How do we create peace?

Recent escalations in armed conflict around the world are deeply troubling, with some getting renewed attention and others still being sidelined by mainstream media. With coverage often understandably focussing on what atrocities are currently committed and calls for international interventions rising, it’s worth asking; how do we create peace? 

Many of these conflicts have been reproduced for decades, with cycles of violence replicated down generations. Understanding what fuels this violence is relatively easy for most people; if we imagine that it is our loved ones being hurt or killed, our homes destroyed and our families forced to become refugees, we can understand why someone might choose to defend themselves or even retaliate out of vengeance. It’s absolutely key to any facilitation of peace to understand why people choose violence so we can also understand why they may instead decide to choose peace. 

It’s also important to note that within the context of armed conflict, individual choice is severely restricted. People facing violence, death, loss and displacement have few options to choose from and are more often caught within or between powerful groups, government, militia or terrorists, who are using their power to harm. Those with the most power are the most responsible. But it’s also interesting to see that in situations where a peace process has been established, it’s often the pressure from both citizens organising as groups to protest for peace as well as international pressure and intervention that leads to de-escalation. 

Historically, women’s groups have had a huge impact on the peace process, for many reasons, and though there are differences in each case, some similarities can be drawn. It’s still the case that the majority of people who are fighting in armed conflict are men, and teenage boys, whether by choice or by force, with most women and girls left to try to salvage whatever shelter, food and medical aid they can, and care for infants, the ill, disabled and the elderly. However, this doesn’t mean that women are entirely separated from conflict, especially in the case of civil war, borderland communities and occupied territories. Women may become involved in armed combat if they are defending their families, homes and communities during an invasion. They may also be involved in collecting and delivering food, water and medicines to their communities, and arm themselves with weapons in case they are ambushed by combatants along the way. There are women and girls who join or are forced into militias, or who are part of government forces, but they are still in the minority. 

Women and girls are also vulnerable to sexual violence which escalates during conflict, and rape is actively used as a weapon of war to dominate women and humiliate men. This is an exacerbation of existing misogyny, homophobia and rape culture in patriarchal societies which is weaponised during warfare. Women often exist in a place between combatant and civilian, not seen as part of the fighting forces but defending themselves and others, armed and violent if necessary. The same goes for the elderly and disabled, and even children. 

So although women are much more involved in armed conflict than we usually think, most of the time they are not active combatants, and this means women on different sides of a conflict are less likely to meet within a violent encounter. This distance is important for the peace process, as meeting someone who is theoretically an enemy but hasn’t actively tried to hurt or kill you is very different to meeting one who has. Women on any side of a conflict often share the same daily struggles of trying to meet the basic needs for themselves and their dependents and the grief of dealing with the relentless deaths of family and friends. It’s easier, not easy, but easier, to recognise that the problem is the conflict itself, that ‘enemies’ are struggling as you are, and that peace is the only way forward. The very practical day to day struggles of women who are carers during conflict can supersede any ideological motivations. 

Conflict most often starts because of inequality, and existing divisions between people increasing to the point where violence seems to be the only option or armed resistance is necessary against an invading or oppressive force. But if conflict is started because people want their lives to be better and feel like they have nothing to lose, the realities of warfare are still a shock. It doesn’t take long for people to realise that in war, things only get worse, and there is always more to lose. Once it’s clear the promises made by those agitating for war have not been kept, space opens up for another path. 

Gendered stereotypes also play a role within the peace process, because of what patriarchal societies consider to be acceptable behaviour from men and women (in this context, gender is forced even further into a binary status). It is more socially acceptable for women to argue for peace because women are already perceived to be the mediators and caretakers of society. Toxic masculinity requires men to be violent, but it also allows them to do what is necessary to protect their families. Especially after years of brutal warfare, the narrative can change so that peace becomes the way in which men fulfil their roles as protectors. Older men are also allowed a certain amount of wisdom and thoughtfulness which is criticised as weak in younger men and teenagers. The perception is that the older men have proved themselves in war by having participated in and survived conflict, and are therefore given more leeway with their role, to a point. This is also one of the reasons younger men and boys are being targeted as new recruits by those who are intent on continuing conflict. Those who have survived may be battle-hardened, but many will also be deeply exhausted. Young men and boys have seen or experienced enough brutality to want vengeance, but are also looking for a way to feel like they can have control over their lives, see the status afforded to the surviving combatants and want to acquire it. 

This means that the peace process has to be presented as the new way to gain control and status, alongside stabilisation, and a way for those who were marginalised to gain more rights, alongside the governmental powers to receive praise for their progression. A compromise where everyone feels that they can boast of gaining something and feel all the loss they have suffered wasn’t entirely for nothing, but not so much that it makes conflict seem like the best option for change in the future. 

However, although this may be a way to engage opponents and facilitate a cease-fire, it comes up against a heavy but valid roadblock to peace - that of justice. When war crimes are committed by those who have the power to decide to continue or prevent more violence, how do we balance the need for an immediate end to violence while holding those who have committed atrocities accountable? At this point, the groups involved need to examine what the purpose of justice is, and whether it best serves them and their communities at this point in time. Given that leaders within groups who agitate for violence are controversial at best and outright dictators at worst, there is usually scope within peace talks to negotiate some form of agreement that the figureheads will take the fall. This is usually as a result of other less visible, but still powerful compatriots machinations to overthrow a leader and take their place. 

But is this bare-minimum level of accountability justice? Often punishment is at the forefront of people’s feelings and views when they consider what should happen once a truce is established. It’s understandable that this is the case when so many people have suffered and seen those they love suffer too. The repeated trauma of witnessing, being a victim of, even perpetrating violence during conflict exacerbates the very understandable desire for punishment. However, that’s also how the cycle of violence is continued, because vengeance is never satisfied. It is passed down generations because truthfully, no amount of punishment would seem enough, and no amount of punishment can regain what has been lost. The most vital and substantial things that are lost in warfare are intangible and immeasurable; lives, security, happiness, safety, dignity, mercy, compassion, purpose and hope. Once war becomes so entrenched it becomes a way of life, people can be left with little hope for change. 

However, there are mechanisms for transitional justice that have worked in previous conflicts which, though imperfect, can be drawn upon to help facilitate a transition towards peace. The first stage is obviously to agree to and hold a cease-fire which ensures the immediate threat is suspended, even temporarily. This usually has to be facilitated by pressure from both the people directly affected and allies from other communities who also have a substantial amount of power, often the heads of state from different countries and international groups who can provide aid. Then negotiations between parties must continue as long as is required to come to an agreement about what it will take to end conflict. Key aspects of this include people on each side who are considered to be more ideologically moderate and not directly involved in violence to be willing and able to take on prominent positions of power and responsibility, often working against their comrades. People with genuine ability and enough integrity to do this in a lasting way, rather than simply becoming a new dictator are unfortunately rare. If it’s the case that one side is clearly more powerful than the other in terms of access to resources and ability to cause harm, then they must be willing to give up some of that power in order to maintain peace. Things do have to change to go forward. 

Practically, in terms of how to prevent further violence, a combination of deploying UN peacekeeping troops and a process of disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration must be planned and followed. Often there are both rewards for those who come forward and disarm themselves voluntarily and punishments for those who do not, to incentivise people to give up their weapons. A fragile trust must be established by honouring a cease-fire and ensure promises are kept to those who come forward first. This is also where local communities can play a crucial part, as handing over weapons to people from your own community who you know were not involved in armed conflict or aligned with any group will feel safer than whatever government is still standing or even a ‘neutral’ international organisation. 

Reintegration of combatants, in particular, can be a catalyst for renewed violence, and understandably so. Often those who disarm are initially segregated from civilians but increasingly that’s difficult to do, as there are different levels of crime and harm committed. It can be particularly tough if people have been displaced for years and they may not have a home to return to, or there are problems establishing who has ownership over contested land. However one of the biggest issues is that of when, how and why any criminal charges should be brought against individuals who have committed atrocities. Purely on a practical level, it’s simply not possible to charge and imprison every person who committed any crime during warfare, which must feel deeply unfair. One way to facilitate this is to have something like a truth and reconciliation commission for those who are lower-level combatants. A victim gives a statement about the violence they suffered directly to the perpetrator, in front of witnesses. In exchange for an admission of guilt and apology, the perpetrator then avoids incarceration. This is intended to humanise both victim and perpetrator to each other, and allow them to move on. However, both must be willing to voluntarily come to the hearing and the perpetrator must be genuinely sorry for their actions and committed to change for this to really work. But this also allows a person who is both a victim and a perpetrator to be heard as a victim and requires to take responsibility for the harm they have caused. This allows us to see people in all their complexity and facilitates compassion and understanding. This kind of hearing has been criticised for requiring people to forgive those who have harmed them even if they feel they cannot. But it doesn’t actually require complete forgiveness, instead for the person to relinquish the desire for vengeance. 

When it comes to the leaders, however, a different process can be reasonably justified, as they are the catalysts for violence and fan the flames of conflict. Particularly in cases where a cult of personality has emerged, and a figurehead is pivotal to the continuation of violence or the resistance to peace, it may be necessary to remove them and their influence from the society they helped to corrupt. This is where formal procedures of transitional justice such as the international criminal court or a criminal court outside the state can be effectively used. However, meeting the requirements of evidence necessary to prove war crimes and atrocities can be difficult due to the very nature of conflict. Usual techniques for proving an individual has committed a crime can be impossible to procure, such as what we consider to be modern scientific evidence such as DNA. Any kind of paper trail or documentation proving particular orders are given can also be difficult to obtain. Instead, testimonies from victims and witnesses are used, cross-referenced with each other and any physical evidence which is available, so that the sheer amount of evidence is overwhelming. It can still be difficult due to the unreliability of eye witness testimony and the impact of trauma on memory processing. It can seem to be a strange situation where everyone accepts that certain people are responsible for truly horrific war crimes and yet evidence still needs to be gathered which reaches a specific legal standard of proof of guilt. This can be particularly difficult with people who are less immediately recognisable or infamous who are accused of especially despicable acts of violence. There is an inherent tension between the need for solid evidence and the desire to punish or simply remove people from positions of power where they are able to do further harm. 

However, if we reconsider the role of the justice system and use it as, if not rehabilitative then at least progress, rather than one that facilitates punishment and vengeance, it is more appropriate to be applied to a wider range of combatants and government members. It should be difficult to deprive anyone of their freedom. We should do everything possible to uphold the human rights of all people, especially those who have violated the rights of others. It’s how we heal, become better, regain hope and retain our own humanity. That’s not to say it’s easy, but it is so, so important. In order to do this, upholding human rights must be considered as central to the treatment of all the people who survive war, even those whose actions are monstrous.

 Inequalities, discrimination and hatred for people we other are not created in war. All those issues existed before, but they become more extreme during conflict. Fortunately, acts of compassion, mercy, grace and moral fortitude also become more extreme too. People who could reasonably be expected to just survive quietly risk their lives, futures and safety to help those who need it simply because it’s the right thing to do. And to be clear, there is no requirement for forgiveness, warmth, or even kindness to the people who have caused pain and suffering from those they have traumatised. It’s the decision not to retaliate, punish or exact vengeance that is important. Often some form of imprisonment for leaders and those who are particularly sadistic is necessary to protect a hard-won peace. Working for peace and equality is a constant process because we have to protect the rights we do have, alongside realising the ones we don’t, and pull everyone up together. We like to think of an endpoint, where everything is neatly contained and sorted out, but the cycle of violence shows us that’s simply not the case. Instead, though, we can create a cycle of maintaining peace, equality and human rights, with each new generation building on what the previous one has achieved. Creating peace isn’t simply the end of war, it’s the commitment to maintaining peace, when it’s hard, when it’s taken for granted, and when it’s a risk. It’s a lifelong, generation-spanning, continuous work in process, and it’s worth it.