too. Its 2021 report posits that positive peace “is a cross-cutting facilitator of progress, making it easier for businesses to sell.” A prior analysis of the PPI found that almost half the indicators were directly related to the idea of a “Peace Industry,” with less of a focus on factors found to be central to positive peace such as gender inclusiveness, equity and harmony between identity groups.

A big problem is that the index is limited to a top-down, national-level approach. The PPI’s reliance on national-level metrics masks critical differences in community-level peacefulness within nations, and these provide a much more nuanced picture of societal peace . Aggregating peace data at the national level, such as focusing on overall levels of inequality rather than on disparities along specific group divides, can hide negative repercussions of the status quo for minority communities.

To fix these deficiencies, we and our colleagues have been developing an alternative approach under the umbrella of the Sustaining Peace Project . Our effort has various components , and these can provide a way to solve the problems in the current indices. Here are some of the elements:

Evidence-based factors that measure positive and negative peace. The peace project began with a comprehensive review of the empirical studies on peaceful societies, which resulted in identifying 72 variables associated with sustaining peace. Next, we conducted an analysis of ethnographic and case study data comparing “peace systems,” or clusters of societies that maintain peace with one another, with nonpeace systems. This allowed us to identify and measure a set of eight core drivers of peace. These include the prevalence of an overarching social identity among neighboring groups and societies; their interconnections such as through trade or intermarriage; the degree to which they are interdependent upon one another in terms of ecological, economic or security concerns; the extent to which their norms and core values support peace or war; the role that rituals, symbols and ceremonies play in either uniting or dividing societies; the degree to which superordinate institutions exist that span neighboring communities; whether intergroup mechanisms for conflict management and resolution exist; and the presence of political leadership for peace versus war.

A core theory of sustaining peace . We have also worked with a broad group of peace, conflict and sustainability scholars to conceptualize how these many variables operate as a complex system by mapping their relationships in a causal loop diagram and then mathematically modeling their core dynamics This has allowed us to gain a comprehensive understanding of how different constellations of factors can combine to affect the probabilities of sustaining peace.

Bottom-up and top-down assessments . Currently, the Sustaining Peace Project is applying techniques such as natural language processing and machine learning to study markers of peace and conflict speech in the news media. Our preliminary research suggests that linguistic features may be able to distinguish between more and less peaceful societies. These methods offer the potential for new metrics that can be used for more granular analyses than national surveys.

We have also been working with local researchers from peaceful societies to conduct interviews and focus groups to better understand the in situ dynamics they believe contribute to sustaining peace in their communities. For example in Mauritius , a highly multiethnic society that is today one of the most peaceful nations in Africa, we learned of the particular importance of factors like formally addressing legacies of slavery and indentured servitude, taboos against proselytizing outsiders about one’s religion, and conscious efforts by journalists to avoid divisive and inflammatory language in their reporting.

Today, global indices drive funding and program decisions that impact countless lives, making it critical to accurately measure what contributes to socially just, safe and thriving societies. These indices are widely reported in news outlets around the globe, and heads of state often reference them for their own purposes. For example, in 2017 , Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, though he and his country were mired in corruption allegations, referenced his country’s positive increase on the GPI by stating, “Receiving such high praise from an institute that once named this country the most violent in the world is extremely significant.” Although a 2019 report on funding for peace-related projects shows an encouraging shift towards supporting positive peace and building resilient societies, many of these projects are really more about preventing harm, such as grants for bolstering national security and enhancing the rule of law.

The Sustaining Peace Project, in contrast, includes metrics for both positive and negative peace, is enhanced by local community expertise, and is conceptually coherent and based on empirical findings. It encourages policy makers and researchers to refocus attention and resources on initiatives that actually promote harmony, social health and positive reciprocity between groups. It moves away from indices that rank entire countries and instead focuses on identifying factors that, through their interaction, bolster or reduce the likelihood of sustaining peace. It is a holistic perspective.  

Tracking peacefulness across the globe is a highly challenging endeavor. But there is great potential in cooperation between peaceful communities, researchers and policy makers to produce better methods and metrics. Measuring peace is simply too important to get only half-right. 

• Arms and military expenditure
• Dual–use and arms trade control
• Emerging military and security technologies
• EU Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Consortium
• Weapons of mass destruction
• Middle East and North Africa
• Peace operations and conflict management
• Climate change and risk
• Environment of Peace
• Food, peace and security
• Governance and society
• Peacebuilding and resilience
• Publications
• Yearbook 2023
• Yearbook 2022
• Yearbook archive
• Yearbook summaries
• Yearbook translations
• Past News and Events
• Upcoming News and Events
• SIPRI Lecture
• Stockholm Forum on Peace and Development
• Stockholm Security Conference
• Press Releases
• SIPRI Experts
• SIPRI Films
• WritePeace Blog
• Expert Comments
• Backgrounders
• Governing Board
• Staff directory
• Support SIPRI

Peace solutions: Learning from what works and adapting to a changing world

Over the past 70 years, international frameworks to deliver peace and development have evolved considerably to accommodate transformations in the global security and geopolitical landscape. Through bodies like the g7+ , fragile and conflict-affected states have mobilized to advocate for the New Deal Principles and take ownership of their own development. The advent and growth of the African Union (AU), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) demonstrate increasing awareness about the importance of regional security and economic integration.

At the international level, perhaps the best normative example is the Sustaining Peace Framework. Enshrined in dual resolutions passed last year by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council respectively, the Sustaining Peace Framework represents a major step towards addressing the structural shortcomings of the multilateral system and better connecting instruments and interventions designed to deliver peace and security, development and human rights, and humanitarian assistance.

Although significant progress has been made, the multilateral system faces new challenges that demand its continued evolution in order to remain fit for purpose. Protracted conflicts and complex transnational threats, such as climate change and violent extremism, are fuelling displacement and perpetuating humanitarian emergencies . Meanwhile, growing income disparity and increasing polarization are providing ample space for grievances within states. Rising nationalism and cold war-levels of militarization are straining relations between states and the consequent withdrawal of support and financing from donors and global powers for multilateral institutions could disrupt important new initiatives, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Climate Accord . Against this backdrop of uncertainty, the fourth annual Stockholm Forum on Peace and Development set out to identify examples of ‘what works’ in preventing conflict and sustaining peace. Lessons and illustrative cases from the Forum sessions are discussed below.

The meaningful inclusion of marginalized populations

Inclusion is often stressed as a critical element of peacebuilding, but it has a number of different meanings. Forum sessions with inclusion as a focus were challenged to find practical examples of what is working to promote inclusion and how inclusion is contributing to peace. While some sessions focused on the inclusion of specific demographic, economic, political or geographic groups, others concentrated on the inclusion of actors from different sectors (i.e. government, civil society, non-state actors, the private sector) or levels of engagement (i.e. local, national, regional, international).

The importance of women’s inclusion in peace and development processes was raised in several sessions both from a rights perspective and with regard to the effectiveness of recent women-led conflict prevention, conflict resolution and transitional justice initiatives. One such example, the Women’s Situation Room (WSR), was highlighted for its positive impacts on several African elections. The WSR trains women as election observers and non-violent advocates, and connects civil society organizations with police and electoral officials to monitor electoral violence and coordinate responses to prevent escalation. Since it was piloted in Liberia in 2011, the WSR has addressed thousands of incidents and mobilized hundreds of women to engage in national electoral processes. Sessions also identified specific mechanisms designed to help peacebuilders incorporate a gender perspective in their peacebuilding approaches. The Better Peace Tool , for example, offers different strategies to overcome six structural barriers to women’s inclusion in mediation, conflict prevention and peacemaking.

In Sri Lanka, lessons learned about the importance of inclusion are starting to be put into practice within the ongoing transitional justice process. In order to identify abuses perpetrated during the country’s civil war, the conflict’s root causes and other historical grievances, the Sri Lankan Government has engaged civil society organizations to help facilitate extensive community consultations. Although the outcomes of these efforts are yet unknown, they illustrate a newfound effort to connect the national peacebuilding agenda to local priorities and increase civil society’s participation. In Colombia, the evidence of success is more readily apparent : the achievement of a peace agreement is heavily attributed to the mobilization of civil society, especially women’s groups, and the way in which community perspectives expressed in local dialogues fed into formal negotiations. Although the first agreement was rejected through a referendum (perhaps reflecting the complexity of inclusivity), the level of inclusion lent legitimacy to the peace process and contributed to its ratification at the end of 2016.

However, not all of the cases discussed were positive. A session on Lake Chad was an opportunity for policymakers to discuss solutions with climate experts. A 90 per cent decrease in Lake Chad’s surface area since 1973 has increased competition for resources among pastoralists, fishers and farmers and recent pressures have contributed to high levels of displacement and violence. Partly due to their lack of knowledge about ongoing initiatives, local communities have been unable to advocate for their needs regarding land and water use. Yet, these communities have the local knowledge and resilience necessary to find sustainable solutions. Discussants in the climate–fragility session suggested that regional insecurity could be reduced by including rural communities in natural resource management and risk mitigation initiatives, following the path of other communities that have faced such insecurity.

In contexts affected by shrinking space—the imposition of formal and informal measures that aim to restrict civil society engagement, including violation of the rights of association, expression and peaceful assembly—inclusion of civil society is especially challenging. In some cases, international actors’ demonstrations of solidarity with civil society have helped to relieve restrictions imposed by repressive regimes. For example, when the Egyptian women’s rights defender Mozn Hassan was banned from travelling to Sweden to receive the Right Livelihood Award , the awarding entity travelled to Cairo to hold an award ceremony for her. In addition to attending the ceremony, European Union representatives put pressure on the Egyptian Government to drop charges against Hassan, whose case (and the associated travel ban) was eventually dropped.

Non-state actors (NSAs) were also named as a potential stakeholder group that is regularly excluded from peacebuilding processes and whose diversity continues to confound programming efforts. Some non-state actors, such as tribal chiefs, deliver services to their constituencies where state services are absent or inaccessible and should be included in security sector reform (SSR) and good governance initiatives. NSAs driven by a sense of alienation could be given political space to engage, but often are not. Some militias have been disbanded and included in demobilization, disarmament and reintegration (DDR) efforts, such as the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and the Civil United Front (CUF) in Sierra Leone —although unfortunately failing to include female combatants— while others have been maintained, with varying results, as part of the state’s security apparatus, including in counterinsurgency efforts. In various cases, public demands for ‘mano dura’ (‘firm hand’) approaches and repressive responses by state security and justice institutions towards NSA groups involved in organized crime and terrorism, including returned fighters from Syria, have failed to address the root causes of violent extremism and have perpetuated conflict, as both the state and NSAs have flouted the rule of law and violated human rights.

Finally, despite recognition among leading peacebuilders that young people and their perspectives should be incorporated into peace and development processes, few concrete examples of how to do so effectively were provided at the Forum. This may be due to the relative novelty of youth inclusion to the field of peacebuilding. As such, it remains a challenge and will be reflected in the planning for next year’s Forum. Looking ahead, implementation of UN Resolution 2250 (S/RES/2250) should provide specific insights into what works for integrating youth and youth perspectives into peacebuilding.

Why inclusion matters: building a quality peace

Regardless of their focus, all of the Forum sessions that raised inclusivity as good practice reflected on its quantitative and qualitative dimensions. Being present at the table or just in the room does not always mean that an individual or group influences outcomes. As one frustrated participant noted: ‘We are now participating in many spaces where we weren’t invited before. And we’re participating, and participating, and participating . . . but our voices are not reaching the high-level policies.’ Meaningful inclusion must therefore overcome structural inequalities, so that all stakeholders are afforded sufficient authority to influence decision making or otherwise effect change.

Traditionally, peacebuilding has occurred in post-conflict settings to avoid the recurrence of conflict.  However, the Sustaining Peace Framework urges global action to prevent ‘ the outbreak, escalation, recurrence or continuation of conflict ’ using a variety of tools to address drivers across the violence and peace spectrum. This approach goes beyond the temporal elements of a conflict cycle and relates to the holistic and flexible responses necessary to prevent conflict, often referred to as a comprehensive approach (although this has different meanings to different actors). A comprehensive approach may integrate several techniques or practices into a single intervention or comprise a variety of distinct interventions with complementary, integrated functions. Sessions on the forthcoming UN–World Bank report on the Sustaining Peace Framework explored this continuum further, focusing, as the report will, on what has worked and what is working in preventing violence along the spectrum.  

Among the most common subthemes in discussions on comprehensive conflict prevention was the importance of building trust and social cohesion. In the session on preventing violent extremism, discussants identified three trust-building measures as particularly effective: ( a ) the establishment of grievance mechanisms; ( b ) the creation safe space for dialogue between communities, civil society organizations and law enforcement; and ( c ) anti-corruption initiatives. The first two build trust by addressing legacies of poor governance. The effectiveness of stemming corruption relates to the latter’s role in generating and exacerbating grievances, which is linked to radicalization, and the exploitation of corruption and grievances by violent extremist organizations.

Furthermore, discussants in the session on security and justice sector reform agreed that corruption and abuses of power undermine the effectiveness of state security and justice sector institutions and their legitimacy in the eyes of the public, while the actions of state security actors against alleged terrorists and suspect groups in various settings were viewed as drivers of violent extremism. Likewise, transparency in defence and security expenditures can reduce perceptions of corruption and abuse. The knock-on effects of trust building are seen in the provision of community safety, which has been shown to contribute to public trust in police. Community policing programmes in rural Ukraine and Myanmar were cited as two examples of where trust built between local communities and security forces increased the legitimacy of a country’s reform initiatives. 

New approaches and adaptation

Arts- and technology-based interventions are increasingly being employed in combination with traditional peacebuilding techniques and, in some cases, as an alternative to them. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, open creative spaces and participatory film-making projects ran alongside national SSR and DDR dialogues and targeted women, youth and trauma-affected individuals who were not included in the latter process.

Creating art allows communities to shape a public memory together and collectively envision a better future, which can elucidate avenues for reconciliation and restorative justice. Peacetech approaches such as virtual dialogue, enabled through arts-based viral messaging and interactive technological platforms , are being used to foster empathy and forge common identities between communities in numerous country contexts. Because these types of intervention allow participants to create or reclaim physical and psychological spaces that have been destroyed by conflict, they can succeed where traditional interventions may not. Unlike the technical solutions generated by many traditional interventions, arts- and technology-based approaches often respond to the psychological dimensions of conflict by changing perceptions and deconstructing narratives of difference They can also demonstrate the relevance of peacebuilding to ‘regular’ people (i.e. those not normally seated at the negotiating table) by engaging underrepresented communities, further promoting inclusion.

Peacebuilding practitioners are constantly grappling with how to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of their work. This is a function of donor requirements and the desire to meet targets set out in policy frameworks as much as it is about improving the experience of communities affected by conflict and fragility. While most Forum sessions included a measurement component of this nature, several discussions also pointed to evidence that measurement should be used in the service of institutional learning. In both contexts, the cases presented focused on new ways of applying data and approaching challenges, rather than on specific data collection mechanisms or how to ‘prove’ the effectiveness of a particular solution.

Quality data has always been rare in complex environments. However, new technologies are making new data and tools available to peacebuilders. In the session on mapping and information management systems, participants learned about the Electoral Risk Management Tool , which enables users to upload data and generate risk maps in order to design prevention and mitigation strategies in advance of elections. Speaking from a reconstruction perspective, a representative of the Government of Ukraine explained its efforts to map geocoded data on peacebuilding and recovery needs in the Donbass region against available resources, existing projects and relevant local and international implementers in order to target and coordinate interventions. In another session, discussants referred to CIVICUS , an online platform that monitors and compares the state of civic space across countries over time.

The Praia City Group on Governance Statistics formed in 2015 has a UN mandate to work with member states to produce governance statistics based on sound and documented methodologies, serving as a peer-learning network and facilitating the adoption of sound practices by governments and their statistical offices. Participants reflected that the peacebuilding community’s disproportionate focus on quantifying impact is driving investment and implementation strategies towards outputs that are quantitatively measureable, such as infrastructure projects and training sessions. In peacebuilding, sustainable outcomes may not be (immediately) measurable. In this vein, participants further stressed the need to broaden measurement approaches in order to capture qualitative indicators, such as prevention and accountability or changes in perceptions or attitudes.

A common characteristic of many of the successful tools and approaches shared during the Forum is their flexibility. In the session on adaptation and iteration, participants reflected on the need to treat learning as an outcome in its own right and to employ a problem-driven approach. In so doing, peacebuilders are able to test different solutions and make adjustments as the situation on the ground changes and new feedback is received. For example, when the political situation in Libya shifted and shrinking civic space suddenly restricted the capacity of civil society organizations, one human rights institute chose to redesign its financing model to support individuals rather than institutions, thus enabling the continuation of human rights work in the country.

Institutions that have successfully adopted iteration and adaptation into their organizational strategies often do so by extending programme design timelines, allowing for flexibility in delivery and increased risk tolerance.  This is reflected in staffing and training, moving away from an ‘expert’ model towards processes that foster collective intelligence and create space for learning.

For example, within the Omidyar Group, organizations have been building their systems practice, which allows them to take an interactive and adaptive approach to making social change. One of the insights has been that iteration and adaption requires decentralized decision making, so those closest to the interventions, and who get the best feedback, have more authority. Also, the process for strategy development starts by getting a systemic understanding of their context as a means for better finding opportunities for leverage, which then serve as the basis for building their strategies and activities. This also informs how the teams adapt, with integrity, as they learn more about their contexts.

Conclusions

Unlike other ‘best practice’ models, which assume that solutions from one context will necessarily produce similar outcomes in another, the Forum’s focus on ‘what works’ was intended to contribute to constructive dialogue on effective processes and innovative applications of peacebuilding tools that could be adapted to address similar problems across different contexts.

The examples above, and many more discussed at the Forum, demonstrate how the meaningful inclusion of marginalized populations, trust building, new tools and approaches, and the integration of learning and innovation into design can enable progress towards the Sustaining Peace Framework in spite of current geopolitical constraints. These concepts, together with recommendations and key takeaways from the individual sessions, will be further developed in the 2017 Stockholm Forum on Peace and Development report, forthcoming in August 2017.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

2021 - Peace and Trust & Peaceful Coexistence

Here we are, into 2021, with more challenges ahead and peaceful coexistence of major concern. The nomination of 2021 as the International Year of Peace and Trust by the United Nations has made me briefly reflect on peace and trust with regard to peaceful coexistence by looking at the coronavirus pandemic and also election processes and outcomes around the world.

Elections of any kind at the international, national, or local level might be regarded to be of more importance to people involved in politics and people in specific geographical regions where elections take place. On the other hand, the coronavirus pandemic concerns everyone, because it has and continues to impact all of us in various ways, no matter who we are or where we live.

The complexities and impacts of the pandemic, including strategies such as lock-downs and travel restrictions around the world have created a sense of disconnect, loneliness, and alienation. The closure of borders (local, regional, and international) and the inability for many people to return home and be with their loved ones have contributed to mounting feelings of unease and heartache, anxiety and fear. And with time gone by, we can now observe growing isolation fatigue as well as rising frustration and anger among people. The fear of the physical threat along with the negative psychological impacts and the economic ramifications of the coronavirus pandemic have started to destabilise the domestic and international sense of trust and peace.

The importance of peace and trust shows itself on the global stage of politics - not only when we look at the coronavirus pandemic but also the processes and outcomes of national elections. The recent unsettling occurrences in the United States are signs that anything that undermines a sense of trust such as exclusion and inequity, lack of transparency, and violent communication challenge our individual and collective sense of peace – across borders and also within borders.

What we are witnessing is a growing climate of discontent, disillusion and distrust–

and the loss of inner and outer peace,

locally and globally.

Living in our media-centric and interconnected world, we are continuously reminded that a leadership style that embraces respect, empathy, compassion, and care for the common good is what is required to nourish trust and peace. Our observations tell us that peace is not only an outcome but also a process, with trust being of paramount importance.

Trust is most commonly viewed as a reflection of integrity, competence and reliability, yet it is also a question of intent, of goodwill or ill-will. The demonstration of positive intent as in goodwill includes acknowledgement of different perspectives, attendance to diverse needs, fair and equitable access to resources, and inclusion in decision-making for the benefit of all.

To foster trust and accordingly peace, it is worth our while to contemplate questions such as:

What is the actual intent behind certain actions? Is it one of good-will or ill-will, of mutual care or only self-care, of inclusion or exclusion, of values that reflect harmony or mastery?

What actions show integrity? Are the actions aligned with proclaimed values of peace and trust, with benefits extended beyond self and one’s in-groups?

What competencies are drawn on for acting upon proclaimed values - values that foster actions for the common good such as gender/health/education equity, poverty reduction, and climate change?

How reliably and transparently have the proclaimed values been at the core of decision-making and of the actions taken?

Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary-General pointed out at a speech in 2003 at the Tübingen University that:

“We need to find within ourselves the will

To live by the values we proclaim,

In our private lives, in our local and national societies,

And in the world. ”

No matter who we are, or what role we play as part of the system in which we live, work, or travel, all of us profit from reflecting on what is important for us and society at large–to take a look at the big picture.

As leaders in our daily lives at home as much as leaders on the global stage, it helps us to regularly get in touch with our individual and cultural value systems. And that means also power dynamics at play in our private spheres and within the public domain, including social structures and institutions across the micro to the macro level.

When we pause, we can see that the notions of peace and trust as guiding principles and aspirations for 2021 put forward by the United Nations carry importance in all life contexts, at an individual and societal level. Peace and trust are important in our personal relationships and in the political arena, including the context of travel and tourism, appreciating that tourism is a microcosm of society at large where

The joy of travel

The art of travel

The art of living together.

So, let us make 2021 the year where we pay attention to proclaimed values and moral imperatives as a way to gain big-picture perspectives and foster trust and peace in all our life domains.

January 18, 2021

Birgit Trauer PhD

Reference: Trauer, B. (2020), The Way of the Peaceful Traveller - Dare to Care and Connect

Featured Posts

That is What We Do in Our Culture

The Joy of Travel and the Art of Living Together

Tourists Behaving Badly

We Are All Travellers

Travel and Happiness

Recent Posts

Trust - The Most Valuable and Fragile Currency in the World

Rethinking Tourism and The Art of Living Together

WTM 2021 - looking at and doing travel and tourism in new ways

Welcome to The Cultural Angle

Search By Tags

Realism, Liberalism and the Possibilities of Peace

“Only the dead have seen the end of war” – Plato

“We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth” – Barack Obama

When Plato said that only the dead have seen the end of war, his remarks echoed the history of his time. War was all too often of an occurrence in ancient Greece, so much so that it might’ve been considered a necessity in some cases but a menace in others. From Plato’s time to the contemporary period of political science and international relations theorizing, philosophers and theorists have been primarily concerned with discovering human nature, its role in social and political life as well as ways and means of giving meaning to human life. Peace has been central to this process of inquiry and thought which has led humanity to its present condition. Theories of peace and war have been central to this cognitive exercise. However, in the last three centuries, relations between nation-states have taken the central stage. Theories have come to light which illuminate our understanding of how nations interact, what causes them to go to war, what motivations might they have to establish peace and how these causes and motivations might be managed to reach a stage where peace is not “an armistice in a war” as Thucydides (431BCE) stated but “a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice” as Baruch Spinoza (1670) considered it to be. Nonetheless, there are still considerable obstacles that remain in the pursuit of peace. Theorists have outlined them and literature has shed light on these hurdles whereas in some cases the pre-occupation with peace has also led towards a more hostile state of international affairs amongst nations as well as peoples.

To understand the prospects for peace in international relations, one must understand as to why war is such a reoccurring event in the history of nation-states and also the nature of international affairs and the determining factors which cause action, reaction, cooperation, hostility and peace between states in the international system. Establishment of nation states in the 16 th century raised issues about whether human freedom and independence was central or the establishment of the state and its survival was the primary aim of political discourse. Two theories which take these arguments forward towards peace and resolution of conflicts in international theory are realism and liberalism. Over the last two centuries, realism and liberalism have accounted for much of what has taken place in the international arena and they continue to offer prescriptions of state behaviour and its possible effects on peace in-between nation states. This essay will elaborate on the possibilities for peace in the international system which have been put forth by realism and liberalism and their neo-variants in particular and then their critical analysis will be presented. The core features and assumptions of liberalism and realism will be outlined along with the possibilities for peace put forth by both the theories , followed up by critical discussion on of these prescriptions for peace and their possible implications for nation-state dominated international system. Firstly, liberalism’s core concepts and foundations will be explained followed up by what liberal’s put forth as their formulas to achieve peace in the world system. After that, realism’s foundations will be brought to the forefront of the discussion and the theory’s prescriptions for peace will be elaborated upon. Eventually, an analysis of suggestions for peace put forth by liberalism and realism will be scrutinized via a critical eye for contradictions and theoretical pitfalls that exist in both the theories.

Liberalism can be crudely defined as the “freedom for the individual” as it believes that human’s are good natured beings. Liberalism’s core ideals stress individualism, human rights, universality, freedom from authority, right to be treated equally under the protection of law and duty to respect and treat others as “ethical subjects” as well as freedom for social action. (Doyle, pp.206-207; Fukuyama, 1992, p. 42) Closely connected to these individual freedoms is the concept of representative government as well as the importance of the ownership of private property, right to free economic activity without state interference. (Doyle, 1983, p.208; Fukuyama, 1992, p.44) Liberal scholars such as Kant (1675) focused on harmony between people overseen by institutions such as judiciary and the representative form of the government where leaders exercise their authority with the consent of “free people existing in a political order”. (Doyle, 1983, p.209; Kant, 1675) As the liberal state is represented through sovereign government of the people, its sovereignty and integrity is not subject to any external control such as an authority. (Doyle 1983, p.213)

One particular brand of liberalism, which is known as liberal institutionalism came into prominence after the First World War when the President of the United States of America, Woodrow Wilson laid down the foundation for the League of Nations. This liberal gesture by Woodrow Wilson in fact held it’s foundations in Kant’s concept of Perpetual Peace which laid down three articles of peace, the first of which stressed that the constitution of the countries must safeguard the essential freedoms of their citizens. (Williams, 2006, p.25) The second article paid attention to the concept of pacific union and alliance between liberal states, Kant termed it as “a treaty of the nations among themselves” which “maintains itself, prevents wars, and steadily expands.” (Doyle, 1983, p.226) The third article called on states of this Pacific Union to treat civilians and visitors from other countries with respect and dignity, this has hence forth been known as the cosmopolitan law. (Doyle, 1983, p. 227; Williams, 2006, p.25). Despite the fact that the League of Nations failed to deliver on promises of peace and the criticism that liberalism received from the likes of Carr (2001), it re-emerged a reformed doctrine in shape of Neo-liberalism/Liberal internationalism.

Neoliberals share some of their assumptions about the international system with neo-realists, as the newest brand of liberalism has come to be known deals mainly with institutions and their effect on state behaviour in the international system. At the heart of the liberal internationalist ideology is its belief that states can be made to cooperate with each other in economic terms even if they exist in a system where there is security competition. Such cooperation can translate into interdependence entailing mutual benefits for both the parties involved, something that reduces the risk of war and increases the prospects of peace amongst nation-states. (Keohane & Martin, 1995, p.45; Martin & Simmons, 1998, pp.732-735) Neo-liberals emphasize absolute gains for states as their insecurities can be resolved by the use of institutions which help decision making by providing valuable information about cooperation (McMillan, 1997, p.34, Keohane & Martin, 1995, p.45-46) A central proposition for liberalism and neo-liberalism in the post-cold war period lies in the democratic peace theory. The democratic peace theory takes it’s foundations from Kant’s work and builds towards the conclusion that democracies rarely fight with each other. Liberals argue that democracies are inherently peaceful states which do not go to war easily and between two democracies, the occurrence of war has been a rather rare occurrence.  It has been stated that, the assumption that democracies hardly ever go to war with each other is “as close as anything to an empirical law in international politics”. (Levy, 1989, p.88)

The traditionalist version of the democratic peace theory builds on the belief that democracies are a by-product of progression of history influenced by dialectic discussion between societies influenced by Kant’s thesis of asocial sociability, where people learn from their past mistakes and eventually come to cooperate with one another by leaving war and conflict behind. (Fukuyama, 1992, pp. 58-64) Other Liberal theorists such as Doyle (1983) argues that democracies are intrinsically peaceful as the people are indirectly ruling their own country through a representative government and they stand to suffer the consequences of war. Jervis (2002) has further clarified that in a democratic system of government, the power is not concentrated into the hands of a single autocratic leader and that there are several veto groups which prevent a hasty decision to go to war with other states. Furthermore, it has also been elaborated that democratic values such as respect for human rights, rule of law, accommodation of multiple interest groups inside the state as well as a belief in reconciliation, makes compromise with and between democracies unproblematic as the democratic states appear to be non-violent. (Jervis, 2002, p.4)

Additionally, it has also been contended that as leaders in a democracy derive their power from a public electorate, thus it is not only in the public’s interest but also in the leader’s own interest that he or she practices restraint in aggressive policy formulation which might lead towards conflict and war and consequently extinguish his/her chances of getting elected in the future. Moreover, White (1990) has argued that as democracies are transparent and accountable systems of government which work towards “free flow of information” and thus reduce the risk of being misunderstood and mistaken as exploiters by other states. (White, 1990, pp.227-235) One more reason as to why democracies rarely go to war with each other is attributed to their commitment to free economic activity which translates into free trade as it is a method of exchange and maintenance of communication correspondence between people from different states. (Fukuyama, 1992, p.212) Furthermore, theorists have also pointed out that the cost of war is usually high thus trade between countries presents a much more viable method of gaining wealth which promotes economic interdepence between democracies who are as responsible for security of the country as its economy in the 21 st century. (Jervis, 2002, p.5)

Liberalism also argues that stability and relative peace can be achieved in the international system via a hegemon who sets the agenda for global institutions by playing an active part in international politics. (Nye, 1990, p.153; Doyle, 1983, p.223) This theory which is known as the hegemonic stability theory holds the view that a hegemon in the international system of states who has more economic and military power than other states can produce economic stability which is seen as a collective/public good in the international system and all the states benefit from it. The hegemon can do so without disregarding its own security interests because other countries benefit from the economic stability that is produced regardless of whether or not they contribute to it. (Webb & Krasner, 1989, p.184, Kindleberger, 1973, p.205) Nye (2004) further adds to this argument in the post-cold war world and emphasizes the nature of soft power that can be used by the United States of America, as the hegemon to control political environment and “getting others to want the same outcomes as it wants” which will decrease conflict of interest and promote stability in the world. (Nye, 2004, p.110) For the hegemonic stability theory to function the hegemon must, put lead trade liberalization, stay committed to an open market economy in recession and also encourage development in underdeveloped areas of the world. (Webb & Krasner, 1989, p.185)

In contrast to liberalism, its theoretical opponent realism does not attempt to paint an optimistic picture of international affairs; in fact realism’s main drive in international relations theory is to highlight the anarchic nature of international politics. Classical realists who are also known as traditional realists, held the view that international politics is an amoral exercise which is blighted by war and conflict because of human nature. Thomas Hobbes (1985) put forth the view that man operated in a state of nature where no law existed above him to prevent him from acting immorally or according to a specified set of rules. This state of nature shaped human nature which according to Hobbes was characterized by “competition, diffidence and glory” amongst humans. (Hobbes, 1985, p.185) For classical realists, the characteristics of human nature were put into practice in international politics where every state is functions to garner safety and as there is no power to keep states moral, they indulge in competition which often results in “war of all against all”. (Hobbes, 1985, p.185b) This realist thinking was given perspective in a much more formalized manner by Morgenthau (2006) who outlined six principles of political realism by stating that realism held it’s foundations in human nature, thus further cementing Hobbes hypothesis.

However modern realism which is known as neo-realism separates itself from the political rules which are situated in human nature and its characteristics and takes the view that the structure in which states exists in international relations is anarchic due to the absence of an overarching authority sovereign. (Waltz, 1979, p.103) Neo-realists thus explain that state’s serve their own interests in the international system by following a strict code of self help due to the absence of any authority above them. Moreover, as all states exist in a state of anarchy in the international arena of politics, they all pursue self interest and try to acquire power to secure themselves and ensure their survival in a system where no other state or authority will come to save them if they fail to do. (Waltz, 1979, p.104)  Theorists such as Waltz argue that it is the structural effect of the system which shapes the way its residing units act. Waltz argues, “because some states may at any time use force, all states must be prepared to do so-or live at the mercy of their militarily more vigorous neighbours”, however this does not apply that there is constant warfare and conflict amongst states in the state of anarchy but as Mearsheimer (1994) explains that there is not constant war but “relentless security competition with the possibility of war looming in the background”. (Waltz, 1979, p.102; Mearsheimer, 1994, p.9) In such a situation, no one state can trust another therefore cooperation is limited and unstable when it occurs. States function on a zero-sum principle because they are present in a structure which compels them to seek security which results in competition between states and creates the possibility of state’s cheating their way out of an alliance to gain more power and security. (Mearsheimer, 1994, p.11; Waltz, 1979, p.106) Thus due to anarchy in the realm of international relations, realists view states as unitary rational actors and the principle movers in the game of international politics, states seek self-preservation at a minimum but if given the chance they also dominate other units in the structure to make themselves more secure which creates a security dilemma as all the states exist in a self-help system of anarchy, positive moves can be deciphered as offensive ones amongst states due to the lack of trust and heightened suspicion that exists between them. (Waltz, 2001, p.181-188; Mearsheimer, 1994, 11-14)

Possibilities for peace in the neo-realist perspective which is pragmatic in its view of international politics amidst anarchy and security competition are limited. Unlike their neo-liberal counterparts, neo-realists are pragmatic when it comes to discussions of peace in international politics. Regardless, there have been suggestions that pursuing realist policies can lead to a more stable world where there is lesser conflict. Despite the dark brooding world of neo-realism in which states can’t trust one another and must always be prepared to gear up for conflict, Desch (2003) argues that states can act to serve moral purposes but only when their security interests are not being threatened and that scepticism which fills the realist view of the world produces more “just and humane policies”. (Desch, 2003, p.417)  Desch suggests that NATO involvement in the Balkans, driven by international cooperation and the moral compulsion to safeguard human rights to fight ethnic conflict between Serbs and Muslims in Bosnia had disastrous results for the Muslims. The international community asked the Bosnian Muslims to take refuge in U.N protected camps rather than descend into Muslim areas which eventually resulted in the deaths of thousands of Bosnian men and children when the camps themselves were overrun by Serbian militia in Srebrenica, ignoring the realist plea to abandon the policy of multi-ethnicity and form two separate states for muslims and Serbs each. (Desch, 2003, pp.421-422) Additionally, policies designed to avoid war and to look after the larger interest of the world community have backfired previously and resulted in casualties of genocidal proportions as suggested by Morgenthau (2006) when the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain attempted to put regional peace ahead of national security motivated by “good motives to preserve peace” as he decided to avoid conflict with Germany and adopted a policy of appeasement towards Adolf Hitler. (Morgenthau, 2006, p.6) Unfortunately as per the dictates of history, Nazi Germany went onto conquer France, Austria and Poland, amongst other states in the Second World War which followed.

Neo-realism also puts forth a theory for relative peace to be achieved by suggesting the concept of mutually assured destruction based on the fundamental principles of nuclear deterrence. A concept which helped maintain peace during the cold war between the Soviet Union and the United States of America courtesy of their possession of the nuclear weapon. (Sagan & Waltz, 2010, p.91) However nuclear deterrence never proposes to establish world peace, nonetheless it does work towards the maintenance of relative peace between two nuclear powers. As states are seen as maximizers of security, nuclear weapons are its last resort to seeking security in a world which offers none on its own. If a state feels sufficiently scared or threatened by the actions of another state in the system of anarchy, then it can pursue nuclear weapons as they are the ultimate deterrent and providers of security. (Sagan & Waltz, 2010, p.92) The concept of mutually assured destruction functions on the basis of fear of whole scale destruction between two nuclear weapon states. If one state launches its nuclear weapon, it can be assured that the other one will respond in kind via its second strike apparatus and thus ensuring destruction of both the states in question courtesy of the highly destructive powers of the weapon in question. (Sagan &Waltz, 2010, p.92b) Since, the Second World War, no two nuclear states have fought against each other and the example of India and Pakistan is seen as a primary one in this regard outside of the deterrence which existed between U.S and the Soviet Union. Despite fighting three large scale wars against each other since 1947 over the territorial dispute of Kashmir, Pakistan and India have not fought against one another since 1998 when both the countries achieved nuclear strike capabilities, something which goes onto further elaborate on the “peaceful” powers of nuclear weapons and the theory of mutually assured destruction.

The balance of power theory is yet another one which sheds light on the possibility of peace inside the neo-realist paradigm. The balance of power theory stipulates as to how states can achieve a balance of power against their rivals in the anarchic system of politics by internal and external efforts. Internal efforts include increasing economic and military strength whilst external factors include alliance formation. (Walt, 1979, p.118) The balance of power once achieved puts both the alliances/competitors on equal footing and thus from there on in, it is a game of preserving the balance of power to ensure survival and preservation for unit actors such as states. However for such equilibrium to be formed, states who are in an alliance must accept the restrains on them due to the framework that they are a part of to achieve mutual goals and interests. As Waltz states, “only if stakes recognize the rules of the game and play for the same limited stakes can the balance of power fulfil its functions for international stability and national independence”. (Waltz, 1979, p.120)

Whilst liberalism and realism both offer certain concrete proposals for peace in the international relations theory, both theories are not devoid of fault lines which actually exhibit some of the issues that lie within their arguments for peace. Taking the liberal democratic peace theory, which has been termed “almost as good as an empirical law in international relations”, has its weaknesses where it fails to address democratic states’ and their attitudes towards non democratic nations. Levy, 1989, p.88b) Liberalist pre-occupation with a normative agenda such as human rights and their universal appeal has allowed liberals to disregard the sovereignty of countries where non democratic governments prevail. (Fukuyama, 1992, p.42b) Liberal’s such as Fukuyama have hurt the prospects of peace despite their belief in the democratic peace theory due to liberal democracy’s status as the end point of human civilization, which cannot be bettered. (Fukuyama, 1992, p.45) Fukuyama’s claim that Islam is “grave threat” to liberal democratic project as well as the belief that certain value systems are “hard to digest” have had a counterproductive impact on the maintenance of peace in other parts of the world where liberal democracies have taken it up on themselves to spread the universal idea of human freedom and dignity through coercive and in some cases outright militant means. (Fukuyama, 1992, pp.44, 235)

Realists have presented their own thesis with regard to the democratic peace theory and stated that the democratic peace theory’s assumptions such as democracies and their peaceful predispositions, decentralized distribution of power should hold when confronted with conflict of interests with non-liberal states. (Jervis, 2002, p.5b) However in a monadic perspective, where liberal states should act peacefully with other non-liberal states, democratic peace theory’s assumptions have turned up to be hollow, supporting the neo-realist view of security competition in the anarchic arena of international relations. Some realists such as Mearsheimer (1994) and Jervis (2002) have attributed democratic peace between democratic nations due to the security blanket provided by the United States of America, since the end of the second world war, nonetheless liberals have provided their own counter argument by pointing out the successful transfer of hegemony in international politics between liberal democracies such as Britain and the United States of America at the starting point of the 20 th century as a transfer of global power between both the states without any conflict and hostility between the two nations. (Doyle, 1983, p.223)

Pitfalls in the democratic peace theory are further highlighted by when liberal imperial interventions aimed at instilling democracy and restoring universal human rights in other countries around the world are taken into account. Doyle (1983) admits that liberalism has failed in third world countries whilst Fukuyama (1992) is quick to deflect the blame towards cultural dispositions in the places where liberal democracy has not yet flourished. (Doyle, 1983, pp.324-333, Fukuyama, 1992, pp.235-238) Additional critique has been presented by Mearsheimer (2011) as he outlined the problems in American project to bring democracy to third world countries in order to achieve an international peace as per the democratic peace principles. Taking the realist perspective, Mearsheimer argues that America’s liberal project has resulted in the superpower being at war for “two out of every three years since 1989”, therefore portraying that America’s liberal imperialist project to safeguard human rights and spread democracy has actually resulted in more global conflict by destroying the peace that it seeks to establish. (Mearsheimer, 2011, p.19) Downs & Mesquita (2004) have shed additional light on the problems of liberal imperialism and how social engineering in third world countries has been particularly unsuccessful for the United States of America. Regardless, liberals argue that the peace held together between democratic nations such as the European Union as well as the United States of America, Canada, Japan, Australia and India is directly attributable to the democratic peace theory, if not it’s monadic then certainly it’s dyadic effect, as peace still exists between two democracies

Similar problems emerge in the hegemonic stability theory which depends on a hegemon’s ability to lead the way in international relations, set the focal point for institutions and perform its duties as the benign or in some cases liberal hegemon. (Mearsheimer, 2011, p.19; Webb & Krasner, 1989, p.184b; Martin & Simmons, 1998, pp.732-735b) United States did take up its role as the liberal hegemon and used its soft power to spread liberal ideas around the world as Nye (1990) had urged it to do but this had negative impact on international stability as rather than encouraging peace it brought violence. In the aftermath of September 11 th , 2011 when America came under attack from Al-Qaeda, the global hegemon turned imperial and adopted an aggressive stand towards those who did not agree with its liberal outlook of the world. This failed policy resulted in states such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea being termed as the axis of evil. America proceeded to invade Iraq in 2004 and due to the security threat North Korea declared itself a nuclear power whereas suspicions are rife that Iran is reaching nuclear capability as well. (Mearsheimer, 2011, p.30, Waltz, 2007, p.137) However convincing the realist arguments might appear to be, U.S’s role as a global hegemon and the potential impact of the United State’s withdrawing from its role in international institutions as a benign hegemon is captured by Kindleberger (1973) who attributes the great depression which lasted in the inter-war period to the failure of the United States of America to leading a more active international role and thus stabilize the international system in times of economic crisis.

On the economic interdependence principle, which the liberals claim increases cooperation in international relations by using institutions, theorists have outlined that states seldom trust one another in order to participate in an exchange of absolute gains because of the trust deficit which exists between one state and another due to the structure of anarchy. It has also been argued that the international institutions such as the United Nations and the WTO are just representations of the distributions of power that exist in today’s world due to America’s control over them and their function. (Mearsheimer, 1994, p.  9-14) Neoliberals such as Keohane & Martin (1995) have accepted the fact that institutions will not be significant if a conflict of interest exists between two states at the international level as such a conflict cannot possibly be resolved by institutions alone due to the pursuit of interests by each state. However they do outlined that institutions can provide a mechanism through which states can cooperate and thus increase the possibilities of peace in international relations via solving the information dilemma between two states, which might help them cooperate and prefer long term gains over short term gains that they might be able to gain by “cheating”. (Keohane & Martin, 1995, pp. 43-45)

On the other hand, realist theories which aim to provide relative peace have also appeared to be short of what their claims imply. Sagan contends the mutually assured destruction theory and argues that nuclear weapons in the post-cold war world have developed an unstable side to them with the emergence of non-state actors such as terrorists groups. Whilst realist interpretations of states as rationalist actors retains its value, such a luxury cannot be extended to terrorist groups who function on ideas of mass murder based on religious belief and thus stand to benefit from nuclear proliferation especially towards states who have a history of supporting such groups. (Sagan & Waltz, 2010, p.88) The realist reply contends that decision makers choosing to make use of nuclear weapons remain rational due to its power to cause mass destruction but they overlook the fact that certain states such as Iran and Syria have been continuously supporting terrorist groups and using such non-state actors to pursue their geo-political interests and therefore it is unwise to allow proliferation of nuclear weapons to such states. (Sagan & Waltz, 2010, p.89) Sagan (2010) also puts forth the argument that nuclear deterrence will still hold in a world where nuclear weapons have been dismantled because every state will know that if it can revert back its commitments to abandon nuclear weapons, other can do so as well, providing nations incentives to maintain a nuclear weapons free world. There is also the issue of a state over-estimating the amount of nuclear cover it can operate under. Waltz’ deterrence argument holds true but nuclear weapons might actually result in overtly aggressive state behaviour on a regional as well as a global scale because hiding behind the curtain of deterrence, states can undertake violent ventures as illustrated by Pakistan’s skirmish with India in 1999 was a result of Pakistani general’s cover attempt to retake the territory of Kashmir via military action under nuclear cover. (Sagan & Waltz, 2010, pp.90-94)  Realist response to the nuclear cover argument remains absent however Desch (2003) argues that United States can prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands by engaging countries such as Pakistan and India and developing secure command and control protocol for the weapons in question.

Realist and liberal claims and theories for peace remain littered with loopholes and theoretical pitfalls which goes onto show the weak prospects for peace that exist in international relations. Despite strong claims by both sides backed up by empirical and theoretical arguments, both liberalism and realism are found lacking in their prospects for peace. Whilst realism does not make a claim to be a theory of peace, liberalism’s claim towards peace between democratic nations and cooperation through economic interdependence remains largely relevant. Nonetheless, liberal interventions in other parts of the world still pose a threat to peace in both relative and absolute terms, something that is counterproductive for a theory which actually takes an optimistic and reformist outlook on the subject of international relations.

Conversely, realism’s claims of mutually assured destruction suffers imbalances when empirical evidence such as Pakistan’s Kargil conflict with India is used to highlight the potential for nuclear blackmail under nuclear cover and the overestimation of deterrence. On the other hand, claims that realist policies actually lead to a more humane world should not divert attention away from the fact that realists still claim that security competition can lead towards war which is often the case in international politics. It has been argued that both realism and liberalism provide insufficient accounts and possibilities of peace in the international system. Liberalism with its focus on universalism and harmony makes for an unstable world; whereas realism and its pessimism does not say much about prospects for peace.

References Desch, M. C. (2003) It is kind to be cruel: The humanity of American Realism. Review of International Studies. 29(4), pp. 415–426 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=163110&jid=RIS&volumeId=29&issueId=03&aid=163109

Downs, G.W., Mesquita. B. B. (2004, 04 February) Gun-Barrel Democracy Has Failed Time and Again. Los Angeles Times . Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2004/feb/04/opinion/oe-downs4

Doyle, M. W. (1983) Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(3), pp. 205-235 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265298

Doyle, M. W. (1983) Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 2. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(4), pp.323-353 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265377

Fukuyama. F. (1992) The end of history and the last man . New York: Macmillan, Inc.

Hobbes, T. (1985). Leviathan . London: Penguin Classics

Jervis, R. (2002) Theories of War in an Era of Leading-Power Peace. The American Political Science Review, 96(1), pp.1-14 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=208442

Kant, I. (1795) Perpetual Peace. Retrieved on 13 th of December, 2011 from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm

Kindleberger. C. P. (1973) The world in depression, 1929-1939. London: Allen Lane

Keohane, R. O., Martin, L.L (1995) The Promise of Institutionalist Theory. International Security, 20(1), pp. 39-51 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539214

Levy, Jack S. (1989) Domestic Politics and War.  In Robert I. Rotberg and Theodore K.  Rabb. (eds) Origins and Prevention of Major Wars , (pp.  79- 100) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, L.L., Simmons, B. A. (1998) Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions. International Organization, 52(4), pp. 729-757 duke.edu/~kkk4/Fall_07/IR_Methods/martin_simmons.pdf

McMillan, S. M. (1997) Interdependence and Conflict. Mershon International Studies Review, 41(1), pp.33-58 http://www.jstor.org/stable/222802

Mearsheimer, J.J (2011) Imperial by Design. The National Interest , No. 111 , pp. 16-34. mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0059.pdf

Mearsheimer, J. J (1994) The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security , 19(3), pp. 5-49. www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2539078.pdf

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics . New York: W. W. Norton & Company

Morgenthau, H. J. (2006). Politics Among Nations. (7 th Ed.) Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin

Nye, J.S. (1990) Soft Power. Foreign Policy, 80, pp. 153-171 http://www.jstor.org/pss/1148580

Nye, S. J. (2004) Soft Power: The means to success in world politics. Cambridge: Perseus Books Group

Sagan, S. D., Waltz, K. (2007) A Nuclear Iran: Promoting instability or courting disaster. Journal of International Affairs, 60(2), pp.135-150. iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21918/Sagan_ Nuclear _ Iran .pdf

Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education

Waltz, K. N. (2001) Man, State and War . (Rev. Ed) New York: Columbia University Press

Waltz, K. Sagan, S. D. (2010) The Great Debate: Is Nuclear Zero the best option? Retrieved on 13 th of December, 2011 from http://nationalinterest.org/greatdebate/nuclear-option-3949

Webb, C. M., Krasner. D. S (1989) Hegemonic stability theory: an empirical assessment. Review of international studies, 15, pp.183-198. http://www.jstor.org/pss/20097178

White, Ralph. (1990) Why Aggressors Lose. Political Psychology , 11(2) , pp. 227-42. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3791688

Williams, A. (2006) Liberalism and War: The victors and the vanquished . New York: Routledge

Written by: Hamza Jehangir Written at: University of Salford Written for: Chris Agius Date written: December 2011

Further Reading on E-International Relations

• Rehabilitating Realism Through Mohammed Ayoob’s “Subaltern Realism” Theory
• Offensive Realism and the Rise of China: A Useful Framework for Analysis?
• An Outdated Debate? Neorealism’s Limitations and the Wisdom of Classical Realism
• An Ethical Dilemma: How Classical Realism Conceives Human Nature
• Intermestic Realism: Domestic Considerations in International Relations
• How Successful Has the UN Been in Maintaining International Peace and Security?

Please Consider Donating

Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.

E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!

Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.

United States Institute of Peace

Home ▶ Publications

Practicing Peace and Conflict Diplomacy in a Complex World

What role can diplomacy play amid renewed great power competition and a weakening liberal international order?

Monday, June 14, 2021 / By: Ashish Kumar Sen

Publication Type: Analysis

A combination of a weakening liberal international order, sharpening U.S.-China rivalry, growing transnational threats, shrinking space for civil society and rising nationalism and populism has complicated the practice of peace and conflict diplomacy. A new volume of essays examines approaches to such diplomacy in this complex environment.

“ Diplomacy and the Future of World Order ” explores the future of peace and conflict diplomacy in three arenas: managing great power competition and potential confrontation, managing others’ conflicts and managing threats to the international system, as is currently being posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, said Chester Crocker, James R. Schlesinger professor of strategic studies at Georgetown University and an editor of the book.

The book’s contributors — 20 experts from around the world — offer three broad scenarios for the future: a return to a Cold War-like situation, a return to a liberal rules-based order and variable geometry or a la carte multilateralism, said Crocker. Each scenario requires a different kind of diplomacy.

The first scenario would likely require transactional diplomacy; the second values-based, governance-based diplomacy; and the third “a concert depending on the issue” at the regional or functional levels that is based on specific challenges, said Crocker.

Crocker delivered remarks at a virtual event hosted by the U.S. Institute of Peace on June 10. George Moose, vice chair of USIP’s board of directors, moderated a panel discussion that included Fen Hampson, chancellor’s professor at Carleton University; Barbara Bodine, director of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy; Solomon Dersso, founding director of Amani Africa and chairperson of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights; Jean-Marie Guéhenno, a distinguished fellow in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution; and See Seng Tan, a professor of international relations at S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore. Dersso, Guéhenno and Tan contributed chapters to “Diplomacy and the Future of World Order.” Hampson and Pamela Aall, a senior adviser on conflict prevention and management at USIP, are the two other editors of the book.

A Changed and Complex Environment

International relations are no longer primarily about “managing threats to a well-understood balance of power,” said Lise Grande, USIP’s president and CEO. It is now also about “managing the realignment of power and addressing threats to the planet, ending humanitarian catastrophes including pandemics.” To meet these challenges, Grande recommended new methods of diplomatic collaboration.

Hampson described three kinds of diplomacy that characterize relations between states:

• Instrumental or competitive diplomacy : developing spheres of influence and managing alliances.
• Stabilization diplomacy : managing relations, de-escalating conflicts or preventing them from escalating.
• Governance diplomacy : developing new norms of state behavior.

The changed global environment has created obstacles to the practice of peace and conflict diplomacy. “Some would argue that we are moving into a world of much more competitive or instrumental diplomacy,” said Hampson. However, noting the enhanced risk of an escalation of great power conflict, he added: “It is fair to say that if we are going to manage great power relations, we’re going to need heavy doses of stabilization diplomacy.” This type of diplomacy includes confidence-building measures, reviving arms control and strengthening nonproliferation regimes.

On the other hand, Hampson predicted less demand for governance diplomacy — marked by democracy building and peacebuilding — which, he said, has become much harder to do because it faces a lot more pushback in the current environment. Hampson said that the book makes a strong case for concert diplomacy as the principal form of international cooperation in the third decade of the 21st century. Unlike, the 19th century version of concerts, the 21st century version will have a lot more variable geometry in terms of the participants who promote cooperative solutions to problems of global order and conflict management. They will work together in a pragmatic manner to promote new norms, rules of the road and approaches to global cooperation.

Biden’s Embrace of Diplomacy

President Joe Biden has championed the United States’ return to diplomacy and multilateralism. “Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy,” he proclaimed at the State Department on February 4. Last week, the president was in the United Kingdom participating in the G-7 summit in Cornwall.

Bodine worries that many observers believe that by simply hitting the reset button the United States will return to a time when it saw itself as indispensable and irreplaceable on the world stage. Such thinking is flawed, she said.

Over the past four years, Bodine said, the world has moved on without the United States. “Our place in diplomacy and our place in multilateralism has changed,” she said.

“America is back at the table,” Biden declared at the end of the G-7 summit. But Bodine described nationalism as a major challenge, noting that many more countries are now defining their interests and deciding their tools in many cases irrespective of great powers. “We don’t get the daddy chair back,” she said.

The Case for Agile Diplomacy

Diplomacy has become far more complex. Bodine said diplomacy has become fragmented and layered, both horizontally — with more states engaged in diplomacy today — and vertically — with state as well as nonstate actors involved in diplomacy.

Bodine made the case for diplomacy that is agile, flexible and adaptive. Contending that most issues facing the world today are not amenable to military or hard power solutions, she said diplomacy is “going to have to be front and center.”

“The bottom line,” Crocker said, “diplomacy is going to be a central challenge and a central requirement for the age that we are now entering.” Like Bodine, he recommended diplomacy that is agile, networked laterally and builds consensus around issues. Such diplomacy requires working with a range of actors, both official and unofficial. Guéhenno said the most likely of the three scenarios mentioned in the book is the third one — practical cooperation in an ad hoc manner. “It’s not going to be big powers coming together and deciding what the future of the world is going to be. … That top-down approach is gone for good,” he said. Instead, he predicted a “horizontal approach” in which actors who care about a particular issue will come together to try and address it. Such cross-cutting alliances between different types of actors will make the world resilient, he said.

Caught in the Middle

As the rivalry between the United States and China, and to some extent Russia, has escalated countries around the world have found themselves caught in the middle.

Tan said the U.S.-China rivalry is a major challenge in Southeast Asia. It has “raised the prospect of the major powers becoming spoilers rather than providers and enablers of peace and security,” he said. It has also “compressed the strategic space” available to small nations to conduct diplomacy, he added.

Tan said Biden’s assurance that the United States will take seriously its role as a global leader is welcomed in Southeast Asia. “What the Biden administration has promised the region — that it will in the midst of strategic rivalry with China, nonetheless, seek ways to cooperate with China — is a message that the Asian region welcomes very, very strongly,” said Tan, adding that this approach creates an opportunity for regional actors to “nurture great power relations in ways that would move the region toward much more positive peaceful ends.”

Dersso said Africa, too, doesn’t want to be forced into choosing sides in a great power competition. Describing the interrelationship between regional and international architectures for peace and security, Dersso said that when great power competition paralyzes the United Nations Security Council on handling African issues, it also affects how these issues are handled in the African Union (AU), which relies on collaboration, coordination and support from the international system. Such a situation “can affect the effectiveness of an already struggling peace and security architecture that is trying to stand on its feet,” he added.

Moose suggested that peacekeeping is one area where the United States and China have a shared understanding. China also has major investments in Africa which it wants to protect and so there will be political support for some “transformed peacekeeping,” Guéhenno, a former UN under-secretary general for peacekeeping, said.

Ineffective Regional Organizations

Around the world, regional organizations are struggling with peace and conflict management.  In Southeast Asia, Tan said, the impact of the U.S.-China rivalry is evident on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which has been hamstrung by its members’ national interests.   In Africa, Dersso said, the AU may find itself paralyzed because of a lack of consensus among its member states.  

In the Middle East, there is the Arab League, which Bodine, a former U.S. ambassador to Yemen, said is a “hollow organization.” She also noted that the Gulf Cooperation Council, which for a while served as a “default Arab League,” had until recently been riven by infighting. Describing the regional actors as the major source of conflict in the Middle East, Bodine said: “Looking to regional actors to help with conflict management — you’re asking the arsonist to come and put out the fire.”

Transnational criminal actors, including cyber criminals, have further complicated peacemaking around the world. The fundamental challenge posed by these actors is that they have no real interest in “full peace” or “full war” as both those situations hurt their business, said Guéhenno.

Unlike during the Cold War, when there was a “defining issue” and a “defining power,” now there is neither, said Guéhenno. “No power or group of powers has enough influence to really shape the world. And that really raises the question whether there can be any kind of international order without the existence of such a power. It is a question that really challenges the United Nations every day,” he added, describing this as a “sense of loss of control.”

Diplomacy as an Orchestra

In closing remarks, Aall emphasized the changing nature of diplomacy and the much more complex playing field. She said it is all the more important to create room for other actors, including NGOs, local civil society, business and others to have a voice in diplomacy.

Returning to the idea of concert diplomacy, Aall said making space for new actors will mean some chairs in the orchestra will need to move over and everyone will have to learn new pieces. Predicting that diplomacy is only going to get more complicated, Aall said: “But with good orchestration and perhaps co-conducting of several conductors, we may get to a point where peace and conflict diplomacy, which includes all these different actors, is in fact more effective than it has been in the past.”

Related Publications

What a Transitional Government in Haiti will Require to Succeed

Thursday, March 28, 2024

By: Nicolás Devia-Valbuena ;   Keith Mines

After weeks of consultations, and amidst a near total breakdown of law and order in Haiti, a Caribbean Community (CARICOM)-led effort to create a new transitional governing council may be nearing completion. The council’s establishment would allow for the entry of a multinational security force that would then be able to join with the Haitian National Police and restore order. Some have suggested the inclusion of “enablers” for the new security force — air support, drones, intelligence. But to gain the trust of the Haitian people, the new governing council will need its own popular “enablers,” a systematic way to include many more sectors of Haitian society that are currently ignored or deliberately excluded from governance.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

Moscow Concert Hall Attack Will Have Far-Reaching Impact

Wednesday, March 27, 2024

By: Mary Glantz, Ph.D. ;   Gavin Helf, Ph.D. ;   Asfandyar Mir, Ph.D. ;   Andrew Watkins

On Friday, terrorists attacked the Crocus City Hall outside Moscow leaving 140 people dead and 80 others critically wounded. Soon after, the Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack. The terrorist group, which is headquartered in Iraq and Syria, has several branches, including in South and Central Asia. Press reports suggest the U.S. government believes the Afghanistan-based affiliate of the Islamic State, ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K), was behind the attack. The Biden administration has publicly noted that it had warned the Russian government of the terrorism threat in early March in line with the procedure of “Duty to Warn.”

What Does the U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution Mean for the Israel-Gaza War?

Tuesday, March 26, 2024

By: Robert Barron

On March 25, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed Resolution 2728, calling for an “immediate” cease-fire in Gaza. The motion’s passage came after weeks of back and forth and posturing among the UNSC’s permanent and rotating members. The exact phrasing of the resolution and its relevance to the situation on the ground, as well as bilateral and multilateral relations — particularly U.S.-Israel ties — have been the subject of heavy public and media attention since Monday, raising questions about the resolution’s subtext, intent and limitations. USIP’s Robert Barron looks at these questions.

Type: Question and Answer

Global Policy ;  Peace Processes

What’s Driving India-China Tensions?

Monday, March 25, 2024

By: Dean Cheng ;   Sameer P. Lalwani, Ph.D. ;   Daniel Markey, Ph.D. ;   Nilanthi Samaranayake

Since deadly clashes between India and China on their 2,100-mile disputed border — known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC) — nearly four years ago, the two countries have remained in a standoff and amassed an increasing number of troops on either side of the LAC. While India and China have held regular exchanges at the corps commander level since 2020, each side has also continued to militarize and invest in infrastructure in the high-altitude border regions, which may exacerbate risks of clashes or escalation. India-China competition has also deepened beyond the land border, particularly in the Indian Ocean region.

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Perspective article, building a culture of peace in everyday life with inter- and transdisciplinary perspectives.

• Facultad de Comercio, Administración y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, Nuevo Laredo, Mexico

In this article, peace is emphasized as a vital condition for all aspects of our existence, as individuals, as a society, and in our planet. The importance of inter- and transdisciplinarity in promoting a culture of peace and peace education is presented. Some examples of initiatives aimed at cultivating a culture of peace from diverse areas of knowledge are also provided. The paper presents a current and interconnected viewpoint on peace study, as well as some ideas for combining peace with education in the everyday routine of teaching and research work, regardless of discipline.

Introduction

Peace is a global concept that is more relevant than ever in today’s society. It is not simply a concern for countries and governments; it is also a concern for individuals in their relationships with others and with the planet. According to Capistrano (2020) , peace is linked to the harmonious coexistence of individuals in their environment, which depends on principles such as social justice, sustainability, democracy and tolerance. A culture of peace can be fostered and promoted via education not only in large projects but also in everyday life. As stated by Cuéllar (2009) , ordinary life is a key object of philosophical reflection from which “a humanism up to the mark of our time” can be derived, and everyday life is “where we begin to forge ourselves as people, where we can completely fulfill ourselves, in terms of work, production and rest, in married and family life, in the experience of love, freedom and recognition of the other.”

This article highlights the importance of promoting peace education and a culture of peace through inter- and transdisciplinarity. The paper also provides examples of initiatives aimed at fostering a culture of peace from diverse areas of knowledge. Additionally, various concepts for integrating peace with education in everyday life are given, regardless of discipline.

An Imperfect and Everyday Peace

When asked “what is peace?” we tend to define it in terms of the absence of war, warlike conflicts, or discord. Known as a negative conception of peace, this perspective has persisted since ancient times. Conversely, positive peace emphasizes the promotion of values, respect, justice, equity, communication, collaboration, empathy, collaboration, and non-violence. Positive peace desires peace and wellbeing and avoids conflict at all costs. However, this concept appears perfect, utopian, or unattainable. As a result, a new approach termed “imperfect peace” has been developed ( Comins-Mingol, 2002 ). The reason it is imperfect is that we are perpetually reconstructing it; it is a dynamic, continuous, and multifaceted concept. Imperfect peace admits that peace and conflicts coexist. Acosta Oidor et al. (2021) explain that peace and violence are both present in every aspect of daily life and not only in a single field such as politics. Furthermore, they quote that peace is a road and not a state. Imperfect peace alludes to the imperfect nature of every human. The concept of imperfect peace is a productive field on which we can produce from our regular work routine.

Culture of Peace

Culture of peace refers to “lifestyles, belief patterns, values, behaviors, (…) wellbeing, equality, equitable administration of resources, security for individuals and families, (…) non-violence, and harmony” ( Cabello et al., 2016 ). Culture of peace is inclusive and complex because it incorporates knowledge, values, and communication. It also integrates physical, biological, and social aspects. Culture of peace is all-encompassing. Page (2008) defines peace education as “the process of acquiring values, knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviors to live in harmony with oneself, others, and the natural environment.” Peace education encompasses personal, social, and planetary dimensions. Thus, can we integrate peace into every facet of our lives? Is it possible to improve coexistence between people to foster a culture of peace? Personally, I believe we may achieve both goals through our daily life activities.

Rationale for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity

Should we continue to foster a culture of peace by focusing on a single discipline or collaborating on several? According to Edgar Morin’s complex thinking ( Morin, 1994 ), our contemporary reality, phenomena, and problems are complex by nature. Complexity entails more than just difficulty; it also signifies that the problems are interconnected in a framework spanning several knowledge domains. Accordingly, to address problems and better comprehend our reality, they must be regarded as interconnected and inseparable in a feedback loop, that is, from a holistic and collaborative perspective of multiple disciplines. For this reason, reductionist perspectives are no longer enough for a pertinent understanding of our reality. In this context, two key elements emerge, namely the integration of diverse specialties and collaborative work, which facilitate inter and transdisciplinary work.

According to the literature, the concept of inter- and transdisciplinarity derives from an advanced and mature level of collaboration between multiple disciplines ( Escobar, 2010 ). First, disciplinarity occurs from specialization in a single area of knowledge. Then, multidisciplinarity emerges when several fields study the same object without interacting with one another. Pluridisciplinarity is the result of uncoordinated collaboration between different areas of knowledge. Finally, inter- and transdisciplinarity are achieved when some methodologies are transferred between disciplines (the former) and when a comprehensive and holistic perspective supports collaborations between disciplines, through them, and beyond them (the latter) ( Klein, 2010 ). In transdisciplinarity, cognitive schemes intersect disciplines. As a result of this advanced level of collaboration, disciplines often face problems, difficulties, or challenges. Transdisciplinarity itself is not an exception; the different approaches to its conceptualization have led to contradictory points of view. For Rigolot (2020) , these contradictions can be surpassed, by considering transdisciplinarity both as a discipline by itself and as a way of being. As a way of being, transdisciplinarity is fully incorporated into the human life and cannot be reduced to professional activities. This vision is compatible with that of Edgar Morin, who fully integrated transdisciplinary work with his personal life experiences ( Rigolot, 2020 ).

Inter- and Transdisciplinary Peace Education

Considering the aforementioned perspectives, effective peace education should be inter- and transdisciplinary. But how can we develop peace education through these approaches? First, embracing a complex conception of reality. In other words, reality should be viewed and understood from a broad perspective to avoid self-serving simplifications that prevent us from collaborating across disciplines. Second, our education should connect key issues such as life, humanity, culture, the planet, complexity, literature, art, philosophy, sustainability, and values regardless of field of knowledge. Third, teaching-learning processes should be adaptable, allowing teachers and students to see each subject as part of a complex whole interconnected through various mediations.

Accordingly, Lappin (2009) explains that it has been well acknowledged that peacebuilding is complex; however, there is a long-standing tendency to address peacebuilding from the point of view of a single discipline. Nicolescu (2012) adds that there is a direct and inexorable link between peace and transdisciplinarity and that any fragmented way of thinking is incompatible with peace research. Hence, education and the university must evolve to welcome a new humanism and adopt transdisciplinarity in their organization and conceptions. Along the same vein, Galtung (2010) asserts that true transdisciplinarity must be present in all aspects of the human condition, as multiple restricted or skewed perspectives will not provide a clear overview or an encompassing understanding of the whole.

Cabello et al. (2016) advocate that peace should be built on “education for justice and freedom; for reconciliation and brotherhood; for critical conscience and solidarity; for integral development and democracy; for the common good and participation; for human rights, and all the values that support and enable a culture of peace.” Acevedo Suárez and Báez Pimiento (2018) explain that educating for peace is inviting to act in the school microcosm and at the macro level of social structures. They conclude that peace education is a necessity that every educational institution must assume. París Albert (2019) exposes that peace education is also a primary tool to achieve the sustainable development goals of the 2030 Agenda; this tool consists of creativity to imagine careful alternatives to face daily situations, as well as situations of injustice, social inequalities, environmental crises, and sustainable development.

Now comes the question of how we can educate for peace in our daily teaching and research work. Some guidelines ( Zurbano Díaz de Cerio, 1999 ) include cultivating values, learning to live with others, facilitating positive experiences, educating in conflict resolution, developing critical thinking, combating violence, educating in tolerance to diversity of dialogue, and rational argumentation. Furthermore, as educators, we must remember that our example is a powerful ally in all educational processes. We can deliver beautiful and eloquent speeches, but it is our everyday example that sows the most seeds of peace in others. We are also educating for peace via our own actions. We, as teachers, may encourage active listening, empathy, depersonalization of conflicts, and respect for limitations and opinions. In this approach, we may take small steps toward strengthening our coexistence and promoting a culture of peace.

Peace education must also be established at all levels, for all ages, and for all people. However, peace education has a significant impact on youth. Peace education is crucial during childhood and youth because the seeds we sow in them when they are young will flourish henceforth and bear fruit in the future for the benefit of our society. For this reason, youth represents both present and future peace and play a key role in peace education.

Currently, several discourses, initiatives, and indicators from different disciplines describe peace education. Many of them, though, remain limited to inert speeches. Peace, on the contrary, requires action ( Jordan et al., 2021 ). We can make peace education a reality in our teaching activities through inter- and transdisciplinary approaches. Teachers can have influence in everyday life by building meaningful relationships between education and research, as well as by consistently implementing curricular and extracurricular activities that foster a culture of peace through formal and non-formal training.

Examples of Peace-Building Initiatives From Institutions, Research, Teaching and Personal Experience

Initiatives aimed at fostering a culture of peace are commonly promoted by institutions, researchers or teachers. For example, the study by Jordan et al. (2021) highlights an institutional peacebuilding initiative at the University of New Mexico School of Engineering and Health Sciences Center, where summit of the World Engineering Education Forum and Global Engineering Deans Council were hosted. The theme was “Peace Engineering” with the focal point of science and engineering-based solutions to the world’s transcendent challenges. The event responded to the urgent need for engineers to reflect, understand, measure, and anticipate the intended and unforeseen implications of their work in a global context. The results of these events comprised establishing academic programs, starting new areas of education, research, and innovation relating to climate change, water, healthcare, food security, ethics, transparency, resilience, sustainability, social equity and diversity, as well as face-to-face and virtual academic events addressing peace, and engineering concerns.

In the research context, the project by Del Río Fernández et al. (2019) attempts to promote peace via the use of plastic and visual languages. The researchers gained this interdisciplinary experience with early childhood education student teachers through photographic exhibitions and mural workshops. They focused on developing respect for the ideas and beliefs of others, improving peaceful community life, and fostering pacific conflict resolution. This project is a clear illustration of how peace can be promoted from a variety of perspectives, such as the plastic arts.

In the teaching field, Miralay (2020) found that according to teachers’ perceptions, the awareness of the culture of peace by students through arts education would promote individual and social peace. They also found that families, school administrators and governmental institutions have an essential role in promoting peace. Also, it was evident that there are deficiencies in the institutions while performing this process. On the other hand, the work of Domínguez and Ordinas (2019) describes the application of a novel methodology to promote socially equitable education in university teaching in courses involving the past and present of relations between human societies and cultures on a global scale. The aim of their work is to use ludic methods instead of traditional methods of study. Their students were encouraged to have a critical, pluralistic, cooperative outlook on the meaning of peace. This pedagogical approach has enriched the way of teaching and generating historical knowledge by using cooperative games in the classroom.

I can present my personal experience with teaching software development. In the classroom I have incorporated agile approaches which recognize that software development has a strong human dimension. Thus, people take precedence over tools ( Beck et al., 2021 ). When these approaches are used in the classroom, students not only learn to program but also to collaborate while also learning to be tolerant. The principles of Egoless Programming ( Waychal and Capretz, 2018 ) are also addressed during the practical lessons to help students understand the importance of good interpersonal relationships when collaborating. These approaches have been incredibly helpful in software development teaching because they strengthen understanding, respect, empathy, tolerance, and collaboration among students. In addition, I have found through quantitative and mixed research approaches that collaborative programming can produce software with better attributes than those of individually developed programs. For example, pair programming has produced elevated levels of acceptance and well-structured programs in our sessions.

Peace and peace research are pertinent needs in our society. As teachers, we must promote peace education and a culture of peace from various angles. However, this is not an exclusive duty of teachers, but also requires the enthusiastic collaboration of institutions, students, parents, families, and communities. In this process, it is important to reflect on the contributions to peace that we can make in our everyday practice. Then, let us promote collaboration, dialogue, respect, active listening, and inclusion, using a cultural vision and living example of our behavior, thereby creating a culture of peace based on values and love in our daily lives as teachers or researchers.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author Contributions

RR-H: conception, research, writing, editing, revising, and final draft.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We thank everyone who contributed to my encounter with the ideas presented in this manuscript. We thank Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas for the support provided to carry out this work.

Acevedo Suárez, A., and Báez Pimiento, A. (2018). La educación en cultura de paz. Herramienta de construcción de paz en el posconflicto. Ref. Política 20, 68–80. doi: 10.29375/01240781.3455

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Acosta Oidor, C., Tabares Rojas, L. A., Castillo Acosta, P. N., López Andrade, M. C., Ramírez Luque, L. F., Ortiz Arévalo, A. M., et al. (2021). Estrategias y mecanismos para la construcción de una cultura de paz en la educación secundaria en Bogotá, Colombia. Rev. Int. Educ. para Justicia Soc. 10, 245–258. doi: 10.15366/RIEJS2021.10.1.015

Beck, K., Beedle, M., Bennekum, A., van Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., et al. (2021). Agile ManifestoManifesto for Agile Software Development. https://agilemanifesto.org/ (accessed December 31, 2021).

Google Scholar

Cabello, P., Gorjón, C. C., Sáenz Vázquez, I., Sáenz, I., Gorjón, C., and At, E. (2016). Cultura de paz (1st ed.). Mexico City: Grupo Editorial Patria.

Capistrano, D. (2020). Education and support for a culture of peace: a critical comparative analysis using survey data. Glob. Change Peace Secur. 32, 39–55. doi: 10.1080/14781158.2020.1707790

Comins-Mingol, I. (2002). Reseña: “Construyendo la Paz, una Perspectiva Interdisciplinar y Transdisciplinar. Convergencia Rev. Cienc. Soc. 9, 321–336.

Cuéllar, H. (2009). Hacia un nuevo humanismo: filosofía de la vida cotidiana. Claves Pensam. 3, 11–34.

Del Río Fernández, P., Texeira Jiménez, R., and Ramos Delgado, S. (2019). “Educación para la paz a través de lenguajes actuales plásticos visuales: Una experiencia interdisciplinar en el grado de maestros de educación infantil,” in Proceedings of the VII Congreso de Educación Infantil y Formación Infantil y Formación de Educadores. Prácticas Emergentes En Educación Infantil , (Málaga: Universidad de Málaga), 1–9.

Domínguez, F. P., and Ordinas, E. B. (2019). Games for peace. Design of historical cooperative games in the classroom. Rev. Int. Educ. para Justicia Soc. 8, 163–180. doi: 10.15366/RIEJS2019.8.1.010

Escobar, Y. C. (2010). Interdisciplinariedad: Desafío Para La Educación Superior Y La Investigación. Luna Azul 31, 156–169. doi: 10.17151/luaz.2010.31.12

Galtung, J. (2010). Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution: The Need for Transdisciplinarity. Transcult. Psychiatry 47, 20–32. doi: 10.1177/1363461510362041

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jordan, R., Agi, K., Arora, S., Christodoulou, C. G., Schamiloglu, E., Koechner, D., et al. (2021). Peace engineering in practice: A case study at the University of New Mexico. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 173:121113. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121113

Klein, J. T. (2010). A Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity. in The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity , eds R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, and C. Mitcham (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 15–30.

Lappin, R. (2009). Peacebuilding and the Promise of transdisciplinarity. Int. J. World Peace 26, 69–76.

Miralay, F. (2020). Peacebuilding Strategies in Conflict Societies Through Art Education?: Cyprus. Propósitos y Representaciones 8, 1–15. doi: 10.20511/pyr2020.v8nSPE2.795

Morin, E. (1994). Introducción al Pensamiento Complejo. Barcelona: Gedisa.

Nicolescu, B. (2012). The Need for Transdisciplinarity in Higher Education in a Globalized World. Transdiscipl. J. Eng. Sci. 3, 11–18. doi: 10.22545/2012/00031

Page, J. (2008). Peace Education: Exploring Ethical and Philosophical Foundations. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

París Albert, S. (2019). Educación para la Paz, Creatividad Atenta y Desarrollo Sostenible. Rev. Int. Educ. para Justicia Soc. 8:27. doi: 10.15366/riejs2019.8.1.002

Rigolot, C. (2020). Transdisciplinarity as a discipline and a way of being: complementarities and creative tensions. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 7:100. doi: 10.1057/s41599-020-00598-5

Waychal, P., and Capretz, L. F. (2018). Universality of egoless behavior of software engineering students. Int. J. Technol. Hum. Interact. 14, 99–112. doi: 10.4018/IJTHI.2018010106

Zurbano Díaz de Cerio, J. L. (1999). Educación Para la paz. Bases de una Educación para la paz y la Convivencia. Pamplona: Gobierno de Navarra.

Keywords : culture of peace, peace, peace education, higher education, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinary education

Citation: Roque-Hernández RV (2022) Building a Culture of Peace in Everyday Life With Inter- and Transdisciplinary Perspectives. Front. Educ. 7:847968. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.847968

Received: 03 January 2022; Accepted: 06 June 2022; Published: 23 June 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Roque-Hernández. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Ramón Ventura Roque-Hernández, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Education and Society: New Approaches for New Challenges

Defining the Concept of Peace » Positive & Negative Peace

In this excerpt from our IEP Peace Academy, learn why understanding the different definitions of peace is crucial for peacebuilders.

Learn why understanding the concept of peace from both a negative peace and positive peace perspective is crucial for peacebuilders.

Defining the Concept of Peace: Positive and Negative Peace

There are two common conceptions of peace — Negative Peace, or actual peace, and Positive Peace.

What is Negative Peace?

IEP’s definition of Negative Peace is understood as ‘the absence of violence or fear of violence — an intuitive definition that many agree with, and one which enables us to measure peace more easily.

Measures of Negative Peace are the foundation of the IEP’s flagship product, the Global Peace Index .

However, while the Global Peace Index tells us how peaceful a country is, it doesn’t tell us what or where we should be investing in to strengthen or maintain levels of peace.

This leads us to Positive Peace , derived from the data contained within the Global Peace Index . Positive Peace provides a framework to understand and address the many complex challenges the world faces.

What is Positive Peace?

Positive Peace is defined as the attitudes, institutions and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies.

It provides a framework to understand and then address the multiple and complex challenges the world faces. Positive Peace is transformational in that it is a cross-cutting factor for progress, making it easier for businesses to sell, entrepreneurs and scientists to innovate, individuals to produce, and governments to effectively regulate.

Difference between Negative and Positive Peace

In addition to the absence of violence, Positive Peace is also associated with many other social characteristics that are considered desirable, including better economic outcomes, measures of well-being, levels of inclusiveness and environmental performance.

A parallel can be drawn with medical science; the study of pathology has led to numerous breakthroughs in our understanding of how to treat and cure disease.

However, it was only when medical science turned its focus to the study of healthy human beings that we understood what we needed to do to stay healthy. This could only be learned by studying what was working.

Are you interested in learning more about peace? Sign up for the free, online Positive Peace Academy

Vision of Humanity

Editorial staff.

Vision of Humanity is brought to you by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), by staff in our global offices in Sydney, New York, The Hague, Harare and Mexico. Alongside maps and global indices, we present fresh perspectives on current affairs reflecting our editorial philosophy.

RELATED POSTS

Levels of Positive Peace Can Help Predict Economic Shifts

Data shows that peace and economic performance can be mutually reinforcing.

Civil Unrest

How the pandemic has shaken our global socio economic system.

The pandemic has shaken our global socio-economic system, but some countries will fare better than others, writes Steve Killelea.

RELATED RESOURCES

Global Peace Index 2020

Measuring peace in a complex world.

September 2020

Ecological threat register 2020.

Understanding ecological threats, resilience and peace.

Never miss a report, event or news update.

Subscribe to the Vision Of Humanity mailing list

• Email address *
• Future Trends (Weekly)
• VOH Newsletter (Weekly)
• IEP & VOH Updates (Irregular)
• Consent * I accept the above information will be used to contact me. *

Search the United Nations

• Member States

Main Bodies

Secretary-general.

• Secretariat
• Emblem and Flag
• ICJ Statute
• Nobel Peace Prize

Peace and Security

• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Aid
• Sustainable Development and Climate
• International Law
• Global Issues
• Official Languages
• Observances
• Events and News
• Get Involved
• Israel-Gaza Crisis

" To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war " are among the first very words of the UN Charter (in its Preamble), and those words were the main motivation for creating the United Nations, whose founders had lived through the devastation of two world wars by 1945. Since the UN's creation on 24 October 1945 (the date its Charter came into force), the United Nations has often been called upon to prevent disputes from escalating into war, or to help restore peace following the outbreak of armed conflict, and to promote lasting peace in societies emerging from wars.

• Security Council

Over the decades, the UN has helped to end numerous conflicts, often through actions of the  Security Council & — the organ with primary responsibility, under the  United Nations Charter,  for the maintenance of international peace and security. When it receives a complaint about a threat to peace, the Council first recommends that the parties seek an agreement by peaceful means. In some cases, the Council itself investigates and mediates. It may appoint special representatives or request the Secretary-General to do so, or to use his good offices. It may set forth principles for a peaceful settlement.

When a dispute leads to fighting, the Council's first concern is to end it as soon as possible. On many occasions, the Council has issued ceasefire directives, which have helped to prevent major hostilities. It also deploys UN peacekeeping operations to reduce tensions in troubled areas, keep opposing forces apart, and create conditions for sustainable peace after settlements have been reached. The Council may decide on  enforcement measures ,  economic sanctions  (such as trade embargoes) or collective military action.

The Security Council has  15 Members  -5 permanent (United States, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and China), and 10 non-permanent members-. Each Member has one  vote . According to the Charter, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions .

Reform of the Security Council

One of the issues of major concern at the international level is the stalemate in the Council's decision-making. This deadlock, largely due to the veto power of the five permanent members, is not new and has been synonymous with paralysis for the UN on many occasions.

During its sixty-second session, the General Assembly decided to begin informal plenary intergovernmental negotiations. The discussions started in the sixty-third session and were based on proposals made by the Member States. The dialogues focused on the question of equitable representation in the Security Council, an increase in its membership, and other matters related to the Council. The goal is to find a solution that will gain the widest possible political acceptance by Member States.

• General Assembly

According to the Charter, the General Assembly can make recommendations on the general principles of cooperation for maintaining international peace and security, including disarmament, and for the peaceful settlement of any situation that might impair friendly relations among nations. The General Assembly may also discuss any question relating to international peace and security and make recommendations if the Security Council is not currently discussing the issue. 

Pursuant to its  “Uniting for Peace” resolution of November 1950 (resolution 377 (V)), the General Assembly may also take action if the Security Council fails to act, owing to the negative vote of a Permanent Member, in a case where there appears to be a threat to, or breach of peace, or an act of aggression. The Assembly can consider the matter  immediately in order to make recommendations to Members for collective measures to maintain, or restore, international peace and security.

The Assembly meets in regular sessions from September to December each year, and thereafter as required. It discusses specific issues through dedicated agenda items or sub-items, which lead to the adoption of resolutions.

The Charter empowers the Secretary-General to " bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security ." One of the most vital roles played by the Secretary-General is the use of his " good offices " – steps taken publicly and in private that draw upon his independence, impartiality and integrity to prevent international disputes from arising, escalating or spreading.

Conflict Prevention

The main strategies to prevent disputes from escalating into conflict, and to prevent the recurrence of conflict, are preventive diplomacy and preventive disarmament. Preventive diplomacy refers to action taken to prevent disputes from arising or escalating into conflicts, and to limit the spread of conflicts as they arise. It may take the form of mediation, conciliation or negotiation.

Preventive diplomacy

Early warning is an essential component of prevention, and the United Nations carefully monitors developments around the world to detect threats to international peace and security, thereby enabling the Security Council and the Secretary-General to carry out preventive action. Envoys and special representatives of the Secretary-General are engaged in  mediation and preventive diplomacy throughout the world. In some trouble spots, the mere presence of a skilled envoy can prevent the escalation of tension. These envoys often cooperate with regional organizations.

Preventive disarmament

Complementing preventive diplomacy is preventive disarmament , which seeks to reduce the number of small arms in conflict-prone regions. In El Salvador, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Timor-Leste and elsewhere, this has entailed demobilizing combat forces, as well as collecting and destroying their weapons as part of an overall peace agreement. Destroying yesterday’s weapons prevents their use in tomorrow’s wars.

Preventing Genocide and Responsibility to Protect

Prevention requires apportioning responsibility and promoting collaboration between the concerned States and the international community. The duty to prevent and halt genocide and mass atrocities lies first and foremost with the State, but the international community has a role that cannot be blocked by the invocation of sovereignty. Sovereignty no longer exclusively protects States from foreign interference; it is a charge of responsibility where States are accountable for the welfare of their people. This principle is enshrined in article 1 of the  Genocide Convention  and embodied in the principle of “sovereignty as responsibility” and in the concept of the Responsibility to Protect.

The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide  acts as a catalyst to raise awareness of the causes and dynamics of genocide, to alert relevant actors where there is a risk of genocide, and to advocate and mobilize for appropriate action. The Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect leads the conceptual, political, institutional and operational development of the Responsibility to Protect. The efforts of their Office include alerting relevant actors to the risk of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, enhancing the capacity of the United Nations to prevent these crimes, including their incitement.

Peacekeeping

United Nations peacekeeping operations are a vital instrument employed by the international community to advance peace and security.

The first UN peacekeeping mission was established in 1948 when the Security Council authorized the deployment of the  United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) to the Middle East to monitor the Armistice Agreement between Israel and its Arab neighbours. Since then, there have been more than 70 UN peacekeeping operations around the world.

Over 72 years, UN peacekeeping has evolved to meet the demands of different conflicts and a changing political landscape. Born at the time when Cold War rivalries frequently paralyzed the Security Council, UN peacekeeping goals were primarily limited to maintaining ceasefires and stabilizing situations on the ground, so that efforts could be made at the political level to resolve the conflict by peaceful means. 

UN peacekeeping expanded in the 1990s, as the end of the Cold War created new opportunities to end civil wars through negotiated peace settlements. Many conflicts ended, either through direct UN mediation, or through the efforts of others acting with UN support. Countries assisted included El Salvador , Guatemala , Namibia , Cambodia , Mozambique , Tajikistan , and  Burundi . In the late nineties, continuing crises led to new operations in the  Democratic Republic of the Congo , the  Central African Republic , Timor Leste , Sierra Leone and Kosovo .

In the new millennium, peacekeepers have been deployed to  Liberia ,  Côte d'Ivoire ,  Sudan ,  South Sudan ,  Haiti , and  Mali .

Today's conflicts are less numerous but deeply rooted. For example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Darfur, and South Sudan today, are in a second or third wave of conflict. And many are complicated by regional dimensions that are key to their solution. In fact, some two-thirds of peacekeeping personnel today are deployed amid ongoing conflict, where peace agreements are shaky or absent. Conflicts today are also increasingly intensive, involving determined armed groups with access to sophisticated armaments and techniques.

The nature of conflict has also changed over the years. UN peacekeeping, originally developed as a means of resolving inter-State conflict, has been increasingly applied over time to intra-State conflicts and civil wars. Although the military remains the backbone of most peacekeeping operations, today’s peacekeepers perform a variety of complex tasks, from helping to build sustainable institutions of governance, through human rights monitoring and security sector reform, to the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants, and demining.

Peacebuilding

Within the United Nations, peacebuilding refers to efforts to assist countries and regions in their transitions from war to peace and to reduce a country's risk of lapsing or relapsing into conflict by strengthening national capacities for conflict management, and laying the foundations for sustainable peace and development.

Building lasting peace in war-torn societies is a daunting challenge for global peace and security. Peacebuilding requires sustained international support for national efforts across the broadest range of activities. For instance, peacebuilders monitor ceasefires, demobilize and reintegrate combatants, assist the return of refugees and displaced persons, help to organize and monitor elections of a new government, support justice and security sector reforms, enhance human rights protections, and foster reconciliation after past atrocities.

Peacebuilding involves action by a wide array of organizations of the UN system, including the World Bank , regional economic commissions, NGOs and local citizens’ groups. Peacebuilding has played a prominent role in  UN operations  in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Kosovo, Liberia and Mozambique, as well as more recently in Afghanistan, Burundi, Iraq, Sierra Leone and Timor-Leste. An example of inter-state peacebuilding has been the UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Recognizing that the UN needs to better anticipate and respond to the challenges of peacebuilding, the  2005 World Summit approved the creation of a new Peacebuilding Commission. In the resolutions establishing the  Peacebuilding Commission , resolution 60/180 and resolution 1645 , the UN General Assembly and the Security Council mandated it to bring together all relevant actors to advise on the proposed integrated strategies for post-conflict peacebuilding and recovery; to marshal resources and help ensure predictable financing for these activities; and to develop best practices in collaboration with political, security, humanitarian and development actors.

The resolutions also identify the need for the Commission to extend the period of international attention on post-conflict countries, and where necessary, highlight any gaps which threaten to undermine peacebuilding.

The General Assembly and Security Council resolutions establishing the Peacebuilding Commission also provided for the establishment of a  Peacebuilding Fund & and a Peacebuilding Support Office .

The Rule of Law

Promoting the  rule of law at the national and international levels is at the heart of the United Nations’ mission. Establishing respect for the rule of law is fundamental to achieving a durable peace in the aftermath of conflict, to the effective protection of human rights, and to sustained economic progress and development. The principle that everyone – from the individual to the State itself – is accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, is a fundamental concept which drives much of the United Nations work. The main United Nations organs, including the General Assembly and the Security Council, play essential roles in supporting Member States to strengthen the rule of law, as do many United Nations entities.

Responsibility for the overall coordination of rule of law work by the United Nations system rests with the  Rule of Law Coordination and Resource Group , chaired by the Deputy Secretary-General and supported by the Rule of Law Unit. Members of the Group are the principals of 20 United Nations entities engaged in supporting Member States to strengthen the rule of law. Providing support from headquarters to rule of law activities at the national level, the Secretary-General designated the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as the joint global focal point for the police, justice and corrections areas in the rule of law in post-conflict and other crisis situations. 

Women and Children in Conflict

In contemporary conflicts, up to 90 per cent of casualties are civilians, mostly women and children. Women in war-torn societies can face specific and devastating forms of sexual violence, which are sometimes deployed systematically to achieve military or political objectives. Moreover, women continue to be poorly represented in formal peace processes, although they contribute in many informal ways to conflict resolution.

However, the UN Security Council in its  resolution 1325 on women, peace and security has recognized that including women and gender perspectives in decision-making can strengthen prospects for sustainable peace. The landmark resolution addresses the situation of women in armed conflict and calls for their participation at all levels of decision-making on conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

Since the agenda was set with the core principles of resolution 1325, the Security Council has adopted seven supporting resolutions —  1820 ,  1888 , 1889 , 1960 ,  2106 ,  2331  and  2467 -. All the resolutions focus on two key goals: strengthening women’s participation in decision-making and ending sexual violence and impunity.

Since 1999, the systematic engagement of the UN Security Council has firmly placed the situation of children affected by armed conflict as an issue affecting peace and security. The Security Council has created a strong framework and provided the Secretary-General with tools to respond to violations against children.  The Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict serves as the leading UN advocate for the protection and well-being of children affected by armed conflict.

Peaceful uses of outer space

The UN works to ensure that outer space is used for peaceful purposes and that the benefits from space activities are shared by all nations. This concern for the peaceful uses of outer space began soon after the launch of Sputnik — the first artificial satellite — by the Soviet Union in 1957 and has kept pace with advances in space technology. The UN has played an important role by developing international space law and by promoting international cooperation in space science and technology.

The Vienna-based  United Nations Office for Outer Space serves as the secretariat for the  Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and its subcommittees, and assists developing countries in using space technology for development.

• UN Peacekeeping
• International Day of UN Peacekeepers (29 May)
• Child and Youth Safety Online
• Disarmament

Related Stories from the UN System

Read more about peace and security.

• Economic and Social Council
• Trusteeship Council
• International Court of Justice

Departments / Offices

• UN System Directory
• UN System Chart
• Global Leadership
• UN Information Centres

Resources / Services

• Emergency information
• Reporting Wrongdoing
• Guidelines for gender-inclusive language
• UN iLibrary
• UN Chronicle
• UN Yearbook
• Publications for sale
• Media Accreditation
• NGO accreditation at ECOSOC
• NGO accreditation at DGC
• Visitors’ services
• Procurement
• Internships
• Academic Impact
• UN Archives
• UN Audiovisual Library
• How to donate to the UN system
• Information on COVID-19 (Coronavirus)
• Africa Renewal
• Ten ways the UN makes a difference
• High-level summits 2023

Key Documents

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• Convention on the Rights of the Child
• Statute of the International Court of Justice
• Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization

News and Media

• Press Releases
• Spokesperson
• Social Media
• The Essential UN
• Awake at Night podcast

Issues / Campaigns

• Sustainable Development Goals
• Our Common Agenda
• Summit of the Future
• Climate Action
• UN and Sustainability
• Action for Peacekeeping (A4P)
• Global Ceasefire
• Global Crisis Response Group
• Call to Action for Human Rights
• Disability Inclusion Strategy
• Fight Racism
• Hate Speech
• Safety of Journalists
• Rule of Law
• Action to Counter Terrorism
• Victims of Terrorism
• Children and Armed Conflict
• Violence Against Children (SRSG)
• Sexual Violence in Conflict
• Refugees and Migrants
• Action Agenda on Internal Displacement
• Spotlight Initiative
• Preventing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
• Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect
• The Rwanda Genocide
• The Holocaust
• The Question of Palestine
• The Transatlantic Slave Trade
• Decolonization
• Messengers of Peace
• Roadmap for Digital Cooperation
• Digital Financing Task Force
• Data Strategy
• Countering Disinformation
• UN75: 2020 and Beyond
• Women Rise for All
• Stop the Red Sea Catastrophe
• Black Sea Grain Initiative Joint Coordination Centre
• Türkiye-Syria Earthquake Response (Donate)

UNICEF In DRC: Where Humanitarian Aid And Peace Building Intersect

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, UNICEF-supported programs are doing more than meeting basic needs like safe water and education. They are also easing social tensions and building trust between and within communities. A look at the impact of UNICEF's peace-building work in the eastern province of Tanganyika, where members of different groups are learning to live, learn and play side by side, with UNICEF's help.

Delphin of Kampyempye village, Tanganyika province, eastern DRC, is back at school and studying hard after having been displaced by conflict, losing both parents and having his education interrupted. "What I like about our school is that we study alongside the Bantu and the Twa," he says. "I am beginning to recover the lost knowledge. This school means a lot to me."

Meeting basic needs, building trust to strengthen communities and help children thrive

Delphin fled Kampyempye village, in Tanganyika province, eastern DRC, when violent conflict erupted between the Bantu and Twa communities. At 6 years old, he lost both his parents and stopped going to school.

Today he is back and has resumed his studies at a school UNICEF helped construct — where Bantu and Twa learn and play side by side.

Watch the video:

An important part of UNICEF’s mission in DRC, and in Tanganyika province in particular, is helping to facilitate the post-conflict return of displaced children and families.

In collaboration with local government and civil society organizations, indigenous community representatives and other partners, UNICEF is advancing solutions for ensuring access to safe water, nutrition, education and other essentials, while also building trust among groups who for years had engaged in violent conflict triggered by land disputes and other social tensions.

It is a multi-layered mission that combines humanitarian and development work with peace building.

Every morning, Delphin rises early to go fishing before school starts. Displaced by violent conflict when he was younger, he is now back in his home village of Kampyempye, Tanganyika province, eastern DRC.

For UNICEF, humanitarian work, development work and peace building go hand in hand

“The first step was to bring them together to the negotiating table, to bring the Twa and the Bantu leaders together to talk,” explains Zinaha Tsiriniaina Rajaonarison, a UNICEF Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist. “The second step was to unite them with common objectives, a common vision so that the two communities could work together and improve peaceful cohabitation.”

UNICEF helps foster social cohesion in eastern DRC in many ways, including establishing youth training programs, organizing sports and cultural events and assisting in the development of community action plans.

For Luzinga Mwayuma Moza and her child, life in Katamba village, Tanganyika province, eastern DRC, has vastly improved now that safe water is easier to access for drinking and cooking. "When I came back, I found everything destroyed," Moza says. "There was no food, and I had to start farming again ... We were suffering greatly to get water, and we were so happy to have this pump installed."

UNICEF’s Young Champions program, launched in DRC in 2023, serves a similar purpose, offering opportunities for young people to be included and to participate more fully in actions that create positive change in their communities, while also gaining professional experience.

In the program’s first year, 40 young people aged 18 to 31 were selected for three-month stints at different UNICEF field offices. Assignments ranged from leading social mobilization during vaccination campaigns in indigenous communities to promoting environmental protection in schools to organizing the first U-Report community in a DRC displacement camp.

Viewed as an incubator for young talent, the Young Champions program is also proving to be a springboard to service-oriented careers: more than two dozen of the 2023 participants have already secured jobs that involve serving children and their communities.

Learn more about how UNICEF is helping children and families in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Unrestricted donations give UNICEF the flexibility to direct resources wherever and whenever they are needed most. Your contribution can make a difference. Donate today.

Video edited by Tong Su for UNICEF USA.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

A Solution on North Korea Is There, if Biden Will Only Grasp It

By John Delury

Dr. Delury is a professor of Chinese studies and an expert on North Korea.

How do you solve a problem like North Korea?

Since the end of the Cold War, it seems that every formula, from threatening war to promising peace, has been tried. And yet, despite being under more sanctions than just about any other country, North Korea developed a nuclear arsenal estimated at 50 warheads and sophisticated missiles that can, in theory, deliver those weapons to targets in the continental United States.

President Biden’s administration has taken a notably more ambivalent approach toward North Korea than his predecessor Donald Trump, who alternately railed at and courted its leader, Kim Jong-un. But we shouldn’t stop trying to come up with bold ways to denuclearize North Korea, improve the lives of its people or lessen the risks of conflict, even if that means making unpalatable choices. On the contrary, there is more urgency now than there has been for years.

As the analyst Robert Carlin and the nuclear scientist Siegfried Hecker, two experienced North Korea watchers, warned in January, Mr. Kim has shifted away from pursuing better relations with the United States and South Korea and closer to President Vladimir Putin of Russia and may be preparing for war. Just days after the two experts issued their warning, Mr. Kim disavowed the long-cherished goal of peaceful reconciliation between the two Koreas, and he called for “completely occupying, subjugating and reclaiming” the South if war breaks out.

It might seem preposterous, even suicidal, for Mr. Kim to seek war. But many people in Ukraine doubted that Mr. Putin would launch a full invasion, right up until the rockets began landing in February 2022, and Hamas caught Israel completely by surprise in October. Both conflicts have had devastating human tolls and are severely taxing America’s ability to manage concurrent crises. The people of both Koreas certainly don’t need war, and neither does the United States.

Mr. Kim’s grandfather started the Korean War, and his father was a master of brinkmanship. Mr. Kim is cut from the same cloth and could instigate a limited conflict by, for example, launching an amphibious assault on South Korean-controlled islands in disputed waters of the Yellow Sea, less than 15 miles off North Korea’s coast. North Korea shelled one of the islands in 2010, killing two South Korean military personnel and two civilians and triggering an exchange of artillery with the South. Just two months ago, Pyongyang fired more than 200 shells into waters near the islands.

Mr. Kim may believe he can manage escalation of such a crisis — threatening missile or even nuclear attack to deter retaliation, perhaps taking the islands, then spinning it as a great propaganda victory and demanding a redrawing of maritime boundaries and other security concessions.

If anything like that scenario came to pass, Mr. Biden would have to explain another outbreak of war on his watch to weary American voters. And it would provide Mr. Trump an opportunity to trumpet his willingness to engage with Mr. Kim.

The mutual distrust between Washington and Pyongyang has only deepened under Mr. Biden, making a breakthrough seem unlikely. Yet there are two underappreciated dynamics at play in North Korea where the United States might find leverage.

The first is China. Despite the veneer of Communist kinship, Mr. Kim and President Xi Jinping of China are nationalists at heart, and they watch each other warily. I have made numerous visits to both nations’ capitals and met with officials and policy shapers. The sense of deep mutual distrust is palpable. Many Chinese look down on neighboring North Korea as backward and are annoyed by its destabilizing behavior. Many North Koreans resent China’s success and resist its influence; Pyongyang could allow much more Chinese investment but doesn’t want to be indebted to Chinese capital. And Mr. Kim seems to delight in timing provocations for maximum embarrassment in Beijing, including testing weapons — prohibited by U.N. sanctions — in the lead-up to sensitive Chinese political events .

Mr. Kim waited six years after becoming the paramount leader in 2011 before making a trip to Beijing to meet Mr. Xi. When Covid emerged, North Korea was among the first countries to shut its borders with China, and ties atrophied during those nearly three years of closure . Last year Mr. Kim chose Mr. Putin, not Mr. Xi, for his first postpandemic summit, skipping China to travel to Russia’s far east. Mr. Kim’s distrust of China is an opening for the United States.

The second point is Mr. Kim’s economic ambitions. For every speech mentioning nukes, he talks at much greater length about the poor state of his nation’s economy while promising to improve it. It was the prospect of American-led economic sanctions being lifted that persuaded him to make the 60-hour train ride from Pyongyang to Hanoi to meet then-President Trump for their second summit in 2019. Mr. Kim explicitly offered to dismantle his main nuclear weapons complex, but Mr. Trump demanded the North also turn over all of its nuclear weapons, material and facilities. The talks collapsed, and Mr. Trump seemed to lose interest in dealing with Mr. Kim. A rare opportunity was wasted, leaving Mr. Kim embittered.

The key to any new overture to North Korea is how it is framed. The White House won’t like to hear this, but success will probably depend on Mr. Biden putting his fingerprints all over the effort, by, for example, nominating a new White House envoy with the stature of someone like John Kerry and announcing a sweeping policy on North Korea and an intelligence review. Only the president can get through to Mr. Kim, and only Mr. Kim can change North Korean policy.

Mr. Biden also would need to use radically different language in framing a new overture as an effort to improve relations and aid North Korea’s economy — not to denuclearize a country that in 2022 passed a law declaring itself a nuclear weapons state. Yes, that would be a bitter pill for America to swallow: Denuclearization has been a guiding principle of U.S. policy toward North Korea for decades. But it is unrealistic to pretend that Pyongyang will surrender its nuclear weapons anytime soon. Disarmament can remain a long-term goal but is impossible if the two sides aren’t even talking.

Mr. Biden’s Republican opponents might accuse him of appeasement by engaging with Mr. Kim, but that is precisely what Mr. Trump tried. Mr. Kim, likewise, might mistake boldness for weakness. But it would be easy enough for the United States to pull back from diplomacy if it goes nowhere.

The United States must be realistic. The world is very different from when the United States, China, Russia, Japan and the two Koreas came together in the 2000s for negotiations to denuclearize North Korea. The country is now a formidable nuclear power, and its leader sounds increasingly belligerent. The president needs to get the wheels of diplomacy turning before it’s too late.

John Delury (@JohnDelury) is a professor of Chinese studies at Yonsei University in Seoul, the Tsao fellow at the American Academy in Rome and the author of “Agents of Subversion: The Fate of John T. Downey and the CIA’s Covert War in China.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , X and Threads .

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

This Day In History : September 14

Changing the day will navigate the page to that given day in history. You can navigate days by using left and right arrows

Napoleon enters Moscow

One week after winning a bloody victory over the Russian army at the Battle of Borodino, Napoleon Bonaparte ’s Grande Armée enters the city of Moscow, only to find the population evacuated and the Russian army retreated again. Moscow was the goal of the invasion, but the deserted city held no czarist officials to sue for peace and no great stores of food or supplies to reward the French soldiers for their long march. Then, just after midnight, fires broke out across the city, apparently set by Russian patriots, leaving Napoleon’s massive army with no means to survive the coming Russian winter.

In 1812, French Emperor Napoleon I was still at the height of his fortunes. The Peninsular War against Britain was a thorn in the side of his great European empire, but he was confident that his generals would soon triumph in Spain. All that remained to complete his “Continental System”–a unilateral European blockade designed to economically isolate Britain and force its subjugation–was the cooperation of Russia. After earlier conflict, Napoleon and Alexander I kept a tenuous peace, but the Russian czar was unwilling to submit to the Continental System, which was ruinous to the Russian economy. To intimidate Alexander, Napoleon massed his forces in Poland in the spring of 1812, but still the czar resisted.

On June 24, Napoleon ordered his Grande Armée, the largest European military force ever assembled to that date, into Russia. The enormous army featured more than 500,000 soldiers and staff and included contingents from Prussia, Austria, and other countries under the sway of the French empire. Napoleon’s military successes lay in his ability to move his armies rapidly and strike quickly, but in the opening months of his Russian invasion he was forced to be content with a Russian army in perpetual retreat. The fleeing Russian forces adopted a “scorched earth” strategy, seizing or burning any supplies that the French might pillage from the countryside. Meanwhile, Napoleon’s supply lines became overextended as he advanced deeper and deeper into the Russian expanse.

Many in the czarist government were critical of the Russian army’s refusal to engage Napoleon in a direct confrontation. Under public pressure, Alexander named General Mikhail Kutuzov supreme commander in August, but the veteran of earlier defeats against Napoleon continued the retreat. Finally, Kutuzov agreed to halt at the town of Borodino, about 70 miles west of Moscow, and engage the French. The Russians built fortifications, and on September 7 the Grande Armée attacked. Napoleon was uncharacteristically cautious that day; he didn’t try to outflank the Russians, and he declined to send much-needed reinforcements into the fray. The result was a bloody and narrow victory and another retreat by the Russian army.

Although disturbed by the progress of the campaign, Napoleon was sure that once Moscow was taken Alexander would be forced to capitulate. On September 14, the French entered a deserted Moscow. All but a few thousand of the city’s 275,000 people were gone. Napoleon retired to a house on the outskirts of the city for the night, but two hours after midnight he was informed that a fire had broken out in the city. He went to the Kremlin, where he watched the flames continue to grow. Strange reports began to come in telling of Russians starting the fires and stoking the flames. Suddenly a fire broke out within the Kremlin, apparently set by a Russian military policeman who was immediately executed. With the firestorm spreading, Napoleon and his entourage were forced to flee down burning streets to Moscow’s outskirts and narrowly avoided being asphyxiated. When the flames died down three days later, more than two-thirds of the city was destroyed.

In the aftermath of the calamity, Napoleon still hoped Alexander would ask for peace. In a letter to the czar he wrote: “My lord Brother. Beautiful, magical Moscow exists no more. How could you consign to destruction the loveliest city in the world, a city that has taken hundreds of years to build?” The fire was allegedly set on the orders of Moscow Governor-General Feodor Rostopchin; though Rostopchin later denied the charge. Alexander said the burning of Moscow “illuminated his soul,” and he refused to negotiate with Napoleon.

After waiting a month for a surrender that never came, Napoleon was forced to lead his starving army out of the ruined city. Suddenly, Kutuzov’s army appeared and gave battle on October 19 at Maloyaroslavets. The disintegrating Grande Armée was forced to abandon the fertile, southern route by which it hoped to retreat and proceed back along the ravaged path over which it had originally advanced. During the disastrous retreat, Napoleon’s army suffered continual harassment from the merciless Russian army. Stalked by hunger, subzero temperatures, and the deadly lances of the Cossacks, the decimated army reached the Berezina River late in November, near the border with French-occupied Lithuania. However, the river was unexpectedly thawed, and the Russians had destroyed the bridges at Borisov.

Napoleon’s engineers managed to construct two makeshift bridges at Studienka, and on November 26 the bulk of his army began to cross the river. On November 29, the Russians pressed from the east, and the French were forced to burn the bridges, leaving some 10,000 stragglers on the other side. The Russians largely abandoned their pursuit after that point, but thousands of French troops continued to succumb to hunger, exhaustion, and the cold. In December, Napoleon abandoned what remained of his army and raced back to Paris, where people were saying he had died and a general had led an unsuccessful coup. He traveled incognito across Europe with a few cohorts and reached the capital of his empire on December 18. Six days later, the Grande Armée finally escaped Russia, having suffered a loss of more than 400,000 men during the disastrous invasion.

With Europe emboldened by his catastrophic failure in Russia, an allied force rose up to defeat Napoleon in 1814. Exiled to the island of Elba, he escaped to France in early 1815 and raised a new army that enjoyed fleeting success before its crushing defeat at Waterloo in June 1815. Napoleon was then exiled to the remote island of Saint Helena, where he died six years later.

Also on This Day in History September | 14

Pop-tarts debut, dolores huerta beaten by police while peacefully protesting, mlb cancels playoffs, world series, muslim teen arrested for bringing reassembled clock to school.

This Day in History Video: What Happened on September 14

General winfield scott captures mexico city.

Wake Up to This Day in History

Sign up now to learn about This Day in History straight from your inbox. Get all of today's events in just one email featuring a range of topics.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Elizabeth Ann Seton becomes one of the first American-born saints

President mckinley dies of infection from gunshot wounds.

Francis Scott Key pens “The Star-Spangled Banner”

John steinbeck awarded the medal of freedom, hollywood star and real-life princess grace kelly dies, millions flee from hurricane floyd, “i shot the sheriff” hits the song charts, north and south clash at the battle of south mountain, soviet probe reaches the moon.