INTRODUCTION
ON WHAT AUTHORITY?
This study aims to offer practical solutions for significantly reducing political violence by identifying effective activities in peace work and conflict resolution Titled “Bridge the Knowledge-Action Gap!”, the report highlights the urgent need for conflict resolution professionals to translate knowledge into action that fosters peace It asserts that sufficient technical knowledge exists to diminish political violence, yet practitioners must master the art of persuasive advocacy for peace, secure political commitment, and implement coordinated actions based on best practices The conflict resolution field must organize to provide effective services and adapt as it progresses; otherwise, only minimal reductions in violence can be anticipated, with the potential for worsening political violence.
Throughout my career, I have consistently found myself in the deep end of human relations, particularly in high-stakes environments My roles have included prison guard, correctional administrator, parole officer, and therapist for men who abuse women Additionally, I have served as a mediator between the Roman Catholic Church and abuse victims, as well as between governments and oppressed communities, warring states, and rebels After dedicating thirty years to violence reduction and the pursuit of justice and peace, I now seek to evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts comprehensively.
My background in negotiating with prison hostage takers and mediating in conflict zones has transformed my approach to peacebuilding, leading me to move away from traditional mediation practices taught by mainstream institutions Conventional mediation emphasizes neutrality, non-decision-making authority, non-directiveness, and impartiality regarding outcomes However, my experiences have shown me that these principles may not always be effective in real-world applications.
In my experience within a coercive power dynamic, I actively pursued peace as a mediator, fully acknowledging my bias towards achieving this goal Over a decade of peacebuilding efforts, from Bosnia to Indonesia, led me to recognize that I often deviated from traditional mediation practices As the CEO of a mediation training institute, I admitted to breaking fundamental mediation rules by negotiating directly with conflicting parties, encouraging them towards peace, and providing solutions when they faced impasses My approach was directive, ensuring that each side could voice their grievances, contrary to the conventional teachings of mediation.
Many advocates for social justice have increasingly turned to mediation as a means of conflict resolution, prioritizing facilitation over direct advocacy for human rights Rather than actively working towards building equitable societies, these individuals have adopted the role of mediators, aiming to be peacemakers by bridging opposing sides By emphasizing the importance of facilitative skills and the principle of "trust the process," they hope to guide conflicting parties towards a just and negotiated solution.
Yet I sensed a level of frustration among mediators Their services were not being used often enough Mediation was being relegated to a “touchy-feely” process suitable for “easier” disputes. Often the more powerful party in a dispute declined invitations to seek a resolution through mediation, preferring to prevail in other ways When they did come to the mediation table, they continued to dominate, playing power games at the table and away from it between mediation sessions Facilitative mediation was not able to compensate for power asymmetries
Nonviolent conflict resolution training has gained popularity in Eastern Europe since the Soviet Union's collapse; however, it falls short in addressing the deep ethnic divisions and discrimination present in many countries Structural violence, such as the denial of minority language rights and exclusion from essential services like shelter and water, cannot be resolved solely through interpersonal communication skills and negotiation techniques To achieve true justice, it is crucial to address and rectify significant power imbalances.
I had begun to doubt the working assumptions of the young field of conflict resolution
As the Director of the Conflict Resolution Program at The Carter Center, I had the honor of serving as President Carter’s personal representative in addressing emerging violence and full-scale wars, particularly focusing on the brutal nineteen-year civil war in Sudan My efforts were concentrated in Sudan and Uganda, where I aimed to implement the Nairobi Agreement, a peace accord mediated by President Carter in 1999 between Uganda and Sudan, which we viewed as a crucial step towards regional peace My role involved mediating discussions at various levels—political, humanitarian, and security—between Uganda and Sudan, while also striving to end the insurgency in northern Uganda led by the Lord’s Resistance Army, which significantly impacted the Sudanese civil war and adversely affected the Acholi people.
After four years of dedicated effort, I witnessed significant progress from the Nairobi Agreement, with improved relations between Sudan and Uganda The Carter Center played a crucial role in facilitating peace talks among the conflicting parties in Sudan However, our attempts to resolve the war in northern Uganda fell short, leading to a dire humanitarian crisis While the successes in reducing violence are commendable, as peace remains fragile in the region, it is essential to recognize that conflict resolution and mediation, despite their challenges, have shown effectiveness in two out of three cases.
To effectively end a war, it is essential to compel the conflicting parties to seek peace, as transforming power from violence to non-violence is a challenging endeavor After three decades of observation, I have come to believe that achieving a significant reduction in global violence may be an unrealistic aspiration This realization prompted me to conduct a focused study aimed at finding actionable insights into reducing political violence I am determined to identify and disseminate any new and valuable strategies that can contribute to this goal without prolonging the process unnecessarily.
The study commenced with a comprehensive literature review on war and peace, emphasizing large-scale evaluations and insights into conflict resolution and peacebuilding effectiveness This synthesis led to the creation of a discussion paper, which served as a foundational document for interviews with experts in conflict prevention, mediation, and post-violence peacebuilding.
To determine the ideal interview candidates, I created categories reflecting the necessary expertise for a robust and contemporary analysis My goal was to engage with prominent scholars, practitioners, policy advisors, political figures dedicated to global peace, and financiers of peace and conflict resolution initiatives I aimed to pose targeted questions, which I formulated during my background research, to each of these experts.
The key questions posed to these authorities were:
1 Do you agree that there is a knowledge-action gap in the field of conflict resolution? That is, practitioners know enough technically, now, to be more effective in reducing the incidence and severity of political violence, but the challenge is to put that technical knowledge in motion.
2 Given that there is policy on prevention at the key organizations (i.e., the UN and regional bodies) and some well established early warning mechanisms, what really is needed to make prevention of violent conflict a viable option?
3 Credible scholars argue that the incidence and severity of political violence is on a downward trend Do you agree? Do you predict further significant reductions in armed warfare? Why, or why not?
4 It has been proposed that the field of conflict resolution needs an independent, integrated interdisciplinary theory to guide it Do you agree? Is this a pressing concern?
5 You know all of the conflict resolution tools and techniques, and how they are used in various situations Are any of these simply not effective?
SYNOPSIS OF WHAT WORKS TO REDUCE POLITICAL VIOLENCE
This article summarizes my research findings and insights from interviews with leading authorities, highlighting their assessments and recommendations for reducing political violence It aims to provide actionable strategies that can be implemented immediately by key conflict resolution and peacebuilding organizations, such as the US Institute of Peace and the Washington-based Alliance for.
International conflict prevention and resolution efforts are supported by various organizations, including The Carter Center, the Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee, and the European Platform for Conflict Prevention Additionally, groups like the Reducing Political Violence Action Group and various private foundations play crucial roles in funding initiatives aimed at fostering peace This collaborative approach highlights the diverse implications for stakeholders engaged in conflict resolution and peacebuilding efforts.
Political Violence is both direct violence (the use of force) and structural violence
(institutional, policy and procedural practices which exclude, injure, and perpetuate injustice on people) used by states and groups to achieve their objectives.
1 Evaluation of conflict resolution and peacebuilding activities is weak, but a defensible assessment of the field is possible
2 Violent political conflict is on a downward trend The trend is short, some 5 years; nevertheless: from 90-99 there was an average of 26 wars per year, in 2000, there were 25; in 2001 there were 24, and in 2002 there were 21.
3 New international policies to contain internal wars are evolving; international actors have in the past decade engaged more frequently and directly in prevention.
4 There is a convergence of views on the causes and dynamics of political violence, on what works to prevent political violence, on how to make mediated peace agreements sustainable, and on post-violence peacebuilding.
5 Political actors responsible to intervene, that is the UN Security Council, regional organizations, and state actors do not act often enough, early enough, or for long enough in cases of political violence.
6 925 Billion dollars per annum is spent on war efforts throughout the world and 80 Billion dollars on peace efforts That is, for every $1 Million spent to reduce political violence,
$11.4 Million are spent on waging it Between 1945 and 1990 the UN peacekeeping budget, at its height, was only 0.3 % of global military expenditures
7 Prevention works Arguably it is more cost-effective than peacekeepers and war.
8 The effectiveness of violence prevention can be improved through better risk assessment; and both diplomatic and security options must be part of strategic planning from the outset.
9 Mediation has been used in as few as 10% of the cases of civil war between 1900 and
1989 It is, however, becoming more popular.
10 The process aspects of mediation are well known and appear to be executed reasonably well by different mediators.
11 Nevertheless, too many mediated peace agreements break down.
12 Mediated peace agreements break down because they are “orphaned” by the international community; and it has been speculated that they break down because the underlying issues in dispute were not appropriately dealt with by the mediators What these underlying issues are is open to study There is controversy over whether the need to address deep historical wounds is one of these; indeed, that it is the profound underlying issue relating to sustainability.
13 Post-violence peacebuilding is effective to a level approaching 50% of the cases.
14 Technical knowledge of how to go about post-violence peacebuilding exists (the elements and their order) Coordinated activity on the ground needs improvement Conflict analysis should be improved so that it is ongoing, more comprehensive and directive of needed program changes; and the skills of peacebuilding workers should be improved.
15 I give prevention a “pass” grade; Track I mediation a “fail”; and post-violence peacebuilding a “qualified pass” The authorities I interviewed were more tentative, but optimistic overall The glass of effectiveness is seen as “half full”.
16 The clear finding on what works is that tailor-made interventions are required in each case Multi-level, multi-actor, comprehensive, integrated interventions are prescribed.
17 There is a reluctance to say, explicitly, what is not effective Some of this reluctance relates to the complexity and idiosyncrasy of political violence Virtually all conflict resolution activities may work in certain cases: it depends
18 Two conflict resolution activities found not to be effective in the direct reduction of violence are training in nonviolent conflict resolution for grassroots people in war zones; and informal dialogue processes that do not have the potential of direct impact on the conflict The skills obtained in training are often not transferred to political actors instrumental in the conflict and capable of having an impact on peace Likewise, Track
Two dialogues that have the wrong participants and/or lack linkages to elites and potential high-level peace processes are not directly effective.
19 The women’s perspective is absent in current discussion as is the engagement of women in all aspects of conflict resolution and peacebuilding
20 The gains of conflict resolution activities in making the world are being eroded by the USA’s unilateralist approach to foreign policy.
Taken together, there are 9 Major Concerns facing the field of conflict resolution and peacebuilding:
1 The nature of the beast – the legitimacy of violence remains a parameter working against peace;
2 The wrong objective – there is a misplaced emphasis on the resolution of conflict for those who wish to reduce violence in the world;
3 The political naivety of conflict resolution practitioners – many peace and conflict resolution workers are both soft-hearted and soft-headed , and therefore less effective in the hard-nosed world of political violence;
4 Inadequate conflict analysis – conflict resolution and peacebuilding practitioners fail to analyze conflict in a comprehensive, sophisticated, and timely way, thereby impairing risk assessment, intervention and program design, and course correction as conflict dynamics change;
5 Conflict resolution’s failure to communicate effectively – lacking good analysis and political skills, including peace advocacy skills and tools, conflict resolution practitioners fail to mobilize political actors, war lords and potential peace lords, to take action leading to peace;
6 Inadequate coordination of effort – interventions suffer for lack of integrated, multi-level, multi-actor collaboration; the field is not organized to plan, work and learn together;
7 Institutional shortcomings – despite policy and some mechanisms to prevent violence there are serious structural flaws in the UN and its regional organizations that impede the creation of the needed political will to take action;
8 United States’ unilateralism - the escalating US-led “war on terror” is narrowing the space for the resolution of political violence through integrated, measured responses under the auspices of the UN and other multilateral bodies As the space narrows, and the use of violence as the tool of choice increases, violence in general is likely to rise That which is feared most will be created by the current reaction to fear.
THE FINDINGS
WE KNOW ENOUGH NOW
Effective planning and execution in conflict resolution and peacebuilding are now guided by substantial knowledge, enabling a reduction in global political violence Research by Gurr, Hampson, Lund, and Paris highlights specific actions for various stakeholders to prevent violence, intervene during conflicts, and rebuild societies post-war There is a consensus on the causes of political violence and the necessary steps for governmental and nongovernmental actors to take, including the mediation of peace accords and the essential components of these agreements, as well as the sequential actions required for stabilization and reconstruction in war-affected areas.
While it's challenging to guarantee that any specific intervention technique will be effective in every situation, research indicates that customized interventions are essential for success Nonetheless, it is clear that certain activities within prevention, mediation, and post-violence peacebuilding have proven to be effective.
This study highlights the persistent issue of "lack of political will," which undermines the efforts of dedicated individuals aiming to reduce political violence globally To effectively bridge the gap between knowledge and action, peace activists and conflict resolution professionals must address and counter significant criticisms There is a pressing need for enhanced conflict analysis, and political obstacles to peace initiatives must be tackled with renewed realism and vigor It is essential that efforts to prevent political violence, mediate resolutions, and rebuild war-torn societies become more integrated, nuanced, and sustained for lasting impact.
Conflict resolution is increasingly recognized as a valuable field of study and practice, despite its limitations However, good intentions and technical expertise alone are not enough to address the significant challenges it encounters The field must overcome perceptions of being "soft-hearted" and "soft-headed," especially in a political landscape where actors often weigh the benefits of violence and peace through a self-interested lens Therefore, efforts to mitigate political violence must be grounded in professionalism and realism, avoiding naivety in their approach.
Research findings indicate a potential for reducing political violence globally; however, significant concerns about terrorism persist among interviewees, who express dissatisfaction with the US administration's unilateral response This approach undermines conflict resolution efforts and limits UN-sanctioned multilateral interventions A shift in Washington's policy is essential to enhance the successful reduction of political violence, as evidenced by data prior to 9/11.
But what is meant by the term “political violence”? What has worked to reduce it?
Political violence arises from a combination of objective conditions and human reactions, where structural factors intersect with triggering events to incite direct violence, such as hostility and killings For instance, a flawed election process can ignite violence, particularly when marginalized groups see the election as a chance to gain political representation This situation reflects an unaddressed structural deficiency Similarly, the rise of a leader who capitalizes on ethnic grievances can escalate political conflict and violence, as they rally support based on genuine or perceived injustices rooted in structural issues like economic marginalization and the lack of minority rights.
The question of "what works?" to reduce political violence may appear daunting due to its complexity and scale, with an average of 20 to 30 wars occurring each year Annually, approximately $925 billion is allocated to various forms of political violence, while only $80 billion is spent on peace initiatives, highlighting a stark imbalance where nearly $12 million is invested in waging violence for every $1 million aimed at reducing it Between 1945 and 1990, the UN peacekeeping budget peaked at a mere 0.3% of global military spending, which totals around $1 trillion each year Notably, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council account for 85% of the global arms trade, revealing a troubling reality where those tasked with promoting peace are also suppliers of conflict This resource disparity poses significant challenges for the future of peace efforts.
The image of a tiny finger in a dyke symbolizes the futile effort to contain the flood of violence that has become a pressing issue in today's society, arguably more than during the Cold War The impact of 9/11 and the persistent threat of terrorism have made violence a significant topic on the public agenda After a decade of implementing various conflict resolution services aimed at preventing violence, addressing ongoing conflicts, and rebuilding war-torn societies, many stakeholders are now questioning the effectiveness of these efforts and asking, “What works?”
Reflective practitioners, and individuals and institutions that fund their efforts have become more focused on the assessment of effectiveness:
Does training people in nonviolent conflict resolution really make a difference to the intensity and duration of violence?
Are informal dialogues between representatives of warring factions helpful in de- escalating hostilities and building the basis for peace?
Is the use of force effective? If so, when; and how much is necessary?
Does formal mediation provided by third parties result in sustainable peace agreements?
Is a significant reduction in the amount of political violence in the world possible, based on what is known to be effective?
This study touches on profound philosophical questions related to war and peace, the inherent nature of human violence, and the characteristics of the state and international system While these inquiries extend beyond the primary focus of this research, they undeniably influence the discussion at hand.
My goal, however, was to come to grips, succinctly, with questions whose answers will help the reader who has a professional interest in reducing political violence, now
The core challenge lies in determining whether the primary goal is to reduce violence or to foster peace, as this distinction significantly influences prevention strategies, intervention methods during conflicts, and post-conflict actions Understanding this orientation is crucial for effective conflict resolution and peacebuilding efforts.
Conflict resolution and peace work can be categorized into two primary groups: those advocating for peace, justice, and development, and those focused on preventing and resolving direct violence and war The first group aims to establish sustainable and just peace, referred to as "positive" peace by Johan Galtung, which transcends the mere absence of conflict, or "negative" peace This positive peace approach demands a comprehensive and long-term vision, striving for the complete elimination of violence by dismantling the socio-political and economic structures that perpetuate it Advocates in this realm include human rights defenders, peace activists, development specialists, and certain conflict resolution practitioners, each employing distinct methods and language to achieve their objectives.
Peacekeepers, preventive diplomats, and third-party mediators focus on immediate conflict resolution, stepping in when violence is imminent or already occurring Their primary goal is to stabilize the situation and implement quick adjustments to prevent further violence They may facilitate peace agreements, although these may not always lead to long-term sustainable peace.
There is a notable convergence among various orientations; however, significant challenges persist when it comes to making decisions about actions Key questions regarding what to do, who should be involved, when to act, and how to proceed become more pronounced during this process.
Measuring success is obviously also a very different matter depending on the overall orientation
Measuring the achievement of positive peace poses a challenge, as some argue that it cannot be quantified solely by death tolls For many, peace is an ongoing journey towards justice for all, while others view the cessation of violence and the establishment of effective political governance as significant milestones in creating a stable society.
Measuring success in conflict resolution and peace work poses significant challenges, as the evaluation of their effectiveness is still in its infancy There is a pressing need for advancements in this area, particularly regarding what metrics are used, the timing of measurements, the methods of assessment, and the application of the findings.
The inadequacy of evaluation in the peace and conflict resolution field makes it difficult to assert
A CONVERGENCE OF VIEWS ON WHAT WORKS
While the term "consensus" may be too strong, there is a notable convergence of views in the literature and among authorities interviewed However, significant dissent exists on three key issues: the focus on broad peace efforts versus direct violence reduction, the preference for early deep structural interventions compared to near-term solutions, and the importance of addressing historical grievances in achieving sustainable peace.
On so many technical “know-how” questions, however, when the discussion is stripped down to pragmatics, a notable convergence of views is evident This convergence is presented here.
On the Causes and Dynamics of Political Violence
First, what is meant by “political violence”?
Political violence arises from political conflict, characterized by incompatible goals and interests, often fueled by perceived threats and unmet expectations It manifests in two main forms: direct violence and structural violence Direct violence involves active, harmful actions taken by parties in conflict, including armed confrontations and intentional harm to others for political aims Conversely, structural violence refers to systemic issues that perpetuate harm and inequality, indicating that violence can be deeply embedded within societal structures.
Structural violence is evident in the social, political, and economic systems that shape human relationships When these structures prioritize the political goals of a few while subjecting others to oppressive realities, they create a cycle of perceived violence that can lead to further violence.
This study focuses on direct forms of political violence, particularly the prevention of armed warfare and killing It explores key questions such as: what strategies effectively reduce open hostility and violence? Additionally, it examines the potential for stopping a war once it has begun and evaluates the effectiveness of peace agreements in preventing future conflicts The research seeks to identify specific actions that can more effectively reduce violence, as well as to determine which current practices may be ineffective.
The emerging science of conflict resolution aims to identify the causes of political violence, utilizing case-specific analysis and diagnostics to inform tailored interventions Scholars and practitioner-scholars are increasingly understanding the classification, causes, and dynamics of political violence, contributing to the development of effective strategies for resolution.
Understanding political violence and how to address it is often described in the literature and by the authorities interviewed as an exercise analogous to understanding and treating disease
Categorizing violent political conflicts is as valuable as classifying diseases, as it helps in understanding and potentially preventing them While complete eradication of certain types of political violence may be unrealistic, targeted prevention strategies can mitigate risks for specific cases, similar to how individuals can take measures to avoid certain illnesses When prevention efforts are unsuccessful, just as medical interventions can address diseases, tailored recovery programs can be implemented to ensure that communities do not succumb to political violence again.
The medical analogy in political discourse has sparked concerns regarding the distinction between symptoms and causes, as well as the applicability of a medical model to political phenomena Additionally, it raises questions about whether focusing on conflict itself, rather than the violence it produces, is appropriate Conflict resolution scholars emphasize understanding the causes and dynamics of conflict when examining political violence, a topic that warrants further exploration.
Political conflict arises from a combination of broad causal factors and localized influences While overarching factors contribute to political violence globally, specific cases require a nuanced understanding of psychological, social, political, and economic elements This dual approach allows for a comprehensive analysis of the underlying causes of political violence in various contexts.
Among the broad casual factors are characteristics of the international state system, a global culture of violence, and the belief that violence is inevitable
Peace scholars and deep structuralists argue that a pervasive culture of violence increasingly influences global dynamics This culture not only supports but legitimizes various forms of violence, often through the manipulation of public consent Adversaries convince the public that resorting to violence is both necessary and justified in political conflicts The perceived legitimacy of violence plays a critical role in the onset of wars, further reinforced by a prevailing belief in the inevitability of violent solutions.
In addition to general causes of violence in political conflicts, specific factors also contribute to its emergence, which conflict resolution analysts and practitioners must consider However, a lack of rigorous and systematic analysis in conflict resolution practices significantly hinders efforts to reduce violence effectively.
Local factors contributing to political conflict include insecurity, inequality, private incentives, and perceptions These elements interact in various ways, intensifying conflict situations As Gardiner succinctly stated, conflict arises from a blend of underlying insecurity and inequality, influenced by perceptions and driven by individuals' private motivations Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of intrastate conflict requires considering both the foundational conditions and the actions of individuals.
The ongoing debate among analysts centers on the causes of political violence, specifically the "greed" versus "grievance" perspective Proponents of the grievance view argue that political violence stems from feelings of marginalization and injustice, emphasizing deep structural issues Conversely, the greed perspective highlights the predatory motivations of leaders and the economic incentives for waging war as primary drivers of conflict The prevailing view on this issue could significantly influence strategies for preventing war and addressing violence once it erupts If the greed thesis gains traction, it may lead to efforts focused on eliminating key economic factors linked to civil wars and exploring options to "buy-off" aggressive leaders, including providing amnesty or employing methods to neutralize them, potentially through arrest or punishment.
To achieve sustainable peace in post-violence scenarios, it is essential to address the structural causes of conflict, as both greed and grievance perspectives highlight the need for this approach Simply removing the aggressors is inadequate, as even those who perpetrate violence often echo the grievances of their supporters Therefore, a comprehensive strategy that tackles underlying issues is crucial for effective peacebuilding.
Multiple disciplines, including anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, international relations, international political economics, conflict studies, peace studies, and security studies, have significantly enhanced our understanding of the causes of political violence These fields offer valuable insights into both the general factors and specific instances that lead to political violence.
Efforts to prevent political violence and rebuild war-torn societies are categorized into two main types: Track I and Track II activities Track I activities involve official representatives from organizations like the UN and the warring sides, focusing on formal conflict resolution and peacebuilding In contrast, Track II activities are conducted by nonstate actors and engage individuals from the conflicting parties in unofficial capacities These activities address the root causes of conflict, whether they are broad systemic issues or specific local factors, aiming to create lasting peace and stability.
WILL ANYONE SAY WHAT IS NOT EFFECTIVE?
It is strikingly challenging to get authorities to acknowledge the ineffectiveness of specific conflict resolution techniques A literature review highlighted doubts regarding the success of certain conflict resolution training and informal "Track II" dialogue processes It was only after pinpointing these ineffective methods that interviewees were willing to discuss what does not work in mitigating political violence.
Political conflict is inherently complex, making it challenging to establish clear causal connections, as causality is influenced by multiple factors Political violence is not deterministic, and the current state of evaluation is lacking, leaving us uncertain about the effectiveness of specific activities.
In exploring the effectiveness of various initiatives aimed at fostering peace, it is essential to consider nonviolent conflict resolution training and peace camps in the USA, where Israeli and Palestinian children engage with one another to challenge negative stereotypes These efforts, along with unofficial dialogue processes between individuals from both sides of the conflict, aim to establish a foundation for peaceful relations and promote understanding amidst division.
While some may argue that certain efforts are worthwhile, it's essential to recognize that they could also be futile and unproductive These initiatives might offer misleading hopes to individuals affected by conflict, leading them to invest time and energy in pursuits that ultimately yield no real benefit.
Only then were some of the authorities I interviewed prepared to say that they had real questions about some activities, especially various forms of dialogue and conflict resolution training:
The effectiveness of nonviolent conflict resolution training for grassroots individuals in violent political conflicts is questioned, as structural violence and the actions of aggressors cannot be easily mitigated While such training may be beneficial prior to open hostility and essential for rebuilding war-torn societies, there are concerns regarding its overall impact and transferability of skills to those engaged in violence.
The "Confronting War" booklet emphasizes that conflict resolution strategies focused solely on individual change are often ineffective unless they are connected to broader socio-political actions While such programs can enhance individual knowledge and nonviolent behavior, they frequently remain isolated from the larger political context, failing to contribute to the cessation of violence or the promotion of peace.
Authorities have raised concerns about the effectiveness of informal "Track II" dialogues that lack direct ties to elite-driven peace processes These dialogues, especially those without participants capable of influencing key decision-makers, are viewed as potentially ineffective in promoting meaningful change.
Confronting War highlights a significant gap in the skills of conflict resolution and peacebuilding practitioners While they possess techniques for facilitating dialogues, training in consensus-building, and forming peace groups, they often struggle to identify the appropriate timing and context for these interventions This lack of analytical ability prevents them from understanding the underlying causes of conflict, hindering the development of bold and effective strategies that directly address these drivers.
When discussions shifted from pinpointing ineffective conflict resolution and peacebuilding techniques, the initial reluctance faded Authorities accepted the shortcomings in evaluation as a norm Consequently, several urgent concerns regarding the ineffectiveness of conflict resolution and peacebuilding efforts were highlighted.
The Political Naivety of Conflict Resolution Practitioners.
Conflict Resolution Failure to Communicate Effectively.
Inadequate conflict analysis represents a significant failure for conflict resolution practitioners, who are expected to excel in this area as part of their role in reducing political violence It is surprising that these practitioners often display political naivety, given that their primary contributions to peace involve negotiation, mediation, and nonviolent conflict resolution, all of which rely heavily on effective communication skills When practitioners lack proper analysis, exhibit naivety, and struggle to communicate effectively, it is unsurprising that their efforts to coordinate and mitigate political violence fall short.
Institutional shortcomings are a common issue across various fields, often resulting in inadequate policy implementation, insufficient resources, and unusual organizational behavior These challenges significantly hinder efforts to reduce political violence Additionally, the current unilateralist foreign policy of the USA has been criticized by experts as a setback for conflict resolution advancements and counterproductive to global efforts in mitigating political violence.
Ineffective conflict resolution and peacebuilding often stem from poor analysis, lack of coordination, and insufficient collaboration, which hinder the ability to leverage the unique strengths of various stakeholders These critical issues will be explored in detail in the following chapter, “Why ‘What Works’, Doesn’t.”
The Nature of the Beast
1 The nature of the beast – the legitimacy of violence remains a parameter working against peace;
2 The wrong objective – there is a misplaced emphasis on the resolution of conflict for those who wish to reduce violence in the world;
3 The political naivety of conflict resolution practitioners – many peace and conflict resolution workers are both soft-hearted and soft-headed , and therefore less effective in the hard-nosed world of political violence;
4 Inadequate conflict analysis – conflict resolution and peacebuilding practitioners fail to analyze conflict in a comprehensive, sophisticated, and timely way, thereby impairing risk assessment, intervention and program design, and course correction as conflict dynamics change;
Conflict Resolution’s Failure to Communicate Effectively
to mobilize political actors, war lords and potential peace lords, to take action leading to peace;
Institutional Shortcomings
of the needed political will to take action;
United States’ Unilateralism
violence as the tool of choice increases, violence in general is likely to rise That which is feared most will be created by the current reaction to fear.
9 The failure to engage women in peacemaking - just as their voice is not heard in the chambers of power, their perspective would have gone un-remarked here except for a deliberate effort to determine whether and how women can contribute to a significant reduction in political violence
1 Conflict resolution practitioners know enough, now, to be more effective in reducing the incidence and severity of political violence.
2 There is a knowledge-action gap The gap is between a) having the technical knowledge ( imperfect as it is, but sufficient to be useful) and b) getting more political actors (those who care and those who don’t) to act on that knowledge.
3 Knowing the “it” of conflict resolution is inadequate to having “it” applied The task is at another level It is a political task, not a conflict resolution technique or knowledge deficiency task per se It is a task of moving leaders to act.
4 The impasse, the gap itself, is “lack of political will”.
5 The knowledge-action gap must be bridged to improve the record of violence reduction.
6 How to create the will to prevent killing , to stop it when it has started, and to build sustainable societies in the aftermath of violence is the crucial challenge for the field now
7 Assembling and putting the best knowledge of what works into the hands of results- oriented people is part of the answer How to make leaders who care but have competing demands move a back-burner issue to the front-burner is another part of the answer How to get leaders who don’t care to care, and to act on that is a major part of the answer How to get organizations which do care and are active to work together more effectively is yet another part of the answer.
8 The skills and capacity required now to increase the effectiveness of conflict resolution by bridging the gap include political advocacy and organizational collaboration to insist that knowledge be acted upon.
9 The gap must be bridged in specific cases, and across the universe of cases Conflict resolution practice has come of age, technically, but is underutilized Practitioners are politically naive and must act now to strengthen their abilities to get traction.
Taken together, these assertions produce a Formula for Effectiveness:
1 Establish Violence Reduction as the Objective - The goal is peace; the prime objective to achieve peace should be the reduction of violence While there are many paths to take, various disciplines, methods and techniques to be applied, a passionate commitment to reduce violence will sharpen the focus of the enormous effort currently being expended on conflict resolution and peace work It will help set priorities among competing needs, help align effort, and help measure results
2 Know What Works - Knowledge of what works should be known by any responsible person or organization that sets out to do conflict resolution and peace work Failure to know what works obviously lessens effectiveness; action based on lack of knowledge may make things worse, adding unnecessary costs in lives and resources; it undermines the credibility of the field
3 Educate for Violence Reduction - There is need for a more politically realistic curriculum in “Applied Peacemaking” that focuses on the objective of reducing violence to achieve the goal of peace
4 Organize to do What Works - There are some umbrella organizations such as the
Washington-based Alliance for International Conflict Prevention and Resolution, the
European Platform for the Prevention of Conflict, and the Canadian Peacebuilding
A Coordinating Committee can enhance collaboration by facilitating joint funding proposals and highlighting comparative advantages in labor division Immediate improvements can be achieved in risk assessment and the formation of small collaborative teams that advocate for action in specific cases These teams would engage with the UN Security Council and relevant regional entities, while also partnering with credible local nongovernmental organizations to drive effective responses.
5 Evaluate Performance - A culture of systematizing the generation of knowledge, of educating practitioners on the basis of empirically tested “best practices”, of performance review, and of continuous learning does not exist in the field of conflict resolution and peacebuilding Many of the elements needed to build that culture and give form and substance to it do exist The time has come to make it happen
In this concluding section, I present several initiatives that can be implemented immediately to achieve the "formula for effectiveness." I urge collaboration among key organizations, including The Carter Center, the Washington-based Alliance for International Conflict Prevention and Resolution, the Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee, and the European Platform for Peacebuilding.
Conflict Prevention; the US Institute of Peace; the Reducing Political Violence Action Group and private foundations.
In addition to these initiatives, here are some of the direct implications of this study for individuals:
Switch your emphasis from resolving conflict to reducing violence.
Improve your political violence analysis skills now.
Conduct analytically sound, well-informed political violence risk assessments
Begin all preventive action early.
Design coordinated, multilateral and multidimensional violence reduction activities based on sound analysis that addresses the underlying structural causes of violence.
Keep security options on the table as part of a comprehensive strategy of violence reduction.
Place more emphasis on including women in all aspects of violence reduction.
Focus on obtaining political commitment to action.
Make compelling arguments for peace.
Keep intervention plans flexible as there are no fixed scenarios of political and military engagement.
Be prepared to remain engaged for long periods of time.
Include an evaluation component in your work
Develop new political violence analysis tools that lead to achievable violence reduction actions.
Conduct research on how to influence political actors to take action to reduce violence
Conduct research on how crucial to sustainable peace is the issue of deeply held grievances.
Conduct research to identify core competencies required to be effective in violence reduction.
Conduct research to clarify the role and place of violence prevention activities and development work.
Design new curriculum grounded in best practices and methods to educate and train professional conflict resolution and peacebuilding practitioners.
Place your emphasis on Violence Reduction.
Engage the expertise of conflict resolution and peacebuilding practitioners in your policy development work.
Design policy that is informed by research; clearly articulated; and capable of being implemented.
Know that the use of force will be necessary in certain cases.
Develop policies that are multilateral and multidimensional; including a women’s perspective.
Ensure that prevention projects address the underlying structural causes of direct violence.
Design policies options that include long-term engagement.
Design policies that are flexible as there are no fixed scenarios of political and military engagement.
Increase institutional capacity to handle more cases earlier, and for longer periods.
Fund activities that have an emphasis on Violence Reduction; not Conflict Resolution.
Place special priority on funding activities introduced early to prevent political violence.
Ensure that the prevention projects you fund address the underlying structural causes of direct violence.
Fund integrated multilateral and multidimensional activities that: are designed on sound analysis, include a security component; include the women’s perspective; and have an evaluation component.
Be prepared for long-term commitment of resources.
Publish and distribute successes and failures.
Demonstrate leadership in breaking the legitimacy of violence and the stubborn belief that it is inevitable.
Emphasize to your constituency that political objectives can usually be effectively achieved with nonviolent methods.
Appeal to the public for support which will increase your capacity to address violence at home and abroad.
Work multilaterally and within the law to reduce political violence.
Choose to act more often, earlier, and for longer to better achieve the objective of reducing political violence.
Keep military options on the table, not as separate strategies, but as part of the comprehensive strategy of engagement
Be prepared for long-term engagement and commitment of resources.
Take actions to reduce the legitimacy and glorification of violence.
Say “No” to illegitimate uses of violence.
Refuse to accept that violence is inevitable in human relations.
Support society to build skills and mechanisms for the nonviolent resolution of conflict.
Keep pressure on governments and leaders to have them intervene in cases of violent conflict.
Accept and support the legitimate use of force as a tool to stop violence so that peace may be built.
Put your financial and moral support behind long-term involvement when it is needed.
Take training in the analysis of violence.
Report on political violence in a responsible, informative, accurate, and balanced way.
Test that your reporting of the story:
Was more responsible because you:
Provided a neutral forum for all sides involved
Used inquiry to attack the problem, not the people
Avoided simplistic representations of heroes and villains
Reported areas of agreement as well as disagreement
Maintained coverage by monitoring events through to conclusion and doing follow-up
Was more informative because you:
Used information in an accurate and balanced way
Obtained views from all the parties involved
Used metaphors that fit, rather than escalatory or de-escalatory language
Reported it as it is
Enriched reader’s understanding because you:
Identified the interests, values, objectives and limitations involved
Used questioning techniques that encouraged explanation and disclosure
Broadened the perspective from which the story could be viewed, probing for possible solutions.
Effective planning and execution in conflict resolution and peacebuilding are now guided by substantial knowledge, enabling a reduction in political violence globally Research by Gurr, Hampson, Lund, and Paris highlights specific actions for preventing violence, halting ongoing conflicts, and rebuilding societies affected by war There is a consensus on the causes of political violence and the necessary steps for both governmental and nongovernmental entities to take This includes a clear process for mediating peace accords, essential components for inclusion in agreements, and a sequenced approach to stabilize and reconstruct war-torn communities.
While it is challenging to definitively claim that any specific intervention technique will be effective in every situation, research indicates that customized interventions are essential for success Nevertheless, it is evident that certain strategies in prevention, mediation, and post-violence peacebuilding have proven to be effective.
This study highlights that the persistent issue of "lack of political will" undermines the efforts of dedicated individuals aiming to reduce political violence globally To effectively bridge the gap between knowledge and action, peace activists and conflict resolution professionals must tackle significant criticisms head-on There is an urgent need for enhanced conflict analysis, and political barriers to peace initiatives must be approached with renewed realism, skills, and energy A more integrated, nuanced, and sustained approach is essential for preventing political violence, mediating resolutions, and rebuilding societies affected by war.
THE ASSERTIONS
ACTIONS TO REDUCE POLITICAL VIOLENCE
Organizations engaged in conflict resolution and peacebuilding can implement three key initiatives to effectively reduce political violence, utilizing their existing resources The core of these initiatives lies in enhancing organizational alignment rather than increasing bureaucracy or diminishing research efforts It is essential to establish a structured approach that facilitates efficient service delivery, fosters a culture of accountability, encourages the acknowledgment and learning from mistakes, builds upon past successes, and asserts the necessary political influence to create a meaningful impact on political violence.
Three broad initiatives to begin now, each containing practical components, are:
Collaborate Now to Reduce Political Violence
3 Fund for Success in Reducing Political Violence
Securing funding is the essential first step toward achieving success, but it is crucial to first comprehend what requires funding Consequently, I will reserve the discussion on funding for success until the conclusion of this article.
1 Organize Immediately for Continuous Learning a) The International Academy for the Reduction of Political Violence
The current landscape of conflict resolution and peacebuilding features numerous research centers and training institutes; however, it lacks a cohesive approach to effectively teach methods for reducing political violence and fostering continuous learning from practical experiences Therefore, the establishment of a new virtual organization is essential This initiative could enhance collaboration among entities like the United States Institute of Peace and the Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee, ultimately promoting more effective strategies in the field.
Committee, the European Platform for the Prevention of Conflict, the Alliance for
The International Conflict Prevention and Resolution should establish The International Academy for the Reduction of Political Violence by commissioning the Reducing Political Violence Action Group to unite leading peace and conflict research centers This Academy, funded for an initial five-year term subject to evaluation by sponsors, will be responsible for the annual assembly and dissemination of effective strategies in accessible formats for various key audiences, including practitioners, scholars, political leaders, funding bodies, policymakers, and the media Additionally, the Academy will build on evaluation efforts by INCORE and others, collaborating with funding bodies to formulate a comprehensive Political Violence Reduction strategy.
Evaluation Framework and disseminate it broadly. v) The Academy should undertake a consultative process to establish an internally agreed
The Academy must establish a comprehensive Code of Ethics for Conflict Resolution and Peace Workers, ensuring its publication and dissemination It should identify and widely distribute the core competencies essential for effective violence reduction to academic and training institutions Additionally, the Academy is tasked with analyzing and sharing the results of evaluations from various projects in the field Identifying pressing research questions for the academic community is crucial All conflict resolution projects should incorporate an evaluation component based on the Academy's Code of Conduct, fostering a culture of reflective practice among project managers Funders must align evaluation efforts with project scale and provide necessary resources Evaluation results should be summarized and communicated to the Academy for synthesis, directing future research inquiries Recognizing the challenging nature of conflict resolution, the Academy should create mechanisms to identify and reward innovative practices Furthermore, graduate programs in Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding must integrate courses on essential competencies, ensuring graduates are well-equipped with practical skills and current best practices Public education on effective violence reduction strategies and key issues is also vital.
2 Collaborate Now to Reduce Political Violence
Service providers active in each of the three main elements of violence reduction work
To enhance the effectiveness of violence prevention, mediation, and post-violence peacebuilding efforts, key collaborators in each area should engage in a triage exercise This approach involves deliberately selecting cases based on comprehensive analysis and an assessment of their appropriateness, guided by current knowledge of effective strategies.
A consortium of leading organizations focused on Early Warning and Prevention should be established under The Carter Center to identify three high-risk cases and implement a comprehensive intervention strategy This initiative must involve collaboration with the UN, World Bank, and relevant regional and national governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders The outcomes of this effort should be evaluated, and the insights gained should be shared with the Academy for the Reduction of Political Violence for further analysis and dissemination.
The ongoing mediation efforts to resolve the civil war in Sudan are being led by the IGAD team based in Kenya, with support from the United States, United Kingdom, Norway, and Italy It is crucial to initiate a process and outcome evaluation of this collaborative endeavor immediately, with the findings shared with the Academy for the Reduction of Violence for in-depth analysis and wider distribution This step is essential for effective post-violence peacebuilding.
Rebuilding war-torn Sudan, contingent on a peace agreement, will require a complex, long-term effort involving multiple actors and levels The UN Task Force, alongside the UNDPA, UNDP, UNDPKO, and key state and non-governmental organizations, as well as the World Bank and IMF, should lead a coordinated initiative under the guidance of a Special Representative.
The Representative of the Secretary General emphasizes the importance of annually evaluating efforts and sharing lessons learned with the Academy for further analysis and dissemination Notable examples include Liberia and Guatemala Additionally, there is a call to actively lobby for the reduction of political violence.
Achieving success in reducing political violence hinges on gaining political traction and bridging the knowledge-action gap Practitioners must enhance their access to political actors and develop peace advocacy skills Organizations involved in conflict resolution should establish a strong presence in political centers, such as national capitals, through direct engagement or representation by entities like the Alliance for International Conflict Prevention and Resolution, the European Platform for the Prevention of Conflict, and the Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee Additionally, the Alliance should create a guide on effective lobbying strategies to empower members of the conflict resolution and peace communities.
This user-friendly booklet should outline the principle strategies and techniques of lobbying and peace advocacy, including:
Collaborating and networking for effectiveness
How to influence decision-makers
Maintaining relations with policy makers
To enhance the effectiveness of peace and conflict resolution initiatives, it is crucial to draw lessons from successful movements in human rights, health, and environmental advocacy The work of PEACE X PEACE in mobilizing women's participation globally warrants dedicated funding from the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and prominent private foundations Additionally, the insights gained from these efforts should be shared with the Academy for comprehensive analysis and dissemination.
Fund for Effectiveness
The Reducing Political Violence Action Group invites donors and private foundations supporting conflict resolution and peacebuilding to engage in an informative dialogue about effective strategies derived from recent studies This collaboration aims to explore practical actions recommended in key research and establish a forum to align on specific objectives for impactful peacebuilding initiatives.
Funding for the Academy for the Reduction of Political Violence for a five year term
Contributing to the elements of an evaluation framework.
Establishing an internal mechanism for communicating areas of focus and priorities to one another and agreeing to a preferred method of collaborating on specific initiatives.
Over the past three decades, the feminist movement in the United States has significantly transformed public perceptions of sexual and domestic violence, as noted by Herman (2002) This shift involved redefining these crimes from being seen as isolated incidents of passion to recognizing them as systemic issues aimed at maintaining women's subordination As awareness of domestic violence has grown and more services and legal protections have emerged, societal tolerance for such violence has decreased, leading to an increase in the number of women who are able to leave abusive relationships sooner.
For insights on conflict prevention, refer to Hampson and Malone (2002), which discusses opportunities for the UN State System For formal mediation processes, consult Greenberg, Baton, and McGuinness (2000) in "Words Over War," which emphasizes mediation and arbitration to avert deadly conflicts Miall and Woodhouse (2002) provide characteristics of successful settlements in "Searching for Peace in Europe and Eurasia." For a structured approach to post-conflict peacebuilding, Lund (2003) offers a detailed prescription in "What Kind of Peace is Being Built?" Lastly, Paris critiques post-conflict peacebuilding assumptions in "Wilson’s Ghost" from "Turbulent Peace: The Challenges of Managing International Conflict" (2001).
Herman (2002, p 8) emphasizes that there is no universal solution to ending domestic violence, highlighting that appeasement is ineffective Research indicates that most offenders only react to firm and decisive actions taken by authorities Effective interventions can include civil protection orders, police arrests, or, in severe situations, criminal prosecution.
The complexity of political violence necessitates a tailored approach rather than a standardized solution, as evidenced by both the literature and interviews with authorities Unlike established medical procedures, interventions against political violence cannot follow a rigid, one-size-fits-all methodology due to the fluid and varied nature of the issue Continuous analysis, clinical judgment, and adaptability in designing and implementing strategies are essential While risks and the possibility of failure exist, certain strategies have proven effective in specific contexts, while others may be less effective or even counterproductive.
I have adopted the standard established by SIPRI; that is: 100 deaths per year constitutes “war” See Eriksson;
In their 2002 SIPRI Yearbook, Sollenberg and Wallensteen highlight the limitations of conventional death counts as a measure of war's societal impact Marshall argues that these figures trivialize the true effects of warfare, undermining a comprehensive humanistic analysis He identifies key impacts of direct violence, including human resource depletion, population dislocation, disruption of societal networks, environmental degradation, infrastructure damage, and declines in quality of life This critique underscores the oversimplification in SIPRI's definition of war, which is based solely on a threshold of one hundred deaths annually Despite these challenges, Wallensteen and colleagues echo the findings of Gurr and Marshall, indicating a downward trend in political violence.
The estimated spending figures of 925 billion USD on war and 80 billion USD on peace highlight the ongoing debate over budget allocation Classifying expenditures into these categories can be contentious, particularly as the USA's recent budget for "homeland security" encompasses defensive measures alongside more aggressive initiatives.
The "war on terror" raises a complex debate about its classification as a peace or war initiative After careful consideration, I categorized it under the peace column, albeit with a slight adjustment of reducing the peace budget estimate by three billion For further insights on UN peacekeeping budgets and overall military spending, refer to Galtung, Jacobsen, and Brand-Jacobsen's (2002) work, "Searching for Peace: The Road to Transcend."
The peacekeeping community was among the first to conduct "lessons learned" studies, beginning in 1991 with assessments of peacekeeping's role in conflict resolution Notable works include Fetherston's 1991 study on problem-solving workshops in conflict resolution and Kenneth Bush's 1998 research on conflict impact assessment in development projects within conflict zones Following the failures in Rwanda and Somalia, there was an increased focus on the effectiveness of peacekeeping efforts, prompting both donors and practitioners to engage in more reflective practices, leading to improved strategies in the field.
Johan Galtung, often regarded as the grandfather of peace studies, highlights the critical distinction between direct and structural forms of violence in his works, including "Violence and Peace" (1990) and "Peace Research, Peace Studies and Peace as Profession" (1991) Through his development work in underdeveloped nations, Galtung observed that even after intertribal conflicts ceased, violence persisted due to social, political, and economic structures This ongoing violence can be measured through indicators such as infant mortality rates, life expectancy, disease prevalence, and the marginalization of specific groups, underscoring the need for a comprehensive understanding of peace that transcends mere absence of conflict.
For an in-depth exploration of the interplay between theory and practice in the measurement of applied efforts, refer to Levy's chapter "Contending Theories of International Conflict: A Levels-of-Analysis Approach" in *Managing Global Chaos: Sources of Responses to International Conflict*, as well as Clements' work in *Searching for Peace in Europe and Eurasia* Additionally, for the latest comprehensive evaluation of conflict resolution interventions, consult Church and Shouldice's 2002 publication, *The Evaluation of Conflict Resolution Interventions: Framing the State of Play*, along with resources available on INCORE's website.
Anderson and Olsen (2003) provide a critical examination of conflict analysis at the community level in their work, *Confronting War* For an in-depth exploration of prevention strategies and policy implications, refer to Hempson and Malone's (2002) study, *From Reaction to Conflict Prevention: Opportunities for the UN State System* Additionally, Crocker’s (2001) chapter, “Intervention: Toward Best Practices and a Holistic View,” featured in *Turbulent Peace*, offers a concise overview of the interplay between analysis, policy, and intervention.
Triage, as advocated by Cockell (2002), emphasizes the necessity of initiating preventive actions early in situations identified as at risk, a sentiment echoed by Galtung et al (2002) in their discussions on comprehensive early interventions However, Luck (2002) presents a contrasting perspective, arguing against early structural interventions due to the practical limitations of the UN system, which lacks enforcement capabilities He recommends a focus on crisis intervention and conflict resolution techniques that have historically been part of preventive measures This debate extends to the distinction between long-term structural activities in health, education, and economics, and immediate violence prevention efforts, such as preventative diplomacy and interventions like sanctions and peacekeeping deployments My perspective aligns with Luck’s, advocating for relatively short-term interventions while acknowledging Gurr’s concerns regarding the efficacy of such approaches.
The UN State System highlights a significant gap in reliable risk assessments for crises that are projected to occur beyond one or two years Consequently, UN officials and major power policymakers tend to allocate the majority of their limited political and material resources to addressing immediate crises, rather than preparing for potential future challenges.
12 See Zellner, (2002, pg 10) “The OSCE: Uniquely Qualified for a conflict Prevention Role”, in Searching for Peace in Europe and Eurasia.
The critique of conflict resolution and peacebuilding practices highlights a significant lack of coordination and organization, which hinders the maximization of the comparative advantages offered by various service providers This absence of a cohesive theoretical framework is evident in the literature, particularly in Clement’s (2002) article, “The State of the Art of Conflict Transformation,” featured in Searching for Peace in Europe and Eurasia.