P Desarrollo del

What are the mechanisms for peace? Can peace be built? Who builds peace, and for whom? These are practical questions that both scholars and policy makers cannot ignore in the quest for peace. There are host of approaches or mechanisms for peace. What is quite intriguing, and at the same time troubling is the fact that various concepts have been propounded, and that these concepts or approaches often overlap in their interpretations. The thesis will not go into much detail on these overlaps but strive to condense these approaches or mechanisms into three broad thematic terms, which encompass some of the concepts that are often discussed in peace research. These are conflict prevention, conflict resolution and conflict transformation.

First, conflict prevention can be described as short to medium term policy engagements in potentially hostile or unstable situation, consisting of measures instituted to avoid escalation of conflicts. It might include actions such as preventive diplomacy, Early-Warning Mechanisms and clarion calls for social cohesion by religious groups, corporate bodies and the like. Conflict resolution on the other hand, focuses mostly on policy options that seek to build, consolidate and enhance relationships by targeting the factors in society that sustain and escalate conflicts and try

to minimize their potency. It is normally short to medium term focused. Conflict transformation however is comprehensive in nature, and encompasses conflict prevention and conflict transformation. According to Berghof foundation, it is;

A generic, comprehensive term referring to actions and processes seeking to alter the various characteristics and manifestations of violent conflict by addressing the root causes of a particular conflict over the long term. It aims to transform negative destructive conflict into positive constructive conflict and deals with structural, behavioral and attitudinal aspect of conflict. The term refers to both process and completion of the process. As such, it incorporates the activities of processes such as conflict prevention and conflict resolution and goes farther than conflict settlement or conflict management. (Berghof Foundation…)

Broad and comprehensive as the above definition is, the fact that it highlights “completion of process” makes it sound ambiguous. If we take outcomes as destination, then that peace - outcome by definition becomes problematic, as from the arguments already developed above, peace cannot necessarily be a destination; for peace is a dynamic phenomenon. Moreover, despite the elaborate nature of these concepts, one can discern what the thesis will describe as the Negative peace framing - the absence of war as peace – has influenced the semantics of these processes by adding the prefix conflict to prevention, resolution, and transformation.

In this regard, Boutros Boutros-Ghali “Agenda for Peace” is worth mentioning as a concept that goes beyond what is described in this paper as Negative Peace Framing. His use of pro-peace words is encouraging and forward looking although not necessarily different form previously advocated concepts. He is fondly remembered in the policy and even academic circles, because of his introduction of the concept of peacebuilding that has gained much currency in recent times – since the 1990’s. Boutros Boutros-Ghali Agenda for peace included measures such as preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding (post conflict).

What is meant by peacebulding? In articulating what peacebuilding is, Lederach is of the view that peacebuilding

[…] is more than post-accord reconstruction. Here, peacebuilding is understood as a comprehensive concept that encompasses, generates, and sustains the full array of processes, approaches, and stages needed to transform conflict towards more sustainable, peaceful relationships. The term thus involves a wide range of activities and functions that both precede and follow formal peace accords (Lederach, 1997: 20 b)

Thus we see in Lederach’s, a constructive mechanism and effort that “emphasizes the importance of building right relationships and social structures” (Lederach 2003:4). Here, Lederach articulate the ‘process’ nature of peacebuilding as a continuum. The metaphoric use of ‘building’ in Ledearach explanation is instructive. First, it conveys a somewhat misleading conjecture as if peace can be constructed and completed as a building. However, within this same seemingly misleading analogy or contradiction, we can make a compelling argument that even if a building is completed, its needs consistent maintenance. In this respect, Lederach’s metaphoric use of ‘building’ is instructive and enlightening in helping us comprehend the mechanism to building peace.

In a further novel outlook, Lederach calls for an atypical approach to peacebuilding that goes beyond the conventional idea of building peace which focuses on classical hard or military security concerns. He argues for the “need for a set of concepts and approaches that go beyond the traditional statist diplomacy” (Lederach, 1997: xvi). In his opinion what is quite crucial in peacebuilding is the “restoration” and “rebuilding” of relationships (Lederach, 1997).

Finally, Lederach advocates for a move beyond the prescriptive nature of addressing conflict to an “elicitive” conflict transformation, a fundamental approach that recognizes and incorporate the unique socio-cultural imperatives of any given societies in trying to address conflict. In articulating and reflecting on mechanisms to peace, the thesis proposes a novel

dimension which is often not discussed in both academic and policy discourses in the quest for peace. The thesis therefore introduces the concept of what it called human revolution – a transformation within the human self as the gateway to peace(s).