The Security Approach and the Peace Approach

by Johan Galtung
10th of September 2004

Some Cultural Factors Conditioning the Choice

World Culture Open, UN Meeting Room 1, NYC, 9/10 2004:

Building Peace Through Harmonious Diversity

Panel: Global Governance, Peacemaking and Social Harmony

By Johan Galtung, dr hc mult, Professor of Peace Studies

Director, TRANSCEND: A Network for Peace and Development

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, Friends of Peace,

     "Building Peace Through Harmonious Diversity" is a marvelous

title, combining three words of honor; peace, harmony, diversity.

"Peace", in my view, is another word for equality, equity, equal

rights/dignity, symmetry, reciprocity, diversity/symbiosis etc;

"harmony" is creative cooperation, beyond absence of violence;

"diversity" celebrates our manifold, within peace and harmony.

The Millennium Question is how to obtain all three when all over

there is the opposite: direct, structural and cultural violence.

     Two discourses about coping with violence compete for our

attention: the security discourse and the peace discourse. They

address the same concern but are almost diametrically opposed.

     The Security Approach is based on four components:

[1] An Evil Party, with strong capability and evil intention;

[2] A Clear and Present Danger of Violence, real or potential;

[3] Strength, to defeat or deter the evil party ,in turn producing

[4] Security, which is also the best approach to "peace".

The approach works when evil/strong parties are weakened through

defeat or deterrence, and/or converted to become good.

     The Peace Approach is also based on four components:

[1]  A Conflict, which has not been resolved/transformed;

[2]  A Danger of Violence to "settle the conflict";

[3]  Conflict Transformation, empathic-creative-nonviolent, producing

[4]  Peace, which is the best approach to "security".

     The approach works through acceptable/sustainable outcomes.

     The security approach presupposes superior strength (of whatever

kind, Sun Tzu or Clausewitz), which implies inequality.

     The peace approach presupposes a conflict outcome acceptable to

all parties and sustainable, which implies equality.

     What would favor a preference for the security approach?

[1]  A culture of dualism/manicheism/Armageddon, in other words a

hard, absolutist, reading of the abrahamitic religions.  The security

approach is a secular version of Good/God/Christ  vs Evil/Satan/Anti-

Christ, with an Armageddon type battle as the final arbiter.

[2]  Construction of the Other as evil, with no legitimate goal,

driven by lust, greed or envy, somebody with whom one would never

negotiate since there is no grievance and no basis for any solution;

only for extermination/crushing, containment or at best conversion.

[3]  The absence of "diversity with equality" as category, the

Columbus fallacy (Todorov).  There is an underlying social code of

verticality, not horizontality, to be implemented, based on ascribed

categories like gender, generation, race, class/caste, nation, state.

[4]  A preference for a structure of inequality, in other words a

hard, Hobbesian, reading of the "social order". The expression "the

dangerous classes (genders/generations/races/nations/states" is an

updating of evil/Satan with "witch"-burning as a prelude to the

massive genocide of other races and nations during modernity.

[5]  Monopoly on the "ultima ratio regis/regnum", in other words the

concentration of the means of coercion in the hands of the state (or

community of states) defined through that monopoly (Weber), giving

legitimacy to upholding "law and order" by force. States and

communities of states (like the EU) will work out lists of threats.

[6]  "To He Who Has a Hammer the World Looks Like a Nail", in other

words the self-propelling force of a security apparatus, with secret

services to assess capability (how strong) and motivation (how evil),

and cloak-and-dagger operations to "nip it in the bud" through extra-

judicial execution, etc., police operations to round up the suspects,

overwhelming force to defeat and thereby deter.

     And what would favor a preference for the peace approach?

[1]  A culture of unity of human beings, in other words a soft

reading of abrahamitic and African (ubuntu) religions, mainstream

readings of hinduism/buddhism and daoism, of women with a focus on

compassion, of the secularism of liberte, egalite, fraternite.  There

is no Armageddon as final arbiter, but the ever-lasting effort of

human beings to improve, individually and collectively.

[2]  "There is that of God in everybody", meaning a legitimate goal

in every party, however violent and repulsive.  The way of

identifying valid goals is by mutual inquiry, asking; in other words

dialogue, and then using that as a basis for togetherness.

[3]  Diversity as a source of mutual enrichment presupposes

curiosity, respect, dialogue, for mutual exploration and learning. 

Reciprocity and symmetry have to be extended to any other party

within the limits of reasonable legitimacy as defined by legality,

human rights and basic human needs.  Diversity with inequality is

mutual impoverishment, and so is equality with uniformity.

[4]  A preference for a structure of equality.  Thus, "security" is

located to the right politically and "peace" to the left.  Peace is a

revolutionary ("equality") proposition.  Democracy and human rights

are already great equalizers.  Reciprocity is the norm.  If you  want

peace, then give to others whatever they want that you also want.

[5]  A culture and practice of nonviolent countervailing power, based

on a strong identity, high level of self-reliance and much courage,

to counter brainwashing, bribery and threats.

[6]  A culture and practice of conflict transformation, not only for

specialists, more like hygiene and healthy life styles for everybody,

including ability to identify valid goals in all parties, bridge

creatively the contradictions between valid goals, and build peace.

     We are dealing with two approaches in conflict.  The peace

approach is better, but the security approach us sometimes needed.

     The peace argument against the security approach is strong: it

serves like a bandage over a festering wound that will reproduce the

fever and other symptoms.  An untransformed conflict will reproduce

violence, sooner or later.  Not going to the roots, solving the

issues leads to a spiral of violence and counter-violence. Thus, only

in an equitable Middle East Community, like the European Community,

not in an unequal Two States formula, will Israel find security.

     The security argument against the peace approach is also strong:

not all parties are driven by legitimate grievances, some are driven

by illegitimate greed.  The latter have to be stopped before they

destroy us all.  The day after a peaceful conflict "transformation"

the greedy will get at everybody's throat. Thus, only within secure

borders/walls will Israel find peace.

     To which the peace approach people counter, that is why we

emphasize legitimacy.  There is much illegitimacy between people and

states.  But there are also legitimate grievances, and the task is to

bridge them.  For peace to prevail focus only on legitimate goals.

     The first list of factors determining the choice of approach is

incompatible and the second compatible with  peace, harmony and

diversity as it adds up to a peace culture.  But illegitimate goals

like slavery exist, so do illegitimate means like intervention to

bolster unequal social and world orders. Hence the need to transcend,

to get a both-and, with soft strength, a peaceful security approach

that does not produce even more violence.  One such formula would be:

peacekeeping by very large numbers, with defensive weapons, but

equally trained in police methods, nonviolence and mediation,

with at least 50% women, and the adequate cultural underpinning.

Only the UN combines world authority and world culture. Go ahead, UN!