Fr. Thomas Michel's Official Website

In this brief article, I want to present some considerations for those interested in engaging in peace-making and peace-building.  The study of peace and the technique of peace-building is a rather new academic discipline, but one that is quickly growing in many parts of the world.  This is a much-needed and belated response to the sad reality that in many nations, the study of war - with military academies, war colleges, training institutes, reserve officer training programs etc. - have been emphasized to an exaggerated degree, with sophisticated facilities and equipment, lavish funding from the national budget at taxpayers’ expense, and oriented towards producing specialists in waging war.

In the same nations comparatively little time and attention has been given to the study of peace - how to build and maintain peace, how to analyze and understand tensions and conflicts to be able to take steps toward preventing them from becoming violent, and how to reconstruct the peace after violent conflict.  Few funds have been made available for such peace-making courses and workshops, and few trained specialists have been prepared to engage in the formation of prospective peace-makers.

1. The changing nature of war.

One of the factors underlining the urgency of the study of peace and conflict transformation is the changing nature of war.  Wars have afflicted humankind for at least as far back as recorded history, but in the modern age war and violent conflict have devolved into something more destructive and devastating than ever before. 

In the course of the 20th Century we have seen a shift in victims of wars.  The past century has seen a shift in casualties from combatant to civilian, from men to women, from adult to child.  In pre-modern times, wars were fought between opposing armies and civilians were less directly affected.  However, the nature of modern warfare and the production of modern weapons have changed all that.  The use of weapons such as long-range rockets that kill indiscriminately, particularly when deployed in the aerial bombing of urban areas, and anti-personnel land mines that mainly kill and maim civilians, and continue to produce new victims long after the actual warfare has ceased, has shifted the balance in favor of civilian casualties.  In 1914-1917, in the predominantly trench warfare of World War I, 5% of the casualties were civilian.  By World War II in 1939-1945, the number of civilian casualties had risen to 50%.  In the Vietnam War of 1963-1975, civilians accounted for 80% of the war casualties, while in the present-day conflicts, civilian casualties amount to 90-95% of all those injured and killed.

Children have become the latest “collateral damage” in modern wars.  In the past ten years, over two million children have died in war, while between four and five million have been wounded and disabled, 12 million made homeless, and another million orphaned or separated from their parents.  The number of yet other children whose hopes of education have been shattered by war, who have fallen ill to countless diseases due to malnutrition, the pollution of the sources of drinking water, and exposure to the elements caused by warfare, or who have been condemned to lives of poverty due to the death or disability of the family breadwinner is in the uncounted millions.

Another class of war victims includes the large number of refugees in the world.  The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that in 2006, the number of international refugees has, for the first time, surpassed 20 million.  This is in addition to another estimated 24 million internally displaced persons (IDPs), who were forced to abandon their homes, fields, and livelihood in one region and relocate elsewhere, often in squalid refugee camps, in the same country.  In many cases, the IDPs suffer more than the international refugees, for they are not eligible for sponsorship by UNHCR or for aid from international organizations; they are, moreover, often regarded as an unwelcome presence by the local governments in their zones of relocation.

Another factor of the changing nature of war is that, previously, wars were fought between nation states, that is, countries that were usually distant from one another.  Today, however, the majority of wars are “intra-national,” that is, they take place within one’s own country and often within one’s own city.  The “enemy” frequently lives in a person’s own locality, town, village, or neighborhood.

These violent clashes are what sociologists call “identity conflicts.”  Although the causes of the conflict may be extremely complex, the warring sides are formed by one or more “markers” of identity, such as religion, culture, language, ethnic group, or geographical region.  Identity groups can have often lived together for many years; they “live as neighbors and yet are locked into long cycles of negative interaction.”  There can be deeply rooted animosities, combined with strong prejudices, habitual stereotyping, and overwhelming fear of their neighbors.  These mutual prejudices and fears of the other are often handed down from one generation to the next, and the simmering animosity and distrust can erupt, with the right combination of circumstances, into violent atrocities.

2. New types of war need new a style of peace-making.

Traditionally, peace-making was carried out by high level committees who brought the warring parties together to negotiate a settlement or at least a cease fire that would halt hostilities until a permanent settlement could be worked out.  One of the best-known examples is the 1953 cease fire between North and South Korea, brokered by the United Nations, which de facto erected a cease-fire line, dividing the country along the actual line of battle at that moment, and created a demilitarized zone to separate the opposing armies.  Until today, no peace treaty has ever been signed by the warring parties.

Traditional peace-keeping has included peace-keeping operations, supervision of ceasefire, and the monitoring of elections to ensure, as far as possible, fair and democratic processes.  It is clear that such peace-keeping focuses on the combatant forces and the local and national political structures and aims at making sure that all parties observe the spirit and letter of signed agreements.

However, it can be seen that the changing nature of war demands a new style of peace-making.  In the 21st century, peacemaking needs to be multi-dimensional.  There is no single actor who can ensure the peace and no comprehensive response can be expected or relied upon.  Cooperation and coordination are the keys to successful peace-making, in which political, religious, ethnic, business, and educational sectors of society all have a role to play, as do NGOs, and groups representing specific interests, such as women’s and workers’ associations.

In modern times, peace cannot be imposed from above.   Access to the acquisition of weapons and the technique of constructing one’s own weapons is common knowledge today.  Civil authorities are quite limited in what can be decreed or forbidden in situations of armed conflict.  Still less can foreign occupying armies hope to bring about a cessation of hostilities; in fact, their presence seems more likely to exacerbate local animosities and perpetuate a state of violence and civil disruption.

Another lesson learned in recent decades is that post-conflict peacebuilding and reconciliation must be an integral part of any peace agreement.  In times of violent conflict, family members are killed, homes are destroyed, atrocities are committed, and lives are shattered.  Even when a cease-fire or peace agreement has been signed, or when the warring parties have ceased hostilities through change of policy or simple exhaustion, the memories of those killed, wounded, and violated remain fresh in people’s minds.  Anger and resentment towards the perpetrators, as well as the desire for revenge, remain alive among those who have survived the conflict.  Since the same feelings also linger among the “enemy,” deep-seated and long-lasting hatreds can easily persist among all those affected.  Here lies the importance of reconciliation efforts, which are attempts to break the cycle of mutual accusation, competing claims to vindication, simmering resentments, and recurrent outbreaks of violence.

3. From outside mediators to grass-roots peacemaking.

In conventional or traditional diplomacy, peacemaking was usually done by outside mediators.  The thinking was that the parties involved in a conflict would be unwilling to make concessions or propose compromises, but that mediating teams acceptable to both sides would have greater flexibility to suggest and negotiate peace settlements on terms satisfactory to all.  Outside mediators could suggest alternatives and encourage a shift in attitudes and thus move things forward in the direction of peace.

However, peace is not achieved simply by encouraging the warring factions to cease hostilities.  Peace settlements achieved through negotiation do not bring about a change of heart, and thus the human problems of anger, resentment and fear remain untouched by negotiations.  It is clear that while negotiation might bring fighting to a halt, something more is required if a true and lasting peace is to be built.

4. Who can you trust?

A clear obstacle to the establishment of a genuine peace is the lack of trust engendered by violent conflict.  In times of conflict the “enemy” is usually demonized and pictured as being untrustworthy.  Their words and actions, even when positively oriented toward compromise and reconciliation, cannot be believed.  As people begin thinking defensively, the circle of trust narrows to a limited number of people.

It is worth reflecting on who are the people to be trusted in times of conflict, for it is in these circles of relationship, acquaintance, and association that the peacemaker must operate if he or she hopes to influence people’s attitudes in the direction of resolution and reconciliation.  Certainly the family, extended to include the clan, is the narrowest and strongest circle of trust.  At the next circle are fellow worshipers at the church, mosque, or temple, who are often the source of assistance and believable information.  In many conflicts religious leaders and associations have been able to maintain a high level of integrity and are deemed worthy of trust.  At a still broader level, neighborhood groups, women’s organizations, schools, parent-teacher associations, indigenous NGOs, labor unions, community developers, local health officers, refugee camp leaders all maintain some level of trust, even in dire situations.

It is important for peace-builders to be able to identify these trustworthy individuals and entities in society, for it is through such groups that the peace-making effort will have to be carried out.  Those who are viewed with mistrust and suspicion, such as occupying armies, unpopular political authorities and military officials, and local bureaucrats in government agencies are relatively ineffective in promoting a lasting peace, and in many instances they are often negative factors that perpetuate the conflictual situation.

As mentioned above, peacemaking must be multifaceted.  While peace cannot be imposed from above, nor can it be expected to grow exclusively from the grass-roots, all sectors in society have their role to play in bringing about a lasting peace.  The top leadership, both military and political, must be motivated to engage in negotiations and search for a ceasefire, as well as to ensure that the troops under their command act within the bounds of international law and war crimes conventions. The middle leadership of society, composed of religious and ethnic leaders, intellectuals and academics, must be encouraged to take part in peace commissions and to initiate or support training programs aimed at conflict resolution and transformation.  The grass-roots leadership has a key role to play by working to reduce prejudice, organize grass-roots training programs, make up local peace commissions, and carry out the necessary psychosocial work to confront the widespread phenomenon of postwar trauma.

5. What’s in a name?

Different terms, which imply a different set of presuppositions and goals, are used in the process of peacemaking.  Prospective peacemakers must have a clear idea of what they are trying to achieve and how.  The terms used are an indication of what is seen as the desired goal of the peace process.  However, it should be noted that among those involved in peace studies and conflict transformation, there is no agreement or consistency in terminology, so one might hear one or another term used with various shades of meaning.

1. Crisis or conflict management. The goal is to manage affairs so that the situation does not get “out of control”. There is no fundamental change in structures of power.  Those in power maintain the status quo. This is the most limited view of peacemaking and the most problematic, for the real issues at the root of the problem are not addressed and the combination of factors that produced the tensions and violence are still in place.  Since “peace” is imposed and sustained by an external and superior force, attitudinal changes among the people are not a primary focus.  An example often given of crisis or conflict management is the policy of the United States occupation forces in Iraq.

2. Conflict resolution. Here the emphasis is on solving the conflict, making it go away.  Considerable effort is employed to analyze the historical, political, and economic aspects of the problem so that an adequate “solution” can be found that will be satisfactory to all parties.  The criticism often made of conflict resolution is that its “problem-solving” methodology often does not adequately take into account the human factor, the mysterious reality that people, on the one hand, will often act self-destructively against their own best interests for reasons of pride or resentment, while, on the other hand, they will sometimes be ready to make leaps of generosity and vision beyond what the situation seems to call for.  An example that could be given of conflict resolution is the “Road map” for Israel and Palestine).

3. Conflict Transformation. Many of those involved in peace studies today prefer to speak of conflict transformation.  Conflict transformation presumes that conflict is not of itself bad.  Conflict is a fact of human life and, in fact, one would not want to see a world from which all conflict, which is a source of creative change in society, would be eliminated.  The goal of peacemaking is to transform the conflict so that it does not lead to violence, hatred, and destructive activity but instead acts as a catalyst for people to face difficult issues and to produce necessary changes for the welfare of all.  This ambitious peacemaking goal has motivated the peace efforts in African countries such as Sierra Leone and Liberia, and provides the ideology and methodology of the Bishops-Ulama forum in Mindanao in the Southern Philippines.

The work of peace-building that follows upon a conflict also has various terms to describe specific aspects of the peacemaking process.  This process includes:

1. Rehabilitation.  After a bloody conflict, people remain traumatized.  They may have lost family members, their home, their livelihood. Women may have been violated.  The breadwinner may have been killed or maimed and the family reduced to poverty.  All this can produce a hopeless attitude when one looks to the future.  The victims of war are often in despair and feel that they do not have the necessary energy, hope, and courage to start over and rebuild their lives.  Moreover, in wartime, many people who otherwise would display friendliness, generosity, and acceptance to others can be reduced to a struggle for survival.  In the process of surviving they may have selfishly or cruelly committed actions of which they are ashamed and feel guilty.  All these difficult human problems must be faced in rehabilitation. 

2. Reconstruction.  Reconstruction is the effort to rebuild the physical damage to property and infrastructure which were destroyed in the war.  Certainly, the military or civil authority responsible for causing physical damage, rather than the victim, has the moral responsibility for repairing and rebuilding what was destroyed, although this responsibility is usually ignored in the aftermath of warfare.  It is not only a case of reconstructing buildings, which is a relatively straightforward and easy task, but includes the more difficult projects of recreating institutions – schools, clinics, shops, day care centers, local chains of authority etc. – and rebuilding fragile infrastructure – telephones, roads, electricity, drinking water.  Yet without physical reconstruction, peace retains a tentative, temporary, unstable character.

3. Return and reintegration.  The return of refugees and their reintegration into the life of the community is a complex task.  Many refugees have found work and begun a new life elsewhere and are not eager to return to a ravaged homeland.  This is especially the case when their home have been destroyed, when the factories or offices where they worked are still bombed out and shut, when the fields they plowed are still planted with land mines.  In the case of ethnic cleansing, people have been driven from their homes and everything is done to make their return unwelcome or impossible.  Even when people have returned to their homeland, they may find others living in their homes or having taken their jobs and they find themselves swelling the ranks of the unemployed.  Yet, in many cases refugees are the very people whose skills and vision are needed to rebuild society on a new footing.  Ways must be found to attract refugees to return and then to make best use of their knowledge and expertise by integrating them into the process of reconstruction.        

4. Reconciliation.  As mentioned above, after a conflict, feelings of resentment and even hatred remain towards the former “enemy.”  Some of these feelings dim naturally with time, but others can persist and be handed down from generation to generation.  The work of reconciliation is one of building trust among those who had previously regarded one another as enemies.  This is extremely difficult, because in the course of the conflict people’s prejudices about the other have been confirmed; the stereotyping of the other becomes fixed and solidified in people’s thinking.  And yet, if peace is to be achieved, people who must live together in the same locality must find ways to come to understand each other and to trust each other, if they are not going to simply be preparing themselves for the next bout of violence.

6. Is it possible to forgive?

It has been said that peace stands on two pillars: justice and forgiveness.  One of these two pillars is not enough; both are necessary for true peace.  Road maps and peace plans that ignore the demands of justice for the oppressed have no real chance of success in laying the groundwork for peace.  The weaker party in the conflict may be forced to agree to the imposed terms, but they will never accept them inwardly, and the anger and resentment will simmer until something sets off the next outburst of violence.  Injustice is like an open, festering wound, which cannot be healed until true justice is established.

On the other hand, justice without forgiveness cannot bring about peace between peoples.  Justice cannot change attitudes and heal broken relationships.  For this, pardon and forgiveness is needed.  There is probably no human attitude more difficult than true forgiveness, which demands a level of spiritual and emotional generosity that people are not often otherwise called upon to display.  Several factors can make forgiveness easier, as for example when the one who has done wrong admits the wrongdoing.  In those cases when the wrongdoer has not admitted or repented of the wrongness of what he has done or, even worse, when he is pleased with his misdeeds and celebrates them, forgiveness is almost impossible.

A complicating factor in violent conflicts is that usually misdeeds have been committed on all sides.   It is rare that one side is the wholly innocent victim and that the other is heartless oppressor.  Moreover, the human reality is that everyone is more likely to be more aware of and sensitive to the wrongs that they have experienced and suffered than they are to those which they have inflicted on others.  Thus, the process of reconciliation must deal with the very complex and difficult issue of mutually admitting guilt and together asking and granting pardon.

Here the faith communities can play an important role in fostering reconciliation.  Both Islam and Christianity, to mention only two religions, clearly teach that “it is better to forgive” (Qur’an 24:22; Gospel of Matthew 18:21-22).  Both Muslims and Christians know that God does not desire perpetual estrangement between those who have been in conflict, but rather that they be reconciled, and both religions teach that those who forgive others will be rewarded by God.  Both religions teach the importance of repentance (tawba, metanoia).  Thus, religious commitment, when it is internalized and practiced conscientiously, can be a motivating factor to bring about this most difficult human attitude of forgiveness.

7. Analyzing the conflict

In human affairs, we often do not understand why we are acting the way we do.  At least we do not understand all the factors which have, in the distant and recent past, influenced us consciously or unconsciously and led us to take up a certain line of action.  If this is true in the case of the behavior of individual persons, this lack of awareness is even more evident when one speaks of the factors influencing and shaping the behavior of groups in society.

This is true for two reasons.  Firstly, the actions and reactions of groups goes beyond an individual’s own likes or dislikes.  The individual is “swept along” by social movements greater than oneself.  A person’s convictions are formed not only by sound information and logical reasoning but also by rumors, unsupported allegations, group pressure, suspicion and envy.  It is often quite difficult to distinguish between sound and unsound sources of information and to discern hidden motivations within oneself.

Secondly, social movements are themselves the product of a complex mixture of factors.  Just as in chemistry the combining of innocent ingredients can, in proper proportions and under controlled circumstances, can produce a lethal mix, so too in the case of social groups, people can live side by side in non-violent coexistence for centuries, but with the interplay of certain social factors, they may break into violent conflict.

Peacemakers cannot afford to ignore these factors, nor their complex interplay, nor can the peacemaker simplistically latch onto one factor and say, “This is what the fighting is all about.”  Journalists, sometimes unfairly, are often accused of focusing on one or another element of the conflict which they then inflate to become the whole issue.  The peacemaker has to move beyond superficial impressions to take all factors in the conflict into consideration, and must learn to ask the right questions.

• Who are the actors in the conflict? Who has the power?  Who stands to gain and which side has more to lose?  Are one or more sides backed by outside powers?  Are they funded by outsiders, by whom, to what extent and why?

• What is the political history - the factions, the personalities, the parties, the coalitions that shape the conflict?  Which political players are more flexible, which have more room to maneuver and try new options?  On the other hand, which leaders appear to be locked into unchangeable attitudes, policies, prejudices? In short, who are the “doves” and who are the “hawks”?

• What are the economic factors in the conflict?  What side has more to lose in terms of property, influence, stability?  Who stands to gain in terms of housing, jobs, university seats etc.?  Are some groups prospering from the state of lawlessness and criminality that usually accompanies warfare and violent conflict by dealing in the black market, smuggling arms, trafficking in refugees, peddling influence?        

• What are the social factors?  What are the key relationships among people?  What are the most effective associations? Where are the sources of influence?  How do women feel about the conflict?  How much influence do they have on the men?  Do certain social groups look down on others?  Who do people look up to – who are their heroes, their natural spokespersons?

• What role does religion play in the conflict?  Are the religious leaders close to their people?  Are they credible leaders who can speak on behalf of their people?  Do the leaders of various religions know each other, are they on friendly terms?  Can they be counted on to broker and maintain a peace?  What about the network of madrasas, seminaries, religious schools, and places of worship – are they likely to support and promote a peace agreement?

• What is the burden of history played by all those involved in the conflict?  What grievances do each hold against the other side?  What unhappy memories of past events will make peace-keeping more difficult?  What obstacles arising from fear or resentment will have to be overcome?

Questions like these are all relevant and must be taken into account by those who hope to build peace.  The parties involved in a conflict must themselves be encouraged to analyze the situation from their own perspective.  Then comes the difficult task of trying to analyze the situation together.  Are there any basic points or areas, no matter how narrow, on which all can agree?  Can this area of agreement be expanded to include goals?  What would each group like to see as a desirable solution?  Is there any way the goals of each group can be compatible with those of the others?

Analysis must eventually point toward solutions, but need not move too quickly in that direction.  In-depth peacemaking goes far beyond problem-solving.  After a conflict, people need to get to know each other again and tenuous links of trust have to be reestablished, friendships formed anew, angers and fears expressed, traumas recounted.  Role-playing can help, and facilitators with training in psychodrama can make an important contribution to the building of peace.

8. The role of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

NGOs have several advantages as peacemakers.  Unlike outside peace-making teams, local and national NGOs usually have a long-term commitment to the region and thus can make plans that go beyond short-term goals.  Moreover, the local NGOs that have been working in a region for many years have a knowledge local conditions that outsiders would require years to attain.  They often know instinctively what would work and what wouldn’t, based on an experiential wisdom that cannot be obtained from textbooks.

NGOs often have greater acceptability with local people.  They are relatively independent, non-bureaucratic, well-informed, well-connected, and more flexible than official channels.  They can function in situations where diplomats, politicians, and the military are not trusted.  They have access to different parties in the conflict without losing credibility.  Since they are trusted, they can mobilize public opinion in favor of peacemaking activities.  They are welcomed, since they bring humanitarian assistance, undertake advocacy for human rights, and help move the wartime situation toward post-conflict rehabilitation through reconstruction programs.

In situations of violent conflict, especially those which are highly publicized, NGOs often receive outside funds for relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.  These provide the NGOs with vast possibilities for helping those in need, but the funding is not without its problems and dangers.  In a conflict, NGOs can find themselves being drawn against their will into a contentious political situation, with the various parties exerting pressure to employ their funds in ways that will benefit certain politicians, while others claim discrimination and favoritism in the use of relief and reconstruction aid.  In fact, impartiality is always difficult and decisions inevitably are subject to contestation.

Moreover, since they are known to be carrying or storing funds, NGO workers can be targeted, and relief supplies can be looted.  For example, in the conflict in Liberia, over $40 million was stolen from NGOs.  Relief supplies can also be manipulated by governments and by armies.  The aid can be confiscated on the pretext of providing security but in reality used as a bargaining chip for bribes and preferential treatment.  

Finally, relief aid is all too often an excuse for governments to fail in their responsibilities to provide for their people and to find solutions for post-war problems.  The temptation is great on local politicians to claim that relief and reconstruction is being taken care of by the NGOs, whereas the pressing need is for the government authorities to conscientiously carry out their duty to provide for the essential requirements of their people.

9. Conclusion.

Although every case is different and requires detailed analysis to know what should be done in the concrete situation, a few general norms can be offered for consideration.  A first step toward peace usually involves pressing for an end to martial law.  Martial law, which may be necessary in certain circumstances, is by its nature an extraordinary and temporary condition.  The longer it last, the longer it perpetuates an abnormal governing situation in which the rule of law is replaced by the rule by force.  After conflicts, peacemakers must push for the reestablishment of civilian government.

Peacemakers need to make use of civilian links in society.  The NGOs as well as the civilian and religious leaders can play a key role in building the peace.  These grass-roots and middle-level leaders are often the only figures in society whose credibility has not been compromised in the conflict and who can thus be trusted to communicate effectively with the general populace.  Because they are independent of both the political system and the military power, they can move more freely between disagreeing factions and maintain open communication among all sectors of society.  Moreover, because their integrity has been compromised less than other sectors, they still command respect and attention and thus can be spokespersons for rehabilitation and reconciliation.

There are other key-words in the peacemaking process which are important to remember, such as decentralization, cultural diversity, and self-determination.  Such concepts are not simply ideals or impossible dreams, but to the extent that they are effectively implemented they can be factors in making the peace-making process successful.  All these are aspects of recognizing and respecting the genuine differences among peoples, their backgrounds, their regions, and all that goes to make up their identities and distinguish them from others.  Unless the diversity within populations can be seen as something to be accepted and celebrated, rather than an unwelcome obstacle to assimilation and uniformity, the peace process will never move beyond an enforced and regimented obedience to become something that people will themselves want to accept and support.