Contents

Series Preface xi

Preface – TRANSCEND: A Philosophy of Peace – and One

Way of Enacting It xiii

INTRODUCTION: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW

I.1 Conflict, War and Peace: A Bird’s Eye View 3

Johan Galtung

I.2 Peace: The Goal and the Way 16

Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen

PART 1 TOWARDS A THEORY AND PRACTICE

OF PEACE BY PEACEFUL MEANS

1.1 Peacemaking as Realpolitik, Conflict Resolution

and Oxymoron: the Record, the Challenge 27
Carl G. Jacobsen with Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen

1.2 Beyond Mediation: Towards More Holistic

Approaches to Peace-building and Peace Actor
Empowerment 49
Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen with Carl G. Jacobsen

1.3 11 September 2001: Diagnosis, Prognosis, Therapy 87

Johan Galtung

1.4 Our War Culture’s Defining Parameters:

Their Essence; Their Ramifications (external;
domestic; ‘racism’; ‘borders’; ‘international law’) 103
Carl G. Jacobsen and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen

1.5 The State/Nation Dialectic: Some Tentative

Conclusions 126
Johan Galtung
viii SEARCHING FOR PEACE

1.6 Beyond Security: New Approaches,

New Perspectives, New Actors 142
Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen with Carl G. Jacobsen

1.7 Crafting Peace: On the Psychology of the

TRANSCEND Approach 151
Johan Galtung and Finn Tschudi

PART 2 THE TRANSCEND EXPERIENCE:

DIAGNOSIS, PROGNOSIS, THERAPY

2.1 TRANSCEND: 45 Years, 45 Conflicts 173

Johan Galtung
The 45 Years 173
The 45 Conflicts 179

2.2 45 Conflicts; 45 Perspectives 189

Johan Galtung
1. Peace Service: A TRANSCEND Perspective 189
2a. East–West Conflict, Cold War I:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 191
2b. East–West Conflict, Cold War II:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 192
3. Community Race Relations:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 194
4. Cuba: A TRANSCEND Perspective 196
5. North–South Conflict: A TRANSCEND
Perspective 198
6a. Israel–Palestine: A TRANSCEND Perspective 200
6b. Israel–Palestine: A TRANSCEND Perspective 203
6c. Israel–Palestine: A TRANSCEND Perspective 205
6d. Israel/Palestine/Middle East:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 207
7. Cyprus: A TRANSCEND Perspective 209
8. Independence Struggles:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 211
9a. Ulster: A TRANSCEND Outcome Perspective 213
9b. Ulster: A TRANSCEND Process Perspective 215
10. Kashmir: A TRANSCEND Perspective 217
11. Korea: A TRANSCEND Perspective 219
12. Pax Pacifica: A TRANSCEND Perspective 221
13. Hawai’i: A TRANSCEND Perspective 223
14a. The Gulf Conflict 1990–91:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 225
14b. The Gulf Conflict 1998:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 227
 CONTENTS ix

15. The Kurds: A TRANSCEND Perspective 229

16. Japan–US: A TRANSCEND Perspective 231
17. Japan–Russia: A TRANSCEND Perspective 233
18. The Conflict in and over Yugoslavia:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 235
18a. The Yugoslavia Conflict 1991/95:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 237
18b. The Yugoslavia Conflict, 1998:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 239
18c. The Crisis in and around Kosovo/a:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 241
19. Hindu–Muslim Relations:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 244
20. Anomie/Atomie and ‘Sects’: A TRANSCEND
Perspective 246
21a. Sri Lanka: A TRANSCEND Perspective 248
21b. Sri Lanka: A TRANSCEND Perspective 250
22. Somalia: A TRANSCEND Perspective 252
23. The Mayas: A TRANSCEND Perspective 254
24. Reconciliation Conflicts: A TRANSCEND
Perspective 256
25. China: A TRANSCEND Perspective 258
26. The Christians and the Muslims:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 260
27. Tripartite Europe: A TRANSCEND Perspective 262
28. Ecuador–Peru: A TRANSCEND Perspective 264
29a. Caucasus: A TRANSCEND Outcome
Perspective 266
29b. Caucasus: A TRANSCEND Process
Perspective 269
30. ‘Comfort Women’: A TRANSCEND
Perspective 271
31. Okinawa: A TRANSCEND Perspective 273
32. Rwanda/The Great Lakes: A TRANSCEND
Perspective 275
33. Hostage Crises: A TRANSCEND Perspective 277
34. Albania: A TRANSCEND Perspective 279
35. Lebanon: A TRANSCEND Perspective 281
36. Euskadi: A TRANSCEND Perspective 284
37. Gibraltar and Ceuta-Melilla: A TRANSCEND
Perspective 286
38. Colombia: A TRANSCEND Perspective 288
39. Inter-Class Conflict/Globalization:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 291
40. Inter-Generation Conflict and Sustainability:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 293
x SEARCHING FOR PEACE

41. Afghanistan: A TRANSCEND Perspective 295

42. Angola Civil War: A TRANSCEND Perspective 297
43. The Sami Nation: A TRANSCEND Perspective 299
44. The Christians and the Heathens:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 301
45. The US, the West and the Rest:
A TRANSCEND Perspective 303

Notes 306

Index 322
INTRODUCTION

A Bird’s Eye View

CHAPTER I.1

Conflict, War and Peace: A Bird’s Eye View

Johan Galtung

A Bird’s Eye View

There is a standard natural history, with many variations and sub-
types, leading to violence and war, that is, organized group violence,
which indicates how violence can be avoided or at least reduced.
That prototype includes two stages preceding the violence.
The first stage is a conflict (parties with contradictory goals), a
ubiquitous phenomenon in human and social reality, a major
driving force. Or, more correctly: unresolved conflict, leading to
frustration because of blocked goals, and a potential for aggression
against parties perceived as standing in the way.
The second stage is polarization, the reduction to two groups,
Self and Other, with positive interaction within and negative
interaction between the groups. Under extreme polarization Other
is dehumanized, satanized and Self exalted as supreme, sacred or
secular. This prototype is as much a part of human reality as high
exposure (pathogens) + low resistance (immunity) leading to
disease. Like disease, violence is caused by the preceding stages in
the prototype; like disease violence can be prevented by removing
the cause(s). Conflict is removed as a cause by transformation so
that the conflict can be handled by the parties non-violently,
creatively, empathically. Polarization is removed as a cause through
depolarization, peace-building, flattening the gradient from Self to
Other, relinking. As violence is polarizing, violence should be
minimal. By transforming the conflict the ‘bellogens’ frustration
+ aggression are removed; depolarization adds to this a ‘paxogen’
corresponding to the immune system.
In UN jargon these two activities are known generically as
peacemaking and peace-building. In medical jargon they are similar
to primary and secondary prophylaxis, removing pathogens and
strengthening the self-healing capacity of the body.
Then there is peacekeeping, which aims at controlling violence,
reducing it, possibly even removing it to the point called cease-
fire. In medical jargon that would be curative therapy, removing
the symptoms of disease, as distinct from the two types of

3
4 SEARCHING FOR PEACE

preventive therapy mentioned above. In peace as in health the total

therapy is in the package, not in any one part of it.
The flow chart would look like this:

CONFLICT → POLARIZATION → VIOLENCE/WAR

incompatible dehumanization hurt/harm body
goals Self–Other gradient mind or spirit
contradiction attitude behaviour
deep structure/culture basic needs

We have added some explanatory categories: conflict has to do

with contradictions among incompatible goals, polarization has to
do with attitudes which may be translated into behaviour like a
prejudice, but can also start as behaviour like discrimination.
Violence is a form of avoidable behaviour – physical, verbal or both
(body language) – which hurts/harms. Direct violence can be
mapped on a sentence with subject (the perpetrator), verb (the
action) and object (the hurt/harmed victim). With no subject we
would talk about indirect or structural violence.
Beneath are the deeper levels of explanation: the deep, more
long-lasting structures and cultures defining long-lasting contra-
dictions and attitudes and the basic human needs defining more
permanent behaviour (in medical theory deep = generic/genetic).
Let us now have a second glance, reviewing the prototype.
Basic question: are these antecedents (if that is what they are)
necessary causes, sufficient causes, both or neither? Do they really
explain violence?
Let us start with ‘necessary’.
Is there always an unresolved conflict underlying violence? The
imperial powers were extremely violent in their overseas conquest.
But they had no prior conflict with those peoples, they did not
even know them, they ‘discovered’ them. The conflict was over
the unlimited submission required of them (by the papal bull Inter
Caetera) as subjects, economically as labour, culturally as converts.
If they submitted, they could be admitted as slaves (today: second-
class citizens); if they did not, military power, violence or war was
used against them.
Suggestion: if violence is the smoke, conflict is the fire. Search
and you’ll find.
Is polarization always underlying violence? Polarization means
social distance, horizontally (like countries separated by borders),
vertically (like classes separated by unequal power), or both. Social
distance means human distance. Even the most violent bully
probably has somebody he (usually a he) would not harm or hurt.
He recognizes a common identity = identification. The bully has
 CONFLICT, WAR AND PEACE: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW 5

a buddy even if the family is not exempt from his violence.

Somebody is untouchable, protected by identification. For Gandhi
identification includes all humanity; for Buddhism all sentient life
(capable of experiencing a dukkha–sukha gradient, from suffering
to well-being). Romans spoke of homo res sacra hominibus. Needless
to say, the less polarized will employ the more polarized for the
dirty job of violence, the riff-raff of any society, and on top of that
train them to kill. Scratch the surface and you will find elements
of polarization.
The ‘sufficiency’ part is much more problematic.
Will an unresolved conflict with the frustration of goals
unattained for one or all parties always lead to aggression, violence?
In a basic conflict, with basic needs among the goals, aggression is
more likely. But even so there may also be suffering in silence, seeing
the predicament as an unavoidable part of the human condition,
dwelling in human nature.
This holds particularly for structural conflicts, built into the
social structure between those high up who want to remain on top,
and those lower down who do or do not reconcile themselves to
their fate: the dangerous classes, ‘dangerous’ because they may
one day wake up and see reality. But in actor conflicts, where there
is a very concrete actor on the other side (and real conflicts are
mixes of the two) the subject standing in the way is easily identified,
and ‘what can we do about It’ becomes ‘what can we do about
Him’.
Will polarization always lead to violence? Of course not, it can
go on for ages, as between countries with no ties. And between
classes the polarization is already structural violence if those lower
down are really hurt/harmed, that is, their basic needs are molested
or at best left unsatisfied by the structure.
Will direct violence be added? If basic needs are deeply insulted,
yes. But states and nations have kept apart for ages without
violence, as have class structures, between peoples, between
countries. Moreover, can we ever be close to everybody?
What has to be added for unresolved conflict + polarization to
lead to violence? One answer (and that is enough, we are dealing
with sufficiency here) would be a culture of violence, making violence
seem natural/normal, lowering the threshold.
One such culture of violence is provided by the hard reading of
the Book, the kitab of the Abrahamitic religions, the Old Testament
(but also the Christian New Testament, although there the focus
is more on faith and the Kingdom of God in heaven and/or inside
us than on acts and Zion for the Jews).
Conflict is seen as dual, between two parties, like God and Satan,
one good, one evil, fighting over one issue. It can end in only one
6 SEARCHING FOR PEACE

way, in a massive, violent encounter, possibly with Evil triumphing

over Good on Earth, but Good continuing in Heaven.
We refer to it as the DMA syndrome: Dualism–Manicheism–
Armageddon. If a conflict is constructed as a contradiction between
two parties, one worthy of survival and the other not, predestined
to meet in a major battle, then this ‘natural law of violence’, its
DMA inevitability, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as in
Marxism; embedded in the deep culture.
The dangerous sufficiency mix, the nitrate–carbon–sulphur mix,
would include a violent culture turning an actor frustrated by an
unresolved conflict into a bad actor, a bully; a violent structure
already pre-polarizing society; and some kind of precipitating event,
the hammer blow on the dangerous mix. Bad actor + bad culture
(violent) + bad structure (polarized) = violence.
That now gives us four components in a preventive therapy:

1. Identify the bad actors (e.g. by past behaviour) and arraign

them in court, hold them in detention, incapacitate them.
2. Change a violent culture into a peace culture.
3. Change a violent structure into a peace structure.
4. Be on guard against precipitating events.

But violence-prone actors and precipitating events there will

always be. Better build on peace cultures and structures.

The First Narrative: Just Violence/War

This is a mainstream narrative, following the arrows.
In the beginning is not the word, but an issue between two or
more goals held by one or more parties. A goal can be put in words,
but they may not convey the intense emotions of hopes and fears
fuelling the pursuit of the goal, be it positive, something to attain,
or negative, something to avoid. And the more so the more the
goals are related to the sine qua non of human existence: the basic
needs, survival, well-being, freedom, identity.
Polarization enters because other parties are seen as standing in
the way of goal-attainment. A social/human distance is created for
such parties. At the root may be the problem of legitimacy. My
goal-attainment is legitimate; his is not, even if he says it is.
Projecting on him hidden, evil goals makes his proclaimed goals a
cloak, and I have won the first round by constructing not only his
goals but also him as evil/illegitimate.
Evil-doers should be incapacitated, depriving Other of the
capability to enact his evil motivations. But the problem with
violence is that it molests the most basic of basic human needs,
survival itself. There will be a reactio to a violent actio.
 CONFLICT, WAR AND PEACE: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW 7

One possibility is that violence makes Other see himself as at

least partly evil, amends his ways and gives up the goal. This is the
rationale for the legal use of punishment = violence.
A second possibility is escape; Other becomes unavailable.
A third possibility is for Other to suffer violence with no
resistance, common when violence is institutionalized, direct or
structural; possibly with extermination at the end of the road.
A fourth approach is violent resistance by Other; revenge.
And a fifth approach is non-violent resistance by Other.
Violence introduces a conflict after the root conflict, a meta-
conflict between molest! and remain unmolested!, which then leads
to a meta-polarization and feeds into the root conflict in the well-
known vicious circle of violence breeding violence. In the first three
cases Self gets what he wants; and so he does if he wins,
overcoming violent or non-violent resistance. This is called a
‘military solution’, i.e. a lull before next round.
Again, the key element is probably legitimacy. The beaten Other
may draw the conclusion that he was wrong, illegitimate; and that
provides the happy ending for Narrative 1 for Self.
But Other may also draw the conclusion that his goal in the root
conflict was legitimate and demand a revanche, a new deal.
And/or, Other may draw the conclusion that his goal in the meta-
conflict – survival – was legitimate and demand retribution.
This is where the narrative makes a loop via deep culture for
legitimacy feedback, and the next round gets a fresh start.
The narrative now becomes drawn out if the capacities to inca-
pacitate are relatively equal, the ‘equal playing field’; more likely
to serve, as in sports, the goal of fairness in identifying the winner
than deterrence, abstaining from playing. The archetype is the
duel/battle for individual/collective decision-making in conflict
according to ‘the winner takes all’. There is an underlying meta-
narrative identifying being victor with being legitimate. Watching
that violence/war unfold is watching justice at work, according to
this narrative.
Violence, war, is a morality play. God is on the side of the
winner. Or if not God, then Evolution. Or, in globalization, the
Market is on the side of the winner. He who loses deserves to do
so. Justice has been done.
The more equal the playing field, the higher the suffering.
What, then, makes a fully fledged war with conflict and meta-
conflict, polarization and meta-polarization and meta-meta come
to an end? Remember that a war presupposes capability,
motivation and targets of incapacitation, so why end the game?
The first scenario is incapacitation of one side; both being inca-
pacitated is unlikely. The winner dictates the terms.
8 SEARCHING FOR PEACE

The second scenario is capitulation by one side short of inca-

pacitation; simultaneous capitulation being unlikely. But he may
be suspected of saving capabilities for revenge/revanche; hence
better make the capitulation unconditional.
The third scenario is cease-fire by mutual agreement because the
costs are too high and incapacitation/capitulation is not in sight.
The question is, who demands it from a position of strength, and
who from weakness?
The fourth scenario is choking the violence/war by running out of
targets (or making them unavailable), by running out of capabili-
ties (arms, ammunition, money, food), by running out of
motivation. Simultaneous choking is unlikely, but the choking
point does not have to be the same for the parties.
The fifth scenario is in occidental deep narrative: a war is mono-
climactic, the end comes after the climax. Male orgasm as
metaphor. With both parties driven by this narrative a climax
ushers in one of the scenarios above and a victor is declared.
The narrative attributes justice to violence/war. The war is not
only mutual carnage; it has a function. If God sides with the
winner, then the war makes God reveal His will. If Evolution by
definition sides with the winner/the fittest, then war makes
Evolution reveal its arrow. If some float to the top, buoyed by the
Market, and some sink, then so be it. It is what they deserve.

The Second Narrative: Intervention on the Side of

Justice
But imagine there is no end in sight; the war is protracted. Or worse:
the party on the side of God (read: our side), or higher on
Evolution (read: having democracy), or more embodying the
Market (read: access, privatization) is not winning. Time has come
to open a second narrative: intervention by outside, so-called third
parties. To mingle in the strife they have by definition to be big
powers lest they get badly hurt. Even so they may limit interven-
tion by doctrines of ‘force protection’.
Being now parties to the conflict the question is: what goals do
they have, and are the goals legitimate? Being big they may be
suspected of having big, even ulterior goals. ‘Humanitarianism’
provides formulas for legitimacy, but is hardly sufficient to allay
suspicions of ulterior goals. A conflict, and particularly a violent
conflict, shakes any system. There may be loose bits and pieces
floating around, morsels for outside parties to pick up. Big powers
may be suspected of doing that: reconstruction, even reparation
contracts, trade privileges, political clientelism, cultural cloning,
military bases/allies.
 CONFLICT, WAR AND PEACE: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW 9

We are now entering the narrative of the conflict between the

intervenor and the intervened. The narrative will probably be that
they enter on the side of justice to level the playing field, helping
the righteous side to a righteous victory over the unworthy, and in
addition reducing innocent suffering. Basically they have to
embody the three principles of legitimacy around which these
morality tales are spun: the three selectors, God, Evolution and
the Market. They have to enter so that God can make His choice,
Evolution can run its course by rewarding the most evolved, the
most ready to embody Market principles.
For what follows, see above. It all hinges on the ability of the
intervenor to be seen as legitimate and not just as one more party
with a ‘what is in it for me?’ motivation. For that reason it is essential
to enter late enough to give the parties a chance, also to exhaust each
other so that the military risk to the intervenor is less, yet before the evil
side is winning. If the good side is winning, there’s no problem. If
not, and with good timing, the scenarios may combine into victory
for the intervenor who dictates the terms of a cease-fire, of how to
depolarize and the terms of conflict resolution (in favour of the
Good party).
The third possibility is almost too horrible to contemplate, but
it does happen: the evil side wins not only over the just side, but
also over the intervenor in the name of justice. The narrative
dissolves in a nightmare. At stake is not only the justice of Good
overcoming Evil. Good, being too weak, could not win alone. But
if Good, reinforced by super-Good, cannot win either, then what
is the moral? That we live in the worst of all worlds and the End
is nigh? Possibly, and that would be compatible with the
Armageddon metaphor.
But there are at least three other interpretations.
First, bad, could it be that the intervention was self-choked,
having insufficient capability, or motivation, or that they ran out
of targets? There was lack of nerve, lack of will?
Second, worse, could it be that the credentials of the intervenor,
as catalyst in this justice-revealing activity, were not good enough?
Worse still, could it even be that they were negative, that the
intervenor was on the side of Evil?
Third, worst, could it be that the use of war to serve justice, to
obtain political-cultural goals, is basically flawed?

The Third Scenario:

Transformation–Depolarization–Peace
The first narrative (Clausewitzian) was about the quick or slow,
but successful, pursuit of a political goal, the conflict goal, by
10 SEARCHING FOR PEACE

military means. For that purpose instant polarization may be used,

trusting that violence itself is polarizing and will overcome bonds
of economic ties, neighbourhood, friendship even kinship. The
process will bypass deep polarization, go straight from unresolved
conflict – unresolved because the other party refused to submit –
to violence and war, and then pass through some loops of meta-
conflict and meta-polarization to victory.
The second narrative was about the quick or slow but successful
intervention into protracted warfare. It better be by ‘overwhelm-
ing force’ lest the three nagging problems at the end of the
preceding section should surface.
Is there a third narrative hidden somewhere in this prototype?
Certainly, and like the first narrative it starts in the conflict end of
the story, but unlike the second narrative it does not start with
violence. It may be called the peace by peaceful means narrative, and
has less backing in our deep culture, being more recent. But it is
not entirely without archetypal backing. Jewish prophets, the words
of Christ and of the Prophet are rich in proposals for conflict
resolution. But there is a tendency for such proposals to be of the
‘or else’ variety, ultimately backed up by the wrath of the Almighty.
The narrative does not exclude a peacekeeping prologue to
reduce the violence, if possible down to zero, but not ‘peace
enforcement’ to help one party win. But peacekeeping is not
necessarily done by military force. ‘Overwhelming non-violent
force’ may also be a formula, leaving no room for violence.
The first chapter in this narrative is an image of an outcome for the
conflict so compelling that the parties say, ‘This is much better than
what the first and second narratives have to offer, especially given
the suffering and the revenge/revanche factor that may follow in
their wake.’
The second chapter is the story of peace-building, in other words
depolarization, stitching torn tissue, substituting new tissue. This
is much broader than ‘confidence-building measures’, which may
also be cosmetic if not internalized in hearts and minds and insti-
tutionalized in the structures. Truth for the minds and
reconciliation for the hearts!
The third chapter is peacekeeping by non-violent or very soft violent
means, e.g. police forces, similar to the prologue mentioned above.
But there is also another scenario for the third factor. An image of
conflict solution would make violence look irrelevant, misplaced,
out of step. Weapons become dis-targeted, ‘decommissioned’.
They may start ‘withering away’.
We say ‘chapter’, but they are to be read simultaneously. And
the ‘reading’ has to be aloud, in public, and massively so, based on
solid knowledge of the texts.
 CONFLICT, WAR AND PEACE: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW 11

Has this narrative ever had an empirical counterpart? Oh yes,

but the two preceding narratives are read so loudly in the media
that they tend to overwhelm public consciousness. The collective
subconscious, the belligerent deep culture, has war reporting as a
major conveyor belt. Empirically the third narrative is so frequent
that it is not even told but taken for granted. This is the normal way
things are settled. An image of a viable = acceptable + sustainable
future emerges. People move from imaging to fantasizing to living
it. And that’s it.

The Peace Narrative: Four Cases

The white/black conflict over desegregation in the US South did
not lead to a major war (although there was violence), with inter-
vention (although there were elements of that) and a diktat
(although there were and are elements of that in the schools).
There was and is an image of a one person-one vote democracy, a
colour-blind society. The image gains in acceptability, as can be
seen in the countless desegregated facilities in the South, including
restaurants, toilets, recreation areas. There was and is increasing
depolarization of blacks and whites simply practising a future of
togetherness, highly provocative for segregationists, but in the
longer run irresistible. Crucial peacekeeping was non-violent until
the process became to a large extent self-sustaining. And it all
happened in a surprisingly short period of time. No doubt it
mattered who propagated the conflict outcome image: the US
Supreme Court, on 17 May 1954. The image negated the old
‘separate but equal’, in favour of ‘desegregated and equal’.
The white/black conflict in South Africa did not lead to a major
war either, only exchanges of violence between terrorism and state
terrorism, nor to a major intervention to put an end to the violence
and settle the conflict. People increasingly bought into the
compelling image of one-person, one-vote democracy, with human
rights. There was a major depolarization at the top: the
Mandela–de Klerk tight, cooperative relationship. No doubt it was
helpful that US desegregation had preceded the abolition of
apartheid with no major backlashes of any kind. It is good to live
in a virtual image; quite another to have a real case sufficiently
similar to make the image really compelling. No doubt a peaceful
Rhodesia-Zimbabwe next door was also useful.
But the end of the Cold War is even more impressive as a case
for the third narrative, the peace narrative. True, we have pointed
out that the antecedents to violence/war are not sufficient causes,
not even when unresolved conflict and heavy polarization combine
with an arms race into a cold war. And the underlying conflict was
12 SEARCHING FOR PEACE

massive: over interests, who is the master in Eastern Europe; and over
values, what is the good society – multi-party/capitalist or single
party/socialist? Enacting the first narrative would have been cata-
strophic as seen in the places it was partly enacted, Korea and
Vietnam. And: no powerful intervenor would have been available.
Fortunately, what happened followed the third narrative.
There were the images of outcomes projected by the two parties:
all that is needed is that you become like me. This is not known
as an acceptable solution but as imposition, victory.
Then the idea of convergence started to take root, with social
democracy or democratic socialism (the first ideology of
Solidarnosc) as an obvious meeting ground. This was not to be,
however, because of internal processes in the US consistently
moving to the right politically relative to, say, the New Deal, and
the Soviet Union, consistently moving towards demoralization and
implosion because of its inability to overcome many contradictions.
But there was another compelling image coming out of the peace
movement and the dissident movement: no more danger of nuclear
war/human rights, and democracy for all. The movements
practised the future by depolarizing different and complementary
segments of a heavily polarized East–West system. The resistance
against nuclearism and post-Stalinism was done non-violently and
successfully so. The Berlin Wall fell. We all knew it was over.
The fourth case has a different flavour because of the time span
between the first and second narratives, and the third. The Spanish
civil war of 1936–39 between the Loyalists (to the democratically
elected Popular Front government of republicans, socialists,
communists, anarchists and nationalists in Catalonia and the
Basque Country) and the Insurgents (under Franco, supporting
and supported by los poderes fácticos, the real powers, land-owners,
military, clergy) was also based on a massive conflict between two
very different images of the good society. Put simply: communist
(but with strong anarchist elements) versus fascist, the falange.
Narrative 1 was enacted through many loops in a cruel war with
massive polarization and one million dead. Narrative 2 came with
much military aid to the Insurgents from Germany and Italy, and
an International Brigade and a trickle of aid from the Soviet Union
for the Loyalists.
Who won? In the short run Franco, of course, enacting his image
in an unstable, deeply traumatized society. But who won in the
longer run? Neither one nor the other. A very compelling image
was in the air from the Second World War, often twisted, thwarted:
multi-party democracy, human rights, self-determination for
minorities. Both sides gradually bought into this image, travelled
abroad, lived it, received testimony from visitors. But time, say
one generation, was needed to overcome the most acute phase of
 CONFLICT, WAR AND PEACE: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW 13

the traumas. And that coincided roughly with the life of Franco.
When he died in November 1975, lamented by few, no night of
long knives was in sight. And the successors to the Loyalists and
the Insurgents met in a multi-party endeavour to construct, suc-
cessfully so far, non-fascist/non-Stalinist Spain, with only one small
backlash: the Tejero incident of 23 February 1981.
Why doesn’t this work in the Basque Country, in Ulster, in the
Middle East/Israel–Palestine? Why is there no peace process,
except as a propaganda term, with no real peace in sight, only some
breaks in Narrative 1 violence? And enactment of Narrative 2 by
Spanish and English police and military in the first two cases, and
a denial of Narrative 2 by Israel in the third lest the playing field
becomes level?
First answer: for lack of a compelling image of the future.
General autonomy for the Basque Country in Spain is less than
what is wanted; moreover, it does not include the French Basques.
In Northern Ireland the Good Friday Agreement does not provide
for symmetry in arms. The IRA is up against the British Army +
the Police Service for Northern Ireland (formerly the Royal Ulster
Constabulary) (made up of about 93 per cent Protestants) + the
para-military Ulster Defence Forces. And there is no serious image
of how two states, Israel and Palestine, could live side by side,
bearing in mind that any image has to be symmetric in such basics
as the right to have a state (and a capital and a right of return).
Second, a negative answer: the ritualistic demand for a cease-fire,
even disarmament, only then depolarization around the table, only
then conflict solution. Why should they do that when there is no
light at the end of the tunnel, not even an image as an anchor for
trying out of that outcome, virtually? Even if they are not planning
any major violence, arms have at least a nuisance value. Why
should they give that up?
Rather much more can be said, but let this suffice. The basic
conclusion is this: The first narrative leads to demands for revanche
and revenge. The second puts the cart before the horse by
demanding that people do at the beginning what they will only do
at the end. The peace narrative is more promising.
Which does not mean that it is infallible. Moreover, like natural
medicine it cures without doing harm but needs more time than
violent antibiotics. People have to engage in virtual tests of a
concrete peace proposal. Much psychological mobility is needed;
hence a need for something ‘compelling’, ‘irresistible’. The
proposal has to be so good that the time factor can be considerably
shortened. It defies reason to believe that such creative proposals
should emerge from a ‘table’ accommodating people who have
been in a tunnel killing each other according to Narratives 1 and
2. How can they suddenly switch to Narrative 3?
14 SEARCHING FOR PEACE

Ancient and not-so-ancient history speaks to us through

Narratives 1 and 2. We sense primitive society using rituals of
violence to settle conflicts. We sense traditional society adding
God’s finger and His chosen instruments, the kings. We sense
modern society with the state as successor to the kings for the
execution of these atavistic rituals, adding the social darwinist idea
of evolution, now with democracy-cum-market as the crowning
achievement, The End of Evolution/History.
There is more than the power of the most powerful state(s) at
stake. There is a whole syndrome of interconnected beliefs down
there in the collective subconscious with ‘bringing to justice’, in
the battlefield and ultimately in the court room, as connecting
elements. And we sense how subversive the idea of peace is, the
third narrative, cutting out the atavism of violence, going straight
to the solution, then solidifying it through depolarization and as
much non-violent control of violence as possible. Peace becomes
left-wing not because left-wing people are more pacifist, but
because they believe less in the rest of the narrative. May it spread
and be shared by all.

And What Do Mainstream Journalists/Politicians

Make of This?

1. They leave out the unresolved conflict and polarization, and focus
only on violence, which then looks irrational, autistic.
Example: ‘Terrorism’ (see Chalmers Johnson’s Blowback).
2. They confuse conflict arena – where the violence/‘action’ is – with
conflict formation the parties with a stake in the outcome.
Example: The focus in Ulster is only on violent parties, not
on 85 per cent of the population who want peace by peaceful
means.
3. Dualism, reducing the number of conflict parties to 2 and the
number of issues to 1 as dominant discourse. not looking for
hidden parties presenting themselves as mediators and issues.
Example: Omitting Germany as major conflict party in
Yugoslavia, with her own goals (see Matthias Küntzel, Der
Weg in den Krieg); omitting class and gender as major issues
in Yugoslavia.
4. Manicheism, presenting one party as evil and the other as good,
(re)enforcing polarization, denying the ‘evil’ a voice.
Example: The standard image of Serbia, Indonesia, Saddam
Hussein; taking sides, usually same as their nation-state
government.
 CONFLICT, WAR AND PEACE: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW 15

5. Armageddon, presenting the violence as something inevitable

omitting alternatives, blaming evil party of autism.
Example: NATO’s war against Yugoslavia (Serbia), omitting
the many alternative causes of action, denying their existence.
It is worth noting that dualism/Manicheism/Armageddon are
basic elements in occidental, Judeo-Christian/Islamic, deep
culture.
6. They omit structural conflict/polarization and violence, like
ghettos, refugee camps, reporting only the direct violence.
Example: 100,000+ dying from hunger and disease daily.
7. They omit the bereaved, easily ten per victim and their desire for
revenge and revanche, fuelling spirals of violence.
Example: Almost any conflict, except ‘our’ prominent
bereaved.
8. They fail to explore the causes of protraction and escalation, and
particularly the role of the media in keeping violence going.
Example: Arms supplies to the parties, e.g. in Sri Lanka.
9. They fail to explore the goals of intervenors, how big powers tend
to move in when the system is shaken loose by conflict and
violence, picking up morsels, gaining footholds.
Example: The ‘international community’ in Yugoslavia,
missing the Camp Bondsteel story, the German protectorate
policy.
10. They fail to explore peace proposals and compelling images
Example: Omitting the Pérez de Cuéllar proposal of December
1991 for the Yugoslavia conflict; ignoring citizen groups.
11. They confuse cease-fire and conferences with peace and hold
exaggerated expectations when ‘warlords’ meet for peace,
following the standard government agenda: cease-
fire–negotiation–peace.
Example: Afghanistan, with no regard for peace images.
12. They leave out reconciliation, basic for depolarization.
Example: any conflict, e.g. Ethiopia–Eritrea.
Index
Compiled by Sue Carlton
ABC triangle xiv, 20–1, 22, 152–3
Abdullayeva, Arzu 267
Abkhazia 35, 41, 266, 267
absorption 133, 135
acceptability xxii, 131, 155, 161,
167, 225
Afghanistan 15, 42, 106, 139,
188, 262, 295–6
and enforced peace 38
jihad 304
mediation 52, 55, 67–72, 75
US presence 98
see also September 11th attack
aggression 144, 151
aid, humanitarian 32, 37, 43, 62,
63, 280
Aideed, Mohammed 89, 92
Akhali movement 212
Al Qaeda 87, 99
Albania 47–8, 187, 239, 240,
242, 279–80
Albanians 36, 63, 67, 131, 160,
236, 239, 262
Albright, Madeleine 43, 44, 47,
97
Alexander VI 301
Allende, Salvador 87
alliances 78, 119, 219, 262
Alsace-Lorraine 36, 74
American Revolution 1776–1812
129
AMPO 50, 138, 183, 192, 193,
228, 231
anchoring 160–1, 162–4
Anderson, Mary B. 28–9
Andorra 134, 285
Angola 32, 188, 297–8
Annan, Kofi 164
anomie/atomie 185, 187, 246–7,
289
323
anti-globalization movement 102,
103, 124
antodaya 112
apartheid 11, 17
apology xvii, 216, 223, 257, 271,
283
Arab League 226, 228
Arabia, US military presence 97
Arafat, Yasser 36, 57, 162
Arbenz, Jacobo 255
Argentina 186, 227, 256–7
Armageddon 6, 15, 18, 89, 184,
185, 225
Armenia 40–1, 135, 267, 269
arms
control 174
trade 50, 71
see also nuclear weapons
assassinations 54, 92, 94, 161,
244
ATTAC (Association for the
Taxation of Financial
Transactions for the Aid of
Citizens) 111
attitudes xiv–xv, 20, 151, 152, 153
Australia 138, 227
autonomy 129, 131, 133, 135–6
in Balkans 236, 239
in China 258
East Timor 46
Kashmir 217, 218
Kurds 212, 228, 229
Nagorno-Karabak 41
Palestinians 34, 183, 201, 228
Sami 188
Somalia 252
in Sri Lanka 248, 251
Ulster 213
see also independence;
secession; self-determination
324 SEARCHING FOR PEACE

Ayodhya 136, 244 Bush, G.H.W. 122

Azad Kashmir 218 Bush, G.W. 89, 99
Azar, Edward 29
Azerbaijan 35, 39, 40–1, 267, 269 Cambodia 32, 106, 253
Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo 15, 66
Babri Mosque 244 Camp David 200
Balkans 36, 67, 192 Camplisson, Joe 41
see also Yugoslavia Canada 35, 117, 123, 227
Barak, Ehud 54 capitalism 87, 118–19
basic human needs xv, xvii, 5, 6 and Marxism 107–12
Basque country 12, 13, 127, 137, and war culture 107
138, 248, 284–5 Castro, Fidel 196
Bear Island dispute 41, 42, 47 Catalonia 12
Bedouins 225, 227 cathexis
behaviour xiv–xv, 20, 151, 152, shift in 155, 156, 162
153 see also cognitive
Beijing 259 consonance/dissonance
Bekaa valley 122 Catholic Church 236, 260, 298,
Belgium 275, 276 301–2
bi-national zones 162, 179, 264–5 Caucasus 137, 139, 186, 262,
see also peace zones 266–70
Biafra 122 cease-fires 8, 9, 15, 54, 61
bin Laden, Osama 42, 68, 87, 89, Ceuta-Melilla 139, 187, 286–7
Charlottesville, VA 174–5, 183,
92, 96, 99
194
Bismarck, Otto von 36
chemical-biological weapons 42,
Blum, William 91–2
225
Bolivia 179
Chiapas 48, 106, 135, 254, 255
borders Chile 87, 112, 179
and conflict 116–20, 131 China 139, 183, 186, 232, 258–9
joint territorial management and Afghanistan 295
arrangements 120 Bear Island Dispute 41, 42
Bosnia 23, 31, 32, 38, 62, 106, cooperation with Russia 105,
127 183, 192–3, 228
Bosnia-Herzegovina xvi, 62, 131, and Korea 219
236, 237, 262, 266 racism 113
boycotts 101, 197, 207 and Tibet 122, 186
Brand-Jacobsen, Kai Frithjof 29, Chomsky, Noam 112
112 Christians/Christianity 200, 202,
Braudel, F. 167 204, 238, 256
Brezhnev, Leonid 70 and heathens 188, 301–2
Brigate Rosse 89 and Muslims/Islam 97–8, 186,
Brundtland Report 147 260–1, 262
B’Tselem 58 CIA 297, 303
Buddhism 82, 244, 251 civil society xiii, xiv, 98, 199, 279,
Bulgaria 239, 240, 242 292, 298
bureaucracy 108 cooperation 218, 238, 283
bureautocracy 108 empowerment of 73, 298
Burkina Faso 131 global 110, 124, 137, 265
Burton, John 29 civilian service 173–4
Burundi 275, 276 see also peace corps/service
 INDEX
Clausewitz, Carl von 123, 193
Clinton, Bill 44, 162, 223
cognitive consonance/dissonance
158–66
cognitive expansion 156, 157–8
Cold War xiv, 176, 178, 183,
191–3
end of 11–12, 68, 101, 127,
236
zero-sum mindset 27, 49, 69,
105, 106, 107, 144–5
collective subconscious 18, 19,
167, 169
Colombia 37, 187, 288–90
colonialism 141, 147, 188,
211–12, 221, 248, 301
and decolonization 191
German 275
and retaliation 100
settler 183, 184, 200, 203, 223
Spanish 196
and structural violence 17
colonization 128–9, 147
Columbus, Christopher 301
COME (conscientization, organi-
zation, mobilization,
empowerment) 77, 109
comfort women 187, 271–2
common security 28, 49, 104–5,
106, 110, 148, 149
Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS) 32, 106, 262
communism 108, 112, 177, 191,
288
Community Race Relations 183,
194–5
complexification 155, 225
condominium 133, 137, 140, 158
Ecuador-Peru 264
Euskal Herria 187
Gibraltar/Ceuta-Melilla 286
Kashmir 218
Ulster 184
confederations 133, 135–6, 136,
138
Britain 154
Caucasus 268
China 258
Cyprus 184
Euskadi 285
325
Gibraltar/Ceuta-Melilla 286,
287
Israel-Palestine 83, 136, 201
Kashmir 218
Kurds 185, 229
Mayas 254
non-territorial 139, 140
Sami 188
Sri Lanka 248
Yugoslavia 237, 239, 243
see also condominium;
federations
confianza 77
conflict
ABC triangle xiv, 20–1, 22,
152–3
diagnosis–prognosis–therapy
(DPT) xxii, 22–4, 159, 181,
183–8, 189–305
different perspectives 79–84
and life-cycles xvi
prevention 40, 51, 64, 65, 73,
84–5
solutions from within 85–6
understanding 40, 52, 60, 85
unresolved 3, 4, 5, 10
and violence 16–17, 151, 152,
165–6, 179
violence-provoking responses to
16, 17, 22
conflict autonomy 282
conflict resolution 51–72, 103,
272, 281
cultural approaches 53, 73
initiatives 41–2
top-down approach 52–3, 74,
75, 76
conflict transformation xv, xx, 3,
29, 78
by peaceful means 40, 60,
127–8, 149, 175
code of conduct xxii–xxiii
creative approaches to 60, 74,
76–9, 169–70, 211, 230, 254
see also creativity
dialogue method 153–69
and mediation 53, 75
programmes 180–1
and self-determination 127–9
326 SEARCHING FOR PEACE
Conflict Transformation Index
(CTI) xxi
conflict workers xxiii, 163–4,
167–8, 175
and conflict party xxiii, 155,
156, 159–60, 166, 168–9
Congo 276
conscientious objectors 173–4,
189–90
conscription 189
contradiction xiv–xv, 16–17, 20,
52, 152–3, 179
see also goals, incompatible
Cook, Robin 44
cooperation 104, 149–50, 174,
220, 269
civil society 218, 238, 283
and peace-building 73–4, 77–8,
85
superpowers 49, 68–9, 71
Correlates of War project 27, 103
cosmology 19, 52, 83, 166
Council of Europe 176, 237, 243
coyuntura 77–8
creativity 21, 149, 211, 254
see also conflict transformation,
creative approaches to
Cree 35, 123
Crimea 35
Croatia 33–4, 35, 44, 66, 122–3,
131, 236, 242
Croats 33, 122–3, 131, 236
Crusades 260, 261, 304
CSCME (Conference on Security
and Cooperation in Middle
East) 184–5, 201, 203, 225,
228
CSCSEE (Conference on
Security and Cooperation in
Southeast Europe) 185, 237,
241
Cuba 183, 196–7
cuello 77
Currency Transaction Tax 111–12
Cyprus 138, 184, 209–10
Czech Republic 227
Czechoslovakia 176–7, 178
Dalai Lama 244
Damaskinos, Metropolit 260
Daoism 82, 258–9
Dayton Agreement 30, 32, 35–6,
42, 61–3, 262
de Bono, Edward 170
de Klerk, F.W. 11
debt-burden 110, 111
defence 174, 177
alternative 178
dehumanization of Other/enemy
18, 27, 60, 83–4, 114
demagogy 115
democracy xiii, xiv, 115–16, 252,
279
demonization/sanitization 33–4,
42, 45
Denmark 135, 268
depolarization 3, 9, 10–11, 11, 15
deportation, forced 44
development 144
and protective tariffs 118–19
development assistance,
reciprocal 173, 174, 199
Diakonhjemmet International
Centre, Oslo 29
dialogue 40, 77, 78, 176, 215,
228, 256–7
diamonds 298
diasporas 200, 203
diktats 11, 28, 40, 74, 118, 125
and humanitarian aid 32
and in Yugoslavia 62, 75, 145,
241
disarmament 28, 49, 105, 148,
174, 177
discourse 70–1, 80, 152, 155,
157, 191
DMA syndrome
(Dualism–Manicheism–Arma
geddon) 6, 18, 89, 184
Dodecanese Islands 117
Draskovic, Vuk 36
drugs trafficking 288, 289
dukkha and sukha xiii, 5, 16
D–S–C (direct, structural and
cultural violence) triangle 22
Early Warning Index (EWI) xxi
East Germany 178
East Timor 46–7, 48
East–West conflict 183, 191–3
see also Cold War
 INDEX
ECO 262
economics, alternative 199
economism 183, 198
Ecuador–Peru conflict 41, 42, 47,
264–5
and bi-national zone 137, 162,
179, 186, 264–5
Egypt 79
Eifel, Germany 273
11th September attack see
September 11th attack
emotions 166–7
empathy xxii, 21, 78
empowerment 109, 112, 190
civil society 73, 298
peace actor 53, 65, 77
enosis 209
environment 81, 293
and security 142, 143, 147–8,
149–50
environmental movements 103
ESCAP 220
Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict 15
ethnic cleansing 35, 44, 209, 248
ethnic conflicts 112–13
Etoforu 233
Europe
tripartite 186, 262–3
war culture 27–8, 37, 103
European Union 119, 138, 155,
169, 217
and Christianity 262
and Cyprus 209, 210
and Gibraltar 286
and Israel-Palestine conflict
205, 207
and Kosovo 241, 242
and Northern Ireland 214
Euskadi 284–5
Euskal Herria 187
evolution, and wars 7, 8, 9
exploitation 81, 107, 108, 144,
198, 201
as cause of violence 110, 167
and colonization 147
and sustainability 148
fascism 191, 288
federations 35, 133, 136, 138
Afghanistan 188
327
Caucasus 268
China 258
Macedonia 240
Somalia 252
Sri Lanka 250–1
see also confederations
Fichte, J.G. 134
financial speculation 111, 117
Finland 268, 299
First World War 36, 43, 74
Fisher, Simon 29
France 169, 228, 276, 284
Franco, Francisco 12–13
Freud, Sigmund xv
fundamentalism 34, 89, 94, 200,
203, 227, 295
Gaitán, Jorge Eliécer 288
Galtung, Johan 17, 20, 29, 39,
40–1, 116, 244
Galtung plan 176
game theory 103, 104
Gandhi, Indira 244
Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand
xv, 5, 50, 60, 100, 103, 112
Gaza 34, 122
Gelashwili, Naira 267
Geneva Accords 68, 70
Geneva Convention 34
genocide xiii, 39, 106, 183, 184,
225, 275
Genscher, Hans Dietrich 241
Georgia 35, 38–9, 40–1, 266,
267, 269
Germany 38, 114, 122, 210, 227,
252, 253, 276
Gestalts 155, 157–8, 160
Ghamsakhurdia, Zviad 38
Gibraltar 139, 187, 286–7
global commons, and commercial
rent 111, 117
global governance xv, xvii, 292
globalization xiii, 188, 196, 291–2
and capitalism 17, 87, 107
and justice/injustice 102, 124,
198, 304, 305
and militarization 49–50
of peace politics 174
globalization-free zones 98, 305
glory 162, 166, 223–4, 248
328 SEARCHING FOR PEACE

goals Honduras 135, 254

and dialogue 154–5, 156 Hong Kong 136, 258
incompatible 3, 4, 6–7, 52, ho’o pono pono 257
151–2, 179 hostage crises 187, 277–8
God 7, 8, 9, 19 human rights xiv, 115, 128, 135,
Golan Heights 34, 122, 226 140, 189, 190
Goldman, Emma 109 Colombia 290
Good Friday agreement 13, 41–2 global 292
Gorbachev, Mikhail 162, 178 in Gulf area 226, 228
and Afghanistan 68, 69, 70, Kurds 185
295 Mayas 254
unilateral disarmament 28, 49, Palestinians and Israelis 60
103, 105, 148 Sami 188, 299, 300
Great Lakes 139, 187, 275 and sects 246–7
see also Rwanda Sri Lanka 251
Greece 138, 209–10, 239, 240, humanitarian aid 32, 37, 43, 62,
242 63, 280
Greenland 128, 158, 268 Hungary 227
GRIT (Gradual Reciprocated Huntingdon, Samuel 110
Initiatives in Tension Hussein, Saddam 14, 33, 42, 89,
Reduction) 177, 183, 191 92, 162
Grossman, Zoltan 90 Hutus 39, 275
Guatemala 106, 135, 179, 254–5
Gulf War 30, 32–3, 44, 50, 122, Iceland 134, 268
184–5, 225–8 ICL/Praxis for Peace 21, 29, 47,
see also Iraq 64, 109
ideology 19, 21
Habibie, B.J. 46 IGOs 138
Habomai 233 IMEMO (Institute of World
Hague Appeal for Peace 124 Economy and International
Halabja 227 Relations) 178
Halifax Initiative 111 IMF 117, 291
Hamas 36, 201 imperialism 17, 18, 108, 183,
han/non-han 258, 259 187, 196, 301
hard-liners, need to involve 53–4, independence 128–31, 133, 136,
74 157, 160
Haroutunian, Ludmila 267 Cyprus 209
Hawai’i 136, 138, 184, 223–4, Euskadi 285
248, 273 and former colonial masters
Hebron massacre 202, 204 147
Helms–Burton Act 121 Gibraltar and Ceuta-Melilla
Helsinki Final Act 34, 122, 228 287
Herder, J.G. von 134 Kashmir 218
Hill & Knowlton 33 Kosovo 46, 239, 242
Himalayas 137 Mayas 254
Hindu Kush 137 Tamils 248, 251
Hindu-Muslim relations 185, Ulster 214
244–5 see also autonomy; secession
Hinduism 16 independence struggles 126, 184,
Hokkaido 137, 233 211–12
 INDEX
India 112, 136, 145, 183, 192,
217–18, 244–5
Indonesia 14, 46
industrialization 146–8
injustice, global 102, 304, 305
Inner Mongolia 136, 258
inter-class conflict 188, 191, 212,
282, 291–2
inter-generation conflict 188,
293–4
International Correspondance
League (ICL) 21, 29, 47, 64,
109
International Court of Justice
(ICJ) 96, 128, 130, 131, 158
International Criminal Court
(ICC) 96
international law 34–5, 46, 120–5
and comfort women 271
great power interests 123–4
and impartiality 125
impotence of 121–2
selective application of 122–3
and self-determination 266
International Monetary Fund
(IMF) 117, 291
Internet, and peace studies 30
intervention 10, 15, 30–2, 110
donor-directed 39
guidelines for xxi–xxii
humanitarian 32, 37, 252
and inadequate knowledge
38–9
legitimacy of 8–9, 94
and New Thinking 47–8
and overwhelming force 10
peacekeeping 27, 30–1, 65,
106–7, 228, 252
reversibility of xxi
selectivity 31, 44, 46–7, 66
violent by US 90–4, 303
see also acceptability;
reciprocity; sustainability
Intifada 56, 57, 183, 200, 203,
205
Inuit 35, 123
IRA (Irish Republican Army) 13,
214
Iran 97–8, 135, 192, 262, 295,
296
329
Iraq 124, 139, 162, 192, 201,
225–8, 295
and Kurds 135
occupation of Kuwait 122
sanctions 97, 304
and UN resolutions 34, 42
weapons of mass destruction
124, 164
see also Gulf War
Islam 295, 296
and Christians/Christianity
97–8, 186, 260–1, 262
fundamentalism 94
Islamabad meetings 71–2
Israel 122, 209
and international law 34, 122
racism 113
Israel-Palestine conflict 13, 139,
145–6, 183, 200–8, 228
and confederation 83, 136, 201
mediation 52, 54, 55, 56–61,
75, 205
peace package 208, 225–6
water distribution 58, 59, 60
see also Oslo Accords; Palestine
Italy 280
IUCN (International Union for
the Conservation of Nature)
264
Izetbegovic, Alija 32, 34, 36, 38,
45, 63
Jabutinski 200, 202
Jafari, Taghi 260
Jainism 244
Jakarta 46–7
Jammu 218
Japan 135, 139, 192, 273–4
and comfort women 271–2
and Hawai’i 223
and hostage crisis 277, 278
and Korea 219
racism 113
and Russia 137, 138, 185,
233–4
treaties with US 169
and US 185, 187, 231–2
Jews 130, 152, 200, 202, 204
and exclusivity 113
Orthodox 201
330 SEARCHING FOR PEACE
jihad 202, 204, 304
John Paul II 260
Jordan 227
Journal of Peace Research 173
Jung, Carl G. xv
justice 7, 124, 158
Kashmir 106, 138, 184, 192,
217–18, 244, 251, 295
Katanga 122
Kautokeino uprising 299
Kelman, Herbert 29
Keynes, John Maynard 108
Khalistan 212
Khatami, Mohammad 97, 304
Khomeini, Ayatollah Rudollah 34
Khrushchev, Nikita 35
Kim Dae Jung 136
King, Martin Luther, Jr. xv
Kissinger, Henry 66, 96
Kitab 5–6
Kollontai, Alexandra 109
Korea 12, 135, 139, 155, 184,
219–20, 233
comfort women 187
cultural identity 154
peace zone 137
Kosovars 45, 123, 242
Kosovo 106, 152, 185, 237, 239,
241–3, 262
escalating violence 64–5
mediation 47, 75
reconciliation xvi
and secession 35
sustainable prescription for
47–8, 160
Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)
34, 42, 43, 44, 66
Krajina 35, 36, 44, 66, 123, 131,
242
Krieseberg, Louis 29
Krupskaya, N.K. 109
Ku Klux Klan 194
Kuftarou, Sheikh Ahmad 260
Kunashiri 233
Kurdistan 44, 139, 229
Kurds 201, 229–30, 254–5
autonomy 212, 228, 229
confederation 185, 229
human rights 185
in Iraq 135, 225
in Turkey 66, 210, 225
Kuriles 137, 185, 233–4
Kuwait 33, 34, 122, 225–6, 227
Ladakh 218, 251
land mines, ban on 123–4
lateral thinking 170
LDK (League for a Democratic
Kosova) 65
Lebanon 34, 122, 136, 187, 226,
227, 281–3
Lederach, John Paul 29
Lenin, V.I. 108, 109
Libya 96, 99, 192
Liechtenstein 134
Likud 201
Lithuania 35
local authorities xiii, xiv, 199, 292
Lockerbie bomb 96
Lockheed Martin 118, 119
Luxembourg 134
Luxemburg, Rosa 109
Macao 258
Macedonia 65, 67, 236, 237, 239,
240, 242
McNamara, Robert 94
MAI (Multilateral Agreement on
Investment) 119
Mali 131
Mandela, Nelson xv, 11
Manifest Destiny programme 196
Marduk 79
Martí, José 196
Martov, L. 109
Marx, Karl xv, 107, 108–9
Marxism 81
and capitalism 107–12
and war culture 107–8
Masoud, Ahmed Shah 71
Mayas 135, 186, 254–5
media 14, 248, 292
mediation 51–72, 305
cooperative approaches 73, 85
failure of 74–5, 85
focus on leaders 52–5, 57, 74,
75, 252
neglected interests 53–4, 57–8,
62–3, 70
 INDEX
role of mediator 52, 53
see also conflict workers; peace
workers
Mesopotamia 79
Mexico 37, 135, 254
Microsoft 119
migration 135, 183
militarization, global 49–50
Miller, Morris 111, 117
Milosovic, Slobodan 36, 43,
45–6, 63, 89, 162
Moldova 35
Montenegro 160, 236
Morocco 286
Mossadegh, Mohammad 98
Mozambique 282
MRTA (Tupac Amaru
Revolutionary Movement)
277–8
mujaheddin 70, 72, 295
Muslim-Croat Federation 61, 62
Muslims 33, 122–3, 136, 200,
202, 204, 248
see also Islam
Mutual and Balanced Force
Reduction talks 28, 105
mutual security 28, 49, 104–5,
105, 110, 148, 149
NAFTA (North American Free
Trade Association) 117, 155,
231–2, 254
Nagaland 217
Nagorno-Karabakh 35, 40, 267
Nakichevan 35
Nansen Academy, Lillehammer
39
nation-absorption 135
nation-state 116, 117–18, 120,
252
see also nations; states
national identity, and state
integrity 126–41
nationalism 127, 185, 229, 246
nations
and sacred space and time
126–7, 223, 248
and territory 129–30
see also state/nation interface;
states
331
NATO 32, 106, 138, 169
and Bosnia-Herzegovina 262
expansion of 50, 183, 192, 193,
228, 263
and Gulf conflict 227
and international law 63–4, 67,
123
threat to security 144–5
war on Serbia 30, 36, 43–6, 62,
65–7, 241
natural resources 147–8, 300
nature, as threat 146–7
Navarra 284
Nazism 114, 191
neutral-nonaligned (NN) 138,
177, 236, 274
New Delhi 250
new world order 50, 55, 106, 122
New Zealand 138, 227
Newcomb, Stephen T. 302
NGOs xiii, xiv, 32, 37, 138, 199
and game theory 104
and government funding
119–20
and land mine ban 124
and mediation xv, 27, 51, 75–6
Nicaragua 121, 282
non-violence xv, xvii, 12, 60–1,
177–8, 183
conscientious objectors 173–4,
189–90
independence struggles 184,
211, 223
Kurds 229
see also peace, by peaceful
means; peace-building
Nordic Council 268, 300
Noriega, Manuel 89, 92
North Dakota 273
North Korea 192
Northern Alliance 71, 72, 295
Northern Ireland 47, 137, 138,
184, 213–16
and conflict transformation 127
dialogue/goals 154
media focus 14, 248
mediation 54, 74
and peace process 13, 41
Northrop Grumman 118
North–South conflict 183, 198–9
332 SEARCHING FOR PEACE
Norway 135, 174, 227, 268, 299
Nove, Alec 112
nuclear weapons 12, 177, 178,
183, 191
testing 221, 273
OAS (Organization of American
States) 254, 265
OAU (Organization of African
Unity) 32
Oeberg, Jan 29, 64, 66
OECD (Organization for
Economic Cooperation and
Development) 65, 263
Ogdoad 79
OIC (Organization of the Islamic
Conference) 296
oil 245, 262
Angola 298
Central Asia 66, 192, 266, 267
Middle East 44, 201, 226, 228,
266
Okinawa 136, 139, 187, 273–4
Oman 227
Operation Alba 280
Orange Order marches 215
Orwell, George 34
OSCE (Organization for
Cooperation and Security in
Europe) 105–6, 138, 183,
263
and bombing of Serbia 43
and Bosnian elections 32
and Caucasus 267, 269
and Euskadi 284
and Kosovo 241
as model 139
and Sami 300
Osgood, Charles 177
Oslo Accords 56–61
conflict-enhancing features 30,
32–3
failure of 35–6, 58, 200, 201–2,
203–4, 205
and hard-liners 54
and international law 33, 34
see also Israel-Palestine
conflict
Ossetia 35, 41, 267
Ottawa 123
Pacific Islands 138
Pakistan 262, 296
and Afghanistan 68, 70, 71,
295
and India 145, 183, 192
and Kashmir 217–18
and Taliban 68, 71, 295
Palestine 162, 200, 202, 204
international support for 56
recognition as state 33, 57, 97,
136, 201, 208, 225
territory 57, 58–9, 130, 162
see also Israel-Palestine conflict
Paris Treaty 1990 176
patriarchy 17, 18, 187, 212
PATRIR 30
Pax Pacifica 184, 221–2
PDPA party 70
peace
approaches xv–xvii
by peaceful means xxii, 10, 21,
60–1, 124, 173, 178, 182
see also conflict transforma-
tion; cooperation
cultures xv, xvii, 18–19, 37–8,
76–7, 103, 269
definition of xiv, xxii
education xv, xvii, xix, 30, 103,
290
journalism xv, xvii, 29, 30, 290
as means and end 24, 112
movements xv, xvii, 101–2, 188
narratives 6–14
and non-state actors xiv, xvi
research xix, 103, 107, 110,
173–5
and states xiii–xiv
studies xvi, 28, 29–30
through violence 50
Peace Action, Training and
Research Institute of
Romania (PATRIR) 21, 29,
30
peace corps/service 173–4, 183,
189–90
peace workers 30, 78, 237–8, 290
peace zones xvi, xvii, 40
Angola 298
Caucasus 269–70
Colombia 187, 290
 INDEX
Ecuador-Peru 137, 162, 179,
186, 264–5
Gibraltar and Ceuta-Melilla 287
Pax Pacifica 184
peace-building xvii, 3, 10, 29, 65
cooperative approaches 73–4,
77–8, 85
cultural approaches 53, 73
holistic approaches 75
organizations 182
peacekeeping xvi, xvii, 3–4, 10, 11
conflict-enhancing features 30,
32–3, 35, 46
and inadequate knowledge
38–9
realist approach to 37
peacemaking 3, 30–2
enforced settlements 10, 32–6,
61–7, 75, 86
Pentagon 87, 90, 94
people’s diplomacy 177, 183, 191
Pérez de Cuéllar, Javier 15, 34,
241
Perry, Matthew 273
Peru see Ecuador–Peru conflict
PLO (Palestine Liberation
Organization) 57
Pol Pot 89, 92
Poland 174, 178, 192, 227
polarization 3–4, 5, 6, 9–10, 14,
200
and identification 4–5
political correctness 108, 115
Portugal 227
poverty 110, 117–18
Powell, Colin 89
Prague 176
PRIO (Peace Research Institute
in Oslo) 174, 178
‘Prisoners’ dilemma’28 104
Pristina 66
protests, non-violent 101
psychoanalysis 166
psychology, cognitive and emotive
processes 156, 166–9
Pugwash 104
Purim 202, 204
Pyrennees 137
Quebec 35, 123
333
Rabat 286
Rabbani, Burhannudin 71
Rabin, Yitzak 54, 162, 205
racism 18, 112–16
Rambouillet Conference 63–7, 229
Rapoport, Anatol 104
Rauber, K.J. 260
Reagan, Ronald 70, 162
reciprocity 97, 247
in development assistance 173,
174, 199
in intervention xxi
reconciliation xvi, xvii, 38, 39–40,
97, 98
Angola 298
inter-generational conflict 293
Lenanon 281, 283
and reparations 271
Yugoslavia 238, 243
reconciliation conflicts 186, 256–7
reconstruction 281, 282–3
reframing 156, 157–8
rehabilitation 272
religion 200, 202, 204, 281–2
non-violence 221, 238, 243,
244, 261
see also Catholic Church;
Christians/Christianity; fun-
damentalism; Islam
retaliation 90–4, 303–4
alternatives to 101
exit from 96–8
revanche 7, 13, 15
revenge 7, 13, 15, 92, 93
Rhodesia 136, 184, 211
Roma 130
Romania 239, 240, 242
Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF) 89
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 149
Ruder Finn 33
Rugova, Ibrahim 64
Russia 42–3, 44, 192–3
and Afghanistan 295
and Caucasus 266, 267
and China 105, 183, 228
and Cyprus 209
and Japan 137, 138, 185
and Korea 219
and NATO membership 106
and Sami 135, 299
see also Soviet Union
334 SEARCHING FOR PEACE
Rwanda 39, 44, 106, 275–6
see also Great Lakes
Ryukyu Islands 273
SAARC (South Asian Association
for Regional Cooperation)
138, 218, 251
Said, Edward 60
Sami 135, 188, 249, 268,
299–300
sanctions 97, 211, 304
sarvodaya 82, 112
satyagraha 103, 112
Saudi Arabia 226, 227, 295
Scheff, T.J. 167
Schopenhauer, Arthur 182
Scudder, Dylan 152
secession 34–5, 134, 136
China and 258
Kashmir 217
right to 112, 122–3, 130, 131
Tamils 248, 250
see also independence; self-
determination
Second World War 44, 74, 191
sects 185, 246–7
security
alternatives 149–50
challenges to 142, 143–4
concepts of 142–3, 144, 148–9
environmental 148
role of state 150
security industry 145
and structural violence 144
as threat to Other 145–7
segregation/desegregation 11,
174, 194–5
self-determination 127–31, 134,
140
Basques 284
Caucasus 266
in China 258
Gibraltar and Ceuta-Melilla
286
Mayas 254
Tamils 250
Yugoslavia 236, 262
self-reliance 199, 222
Semipalatinsk 273
separation, period of 38, 39, 62
September 11th attack 30, 35–6,
59–60, 68, 87–102, 303
and choice of discourse 94–8
diagnosis 87–98
and prognosis 99–100
reactions to 95–6
retaliation discourse 90–4, 95–6
terrorism discourse 87–9, 94,
95–6, 97
therapy 101–2
see also Afghanistan
Serbia 14, 192, 239, 242
NATO war against 36, 42,
43–4, 45
peace formulas 47–8, 65, 160,
236
Serbs 45, 63, 66, 67, 160, 242
demonization of 33, 122–3
refugees 44, 242
and self-determination 122,
131, 236
Sharon, Ariel 35, 54
Shevardnadze, Edvard 176
Shikotan 233
shir 170
sho 78
Sicily 273
Sikhs 212
Simla Accord 1972 217
Sinhalas 248–51
slavery 17, 100
Slavonia 36, 44, 131, 242
Slovenia 131
Smith, Adam 108
social democracy 112, 288
society, perceptions of 80–4, 246
Sodano, Angelo 260
solidarity 78, 104, 247, 252, 289,
303
global 124
inter-generational 293, 294
municipal 237, 242
Somalia 106, 170, 186, 252–3
clans 136, 186, 252, 253
humanitarian aid 31, 32
South Africa 11, 276
sovereignty 126, 129, 136, 228
functional 139, 140, 251
joint 41, 137, 140, 234, 265,
286
 INDEX
transfer of 286
see also independence
Soviet Union 176, 177
and Afghanistan 67, 68–70
Bear Island dispute 41, 42
and borders 131
and conflict transformation 127
demilitarization 28, 49, 105,
148
imperialism 196
and Japan 185, 233–4
and Korea 219
new state-borders 116
and protective tariffs 118
and secession 34
withdrawal from Afghanistan
70, 71, 75, 295
and Yugoslavia 236
see also Cold War; Russia;
Stalinism
Spain 196, 227, 254, 255, 284,
286
Spanish civil war 1936–39 12–13
Spencer, Metta 112
Sri Lanka 15, 106, 138, 185–6,
248–51
Srpska 61, 62
Stalin, Joseph 35, 176
Stalinism 107, 108, 109, 177, 183
Star Wars 50
state-absorption 135
state/nation interface
conflict areas 132–3
and conflict transformation
131–41
options 133–9
and self-determination 127–31
states
and internal war 131
and monopoly of power 126
multinational 126
and peace and war xiii–xiv, xvi
role of 292
and security 150
size and viability 134
and symmetry 126, 136, 201,
202, 203
see also borders; nations;
state/nation interface
Stevenson, Adlai 105
335
Stormont 213
Sudan 31, 42, 44
Suharto, Kemusu 46
Sun Tzu 193
superpowers
confrontation 145
cooperation 49, 68–9, 71
see also Cold War
sustainability xxii, 131, 155, 161,
169
and Gulf conflict 225
and inter-generation conflict
188, 293–4
swaraj 60, 112
Sweden 135, 268, 299
Switzerland 126, 127, 136, 276
Syria 34, 122, 135, 192, 226, 227
Tahiti 273
Taipei 259
Taiwan 136, 139, 258, 259
taksim 209
Taliban 68, 71, 72, 295
Tamil Nadu 248, 250
Tamils 248–51
Tanzania 276
tariffs 118–19
Tashkent 35
Tashkent meetings 71–2
taxation, on financial transactions
111–12, 117
Tejero incident 1981 13
terrorism 14, 58, 59–60, 61, 68,
250, 303
definitions of 87–8
ideological 89
and international courts 96
as provocation 88–9, 90
state and non-state xiv, 88,
102, 303
tactical 88–9
see also September 11th attack
TFF (Transnational Foundation
for Peace and Future
Research) 29, 30, 64
Thatcher, Margaret 105
Tiamat 79
TIAP 50
Tibet 44, 122, 136, 186, 258–9
Tito, Josip Broz 35, 236
336 SEARCHING FOR PEACE

TNCs (transnational corpora- UDI (Unilateral Declaration of

tions) xiii, xiv, 110, 117, 118, Independence) 211
138 Uganda 276
Tobin, James 111 Ukraine 35, 192
Tobin Tax 111–12 Ul Nor 273
Tomkins, S.S. 166–7 Ulster 13, 14, 47, 213–16, 273
Trans-Dniester 35 see also Northern Ireland
TRANSCEND xvii, xviii–xxi, 21, unemployment 154, 183, 188,
29, 109, 131, 149 198, 291
code of conduct xxii–xxiii UNESCO 129, 269, 299
creation of 175–6 Peace Prize 29
definition of peace xiv UNFICYP 210
dialogue method 153–69 UNHCHR 241
escalating violence in Kosovo UNHCR 241
64 UNICEF 241, 297
and future development xx–xxi Unidad Popular 87
guidelines xxi–xxii unilateral disarmament 28, 49,
impact of 182 105, 148, 177
modes of activity xix–xx UNITA 297
and patience 39, 40, 177 unitary state solution 133, 136,
programmes xviii–xix, 180–1 185
training programmes xx, 30 United Arab Emirates 295
TRANSCEND Conflict Service
United Kingdom
(TCS) xx
devolution 154
TRANSCEND Media Service
and Gulf conflict 42–3, 225,
(TMS) xx
227
TRANSCEND Peace University
and India 217, 250
(TPU) xx
TRANSCEND Research Institute and Iraq 164
(TRI) xx and racism 113–14
transcendence 40, 77, 79, 110, and Rhodesia 211
158, 159, 286 United Nations xiii, 68, 70, 138,
trauma 13, 162, 163, 223–4, 225, 143, 183, 224
248 and Afghanistan 305
Trotsky, Leon 109 and Cambodia 106
Truth and Reconciliation process Economic Commission for
206, 208, 216, 271–2, 290 Europe 191
Tudjman, Franjo 33–4, 35, 36, and Ecuador-Peru 265
38, 45, 63 and Euskadi 284
Tulsi, Acharya 244 and Gibraltar/Ceuta-Melilla
Turkey 66, 135, 226, 227, 262 287
and Cyprus 138, 209–10 and Gulf conflict 42–3, 226,
and Kurds 135 228
and Yugoslavia conflict 239, humanitarian aid 32, 37, 252
240, 242 and Israel-Palestine conflict
Turner, Nat 100 201, 205, 207
Tutsis 275 and local warlords 37, 252
Tutu, Desmond xv and Mayas 254
and NATO 64, 65, 67
ubuntu 78 and Northern Ireland 214
 INDEX 337

Palme Commission 28, 49, 69, Vambheim, Vidar 30

104, 105, 148 Vasquez, John 27, 28, 37
peace research 107 Versailles, Treaty of 74
peacekeeping forces xvi, 65, Vietnam 12, 101
226, 228 Vilnius 35
peacekeeping interventions 27, violence
30–1, 65, 226, 228, 252 causes 3, 4, 14–15, 77, 85,
and Rwanda 276 110
Security Council 31–2, 42, 50, culture of 5–6, 18–19, 83–4
67, 205, 241 direct and indirect 4, 5, 17
and Somalia 252 inevitability of 5–6, 15
US dominance 33 structural 4, 15, 17–18, 127,
and Yugoslavia conflict 65, 241 144
United Nations Volunteers 190 see also conflict; war
United States violence triangle 17
and Afghanistan 30, 72, 95, vulnerability, and destructive
295 power 99–100
aggression 90–4, 188, 303–4
anti-trust legislation 119 war
and Cyprus 209 abolition of xv, xvii, 49–50
and Gulf conflict 42–3, 164, causes of 50–1, 77
225, 227 delegitimization of 76–7
imperialism 196 ending 7–8
and India 250 just 6–8
and international law 121, 123 and outside interventions 8–9
and Japan 69, 185, 231–2, 273 see also conflict; violence
and Korea 219 War Crimes Tribunal 45, 63,
and Mayas 255 125, 238
nuclear weapons 177 war culture 16, 27–8, 37
and protective tariffs 118 and capitalism vs. Marxism
racism 114 107–12
and Rwanda 276 challenges to 103–7
and state terrorism 90 and racism 112–16
support from allies 102 War Participation Index (WPI) xx
and support for Israel 200, 201, Warsaw Pact 144–5, 176
205, 207, 209 water 201, 226, 228, 245
and UN 193 West Bank 34, 59, 122
vulnerability of 99 Western European Union (WEU)
war on terrorism 68, 89 106
white/black conflict 11 Western Sahara, self-determina-
and Yugoslavia 236, 262 tion 128
universality xxi Westphalia peace 1648 xiii, 186,
UNOCAL 68 262, 264
UNPKF 222 Wiberg, Haaken 116
UNPREDEP 65 women
UNPROFOR 237 marginalization 81
UNSCOM 42, 124, 164, 228 and peace xviii
UNSG 228 and peace service 189, 190
uti possidetis 131 World Bank 117, 279
Uzbekistan 35 World Health Organization 241
338 SEARCHING FOR PEACE
World Trade Center
and capitalism 87
and structural violence 90, 94
see also September 11th attack
World Trade Organization
(WTO) 117, 138
Wye River Agreement 58–9, 200
xenophobia 18, 62
Xinjiang 136, 258
yin and yang 18, 82, 85
Yugoslavia 137, 139, 160
aid distribution 62, 63
and borders 131
division of 61–2
NATO war against 30, 42,
43–6, 145
new state-borders 116
reconstruction 67
see also Kosovo; Milosovic,
Slobodan; Serbia
Yugoslavia conflict 185, 186,
235–43, 262–3
mediation 52, 55, 61–7, 75
polarization xiv
reconciliation project 39–40
transformation 127
see also Dayton Agreement
Zapatistas 254
zero-sum mindset 16, 18, 27–8,
74, 104, 113
and Cold War 27, 49, 69, 105,
106, 107, 144–5
and mutual security 110
see also demonization/
sanitization
Zimbabwe 136, 184, 211
Zimmerman, Ambassador 36