After graduation, I started working for the Red Crescent Society and it was there that I decided to link my life with Peace and Conflict Studies. In the Red Crescent, I have had to work with people affected by conflict, provide humanitarian and psychosocial assistance, and respond to natural disasters and emergencies. The project I was involved in dealt in particular with minorities, communication between them and conflict resolution with neighbouring communities. The problem with such organisations in my country is the lack of qualified personnel. Personnel who will be theorists and practitioners at the same time.

I truly believe that the "marriage" of theory and practice is a successful approach in dealing with peace and conflict situations.

I expect this course to foster "soft skills", including critical thinking, analysis (both relating to reading material and theories), communication and discussion. I believe that by the end of my studies, I will have mastered the theoretical and practical foundations related to peacebuilding, conflict management and the promotion of human rights, learning how to interpret real life situations and apply peacebuilding strategies in certain conflict situations.

I am most interested in conflict management and resolution. My aim in the future is to help my region and the post-Soviet space to sort out the current difficult relations and to try, if not to solve them, at least to reduce the number of conflicts and civilian casualties.

When I first told my entourage that I wanted to pursue a master's degree in peace and conflict studies, some of them told me that I was naive and wearing pink glasses. 

They understand 'peace' as very idealistic (in a naïve and simple sense) and unattainable; they imagine hippies with signs of peace and a belief in world peace. This shows that conflict has entered their daily lives and how small is their level of belief that everything can be resolved one day. And yes, I may be wearing pink glasses, but I do wish that the next generation would not unravel problems that in my opinion should have been solved at the very beginning of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The further these issues are postponed, the more conflicts arise and the more casualties among the population and the less faith there is in achieving peace. I am convinced that this study will help me in my future journey of Peace and Conflict.

However, this article made me think about the differences in the work of scholars and the definition of causes. Since the title of the study is "peace and conflict", throughout the article I kept asking myself: why is there such a gap? Do we really need to accentuate the division between the usage of these two concepts?

All the news and media cover focuse on conflicts around the world, people are more familiar with the concept of "conflict". They can imagine the conflict in itself, but it is hard to imagine peace. Every person has its own understanding and image of peace in mind. 

The psychological factors, as being exposed to the “conflict” more, may explain the tendency for scholars to focus more on conflict than peace, as they are used to addressing the topic of conflict and explaining "peace" simply as the absence of war and conflict of violence. The factors that are explained in this article are also very logical, and this explains the reasons behind the huge gap in attribution of concepts.

After reading the article, I decided to see if this research could be applied to other articles in different languages and in different parts of the world, not necessarily in North America and Europe. I typed the two terms "conflict" and "peace" into google scholar to see the number of scholarly articles in Russian (as it is one of my native languages). 34800 articles on conflict and 1790 articles on peace. This result already shows me the difference in the use of terms and the greater focus on conflict studies. It is true that there are one sided explanation of cases and approaches through the lens of “conflict”. However, I don’t see it as a great obstacle in learning and analyzing in this field. In fact, modern scholars need to pay more attention to the peace in order to bridge the gap, avoid bias and have a different perspective to make studies valid.

 

First of all, I would like to point out that reading this article was not easy. But after reading it, I felt so proud and relieved.  For a long time, I tried to avoid his work, as I am familiar with one of them from a previous study, his work makes me put more effort and spend more time studying and understanding. 

When reading this work, we have to remember that it was written in the 18th century and apply his text to the existing conditions of that time.

As much as people have been striving for peace in recent times (a trait that became apparent after two world wars), there are and will still be conflicts that are by no means conducive to "perpetual peace". 

The third article, painful for our times, is the inexpediency of standing armies in states. Such armies cause high costs for states. However, it is not easy to fulfil this article and this is not the practice of many states these days, because this force becomes a deterrent between states; by building up force, creating large contingents, states begin to threaten each other, thereby forcing a distance from the point where hostilities begin. 

 

The fifth article about non-interference with the constitution or politics of other states is not relevant in our times. Especially during the Cold War, when the struggle between the US and the USSR was essentially over the character and influence of political regimes in third countries. Neither of these superpowers respected Westphalian/Vattelian sovereignty (or the principle of non-interference). 

Interfering in the affairs of other states is a mere platitude for many. It's an empty shell. And no one can get in the way, no matter what sanctions are imposed. As the saying goes “All is fair in love as in war"

 

I would also like to express my skepticism about Article 6. In Kant's time, “dirty tricks” were easily used in diplomacy, international relations. I don't think the situation has changed much and such tricks are often used nowadays. Unfortunately, it is now impossible to rule out this practice. Political assassinations have been, are and will continue to be.

 

Kant also mentions cosmopolitan rights in his Defining Articles. He makes reference to the relationship between trade and peace, that trade promotes peace. I would say that this is not entirely true, because in some cases trade can be a cause of conflict.

 

In general, I agree with and believe in the idea that peace among countries begins with peace between individuals.

 

As I wrote above, the fulfilment of some articles is more impossible than possible these days. But I don't think that doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing. 

Can we call these ideas utopian? Quite, but not categorically, as some parts of the articles may still be implemented.

P.S. Having reflected deeply on the topic of the attainability of eternal peace, I understood this satiric side of the concept of "Perpetual Peace" (Zum ewigen Frieden).
Since conflict is inherent in every human being, then perpetual peace can only exist if there is no cause of conflict, i.e. human being. 

This article was quite enlightening for me and I learnt a lot from this article. Firstly, I had never delved into the subject of post-colonialism. Having already read the text, I realised a certain truth that the prefix "post" does not mean that colonialism is over. In fact, the situation in post-colonial countries in relation to the Other has not changed much since colonialism. Technically, the era of colonialism is over, but political and social oppression and exclusion continue in the present day. By the end of the article, the reason for the use of inverted commas when writing the term peace, and for referring to it as war without end, becomes clear. The indigenous (colonized) population's desire for an original peace and its impossibility are equally understandable. 

Through this text I came to know a scholar like Achille Mbembe, on whose work the authors drew, and his concept of necropolitics. Reading the definition of necropolitics, I tried to relate the situation described in the article to indigenous people in New Zealand, and not only New Zealand. China's “correction camps” for the Turkic ethnic groups that have historically inhabited eastern China come immediately to mind. Because the example of necropolitics is the ability of the state to subjugate the population to such an extent that it has no freedom of autonomy. It's about the value of human life depending on the authority and its axis of privilege. The further you are from the axis, the less your life is worth according to the logic of necropolitics - and the more dangerous your existence becomes. 

Indeed, I agree with the statement in the article that defining what is a lesser form of violence, or a 'moral' form, to restore 'peace' is not moral, rather it is marked by privilege, power and control.  Zionist subjugation of the Palestinians in the occupied territories and massacres of Muslims in India (Kashmir) in the name of Hindu nationalism are the proof. 

o   Project: Use sport to improve the relation of multicultural environments (multi religion, multiple nationalities, presence of refugees). Teaching sport and organizing tournaments. (Baseball, Tennis, Table tennis, Chess, Football, Athletics, Volleyball, “Local Olympics”)

o   Objective: Create a space for multiple cultures to interact with each other. From the people to the people.

o   Consideration: Consider Hezbollah position on leaders, but trying to work with more local leaders. All people are included and involved. Not trying to politicize.

o   Target group: Children and teenagers (8 to 20)

o   Actors: Implementation team, Sport players who can teach, Cultural leaders, government (Who can lend public spaces), Fundraisers and stakeholders, CSO who support, activist who can do voluntary work.

o   Tools to promote ideas: Usage of videos, animation, short movies or episodes, tv shows showing the reunion of ordinary people and the reconciliation, community dialogs with games and activities to exchange ideas (perhaps between the community leaders), conservatories to exchange ideas

o   Train the trainer: Usage of tools to promote ideas to teach them concepts, training,

o   Location: Schools, public spaces, churches, neighborhoods.

o   Activities gender neutral or activity where girls and boys can play together

o   Dynamic

§  Organize a final tournament “The Olympics” but doing weekly gathering to practice sports to reach this final result. The Winning community of more medals in The Olympics will win a big prize (Money or Travel, Electronics, IDK)

§  First, we should create a community dialog to invite community leaders and representatives to join the participation of project. (Lebanon has these areas where multiple communities from different religions participate, so, context 

Members: Aidana, Hiba, Fardosa, Mariami, Andrea, Uriah

I actually felt a certain affinity to this text. My country, like the author's, experienced colonization first-hand. However, we do not talk about this subject of colonialism in my country. When the author used words like 'we', 'I' and 'us', it made sense to me. Since we are not observers of colonization and so-called decolonization, but active participants in it. 

Fanon advocated violence as the only solution that the colonized must take to achieve their liberation from the colonizers. Colonists initiated violence in the first place, violence is "atmospheric", that is, it is ubiquitous in the daily lives of the colonized. It is built into the very foundations of their lives.

This may sound radical, like the propaganda of violence, but in this chapter the author explains the reason for the use of violence, or should I say the response to violence with counter-violence.

However, even after the dismantling of the colonial regime, the imposed infrastructure continues to control people. Military footprints may have passed, but the economic, institutional and psychological influence is still visible in many developing countries today, where, for example, military colonization has been replaced by economic domination through the instruments of financial institutions, banks and international aid. 

Kyrgyzstan, like any other post-Soviet country, gained its independence in the early 1990s. Kyrgyzstan has been an independent country for 30 years, but while the constitution may state that the country is free and independent, this is not the case in reality. Fanon mentions in this chapter that newly independent countries will suffer and feel colonialism for years to come. The post-Soviet countries of Central Asia are an example of this assertion. The Central Asian countries are politically and economically dependent on Russia. All major and important political decisions are taken only with the "approval of big brother", which is Russia. People change, while the structure remains the same. The same structure that made us once inferior to the Slavic nationalities.

The citizens do not make decisions and have no voice to this day, all decisions are negotiated at the highest level amongst politicians who are nestled in their seats and have not wanted to leave for more than 30 years. These people started their political careers during the Soviet era. The only way for the mass population to speak out and show themselves is through violence and armed conflict. This is the only mean that ordinary people can reach the elite or the colonizers, to be taken seriously and finally be heard. No doubt, violence has negative consequences, and it always brings casualties. However, Fanon describes violence as a means to achieve liberation as an end. Decolonization is violent and there will be human casualties, but by using the counter-violence, the colonized will get a chance to feel emotionally and psychologically liberated.

The concept of the 'Wretched of the Earth' remains relevant today as societies continue their fight for liberation. Especially when many countries in the present time continue to experience forced military intervention. 

After reading this article, I have more questions and disagreements. I will be addressing some of them in this blog:

1) How did Huntington define and classify civilisation? What are his basic criteria? 

He argues that instead of "Whose side are you on?", which was relevant during the Cold War era, the question should be " What are you?". I believe he neglects the multiple dimensions of individual and national identity. If someone asks me " What am I?" I will not have an adequate answer to that question. The reason is that I come from a heterogeneous society which is georgraphically Asian, the indigenous population is ethnically Turkic, strongly influenced by China, shares a common culture with Russia and other post-Soviet countries, shares cultural traits with South Asia, etc. There can be no single answer to this question.

2) This work designates certain values for each civilization, or rather, it creates a dichotomous clash between the West and the Rest, asserting antagonistic values and relations between civilizations.

Huntington’s work and his 'predictions' are based on a realist approach and power relations. He ignores reasons for creating alliances such as economic cooperation and trade as a means of increasing the economic potential of the country itself, and sees them as alliances created from a non-Western approach with the sole aim of “beating” the West.

3) This leads to another question: why should civilizational consciousness and awareness of difference cause enmity or conflict?

4) Huntington argues that a shared membership of civilization makes violence less likely in situations where it might otherwise occur. 

In that case, what about the situation in Kurdistan? Muslim Turkey, Muslim Iran, Muslim Syria and Muslim Kurdistan. By the authors' logic, they all belong to the same civilization, yet there is a violent conflict between them. 

5) The author mentions the " kin country" syndrome, which means that civilizations naturally support those who belong to the same civilization by virtue of their affiliation. The example of Muslim Iran supporting Christian Armenians in their conflict with Muslim Azerbaijan raises some questions and the inconsistency of the term.

The last two examples do not demonstrate the civilizational unity and coherence described in the article. 

I would not completely disagree with the author, as he has some thoughts that can be seen as happening in the present, or at least making sense.

I still believe that the reasons for the conflict are mostly geographical proximity and socio-economic reasons, not cultural ones.

I have a few thoughts about the content of my term paper. However, I cannot yet systematise them in order to formulate a suitable topic. The first idea is to discuss Kant's concept of cosmopolitanism and connect it with Arendt's views on human rights. Including the universality of human rights versus the dependence of human rights on nation-state affiliation and identity.

The second thought is to make a comparative analysis of Fanon's violent decolonization with Gandhi's non-violent resistance and Martin Luther King's non-violence movement.

However, I don't yet have any thoughts on how these topics should be approached and how the research questions should be formulated or whether these thoughts are appropriate to develop. 

I found this article to be very informative as it explains the commonalities that put liberal peacebuilding practices and colonialism on the same shelf. We have already studied and discussed liberal peacebuilding, its critiques and limitations in introducing peacebuilding practices in post-conflict countries. However, until this article, I had never come across its direct linkage to colonialism. The logic underpinning interventionist peacebuilding operations and the logic of colonialism share common features, such as: relations of hierarchy and unequal power distribution between "international" and "local", and the "modernisation" of so-called "failedstates" through Western models of good governance. I have recently encountered Jonathan Hill's comment related to this "failure" of "failed states", that it is measured only in relation to the "success" of the Western model of statehood, which is seen as “universal” and should be replicated (read imposed) throughout the world.

Vivien Jabri and other scholars on post-colonial peacebuilding processes have argued for the importance of the local population in the negotiation and implementation of peacebuilding operations in a post-conflict country. I agree that locals should be protagonists rather than observers or subjects of such practices and policies. Thus, I support the idea that a hybrid approach should be used by scholars and practitioners to draw attention to the need to include the ‘failed state societies’ at the core of peacebuilding operations and discourses. 

This reminds me of the situation in Afghanistan and the US intervention. The focus was on elites and state institutions, but the local population was completely excluded from any kind of political participation and decision-making. The government therefore lacked sufficient legitimacy and relied only on the financial and military presence of the US to maintain power and exert influence on the citizens. 

The hybrid approach and the local turn have their limitations, but the very fact that an alternative to the dominant practice of liberal peacebuilding has emerged and exists is a good sign of efforts by scholars and practitioners to avoid colonialist biases in approaches to peacebuilding.

Loss of livelihoods and increasing poverty due to the fact that many people have been displaced from their homes and communities by the construction of industrial facilities. Or the high degree of environmental degradation due to industrialization and air pollution is a problem for everyone, regardless of their economic status.

Nevertheless, it also has positive aspects that should be taken into account in a critical analysis of developmental theory. I would include infrastructure development, as well as the development of education and health care. Development theory is still the dominant discourse used to justify intervention in non-Western societies. However, after reading about postliberal approaches and postcolonialism, I have come to realize that many scholars and practitioners are beginning to change the way they think and perceive, as well as the way they work on this issue. 

The post-development approach addresses the alleged failure of development theory and can be used by many defenders of the latter as a supplement to the dominant traditional discourse rather than as theory itself. 

The post-development approach forces scholars and practitioners to challenge the dominant development discourse and the colonial political and economic power dynamics within it. 

It offers practitioners an approach that allows them to listen to and apply the indigenous knowledge system and include the local population, while keeping local culture and tradition in mind.

Reading the critique of "Post-Development," especially the part that suggests that people in the Global South/non-Western/non-developed communities are not interested in the process of development and Westernization, the acquisition of a Western lifestyle, I was reminded of Francis Fanon's work "Decolonization," where he writes that the colonized want what the colonizer has: his house, his car, his life and even his wife. Reflecting on this, it seems that communities are not the "noble savages" that development scholars present them as.

Not sustainable because:

- The author is not in favor of what is happening to the refugees, he describes the situation, but does not call for change.

 

- The author does not mention any initiatives of local people nor NGOs supporting the refugees, i.e. International Rescue Committee.

The author explains the main critiques of human rights by post-colonial thinkers Mutua and Spivak. When addressing the issue of Eurocentrism and Western individualism of human rights, it must be borne in mind that human rights developed in the West and were grounded in Western ideology and consciousness in the post-war environment. Subsequently, times have changed and a new North-South has gained momentum. As a result, a critique of human rights has emerged that needs to be rethought and amended. The author tries to find supplements to the original document of human rights, that would be widely accepted and recognized by global South and translated into their cultural norms and values. 

I would agree with Lee Kuan Yew’s, a former Prime Minister of Singapore, famous debate on  “Asian values”. He defined the difference between Western individualistic approach and non-western or Asian values. Modern human rights focus is on individual, whereas in the South the ‘individual’ does not exist independently of social conditions in which one lives, only in relation to family and other societal groups.  However, I would also add that individual human beings can have rights as individuals and as member of group with whom they are associated. 

This reminded me of a post made by Kyrgyz feminist and human right activist, who argued that our societies use ‘collectivism’ and ‘cultural relativism’, when it comes to discussing individual human rights, simply as an excuse to continue violating them when necessary. When feminist and activists in Kyrgyzstan try to draw attention to the violation of women’s rights and discrimination of women in society, state officials, traditional and religious public authorities use the “culture” card and do not even engage in discussions, ignoring the problem.

As author notes, Islamic culture has consistently promoted the idea of justice (or ‘haq’ according to Spivak and “haqiqah’ in Islam) and is not entirely separate from liberalist thinking often associated with the West. This is closely related to the question raised by the author in the text “Why should human rights be restricted to the idea of humans only having rights and not also doing right?” and which describes the position of Spivak. As human being is not only recipient of human rights but also a performer of duties towards other individuals and communities. Sharia law differs from human rights in that responsibilities to the society are beyond the human rights inherent in individuals. However, Islamic law has also promoted values consistent with the UDHR, such as freedom, justice and tolerance. 

 

 

Regardless of what protests take place in our countries, the pro-government media call them "international interference in the life of the state" and "propaganda of external values among citizens" and place the blame on NGOs. It is therefore difficult for NGOs to operate freely and survive in our countries as their activities are constantly monitored by the media and the State National Security Committee (similar to the KGB in the USSR) and their members are constantly interrogated by the SCNS.

A couple of years ago, a peaceful march was held on 8 March in support of gender equality and against any kind of gender discrimination, and especially against bride kidnapping and early forced marriages. However, the military stopped the march and violently arrested peaceful women "protesters". Many government officials later called the march a foreign campaign and accused the Europe and the US of organizing and destabilizing the situation in the capital. Many local human rights NGOs and activists took part in the march, and it was only after the issue was raised on social media and the government's actions were criticized by citizens that the activists were released from prison.

The government of my country is ignorant of the conditions and needs of vulnerable people. When NGOs raise the issue and propose a programme of action to address or minimize suffering and improve conditions, the government alludes to the limited budget and other existing problems in the country. NGOs therefore rely on international assistance and try to implement the project with a sustainability component of the project. 

The Kyrgyz Red Crescent Society is a national society, but has a huge database of international donors who can fund projects that can be implemented jointly with other local NGOs. In this way, local knowledge is still used and the factor of community involvement and accountability is respected.

The number of NGOs is decreasing every year, whereas the number of vulnerable people is still increasing.

I have some thoughts on the Term Paper, but I can't fully organize them. The last class reading on the role of NGOs caught my interest. In Kyrgyzstan, the government criticises the work of NGOs and tries to discredit their importance. But at the end of the day, NGOs are the only ones that help civil society. 
The next topic of interest to me is the concentration camps in China. I know this is a complicated topic and extremely sensitive for me personally. But I want to analyse the reasons for Chinese authorities through "fear and danger" from the book "Critical Pedagogy and Peace Education". 
I haven't formulated my research questions yet, I need to decide on topic first.