Focus on Positive and Negative Approaches to Peace

Here, I want to discuss those ideas which stand in contrast to common peace building and peacemaking views. There are two kinds of peace approaches in security theories: a positive approach and a negative approach.
Proponents of the positive approach maintain that peace means absence of war. Some of them believe in the necessity of building peace and there are important theorists in this area with serious arguments. The absence of war as requisite of peace has been also underlined in liberalistic and neoliberal schools which see peace only in the context of security. As a result, they maintain that peace can only exist when security exists too.
Therefore, militaries are the main factor which endangers peace and security strategists are the main parties which make plan for peace. What happens in the United Nations or other organizations followed what really happens in the world because political discourse is a main factor determining peace and security. Therefore, realism will be more useful here. Some believe that military men only approach peace from the viewpoint of their own benefits. Therefore, we should focus on frameworks which shape mentality of security strategists and military men. In other words, there are many approaches here one of which was the approach of an international government. It argued that “war” is the main reality, not peace and all plans should be based on war.
At present, nongovernmental organizations and other influential entities have been discussing war and peace. Today, states are not the sole parties involved with peace or war, but there are other groups which can play an effective role in delineating the concepts of peace and war. Here, I will mention few claims against us (Iran) in Europe and elsewhere in the West.
What does it mean when Western countries claim that we defend peace on the one hand, while also supporting freedom movements, on the other hand? They say that we talk about peace while, at the same time, promoting war and conflict. We should immediately say that the peace formulated by them is not a just peace and the image we have of peace is quite different from their image. Our image is shaped by the military men while their image is made by security strategists.
As a result, these viewpoints will never converge. This interest-based viewpoint has been institutionalized in their minds. Therefore, a security-based approach to peace does not value peace as an absolute value, but as the absence of resistance. They say that peace exists where your enemies cannot resist you. This is quite different from the concept of peace in legal texts. They try to formulate their national security and military strategies in such a way as to prevent others from resisting them. In that case peace would exist. Such analysts maintain that countries should move to increase their military capacities. On the other hand, the military men also emphasize that the world is still exposed to serious threats of war and violence. Since they think this way, they also act this way. See how Western countries perform in Iraq or Afghanistan. How they waited for resolutions to be passed by the United Nations before taking action. These examples attest to the existence of a military approach to the concept of peace.

Authors: Post date:

Add new comment