1.What surprised me?

·         The results that portrays PACS as a divided discipline! 

·         That violence holds a dominant position in researches of PACS

·         Again the division between the hard-nosed and humanist researchers (Empirical and normative ways of research)

·         The increased number of male writers, compared to the female writers in this domain

2. How does my understanding of PACS differ from the text?

Having a background of Religious and Cultural Studies, my knowledge about PACS is quiet limited. Yet what I think about PACS is that-

·         The results were obtained through following the methodology and analyzing the articles of political science and international relations only. However, the outcomes may have deferred if the topic was analyzed through the lenses of other disciplines, like sociology, psychology or theology.

·         This discipline was founded on the notion that the destruction of world war ll shall never repeat itself, so basically a normative goal is the basement of this field. So according to my understanding it should never get biased by the concept of conflict or war only. On the other way around it should be more focused on suggesting about peacekeeping or other peace related topics.

·         Either empirical or normative way of research, as the goal is one I am of opinion that the researchers should help each other with their findings rather than making a division! For instance, in medical science the pathology department digs out the cause behind a disease on the other hand based on those findings the doctors finds a solution, or consults with the patient or operate him. So they all work hand in hand. Same can be the situation for PACS, the empirical researchers may deal with the data finding part while normative researchers can come up with solutions based on their researches on social structures and other variables.

·         Nevertheless, both scientific and humanitarian perspective of a conflict is needed, to understand the underlying causes, to take steps for prevention, to respond and also for the resolution,

Although there are lots of aspects discussed in the book that has relevance in the present era yet with the passage of time some of them have lost their relevance in the present context. I will be discussing briefly an aspect of this book which is still relevant and discussed in the domain of PACS today-

 

In the book the Kant illustrated some of the supplements that can guarantee perpetual peace. Among the supplements one concept he discussed was Natura Daedala rerum, Nature itself has a design that can bring about peace and war upon men. That this design consists of three things – “1.she has provided so that men shall be able to live in all parts of the world, 2.she has scattered them everywhere by means of war so that they might populate even the most inhospitable regions,3.she has compelled them to enter into relations more or less rightful with one another.” So according to the author – war requires no special motive for its explanation; it appears to be engrafted on human nature” (p.28).

This aspect that war is inherent in human nature is still discussed by many scholars of PACS, basically discussed as one of the conflict theories. The proponents of such theories are Max Weber, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud. According to some social-psychologists the sources of violent human behavior can be traced from his or her inner psychological environments.  Thus war, violence and aggressive nature, from this perspective, are inherent in human nature. Again some of them considers aggressive behavior is genetically fixed and biologically functional. 

 

The author discussed that there is the desire of ‘every’ state or of its sovereign, to bring about perpetual peace by subjugating the whole world (p.31). Furthermore the author illustrates that this motive can never be fulfilled as- Nature wills it otherwise, that she prevent the people from intermingling and keep them apart. As there are differences of languages and religions, which brings a mutual hatred among them (p.32). 

But according to me this concept doesn’t apply for every state and for every sovereign. It is indeed true that the superpowers during the cold war wanted to usurp the whole world yet this is not true in the present context. Moreover not every state of the world aspire to gain power over the whole world! Moreover, language and religion not always acts as a barrier that prevents people of the world to intermingle. At least the concept is not applicable in present day, as we see that people of varied languages are working and living together in different countries. People from different corners of the world are learning new languages to communicate with their fellow friends. Similarly in the modern world with the rise of secularism religion has become a more personal issue that barely serves as an obstacle that can hinder the communication of the followers of diverse religion. There are so many countries where we can see people belonging to different religion are living peacefully together for instance, in Turkey, France, Japan, China etc. Indeed there are hostilities that occurred in some of the states due to religious conflict yet there are also instances of international conferences and summits arranged so that the adherents of different religion a can have the chance to mitigate the issues of conflict and to promote greater peace worldwide. 

However, if we perceive all other states as usurpers we may never be able to make a mutual understanding with them, which is necessary for perpetual peace. Again we should never consider different languages and religions as the variables that will generate hatred and keep us apart, rather we should seek for the beauty of diversity and utilize that beauty to unite us. 

 

Democratic peace refers that democratic countries are less likely to engage into a conflict to each other. The theory indicates towards the idea that democracies by nature do not entangle themselves with one another in a situation of war or conflict. This theory can be explained by two means-

Structural explanation-According to this explanation, it is the institutions of a representative government, which elects decision-makers and officials who are further accountable to the people who elected them, and that are reluctant to engage into a war due to the costs and risks that a war entails, effecting directly the national life and wealth. However, it cannot be envisaged that all the representatives will think this way but as the citizens hold a superior position over government it is quite difficult for the leaders to initiate war.

Normative explanation- This view explains that democratic political culture advocates peaceful ways of conflict resolution which covers other democratic states as well because both the leaders trust each other based on the expectation that their counterpart will also solve the hostile situation peacefully.

Democratic peace theory is rooted theoretically in the influential work of Immanuel Kant (Perpetual Peace). Immanuel Kant is extensively regarded as the intellectual pioneer to the concept of modern democratic theory. In his philosophical work he put forward three conditions that will bring about peace among states:

1.      To ensure a republican constitution,-  as he believed that if the approval of the citizens is necessary that a war should be declared or not or if the government can decide to use armed military force or not, it is natural that they will chose against war because they have to bear the costs by themselves. But on the contrary the other forms of government which is not republican and under which the subjects are not considered as citizens the declaration of war is easy as the ruler need not to sacrifice his pleasures of different kinds. According to Kant the presence of a republican constitution is one of the main conditions for perpetual peace as he claims “The mode of government is incomparably more important to the people than the form of sovereignty.”

 

2.      A favorable closed trade relations may be formed by the nations, which Kant depicted as ‘the spirit of commerce’. According to Kant if a nation enters a closed trade relation then it would be irrational of its part to enter into war as it would hamper their future mutual welfare.

 

 

3.      In order to protect the international rights of the nations they should form a Federation of free states. To counter the risks of lawlessness in international politics it is necessary to enter to a federation like this.

However, the researches on democratic peace concentrates mostly on the first two mechanisms that Kant proposed. The first being the a republican form of government with the concept of representative form of democracy through a separation of powers; respect for human rights; and interdependent social and economic relations. One of the issues that Kant highlighted is the rational idea about the political cost that the democratic governments have to bear while entering a war. Again there are the possibilities of rising domestic opposition, legislative interference, public protest and the loss of national life and health. A true representative republican form of government tend to avoid such severe risks and thus shows reluctance in engaging into an armed conflict.

This perspective of a having republican representative form of government is quiet convincing, and if we can abide by all the mechanisms Kant prescribed, maybe we can reach the era of perpetual peace. Nonetheless these conditions does not have a universal appeal, as different states around the world have diverse goals. It can not be taken for granted that the states will follow the rules ubiquitously, so the concept of democratic peace is shadowy.

      The democratic peace theory gained universal acceptance in the field of international relations.  

       Yet it received criticisms because there is a small quantity of data from which the conclusion   is drawn, as the concept of democracy is relatively new.

        Moreover another criticism suggests that democracy mostly emerged during the period of cold war, that indicates to the fact that peace during that time was influenced by the necessity of maintaining a balance against the hostile superpowers. So maybe the democratic states never entered into a war due to their weakness or maybe for some kind of alliance.

The text about postcolonial peace surprised me through different topics like colonies were thought to be inhabited by savages, moral or lesser violence, freedom of violence, the law itself is a form of violence, right of the sovereigns to kill etc.

However, I tried to summarize the literature by forming this flowchart because according to my thinking the different events that took place in the situation of postcolonial peace, are eventually interlinked. As the author pointed out that peace in postcolonial society is the occupation by European population. This occupation led to a violent cultural synthesis or assimilation through bio-political management of life as in post colony peace is coded to mean the normalization of both non-indigenous and indigenous populations. The bio-political management of life gave rise to some sort of “necroplitics”, that gives sovereignty the power to give life and conversely let die. This type of governance uses biopolitical management of life to act for the best interests of the entire population, exercising power in a productive manner and taking actions against the people( indigenous people) who aren’t willing to let go of their different rights. This management gave birth to a form of resistance by the indigenous people, the struggle for decolonization or to get back to the traditions that prevailed in pre-colonial situations where there was peace. They fight to gain an eternal peaceful situation but that type of peace, according to the authors is an illusion.  So this struggle by the indigenous people takes the form of an eternal struggle and their cultures get stigmatized as violent culture. Moreover, when the indigenous people strive to form their identities and speak against discrimination the majority get threatened and feel insecure and vulnerable. This notion of vulnerability and insecurity gives the authority the freedom of violence, which is an umbrella term for lesser or moral violence.

 

Nevertheless, the text focused more on the situations faced by the indigenous people of New Zealand, but this struggle is not the same for other parts of the world. There are other countries who tried and still trying to ensure the rights of the natives. 

·         Integrating peace education at different levels of education(primary and secondary levels) and general citizen education

·         Reflective critical inquiry which will enable the students to think more deeply and will make way for creative approaches

·         Growing a cosmopolitan view- a world view that respects others, takes interest in multiple views, celebrates diversity and manifests the widest possible range of moral inclusion.

·         The necessity to avoid predigested interpretation by the widely published peace scholars as that will hinder autonomous thinking and theory building

·         Avoiding divisions between the reflections of “ordinary folks” and “the intellectuals”, as it will hamper the development of thoughtful decision making

·         Avoid bias or privileging views as that contribute to the politicization of peace education

·         The importance of maintaining caution regarding religious and spiritual practices, because contemplative reflection invites learners to think inwardly which is similar to the spiritual practice of meditation or prayer. Spiritual practice is necessary for the personal development of peacemakers but not really appropriate to secular public education. Because religious thinking can create a bias towards his/her community.

·         Importance of an open inquiry devoid of any bias or privilege

·         Not to rely on predetermined answers as those are similar to fundamentalism and fundamentalism in all its forms, ideological or religious, is the antithesis of reflective critical thinking. Because it is the negation of cosmopolitan view

·         Importance of daydreaming or creative thinking, having a reasoning head and sensitive and compassionate hearts as it moves towards the politics of moral inclusion

According to my view, this pedagogical approach is really beneficial for us and for the upcoming generation as this will enable us to generate a cosmopolitan view and will help us to see ourselves as global citizens, who together will contribute to building peace worldwide. 

·         How violence changes its color over time- like how the natives expressed their grudge through group dancing, then they entangled themselves in different crimes, then they successfully used it to gain independence. Yet this aggressive nature is still prevalent which manifests itself from time to time when the representatives of those countries go to the UN to attend conferences and when they interact for their rights.

·         How the colonial world was compartmentalized- the way the author demonstrated the division between settlers and the natives helped me to visualize the entire situation back then and helped me realize that how important it was for the natives to bring independence.

·         The author's solution- The author mentioned that even after obtaining independence the decolonized countries are challenged by the settlers that the natives without them will be back to the middle ages of chaos. Even the international community is still hostile in issuing aids to de-colonized countries and aids are given only after fulfilling some absurd conditions Here the writer gave a solution which was quite similar to Gandhi’s thinking- that the natives should renounce working in the factories and stop exporting goods to the international market, that way “ the Western industries will quickly be deprived of their overseas markets. The machines will pile up their products in the warehouses and a merciless struggle will ensue on the European market between the trusts and the financial groups. The closing of factories, the paying off of workers and unemployment will force the European working class to engage in an open struggle against the capitalist regime.”

·         A reform is needed- the author clearly pointed out that neither socialism nor capitalism could bring anything good to the decolonized countries. So a set of reforms is needed which will fit the cultural and social aspects of the natives.

Well, in the beginning, I was really enthusiastic about democratization, statebuilding and peacebuilding missions but the more I read the more my opinion changed regarding these. Like democratization of society seems really a good idea to bring order for a state yet democracy what I know now that democracy alone can not bring peace and not all countries are really ready to adopt it. In addition, statebuilding and peace interventions seem to be really controversial given their failures throughout history!

However, it is really interesting to know about all the facts of these issues and now I am really interested in the issues of identity formation and ethnic, cultural and religious disputes. As I am really influenced by Samuel P. Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” also by the theory of constructivism, for me it is time for us to think more about the ethnic and cultural fault lines rather than only focusing on realism and power-politics.

Again I am looking forward to doing the case studies, the poster submissions and the term papers. Till now I am interested in pursuing my term papers on Nagorno-Karabakh war and the effects of the US’s departure from Afghanistan. Because both of these issues are really new and both are related to ethnic and religious disputes. 

·         That difference among civilizations (linguistic, cultural, religious) are real and basic. Which may or may not instigate conflict between different groups or nations, as the difference doesn’t mean conflict and conflict may not be always violent

·         The world is becoming smaller and the intensity of communication between different groups enhances consciousness between the members of different civilizations, which can lead to a hostile situation

·         That religions are less mutable, one can change their political ideology and become democratic from a communist; one can be half-European and half-African; but one can not be half-Muslim and half-Hindu. So religion basically sharpens the division of identities.

·         Sometimes the concept of a universal community, the notion of individualism. Liberalism, democracy is seen as western concepts. Again the IMF, the UN, The World Bank are seen as western institutions that are seen to legalize western interests specifically. This kind of thinking produces a counter-response- us vs. them and the non-westerners try to de-westernize the aspects, these again can form a sort of resistance against interventions and statebuildings.

·         Moreover the increased migration sometimes creates tensions in different states.

·         The concept of the kin country syndrome is somewhat similar to the present-day alliances between different states, which sometimes portrays states having double standards.

These are the few things that I found partially logical, because there are pieces of evidence of conflicts based on religious and ethnic identities, for instance, the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the war of Kurds and Turks etc. But it is also very true that religious and ethnic identities were not the only reasons behind these conflicts, there were other underlying interests like maintaining a balance of power, national pride, territorial ownership etc. So I think maybe this is not totally a vague prediction of the future of global politics, yet there are some logical issues that are discussed here. which works as a catalyst for the escalation of different conflicts.

Date: December 09, 2021

 

1- Would you consider the approach taken by national or international actors to 

be sustainable?

 

2- Are there postcolonial topics taken into consideration?

 

3- How well does it work and what would be an alternative approach?

 

4- What do you think about the opinion of the author on the topic?

 

I think the opinions or the solutions that the author gave were quite appealing as it is really important to act promptly in part of the international community in this regard. Again pushing the people back to the sea is really unacceptable. Moreover, the international community must help Bangladesh to decongest camps and help to maintain hygiene there properly.

The most agreeable solution can be the acceptance of the Rohingyas by the Myanmar government again and also ensuring their safe return to their home and giving full recognition to them as citizens. 

 5- What is missing?/How to do it better

It works better as a descriptive overview of the situation in the context of the Pandemic.

·         Mental and linguistic structure implying certain relation of power

·         Creating the notion of underdevelopment (a false need)- to win hegemony over and gain access over de-colonized states by promising them development

·         Creating a typical concept of “othering” by describing industrial states as superior, developed, advanced and other societies as backward

·         Westernization and homogenization of cultures and society by promoting a universal Eurocentric society, prescribing it a need for every country

Illustrating these issues post-development wanted to bury the notion of development and promoting cultural hybridization, which is critical towards cultural traditions, abstains from a desirable model of society and employs a dynamic constructivist concept of culture. To sum up, post-development wanted to find an alternative to development.

But development has really become a universal issue that is present in every country and society. In the past, development was viewed as financial assistance from the north to the south, as a western lifestyle to be pursued but today the notion has changed a lot. Nowadays, development can be demonstrated as a process of capitalist accumulation, it has become immanent which is opposed to intentional development through state intervention. Although post-development tried to bury development, it is still there, as it remains as an option to achieve a comfortable western lifestyle of consumerism.

These vital issues as pointed out by post-development really led me to think about how much development do we need for a better and comfortable lifestyle? What is the parameter of development? When should we stop and think that we are really developed now?

All these questions are really necessary to be acted upon because nowadays each and every country is emerged in the competition of development and trying to be more developed than each other. This race of development is really creating a bad impact on the ecological balance, different vital resources are depleting, and heightened pollution is giving birth to different diseases. There should be an end to this striving of development otherwise it will be quite hard for the future generation to live a comfortable life on the earth.

UN PROPOSE PEACE AGREEMENT TO INDONESIA →  OPEN FOR NEGOTIATIONS