About Us  Events  Media  Get Involved  Contact Us Learn More Site Map

THE CASE FOR ESTABLISHING MINISTRIES OF PEACE IN AFRICA:

Mfuni Mwanza

1. Introduction

Few would deny that the levels of violence throughout Africa are unacceptably high and that the development of cultures of peace is desperately needed. A culture of peace has been defined as ‘a set of values, attitudes, modes of behaviour and ways of life that reject violence and prevent conflicts by tackling their root causes to solve problems through dialogue and negotiation among individuals, groups and nations’ (UN Resolution A/RES/53/243, Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace).

Moving towards a culture of peace would require the development of a new mindset towards conflict and violence. In the Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace (UN Document A/53/370), eight characteristics of a culture of violence are identified and an alternative is proposed for each. The table below compares the characteristics of a culture of war and a culture of peace.

Table 1. Main characteristics of the two cultures

As a culture of peace slowly takes root and grows, the characteristics of a culture of violence will diminish. As tolerance and understanding grow, hatred for the ‘enemy’ diminishes; without authoritarian governance, propaganda and secrecy and the belief that power comes from force, the people will no longer accept war as a normal way of dealing with disputes; without armaments, it becomes difficult to engage in war.

A culture of peace does not imply the end of conflict, which remains a basic part of any social order. Each of us sees, hears, and experiences the world uniquely, and we spend our lives bridging the differences between our perceptions (and the needs and wishes they generate) and the perceptions of others. It is how we manage these differences or conflicts which will shape the sort of societies in which we live. This point highlights the considerable difference of opinion on the best means of building a culture of peace. The main contenders are military methods to enforce peace and so encourage development, and a range of non-violent methods.

This article argues that it is time to put aside old methods of building peace which clearly do not work well and to try alternative methods. In particular, it makes the case for the establishment of a Ministries of Peace to encourage, coordinate and implement the non-violent means by which a culture of peace can be established. It may be noted that member states of the United Nations are in fact committed to implement a culture of peace although few appear making a concerted effort to do so. The establishment of a Ministry of Peace could provide an institutional focal point for implementing a country’s peace policy. The establishment of a new type of ministry is unusual but not unknown, as shown by the establishment of ministries of the environment and of women’s affairs in many countries in recent times.

The literature on ministries for peace is very limited; we are aware of two publications by Keith Suter (1984; 2004) and the websites of the UK’s Ministry for Peace organization http://ministryforpeace.org/ and its US counterpart, the Department of Peace http://www.thepeacealliance.org/main.htm

2. Military approaches versus non-violent approaches
Almost all African countries spend heavily on the military as the principal instrument of achieving peace and security. On average, the 14 SADC countries in 2003 spent around eight per cent of their annual budgets on the military, which totalled US$4278 million. Contrary to widespread beliefs, however, military methods are not particularly effective in securing peace. Even if the military ‘wins’ a war or managed to contain enemy forces, this normally does little to deal with the underlying reasons for the conflict and bring lasting peace. Consider four of the major international wars fought over the past quarter century - the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, the UK-Argentine war over the Falklands (1980), the US-led actions against Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait (1991) and the NATO involvement in Kosovo (1999). The first ended in a stalemate after 500 000 military deaths. Military victories were won in the other three but 'peace' is maintained only by maintaining large and extremely costly military forces in each region. Consider, also, the fact that the Angolan civil war lasted 27 years and that the on-going Sudan and Burundian civil wars began in 1983 and 1992 respectively.

Several recent studies have examined the effectiveness of US military interventions during the 20th century. Dobbins (2003) examined 16 interventions involving large numbers of US ground troops which were used to overthrow an existing regime or to protect a regime from being overthrown. Of the 16, only four (Germany and Japan after 1945, Grenada and Panama) could be regarded as successful in terms of resulting in a democratic outcome ten years later. The US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 is a classic example of the limited effectiveness of military solutions in achieving peace. The war was won quickly – albeit with heavy loss of civilian life (Roberts et al, 2004) - but US military power has proven quite unable to impose anything like peace in Iraq. In terms of electricity, water supply, health services and personal safety, Iraqis are far worse off than they were before the invasion. This emphasises that the military is only potentially effective in a very narrow range of short term activities. The long term work of peacebuilding requires an ethos and a range of skills which the military does not possess.

If military approaches are not cost effective, quite apart from any moral and ethical considerations, what can be said for non-violent alternatives? Again in contrast to widespread belief, nonviolent methods have proven to be powerful and effective in achieving social change. The strategy and tactics of nonviolence have been used to topple dictators, end colonial rule, win workers’ rights, end segregation, protect the environment and the resist war and the nuclear arms race. It has been effective across a wide range of cultures and political regimes.

Johan Galtung (1996) lists ten nonviolent campaigns of the twentieth century, of varying shapes and sizes, which often brought about dramatic social change:
· The campaign for Indian independence led by Gandhi, 1920-1947
· The protest in Berlin by the Ayran wives of Jewish men arrested by the Nazis, February, 1943
· The campaign for civil rights for blacks in the United States, led by Martin Luther King
· The anti-Vietnam war movement in the US and elsewhere
· The campaign by mothers of the ‘disappeared’ in the Plaza de Mayo, Buenos Aires, Argentina
· The ‘people power’ campaign against Marcos government in the Philippines, 1986
· The non-violent campaign of many facets which resulted in the ending of apartheid in South Africa
· The non-violent campaign (the first intifada) in occupied Palestine for justice from Israel
· The Beijing campaign for greater democracy, Spring 1989
· The Solidarity/DDR movement which resulted in the collapse of communism in eastern Europe and the end of the Cold War.

To these we could add the Czech non-violent resistance to Soviet forces in 1968, the campaign which led to the ban on the manufacture and use of landmines in 1997, the non-violent campaigns which overthrew the Milosevic government in Serbia in 2000, the Shevardnadze government in Georgia in 2003 and the Ukraine government in 2004, and the Treatment Action Campaign’s on-going efforts to secure anti-retrovirals for HIV-positive South Africans. More detailed documentation of these and other non-violent campaigns can be found in Zunes et al (1999) and Ackerman and Duvall (2000).

3. Seven building blocks for a culture of peace
This section discusses seven components which seem essential for the development of a culture of peace; these are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Building blocks for a culture of peace
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace education
Conflict resolution skills and institutions
Building friendships
Peacebuilding
Peacemaking
Peacekeeping
Demilitarisation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Peace education
The key role of education in building peace has long been recognized. Kofi Annan has gone so far as to say that ‘education is quite simply, peacebuilding by another name…’ (UN Institute for Disarmament Research 2001: 1). A central belief of peace theorists is that people learn ways of responding to conflict and many have learned violent responses. However, people can unlearn old beliefs and practices and re-learn alternatives. In particular, peace education will spread the knowledge that non-violence works; it will cultivate values and attitudes which will encourage individual and social action to build and maintain more peaceful households, communities and societies; and it will train individuals and communities in the methods of non-violent conflict resolution. Key references include Forcey and Harris (1999), Salomon and Nevo (2002), Reardon (2002) and Harris and Morrison (2003).

2. Conflict resolution skills and institutions
Conflicts, as noted earlier, are inevitable but we have choices about how to handle them. There are well-established methods of non-violent conflict resolution which focus on dialogue between the parties involved in a conflict in the expectation that an outcome acceptable to each party can be identified. These methods can be learned and practiced by individuals and groups and this would be part of the task of peace education.

In addition, there will be a need for institutions to assist in those cases where the parties to a conflict have tried but not succeeded in resolving a dispute. The preferred institutional arrangement is mediation, where a trained mediator facilitates a process by which the parties can identify mutually-acceptable solutions. By a number of criteria – cost, satisfaction with the outcome, the effect on the relationship between the parties and the likelihood of reoccurrence of the dispute – mediation is a better alternative than arbitration or court process, which involve a third party hearing evidence and deciding on a winner and a loser. In those cases where mediation does not succeed in achieving resolution, however, arbitration and court processes are necessary. A feature of a culture of peace will be effective mediation and arbitration institutions to deal with those conflicts which the parties cannot resolve. Key references include Ury et al (1988), Tillet (1999) and Juergensmeyer (2002).

3. Building friendships
Building friendships with neighbours, be they nearby households, communities or countries, is necessary in order to move towards the tolerance, solidarity and understanding mentioned in Table 1. It also reduces the likelihood of violence because when friends have a conflict, they ordinarily engage in dialogue rather than fight. There are a number of examples (e.g. Norway and Sweden, France and Germany) where past enmity has been replaced by friendship to such an extent that war between these countries is now almost unthinkable.

The building of friendships can occur in many ways and across many levels of society. Initiatives can include educational and cultural exchanges, learning of the neighbour’s languages, cooperation with respect to natural resources such as water and the sharing of regional responsibilities. An example of the last might be co-operative security arrangements where each country provides one component of a regional armed force but no one country has a comprehensive military force capable of threatening another. Faith-based communities, given that they transcend national borders, can be particularly important organisations in building friendships. Useful references include Spence (2004) and Barry et al (2005).

4. Peacebuilding
Many armed conflicts in Africa are based on inequality which has an ethnic dimension (Stewart 2000). That is, a dominant tribal or cultural group has higher income and wealth than other groups and maintains the disparity by various social, economic and political structures. Such structural violence, it might be noted, is far more deadly than physical violence, despite the fact that it kills quietly and unintentionally e.g. as a result of failing to deal effectively with preventable disease. A culture of peace will involve dismantling structural inequalities and moving towards greater equality among its citizens.

As well as a conflict prevention aspect, peacebuilding also has a post-conflict aspect. War leaves a country with damaged human, physical and social capital and often very large reconstruction and recovery tasks. There is an opportunity, which will need to be quickly grasped, to build new social, political and economic structures so as to reduce the chances of war recurring. Key references include Lederach (1997) and Reychler and Paffenholz (2001).

5. Peacemaking
Peacemaking is a diplomatic activity typically carried out by top level leadership. Lederach (1999) has identified an important gap in peacebuilding which he terms the ‘interdependence gap’; his arguments are also applicable to peacemaking. He identifies three levels of leadership: top level, middle range and grassroots. When it comes to dialogue and the building of relationships and understanding, the members of these three groups talk to others within their own leadership level; that is, they focus on horizontal relationships. Lederach emphasises the need, in societies affected by violent conflicts, to build relationships and understanding up and down the levels of leadership. These vertical relationship building recognises that peacebuilding and peacemaking involve a range of activities occurring simultaneously at different levels; strong vertical relationships will allow mutual support and coordination which is unlikely where each level acts independently.

6. Peacekeeping
Peacekeeping is a military activity which may involve the enforcement of peace where peacekeepers are able to engage in combat. More usually, it involves standing between opposing forces in order to provide time and space for a peace agreement to be reached and/or to facilitate the working of an existing agreement, e.g., by disarming, demobilising and re-integrating ex-combatants.

Peacekeeping forces might contribute to peacebuilding by involving themselves in basic reconstruction, although they are not trained for this work. A civilian peacebuilding group might be much more useful to post-conflict recovery, once a basic level of security is achieved (Weber 1996; Boulding and Oberg 1998).

7. Demilitarisation
Demilitarisation first means a significant and sustained reduction in military expenditure, military personnel and force projection. Second, demilitarisation is a process of working towards a society which emphasizes the non-violent resolution of conflicts and personal and social justice. Harris (2004) puts forward seven reasons for demilitarisation :

· The nature of warfare has changed: invasions are rare and almost armed conflicts occur within countries rather than between them
· The meaning of security has moved from territorial to human security
· Military expenditure retards economic growth and development
· The military often negatively affects human rights
· The military is often not effective in resolving conflicts
· There are ethical, moral and spiritual reasons not to deal with dispute by force
· There are cost-effective alternatives to the military.

The last reason is very important. We cannot expect a society to significantly reduce its military forces unless its citizens perceive that there is no threat and/or that there are effective non-military alternatives of providing security. Harris (2004) suggests eight such alternatives, each of which he suggests are more cost-effective than the traditional military. These fall under three headings: transforming the military, reducing the incidence of disputes and building dispute resolution capacity.

4. The tasks of a Ministry of Peace
During times of both peace and war, there is a huge amount of peacekeeping, peacemaking and peacebuilding activity occurring at government, civil society and individual levels. Given this, the tasks of a Ministry of Peace in building a culture of peace will include the following:
· To publicise and encourage existing peacebuilding activities. The Ministry will not take over existing initiatives but will make them known and provide support to help them expand and to be more effective
· To encourage other ministries and civil society organisations to undertake new initiatives which will promote a culture of peace. Examples in the education sector will be the training of teachers in appropriate skills and ways of thinking about conflict; writing textbooks and developing curriculum materials in the areas of conflict resolution, non-violence and peace; the establishment of peace studies as an academic discipline at universities; and organising student exchanges with neighbouring countries and between different regions of the country. Examples in the military sector could include the re-orientation of military forces to a defence-only capability
· Where there is no obvious ministry or civil society organisation available for a task, to undertake initiatives itself. An example could be the establishment of a civilian peacebuilding standby brigade, perhaps involving members from different countries, to offer assistance in case of natural disasters and in recovery efforts following armed conflicts
· To celebrate the accomplishments of peace. Suter (2004) argues that just as war has its heroes, so does peace, and these should be celebrated. There are often monuments in honour of military heroes and the new ministry would find ways of honouring the country’s peace heroes. In addition, national days are often celebrated with the high profile of armed forces, such as military parades. The Ministry would coordinate peace-related ways of celebrating its country’s national days
· Through the above and other means, to build widespread public acceptance and support for the ideals of a culture of peace.
In undertaking these tasks, the ministry will pay particular attention to the means it uses. A central principle of the ministry will be to build peace by peaceful means.

5. Objections to a Ministry of Peace
The first attempt to establish a Ministry of Peace seems to have been in Australia in 1937, when the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom recommended its creation to the Australian government. The government refused, arguing that it would duplicate the work of the then Department of External Affairs and that such a proposal was therefore unnecessary (Suter 1984: 214). Objections to the new Ministry will include the following:

The idea is new and utopian
Establishing a Ministry of Peace in the country is a new idea; such a ministry has not been established in any country, there is no experience to draw from or model which can be followed and the sheer size of its task means that it may be ineffective. But why should this stop an African government from establishing such a ministry? Ministries of the environment and women’s affairs were unheard of 30 years ago; now most countries have one or both. Having been created, they become an established fact of political life and develop a momentum of their own. It will require only one government to create a Ministry of Peace for others to follow.

Eventually, what once was seen as purely utopian may come to be seen as practically possible and later even as conventional wisdom (Suter 1984: 215).

Demilitarization is not practical
Most African countries have substantial armed forces to protect their territories against invasion and to maintain internal security. It is not practical, it will be argued, for a country to operate without a large military, although the introduction of a Ministry of Peace does not mean that a country would have no military forces. That said, the emphasis and efforts of the Ministry will be on effective non-military means of security which over time, will mean a lesser role for military forces. A range of cost-effective alternatives to the conventional military is examined in detail in Harris (2004). They comprise:
· Defensive restructuring of the military
· Civilianising military functions
· Defending without the military or social defence
· Befriending the neighbours
· Building security through democracy and balanced economic relationship
· Development and security
· Educating in conflict resolution and management
· Establishing conflict resolving institutions
It is also not true that a country cannot survive without a military. Costa Rica in Central America has operated without a military for over 50 years and has flourished; it is an impressively non-violent and democratic country in a violent and non-democratic region and has education and health indicators far higher than its neighbours

The ministry would overlap with other ministries
Many existing ministries – Defence, Foreign Affairs, Education, Police and others – are involved in various aspects of the attempts to build a more peaceful society, although their efforts are limited by the many other functions in which they engage. It may be argued that these ministries perform some or many of the proposed functions of a Ministry of Peace. The main roles of the Ministry of Defence are to protect the country against any invasion from outside and to maintain security within the country. How could a Ministry of Peace deal with ‘military matters’ such as the demobilization of ex-combatants and controlling the flow of small arms when it does not have any experience with military matters? The Ministry of Defence is likely to use such an argument to oppose the creation of the Ministry of Peace.

In response, it can be argued that the peacebuilding efforts of other ministries are limited because of the many other functions which they have. If progress towards a culture of peace is to be achieved, a Ministry of Peace is needed to encourage it in every possible way. Such a ministry would be entirely dedicated to peacebuilding, peacemaking and peace education. In carrying out its tasks, it would collaborate and cooperate with the cited ministries; this would be a challenge but it would not be insurmountable.

The ministry would overlap with civil society
It may be argued that many of the functions of the new ministry in establishing a culture of peace are really the functions of civil society. It is true that many NGOs and faith-based communities are involved in various of the activities which fall under the proposed new ministry. It is important that the new ministry encourages such activities and does not engage in unnecessary duplication. Given the size of the need, however, there is enormous scope for more peacebuilding work. The ministry can use the experience and skills of civil society which may indeed be the best vehicle for building a culture of peace. It may fund civil society to do the work. In doing so, it will need to avoid too much control, recalling that ‘the law kills but the spirit gives life’.

6. Planning for and implementing a Ministry of Peace
Most of the non-violent campaigns mentioned in section 2 have a common feature: they were the result of a long term (some over many decades), highly planned effort (Sharp 2003). A necessary condition for a Ministry of Peace to be effective is that it adopts a strategic planning approach which will comprise components such as the following:

· A vision, which is what the organization – or rather the people who make up the organization – want to see happen in the future. For example, the ministry’s vision could be a society where principles of a culture of peace are understood, accepted and practiced
· A mission, which outlines the role the organization will play in helping society move towards the vision
· Strategies, which spell out the broad ways and means the organization will use
· Principles, which state the ethical underpinnings which guide the organization’s activities e.g. non-violence, transparency, equity
· Targets, often expressed numerically, which the organization wants to achieve e.g by 2008, to provide every primary school child with two hours of conflict resolution training per week
· The programmes needed to help ensure that the targets are met
· The resources, human and financial, which are needed to undertake the programmes.

Some comments on the resources required are in order. Some countries, particularly the Nordic countries, have a long tradition of supporting peacebuilding initiatives and a carefully planned Ministry of Peace is almost certain to attract substantial donor funding. Donor funding might, for example, fund study opportunities for ministry staff and the establishment of peace studies programmes in teacher’s colleges. There are also imaginative ways of raising financial resources domestically. Given that private sector companies will be major beneficiaries, profit-wise, of moves towards a culture of peace, a peace tax of, say, half of one percent of profits could be specifically allocated to the new ministry.

Finally, whilst highly desirable, it is not necessary that the ministry be at the national government level. A ‘ministry’ at provincial or local government level could undertake many of the initiatives discussed in this article.

References
Ackermann, P. and Duvall, J., 2000, A force more powerful. A century of non-violent conflict, New York: St. Martins Press.
Barry, T., Carlsen, L. and Gershman, J., 2005, The good neighbour policy – a history to make us proud, Silver City NM: International Relations Center
(accessible at http://www.irc-online.org/content/commentary/2005/0503ggn.php).
Boulding, E. and Oberg, J., 1998, United Nations peace-keeping and NGO peace-building: towards partnership, in C. Alger (ed.), The future of the United Nations system: potential for the 21st century, Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 127-154.
Dobbins, J., 2003, America’s role in nation-building: from Germany to Iraq, Survival 45(4), 87-110.
Forcey, L. and Harris, I., 1999, Peacebuilding for adolescents: strategies for educators and community leaders, New York: Lang.
Galtung, J., (1996), Peace by peaceful means, Oslo: International Peace Research Institute.
Harris, I. and Morrison, M., 2003, Peace education, Jefferson, NC: McFarland Co. Inc.
Harris, G. (ed.), 2004, Achieving security in sub-Saharan Africa: cost effective alternatives to the military, Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies.
Juergensmeyer, M., 2002, Gandhi’s way: a handbook of conflict resolution, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lederach, J., 1997, Sustainable peace. Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies, Washington DC: US Institute for Peace Press.
Lederach, J., 1999, The challenge of the 21st century – justpeace, in European Centre for Conflict Prevention, People building peace: 35 inspiring stories from around the world, Utrecht: European Centre for Conflict Prevention, 27-36.
Reardon, B., 2002, Learning to abolish war: towards a culture of peace, The Hague: Hague Peace Appeal.
Reychler, L. and Paffenholz, T., 2001, Peace-building: a field guide, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Roberts, L., Lafta, R., Garfield, R., Khudhairi, J. and Burnham, G., 2004, Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey, The Lancet 364, November, 1857-1864.
Salomon, G. and Nevo, B. (eds.), 2002, Peace education around the world: The concept, underlying principles, practice and research, Mahwah, NJ: Larry Erlbaum Associates.
Spence, R., 1999, Befriending the neighbours, in G. Harris, (ed.), Achieving security in sub-Saharan Africa: cost effective alternatives to the military, Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, 59-73.
Stewart, F., 2000, Crisis prevention: tackling horizontal inequalities, Oxford Development Studies 28(3), 245-262.
Suter, K., 1984, Ministry of Peace, Sydney: United Nations Association of Australia.
Suter, D. K., 2004, National ministries for peacebuilding, in G.Harris (ed.), Achieving security in sub-Saharan Africa: cost effective alternatives to the military, Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, 173-184.
Tillet, G., 1999, Resolving conflict: a practical approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ury, W., Brett, J. and Goldberg, S., 1988, Getting disputes resolved, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Weber, T., 1996, Gandhi’s peace army: the shanti sena and unarmed peacekeeping, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Sharp, G., 2003, There are realistic alternatives, Boston: Albert Einstein Institute.
Zunes, S., Kurtz, L. and Asher, S., 1999, Non-violent social movements: a geographical perspective, Malden MA, Blackwell

Americans for the Department of Peace (AFDOP) is a citizens’ group advocating passage of the Bill to establish a cabinet level U.S. Department of Peace.
We are the Southern California chapter of the national organization to advocate for this Bill, “The Peace Alliance”: www.the peacealliance.org

Home | About Us |  Events |  Media |  Get Involved  | Contact Us  | Learn More | Site Map