Realities of Peace Management

To achieve peace on a global scale a few realities need to take root: - Armies give security not peace. - Leaders need to keep talking no matter what takes place. - No country or person is above the law – respect is the issue here. - The adhoc manner in which we deal with conflicts needs to change. Take any current conflict and each of the above points will clearly standout where mistakes are made. At the outset of a conflict, the third point is often the fuel for unrest to begin. In broader terms the rule of law speaks to fairness and when people live with the feeling of imbalance long enough, they begin to protest. For examples we can look at Ukraine, Syria, Yemen and Burundi. Also we can not ignore the unrest in many communities of RUSA such as in Baltimore, Maryland. These protests present leaders of the community and these leaders must be listened to. Unfortunately this step is often missed. The reasons or causes for the miscommunication rests with two factors – time and panic. It takes quick action to quell the swell of emotions. This quick action leads to panic on both sides. From there the people begin to rally and hold demonstrations. Again this is the opportunity to talk and set solutions in motion. What we often experience is the rush to arms. Police or military are moved in due to panic on both sides. This is when we hear the tag lines that peace must be restored. In fact peace was broken well before the demonstrations happen. What is being sought is security. That security will allow time for peace talks to find solutions. The above paragraph is the process that usually takes place. If leaders are interested in finding solutions, taking responsibility and taking charge greater efforts must be made. These efforts (discussions to find solutions) need to happen well before the swell of emotions rises to the level of public protests. All too often we allow such protests to spin out of control. This is due again to the panic people feel from the unknown of what to do and little or no hope of improvement. What is clear is that peace is a constant, fluid process. Ultimately the constant need of focus on peace is the main reason peace efforts often fail. The efforts of peace are deemed unnecessary when life seems to run quite predictably. The lull of order allows for discussion to be viewed as tedious. Once that mentality sets in, issues go unchecked, communication is lost and anger rises. The Arab Spring movement is a great example of the breakdown in peace management amongst government, business and society. The second point of the list is encompasses in respect. Each of us have laws, rules and guidelines to follow. These are in place to provide structure and a sense of knowledge about the future. When these are not adhered to, the entire system is thrown into question. For example the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 put the entire global system of law into question. From there a complete distrust in leadership had given rise to Arab Spring, the fall of Syria and the worldwide turmoil of Islamic State. Had certain people adhered to the rule of law and the guidelines of international law the world would be a very different place today. In the context of law, we have the capacity to take actions when governments use questionable methods. Unfortunately the laws or guidelines are thrown aside for reasons that are centralized on a one sided perception of righting a wrong and a peace process takes too long. Also, these processes again take great effort. However the need for quick action puts panic into the minds of leaders. This panic leads to adhoc methods, questionable actions, less communication and disrespect of law. The opening four points are not the total list of needs for peace to take root. The complete list would include insanity. For every effort of peace we must take into account the acts of insane people. Clearly such situations are part of life and cannot be foretold. However in the process of peace, such factors can be mitigated. This is why we must be diligent in our efforts to keep talking, respect laws and manage peaceful solutions. The recent talks held between RUSA and Russia has shown some promise of a respectful peace process finally taking place.

Pan African Peace

Continental peace in Africa has been a dream for centuries. To be fair not many continents experience overall peace. In truth not many countries experience peace either. However the hope for peace in Africa has been a goal of international relations for centuries. As with many such issues, the complexity of such a goal can paralyse the mind. Peace in Africa has many hurdles and the most important are the leaders. Take for example Burundi. Here is a country that could have peace if one person would set his own desires aside. The Burundi scenario plays out in many countries and is the most crucial component of continued chaos. The personal agendas of political or military leaders have subverted peaceful transitions. Furthermore, many African countries must deal with neighbouring conflicts as well. For example Libyan collapse filtered into several countries. Also the chaos in Yemen will filter into both Sudans, Somalia and other East African countries. These international factors only complicate already complex situations. There are various efforts/organizations working to bring stability to these conflicts. The largest of these are the United Nations, African Union, regional groups and international organizations. Each of these groups and organizations are stretched to the limit as each country need tremendous resources. However the largest resource in need cost no money and that resource is peace. All too often we endure individuals who fight to hold on to power for no good reason and Burundi is an example of this. In other cases the failure comes from a lack of vision to prepare others for the transition of power. These factors cost the least money and give the best results. What stands in the way is the ego of leaders who want to build a legacy. In truth the legacy quickly turns into chaos and the person is just another hurdle to peace. The classic African example is Zimbabwe and Libya. Each of those countries had great chances of peace yet the leaders failed to prepare for that reality. Egypt is in the middle of such a situation. With Egypt, the neighbouring countries have a major impact. Included is the influx of Islamic State across the Middle East and Northern Africa, this group will have its impact as well. Other groups have been causing havoc in many African states such as Al Qeada, Boko Haram, and Lords Resistance Army are the most notable examples. For a continent that is well known for its warlords, poor peace transitions and bad government, ironically the United Nations had two African born Secretary-Generals. Sadly, there are leaders that could bring peace to many countries. The problem rest with the violence that creates enough chaos to make organizing peaceful transition almost impossible. The few leaders that keep the chaos ongoing are masters of spin and fear. Such leaders hold on to power by making enemies and telling lies. It is that last statement which is the crux of every conflict in the world. For a Pan African Peace to take hold there will need to be a few key countries to withstand a peaceful transition of power. There is no bigger player than the Democratic Republic of Congo. The size and resources of the DR Congo are elements which have great influence. If the DR Congo were to maintain a peaceful society, that would stabilize a vast territory on the African continent. The methods to bring peace are well known. The list of reasons why peace has not been achieved are the same as every other war. The number one reason is that leaders are not interested in peace.

Silk Road Rejuvenation.

For those that know about the Silk Road and/or the Orient Express train route, there is a great history of culture, trade, tourism, adventure and war. The traditional routes go above, below and through the Caspian Sea. This rejuvenation will also entail energy trade (oil/gas pipelines) along the traditional routes as well as from the South China Sea into Central Asia. With the rejuvenation there is an economic area spanning from Indonesia to Ethiopia to Central Europe to North China. This is a huge area experiencing great obstacles. The major obstacles are the well known wars which have raged on for decades if not centuries. The Afghanistan war stretches into all neighbouring countries. Iran, Syria and Iraq has put huge questions into trade with anyone for quite some time. Ethiopia and East Africa has endured millenniums of strife. Lastly the unease amongst the countries surrounding the South China Sea also has impacts on the new trade efforts. On the plus side there are two major economic forces which are working to find solutions. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) is one force. The other is a new development called the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Now these efforts will employ a version of trickle down economics. We know from experience that the top down format of trickle down economics has not been as great a saviour as we had hoped. In the last twenty years of peacebuilding we have understood the need for a multilevel approach to society. Such a topic will get extremely complex very quickly. The management of this complexity is what will be of utmost importance. At present there are a number of phrases that relate to this complexity such as, All of government approach, 3D approach (development, diplomacy, disarmament), sector security reform, community based approach, micro lending, corporate social responsibility (CSR), multinational agreements and many others. The BRICS economic group has been around for some time. The AIIB is very new, actually still being formulated. However the support being put into AIIB has been rumoured at $146 billion (US$) and that is just the beginning of the pledges. Both of these groups will no doubt work together and that will produce a very large and influential group. During the next decade or so, we will experience the emergence of this new partnership. As always great things can be done to advance our entire world towards peace. Such a journey will have its share of difficulties. Already opposition to the emerging economic partnership has caused rifts amongst countries. Some see these new partnerships as a slow power grab or at least influence when large economies begin to work with the smallest economies. These situations are common place and defined in a phrase known as Tied Aid, which is illegal. Tied Aid is the practice of donating money to a country with the condition of spending that money in the donor country. Sometimes the tie is to secure a countries support on certain topics, basically a bribe. There are many pitfalls and positives as always. Either way we are in for an amazing time as the rejuvenation of an ancient trade route is reopened.

Common sense in Peacebuilding

Often when we are in conversation we talk of a collective wisdom that refers to an easy solution or understanding that was not taken – common sense. For example common sense tells us to not stand in front of a moving object, more so when that object can cause great harm to us. Even though common sense/wisdom can be a positive influence, it is often just useless points of destructive thought. Often when a phrase of common sense is uttered, the intention is to point out a failure after the damage has been done. On the positive influence of common sense, in the realm of peacebuilding common sense tells us to not kill or even shoot at another. Common sense tells us to talk with each other. We are to work out our issues using calm resolve in concert with those around us. What we are not to do is make enemies of the other who is in the same situation with you. However, such ideology is exactly what we are not getting in many of the wars taking place. What does common sense tell us about the current wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Ukraine and Palestine? The first realization is that peacebuilding efforts usually take decades to complete. One of the fastest peace building efforts has taken place in Tajikistan. Japan and other countries held firm to peace negotiations during 1994-1997. A recent article written by Farrukh Usmonov of University of Tsukuba, Tokyo provides a great insight to a peacebuilding success. At the very root of the peacebuilding success is the singular fact that the Tajikistan parties resolved to stop and prevent further conflict. The focus was on the process of negotiation and achieve peace. Peace became a reality when leaders of all put national interests higher than regional and personal gains. During peacebuilding efforts the issue of weapons is a vital component. The solution is easy to speak about but very difficult to implement. The solution is to have a complete ban on all weapons. Farrukh Usmonov wrote about this in the article, below is a quote for that article. “Tajik negotiation, stated to respect signed military protocol and stop the rearming of soldiers/citizens. Such cases are often present in post conflict. Thus, parties had to understand that even if a single citizen has a weapon, if each side tries to hide weapons it may cause mistrust and may add problems to solve issue, which again may harm society. That is not an easy process and it may take several months, however parties do not have any choice but to implement de-weaponization and complete it by given period of time. That is why, military protocol, which obliged leaders of opposition to dissolve their various military groups, were crucial for post-conflict period in Tajikistan.” In many of my past writings the need for a complete ban on weapons has been pointed out. The efforts to achieve this goal produces great results and speeds up the process. Sadly it is rare that such efforts are made due to the difficulties involved. It is easier to prolong the violence than to collect the tools of war. Thus we have many wars that rage on for years due to the laziness of those who are called leaders. Well to be fair it is not just laziness, there is a great deal of mistrust that exists. No one wants to be the first to lower their weapons. The method to a total ban is to slowly implement such a plan. This is the philosophy behind no fly zones and ceasefire agreements. When we are involved in the chaos of war, common sense can help us. However for the most part common sense has pushed us to kill each other. The sense that we need to use is the one that seeks to build a peaceful society. Rare are the situations such as took place in Tajikistan. We can only hope and pray that such sense overcomes the leaders in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Israel and other war torn places.

Two State or Multiple Solution?

Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran have been dealing with the Kurdish peoples desire to have their own state for many years. That reality is shaping into being due to the recent collapse of Syria and Iraq. Not only is the possibility there for a Kurdis state but also a Sunni state in Iraq. In 2007 many people talked about the breakup of Iraq into three separate parts. During those times it was seen as insane to create three separate states. The reason being is that the three would be in a constant war scenario. Lost in that argument is that fact that Iraq was already in a constant war scenario. Here we are almost ten years later, still at war and still in dire need of solutions. The method of shooting our way through has only made things worse for the entire world. As we go back to seek another solution, the multi-state issue has cropped up again. Looking at the multi-state solution was not popular in with the Palestine/Israel conflict for many years either. Over time the reality has given leaders the wisdom of peace to understand that was the only real option to begin with. The same wisdom has just started to settle into the minds of those looking into the future of Iraq. Has the time come for the breakup of Iraq? To some extent Iraq has already broken up. For those that are fighting within Iraq they may believe that they are fighting for their state - such as Kurdistan. This scenario will be one of great complexity added to an already complex environment of chaos.

The rule of law?

The “Rule of Law” That sentiment is a base line for many governments and partnering agencies when building/forming societies. At the very root (the bottom to top structure) of a society is the reason a single person follows the rules of law. For the top down structure example, we have what Nazism did in Germany during the 1930’s. That example is what an organization can do when using every law properly and then, take hold of the governing power. With that example it is clear to see why “the rule of law” is not the only factor in having a peaceful society. The other factors rests in the ideology and morals of a person and organizations. Again, in simple terms, the rule of law is only as good as the moral law of the people. As was written in previous postings, the system of governance is not the issue. The issue rests with the people who operate/lead a system/society. Who a person listens to, follows, sees as an authority is very important. There is no greater example than the recruitment of soldiers to Islamic State. What rule of law are these people following? For the recruitment of soldiers, it is (in very simple terms) a psychological war, a war of education and shaping minds. The “Rule of Law” is an ideology which preaches peace, order and predictable outcomes. As with the Nazism example we know how the rule of law can be manipulated. Furthermore and more destructive is when the rule of law is completely ignored by those who preach such realities. Many of my past writings point to the many illegal actions of the Permanent Five Members of the United Nations Security Council (P5). In light of those actions, the formation of groups such as Islamic State are not shocking. The world has dealt with decades of proxy wars fought on behalf of the members of the P5 United Nations Security Council. During this time, the world has believed that might is right and now Islamic State is exercising that right. What rule of law is left to follow now? The P5 security leaders of the world do not follow the rules so why should anyone else? Here we are with a major global threat that was cultivated through the constant arrogance of the P5. The reality of today is a culmination of misguided actions. The Syrian situation is an example of such arrogance and misguided actions. On 26 Feb 2012 there was a referendum to change the constitution of Syria. The next day the civil war escalated with great ferocity. Russia supported the governing power while the Republic of the United States of America (RUSA) supported the rebels. Thus a proxy war taking place. The chaos that has ensued allowed the Islamic State to prosper. With a global situation that is worse than it was before, leaders are resorting to the one tactic which is a foundation of the “rule of law”. That tactic is to talk to eachother. At the beginning of the Syrian war many leaders said that such a tactic is useless. In reality peace talks are only as good as the moral intentions of the people doing the talking. At the outset of the Syrian war the only people that needed to be at the table were the current government leaders of Syria and the P5 members. Six people is all that was needed to solve the problem. Today, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Turkey, Palestine, Israel, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and others have a good reason to be involved in such talks. The “rule of law” preaches that killing is a destructive act to society. However that law was ignored in the case of Syria and killing is what is taking place. The “rule of law” in Syria at this moment is “might makes right”. That method to the “rule of law” was taught by the P5 members, the very societies which were to uphold the ideology of peaceful society rooted in the “rule of law”. Hypocrisy, insanity and idiocy all mixed together is the only way to describe the leadership of the P5.

Chaos reigns from Mali to Afghanistan - Peace was the reason.

We are to learn from our experiences as wisdom tells us. Why do our leaders continue to use violence to bring peace? For example, the current band of insanity waging chaos known as Islamic State. This group of zealots have roots in Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Iran, Palestine, etc… Each of these places have been and still are hot zones of conflict. Each area has been on the international hit list of major military operations to bring peace. Each area has seen a military solution of killing. The quote below is a very popular ideology shared by Islamic State, Russia, RUSA and almost every warlord out there: “the only way to have any effect in this region and turn the tide is start killing...killing so many that the media can’t hide the fact that soldiers are returning to their motherland in body bags.” That quote has been altered but the core of its meaning remains steadfastly unaltered. Here is the link to the original quote, http://rt.com/usa/240829-kill-russians-fox-general-defiant/ At some point we must understand that violence is a breeding ground for hatred. The birth of Islamic State is a huge shining example of the poor leadership we are getting in regards to solving any major social uprising. When the Jasmine Revolution sprang into the Arab Spring, there was so much hope for peaceful transitions. Now we are not sure who is responsible for firing the first bullets. Some believe that protesters fired upon the civilians to spark a war, blame government forces and sit back as the chaos ensued. In other areas we had international forces engage in bombing raids such as Libya in 2011: Canadian foreign minister at the time, John Baird scribbled "Free Libya. Democracy" on one of our bombs before it was dropped on Gadhafi's crumbling forces. Whatever befell Libya, Baird predicted, "wouldn't be any worse than Col. Gadhafi." http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/before-canada-goes-too-far-into-iraq-remember-libya-afghanistan-1.2991218 Even in my postings during 2011, I was aware of the dangers of a power vacuum being created in Libya and Syria. We had a chance to talk our way through the transition but our leaders decided to shoot their way out. Well that strategy has brought us at least another decade of civil war in Libya, has destabilized North and West Africa to the point where we have a corridor of chaos stretching from Mali to Afghanistan. This enormous swath of chaos has been cultivated by politicians who have chosen to shoot their way to peace. As for the Ukraine, the only hope we have here is that it has both Russia and RUSA fighting eachother – proxy wars. Due to this fact an all out war is most likely not going to take place. Sadly it will drag on for a very long time. Here we are being lead into chaos by insane leaders speaking about peace as our decent into hell draws nearer. For what purpose? To what end? Furthermore, who is paying the price – civilians, children and the soldiers who follow orders.