Toward Sustainable International Peace – Wherein lies

By Caroline Indrani Samuel, University of New South
Wales, Sydney

Peace is a revolutionary idea; peace by peaceful means
defines that revolution as non-violent. That
revolution is taking place all the time; our job is to
expand it in scope and domain. The tasks are endless;
the question is whether we are up to them
– Johan Galtung, 2002 –

In recent times, the term ‘peace’ has evolved in definition as well as in ideology. To certain sects, peace means ultimately acquiring geographic or political territory believed to be rightfully theirs; even at the expense of a bloodbath and/or severe economic loss. To others, living in the security that
each day will bring new-fangled opportunities to further their economic, social and cultural status in their community equates a peaceful existence. Yet others construe peace from a purely religious or spiritual standpoint, where inner peace breeds greater mental, physical emotional and spiritual health.

These perceptions of peace point to an inevitable conclusion; peace is an entirely subjective concept interpreted differently according to specific frameworks of any given society. Indeed Mohd Shafie Apdal, Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister of Malaysia, put it best when he said, “one person’s
terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter”. The social construction of terrorism and liberation movements provides a good example: who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter? How are these conclusions reached? Why are some religions intolerable of others, or even intolerant of sects
within that religion? How are civilisational identities, such as ‘Asia’ and the ‘West’ constructed? Leading expert on Southeast Asian studies, Amitav Acharya, reasons that states redefine their interests and develop a ‘collective’ identity’ so as to perpetuate their own ideas of what certain concepts
should stand to mean. Similarly the concept of peace has been generated by nation-states, though lately it has taken on an individualistic shape owing to efforts by certain groups within the state.

Working from the assumption that peace is a subjective construct, how does one then reconcile ‘universal’ notions of peace with domestic national polities and even sectarian concepts of the same? The concept and pursuit of peace is extremely complex, encompassing such issues as the Just War Theory (which stipulates, amongst others, that in wartime, the force employed must not cause more destruction than necessary, and the concept of immunity from harm for non-combatants must be upheld) religious orthodoxy, morality, military necessity, terrorism, and the legality of humanitarian interventions.

Focusing on the matter of humanitarian intervention, there are those who believe that such intervention should be conducted with utmost respect to the Just War Tradition if peace is to be restored and is to be sustainable. To this end, the following conditions to intervention become vital: just cause; public declaration by a lawful authority of political
objectives in advance; the intervention is undertaken as a last resort; consideration of the proportionality of costs to the expected objectives.

Prospectively, the only viable path toward successful peace negotiations worldwide will lie in the careful and earnest engagement in dialogue between conflicting parties. The signing and ratification of toothless peace agreements will not do much to restore peace in conflict areas, not least because these agreements lack political will and do not always address the many cries of all parties involved. Take for instance the
1973-1979 Camp David accords and the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty that was ostensibly expected to further a more comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East. As there was no reference to what many Muslims consider the third holiest city of Islam after Mecca and Medina, such nations as Saudi Arabia and Jordan could not endorse the agreement without instigating domestic outcry. Additionally, then President Saddam Hussein, as a proclaimed to be a champion of Arab nationalism, could not approve such an agreement that omitted any reference to the recovery of all of
Palestine. Conversely, Syria was unwilling to sanction such an agreement that did not explicitly indicate Israel’s reparedness to withdraw from the Golan Heights.

As Johan Galtung notes in his book Searching for Peace: The Road to Transcend (2002), “to work for peace is to work against violence; by analyzing its forms and causes, predicting in order to prevent, and then acting preventively and curatively since peace relates to violence as much as health relates to illness”. Indeed, sustainable peace is viable if only preventive measures are taken against violent resolutions, and the course toward this prevention is though active dialogue between conflicting parties. Where this is not feasible, then shuttle diplomacy is welcomed. To this end the role of the United Nations and other like international organizations will prove vital in enabling dialogue participation from all sides. Insofar as credibility in such institutions is restored and/or preserved, this will in turn deliver the goal of global peace and justice. Finally the importance of pursuing peace by peaceful means cannot
be emphasized as an alternative to the means in which peace has been pursued in the world in recent times.