re:PEACE and War Dec. 2016: issue 4
☮
Contents
EXECUTIVE STAFF
Mikhail Shaknazarov Editor
Simon Vandestadt Administration
Saara Seppälä Outreach
Pei San Loo Outreach
Barbara Stein Social Media
Jack Hukill Designer
Miguel Jacques Designer
CONTRIBUTORS
José Alvarado Kriezomeno Iralu Lars Thorenfeldt Kokholm Jack Hukill Abhiyan Rana Magar Júlia Landers Ganesh Kumar Khanal Rasmus Niewald de Place Olga Kiriliuk and Ludmila Lagutina Saara Seppälä Camilla Johansson-Merrick Barbara Stein and Simon Vandestadt Miguel Jacques Kim Vaughan Keith Allgeir
3
Editorial
4
What are your Thoughts on War and Peace?
6
Deep Wounds
10
Challenging the Strongman
13
A few more Dreams of a Refugee
14
Armchair Philosophy
18
We Stand Firm
20
War! In my Eyes
24
Democratization and Civil War
28
Arctic: Peace or War?
30
International Autumn School in Petrozavodsk 2015
32
Interview with Anne Marit Bachmann
34
Faith
36
What is War?
Special Thanks
The Centre for Peace Studies, University of Tromsø, Randolph Rhea, HSL trykkeriet, Bokstavhuset AS, the city of Tromsø, and all our contributors.
Disclaimer
The ideas and opinions in this magazine do not necessarily represent those of the Center for Peace Studies or the University of Tromsø.
www.repeacemag.com /repeacemag
Cover photo by Miguel Jacques All articles, illustrations and photographs appearing in re:Peace magazine are copyright of their respective owners.
Editorial
War is a paradox. It is easy to condemn, but seemingly impossible to eradicate. War affects even the hardiest pacifist. It forces itself into ordinary life to such an extent that for some, war becomes ordinary life. Even for those outside of active war zones, those who only hear the rumble of bombs secondhand, war becomes a normal occurrence, an unavoidable evil. As students of Peace, we wonder if it is. This issue of re:Peace contains articles that vary widely in focus. Ganesh Kumar Khanal and JosÊ Alvarado present their personal accounts of war. Lars Thornefeldt Kokholm and Rasmus Niewald de Place of the University of Aarhus both contributed scholarly expositions of modern war. Lars addresses the reasons behind the stability of some autocratic regimes relative to others, while Rasmus deals with democratization and the outbreak of civil war. Kriezomeno Iralu recounts her experience doing fieldwork among the people of Nagaland, India, and the social disruption and scars that war and violence have left on the local communities, while Barbara Stein and Simon Vandestadt take on the notion of war and the paradoxes associated with it. The winner of this semester’s travel prize is Júlia Landers with her piece on the fight for economic and social justice by members of the Ada Songor Salt Women Association. We at re:Peace hope that the contents of the following pages will serve to highlight some of the issues associated with war and its consequences in the lives of real people. re:Peace
3
What are your thoughts on Peace and War? What do the two words trigger in you?
P
eace projects a sense of optimism; war, an air of misery. As a reader, how do these words make you feel? For some, peace simple means the absence of conflict, whilst for others it goes even further, referring to longlasting democratic values and respect for human rights. We learn, on the other hand, that war is costly—spawning a vast array of blood, violence, death, destruction and despair. Questions about war and peace are not easy to answer, but I can tell you what kind of effects they trigger in me.
4
I tend to think of war in two ways: a personal level and on a societal level. Personally, I come from a country (picture any violent country) where a firearm is a sign of power and fear; where the tone of your skin defines who you are; where you constantly have to look over your shoulder, reminding yourself that trust is not easy to come by; where the rich hide behind their bodyguards; and where indigenous people are constantly at a disadvantage in every aspect of society.
Text by JosĂŠ Alvarado Photo by Keith Allgeir
I “Listening is a sign of peace. If we do not listen, we can never truly understand”
consider myself extremely privileged, and even though my family has been affected by violence at different moments throughout their lives, some of them even witnessing terrible acts during my home country’s civil war, I have not experienced any of it myself. I do not fear for my safety every time I leave my home like so many people around the world. This sensation of fear is heavily intertwined with war. It feeds off of it. Peace on the other hand is a sign of optimism. It reflects hope for a settlement between foes. But peace can also fail very quickly - as it often does. There is no blueprint for achieving it, and hence, it is hard to replicate. But for me, peace is a matter of dialogue and tolerance. It is always easier to imagine a “worst-case scenario” in any conflict, but how do we shift our mentality towards something positive?
It is easier for me to forgive and to be optimistic about peace, because I have never had a family member killed as a result of war. Maybe I would be less optimistic and less inclined to engage in negotiations if I knew that someone close to me did not have that opportunity. However, I believe in dialogue. I believe that peace is about talking about those differences. Listening is a sign of peace. If we do not listen, we can never truly understand. War and peace are so much more than guns, explosions and old white men shaking hands at the end of a negotiated peace process. These are concepts that lie deep within us and shape who we are and how we live our lives. Talk with your friends, your family and try to understand what these terms mean to each and every one of them. You might find some very interesting answers.
About the author José Alvarado was born in Guatemala City to very tolerant and creative parents in a country that is often very conservative and sceptical of new ideas. He is interested in politics and gender issues but conflict in Guatemala led him to pursue a graduate degree in Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden.
5
Deep Wounds Text and photos by Khriezomeno Iralu
How would you define war? When a classmate asked me this question, the first response that came to my mind was ”destruction of lives, not just of the lives lost, but also of the living who are left behind”. The second thought that came to mind was ”the breakdown of relations within communities”. These responses were based on my experiences from doing fieldwork in Nagaland to find out the effects of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act on women in India (for more information on the AFSPA, read article ’Fasting for Justice’ in re:PEACE 3rd issue, May 2016).
6
T
here is a particular story that reflects the consequences of war on these two levels. Village Chava consisted of three clans; the Salt clan, the Mahogany clan and the Teak clan. When India got its independence from Britain in 1947, and the control of the Naga Hills was given to India, Indian troops marched into many villages to forcibly take over the area and crush the insurgent groups. Tension and fear grew in the village area as the Indian Army began to harass families of Naga Army members who had gone into hiding. In Chava, Salt clan and Mahogany clan were determined to continue resisting the Indian Army. The men of Chava held pride in their history of resisting the British colonizers for 48 years, during which their village was burnt down four times. They finally had to capitulate to British rule for over 60 years. The British colonization period of the Naga Hills was from 1832 – 1947. The two clans were not willing to submit to another foreign forcethe Indian Army- no matter how high the costs. On the other hand, the majority of the Teak clan were weary and apprehensive of the previous wars and the many lives that had been lost. They decided that they would be better off cooperating with the Indian Army and save their own kith and kin, than to resist this enormous Army. Thus when the Salt clan and Mahogany
7
The Salt and Mahogany clans saw this as a huge betrayal on the part of the Teak men and for many years, the memory of this betrayal has left irreparable scars on the village people. The older generation do not wish to talk about these stories anymore fearing that more hate and violence could surge up between the younger generations.
hiding when the Indian Army came searching for Naga Army members in Chava. Often times, he was away for many months, and Gweno had to look after their son and the household. Gweno said, ”He was an officer in the Naga Army. But I have no education so I don’t know the difference between these things. He was in hiding and one day he went to Doshali to rest in the house of his paternal aunt. On the way to his aunt’s house, he met with Chievii. So he told his aunt, ‘Aunt, I was on my way here to rest in your house for a night. I met Chievii on the way and there was no wayI could avoid him. I could not run from him because our paths crossed and we talked briefly. But I hope it will be alright.’” Chievii was an informant from the Teak clan. Vito’s aunt had looked after Chievii’s wife years ago, and they hoped that Chievii would not tell on him.
I drove to Chava with two others, my travelling companion and my informant, to interview a woman named Gweno. Her husband Vito was killed by the Indian Army in 1956 in Doshali, a mountain range 10 km from Chava. He worked for the Naga Army and had to go into
But Chievii informed the Indian Army, who surrounded the house at dawn. Vito was determined not to fall into the hands of the Indian Army, because then he would be tortured. So he tried to flee into the jungle and was shot dead. Years later, Vito’s aunt would
clan fled to the jungles to protect themselves from the approaching Indian Army, the Teak clan remained in Chava. However, of those who stayed behind, some also settled in the homes of the departed clans and raided their granaries. Some of the Teak men even acted as informants for the Indian Army, giving them information on the whereabouts of Naga Army soldiers belonging to the other two clans, who were then shot by the Indian Army.
8
cry, “How could I send away my nephew when he came to my house?”
come asking for forgiveness, may you go in peace and and may it go well with you.”
How does one talk about healing or moving forward with a vision for peace when the betrayal by members of the same village during war time has left such deep scars within the villagers? In June 2004, members of the Chava Youth Organization wrote appeals to the Village Council to institute a body that would address the past wrongdoings and allow the process of healing for Chava village to take place. The Chava Public Commission was formed to constructively handle the past hurt and bitterness, ask for forgiveness and facilitate a more sustainable peace for future generations. All three clans were represented in the Commission. Gweno was one of the women who shared her story with the two representatives of the Commission who came to her house in 2014. When one of the men said that their parents had not told them these stories Gweno replied, “Indeed they would not speak of these things because their clan had been very malicious. They killed our clanspeople as though they were animals. But since you
During the process of retelling stories and healing, there were many who knew of the crimes that their parents had committed and who were anxious to ask for forgiveness on behalf of their deceased parents. They expressed gratitude to the Commission members for acting as mediators and making the healing possible. There were also cases where families of the victims refused to meet the Commission members because justice had not been meted out and it would dishonor the dead to forgive and let go of the past. At the end of my interview with Gweno, she said, “That man Chievii was a very bad man. Sometimes I think he should have died a terrible death. But I never heard of him again and I don’t want to know about him.” When we left Gweno’s house that evening and we had to make our way through the dark cobbled streets with the help of our cellphone flashlights. As we walked, my travelling companion
said something that made all of us feel eerily uncomfortable and shocked and we were speechless for a long time. He said, “Chievii was my grandfather. I had no knowledge of his past.” In the weeks that followed, I thought about the significance of this story because it shows how deeply intertwined human lives are. In a culture where it is shameful for the family and clan not to avenge the dead, the actions of betrayal had rendered emotions so complicated that the suggestion of forgiveness almost appears naive. Still, a step towards rebuilding relations was made possible by a people’s motivation to heal old wounds.
About the author Kriezomeno Iralu is studying in the Master’s programme Peace and Conflict Transformation at the Centre for Peace Studies, Tromsø, Norway. She grew up in Nagaland and conducted fieldwork there this summer for her Master’s thesis. All names of people and places have been changed to ensure anonymity.
9
Challenging the strongman: Exploring the effect of authoritarian regime on civil war by Lars Thorenfeldt Kokholm
Introduction Since the end of World War II, civil wars have been the most dominant type of armed conflict in the world. Civil wars have large consequences both economically, politically and for the people being affected. Although civil war is per definition confined to a certain state, its consequences are often felt in other states as thousands of people are displaced from their homes and take flight as refugees. In spite of the dire consequences of civil wars, research has so far focused mainly on democratic institutions and, consequently, ignored distinctions between authoritarian regimes, treating them as a mere residual category1, despite the fact that prior research has established that variations in autocratic regimes matters for the initiation of interstate wars.2 In this article, I suggest that a focus on differences in authoritarian regimes can improve our understanding of the emergence of civil wars. I apply this argument using a large-n sample consisting of 154 countries and 142 civil wars in the period from 1950-2010. The
10
dataset combines UCDP/PRIO armed conflict data on intrastate conflicts with Powell & Thynes (2011) corrections for coup d’Êtats. 69.72% of all onsets of civil war during this period have occurred within authoritarian regimes.
Who holds the reins of power matters Focusing on authoritarian regimes, I argue that the composition of interest within regimes, which in turn affects the regimes formal and informal ruling coalition, is critical to understanding the actions of authoritarian regimes. I therefore distinguish between military, single-party, monarchies and personalist regimes. Scholars focusing on the infrastructural power of regimes3 argue against defining personalist regimes as a category separate from military and single-party regimes, as they emphasize that personalization of power is a trait which more or less is found within every regime. They therefore turn to the distribution of wealth and power as their main criteria for distinguishing between regimes based on the assumption that all dictators strive for the same
fundamental goal – holding onto power. However, in line with Geddes, Wright & Franz (2014), I argue that crucial differences exist between leaders of military juntas such as Castello Branco (Brazil) and strongmen like Eyadema (Togo), Mobutu (DRC/Zaire) and Gaddafi (Libya), even though they all appear in military uniforms. The interests affecting the politics of the regimes are distinctly different. To military Juntas, power is a means, not the end goal. Military Juntas are concerned with increasing military budgets, preventing civilian interference and keeping internal order in the state. In personalist regimes, on the other hand, leaders often act as pater familias, as redistribution of wealth and power is often personified by the leader personally handling state affairs to ensure stability. Retention of power is therefore crucial in personalist regimes as the leader and the political regime are often conflated, creating a cult of personality. This means that regime overthrows often entail harsh punishment, and even execution, of leaders and their
closest allies. The regime is closely tied to the leader’s wellbeing. For a military Junta, stepping down from office does not mark the end. A peaceful transition negotiated with the opposition can often ensure that military budgets and interests are not interfered with by civilian regimes, and the military can, as Geddes phrased it, “return to the barracks”.4 I argue that these fundamentally different interests affect the logic of consequences on which the regimes base their decisions when challenged by an opposition.
However, in authoritarian regimes the incumbents are seldom responsive to popular pressure - this is why they are autocratic in the first place. Therefore, to change the power composition of the regime, the incumbents have to be removed. Breakdowns in authoritarian regimes are most frequent in military regimes, with single-party regimes being the most resilient, and personalist regimes being somewhere in the middle. This much is agreed upon in virtually all influential regime typologies.
The emergence of civil war – a gametheoretical argument
How does a regime respond to such a challenge? I argue that regimes choose the outcome which yields most utility given the nature (and hence interests) of the regimes. I narrow the path of possible strategies down to two choices for the incumbent regime. They can either co-opt with the challenger, negotiating a peaceful transition of power, or they can accept the challenge from the opposition and use coercion, which is likely to lead to civil war. If military juntas and strongmen in personalized regimes do indeed share the goal of remaining in office, we would expect military regimes, and not personalist regimes, to experience outbreaks of civil war more frequently, as these regimes more often experience breakdowns because of their lack of economic redistribution. However, as I have argued above, this is not the case. In personalist regimes, the leader and his closest allies stand to lose everything should the regime fall, which make them more likely to fight off challenges from the opposition. Military juntas, however, have virtually nothing to gain by responding violently to
In the following, I present two arguments about the emergence of civil war and explain how my distinction between military juntas and strongmen leads to different expectations than those of scholars who do not make this distinction. First, I argue why we would expect an uprising to occur in the first place, and second, what response to challenges we should expect from the regimes. The occurrence of uprisings in autocratic regimes is of interest not only to scholars focusing on outcomes such as armed conflicts but also for those who study regime transitions to both democracy and to other forms of autocracy. A common explanation within the literature has emphasized the distribution of economic goods and political power within society.5 If an opposition is marginalized, we would expect an increase in demand for representation of their interests.
such challenges. On the contrary, they risk destabilizing their own state, which would contradict the junta’s goal of stabilizing the state. Using the composition of interest and not merely the distribution of economic goods and power, I argue that regimes led by a personalist strongman, and not a junta, should experience civil war more frequently.
Fighting for political power and the implications for conflict and peace In my large-n analysis, I provide evidence that personalist dictatorships are indeed more likely to experience civil war than single-party regimes or military regimes. The significant difference between military juntas and personalist strongmen is interesting as it suggests that the interests of the regime, and not only the distribution of resources, are fundamental for understanding how regimes deal with challenges. In the second step, I disaggregate civil wars according to the reason for the initiation of the dispute. More particularly, I distinguish between whether the incompatibility is fought for governmental power or territorial secession. The arguments I have presented only deal with the former and make no claims about the latter. I once again find that personalist regimes are significantly more likely to experience civil war than military juntas and single-party regimes, as they risk being
11
Figure 1. Political regimes 1950-2010 Source: Constructed using data from Geddes, Wright & Frantz (2014)
12
removed from power in a civil war fought over governmental power. Additionally, I find that authoritarian regimes cannot explain civil war fought for territory. Secession of land is not affected by which kind of regime holds power. On the contrary, other factors such as ethnic diversity and resources seem to be better predictors for the emergence of this type of civil war.
About the author
These findings have some disheartening implications. Personalist regimes are today the most dominant type of regimes and this can have dire consequences for the way regimes respond to uprisings. The Arab Spring, which is not covered in my analysis, provides a vivid recent example of the trend I have found for the last 60 years. Personalist regimes, found in e.g. Libya and Yemen, have not conceded power without putting up a fight when challenged. If strongmen are cornered, they will fight back with all means to maintain power.
Footnotes:
Lars Thorenfeldt Kokholm is currently enrolled in the master’s programme in political science at the University of Aarhus, and his main areas of interest and specialization have been in the field of comparative politics. Currently, he works as a research assistant on an external consultancy assignment on behalf of VÌkstAlliancen.
See Hanne Fjelde (2010) Lai & Slater (2006) 3 See Hadenius & Teorell (2007) or Lai & Slater (2006) for arguments focusing on infrastructural power. 4 Geddes, 1999: 131 5 E.g. Bueno de Mesquita & Smith, 2010; Magaloni, 2008; Boix, 2011; Robinson, 2006 1 2
Few More Dreams of a Refugee A poem by Abhiyan Rana Magar
Grey Sky , Blue Ocean Titanic of Tears, confused broken. Questions on the soil, Greeting with Standing-claps A strange face in mirror, What an eyesore! What is the yellow sun? How yellow is it? Where are the smiles and the most awaited replies? Will my remembrance ever cry for me? Home- there used to be. Family - they used to be. Love - what actually it means? Norms, Values, Laws, Politics. Goodbye! with a gloomythank.
Abhiyan Rana Magar is a Nepali student currently studying International Relations at Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia. Photo by Keith Allgeir
13
Armchair Philosophy: The Art of War
L
Text by Jack Hukill Photo by Miguel Jacques
et me qualify what you’re about to read by first saying that I’ve never been to war. I’ve never been around war. I’ve never been personally directly affected by a war in any memorable way. Generally, I tend not to think about war all that often. In my reckoning, this lack of experience disqualifies me from discussing such a deeply personal yet shockingly global experience (if that’s even what we should call it). That being said, now sit down and read what I have to say about a topic I’ve already told you I know pretty much nothing about. If that doesn’t hook you as a reader, I don’t know what will.
14
chair Philo A
rt in its broadest sense has occupied itself with depicting war in its myriad dimensions since humans began making art. Pictures, songs, statues, and grand structures commemorate acts of war and the loss of human life that these acts create. Do you think that’s odd? I mean, first off, why do humans organise themselves to fight each other on such a grand scale, and why on earth do we always want to commemorate it? Catharsis? ”Those who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it“? Maybe on some deeper level the commemoration of violence, atrocity, and mass human suffering is necessary for the greater organism that is humanity, but wouldn’t the world be a totally different place if mass forgetting stood in the place of mass remembrance? I understand the holes in this idea. Supposedly, collective humanity learns from its mistakes and is becoming a more peaceful organism. Maybe not. Inversely, don’t we all love war movies? And what about those grandiose giant wall-covering
canvases depicting major European battles in surprising detail? Monuments! So many monuments in so many countries commemorating so many wars and so many dead people. Tourism as we know it owes a heavy debt to the locations of war. It might be the only reason people go to Normandy or Verdun, and it’s certainly the only reason tourists venture out to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Graveyards, killing fields, concentration camps— Why do we feel compelled to visit these places? Is it some kind of morbid curiosity? Some kind of feeling of obligation that we must see and feel the space of an atrocity to make it seem more real to us? Have you noticed that I’ve been asking a lot of questions in this article? Damn. I did it again. Don’t feel compelled to answer. I probably won’t be able to hear you anyway. And the songs… Wars make for great music, both during and after the actual fighting parts. Think of Beethoven’s 3rd Symphony (originally dedicated to Napoleon)
15
Arm chair or pretty much anything by Bruce Springsteen (it can be argued that his entire catalogue is at least moderately influenced by the Vietnam War and its effect on American culture) or Nena’s 99 Luftballons or Warren Zevon’s Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner. I might have gotten off track there, but you see what I’m getting at.
We’re all about fictional wars too. As if there weren’t enough real life historically documented death and carnage, we have also decided to start making it up as well. Star Wars! The Lord of the Rings! The Iliad! Our collective psyche seems to be thoroughly fascinated by death, vengeance, and noble heroes who lead legions into battle against evil empires. We completely immerse ourselves in these fictional conflicts. The genre of the action movie is huge. People love to see people shooting each other. What’s up with that? Sure, you can blame this on a thoroughly American phenomenon of Hollywood special effects, exploding helicopters, and bombs with comically large timers, but you know it runs deeper than that. There’re some pretty fast-paced action scenes in some of that Shakespeare stuff, and it’s been around for quite some time. If The Globe would have had a better special effects department, Macbeth might have looked a lot more like Mission Impossible. But I digress.
I
guess what I’m trying to get at here is: 1. I don’t understand our need to actively remember the terrifying events that we have created as a species 2. Art’s preoccupation with real war is awe-inspiring in both positive and negative ways 3. The fact that we have also invested a considerable chunk of our available cultural memory in the active remembrance of fictional war and fictional war heroes is a pretty strange thing to ponder at length. Hopefully reading this has gotten you thinking about these things too. Examining the cultural gel that both connects you and separates you from the other humans in the oxygen ocean is an entertaining and rewarding pastime in its own right. Before diving headfirst into the philosophical abyss, I feel it necessary to provide a warning. Thinking about the completely befuddling nature of human violence and our need to commemorate it for long periods can be a bit depressing. Don’t get stuck in your head for too long. There are also albino rabbits and all kinds of interestingly shaped fruit for you to think about when you’ve had enough death and destruction.
Philoso About the author
Jack Hukill is currently studying for Master’s in Peace and Conflict Transformation at the Centre for Peace Studies, Tromsø, Norway.
16
CPS Travel Prize 2016 This year’s winning article is “We stand firm” by Júlia Landers.
This edition, the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPS) provided a generous travel prize to the value of NOK 5000 for the article judged to be the best submission on the theme of ‘Peace and War’. The prize generated significant interest from our expanding readership, prompting contributions from many different countries and perspectives.
“We see this as an excellent way to promote both the objectives of the re:Peace Magazine and engage a wider audience in our work at the CPS.” said Christine SmithSimonsen, Director CPS. “We are delighted that the first recipient of our travel prize is a student in Peace studies from Uppsalla, Sweden. Our judging pannel was impressed by the variety of approaches taken to this topic.” We would like to thank all the contributors to this edition of re:Peace Magazine and look forward to your ongoing engagement. The Editors, re:Peace
Photo by Kim Vaughan, Banksy Exhibition Melbourne, Australia
17
“They are dancing, but this is not a party. They are smiling, but it is not a happy season. They come in peace, but they are actually in war”
About the Author Júlia Landers is a Rotary Peace Fellow in the process of completing her masters in Peace and Conflict Studies by Uppsala University. Originally from Brazil, she did her Bachelor in International Relations and has been putting into practice the global citizen movement by making a home and working towards peace in different continents of our beautiful world. During her transitions, she found herself doing an internship in a community radio station in Ghana where she was introduced to the Songor People struggle.
18
Ghana, the Ada Songor Salt Women Association (ASSWA)
We.
Stand.
Text and Photo by JĂşlia Landers
T
here is a lagoon called Songor. It is situated in the south of Ghana, West Africa. A lot of good salt can be produced by it. Many communities could benefit from it. But no, there is a thing called “atsiakpo�. It is when selfish people privatize a piece of the lagoon so that only the owner can profit from it. It was said that Songor should be for everybody, as it used to be. The government, however, is not moving a finger to make things right. Local chiefs, the police, many politicians, all are somehow involved. It is a well-known business: protect me, and I reward you. There was violence. There was death. People are suffering, and people are angry. Still, it is very hard to contest against this kind of partnership. It is always a challenge to overcome the power and seduction of a full pocket. Nevertheless, there is something called Community Empowerment towards Justice. There are fearless individuals that decided to fight. In this case, they are women, brave women, who got organized and keep following their aim: Songor For All. It is about
Firm.
protecting their inherent right to produce salt and sustain themselves without having to be overpowered and abused. They dance; they sing; they march. They spread energy and hope. They show their strength and their weakness with joy. They send letters to the president; they launch a manifesto; they launch a book. They participate in World Forums on Free Media in Montreal and on the Sustainable Development Goals at the United Nations. They go to the lagoon communities to advocate for their cause, to debate, mobilize, and raise their voice. Their name should be remembered: Ada Songor Salt Women Association. To the oppressed and marginalized people, to the authorities and corrupt leaderships, they proudly shout: Yihi Katseme! Wamaasi! Translated from Dangme, it means: Brave women, we stand firm! The season is becoming greener with greater support symbolized by leaves. But the struggle continues as many stones are still in the road.
19
War! In My Eyes Text by Ganesh Kumar Khanal Photo by Kim Vaughan, Banksy Exhibition Melbourne, Australia
S
ome childhood memories are still vivid. Once in a blue moon, I ponder them and attempt to interpret them. One such recurrent memory is the terror created in my mind by my parents (or an old man in my neighborhood) as they approached me while I was picking fruits in the gardens near our home. Afterwards, there was nothing for me to do but flee like a bullet from a gun. Later, a teacher in primary school added terror to my juvenile mind by placing some bricks or a bench on the back of students while holding their heads down. Every time I was threatened or given a punishment, “they” would justify in a loud voice why they were right and I was wrong. However, I still did not know why they had to punish, threaten or destroy the happiness of others. Gradually, I made up my mind that everyone was not as wise and innocent as I had thought only a few years ago. In the following years, “the terror” increased not only for me but also
20
for hundreds of thousands of children in Nepal, even for youths and adults there was no exception. The relatively peaceful Himalayan country experienced the Maoist insurgency during the period 1994 to 2004. I used to listen to my grandparents with active ears, so I quickly knew what was happening either in the village or city. They often talked about the Maoist war with the government. There were different thoughts, arguments, claims or desires about the same phenomenon, “the ongoing conflict”. On one hand, those who were affiliated with the Maoists would call it a people’s war/Civil war that emerged in order to abolish the monarchy, to make Nepal a republican country, to eliminate
gender inequality, class struggle, caste system injustice and so on and so forth. On the other hand, the government and its associates would claim it to be a Maoist war that emerged to serve their “personal interests� rather than serving the people. Whatever the names or claims were, the actions and consequences were obviously beyond the imagination of those displaced, injured or killed. Farmers had doubts coming home after work in the evening. Moreover, teachers, journalists, and even lawyers were in the same boat of doubt. I experienced war. I witnessed the attack on the then royal armies, their camps, and governmental offices and buildings including Village Development Committee
(VDC - the local government in our area). I saw both the Maoists and the armies increasing their tensions and torturing each other as well as civilians. I met no one positive about the situations going on in the country. Everyone suffered a lot, and needy ones suffered a great deal. The bitter truth is that those who did not know how to dance according to the music being played suffered more than any anyone else. It’s more than painful to describe how a friend of mine at school was accused of being a Maoist cadre and killed in the middle of a road one night after being kidnapped and held by the armies for seven days. His death is just one case among thousands. Fortunately nothing happened to me, but I was greatly shocked with what was happening to my surroundings. I saw bridges being damaged by bombs and the roads blocked with large trees from both sides of the road. It was a part of everyday life to gather around
21
a radio to listen to the news of attacks and injured or killed at the end of each day. If there was no news about an attack or injury or death, people would call it “a day” of peace and pray to have the same tomorrow. The absence of such news was surprising for many children like me. There was news about everyday attacks, encounters, number of injured or killed persons for years; deprivation the norm. I remember a particular incident at school that “terrorized” me more than anything else during the conflict. The entry of the Maoist cadres in our school, their convincing, warning, threatening speeches to the students, who probably did not know any of the reasons for the conflict, was unanticipated. The echo of their voices and the memory of their weapons would hardly allow the students to concentrate on their studies. Their aggression to the former King and the armies seemed as powerful as water behind a dam. We listened to what they said and clapped as if we praised their every sentence. We were habituated into clapping for what they said with their right index finger up. They would urge
22
students to get involved in their networks to achieve, in their words, “Peace and Prosperity” the soonest. They would also call meetings with student unions and communicate their messages and prescribe students to follow such programmes repeatedly. The societal environment was also like this. There were meetings and programmes regularly. People were often scared to be visited by someone and called for a moment outside during the night. The days when there were rumors about gathering community people by the Maoists, many youths including my brothers would leave home earlier and hide under the bushes distant from home for the whole night. In my memory this happened almost continuously. The local clubs, NGOs, or INGOs were dead, because they were supposed to stop their functions. Similarly, different individuals and organizations encouraged demobilizing the social aspects
of everyday life and increasing the hardships of ordinary people. The miserable part is that many children left school and youths left their villages to save their own lives. After ten years, the war came to an end in 2006 with the peace agreement. People regained their ordinary life and elections were held. However, a decade long political deadlock failed to produce any significant achievement in the nation. Rather, the misuse of power and failure to reach consensus among the parties, brought even more suffering to the already desperate population. Finally, Nepal witnessed a new democratic constitution from the Constituent Assembly (CA) on 16 September, 2015. Nevertheless, the news of three Prime Ministers in a year has made ordinary life more desperate and pessimistic and has not spread the light of ‘Peace and Prosperity’ in the country.
About the Author Ganesh Kumar Khanal is currently studying in the Master’s programme Peace and Conflict Transformation at the Centre for Peace Studies, Tromsø, Norway.
23
Democratization and Civil War Text by Rasmus Niewald de Place Photo by Claire Anderson, unsplash
24
S
ince the end of the Second World War, which marked the end of a long tradition of violent rivalry between the European great powers, the main source of conflict around the world has not been that of interstate warfare. Instead, civil wars have become the leading cause of battle related deaths, causing a death toll five times that of interstate conflict since 1945. Today, the question of war and peace is therefore a question of what drives individuals to take up arms against their own government or fellow citizens and, more importantly, what can be done to prevent it.
A
dominant branch of research, most prominently represented by the seminal work of Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder, argues that under certain conditions the process of democratization is a potential cause of civil war. This is an astonishing claim, since democracy is traditionally considered an institutionalized way of solving disputes without having to resort to violence. Furthermore, the observation that democracies do not wage war against one another is widely regarded as the closest thing there is to an empirical law within social science. Why then the alleged relationship
between democratization and the outbreak civil war? While Mansfield and Snyder acknowledges that a fully developed democracy would probably be the surest guarantee of both international and civil peace, the path to a consolidated democracy is often treacherous, strewn with obstacles that may all too easily cause internal conflict. Following in the footsteps of the late Samuel Huntington, Mansfield and Snyder’s central claim is that when the mobilization and demand for political participation increases in a country without the proper institutional mechanisms for channeling this mobilization, a breakdown of political order is likely to follow.
A
ccording to Mansfield and Snyder the initial processes of democratization constitutes such moments of rapidly increasing mobilization. In non-democratic regimes the access to power is not determined by popular support because there is no, or only limited, electoral competition. Therefore, elites do not need to mobilize the population. However, once democratic reforms are undertaken elites must rely on their ability to mobilize popular support. During this process of intense and rapid mobilization,
elites often take advantage of latent ethnic cleavages within society because these cleavages are easily politicized. Without a number of strong and consolidated bureaucratic and societal institutions capable of channeling this expanding political participation into meaningful democratic politics, the result is a series of political bidding-wars between the elites. Under these circumstances, civil war becomes an increasingly likely outcome.
M
ansfield and Snyder’s argument therefore echoes that of de Tocqueville who noted that, “revolutions do not always come when things are going from bad to worse…. Usually the most dangerous time for a bad government is when it attempts to reform itself.” Consequently, Mansfield and Snyder recommend postponing democratization until state institutions are sufficiently well developed. Their proposed democratic sequence is heavily inspired by the historical development in Europe, where democratic reforms were preceded by a long period of state-building resulting in strong and capable nation-states.
25
S
ince democracy and peace are generally preferable to authoritarianism and civil war, this line of argument creates a dilemma. Should developing countries in today’s world aim for democracy at the risk of upsetting an often fragile internal peace, or should they settle for peace at the expense of democratization? As I will argue below, Mansfield and Snyder base their recommendations on at least two erroneous assumptions. First, the idea that democratization causes civil war ignores the fact that democracy is a composite concept, where the different components might move independently of each other as well as having different effects on the probability of civil war. Secondly while postponing democratization until state institutions are further developed might be theoretically ideal, it is often unfeasible.
T
o see why treating democratization as a uniform process is problematic, it is useful to consider the way Mansfield and Snyder define democracy and democratization. They define a regime as democratic if government policy is made by officials chosen through free, fair, and periodic elections. Furthermore, freedom of speech and freedom to organize groups to contest elections are presumed to be preconditions for free and fair elections. In this sense democracy is a tripartite entity, consisting of an electoral core of free and fair elections supplemented by
26
freedom of speech and freedom of association. Consequently, they define democratization as the adoption of one or more of these democratic characteristics, even if the regime retains important nondemocratic features. This means that the effect of democratization on the risk of civil war outbreak should be assessed at the level of these individual components rather than at the aggregate level of democracy. This distinction is important for several reasons.
F
irst, because the effect of introducing free and fair election on the risk of civil war outbreak might differ from the effect of establishing either freedom of speech or freedom of association or vice versa. Second, because the effect of free and fair elections might depend on whether either freedom of speech or freedom of association is established. Specifically, even though free and fair elections might create the impetus for elites to try to mobilize the population, their efforts might be futile in the absence of freedom of speech and association. All other things being equal, it should be more difficult to mobilize a population with severe restrictions on the ability to communicate and organize your supporters.
B
y enlisting new data from Varieties of Democracy, which contains measures of both free and fair elections, freedom of
speech and freedom of association for 171 countries since 1900, it is possible to retest Mansfield and Snyder bearing these refinements in mind. This replication reveals three fascinating results. First, when using the aggregate level of democracy, i.e. combining both the level of free and fair elections and freedom of speech and association, periods of democratization do indeed exhibit an increased propensity towards civil war. Second, although this propensity exists at the aggregate level, there is considerable variation in the effect when assessing the effect of the different components of democracy individually. In fact, neither increases in free and fair election nor freedom of speech raises the probability of civil war. Instead, the effect is almost exclusively isolated to increases in the freedom of association, which makes the outbreak of civil war more likely. Third, free and fair elections actually do increase the probability of civil war but only at higher levels of freedom of speech and association. This supports the notion that in order for the elite to mobilize the population, they need some degree of freedom to actually communicate their message and organize their supporters. The second erroneous assumption of Mansfield and Snyder is that although it might be theoretically preferable to postpone democratic reforms until the state has been sufficiently consolidated, it is normally unfeasible. In the words of the political scientist Thomas
Carothers: “Whatever might be theoretically preferable regarding paths of development, people in many parts of the world want to attain political empowerment now, not in some indefinite future”.
D
emocratization is often the result of a popular demand for political inclusion and it would be a naïve mistake to simply assume that this demand can be silenced by promising democracy only after a period of state building. The question of when democratization can safely be initiated is therefore irrelevant most of the time. Instead, the focus should be how to sequence the institutions of democracy so the risk of civil war outbreak is minimized. Considerations about the proper sequencing should bear in mind that establishing free and fair elections when freedom of speech and freedom of association are restricted does not raise the likelihood of civil war. This will ensure that the bidding war between the elites cannot turn into a full-scale civil war since the possibilities for mobilization are curtailed. After free and fair elections have been institutionalized and become a consolidated practice, freedom of speech can be introduced. Finally, freedom of association, the only democratic component with an independent effect on the risk of civil war outbreak, should be introduced as the last part of the democratic triumvirate. Done right this sequence would minimize the risk of civil war
when embarking on the journey towards democracy even for countries with limited state capacity.
A
s I have argued in this article, the disheartening trade-off between democratization and civil peace rests on the assumptions that every democratic institution raises the risk of civil war and that it is somehow possible to postpone democratization until state institutions are sufficiently developed. Neither of these assumptions are likely to stand up to careful empirical scrutiny. Instead, free and fair elections leads to civil war only at higher levels of freedom of speech and freedom of association. Therefore, establishing free and fair elections should precede the introduction of freedom of speech and finally freedom of association. This sequence should enable developing countries in today’s world to aim for both democracy as well as preserving the peace.
About the Author Rasmus Niewald de Place is currently enrolled in the master’s program of Political Science at the University of Aarhus where I also received my bachelor’s degree. This article is based on my bachelor’s thesis written in the spring of 2016.
27
T
oday, more and more actors in the field of international relations have started to pay attention to the Arctic region. The Arctic is an attractive place for infrastructure development and possesses a great store of natural resources. It’s becoming a place where we can witness the meeting of interests, not only of nation states but also of various governmental and nongovernmental organizations and transnational corporations. However, it’s important to emphasize that the lead role in pursuing Arctic policy belongs to the five Arctic states, the USA, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark. They decide whether the Arctic will become a territory of peace and cooperation or a subject of war and conflict. Why does the Arctic region attract so much attention? Interest rises from the great store of Arctic natural resources, which are becoming more accessible because of global warming. According to a report from the US national geopolitical service, more than 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves and 30% of undiscovered gas reserves can be found in the Arctic region. It is also important to realise that one fifth of the world’s soft water resources are concentrated
28
in the Arctic. Moreover, the Arctic region has great potential for the organization of a new global trading stream which will allow the strengthening and consolidation of linkages between Asia and Europe. Here we can highlight the role of the Northern Sea Route, which has great potential in this sphere. It’s also essential to emphasize that the intensification of activities in the Arctic region leads to the appearance of new menaces which demand international cooperation and joint efforts. Despite the fact that every Arctic state has its own intentions concerning the region, analysis of their Arctic strategies has revealed that the main goals of these states are very similar. Among these goals, the most important are national security protection, realization of state sovereignty, and oil and mineral resources’ extraction. However, recently the Arctic states have started to pay more attention to the development of Arctic infrastructure, environmental protection, and maintenance of good living conditions of Arctic indigenous peoples. Nowadays it has become clear that these issues may threaten stability in the fragile Arctic region, and as a result there
ARCTIC:
will be no opportunity for the realization of their prior tasks. Speaking about the Arctic states’ future cooperation prospects, we would like to touch upon the international organizations within which the Arctic states cooperate. The major forum which provides a platform for multilateral political dialogue is the Arctic Council. This fact is stated in all Arctic strategies. In the future we may see the development of this forum into an international organization. It’s also important to emphasize that the development and escalation of military conflicts in this region is highly improbable because such a situation would threaten the stability of the Arctic region and hamper resource extraction which is a priority for all Arctic countries. One more major sphere for Arctic countries cooperation is ecology and environmental protection because of the fragility of the Arctic ecosystem. Such cooperation should be based upon international scientific collaboration as it will provide a deeper, comprehensive understanding of the Arctic region and show possible ways for its development. To achieve this goal, the Arctic states established
the International Arctic Scientific Committee in 1990. Today the committee implements more than 15 international scientific programs throughout the region. Today the Arctic states’ cooperation prospects seem to be very promising. They are encouraged by the fragility of the Arctic ecosystem, climate change, and their influence on the geoeconomic role of the Arctic region as well as by the advantages which the Arctic states gain from their mutual collaboration. We strongly believe that the development of this collaboration should be a major priority for all interested actors because it promotes prosperity and stability in the Arctic region and beyond.
About the Authors Olga Kiriliuk and Ludmila Lagutina are fourth year students of international relations at Petrozavodsk State University. They have participated in many international conferences and international schools. Their spheres of interest include the Arctic region, Northern Dimension policy, and Russian relations with other countries in Northern Europe.
PEACE OR WAR? Text by Olga Kiriliuk and Ludmila Lagutina Photo by Barbara Stein
29
I nt e r n at i o n a l autumn school in
Pe t r o z av o d s k 2015 Text and photo by Saara Seppälä
T
he autumn school was arranged in the framework of the Barents Peace Education Network. Teachers and students from Arkhangelsk, Murmansk, and the Centre for Peace Studies in Tromsø had the chance to take part in the autumn school, traveling to Russia in the middle of October 2015. We arrived at the airport in St. Petersburg, where a minibus was waiting to take us to Petrozavodsk situated on the western side of the lake Onega. Experiencing the Russian fastpaced traffic was certainly the most notable difference on arrival coming from Norway. After the
30
long day of travelling we were warmly welcomed to the capital city of the Republic of Karelia by Alexandra Smirnova, the organizer. We settled in nicely at the cozy hostel of the university located in the city center. The next day started the International Autumn School at Petrozavodsk State University. Conveniently the venue was in the same building where we were staying. The overarching theme of the lectures and seminars was ‘Peace and Conflict Transformation in Northern Europe’. Vidar Vambheim held two lectures. The first one was an
introduction to the autumn school that was about Peace perspectives on intergroup bias and friendship. In his second lecture he focused on the topic of Conflict resolution and sustainable peace in the Nordic community. In her lecture “Notions of Peace and Pacifist activities in Russia” Alexandra Smirnova pointed out how Russia is usually seen from a point of view of war, although there have been many pacifist movements in Russia throughout its history. Anton Lapshin talked about the problems and perspectives of current conflicts in the CIS area. A participant-driven workshop about transforming conflicts
through dialogue for peace presented by Norunn Grande provided a change of pace from the many hours of traditional lectures. The lecture by Ilia Solomeshch was very interesting because of its local topic, which was peace and conflict as a background for Karelian history. Every day we went to the main building of the university for a customary Russian lunch, which included three courses: salad, soup and a main dish.. In the evenings we had time to explore the city a bit, and all the participants of the International Autumn School gathered together to get to know each other better over a common
dinner. Besides the interesting lectures and seminars getting to know new people and exchanging thoughts about peace and conflict transformation and life in general was the most amazing part of the trip.
of several dishes for us. All the dishes were put together using the harvest from their own gardens and fish from the river that runs through the village. They also performed traditional Russian and Karelian songs.
On the last day, the visiting students were invited to take part in a trip to Rubcheila. Charming Karelian babushkas welcomed our group of students to visit their village full of beautifully decorated wooden houses. There we got to know about the history of the village and how they still cherish the traditional customs and way of living close to the nature. They had prepared a lunch
Everything was well organized, and it is great that also later this year the students at the Centre for Peace Studies are offered the opportunity to take part in this unforgettable experience in Petrozavodsk in the form of an International Winter School.
About the author Saara Seppälä is a Finish student in the Master’s programme Peace and Conflict Transformation at the Centre for Peace Studies in Tromsø, Norway.
31
Interview with Past CPS Graduate Anne Marit Bachmann 2. What personal qualities do you need to be good at Peace? Depending on different circumstances, you need certain kind of qualities. Some people are maybe better at transforming themselves to fit in the situation. Skills and luck. 3. What brought you to this master course?
1. What did peace and war mean to you when you were a little kid? What do they mean to you now? I think War is the sort of fear, dark. There is this song I heard when I was a kid, the little girl hiding under the blanket, afraid of the war outside. Whereas for peace, there is this symbol of love and handholding. Children from all over the world holding hands together, everyone is friends with each other. Now, as an adult, peace and war are more complicated, when reality comes into it. Peace is two things,it is a feeling, and it’s also a political term, which is hard to define, even now. War has become much more than bombs and airplanes. War became more complex.
32
I think that if there is a place to learn about peace, then you can do some good to change the world. My grandfather, a grumpy old man, played a large part in WW2. I grew up to do something where I don’t believe in fighting in war. Signing up for the army is not the only solution, so I try to find the other direction. 4. What is the most interesting thing you have learnt about peace, and war? I learned most about people, my course mates. Meeting so many different people, where everyone has the same goal, but not everyone has the same means or same way of achieving it. Whose peace, your peace or my peace, and how do you get there?
I think it is a very good environment to learn. I wrote my thesis on this, Conflicted Peace: A Theoretical View of Peace Studies, Situated in Academia, Normativity and Political Correctness. 5. What is the most challenging part about your research work? Getting people to communicate in the way that everyone is actually listening to other, and not just promoting own agenda. 6. What sort of work can CPS graduates do? That depends a lot on what your focus is during your study. As we write so many different theses, topics are so varied. Some are working in organisations. Others like me end up in universities or doing research as PhD students. 7. In what way is the Peace field changing / has changed? I think, from my thesis for example, it started with the idea, with this idealism, then it has been caught up in a lot of terminology, which is very important, but also very confusing when it comes to neo…neo… I am happy that it has become more self-reflective as far as the aim of the study.
8. How do you develop the skills required to be good at Peace? Most importantly you would need to listen. And it depends on where you are. As you need different skills for different situation. For example, if you need to negotiate something within a big UN meeting, you need to have some skills as far as convincing a lot of people. If you want to solve conflict in a very small region, then you need to have understand of people that you are dealing with and their the issues.
9. Is there something that you have learnt in this course that has changed your life? It probably has. You are always affected by the people you meet. I have met a lot of amazing people. Thank you.
Anne Marit graduated from CPS in Master of Philosophy Peace and Conflict Transformation in 2014. She is currently working as Acting Student Advisor at CPS. The interview was conducted by Pei Shan Loo.
33
Faith
Faith belongs to no religion, colour or race. It knows no borders, it instigates no war. It does not answer to cultural beliefs nor does it care for political agendas. Faith lingers in the sphere of no words, within every breath of man, within every heartbeat of humanity. It is the morning breeze and the afternoon storm. Faith is what makes you walk through darkness and light, in peace.
34
Camilla Johansson-Merrick is a Norwegian/Australian photo artist currently living in Sydney, Australia. The photo was taken in France this summer whilst undertaking an artist residency in Noyers sur Serein. It is shot on 35mm film in the village Vezalay in Burgundy, a few days after the Nice attack.
35
War: What is it?
Text by Barbara Stein and Simon Vandestadt
W “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.” United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
36
ar: what is it? We can all summon images of war. Some have experienced war first hand. Some are part of families who have experienced war. Everyone has different perspectives on war. This makes war both difficult to define and explain. The following article is an introduction to the matter of war. The idea of war is often accompanied by three related concepts: conflict, violence, and peace. Why peace? Generally, peace is the opposite of war. Or in other words - peace is the lack of war. However, peace and war may also be two sides of the same coin. The notions of conflict and violence seem more straightforward. Conflict may occur on many levels – from intrapersonal to international. War only exists because of conflict. Yet conflict is not necessarily violent. While the stages of conflict escalation and increasing aggression – difference, disagreement, dispute,
conflict – can be easily seen, there is nothing deterministic about this progression. Each stage can move in either direction. So, what is violence? According to Johan Galtung, a pioneer of peace research, violence arises from struggles to satisfy basic human needs: survival, welfare, freedom, identity. Violence can be seen in limits it places on human potential. It can be direct or indirect. Direct violence means intentional physical or mental harm. Indirect violence may be structural or cultural. Structural violence usually means unintended harm. Cultural violence refers to justifications society accepts that allows direct or indirect harm to occur. Given the appalling cost of war, it is a paradox that the highest incidence of violent conflict is found within countries that can least afford it. Many different reasons have been suggested for why nations go
The Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) identifies 259 separate armed conflicts since 1946. This includes all organised military conflict over government or territory involving at least one state government and 25 or more battle-related deaths in a year. The data shows that colonial and interstate conflicts have all but vanished, while conflicts within the state (civil wars) rose to a peak of 52 in 1991, and have been ranging between 30 and 40 since 2003. While the number of armed conflicts in the world and the number of battle deaths has risen since 2013, the long-term trend has seen battle casualties declining since the end of the Korean War in 1953. Source: PRIO Conflict Trends - Trends in Armed Conflict, 1946-2014
to war. Biological explanations see war as hard-wired into humans’ neurological and biochemical matter. Aggression is an essential part of survival. Psychological explanations root war in frustration, humiliation, provocation and real or imagined feelings of injustice. Deprivation and inequalities have also been suggested as a source of grievance and conflict. Other explanations link modern wars to population growth, competition for limited resources and structural imbalances in income or land distribution. Ethnic grievances have also been linked to mobilisation and collective violence. Some studies on civil wars emphasise greed and opportunity for rebellion over grievance. Rebels are cast as rational actors who calculate whether the cost of rebellion will be more profitable than keeping peace. Economic development, individual rights and political representation have been
associated with the emergence of democracy and reduction in violent conflict. Wars between nations seem to be at an all-time low, but violent civil conflict remains a major problem in the world today. Psychologist Stephen Pinker argues in his book,
Better Angles of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined
(2011), that over the past 10,000 years the trend has been towards a reduction in violence based on war deaths and homicides per 100,000 people. The world is a less dangerous place than when you and I were born. This does not suggest that warfare is over. Nor does the data accurately reflect the plight of many millions of people caught up in other forms of violence such as organised crime, the war on drugs, domestic violence, human trafficking or other varieties of racial, political and religious persecution.
civilisation is enjoying in an era of less violent conflict and increasing morality and humanism, how do we explain the catastrophic destruction of Aleppo today? Or how do we interpret the detonation of two atomic bombs, killing a quarter of a million people? Or the nuclear arsenals that create an ever present threat of nuclear war as a legitimate part of the status quo? How can the emergence of a more humanistic, civilised society be reconciled with the dramatic increases in war refugees and internally displaced persons, that have risen since the mid-sixties from about 5 million to over 65 million? Can our conception of peace, conflict and violence show us that war is not an inevitable response, but a conscious decision we make? Are there ways to move beyond war?
The moral implications of such a trend are vexing. If modern
37
At a glance Conventional War
A war between two or more nation states.
Civil War
A war between forces within one state.
Nuclear War
War using nuclear weapons. The military strategy of mutually assured destruction (MAD) arises from acquisition of sufficient nuclear wepons. It assumes that use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. It underpins the concept of nuclear deterrence.
Other types of war (biological, chemical, Drone War etc.)
War using weaponised bacteria, viruses or fungi, e.g. anthrax, or chemicals in combat or against civilian populations. Use of remote operated unmanned combat vehicles (drones) for surveillance, decoy and offensive purposes.
War on Terror
A metaphor of war involving the global military, political, legal, and conceptual struggle against both organizations designated terrorist and regimes accused of supporting them.
About the authors Barbara Stein is a Master’s student at the Centre for Peace Studies with a background in Anthropology and Linguistics. She is mostly interested in identity, migration and integration. One of her trips exploring the world lead also to Colombia where she discovered a country that has suffered deeply under the ongoing conflicts. She hopes that the people of Colombia will finally find peace with a new peace agreement.
38
Simon Vandestad is a Master’s student at the Centre for Peace Studies with a background in Science. He has not been to war. To him, the horror of war is unimaginable. But he sees it affects the lives of millions. He believes peace to be the natural condition. It is a very human endeavour - both an ideal and an inspiration for new forms of cooperation.
Colombian Peace Agreement and the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize The recent Colombian ceasefire marks a significant milestone – the end of armed conflict across the Americas. On 21st June 2016 the Colombian government and the FARC rebels agreed to a ceasefire, marking the end of a 50-year-old war that left an estimated 220,000 people dead, displaced almost seven million and left 45,000 missing. The announcement in the Cuban capital, Havana, came at the end of formal peace talks that started in 2012. The peace accord addressed justice for victims of the conflict, land reform, political participation for ex-rebels, disarmament, fighting drug trafficking, and monitoring of the agreement. The FARC were expected to move an estimated 7,000 fighters from jungle and mountain hideouts into disarmament camps set up by the United Nations. In return, to FARC were to become a political party. The peace process suffered a serious setback in the 2nd October 2016 national referendum, when support for the terms of the agreement was narrowly defeated. The Nobel Peace prize awarded to Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos on 7th October 2016 can be seen as a symbol of international support and recognition of all the efforts made by individuals and organisations towards peace. Further collective efforts for compromise and peace must be encouraged. Solving wars is difficult and not done by signing peace agreements alone. Clearly, the real work only starts then.
Photo: Barbara Stein Fiesta de las Flores, MedellĂn, Colombia
39
Peace by all means? In a world where conscience and morality seem to move ever more out of focus, the theme of concience is more important than ever. The theme for the next issue will be
re:PEACE and Conscience
www.repeacemag.com /repeacemag
Next issue in print:
Spring 2017 If you would like to contribute an article, photographs, poems or anything else, please contact us at repeacemagazine@gmail.com