Is Non-violent Approach to Peace Making Practicable - Literature review Example

Are non-violent approach to peace making practicable? Introduction This paper seeks to critically examine whether the so called “non-violent” approach to peace making is practicable in today’s society. It will be argued in this paper that non-violent approach to peace-making can be practicable in today’s society. Nevertheless, the success or effectiveness of this approach is dependent on the willingness or commitment of the conflicting parties towards the peace making process. In essence, this paper will postulate that, non-violent approach to peace making is hinged on the willingness of the conflicting parties to maintain peace. Specific references will be made to peace making missions in Liberia, South Africa, Iraq and India among other countries. Moreover, this paper will discuss the viability of the so-called "just war" principle as a compromise or alternative approach that allows the use of lethal force by military or police within a state. Peace Making Peace making is a broad and multidimensional concept that has over the years received increasing attention due to emerging conflicts between individuals, groups and states. Over time, different perspectives have been put across regarding what peace making entails and the kind of approach or techniques that should be used in peace making. Although, there is no standard definition of peace making, it can generally be described as a practical process that seeks to promote mutual understanding, reconciliation and agreement of conflicting parties in order to realise peace (Cottey, 2008). According to Grimes, Rawcliffe & Smith (2006), peace making is a process of mediation, diplomacy, negotiation and the use of other peaceful settlements with the aim of ending disputes and resolving the causes of conflicts. Similarly, Nan, Mamphily & Bartoli (2011) observe that peace making is a suitable response of the parties involved in conflict that shifts the human system away from violent confrontation to mutual understanding. The definitions provided in the above section on peace making, accentuate on a non-violent approach to peace making. However, it worth noting that this is not always the case since peace making may also involve the use of a violent approach. D’Anieri (2009) seems to capture the notion of peace making through violent means. He notes that, peace making is the application of force or threat of force with the aim of compelling conflicting parties to stop fighting. In essence what D’Anieri is suggesting is that, peace making may involve violent techniques such as military intervention from an external party (D’Anieri 2009). By critically looking at the two approaches of peace making highlighted in the above section (i.e. non-violent and violent approaches to peace making), it is worth questioning which approach to peace making is more practicable in todays’ world? The subsequent section of this paper, will focus on validating that non-violent approach to peace making can be practicable. Practicability of non-violent approach to peace making Over the years, a number of literatures have examined the effectiveness and practicability of non-violent approach to peace making (Cottey 2008; Sharp 2010; Stephan & Chenoweth 2008). According to Sharp (2010), non-violent approach to peace making entails mobilising and applying power potential of individuals and groups with the aim of pursing objectives and interests without necessarily using force or violence. Sharp notes that this approach is effective because it acts as an alternative to violence and provides a more peace-oriented mechanism of defending and realising freedom, justice and peace. He suggests that a non-violent approach is capable of realising effectiveness with fewer catastrophic consequences and more long term and satisfactory results (Sharp 2010). Similarly, McDonald (2012) echoes the sentiments of Sharp (2010) by suggesting that a non-violent approach is more effective mainly because it provides room for negotiations thus enhancing the possibility of addressing past grievances. It can also help to create awareness on the views or perceptions of the adversaries and build trust between the conflicting parties (McDonald, 2012). In addition to this, Stephan & Chenoweth (2008) argue that, non-violent approaches to peace making have realised success 53% of the time whereas violent approaches have realised success 26 % of violent. In their article “Why Civil Resistance Works” Stephan & Chenoweth (2008) provide two reasons why non-violent approaches to peacemaking have a higher success rate than violent approaches. They argue that one of the reasons why non-violent approaches to peace making are effective is because the methods used enhance international and domestic legitimacy thus encouraging broad participation. This in turn exerts increased pressure on the conflicting parties to recognise and address the grievances of the aggrieved parties. Secondly, Stephan and Chenoweth observe that non-violent approach are effective mainly because they are more likely to attract public sympathy and backing. The general public is bound to perceive violent groups as having extremist and maximalist goals which are beyond accommodation whereas non-violent groups are bound to be perceived as less extremist thus enhancing their appeal and support from the general public consequently translating to a power bargain (Stephan & Chenoweth , 2008). Conversely, scholars such as Pape (2005), Lake (2002) and Kydd & Walter (2006) strongly accentuate that violent approaches to peace making are the most effective since they are the most coercive and more bound to force power bargaining and accommodation hence producing the desired outcomes of peace making. For example, some of these scholars argue that terrorism is an effective approach of coercing democratic regimes to implement territorial concessions (Kydd & Walter, 2006; Pape, 2005). The civil war in Liberia provides a good example of a successful non-violent approach to peace making. For almost 15 years, Liberia was at war, this contributed to the displacement of many and the loss of thousands lives. In 2003, the UN Security Council mandated a peace making mission to Liberia. Some of the forces behind this peacemaking mission include UNMIL, UN and various international agencies. The UNMIL provided security to the UN and various international agencies as they employed different non-violent approaches of peace making. Essentially, what the UN and other international agencies did was embark on a series of infrastructure development and humanitarian programs. On the other hand, the UNMIL initiated demobilisation and disarmament programs that sought to peacefully disarm former fighters. By 2006, Liberia had made significant steps towards the realisation of peace and normalcy in the country. Subsequently, Liberia democratically elected Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf as the first female president (United Nations Foundations, 2012). Moreover, Sharp (2010) provides concrete examples of successful peace making missions that employed non-violent techniques. Sharp observes that, United States’ civil rights struggle in the 1950s to 1960s and Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle for India’s independence between the 1920’s and 1940’s are some of the good examples of successful use of non-violent approaches to realise peace and justice. Other significant examples include women demonstration in Berlin in 1943 in a bid to seek justice for their Jewish husbands and the Norwegian teachers’ demonstrations in 1942 against government’s autocratic control of schools. Furthermore, Sharp (2010) observes that strikes and boycotts in South Africa in the 1980’s against apartheid rule also epitomise the success of non-violent approach to peace making. In addition, Helvey (2004) notes that protests, boycotts, non-cooperation and strikes in an attempt to challenge injustices in Lebanon (2005), Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004-05), Serbia (2000), Nepal (2006) and Madagascar (2002) demonstrate the success and effectiveness of non-violent approaches (Helvey, 2004). Nevertheless, in as much as non-violent approaches have proved to be successful or effective, in some instances the use of this approach has failed to realise the desired peace outcome. For example, the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis has been and is still ongoing despite of the use of numerous non-violence approaches to peace making (Bar-Tal, 2001). Moreover, in some cases, violent approaches have proved to be more effective than non-violent approaches in peace making. D’Anieri (2009) also notes that, following Iraq attacks in Kuwait in 1991, US attacked Iraq in an attempt to stop the attacks. Subsequently, Iraq ceased its attacks. D’Anieri suggests that this was a peace making move that could not have been realised through a non-violent approach (D’Anieri, 2009). Evidently, D’Anieri (2009), Bar-Tal (2001) and Helvey (2004) have highlighted scenarios where non-violent approaches to peace making have failed to realise the expected outcome. Based on their observation, it is worth questioning, what factors contribute to the success of non-violent approach to peace making? Ancas (2011) suggests that, the willingness and commitment of conflicting parties to the peace making process is one of the factors that contributes to the success of non-violent approach to peace making. She notes that, each of the conflicting party has the ability and option to cooperate and realise successful peacemaking. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this process is dependent on the political will of the conflicting parties to create and commit to consensus. Similar to the sentiments of Ancas (2011), it was earlier postulated in this paper that the practicability or effectiveness of a non-violent approach to peace making is hinged on the willingness of the conflicting parties to maintain peace. Therefore, the next sections of this paper will focus on showing that the willingness or commitment of conflicting parties is crucial in the success of peace-making. Helvey (2004) and Sharp (2010) observe that, in peacemaking processes in Norway (1942), United States (1950s-1960s) and Ukraine (2004-05) success was realised mainly because the conflicting parties as well as the government showed some level of willingness to maintain peace. However, in instances where non-violent approaches were ineffective, it is apparent that conflicting parties conveyed a lack of willingness and commitment towards the peace making process. For instance, in the case of US attacks on Iraq, there was a lack of willingness by the conflicting parties to make peace rather, their focus was directed towards retaliations (D’Anieri 2009). Furthermore, Sharp and Paulson (2005) observe that, when using non-violent approach to peace making, the willingness of the conflicting parties to make peace is key to success. In essence, the willingness of the conflicting parties to convey their grievances or resistance based on broadly supported communication strategies and moral principles determines the practicability or effectiveness of non-violent approaches to peace making (Sharp & Paulson 2005). Conversely, Doyle & Sambanis (2006) are of the opinion that the willingness of the conflicting parties to maintain peace is not necessarily an important determining factor for successful peace making. They observe that, clearly the willingness of the conflicting parties to maintain peace does not guarantee success. For instance, the wars in Angola and Rwanda in the 1990’s occurred after many agreements that supposedly showed willingness of conflicting parties to make peace were belied. Instead, Doyle & Sambanis suggest that even when all conflicting parties are willing to make peace, poor implementation of the peace agreement is bound to jeopardies the peace making process (Doyle & Sambanis, 2006). Although Doyle & Sambanis (2006) cast a doubt on the importance of willingness of the conflicting parties to maintain peace, to the success of the peace making process, Van der Lijn (2009), note that the successes of UN peace making operations highly depend on the willingness of the conflicting parties to maintain peace. Just Wars Drawing on examples from UN peace making missions in Bosnia and Somalia, Doyle & Sambanis (2006) argue that, in some instances non-violent approaches to peace making can prove to be ineffective. Therefore, in such instances Doyle and Sambanis argue that the use of violent or forceful approaches is necessary and justifiable. These sentiments evoke the need to examine the concept of just wars. Principally, ‘just war’ is a doctrine that attempts to specify conditions or provide guidelines for judging whether it is just to go to war and how wars should be fought. This doctrine aims at providing guidance to states on the right way of addressing potential or actual conflict situations. Generally, just war principles hold that; a just war occurs only as a last resort, after all non-violent options have been exhausted (Reed & Ryall, 2008; Robinson, 2003). Moreover, a just war can only be executed in response to a war suffered. For instance, self-defense following attacks can be considered as a just war. Furthermore, principles of just war hold that, a just war is one that is fought with the right intention. Thus a war is justifiable only when is geared towards making peace. Principles of just war also hold that the type of force or violence used in war should be proportional to the injury or harm suffered. Therefore, based on the just war theory, peace forces are prohibited from exerting extreme or unnecessary force. Additionally, these principle hold that, innocent civilians should not be targets thus just wars must discriminate between combats and non-combats by taking all necessary measures to ensure that innocent civilians are not attacked during war(Reed & Ryall, 2008; Robinson, 2003). Over the years, the just war theory has incited much debate and controversy. Proponents of this theory argue that this doctrine provides a useful framework that guides individuals, groups and states on how to address possible conflict situations. Conversely, critics of this theory argue that this doctrine can deceive people into thinking that war can be just or a good thing. This paper strongly asserts that in certain extreme circumstances, it is necessary to use force in order to realise peace. For example, following the September 11, 2001 attacks, it was justifiable for the US to declare war on the Taliban and Al Qaeda. In such a scenario, it proved to be futile to employ a non-violent approach to peace making since the Taliban and Al Qaeda were clearly not willing to make peace. The willingness of conflicting parties to make peace is crucial in determining the success of non-violent approach to peace-making. On the other hand, some may argue that war is never justifiable since it can lead to a ceaseless cycle retaliations that may lead to the loss of many innocent lives (Bellamy, 2006; Robinson, 2003). Conclusion This paper has examined whether the so called “non-violent” approach to peace making is practicable in today’s society. It has been argued in this paper that non-violent approach to peace-making can be practicable in today’s society (Sharp 2010; McDonald 2012). Nevertheless, the success or effectiveness of this approach is dependent on the willingness or commitment of the conflicting parties towards the peace making process (Ancas 2011). The findings of this paper depict that, a non-violent approach to peace making is practicable in today’s world mainly because it acts as an alternative to violence and provides a more peace-oriented mechanism of defending and realising freedom, justice and peace (Sharp 2010). Moreover, this approach is capable of realising effectiveness in peace making with fewer catastrophic consequences and more long term and satisfactory results (Sharp 2010). In addition, this paper has examined the concept of just war. It is argued that, in certain extreme circumstances, it is necessary to use force or violence in order to realise peace. References Ancas, S. (2007). “Problematising the United Nations- African Union-Southern African Development Community relationship”. African Journal on Conflict Resolution 11(1):129-152. Bar-Tal, D. (2001). “Why Does Fear Override Hope in Societies Engulfed by Intractable Conflict as it Does in the Israeli Society?” Political Psychology 22(3), pp. 601-627. Bellamy, J.A. (2006). “No pain, no gain? Torture and ethics in the war on terror.” International Affairs 82(1), 121-148. Cottey, A. (2008). “Beyond humanitarian intervention: The new politics of peacekeeping and Intervention.” Contemporary Politics 14(4), pp. 429-446. D’Anieri, P. (2009). International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs. London: Cengage Learning. Doyle, M. & Sambanis, N. (2006). Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Grimes, D. Rawcliffe, J. & Smith, J. (2006). Operational Law Handbook. Virginia: DIANE Publishing. Kydd, A. & Walter, B. (2006). “The Strategies of Terrorism.” International Security 31(1), pp. 49-80 Lake, D. (2002). “Rational Extremism: Understanding Terrorism in the Twenty 21st Century.” Dialogues –IO 1(1), pp.15-29. McDonald, J. (2012). “The Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy.” Journal of Conflictology 3(2), pp. 66-70. Nan, S. Mamphily, Z. & Bartoli, A. (2011). Peacemaking: From Practice to Theory. New York: ABC-CLIO Pape, R. (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Chicago: Random House Sharp, G. (2010). “Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Non-violent Struggle towards Justice, Freedom and Peace.” The Ecumenical Review 48(8), pp. 233-250. Sharp, G. & Paulson, J. 2005, Waging non-violent struggle: 20th century practice and 21st century potential. New York: Extending Horizon Books. Stephan, M. & Chenoweth, E. (2008). “Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict.” International Security 33(1), pp. 7-44. Reed, C. & Ryall, D. (2008). “The price of peace: Just war in the twenty-first century”. Journal of Military Ethics 7(2), pp. 157-179. Robinson, P. (2003). Just War in a Comparative Perspective. London: Ashgate. United Nations Foundations (2012). UN Peacekeeping is a success in Liberia. Retrieved on February 18 2012 Van der Lijn, J. (2009). “If only there was a blueprint! Factors for success and failure on UN Peace-building operations.” Journal of International Peace Keeping 18, pp.45-71 Read More