Citizen Peacebuilding Movements

HUMAN SECURITY JOURNAL Volume 7, Summer 2008 REVUE DE LA SÉCURITÉ HUMAINEHUMAN SECURITY JOURNAL Volume 7, Summer 2008 REVUE DE LA SÉCURITÉ HUMAINE

▪ 80 ▪

Diplomacy and human security are two unlikely approaches to compare; their basic philosophies and practices seem

absolute contradictory. Diplomacy is the formal instrument and craft of inter-state relations and human security, the fill-in concept when states fail or are inadequate in protecting their citizens. It seems that the latter comes in when the former fails. Diplomacy and human security do not seem to have much in common. The common belief is that the protection of human rights and security concerns are more opposing philosophies than partners in the prevention, managing and resolution of conflicts. However, this simple opinion, while holding some truth, might be premature. When taking a second look, one can find quite some striking similarities and discover that these concepts are more complimentary than exclusive in dealing with conflicts. This article aims to look at these theories and discuss some of

these similarities between multi-track diplomacy and human security and how they can advance the knowledge and practice of dealing with the management, resolution and prevention of different complex conflicts and crises around the world.

evolution of theory and practice

While it has been around for a couple decades, the concept of human security only recently gained more attention. The end of the cold war and the preoccupation with the power struggle between East and West has given more salience to human security, along with growing globalization and the increase of natural disasters and outbreaks of disease. At the same time, issues like protection of the environment are still usually considered noble post-modern common good problems that are only at the very top-end of aesthetic needs in Abraham

Multi-Track Diplomacy and Human Security

The concept of human security and Multi-Track Diplomacy are often seen as specific and marginal applications within the more established disciplines and discourse on human rights and traditional diplomacy. However, these theories and practices are indicators of wider ongoing social changes that can advance the traditional debates and applications to better solve the conflicts of the 21st century.

Daniel Wehrenfennig

Daniel Wehrenfennig is a PhD candidate in Political Science at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). His thesis re-search concentrates on the role of citizen dialogue and second track diplomacy in conflict management. His recent work has been published by Peace Review and the University of California Press.

Global Images

HUMAN SECURITY JOURNAL Volume 7, Summer 2008 REVUE DE LA SÉCURITÉ HUMAINEHUMAN SECURITY JOURNAL Volume 7, Summer 2008

▪ 81 ▪

REVUE DE LA SÉCURITÉ HUMAINE

Maslow's hierarchies of needs. Nevertheless, recent catastrophes have shifted the perspective to see the connection of such issues with basic psychological and safety needs like security, shelter and food. Wars over vital resources like clean-water are yet to come, yet one can already see how environmental degradation, poverty or food quality can be the key conflict triggers of the future. However, states are still around and are dealing (or at least trying to deal) with many of these basic human security issues. So, besides expanding the perspectives of security and needs in the above named areas, what can one learn from the human security debate? And is there anything that has ramifications for the conventional issues of conflict management and diplomacy?

To answer these questions, one needs to look at the theory and development of diplomacy in the context of conflict management. Here one can find a first surprising similarity between diplomacy and human security: it seems that just as human security has evolved from the traditional human rights and security dialogue, traditional state-diplomacy has had a similar evolution in the form of multi-track dialogue approaches. Traditional diplomacy, or First Track Diplomacy, concentrates on dialogue between officials in a conflict. This means mostly politicians and high-ranking military personnel in a nation-state centered perspective. This was the system in which diplomacy was first established. However, as a result of the growing complexity of inter-state relations in a more globalized as well as localized world, many traditional approaches to diplomacy were revised. As Harold Saunders puts it, "relationships among countries and groups are increasingly a political process of continuous interaction among significant elements of whole bodies politic across permeable borders that sovereign states no longer fully control."1 People realized that the "world is changing but conceptual paradigms have not kept pace."2

Under the name of Second Track Diplomacy3 or non-governmental peace management, many unofficial diplomatic processes arose. These try to include more people than just the figureheads in the governments and are more concerned with the reestablishing of relationships between

parties to the conflict than bargaining over specifics. However, these approaches mostly view themselves as supplements or extensions to existing state-diplomacy (First Track Diplomacy) and not as counter concepts. Further new approaches, all gathered under the name of Multi-Track Diplomacy,4 have identified eight different tracks (issue areas and groups) besides traditional diplomacy as pertinent to peace building. These include business, media and religion. Half Track Diplomacy approaches combine some of the groups and issues, yielding an even larger number. In particular, Second Track Diplomacy has many similarities to human security. It is built on the paradigm that states alone and their action cannot bring change. Similar to the Canadian perspective on human security (freedom from fear), Second Track Diplomacy considers the question of failing state efforts. What happens if the peace and resolution process does not work on a state level? More in line with traditional diplomacy and different from some human security approaches, multi-track approaches do not rule out the state but work alongside of it. As Hal Saunders puts it, "governments will not succeed in making and building peace unless citizens outside government do their essential part of changing human relationships."5

This article argues that there are four points, all related to each other, which one can learn from this debate and the comparison of human security and Multi-Track Diplomacy: first, the need for a more holistic picture of conflicts; second, the necessity of a more insightful analysis of new actors and their objectives; third, the importance of new network strategies; fourth, the significance of an orientation toward long-term resolution versus short-term bargaining.

holistic picture of conflicts

What does a holistic picture of conflicts mean? First of all, it means identifying conflicts not only when they become visible through physical violence between adversary groups. It is interesting to observe how the newer literature of conflict studies, peace studies and human security

Daniel Wehrenfennig


▪ 82 ▪

seem to follow the same trajectory in identifying and dealing with identification of different stages in conflict.

Table 1

ConflictPrevention

Conflict Management

Conflict Resolution

Peace Keeping

Peace Making

Peace Building

Responsibility to Prevent

Responsibility to Protect

Responsibilityto Rebuild

The perspective on conflicts has expanded. Traditional diplomacy and conflict management were (and often are) mainly concerned with the ending of existing violence or the avoidance of war (given an already high level of animosity). However, human security approaches focus very much on a prevention level of conflicts (environmental issues, infectious diseases, poverty) or a rebuilding perspective (landmines, tsunami relief and reconstruction). Instead of managing conflicts these approaches try to avoid or remove them. Similarly Second Track Diplomacy is less concerned with the negotiating of conflict issues than with the reestablishing of relationships to rebuild trust between conflict parties, thus hoping to prevent further conflict and make change more sustainable.

Conflict management is much more complex than just negotiating the end of active violence. The prevention of new disagreements as well as the rebuilding and restoring of relationships and a shared lifeworld are needed. Here human security and the new multi-track approaches of diplomacy are a crucial addition and complement to the mix of existing perspectives and approaches. Working alongside traditional state diplomacy (First Track), as well as human rights6 and transformative justice, they are contributing to a more wholesome and sustainable approach to conflict resolution.7 Each perspective and approach complimenting the others in one way or another. Some preventive approaches are at the same time part of conflict

resolution and peace building, and thus contribute to a mechanism of future peace keeping. For example, human security deals with poverty, global warming or infectious disease— all efforts that are preventative in nature; but these are also, at the same time, rebuilding efforts. It is important to not just hinder the outbreak of a bigger crisis by dealing with the issues at hand which may lead to war or provide the basis for it, but also to rebuild relationships in order to decrease the future likelihood of conflicts.8 A more controversial example is the debate on humanitarian intervention, basically the preventive use of conflict to hinder a potentially bigger conflict or crisis.9 In the field of Multi-Track Diplomacy, the current Inter-Tajik dialogue or the US-China dialogue (between officials and non-officials) represent a more preventive function.10

Controversially, though, one must ask if the different approaches and perspectives in a given conflict situation could also interfere with each other and if there should be a hierarchy of needs to be addressed (first peace, then justice, or vice versa?)11 Does security top environmental concerns? Or will these issues be sorted out naturally?

new actors and objectives

Besides their holistic perspective on conflicts, another similarity between Second Track and some of the newer diplomacy approaches and human security, is the utilizing and identifying of new players and dynamics in conflicts. This is in line with their more holistic approach to conflict and its causes but even more related to an understanding of the power shift and fragmentation that has been taking place in most societies and conflicts. This was recently described by Anne-Marie Slaughter in her book A New World Order.12 Political power is no longer concentrated only in national government.13 It is shared over multi-levels and with multiple new partners. Through this, "the whole system of international decision-making and diplomacy has become much more complex and diversified."14 Political communities are no longer meaningful located

Global Images


▪ 83 ▪


within state boundaries. "The spatial reach and density of global and transnational connectedness weaves complex webs and networks of relations between communities, states, international institutions, non-governmental organizations15 and multinational corporations which make up the global order."16

Conflict management and different security concerns not longer be addressed only in a state centric perspective, but need to include and address the new global and regional power players as well. This is one of the main characteristics and strengths of Multi-Track Diplomacy (especially One and a Half Track) and human security, to include non-official as well as official actors. This also follows Iris Young's logic of political decision-making that "anyone who wishes to persuade others of the justice or wisdom of his or her claim must aim to attend to the specifics of this audience, their interests, experience and idiom."17 Multi-Track Diplomacy and human security approaches have proven to be very successful in not just bringing different actors together but also in speaking and translating their languages, bringing regional issues to a national and global audience and vice versa. An example of this has been the successful lobbying of human security proponents in respect to environmental issues. Even though issues like fresh water scarcity and pollution are still underrepresented, the topic of global warming has gained world-wide attention. Scientific studies have been translated and discussion brought into the consumer market, causing the banning

and removal of many products p r o d u c i n g greenhouse gas emissions as well as stimulating global discussion

on rules and standards like the Kyoto protocol. Even more successful than some of the campaigns of Multi-Track Diplomacy on arms trade has been their ability to raise issue of infectious diseases. At the latest, after SARS (Severe acute respiratory syndrome) in 2003 or the recent bird-flu (H5N1), the world accepted the danger and importance

attending this issue. Vital partnerships between the public and private sector in the analysis and production of vaccines (like Tamiflu) have been fostered and the inclusion and adoption of the traditional national issue of health by private enterprises has be stimulated. Major non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like the Gates Foundation, for instance, have made issues like HIV/AIDS part of their primarily mission target. In most approaches to Multi-Track Diplomacy that are built around this kind of non-official involvement, we find the inclusion of new actors with their specific objectives.

Controversially, despite the benefits of integrating new actors in the process of conflict management, this approach also creates some challenges. As James Rosenau indicates, the "world's territorial politicians may increasingly (and unknowingly) relinquish some of their diplomatic prerogatives to a diverse array of nongovernmental leaders."18 This all leads to the increasing crisis of legitimacy declared by Habermas and others, or at least to some turbulence.19 What is the legitimacy of these new local and global players and who is holding them in checks and balances?20

networking strategies

A holistic picture of conflicts and the inclusion of new actors and their perspectives is further enhanced by networking strategies, bringing Multi-Track Diplomacy and human security up to speed with general societal developments. As Manuel Castells describes it, "our world, our lives, are being shaped by the conflicting trends of globalization and identity. The information technology revolution, and the restructuring of capitalism, have induced a new form of society, the network society."21 This network society, which is shaped by enormous technical evolution and globalization, has triggered many changes in socialization and communication patterns in conflict environments.22 In particular, changes in the diffusion of power, social networking and communication have created new chances and necessities for successful conflict management,

Daniel Wehrenfennig

Conflict management is much more than just negotiating the end of active violence.


▪ 84 ▪

diplomacy and security in general. This has, in turn, led to more empowering and involvement of local and regional actors and to better organization of global initiatives and interest groups, pressuring and putting demands on the nation-states from below and above.23

While traditional state diplomacy and security are struggling to respond to these changes24 and new demands,25 human security and the various forms (tracks) of non-state diplomacy make better use of it. Sheryl J. Brown points out that "accompanying the accelerated diffusion of information and communication technologies globally, we are witnessing a parallel diffusion of the practice of diplomacy among non-state actors who have access to these technologies and a desire to reach and create global constituencies about specific issues that are based on perceived common values."26 One prime example of this is the peace process in Northern Ireland, where (especially in the late 90s) many non-state actors created a multi-level dialogue process and formed a peace network. This connected local, regional, national and global actors into a powerful peace constituency that pressured27 the official peace process and was and is one of the main driving forces toward peace. Further, in the network society "political cooperation and new types of campaigning and arguments are evolving in the context of shared values and aims, helping to forge a distinctive transnational perspective."28 An example in the area of human security has been the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL). This has set a precedent for many effective networking strategies, turning a virtually non-existent topic into one of the most discussed issues in humanitarian international discourse.29 It has shown the power of multi-level transnational networking to "provide the classroom, the site that brings state and society together"30 and also shown new effective forms of diplomacy by heavily involving and networking with NGOs.31 The ICBL was able to "directly connect the local agenda—the suffering of civilians and the

activities of grassroots activists—to the interstate agenda."32 In the words of Matthew Scott, we "can learn much from the landmines example. The importance of strong government-NGO relationships, charismatic campaign personalities, and effective electronic constituency management cannot be overemphasized."33

Although, on the one hand, the use of modern technology and network capabilities can make diplomacy and human security even more effective

and wide-reaching, on the other, it also raises some questions. Networks are by definition flat,34 but in reality one still finds major differences. As Brown evaluates, "asymmetrical relationships between state and non-state actors

characterize network diplomacy."35 How do these differences play into the concepts and functioning of the new networks and their strategy? Another question is how sustainable these new issue networks really are. Can and do they stay active over a longer time or are they only useful for short-term mobilization?

long-term resolution vs. short-term bargaining

To complete this comparison and analysis, it must be noted that from a Habermasian, neo-Kantian perspective, traditional diplomacy and negotiations in conflict management offer no real conflict resolution or transformation but simply postpone the problem without coming to a true understanding. Thus, traditional diplomacy (as represented by the Lockian negotiation of self-interest in the form of a bargaining process between the conflict party leaders) offers an ineffective model of change because it brings no real solutions to a process. Instead, it simply seeks momentary agreement. As James Bohman states, "bargaining and most forms of compromise may involve outcomes like 'splitting the difference,' and such outcomes more often rearrange than change the available set of feasible alternatives."36 In a short-

Global Images

A conflict can only be successfully resolved (long-term) when questions of peace, justice, rebuilding and development are adressed.


▪ 85 ▪


term perspective this may bring an intermediate solution, but in the long term it will often create major conflicts further along the road, especially when the initial negotiated order (agreement) loses its power and the underlying unresolved problems and conflicts resurface again. We have seen this in many civil wars that arise after a regime change in a country, including the Balkans and the Middle East after the colonial powers left. This has led to some of the most intractable current conflict situations. As John Paul Lederach puts it "(…)traditional mechanisms relying solely on static diplomacy and realpolitik have not demonstrated a capacity to control [...] conflicts, much less to transform them toward constructive, peaceful outcomes."37

Second Track diplomacy and human security, while still interested in solutions to conflicts earlier rather than later, follow a more peacebuilding, conflict resolution and rebuilding perspective than if they were primarily interested in managing (negotiating) the differences (see above holistic picture of conflicts). As Lederach notes, "peacebuilding is concerned both with finding ways to deal with the issues in a conflict and with the redefining of relationship."38 While bargaining approach might sacrifice claims of justice for the prospect of peace, hoping to achieve justice later, Second Track diplomacy and many human security approaches are generally more interested in the resolution of the roots of a conflict. They try to mediate differences and to build sustainable long-term partnerships between the actors involved.39 An example of this has been the Dartmouth conferences between the USA and USSR, which brought official and un-official representatives together over a time-period of many years, building trust and friendship which allegedly contributed to the end of the cold war.40

Sustainable long-term solutions are the core of the human security approach, which we can see in nearly all their policy recommendations and action (whether dealing with poverty or arms control).

Although some major conflicts have been resolved, the question remains what to do with conflict situations where there are irresolvable

differences. Furthermore, the resolution of conflicts is a very tricky process that needs a long time and Second Track Diplomacy and human security approaches and strategies need to be equipped for this, especially in a time where everything seems to get faster and short-term changes get more attention (and money).

evaluation – advancing human rights and diplomacy

This short discussion and comparison of human security and Multi-Track Diplomacy should not be understood as a counter-concept or critique of traditional diplomacy/security and human rights. Though it has pointed out some of the challenges and shortcomings of current approaches and theories in human rights and traditional security, this discussion sees Multi-Track Diplomacy and human security as being more an evolution and complementation than a critique to the traditional approaches. The four issues evaluated and presented should serve as a starting point on the overall debate of this workshop on how human rights and human security can benefit from each other, in particular what one can learn from both approaches about the resolving of conflicts.

The findings can be summarized as follows: a conflict can only be successfully resolved (long-term) when questions of peace, justice, rebuilding and development are addressed. Therefore the answer to the question "Is the goal peace, justice, or development?" is YES. This follows the holistic picture of conflicts as introduced earlier and emphasizes the importance of a multi-faceted approach. Any strategy that deals only with managing the conflict will ultimately fail. Rebuilding, conflict resolution and, in that, prevention, must be part of any sustainable strategy. This said, it is imperative to include as much as possible all local and national new actors and objectives in order to support the implementation of change toward peace. This will not be easy and a lot of translating and mediating41 will be needed, but in light of the perspective on long-term resolution vs. short-term bargaining, this cannot be avoided, in particular in the complex

Daniel Wehrenfennig


▪ 86 ▪Global Images

conflicts of today. Leaving open the question of how to do it, the network strategies seem to be an inspiration that should be further explored, particularly in the context of changing social and societal dynamics.

While mostly dealing with human security and Multi-Track Diplomacy, this article does not want to exclude the importance of human rights in the process of resolving conflict and wish to shortly put it in context with the previous analysis. Besides being the underlying standard for most human security and Multi-Track Diplomacy approaches, the establishment of a human rights standard in itself represents a conflict management strategy. As Brysk points out, "the international community can provide short-term order, but sustainable peace requires accountability, participation, and the rule of law"42 involving the establishment of a strong human rights regime, followed by institutional manifestation (in, e.g., transformative justice institutions or global HR jurisdiction). This becomes a conflict prevention, management and rebuilding method in itself, through the establishment and enacting of human rights standards43 as well as through the establishment of a platform for discussion and interaction. Also, while human rights approaches in general target the nation state, they do make use of a multitude of local, global and international actors and network strategies in their specific campaigns.44 The ICBL is a good example of this, as well as being an issue on which human security and human rights approaches worked successfully together.

Last, but not least, it needs to be acknowledged that traditional diplomacy and security studies and practices have not been static in the face of all these developments but started to change as well. While traditionally being less cooperative and usually attempting to set conflict parties apart from each other,45 modern state diplomacy and security has begun to follow a more communicative and communal approach46 by seeking to build global security regimes and coalitions against terrorism and other threats. This is certainly a reaction to the development from less inter-state to more inner-state wars, maybe indicating new global conflicts schemes from East vs. West to North vs. South

or global political elites vs. local fragmented oppositions. Consequently, there are indications of the failure of traditional diplomacy and security practices47 and the impact current changes have on them.48 The United States Institute of Peace and The National Intelligence Council have organized different periodic roundtable discussions on the issue, coming out with the basic message49 that "diplomacy will be more complicated."50 James Rosenau arrives at a similar position: "traditional diplomatic function and practices face severe challenges in the years ahead."51 Thus, newer forms and programs like Public Diplomacy, Virtual Diplomacy and Net Diplomacy have been created to deal with the changing world situation and with the demands on diplomacy in the 21st century. However, the results are very technologically and bureaucracy driven and can learn a lot from the broader analysis and responses we find in Multi-Track Diplomacy, human security and human rights.

conclusion

This article argues that one can learn from human security and multi-track diplomacy to expand the range of actors who are to engage in the effort to resolve conflicts. But, furthermore, one can also gain a broader perspective on conflicts and the issues causing as well preventing them. In addition, one can learn some very valuable lessons about network strategies to be used in the effort of long-term sustainable conflict resolution. This can be a crucial expansion of existing diplomacy, security and human rights strategies and theories. Because conflicts are very complex and cannot be resolved by a single approach, the synthesizing, networking and expansion of the different approaches and perspectives to resolve conflicts will be the key for future conflict resolution. As James Roseau concludes so fittingly, "transformations are conceived as having been under way for four decades and as likely continue into the foreseeable future."52


▪ 87 ▪


Notes

1 Harold Saunders, A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to Transform Racial and Ethnical Conflicts (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999), 79.2 Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye Jr., Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1981), 371.3 John Davies and Edward Kaufman, Second Track/ Citizen's Diplomacy – Concepts and Techniques for Conflict Transformation (Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield Publisher, 2002).4 Louise Diamond and John McDonald, Multi-Track Diplomacy: A Systems Approach to Peace (West Hartford: Kumarian Press, 1996).5 Saunders, A Public Peace Process, 249.6 Human Rights are another very important aspect of a more holistic approach to conflict management; setting norms, standards and codes of conduct to bring long-term change and justice.7 See James Voorhees, Dialogue Sustained: The multilevel peace process and the Dartmouth conference (Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2002); Robert Fisher, Elisabeth Kopelman and Andrea Kupfer Schneider, Beyond Machiavelli – Tools for Coping with Conflict (Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1994); Johan Galtung, Transcend & Transform: An introduction to conflict work (London: Pluto Press, 2004).8 United Nations Development Program, Human Development Report, 2006.9 International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect, 2001.10 Voorhees, Dialogue Sustained.11 This at least one of the issues I found in my own research in Israel/Palestine, particular for Palestinian peacebuilding organizations, who are very insistent on the importance of a just peace, meaning that there needs to be first justice before peace can happen. They also advocate dialogue of action, meaning there needs to first be some positive action by the Israeli side before they are willing to have dialogue. 12 Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).13 Gordon S. Smith, "Reinventing Diplomacy: A Virtual Necessity." United States Institute of Peace (February 25. 1999), http://www.usip.org.14 David Held et al., Global Transformations (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), 55.15 Smith calls these non-governmental organizations (NGOs) "new centers of power," having reached a global number of 15,000 in 1999 and constantly increasing. 16 Held, Global Transformations, 27.17 Iris Young, Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 70.18 James Rosenau, "States, sovereignty, and Diplomacy in the Information Age." United States Institute of Peace (February 25. 1999, 7), http://www.usip.org.19 Manuel Castells, The Information Age-Economy, Society and Culture, Vol 2: The Power of Identity (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1997).20 As an example, consider the challenge to have non-state actors conform with human rights (Alison Brysk, Human Rights and Private Wrongs: Constructing Global Civil Society (Routledge Press, 2005).21 Manuel Castells, The Information Age-Economy, Society and Culture, Vol 1: The Rise of the Network Society (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996).22 Albert-László Barabasi, Linked (New York: Plume/Penguine Group, 2003).23 Here one also finds some differences between human security and human rights approaches in general. Human rights seem to challenge the nation-state dominance through global interest formation (e.g., debate on universal human rights and global jurisdiction in the form of ICC). As described in Keck and Sikkink's boomerang method, these pressure unwilling national governments through international agreements. Human security approaches, in general, seem to organize more local and regional constituencies and practical support. However, there are also currently developments in the opposite direction, like the formation of global human security standards and inter-state human security regimens and the evolution of social movements in support of human rights. This shows the power of network strategies including regional and global initiatives.24 "As we enter the Information Age, ubiquitous computers, the internet, and globally available mobile communications are continuing to alter the diplomat's traditional job through proliferating high-quality, real-time communications" (Jeffrey R Cooper, "Diplomacy in the Information Age: Implications for Content and Conduct," United States Institute of Peace - Net Diplomacy 1 Part 2 (2002): 5).25 At another point Brown puts it even more directly: "It is safe to say that diplomacy's theater of operation, its tools, and its practitioners have changed fundamentally to meet the demands of flatter, more responsive, more information-equipped and demanding global publics, who include everyone from Mom and Pop in Mule Shoe, Texas, to Jiang Zemin in Beijing" (Sheryl J Brown, "Diffusion of Diplomacy," United States Institute of Peace - Net Diplomacy 1 Part 1 (2002): 5).26 Ibid, 1.27 Especially through One and a Half Track Diplomacy, which brings state officials, military, NGO's and community leaders together. Interestingly, this element of official-unofficial dialogue is missing in the context of the conflict in Israel/Palestine.28 Held, Global Transformations, 371-372.29 Richard A. Matthew, Bryan McDonald and Kenneth Rutherford, Landmines and Human Security (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004).30 Richard Price, "Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines" Organizational Organization 52,3 (1998): 627.31 Kenneth R. Rutherford, "The Evolving Arms Control Agenda: Implication of the Role of NGOs in Banning Antipersonnel Landmines"

Daniel Wehrenfennig


▪ 88 ▪

World Politics 53,1 (2000): 74-114.32 Price, "Reversing the Gun Sights," 625. 33 Matthew J. O. Scott. "Danger-Landmines! NGO-Government Collaboration in the Ottawa Process," in Global Citizen Action, ed. Michael Edwards and John Gaventa (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publisher, 2001), 130.34 "Networks are forms of organization characterized by voluntary, reciprocal, and horizontal patterns of communication" (Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activist beyond Borders – Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1998), 8).35 Brown, "Diffusion of Diplomacy," 3.36 James Bohman and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann, Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant's Cosmopolitan Ideal (Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press, 1997), 190.37 John Paul Lederach, Building Peace (Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997), 25.38 Ibid, 134.39 In that context, human rights standards and transformative justice mechanisms play a vital role, to sustain and foster these partnerships.40 Voorhees, Dialogue Sustained.41 This does not assume that all actors in a conflict can be convinced to join a perspective or agree on one understanding, but believes that working partnerships with most groups can be forged over time (except perhaps some very extreme fundamentalist ones). One starts with the moderates and then expands to the extremes, as done in the Northern Ireland peace process. 42 Brysk, Human Rights and Private Wrongs.43 An example of this is the dialogue (e.g. on Orange Marches) and subsequent establishment of human rights norms governing the conduct between British law enforcement and community groups in Northern Ireland. This deescalated community violence tremendously. Or compare the approaches of Palestinian prisoner treatment in Israel, showing respect through fair treatment, decreasing acts of future retaliation by ex-inmates. 44 There are many example of this in the developing social movements literature and in discussions on the global civil society and universal human rights.45 To guarantee better protection and security especially in the cold war schemes and strategies. 46 Since the end of the cold war, half of all conflicts have been ended through negotiations and peace talks between the conflict parties, whereas 100 years ago roughly one in five was resolved through negotiation. 47 Melanie C. Greenberg, John H. Barton and Margaret E. McGuinness, Words over war: mediation and arbitration to prevent deadly conflict (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2000); David Bollier. "The Rise of Netpolitik – How the Internet is changing International Politics and Diplomacy," The Aspen Institute Communication and Society Program (2003).48 Smith, "Reinventing Diplomacy."49 David Bollier remarks, "diasporic communities around the world affect the internal politics and external policy positions of their homeland through e-mails and websites. The rapid transmission of news directly from the source allows world players to bypass formal diplomatic channels, requires quicker and perhaps less considered responses by government officials and enables NGO's to express and impress their positions more widely" (Bollier, "The Rise of Netpolitik," V).50 Barry Fulton. "Introduction to Net Diplomacy," United States Institute of Peace - Net Diplomacy I: Beyond Foreign Ministries (2002): 1.51 Rosenau, "States, sovereignty, and Diplomacy in the Information Age," 7.52 Ibid, 4.

Global Images


▪ 89 ▪


Daniel Wehrenfennig

Citizen Peacebuilding Movements

Documents

Transcript of Citizen Peacebuilding Movements