The uprising in the Middle East with Syria on the brink of civil war has once again brought to the fore the need for peace building and effective intervention by countries that are considered champions of democracy.
Peace building and conflict resolution became popular after the end of the Cold War with intra-state violence erupting in Africa and Eastern Europe.
In his ‘Clash of Civilisations,’ the late US political scientist Samuel Huntington said that global conflict between major countries of the West and the East was possible, with people’s cultural and religious identities becoming the primary source of conflicts.
Some of these countries see the Western World, with its ideals of liberal democracy, as interfering in their internal affairs.
But the importance of peace building cannot be over-emphasised.
It became an academic discourse and gained popularity with International Law practitioners in the developed countries.
It is true that the effective aspect of Peace building in conflict prone-parts of the world has yielded the desired results. But it has also failed in many others.
Nepal problem
For instance, the UN Mission in Nepal was aimed at controlling arms pile-up among the insurgents. This approach was proved wrong, as the conflict between the Maoist rebels and the Army was more traditional and fundamental than mere ideology as viewed by the West.
This leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Western notion of peace building cannot be imposed on the conflict-prone regions.
It must be remembered that the oft-abused concept of security practiced by the West cannot be imposed on these regions.
The five important security matrixes including Physical, Military, Economic, Environment and Societal security are derived from the western notion of connecting the individual to the overall aspect of nation-states.
Peace and conflict resolution were based on the experience of violence and wars in the Western World with competitive lords and knights fighting.
This aspect does not apply to many countries as conflict is not between two nations but among ethnicities or religions.
The West often overlooks the fact that even conflict-prone countries value their sovereignty, having experienced colonialism in the past. They would not accept the presence of any foreign troops, even if they are involved in peace building.
The presence of Western troops for peace building activities also leads to unity among the conflicting parties, of which Sri Lanka is a good example.
When Indian troops went to Sri Lanka in 1987 under a friendship treaty with the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF), it angered both the Tamil and Sinhalese population. The IPKF was thought to have an interventionist agenda rather than a peace building force. The rest is history.
The above editorial, written by Balaji Chandramohan our Correspondent in New Delhi, India, appeared as an article in a slightly different version in our web edition.
