Thomas Matyók and Cathryne Schmitz have no doubts – the
study of peace and conflict should be lashed together at all levels. It’s the
only way to ensure warfighters have all of the tools they need to operate
successfully on the battlefields of the future.
By Cathryne Schmitz and Thomas Matyók for Military Review
This article was originally published by Military Review in
May 2014.
Changing political, social, and economic realities in the
United States, as well as the rest of the world, suggest that the Army will
need to review how it accomplishes future military-centric missions. In a 2012
article in Foreign Affairs, Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Raymond Odierno
argues that today’s Army needs to transition in critical areas that affect the
size of the force, material, and training.[1] Gen. Odierno also posits that the
Army must assume a broader definition of battlefield. Future missions may
involve, for instance, assisting victims of natural disasters, restoring order
in collapsing or failed states, or confronting nonstate forces. For successful
on-the-ground peace development, an expanded skill set is needed. This paper
contributes to an emerging narrative about the proper role of conflict
transformation and conflict management education within a military context.
The
Field of Peace and Conflict Studies
As an academic field of study, peace and conflict studies is
over 50 years old. The field has an active base of scholars, a growing body of
disciplinary literature, an established curriculum, and a pedagogical tradition
that includes classroom teaching, experiential learning, internships, and
international study. Peace and conflict scholars and educators seek to
understand the causes of conflict. They examine ways to prevent and transform
conflict situations. They seek to build peaceful and just social systems and
societies. They achieve these goals by educating specialists and engaging with
policymakers and the broader community of governmental and nongovernmental
organizations in creating the context for nonviolent conflict management.
Peace and conflict studies primarily engages a
practice-centered form of scholarship, with academics and students actively
involved in numerous forms of fieldwork. Peace science and peace research are
rapidly growing fields of study oriented toward conflict management, peace
building, and developing appropriate interventions. Peace and conflict scholars
are united not by ideology or political perspective, but by a commitment to
understanding the causes of violent conflict and finding effective and
sustainable nonviolent solutions to world problems. Peace and conflict studies
curricula cover a wide range of issues related to peace, conflict, violence,
justice, inequality, social change, and human rights. The field of study and
practice is now applied at all levels of conflict from interpersonal to
global.[2] As an emerging field of study and practice, the shape and
terminology of the discipline have expanded and transitioned from an amateurish
to a professional framework. In fact, many practitioners now believe that
conflict is not resolved; rather, it is transformed as part of a creative
process. As a result, conflict transformation has moved forward as the core
construct shaping the field.[3]
Formal conflict management as part of a deliberate peace
development strategy can be traced to the Kingdom of Mari in 1800 BCE, when
kings regularly employed mediation and arbitration to resolve conflicts.[4]
From that time forward, conflict management and conflict resolution have been
employed as formal and informal practices for addressing smaller disputes and
broader conflicts.
In fact, peace and conflict studies prepares individuals for
a wide variety of careers. Graduates become negotiators, mediators, government
officials, educators, business managers, activists, and professionals in
organizations focused on human rights, dispute resolution, environmental protection,
international law, and human and economic development. Currently, programs are
reporting, anecdotally, an increase in the number of military veterans
enrolling in peace and conflict studies programs— graduate and undergraduate.
Quantifying this trend, however, will require further research.
Contributions
of Peace and Conflict Studies to Military Education and Development
Peace and conflict studies should be deliberately integrated
into the Army’s professional education curriculum at all levels. Peace and
conflict studies, as part of professional military education and training, can
reduce the size of forces needed by providing conflict transformation and
management skills to military and civilian personnel. This can be a force
multiplier. In an environment of shrinking resources, peace studies and
conflict management training require little in the way of assets.
Gen. Odierno states that today’s Army is positioning itself
to respond to conflict as a flexible force based on the escalating complexity
of contingencies worldwide.[5] The force must be prepared to meet a range of
challenges, including the increasing need for the prevention and management of
regional conflicts. Peace and conflict studies is uniquely positioned to
contribute to the development of a breadth of responses.[6] As a continuum of
approaches develops, a balanced narrative regarding military intervention is
needed. It should include a discussion of policing and community development,
with less focus on national security and more on human security and the
protection of individuals.[7] According to the Human Security Report 2005, 95
percent of violent conflicts are intrastate. The nature of intrastate conflict
implies that military forces need to maintain proficiency in skills other than
those used for large-scale, interstate warfighting.[8]
Creating room for peace and conflict studies in military
professional development has numerous possibilities, such as the inclusion of
military personnel in existing peace and conflict studies programs, and the
inclusion of peace and conflict studies curricula within the Army’s
professional military and civilian education systems. We propose that processes
that contribute to building the capacity for meeting human needs complement
conflict prevention and management activities. The learning is
multidirectional, with military professionals providing another dimension of
understanding and critique to peace and conflict studies and its application as
part of a broad peacebuilding and development strategy. In other words,
military personnel have much to contribute to the field of peace and conflict
studies.
Peace
Building and the Military
Some will certainly disagree with our suggestion that there
is a proper role for peace and conflict studies in professional military
education. Civilians may judge it as a form of “sleeping with the enemy.” We
think this is a shortsighted view. If war is too serious a business to be left
solely to the generals, we argue peace is too important to be left to those
without military experience because members of the military can support
informed decision making. Creation of a just, sustainable, and lasting peace is
everyone’s business; certainly, it is the business of those on the ground. All
those involved in peace making, peace keeping, and peace building should be
welcomed to the peace development table.
Louis Kreisberg notes that as “the conflict resolution (CR)
field has developed, it offers many strategies and methods that are relevant
for partisans in a fight as well as for intermediaries seeking to mitigate
destructive conflicts.”[9] Conflict resolution, one component of conflict
transformation and management, is more than negotiation and mediation. The
focus is on responses to conflict that are contextually driven and grounded in
theory and practical experience. When we discuss peace, we are talking about
the study of conditions that are advancing inclusive, sustainable development
within political, economic, and cultural contexts. Conflict management and
conflict transformation address activities occurring on the ground that prevent
peace from breaking out.
Peace development needs more than good intentions. Far too
often, individuals believe their good intentions alone are all that is required
for success in resolving conflict and building peace. Experience proves
otherwise. Effective peace development requires the participation of subject
matter experts regarding conflict. A just, sustainable, and lasting peace is
brought into existence through hard work. Skill mastery and individuals
educated in transdisciplinary responses to conflict and violence are essential.
The approach outlined here for integrating peace and
conflict studies into Army professional education is premised on a three-tier
approach that correlates with the strategic, operational, and tactical levels
of war. Our definitions here do not mirror exactly those found in Army
doctrine; rather, they are used to construct an approach that would complement
existing doctrine.
Strategic peace building is grounded in the analysis of
conflict. It is heavily weighted toward the understanding and development of the
foundation of peace theory. Students follow an interdisciplinary approach to
conducting analysis primarily at mega levels of conflict, toward societal and
regional peace and peace operations.
Operational peace building encompasses the macro and meso
levels and bridges the theoretical aspects of peace building found at the
strategic level with tactical approaches to conflict transformation and
management. Students at the operational level of practice integrate theory into
practical responses to conflict. Theory translates into practice, and feedback
from practice refines theory in a constant feedback loop. The focus at the
operational level is construction of the institutions and structures of peace
such as community justice centers, training programs in conflict transformation
and management, and transitional justice activities.
Tactical peace building occurs mainly at the micro level.
Tactical peace building includes the interpersonal, grassroots, and community
contexts. This is where the rubber meets the road. Students gain hands on
experience in conflict transformation work and peace building. Skills such as
mediation, negotiation, group problem solving, restorative practices, community
building, and facilitation are major components of a conflict studies
curriculum at the tactical level.
The
Curriculum
Pursuing just peace connects to the military ethos captured
in the United States Military Academy motto, “duty, honor, country.” We suggest
a curriculum informed by this ethos. Peace and conflict studies can contribute
to a new type of force based on Gen. Odierno’s suggestion that military units,
in the near future, may need to be configured based on expertise.[10] We ask,
“Why not a unit schooled in conflict management? What might be included in a
peace and conflict studies curriculum? What competencies might be addressed?”
These questions can inform an expanded dialogue regarding peace building within
an evolving military context.
Just policing introduces an approach to conflict
transformation and management configured similarly to a methodology employed by
the Metropolitan Police Service in London. Unit members rely primarily on
conflict resolution skills to confront issues within communities. The word
service replaces force as a way of communicating a new role within a military
context. Armed military forces can be held in reserve as a way of contributing
to a graduated response to conflict. Gerald W. Schlabach suggests that Reserve
Officer Training Corps programs could build closer relationships with justice
and peace studies programs and that this collaboration can create “think tanks
for transarmament from potentially lethal and military forms of defense to
nonviolent civilian-based defense.”[11]
Language and, perhaps most important, sustained dialogue are
key. Developing a common language of peace and conflict studies can contribute
to a seamless integration of humanitarian organizations in peace operations.
Shared competency in a common language can help break down barriers of
mistrust, which sometimes exists between military professionals and
humanitarian organizations. Integrating peace and conflict studies into Army
professional development can also contribute to an increased competency in
working with the nongovernmental humanitarian organizations increasingly
present in intrastate conflicts.
Skill
Development
Connie Peck notes that knowledge and practice must inform
each other, and that conflict resolution and management programs need to be
constructed to assist conflict practitioners—not simply to add to theory
development.[12] If peace is the desired outcome of any conflict, it must be
achieved through conflict transformation and management. Therefore, it is
critical to begin a discussion on how peace and conflict studies can be
integrated into Army professional development and training by—
● Including peace studies and peace scholarship in the U.S.
Army War College curriculum, with the focus of scholarship at the strategic
level.
● Focusing on conflict management at the U.S. Army Command
and General Staff College.
● Emphasizing conflict transformation skills training at
branch qualifying schools and noncommissioned officer academies, with
individuals concentrating on grassroots problem solving. Too often, it is
simply assumed that individuals possess the skills necessary to address
conflict. In fact, multiple skill sets undergird the process of conflict
transformation. Mediation and negotiation, nonviolence, restorative justice,
and joint problem solving skills can be integrated into existing military
education and training.
Mediation and negotiation. Skills that can be taught under
mediation and negotiation include—
● Introduction to mediation and negotiation skills.
●Mediator as process expert.
●Negotiation skills: hard-bargaining and principled negotiation.
Nonviolence.Skills that can be taught under nonviolence
include—
●Nonviolence as a peace-building tool.
● Just policing.
●Nonviolent communication.
Restorative justice.Skills that can be taught under
restorative justice include—
● Community circles.
●Dialogue groups.
Joint problem solving. Skills that can be taught under joint
(referring to all partners) problem solving include—
● Facilitation.
● Large-group problem solving.
● Integration of the curriculum.
Summary
Peace is a charged, contested, and often marginalized term.
It can challenge the warrior ethos. However, we find ourselves in a period of
significant change, and formal and informal institutions and systems of the
past that support negative peace alone need modification to meet new demands.
Tomorrow’s battlefields still need warriors able to close with and destroy the
enemy but also those proficient in conflict prevention, management, and
transformation skills. Asymmetrical approaches to conflict management are the
new norm.
An increasing focus is needed on preventing conflict.[13]
The desired end state of all military operations should be a durable, lasting,
and just peace. Experience suggests that a tension can exist between the
military and those in the field of peace and conflict studies. This seems an
unnecessary tension. With fewer people having military experience, uninformed
opinions regarding military culture are guiding the peace discourse.
Military professionals are often the strongest advocates for
peace development and nonviolence. Professional soldiers must not be
marginalized and left absent from the peace development table because of peace
activist prejudices. Rather, the warrior ethos that embodies mission, selfless
service, and physical and mental courage should be embraced. Professional
soldiers who view themselves as peace builders can be counted upon to use force
only when necessary, and judiciously.
[1] Raymond T. Odierno, “The U.S. Army in a Time
of Transition: Building a Flexible Force,” Foreign Affairs 91, no. 3 (2012).
[2] Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse, and Hugh
Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution, 2 ed. (San Francisco, Wiley, John & Sons, Inc., 2005).
[3] Johannes Botes, “Conflict Transformation: A
Debate Over Semantics or a Crucial Shift in the Theory and Practice of Peace
and Conflict Studies,” The International Journal of
Peace Studies 8, no. 2 (2003).
[4] Jerome T. Barrett, A History of
Alternative Dispute Resolution: The Story of a
Political, Cultural, and Social Movement (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass,
2004).
[6] Reina C. Neufeldt, “Just Policing and
International Order: Is It Possible?” in Just Policing, Not War: An Alternative Response to World Violence, ed. G. W. Schlabach (Collegeville, MN,
Liturgical Press, 2007).
[8] Human Security Center, Human
Security Report 2005: War and Peace in the 21st Century (British Columbia, Canada: Oxford University Press, 2005),
[9] Louis Kreisberg, “Contemporary Conflict
Resolution Applications,” in Leashing the Dogs of War, ed. Chester Crocker
(Washington, DC: Institute of Peace, 2001).
[12] Connie Peck, “Training as a Means to Build
Capacity in Conflict Prevention: The UNITAR Approach,” in Conflict
Prevention: From Rhetoric to Reality, ed. D. Carment and A.
Schnabel (Lanham, MD, Lexington Books, 2004).
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий