The Fluidity of Peace

This piece was originally published on the Humanitarian Practice Network on 26 October

Peace is too often conceived of as a static entity, achieved by a metaphorical handshake. No one can deny peace deals are important and often incredibly delicate. But they are only the beginning of a process, one stop along the movement from negative peace – the cessation of conflict – to positive peace – where society begins to recover, reconcile and regrow.

Viewing peace as static belies its true nature: it is fluid, hard won and often easily lost. Peace relies on people humanising the other side, seeing the larger benefits of working together and resisting demonisation. Too often, we assume that when the tanks roll back – or more often just stop firing shells – peace is ‘won’. We forget, or choose to ignore, the fact that a frozen conflict is not finished and that a peace accord does not always relieve a community’s tension. Our naivety, and lack of long-term commitment, is showing across the globe in horrific ways.

The situation in Gaza and Israel is rightly dominating the news, but it is not the only place where a static peace has rapidly become unstuck. A recent siege by a group of Serbs in Northern Kosovo resulted in a stand-off that killed four people. In Nagorno-Karabakh, the Azerbaijani military’s lightning strike in September led more than 68,000 people to flee their homes for Armenia.

All three places, until recently, were supported on the journey of peace through the promises and backing of the international community. This back-up empowered brave local leaders to put aside their differences and come together to focus on building a future. In Kosovo–Serbia, the focus was on European Union (EU) accession; in Nagorno-Karabakh, it involved (somewhat ironically) Russia’s influence on the region; while in the case of Israel–Palestine, the goal was a two-state solution. Each of these, no matter what different sections of the international community thought of them, allowed politicians to move forward. On top of that, they allowed citizens an anchor point to understand why they needed to heal and move beyond their conflict memories.

However, in the last 10 years, the international community has grown increasingly inward-looking; impunity rages and red lines are repeatedly crossed. With this, the desire to confront the difficult, long-run problems has waned. Local leaders start to see easy gains, focusing not on building peace but on land grabs, inflaming tensions and populist politics.

Obviously, the international arena is not the sole answer; the era of unquestioned Responsibility to Protect has gone, often leaving more questions than it answered. But we would be failing ourselves and those less fortunate if we continue to turn in on ourselves and ignore the hard problems. Peace requires continual, often thankless, work that does not give up in the face of adversity. Recognising the importance of the international community living up to its promises and committing for the long haul is crucial if we are to find sustainable solutions to some of the world’s most intractable issues. Without this, we might be facing more Kosovos, Israels and Nagorno-Karabakhs in the near future.