The Sustainable Aim of Peace-Building - Coursework Example

Name Course Tutor Date Introduction Peace building is a process which involves establishing a normalized relationship between the ordinary parties on both sides of a conflict. Although it can be considered any time they mostly follow the efforts to keep peace to prevent the occurrence of violence or the severity of its effects. Peace keeping is a response to an action hence should take the shortest time possible, peace building takes long because of the processes involved, it requires time to strategies and implement. (Duffield 124-145). It involves combined efforts of almost everybody in the society including media, open channels of communication and others in the educational systems to come together and breakdown common stereotypes, discrimination and reduces prejudice. Mostly these activities are carried out by nongovernmental organizations although some well established organizations like United Nations, organization for African and Organization of American States are active participants. The sustainable aim of peace-building Peace building in the conflict prone and post conflict nations whose aim is prevent the resumption or escalation of conflicts and establishing a desirable peace has led to debates and controversies which are advantageous to scholarship and policy. The importance of these debates extends beyond the operations of peace. The thinkers have come up with the most essential frameworks on the liberal peace since earlier 1990s with the aim of understanding the new and more approaches of interventionists to the issues of rebuilding post-conflict. Liberal peace is preferred to be more important than the other traditional factors of preventing occurrence of conflicts or reducing their effects to the affected parties. This is a good turning point from the negative peace towards reinforcement of the external post-conflict societies under the leadership of good governance, human rights, and democratic elections. The main aim of liberal peace building is to contribute actively to implementation of liberal policies relating to the relationship of people and various groups in the society. It is also concern about their development in terms of economies, construction and other activities in the society rather than creating chances for negotiating ways of resolving conflicts between states. For any discussion of liberal peace to be classified as critical, they should be based on issues that are concern about the marginalised needs and interests of the concern communities and those that are frequently ignored. This is comes as a result of maintaining such issues as the inequality and conflicts which blocks the achievement of the goals and objectives of the external agents (Banks, 259-74). The efforts to prevent instability, inequality and other conflicts in Asia-pacific region are perceived as an important foreign policy specifically for Australia as a nation and aid program. The initiative of Australian government in peace-building is to improve the capacity of governance, reduce poverty and achieve some of the sustainable development initiative. It responds to conflicts or concern about ways of preventing their occurrence. In 1999, Australia was recorded as the leading in among the United Nations peace keeping force in East Timor. It provided a good value of humanitarian aid during the conflicts and afterwards so as to reduce its effects on the affected individuals. The aid program still contributes to the reconstruction of the country after the conflicts. Australia is an important contributor to the international mine action with the aim of providing aid to the region of Asia-Pacific. These aid programs includes: support to clear mine, education on safety at mine, victim assistance and other activities relating to advocacy in collaboration to differences in international, regional and local actors (Bellamy, 17-38). .     Is it a liberal peace that is compatible with internationally recognized norms and principles, or is it a communitarian peace implemented in potentially non-liberal cultures and traditions? Although liberal peace can be considered to build peace anywhere and anytime it is compatible with the internationally recognized norms and principles. The position of liberal peace highly determines the success of efforts of state building. Most of the Western interests are assumed to be internationally recognized norms which can help in making policies in all nations hence determination of the level of state building. The main aim of liberal peace is not much on creating the space for resolving conflicts between states but also actively contributing to construction of economies, polities and societies. Various nations have a chance to understand policies set up by each other hence determine the one which is acceptable by all nations. Under the appearance of the universalising Western liberal frameworks of democratic system and the market the interests and needs of the subject to interference are mostly ignored (Chandler, 243-47). International peace makers can help in the important task of managing violence by providing security. Unlike communitarian peace which is concern about balancing the rights of the individuals and those of the entire community when the public officials decide the community rights, they teach the public about them and make sure that they abide by them. Liberal peace ensures that the international norms and principles are set from the norms of various nations and communicated to the public of various nations of the world. These two communitarian and liberal peace are related because communitarianism is a theory concern about emergence of the global government whose norms are supposed to cater for the needs and interests of people across all nations. Communitarian peace implemented in potentially non-liberal cultures and traditions is a bit different because it is concern about the norms and principles or cultures and traditions at community level and not at national level or worldwide. The liberal peace and ethics of peace building have come up with inventive conceptual and theoretical developments and increased the alertness as well as the understanding of some of the ethical dimensions in the theories and policies of peace building (Chesterman, 123-243). Communitarian is all about human rights at community level, this may differ depending on the personalities of the individuals. Various individuals have differing needs and interests hence perceive their rights from differing points of view. The communitarian peace considers all these perceptions so as to ensure that the rights of all the people are catered for thus they all fit in the communities where they belong. Can this opposition between a liberal and communitarian peace be relevant The disagreement between a liberal and communitarian peace can be relevant because their concern in the targeted society is completely different although both are important to the individuals. The success of any efforts to promote international peace building is depended on the position of liberal peace since most of the considered international norms are western based. The main critique is that there is an assumption that the approach of the liberal peace building is focused towards impressiveness of models from the Western nations like the reconstruction of the Westphalia frameworks of autonomy of the state liberal enclosure of the rights of the individuals and neoliberal economic of the free market program. The view of the western ways of making policy, divergence intervention and post-construction of the state after the cold war can be viewed as a critique of most of the liberal assumptions concerning various subjects of concern (Duffield, 124-145). Liberal peace is construed and abridged as a set of theories which suggests that there is a strong and very powerful of both domestic and international peace to come as after majority of the individuals have strong control of the their decision based on both politics and economic issues. Instead it assumes that majority of the citizens are have their peace based on their self interest since their attaining of the material and non-material well-being is optimized in an environment which is economically stable and whose regulations offers security for the external agents not to access the activities pertaining economy or general stability of the nation. Thus liberal peace would be easily attained if the existing small groups and some of the considered influential elites could be easily restricted through efficient political institutions. For sometimes there are powerful critique of the censors of liberal building had emerged. The critiques came along with some questions regarding the possibility that marketization and democratization are the major sources of peace. These are geographical coverage as well as acceptability of most of the people across the world. The findings were not presented a critic of transitional justice which is important to the modern efforts of building peace. These share major assumptions concerning preferable institutional schedules and other common element such as free markets, democracy and justice among the individuals and are necessary factors of ensuring that there is peace (Heathershaw, 256-265). There are some of the limitations and safety measures of liberal peace hence prevent it from becoming so common in all the nations. The first limitation is that democracies are active towards non-democracies hence are likely to support conflictual relationships than the non-democracies. These relationships are against the norms and principles of the liberal peace because they cause various communities or nations to fight against each other instead of reconciling or reconstructing their post-conflict peace because the differences still exists. This is the major cause of rivalry between the nations as each struggle to justify its actions and proof its superiority (Hegre, 213-234). The outcome of the relationship between peace and democracy at each level of system is important. This can be assumed from the perception that high risks of the international conflicts which mean that democratization at worldwide level cannot be reliable to reduce the war at the level of each system. Although the global government can set norms and principles to establish and maintain peace at the international level, it assumes that of the nation level or the governance of each of the systems thus conflicts may continue existing in between various communities of a national although not to the level of being noticed or going against the norms or laws set by the international court of justice. For example, the nations with unstable system of leadership like it is happening in most of the developing nations or the systems ran by the coalition governments may have disagreements which can affect the rights of human beings at their nation levels but remain unnoticeable to international liberal peace system unless the set norms and principles at the international level are assumed. For instance, if the conflict between the two sides of government becomes exaggerated resulting to fights which causes physical harm to the public may attract the attention of the international judiciary thus the case is handled by the international court of criminal and the accusations are based on the international set norms and principles of the liberal peace (Kurtenbach, 345-365). The outcome of the relationship between peace and democracy at the level of each system of leadership is important because it is possible for each government to identify the needs and interests of its members at the community level hence determine the principles to apply so as to cater for all the human rights hence maintain national peace. It will also be possible for each system to first set up norms and principles that promote peace at their national level which are also considered when establishing the standards for the liberal peace (Lidén, 243-253) . The empirical and theoretical analysis has distinguished some limits of the components of trade and conflict. The trends of the main risk of war are higher for the nations which are assumed to be equal. The main principle of the liberal peace is to establish and maintain equality among all the nations irrespective of its achievements or failures. This is not well embrace by most of the nations especially those put under the same bracket with their competitors; each struggles hard to proof its superiority to the others. For example, the victorious nations or the so called fully developed entities are always struggling to outweigh the each other in all aspects of life: economical, political and socially. In the struggle to outstand each other they tend to disagree with each other resulting to conflicts, terrorism or war. Mostly the process of peace keeping keeps recurring as liberal peace is established because the process of peace building takes long and involves many procedures. Thus peace is kept to solve the conflicts existing between various systems. The imaginary and experimental issues end up causing the disagreements between nations. Through the empirical or theoretical explanations, the rich or highly industrialized democracies are good observers of civil peace than the poor of developing ones. This is because of their unstablelized system as well as their inability to cater for some of the human rights and needs. Sometimes they are forced to grant some freedom to their members so as to struggle to meet their needs, for example, there is freedom of trade and the other business activities which are meant to improve the lives of the residents. Although the governing systems sets up some norms and principles which the public should abide by their styles are a bit flexible especially on issues which are above their control (Kelly, 205-214). These are some of the assumptions which are against the liberal peace model which was identified back in 1980s and is based on the belief that the endorsement of any liberal democracy or market based economy especially in the post-conflict nations are assumed to generate some conditions for peace which would last forever. The sense of democratisation in this theory is meant to create space for the management and resolution of the non-violent conflicts and the economies of markets are considered as the best promotion of economic growth. Some of the assumptions of liberal movements concerning various autonomous disciplines like law, sovereignty and democracy can end up to worse consequences. There is a risk that the critiques of the liberal peace which are likely to cause Post Cold War interference in ways which overstate the nature of the frameworks policy which excuse the failure of the policies which were applied under the basis of policy-elites in which the Western subjects are not ready for the freedom (Newman 124-134.). If there is an unquestionable contradiction between internally and externally defined peace, how do we decide which is the best to choose? In other words: What is the moral rationale of contemporary peace-building? And what should it be? There is a contradiction which exists between the internally and externally based peace because each is based on its level of coverage. Although it is difficult to define what internal and external peace is, the simplest way is by analysing the harmony attained by the absence of war and conflicts which ruin peace. This is applied on the systems of various states to evaluate the level of their peace by checking whether they are involved in any conflict either with the neighbouring states or among the internal communities. If not involved in any international conflict then a state can be assumed to have external peace and if no intercommunity conflicts determined it can be said to be having internal peace. Peace building in the conflict prone nations is difficult and is aimed to prevent the escalation or recommencement of violent or conflicts and establishing everlasting peace in the affected nations (Paris, 337-365). The internal peace caters for the needs and interests of the residents of the identified nations. This makes sure that people of certain nations are granted all their human rights and are conversant to the set norms and principles. The governors consider the cultures of various communities as well as their social activities and carefully evaluate them to come up with a set of norms and principles which all the members of the nation are supposed to follow. Adhering to these standards means that the residents are at peace not only to themselves but to their neighbours and countrymen (Richmond, 203-213). The international or external peace is motivated by the need or desire of promoting strong and well established nations which can stand out in the midst of the others. This also makes it possible for the global government to contain the interests of the international security. Various norms and principles set by different systems of governance are brought together and analysed to come up with the most suitable standards which can govern the whole world. Externally governed state-building supported by the institutionalist models mostly undermines the indigenous authorities of the less developed nations and adapts those of the Westernised nations and the ones thought to be victorious. Most of the nations do not abide by the international set norms mostly because they are not involved in the process of setting up these standards and the courts or judiciaries who are responsible for the implementation of these laws are from the Western nations (Sriram, 243-254). The decision on the type of peace to be considered between internal and external is depended on the effects on all the people based on the nation and global point of view. The aim of each system is to ensure security and satisfactory of human rights for the comfort of each person. Some of the principles set at the nation level may not have positive effects on the other members of the world and others set by the global government may not favour members of some nations hence they may not have peace at the ground level. This means that although international peace is necessary for handling some of the issues which are beyond control at national level the internal peace should not be assumed because it ensures peace of all members of nations at their levels and includes all the factors which are overlooked by the international system (Dannreuther, 126-134) The roots or foundation of any state building is based on the stability of the local societies; efforts of state building which do not take root in the local authorities have their instability and conflicts result. The ethical assessment of peace building has revealed a disreputable disembeddedness in some of the indigenous beginning of peace and justice among the people. This helps to reveal why the aim of peace building is just and sustainable. It also helps to answer whether it is liberal peace which is corresponded to the globally accepted norms and principles or it is a communitarian peace that is embedded in all the potentially cultures which are non-liberal (Sorenson, 134- 56). Conclusion Peace building differs with the perception of those concerns, sometimes it is Unitarian and a time it becomes homogenous although at most cases it is considered to be liberal. This liberal peace takes the initial ways of keeping peace by settling the conflicts and preventing their future happening. There are two types of peace: internal and external, internal is concern about peace at national level and international peace entails the principles and norms governing all the nations in the whole world. Liberal peace has some limitations over the other type. . Work cited Banks, M."Four conceptions of peace." Conflict Management and Problem Solving: Interpersonal to International Applications, 1987. 259-74.  Bellamy, A. J. "The ‘next stage’in peace operations theory?" International Peacekeeping 11(1): 2004. 17-38.  Chandler, D. What Do We Do When We Critique Liberalism?: The Uncritical Critique of ‘Liberal Peace’, University of Westminster, 2009. 243-47  Chesterman, S., M. Ignatieff, et al. Making states work: state failure and the crisis of governance, United Nations Univ, 2005. 123-243  Duffield, M. Global governance and the new wars: the merging of development and security, Zed books New York, 2001. 124-145  Heathershaw, J. "Unpacking the liberal peace: the dividing and merging of peacebuilding discourses." 2008. 256-265.  Hegre, H. "The Limits of the Liberal Peace." PhD diss., University of Oslo. 2004. 213-234   Kurtenbach, S. "Why Is Liberal Peace-building So Difficult? Some Lessons from Central America." 2007. 345-365  Lidén, K. What is the Ethics of Peacebuilding? Kick-off Meeting of the Liberal Peace and the Ethics of Peacebuilding project. 2007. (2)1: 243-253 Newman, E. P., R.; Richmond, O. "New Perspectives of Liberal Peacebuilding." United Nations University Press. 2008. 124-134.  Paris, R. (2007). "Saving liberal peacebuilding." Review of International Studies 36(02): 337-365.  Richmond, O. P. Peace in international relations, Psychology Press. 2008. 203-213.  Sriram, C. L. Justice as peace? Liberal peacebuilding and strategies of transitional justice. 2007. (13)3. 243-254. Dannreuther, R., 2007, International security: the contemporary agenda, Cambridge: Polity, 126- 134 Sorenson, David & Wood,Christina.The politics of peacekeeping in the post-cold war era Volume 17 of The Cass series on peacekeeping (17) 2: 2005. 134- 56 Kelly, Geffrey & Burton, Nelson. The cost of moral leadership: the spirituality of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Lake: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003. 205-214. Read More