Peace-building is defined as the development of constructive relationships between people of different ethnicity, religion, social class, nationality, and race. The existence of different people with different ideologies in the same setting increases the chances of conflict. This conflict, on the other hand, can assume political aspects that may have negative consequences for susceptible people. For example, conflict can cause discrimination against a particular group, resulting in injustices. Peacebuilding, therefore, aims to resolve injustice through non-violent methods that change structural circumstances that cause toxic disagreements. Peacebuilding promotes conflict prevention, management, resolution, transformation, and post-conflict reconciliation.
Violence describes as a forceful retaliation against persons who do not share similar beliefs, ideologies, race, or religion. Evidently, violence occurs as a result of existent cultural differences between people. Consequently, these variances cause discrimination, exclusion, and prejudice. Additionally, the differences in culture result in the creation of marginalization of certain groups and dominion over others. As such, the existence of dissimilarities significantly and negatively challenges the establishment of peacebuilding intervention plans (Ogharanduku & Tinuoye 2020, 179). These limitations occur specifically in war-torn regions, which alter how people think and perceive the world around them. Violence is also defined as the intentional use of physical power to threaten a person or group in a way that results in injury or death. From a societal perspective, violence can occur within a home, workplace, or community.
Impacts of Peace Building
Peacebuilding promotes conflict prevention and does not cause violence. Through organizations, such as those in the United Nations, peacekeeping strategies have taken shape in many nations all over the world. Notably, every country in the world faces local and international conflict that threatens the formation of ethical relationships between citizens and governments. According to Karlsrud (2019, p. 4), the programs established and approaches used by the U.N. involve creating coalitions between warring parties and diverting global war and terror. For example, instead of focusing on one strategy, leaders like President Bush encouraged the utilization of techniques that highlight the root causes of terrorism (Dresse et al. 2019, 101). In turn, this recognition of what causes violence results in the implementation of tools that help eliminate the issue before it occurs.
Currently, developed nations, such as those affiliated with the European Union, participate in funding mechanisms to fund the Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism (PCVE) agendas. As a result, these programs provide financial support to security-related services that assist administrations in various countries in training on how to counterterrorism. Hence, this shows that peacebuilding approaches maintain peace in a nation both locally and from an international lens.
Peace prevention initiatives consist of strategies that engage the societies and communities in a given nation. The reason is that these initiatives aim at improving the lives of the citizens in a particular country (Coning 2022, 307). When dealing with ethnic issues, for example, approaches must address existing issues between groups by involving them in peacebuilding interventions. The reason is that involvement promotes listening skills and the ability to raise opinions, resulting in effective communication and peace (Hunt & Curan 2020, p 7). Consequently, engagement in peacebuilding facilitates ethical decision-making by conflicting parties.
Peacebuilding promotes conflict management in nations conflicting locally or internationally. Unlike the disagreements people face within their nations, those encountered in an international sphere expose people to unethical circumstances. Notably, most countries prefer that other countries keep their activities at a distance (Miller 2017, 298). However, when these activities present breaches of human rights, countries, such as the United States of America and the United Nations, intervene. As suggested by Braithwaite and D’Costa (2018, 42), the peacebuilding strategies employed by the U.S. and the U.N. deterred the rush response of Israelis by taking responsibility for the issue standing between the Israeli nation and Saddam Hussein.
Peacebuilding stimulates awareness of the existence of uncertainty. Notably, no one knows when they will or if they will disagree with their family members, relatives, or friends. Knowing the possibility of war among nations, on the other hand, does not fully address the extent to which countries would differ and if it would result in war. However, peacebuilding approaches demand that people, governments, and countries adapt to these uncertainties (Coning 2022, 309). This promotion towards adapting is due to the complexity of social systems. For example, in 2013, no one knew that South Sudan would face a war relapse. On the other hand, very little information could predict the conflict between Yemen and Syria. Moreover, very few people would have predicted the humanitarian issues emerging in Myanmar (Coning 2022, 309: Swaine et al. 2019, 10). However, adapting to uncertainties enables parties to maintain the peace even in the presence of conflict.
The management of conflict at the community level fortifies peacebuilding initiatives, eradicating the occurrence of violence. Efficient community leaders have significant knowledge of the problems existent in their surroundings. For example, some conflicts happen because certain communities face discrimination from others. Therefore, to protect themselves or to increase their self-esteem, they resort to fighting to make discriminated-upon people feel worthy of respect. Peacebuilding eliminates conflict by enabling affiliated leaders to have talks that prevent disputes from escalating (“Local Peace Building” 2019, 7). Nevertheless, these talks pave the way for local governance, supporting ethical decision-making among members. Hence, peacebuilding does not cause violence but fortifies the establishment of reconciliation and harmony between disagreeing people.
(Ali et al. 2019, 39)
Peacebuilding Supports Conflict Resolution
Peacebuilding advocates for the establishment of mechanisms that assist in fortifying peace within a country. Deliberating Smidt’s (2020, 346) ideology, establishments of peace include outlining rules and regulations for citizens to follow. Due to these implemented laws, people going against the outlined regulations face legal action. For example, most countries’ laws demand that people not take matters into their own hands. In contrast, revenging or doing things illegally merits punishment. Hence, at a community level, peacebuilding facilitates effective dealing with criminals by activating the ability of leaders to punish those found engaging in criminal activities. Hence, this enablement of chastisement deters community members from engaging in criminal activity. Therefore, peacebuilding intervention plans promote peace and not violence.
Peacebuilding initiatives help community leaders address issues that affect the public, making it easy to establish approaches aimed at intervening when problems arise. I say this with regard to property ownership. Evidently, the world consists of people with different ideologies and beliefs that shape how they perceive and behave towards other people (Ali et al., 2019, 35). For example, some children grow up believing that their parents’ properties are their own. In turn, such a perception alters how siblings behave when it comes to their parent’s property. In some cases, some individuals wait for the death of their parents to collect their inheritances. The reason behind these attitudes, as suggested by Smidt (2020, 347), is the opportunistic nature of human beings. To ensure peacebuilding from such instances, seek to establish procedures to enable each family member to acquire a piece of the family’s assets without conflict. Therefore, peacebuilding, as shown in this case, supports the fortification of harmony and not violence.
While issues such as political interests increase the chances of conflict and violence, peacebuilding promotes community reconstruction, unifies law enforcement, and ensures the safe running of political activities, such as elections. Notably, guaranteeing the safe running of activities eliminates violent acts against certain communities affiliated with political leaders (Smidt 2020, 307). As witnessed in African nations, most individuals tend to support leaders from the same race and those with similar ethnic backgrounds. Subsequently, this element of biased ideologies subjects those from different cultures to detrimental positions when elections are not carefully guarded (Autesserre 217, 123). Peacebuilding, therefore, safeguards appropriate elections, triggering a sense of fairness (Birch & Muchlinski 2018, p. 387). In addition, it promotes monitoring of behaviors that seems violent amongst members of the community.
Peacebuilding initiatives advocate the elimination of authoritarian conflict management strategies. According to Lewis et al. (2018), some governments employ dictatorship methods to prevent the escalation of conflict in their populations. As such, these governments utilize means that reject intervention from other mediators, making it difficult to maintain peace among the communities (Joseph 2018, 7). Notably, oppressing people and limiting their ability to voice opinions does not mean that citizens will not engage in rebellious behavior. Instead, subjugation postpones rebellious acts to other dates. Peacebuilding, therefore, helps people know how to voice their ideologies and shapes how the government responds. In turn, this communication facilitates peace and harmony among conflicting people (Bickmore et al. 2017, 27). This synchronization occurs due to the knowledge that leaders accept public opinion and respond effectively and ethically.
Most nations experience local disagreements due to the feeling that the government’s operations are not ethical. As highlighted above, some citizens feel that elections are not handled properly. Hence, to showcase their grievances, citizens engage in belligerent behaviors that place others in risky positions, such as resenting other people (Hooghe & Dassonneville 2018, 10). On the other hand, illegal groups form to fight against the rules and policies outlined by a particular government. Therefore, to handle grievances appropriately and adequately, peacebuilding initiatives activate community engagement. For instance, governments are encouraged to support the public opinions of every culture in their nations. Henceforth, instead of having a parliament with people from affiliated ethnic groups, peacebuilding supports the election of people from different cultural contexts. Therefore, this inclusion of culturally diverse representatives makes the populace feel adequately represented. As a result, equal representation motivates the establishment of peace and unity among citizens.
Peace Building Promotes Post-Conflict Resolutions
Peacebuilding intervention plans such as sports tourism promote the reconstruction of ideologies and conflict resolutions.
Some countries advise their citizens not to visit areas plagued by terrorist activities. However, as showcased in the following case study, visiting regions such as Malamjabba in Pakistan posed difficulties for tourists. The reason behind the apprehensions is that the region has faced significant humanitarian conflicts that created barriers (Dogar et al. 2021, 483). However, with sports tourism, most of the people fearing the area can now visit and enjoy a vacation. Notably, media representations of the location played a significant role in shaping individual perceptions. Nevertheless, the engagement of people in international sports activities helped clear out negative standpoints concerning the area.
Through intervention plans, such as the use of army officials, the Pakistani government promotes both tourism and peacebuilding. For example, the Pakistani administration has significantly backed infrastructure and participated in advocacies that invest in tourism. Initially, the violent conflict between the Pakistani government and religious militias caused unrest in the region, causing breaches in human rights (Dogar et al. 2021, 481). Notably, the lack of respect for human life on the Taliban’s part caused the deaths and displacement of Pakistani individuals. This disrespect came due to retaliation from Pakistani Army Martials, who believed in establishing peace, resulting in conflict. Peacebuilding, therefore, promoted the re-establishment of trust among individuals concerning the area.
From the case study above, peacebuilding initiatives eliminate established viewpoints concerning an area. The reason it works is that the strategies activate the activities and abilities of law enforcement, establishing trust in security. Consequently, knowing one can trust and believe in the operation of law enforcement makes visiting the area possible (Guasca et al. 2021, 4). Additionally, restoring a better perception of a location increases tourist-linked events, resulting in a post-conflict resolution.
Peacebuilding plays a significant role in eliminating local and international conflict. I say this because it makes it possible to prevent violence from happening by supporting the roles of community leaders. In addition, peacebuilding approaches offer resolutions to address conflict. For instance, instead of letting people behave in unethical ways, the initiatives advocate for laws and policies to punish those that breach their code of conduct. Contrary to what some believe, peacebuilding strategies bring about peace, not violence. I say this because, from the evidence presented above, the main aim of peacebuilding is to stop violence before it happens and also maintain peace between conflicting parties after violence. As highlighted, violence occurs as a result of the cultural differences existent in a community. Additionally, it results from conflicting ideologies among people. Hence, peacebuilding maintains peace and not violence.
Autesserre, S., 2017. International peacebuilding and local success: Assumptions and effectiveness. International Studies Review, 19(1), pp.114-132.
Ali, S.R., Ishaq, M. and Saud, S., 2019. Conflict Resolution and Peace Building Exploring Perspectives of Different Faith Communities of Khyber Pakhtūnkhwa. Tahdhib-al-Afkar, pp.33-48. http://www.tahdhibalafkar.com/Downloads/02-Vol-06-Issue-02-July-December-2019/Eng/03(33-48).pdf
Bickmore, K., Awad, Y. and Radjenovic, A., 2017. Voices of Canadian and Mexican youth surrounded by violence: Learning experiences for peacebuilding citizenship. Research in comparative and international education, 12(1), pp.26-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499917699046
Birch, S. and Muchlinski, D., 2018. Electoral violence prevention: what works? Democratization, 25(3), pp.385-403.
Braithwaite, J. and D’costa, B., 2018. Cascades of Violence: War, crime and peacebuilding across South Asia (p. 706). ANU Press. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13510347.2017.1365841
Curran, D. and Hunt, C.T., 2020. Stabilization at the expense of peacebuilding in U.N. peacekeeping operations: More than just a phase? Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 26(1), pp.46-68. https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02601001
De Coning, C., 2018. Adaptive peacebuilding. International Affairs, 94(2), pp.301-317.
Dogar, A.A., Shah, I. and Elahi, N., 2021. Sports Tourism in Post Conflict Peace Building: Evidence from Swat, Pakistan. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business & Government, 27(1). https://www.cibgp.com/article_7427_9c54ba62688cb95e1ac0070f7056599a.pdf
Dresse, A., Fischhendler, I., Nielsen, J. Ø., & Zikos, D. (2019). Environmental peacebuilding: Towards a theoretical framework. Cooperation and Conflict, 54(1), 99-119.
Guasca, M., Vanneste, D. and Van Broeck, A.M., 2022. Peacebuilding and post-conflict tourism: addressing structural violence in Colombia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(2-3), pp.427-443. https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/production/245850/1C04F5C1-03C2-4542-818F-BFD9961D197C.pdf
Hooghe, M. and Dassonneville, R., 2018. Explaining the Trump vote: The effect of racist resentment and anti-immigrant sentiments. P.S.: Political Science & Politics, 51(3), pp.528-534. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096518000367
Joseph, J., 2018. Beyond relationalism in peacebuilding. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 12(3), pp.425-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2018.1515608
Karlsrud, J., 2019. From liberal peacebuilding to stabilization and counterterrorism. International Peacekeeping, 26(1), pp.1-21. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13533312.2018.1502040
Lewis, D., Heathershaw, J. and Megoran, N., 2018. Illiberal peace? Authoritarian modes of conflict management. Cooperation and conflict, 53(4), pp.486-506.
Local peacebuilding What works and why Summary Report (2019). Peace Direct. https://www.peacedirect.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/P890-PD-Peacebuilding-effectiveness-report_V6.pdf
Millar, G., 2017. For whom do local peace processes function? Maintaining control through conflict management. Cooperation and conflict, 52(3), pp.293-308.
Ogharanduku, V.I. and Tinuoye, A.T., 2020. Impacts of Culture and Cultural Differences on Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding in Multicultural Societies. In Handbook of Research on the Impact of Culture in Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding (pp. 177-198). IGI Global.https://doi.org/ 10.4018/978-1-7998-2574-6.ch011
Smidt, H.M., 2020. United Nations peacekeeping locally: enabling conflict resolution, reducing communal violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 64(2-3), pp.344-372.
Swaine, A., Spearing, M., Murphy, M. and Contreras-Urbina, M., 2019. Exploring the intersection of violence against women and girls with post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding processes: A new analytical framework. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 14(1), pp.3-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1542316619833877