Since World War II multi-lateral international relations emanated from political science dominated the peacebuilding efforts. Eighty years later it is proven to be an unmanageable patchwork in search for a solution.
The grand idea of globalization and the aspirational global peace is facing an increasingly fragmented world at war with each other, either an economic war or an actual one with sophisticated and mutually destructive weapons. The forces for conflict resolution, reconciliation and peacebuilding are feeling a gut punch and the wind taken away from them in the prevailing and evolving geo-political realities. The forces of warmongering have the global megaphone.
Conflict is intrinsic to human community – whether a community of two or a community of thousands. Conflicts inherently assert human individuality and independent agency, which confronts the individuality and independence of the other driven by, as Jacques Rousseau would say, “amour de soi” (interest in our survival and comfort) and “amour propre” (self-love which arises from social comparison and seeking recognition). Conflict resolution and reconciliation are the foundational ingredients to build a community where the culture of forgiveness is fostered to support a robust peaceful community. It ought to be considered a duty of all human beings and not just a responsibility of the government and their officials. In the fragmented world we must look locally, and peaceful society must be envisaged as a block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood endeavor. The complexity of the human conflict is manifold with long and tortuous histories, with deep socio-economic and emotional wounds, which cannot be overridden by signing politically coerced peace agreements.
Identifying conflict issues and acknowledging them is the incipient step of the long and arduous journey to discover common ground and interdependent humanity. Resolving conflicts demands acknowledging the reality, either perceived or misunderstood, and in good faith, initiating the dialogue. This dialogue ought to lead to reconciliation – re-concile = to bring to together again and to make it friendly. The seeds and the tradition of reconciliation are deeply rooted in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Reconciliation is circular, dynamic and continuing process (Lederach). Reconciliation recognizes the weakness of the human nature to revert to conflict driven by unabashed “amour propre.” Thus, it calls for well thought-out, culturally contextualized structures of conversation and dialogue with all stakeholders to acknowledge and express willingness to heal the wounds and build a just community where “Truth and Mercy have met together, Justice and Peace have kissed.” (Psalm 85, 10)
Reconciliation involves transforming relationships damaged by violent conflict and oppression. It focuses on improving both horizontal relationships, between people and groups in society, and vertical relationships between people and institutions. Over time, a common aspiration to reconciliation ought to emerge, with a shared interest in freedom from sectarian harassment. To achieve sustainable change in communities, there are four key dimensions of change to consider: personal, relational, structural and cultural. Any successful and lasting community-change work needs to tap into each area over the course of the change process (Lederach).
Conflict resolution focusses on issues and problems, while reconciliation focuses on mending relationships.