'Peace theory' is actually a relatively new development in academic study - the theories of war go back into ancient history as you know, but this '[grounding] in history' in and of itself does not necessarily make them relevant for modern problems. That we as a species are still quick and prone to violence says more about our lack of development than advanced weapons says about our progress. Now 'peace theory' or 'conflict resolution' or whatever else you want to call it - just because the theory is young does not mean the practice is also young. I'd start with Contemporary Conflict Resolution by Ramsbotham, et al since they provide a good once-over-the-world view of the emerging field.Originally Posted by Bill
I wouldn't call 'peace theory' new insofar its inventing something novel, but instead a reframing of the same problems that theories of war investigated. How do wars end? How are wars prevented? These are things that have been well practiced in history but not studied in the same depth as actually fighting wars. Why should war be the anchor in conflict studies and not peace since peace is in one way or another the desired outcome. If we accept Clausewitz's premise that war is fundamentally 'politics by other means', then what are the political means other than war? And there are 'means' - negotiation, mediation, facilitation, peacebuilding, etc. Not all are applicable in every situation just like not every military tactic is relevant in every war. And just like war is not guaranteed to succeed every time, neither is 'peace theory' - so we shouldn't hold it to impossible standards.
We also shouldn't assume that means other war also aren't confrontational, dangerous, or even sometimes fatal in themselves - labor actions, political agitation, etc all fall within the range of activities short of war but also aim to compel an adversary to change their behavior and to gain leverage at any subsequent negotiation. This isn't about 'raindows' and 'unicorns' - not sure why any discussion of 'peace' by military professionals should be seen with skepticism since doesn't the 'soldier above all pray for peace'? - but about limiting the costs of violent conflict and resolving political problems in a way that it is sustainable and hopefully just. And of course, there's a significant difference in process between emerging and on-going conflicts - there's alot of complexities to be untangled before people can even 'reason' together.
Implementing these practices in a deliberate, targeted, and sustained way is fairly new and it's mostly the work of international organizations and NGOs, with some but not all governments participating. Much of it is done through a social process although sometimes with official political sanction or oversight. Although states do practice these things in their own unique ways - the Congress of Vienna, the United Nations, the European Union, etc; these were/are all mechanisms in resolving disputes short of war. So there's alot of momentum in that direction and of course as evidenced by events this year, there's also many challenges and setbacks. That's not surprising but it's also no an indicator that it's impossible or undesirable for states, particularly the U.S., to pursue activist policies through means other than war.
EDIT: I also tend to sympathize with Crowbat's line of argument that it's not so much what the U.S. can and cannot do but what it wants to and does not want to do. If the State budget was at all comparable to the DoD budget, there would probably be a significant change of direction in U.S. policies and strategies vis-a-vis conflict. What are U.S. priorities and who makes (and how do they make) those determinations? So the U.S. can definitely do more to influence and/or facilitate pluralistic reform and I would also argue that in the long-term, pluralist governance is good both for the U.S. and for international security.
Bookmarks