ISSN: 2151-0806
Any social process undertaken by governments who want their citizens to believe they are trying to avoid armed hostilities http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=peace%20process A situation wherein indigenous societies must negotiate permanent and legally binding issues without being given anything with which to do so, usually by way of unelected officials http://www.kabobfest.com/2011/07/the-dictionary-of-u-s-political-speech.html
Introduction Reciprocity a fundamental component altering relationships between individuals, groups or nations in discord. Defined as “the evolutionary basis for cooperation,” (Molm et. al., 2007, p. 199) and the building block of “social fabric,” (Galtung et. al., 2000) reciprocity is an exchange between parties that can remove social obstacles and encourage future cooperation (Andersen, et. al., 2008). The following paper explores what impact reciprocity has in building peace? Can societies, governments or other representatives decide to engage ‘so called enemies’ and stimulate positive relationships using reciprocity? Utilizing the social constructs of diplomacy envisioned by Diamond and McDonald in their book ‘Multi-Track Diplomacy: a systems approach to peace’ (1996) this paper investigates if and how multi-level peace processes utilize reciprocity. Once the parameters of reciprocity have been determined this paper will investigate nine international peace processes to evaluate whether or not the bonds of affective relationships have been created and if there is space in ‘multi-track’ diplomacy for reciprocity. Because “only one person need perceive conflict in order that it may exist,” (Tidwell, 1998) modern discord between persons, groups or nations can be conceived of as a perception that signifies a lack of, or, breakdown in relationship. Lederach considers that conflicts are a form of dysfunctional relationship but that a ‘damaged relationship’ is not only a source of the discord but instrumental in its ultimate resolution. He posits that repairing a dysfunctional relationship can occur as long as the reconciliation is “built on mechanisms that engage the sides of a conflict with each other as humans” (Lederach, 1997, p.26). Relationships are not static and affections can shift gears repeatedly over-time but ‘relationship’ as a concept captures the dynamic exchanges that transpire between parties that allow for an endless possibility of transforming human interaction (Saunders, 1999). Nevertheless, engaging one another as ‘human’ can be problematic when forms of conflict resolution such as dialogue or mediation, are disabled by ‘broken’ relationships that lead to very minimal contact. A goal in broken or damaged relationships is to stimulate positive encounters to instigate or re-instigate contact constructively.
Conceptualizing Violence A common reason that relationships break down is the presence, incidence or perception of violence. Violence can include actions that result in physical harm (direct), structural (indirect) violence such as discrimination or oppression and culturally condoned aggression, either direct or indirect in nature (Galtung 1990). Violence leads to negative relationships and constructive relationships that foster positive interactions are often lacking once a conflict has become established. Because conflict can be conceived of as rational or symbolic—seeking resources or Peace Studies Journal, Vol. 6, Issue 3, July 2013
Page 70