Các khái niệm hòa bình – Concepts of Peace (English below)

March 19, 2022

This article was written by me and formerly posted on Debate For All Vietnam Fanpage in 2022. I have updated the content to fit in the current context of 2024. I extend the credit to esteemed individuals that help me proofread and provide feedback on this piece of writing.

* * * *

2021 was marked by the destructive war in Yemen, the Taliban’s triumph in Afghanistan, severe violence in Ethiopia, and the fourth Gaza-Israel conflict. 2022 saw Russia invading Ukraine amidst the ongoing pandemic and climate crisis. In 2023, atrocities unfolded in the Gaza Strip, and a silent genocide happened in Congo. 2024 might be the year of change as the election year involving 64 countries worldwide could bring significant and lasting consequential impacts.

In such challenging times, peace, despite its fragility, becomes the only sliver of hope for humankind. What exactly is peace and whether is it the opposite concept of war? Even when war does not occur, there are interregional unrest and conflicts that harm people, in ways such as disinformation, economic coercion, migrant instrumentalization, and cyberattacks. How can we attain peace and why it is robbed from us in the first place? What dynamics of states cause them to trigger the fight? How can different stakeholders be involved to prevent or provoke a war? All are questions that I long to answer. 

Concept of Peace

Peace is one of the most frequently used terms when it comes to discussing international relations but it is elusive to define. Generations have been conditioned to think of peace in a binary way: war versus peace. Regardless of how simplistic this thinking is, we have been promised that ‘peace’ is the ultimate goal to strive for and is promised in every resolution or policy. Yet, peace in and of itself is a process, not a mere destination. If what humanity wants most is what it does not or perhaps can not have, then peace stands alone in paper and in writing, both as an end and a means to an end, without clarity as to what exactly it is.

Violence is indisputably bad, and in the absence of peace, conflict shatters lives and stunts development. Society will be unable to reach the levels of trust, collaboration, and inclusion required to withstand shocks, manage conflicts, and adapt to changing circumstances. Understanding the importance of peace now lies not in whether peace will be achieved, but in which form it will be achieved. The father of peace studies, Johan Galtung, coined the terms “negative peace” and “positive peace”, to convey the difference between a simple absence of direct, personal violence and something more socially complex, relying on cooperation instead of force majeure. The development of Just War Theory and Christian pacifism may be considered as early instances of objections to war, anchored in theological traditions. However, with the prioritization of negative peace, such theories neglect the prospect of developing new methods for peacebuilding and further development. Prevention of war and of conflict may result in peace, but such peace is, at best, incomplete.

We live in such peace, but recent events have again cast doubt on that status quo. Diplomacy dictated by negative peace, where the only preventative measure against all-out wars is weapons themselves, fails to resolve our conflicts from the ground up. On the other hand, positive peace encompasses cooperative, tranquil, and harmonious relations and the broader concerns of human flourishing and integration. It is directly associated with improved economic outcomes, well-being, and ecological sustainability, as is necessary for our communities to permanently avoid gunfire.

War

“For a number of times, our nation’s own history of enduring wars has shown that too often wars and conflicts until today stem from obsolete doctrines of power politics, the ambition of domination, and the imposition and the use of force in settling international disputes. A number of them are associated with historical legacies, misperception, and misunderstanding.” – Ambassador Dang Hoang Giang, Head of the Permanent Mission of Viet Nam to the UN, spoke at the UN General Assembly emergency session on the situation in Ukraine. His words represent Vietnam’s stance on the situation and are based on the perception that war derives from unjust political doctrines and the misunderstanding between states.

Mearsheimer, the father of “offensive realism”, holds the theory that international politics is essentially a great power game. According to his principle, states are prone to rivalry and war because they are self-interested, power-seeking, and fearful of other states. In which, states can only ensure their own security through either world domination or becoming a regional hegemon, in order to become the sole power in its geopolitics.

In the situation of Ukraine, this theory provides justification for Russia’s invasion as a method of ensuring its own security in response to NATO expansion. However, ironically, it is only half of the equation because once this principle is applied, a regional hegemon, namely the United States can also justify its own expansionism. It becomes a loop of tragedy, as America’s effort in expanding NATO into Russia’s backyard is to contain this country but instead creates conditions for Russia to also push for its own hemisphere of influence and become a power “on equal footing” with the world. This unjust desire to dominate and insert one’s influence into others is a clear indication of toxicity.

In terms of social conflicts and misperception, Karl Marx attributed war causes not to ‘the voluntary instrument of state policy’ but to ‘the result of a clash of social forces.’ Since we tend to interpret others’ behaviors, values, and beliefs through the lens of our own culture, misunderstanding can arise in any form. The ongoing wars in the world might be an internationalization of human’ conflicts rooted in the mentioned misunderstanding. Religious conflicts arise because people do not understand each other’s system of belief, war exists because people fail to empathize with other innocent civilians, and states’ conflicts of interests provoke hatred and antagonism because they lack mutual understanding.

This poses a question: Can we attain peace by eradicating obsolete doctrines of power politics and promoting deep understanding between states and states, individuals and individuals?

States & International Organizations

The basis of modern peace was established in eighteenth-century Europe with secular rationalism by philosophers such as Rousseau and Kant. They presented critical views on the international organization of states as a means to secure a permanent condition of peace. Understanding the political game theory and states’ self-determination, one united organization of all countries in the world must stand to support, coordinate, and mediate countries’ conflicts.

The world’s biggest international organization, the United Nations, was born out of war to end war, with one central mission: the maintenance of international peace and security. Over the last century, the United Nations has played an important role in conflict prevention, using diplomacy, good offices, and mediation. The UN Charter develops three interrelated approaches: first, pacific settlement of disputes, which would leave nations with nothing to fight about; second, collective security, which would confront aggressors with too much to fight against; and third, disarmament, which would deprive them of anything substantial with which to fight. Peaceful means of dispute settlement in International Relations which is laid down in Article 33 of the UN charter, include diplomatic and adjudicative means. The most fundamental principle in resolving international conflicts is also clearly stated in Article 2 of the UN Charter: “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.” In terms of judicative measures, the International Court of Justice, one of the six principal organs of the United Nations, has the duty to settle disputes between states in accordance with international law and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues.

However, due to the principle of upholding state sovereignty and non-intervention, the UN or any other international organs can not aggressively interfere with a state’s conflicts. The Achilles heel of international law is its capacity for effective enforcement. The enforcement provisions of the United Nations Charter, which entail the application of military and economic sanctions, have never been applied successfully, owing to political tensions and misalignment among the major powers. This underlines the fact that for legal norms to be effective, they must reflect the political reality.

Road to peace

Interregional conflicts and wars are caused by the interests of countries or a group of allies. To resolve the root causes of wars, states must first act pacifically. Countries can use armed forces to allay fears, seek status, or oftentimes, settle disputes. However, states should invest their resources in building stable economic development, promoting the welfare of all citizens, and developing close relationships with other countries. Through such efforts, states can establish their own status in the international community. States should also seek better ways to settle disputes and reconcile the differences in peace, such as diplomacy, good offices, and involving third-party countries to facilitate mediation.

The most eminent organizations, that provide mechanisms for settling disputes between their member States, are regional organizations, such as the European Union, the Organization of American States, the Arab League, and the African Union. These bodies have been promoting regional integration and cooperation in economic, social, and political affairs. Reality shows that internal warfare has been abolished as a result of the creation of appropriate political structures, such as central governments that hold a monopoly of coercive power. Because conflicts among neighbors tend to be frequent, regional integration is an important advancement toward reducing the incidence of war. In the case of the EU, member states have to sacrifice a part of their ‘sovereignty’ to gain larger economic and political benefits. This allows the EU’s court system to effectively apply the law to member states and the European Council can better manage and mediate disputes among member states. However, regional integration would simply shift the problem of war to a greater level. Intraregional conflicts can be contained, but interregional conflicts could still give rise to wars of much greater scope and severity. Therefore, countries need to work together in an international formation, the UN. In a broader world, the UN also plays an important role in helping countries torn by conflict to create the conditions for lasting peace. It provides facilities for dispute settlement, supplies humanitarian aid, and opens channels for countries to share their perspectives.

Peacekeeping is not the sole duty of states and international organizations. Each individual also has the power to change the world and resolve ongoing conflicts. Firstly, everyone can stand up against obsolete doctrines of power politics and unjust wars. In the status quo, there are various platforms for people to express their opinions, from social media to independent journalism. It should be noted that advocating peace does not mean people have to pick sides and fuel more antagonism; it means you can stand with innocent civilians no matter what country they are from and call for an armistice between countries. Secondly, it is important to foster a culture of peace: encourage dialogue through building structures of reciprocity and equality and celebrate human rights and autonomy through education, literacy, and media. Thirdly, everyone should fight for a political structure with universal suffrage, where citizens can create checks and balances in the political system by exercising their democratic rights. For example, they can protest against their government for provoking an unjust war, cast their votes on a pro-peace presidential candidate, and the list goes on. Last but not least, individuals should be aware of false information during wartime and be critical of their perception due to the primacy effect. As the ancient Greek dramatist, Aeschylus once said,”The first casualty of war is truth”. State-sponsored media institutions tend to favor and create news to fit their propaganda and internet users create and share click-bait posts. Individuals need to support non-biased independent media institutions, look out for fake news, and pause before they share.