London
Metropolitan University
Politics
and International Relations
Faculty
of Social Sciences and Humanities
Conflict
Resolution and Peacebuilding
Do
post-Cold War conflicts require different approaches to their
resolution than those of earlier eras?
resolution than those of earlier eras?
By;
Said Mohamed Gelle
Do
post-Cold War conflicts require different approaches to their resolution than
those of earlier eras?
Introduction
In any given society, conflicts are
inevitable, most recently, the major international crisis of considerable
magnitude was the cold war. It was dealt with differently by the international
actors. Idealists prefer diplomacy over warfare in dealing with challenges. On
the other hand, the realists often opt for the use of force to attain the end (Barash and Webel, 2013). The first and second
world war were the most painful conflicts in the recent history, which were
immediately followed by the tension between Russia and the United States of
American and its allies. In this paper, I will answer the question do the
post-Cold War conflicts need different approaches for their resolution than
those of earlier eras?
Different approaches to
resolutions
The post-cold war era presents the world
with unique challenges that ought to be approached with a very sober and open
mind. In the modern world, countries and regions are more interdependent
economically. Consequently, this makes it unreasonable to use the tactics that
were used initially to solve conflicts. Proxy wars and violent war cannot be
entertained in the modern day society without causing serious damage to the
commonwealth. The consequences of cold war kind of tensions in the current
society can be disastrous than before, thus the need to prevent them by all
means available (Miall
et al, 2015).
The end of the Cold War led a new era of
conflict resolution and prevention. The prior means of addressing challenges
among the global actors lost its value. A defensive mechanism in addressing
friction among states takes the priority in the contemporary international
system. Different approaches to the prior are inevitable, the challenges posed
by insecurity in the modern world cannot be adequately handled using the
ancient methods of conflict resolution without tailoring them to accommodate
the current developments (Darby and Mac Ginty, 2008).
The international community has embraced
peacebuilding and peacekeeping as one of the means to avert warfare. It is imperative
to adopt these methods in the modern era due to the compound nature of the
global security. Countries collaborate in building joint forces that take care
of security in volatile areas, thus helping to decrease the possibilities of
warfare between the antagonistic factions. Initially, there were no such
arrangements, which left the world more exposed to hot war. The world seeks to
cultivate a culture of peace and longevity, a development that cannot only be
attained through the use of peaceful conflict resolutions tactics that can have
long-term impact on the society (Barash
and Webel, 2013).
Moreover, peacebuilding in the current
world ought to be infused with economic development to bridge inequalities that
may serve as an obstacle to long-term peace (Darby and Mac Ginty, 2008).
Apparently, there is the need to use a different approach of the pre-the-end of
cold war period in sorting out clashes among international actors. Before and
during the cold war era, there was no emphasis on development as part of
resolving conflicts, which offered breeding grounds for future problems. The
establishment of peacekeeping troops in the areas such as Mideast and the
war-torn African states is a modern day approach to diffusing conflicts that is
differing from the cold war methods. It has proved to be useful in preventing
escalation of crisis as well as containing the warring factions.
Miall et al (2015) argue that the
international system is ever dynamic, thus inevitable to hold on the old
tactics of solving the conflicts. A new mode of conflicts resolution emerged in
the post-cold war period, mainly due to the cosmopolitan nature of the
challenges that the society face. The need to maintain tranquility among states
force them to go for a mechanism that guarantees peace and stability. It is
imperative to note that, the approaches such as appeasement of aggressive
states cannot be entertained in the contemporary society, thus the need to use
a different method to contain such actors. Sanctions and deployment of joint
forces can be used to deal with rogue countries (Darby and Mac Ginty, 2008).
Consequently, this is critically in dealing with states that may overlook
international norms and values.
Non-violent conflict resolution has emerged
as the practical means for actors to handle conflicts. It helps to transcend
and appreciate the inherent differences in the international system. Peaceful
coexistence is encouraged to water down the factors that may trigger negative
differences in among states and societies. Tolerance non-violently and
eventually to transcend and celebrate their differences. The world needs a more
realistic approach to deal with the complex challenges that threaten
international peace. There is the need to take swift action when war is
imminent to avoid it and escalation. The level of technological advancement
that countries have made makes it possible for countries to go to war without
even moving their troops (Barash
and Webel, 2013).
In the post-cold war period, peacebuilding
has risen to the echelons of the global peace agenda. The reconciliation
process is given the priority where conflicts emerges. In the early era, war
was common due to lack of emphasis on reconciliatory means to diffuse tension.
In the contemporary society, war is very costly, thus the need to look for
another best option. The world is more integrated than before, which calls for
concerted efforts in solving the common challenges to states.
Peace talks are more embraced in the
contemporary world, which follow a more structured way than before. Solving
inequalities in the society is a modern form of conflict resolution, which
deviates from the initial methods to make the world a peaceful place to live.
Democracy is used to advance equity in the society ensure that here is sustainable
stability. Karl Max idea of communism can work best to create an egalitarian
society, which reduces disparities that often breed conflicts. In a society
where there is a high degree of equality, conflicts have little room to grow (Parsons and Somerville, 1977).
Increased inter-state relations decreases
the possibility of them to engage in conflict. In the contemporary
international system, countries are more connected than before (Fink, 2010). Trade, sports, culture, security,
and environment have become a global concern that demand for unity among states
and other actors to solve. In this respect, there is a lot to bring them
together than before. Unity of the international system is paramount to
national interests. It is because of this that liberal institutions are
stronger in the current society to deal with inherent differences among states (Barash and Webel, 2013).
For a long time, the United Nations has
nurtured the culture of peace to take over the philosophy and rule of warfare
that dominated the cold war and the period before. International peace can be
achieved and sustained when states and the non-state actors appreciate the
value of peaceful co-existence. International media plays a vital role in
advancing global integration and peace. It helps to create understanding among
the states as well as lasting peace (Fink,
2010).
Unlike the period before, the post-cold war
era demands for close monitoring of the peace process. The strengthening of the
United Nations and its agencies aims at ensuring that resolutions to conflicts
receive a strong backing of all stakeholders. Regional and global bodies work
together to ensure that all parties adhere to the agreement reached after
negotiations. Initially, the international community did not have a significant
influence on resolutions reached. Therefore, conflicts recurred after a short
period of tranquility. In today world, there is need to strengthen the place of
the international community in addressing conflicts. The authority and
influence of the UN and other transnational organizations are critical in
creating a peaceful world (Barash
and Webel, 2013).
According to Miall et al (2015), unlike
before, the use of multilateral agreements to solve conflicts has gained wide
acceptance. The reason behind this approach to ensure that all concerns and
interest are accommodated. Bilateral solutions can be dangerous where the
challenge at hand overlaps to other players that are not party to the agreement
reached. Concerted efforts are preferred in such incidences. The reconstruction
process in case of the warfare demand for proper funding and technical support,
which cannot be shouldered by one state only.
The prevalence of old
tactic in resolving conflicts
However, the post-cold war period has some
challenges that can be addressed using the methods of conflict resolution that
were used before. For instance, the war on terror calls for a variety of ways,
including warfare. Terrorists cannot be brought to the negotiation table,
neither do they understand the language of peace. Consequently, the use of
force is often inevitable when dealing with this particular group. States that
sponsor terrorism such as Afghanistan under the Taliban can best be handled
through the use of coercion (Fink, 2010).
Moreover, rogue states that are a threat to
international security can be better controlled through sanctions and warfare.
During the cold war, this was a standard approach to containing the adversary.
However, it demands for a concerted effort among the states. Organizations such
as NATO are still relevant in the contemporary world because there are
challenges that can be solved through coercive diplomacy and deterrence, which
makes the old tactics relevant to the modern day world. The UN Security Council
has the power to sanction the use force against any actor who is a threat to
international security (Tickner,
2014).
Proxy wars form part of the contemporary
society’s conflict resolution mechanism. The advancement in military technology
makes society more vulnerable to devastating destruction in case the major
powers go at war. The difference between then can be still diffused through
indirect military confrontation, which opens up room for negotiations to avert
hot war. In this respect, the methods used to bring peace among states in the
past can still be utilized in the modern society Miall,
et al 2015).
Feminists believe that the world is
unstable when masculinity dominates each aspect of life
(Tickner, 2014). Love, peace, and unity ought to be
cultivated to reduce conflicts in the international system. War is prevalent in
a masculine environment, where force is acknowledged as the means to the end.
Feminism favors the use of a non-violent means to an end conflicts. In the
modern society, the use of soft power is on a rise, giving room to peaceful
coexistence. The international community press for universal acknowledgment and
Respect for human rights, which in the long run propagates enduring peace.
The liberal ideas such as globalization of
trade and commerce and integration of the international system into a global
village have changed the perception of peace and conflict (Wenders and Zournazi, 2013). Countries prefer
peaceful resolution of the differences among them than going to war.
Tranquility furthers common good, thus the emphasis on the means that are
pro-peace. Regional economic and political blocs bind countries together, thus
creating a high inter-dependency than wove them I one basket on interest.
Today, the international community provides that diplomacy be given the
priority when trying to solve conflicts among the international actors (Barash and Webel, 2013).
The spirit of idealism transcends the war
and post-war periods, even before the use of force is sanctioned, diplomacy is
given a chance. It is an old approach to addressing conflicts, which cannot be
ignored in the post-cold war era. Idealists believe that human beings can
coexist peacefully, negotiations take the center stage where there is a reason
to believe that a clash of interest is visible. Transnational entities act as
the vehicles to bring understanding among the nations (Wenders
and Zournazi, 2013).
Conclusion
The post-cold war conflict resolution needs
a new approach to the previous, and this is mainly to the increased
interconnectedness among states and the advancement of military technology.
Integration of the global economy makes the welfare of countries intertwined,
thus the importance of peaceful coexistence than warfare in addressing
differences. However, that does not mean that there is a total deviation from
the old approaches to conflict resolution; diplomacy is an old school method
that gained great prominence in the contemporary world. Moreover, warfare is
inevitable when dealing with groups such as terror networks and rogue government
that are dangerous to international peace.
Bibliography
1. Barash,
D. and Webel, C. (2013). Peace and Conflict Studies, 3rd edn. London: Sage
Publishers.
2. Darby,
J. and Mac Ginty, R. (eds) (2008). Contemporary Peacemaking: Conflict, Peace
Processes and Post-War Reconstruction, 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
3. Fink,
G. (2010). Stress of war, conflict and disaster. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic
Press.
4. Miall,
H.; Ramsbotham, O.,
Woodhouse, T. (2015). The Contemporary Conflict Resolution Reader. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
5. Parsons,
H. L., and Somerville, J. (1977). Marxism, revolution, and peace. New York:
John Benjamins Publishing.
6. Tickner,
J. A. (2014). A feminist voyage through international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Wenders,
W., & Zournazi, M. (2013). Inventing peace: A dialogue on perception.
London: I.B. Tauris.
