Peacebuilding:

Six dimensions and two concepts

---

By Henning Haugerudbraaten Intern, Bonn Inernational Center for Conversion

Published in African Security Review Vol 7 No 6, 1998

Introduced by the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General in An Agenda for Peace in 1992,¹ the concept of peacebuilding is now gaining widespread acceptance in academic and political circles. It was conceived as an integral part of UN efforts to promote peace and found its place among the organisation’s more traditional instruments: preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peacekeeping.

Despite, or perhaps because of the positive reception that the notion received, the precise definition of the term ‘peacebuilding’ has remained unclear. As actors ranging from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to defence ministries embraced the concept, each made their own contributions to the discourse. As a result, there are several significant differences in its interpretation.

Arguably, an important dimension of confusion was already present in An Agenda for Peace. The Secretary-General made it clear that peacebuilding consisted of "sustained, co-operative work to deal with underlying economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems ..."² Yet, the measures listed, included disarming, restoring order, destroying weapons, repatriating refugees, training security forces, monitoring elections, advancing the protection of human rights, reforming institutions and promoting political participation.³ These measures, for the most part associated with short to medium term international interventions, do not carry the notion of being sustained efforts that address underlying causes to put an "achieved peace on a durable foundation."⁴ Thus, at the very outset, peacebuilding emerged as a less than clear concept and has remained so ever since.

The blurred nature of peacebuilding has been acknowledged by Roland Paris, who holds that "scholars have devoted relatively little attention to analysing the concept of peace-building itself, including its underlying assumptions."⁵ Robert Miller of the Canadian Peacebuilding Initiative recently indicated that the term peacebuilding, being in its ‘etymological adolescence’, has remained ‘rather gangly and undefined’.

Diverging interpretations and use of one single term need not present problems, provided that scholars and policy-makers recognise their existence and take care in explaining what they are talking about. Yet, more often than not, the definitions in the literature are either weakly elaborated or entirely absent. This practice can only bring more confusion to the debates. Since these discussions form the framework and premises for political decisions, the conceptual confusion is likely to spill over into the design and implementation of peacebuilding efforts. For the concept of peacebuilding to realise the potential that is widely accorded to it, it is of vital importance that the term is employed with care and accuracy. This means being clear about the content which is assigned to the term. Since there are several dimensions on which the usage of the term differs, it is important to specify the particular approach to these dimensions which is adopted.

It should be acknowledged that a comprehensive theory of peacebuilding is for now a far-flung effort, a fact which will preclude efforts to establish an authoritative definition of peacebuilding for some time to come. Yet, noting the need for a clarification of the debate, it is useful to start with the general usage of the term. This article tries to sort out some of the main divergences in the current usage of ‘peacebuilding’. This will be achieved by reviewing a selection of the extensive literature written on the topic.⁶

The twin tendency implied by An Agenda for Peace is by no means unique in the literature. In fact, six dimensions of variable usage of the term peacebuilding can be identified. These dimensions correspond to a list of questions — intended to shift conceptual ambiguities from the back of the mind to conscious awareness and scrutiny.

The aim of peacebuilding: Is peacebuilding about removing the root causes of a conflict or about finding ways to resolve old and new disputes in a peaceful fashion?



The means of peacebuilding: Do peacebuilding efforts primarily entail security, humanitarian, economic or political intervention or all of these at the same time?



The temporal (time) aspects of peacebuilding: Are the measures employed in peacebuilding short to medium term or long-term ones? Should international involvement in peace-building be a short-to-medium term or long-term effort?



The main actors of peacebuilding: Who are the main actors in peacebuilding — indigenous or external actors?



The process/action dimension of peacebuilding: Does the word peacebuilding refer to a set of concrete actions taken or is it a generic concept that refers to an overarching, aggregate process?



The organisation of peacebuilding: Should peacebuilding be viewed as a top-down or bottom-up process, as a planned and co-ordinated process, or as one that, to a large extent, is initiated locally and pursued by a multitude of actors in their field of concern and comparative advantage?

Further elaboration and reflections on each of these six key dimensions and the questions related to the concept of peacebuilding will follow below. In the conclusion, an effort is made to combine the six dimensions, and two different concepts of peacebuilding are suggested.

The aim or purpose of peacebuilding is to create peace. Galtung⁷ suggested two different concepts of peace: negative peace, and positive peace. He called the mere absence of violence, negative peace. On the other hand, positive peace is a stable social equilibrium in which the surfacing of new disputes does not escalate into violence and war.

It is generally agreed that the task of peacebuilding is to promote positive peace. This has become a starting point of the analyses, from which the next step often concerns the addressing of the ‘root causes’ of a conflict.⁸ The root causes of conflicts are frequently complex, and hard to identify and understand for would-be peacebuilders. In developing countries, they often include skewed land property structures, environmental degradation, and unequal political representation on state level.⁹

The emphasis on finding and resolving the root causes of conflict has been criticised for being an overly negative view of social conflict. Conflict, as long as it does not take violent forms, may contribute to a dynamic and innovative society. As it is increasingly acknowledged that social conflict is in fact inevitable, some approaches to peacebuilding have turned the focus from the root causes to good governance and peaceful dispute settlement mechanisms.

For these reasons, it can be argued that the main aim of peacebuilding should be to remove violence as a tool for conflict resolution. However, it is quite conceivable that democratic government, judicial reform, and other measures in the good governance tool box will erode and decompose in the face of strong social tensions. Therefore, some do not rest content with good governance and feel that effective peacebuilding must primarily address the root causes of conflict and help to solve these, otherwise there can be no lasting peace.

These differences of perspective are frequently blurred by the usage of the word ‘conflict’. Conflict is taken to mean both the mere existence of disputes and disagreement over the distribution of resources, or over parochial identities; and the use of violence in an attempt to settle these disputes. Some authors are careful about qualifying conflict as ‘violent’ when used in the latter sense, but not all.

Related to the debate on the aims of peacebuilding, is the debate on what measures are the most important in this undertaking. As long as funding for peacebuilding ventures remain scarce, programme planners will need to consider carefully which measures to undertake. Since the chosen policies tend to feed back to analytical concepts, policy-makers effectively promote one particular notion of peacebuilding. However, different actors pursue different practices, as is reflected in the literature. They do not agree on the course to follow, causing further confusion about the concept.

Some take a very broad-based approach to peacebuilding. Ernie Regehr has stated that "peace is built ... on social, political, economic and ecological foundations that serve the welfare of the people."¹⁰ The Canadian Peacebuilding Co-ordinating Committee has published a list which includes a wide variety of economic, political and security issues that they feel must be addressed in peacebuilding.¹¹ In a paper dealing with UN involvement in Haiti, Kumar and Cousens¹² argue that Haiti is as much a "candidate for nation-building, more accurately called peace-building" as for conflict resolution, and presents a wide array of challenges and possible responses.

The encompassing perspective in these contributions contrasts to the more limited one evident in the final report from a Berlin conference on peace-building: "Firstly, peace-building is ... in the first place a political undertaking, and not a developmental or humanitarian one; secondly, its priority is not the ending of conflict as such, but to prevent the resumption of violence; thirdly, the time dimension of post-conflict peace-building is short and medium term, whereas development and nation-building is long-term."¹³

When comparing these two perspectives with the original statements by Boutros-Ghali, it becomes apparent that the former conforms quite closely to what he calls "sustained, co-operative work to deal with underlying economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems", whereas the latter is more reminiscent of the shorter term measures listed in paragraph 55 of An Agenda for Peace.

One should note that both excessively wide and excessively narrow definitions of the concept of peacebuilding pose problems of their own. A narrow definition — in terms of, for example, time, measures, or actors — may exclude a number of aspects relevant to the achievement of lasting peace. A broad definition, by trying to encompass ‘everything’ that seems to have a connection to peaceful human relations, runs the risk of rendering the concept superfluous, imprecise and useless for academic purposes or as a guide to political decisions. For example, for the concept of peacebuilding to have a distinct analytical meaning (and to inspire new thinking), it needs to be separated from other concepts such as development and nation-building. These latter concepts already have a long history and have proven quite elusive. Therefore, the term ‘peacebuilding’ should not become infected with the same problems. Care must be taken not to let the meaning of the concept ‘slide’ towards these older terms.

A major point of confusion in the literature is when activities referred to as peacebuilding commence and when they end. Some of the discrepancy may be related to different perceptions of what peacebuilding is and who undertakes it, as described by other dimensions in this article. This section will elaborate on the temporal aspects of peacebuilding.

The European Union refers to a list of phases through which a particular conflict may pass: a situation without obvious tension, a situation of tension, open conflict and a post-conflict situation.¹⁴ To this list should be added a distinct phase, the so-called ‘twilight zone’, that occurs after open conflict has ended. There is some disagreement on the exact meaning of this term, but it is useful, since it draws attention to a difficult transition phase. As De Soto¹⁵ explains, "during this period there are many aspects to a conflict, even if they appear to be peaceful, which need to be addressed." The phases of a conflict are thus situation without obvious tension; situation of tension; open conflict; twilight zone; and post-conflict situation.

It is generally agreed that peacebuilding can take place during all these phases. One notable exception is mentioned in An Agenda for Peace, which states that "[p]reventive diplomacy seeks to resolve disputes before violence breaks out; peace-making and peace-keeping are required to halt conflicts and preserve peace once it is attained. If successful, they strengthen the opportunity for post-conflict peace-building, which can prevent the recurrence of violence among nations and peoples."¹⁶ Thus, according to this document, peacebuilding sequentially follows peacekeeping.

The Secretary-General modified his position in the 1995 Supplement to An Agenda for Peace,¹⁷ and suggested that peacebuilding can also be preventive. It is thus not necessarily related to peacekeeping operations. Hence, peacebuilding as a concept, from being at first a strictly post-conflict undertaking, has evolved to acquire a broader meaning. The general consensus is that peacebuilding should already be attempted during the situation of tension phase.

There is also disagreement over the duration of peacebuilding activities. The approach until now has been to schedule the end of peacebuilding efforts at the time of general, national elections, as was the case in Mozambique. This adds up to a time span of two to three years for the operation. Paris feels that this is much too short and recommends a time span of seven to ten years, until the time of the second election.¹⁸ SIPRI states that the purpose of peacebuilding is to avoid a return to conflict and that "in some cases this may require ambitious ‘nation-building’ efforts."¹⁹ It has already been shown above that the International Peace Academy contends that Haiti is a candidate for "nation-building, more accurately called peace-building", thus stressing its long-term character.²⁰

Perhaps not surprisingly, those who are financially able to fund peacebuilding support operations are less likely to recommend long-term international involvement in peacebuilding. They do not equate peacebuilding with nation-building. In a policy statement by the OECD Development Assistance Committee, it is emphasised that "developing countries are ultimately responsible for their own development ... even in countries in crisis."²¹ International involvement is envisaged as a relatively short-term process. In the same vein, the report from a workshop organised by the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik distinguishes between short-term and long-term peacebuilding, and states that it was "questioned whether the UN has a major role to play" in the latter.²²

Yet another aspect of the starting point of peacebuilding operations is the fear expressed by some developing countries that premature peacebuilding efforts could interfere with their sovereignty. They do not subscribe to a concept of peacebuilding that precedes a peace agreement to end the violent conflict. These concerns are acknowledged by, among others, the Canadian Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy: "How do we empower multilateral institutions to prevent intrastate conflict, while respecting the sovereignty of the member states ...?"²³

The work that is undertaken to promote peace could differ between the various phases of conflict. This could colour the meaning of the word peacebuilding. It is likely that the contents assigned to the term by a particular researcher or politician depend on the conflict phase that is referred to, e.g. post-conflict or a situation of tension. This would be manifested in the answers to the questions posed at the beginning of this article.

The two dimensions of peacebuilding discussed here, revolve around the issues of which actors are the main peacebuilders, and whether peace-building constitutes a set of concrete actions or is more usefully conceived of as an aggregate process. It is helpful to present these two dimensions together, as term usage in both differs significantly.

Firstly, some texts dealing with peacebuilding tend to promote a concept that is heavily dominated by external actors.²⁴ In so far as peacebuilding conceived of in this way ignores the actions of locally based citizens and organisations, it can be characterised as donor-biased. Donor-bias can be manifested in visions of a grand strategy for external intervention, or in more humble but self-confident schemes for going into communities to teach them non-violent conflict resolution. Donor-biased perceptions pay less attention to action taken by groups of (former) adversaries themselves, that is, self-initiated or self-sustained interaction.

Secondly, peacebuilding can be conceptualised in two different ways: either as the concrete actions taken to support and promote peace, or as an aggregate process. This process involves a modification of social structures (political, economic, social, cultural, psychological) through a number of broad developments, notably democratisation, economic development and demilitarisation. The adjective ‘aggregate’ is used to highlight the fact that peacebuilding in this sense is an outcome that depends on the combined effect of a number of actions occurring at different levels.

For an explanation of the subtle differences in term usage, the two dimensions of peacebuilding are represented graphically in a two-by-two figure (Figure 1).

A possible location for the term peacebuilding is in square 2a. This means that it is viewed primarily as actions initiated and undertaken by external actors. An example can be found in the role-sharing implied by Kühne in a New York workshop report: "In peace-building activities special attention should be attached to the roles and obligations of the parties to a conflict, as well as to the local population. Since the co-operation of the parties is essential to the success of peace-building, increased effort should be made to secure their consent and support for the activities."²⁵

The fact that most of the literature mentions the need to obtain the consent of the conflicting parties and the local population, does not change the impression that peacebuilding is conceived of as being dominated by external actors. Frequently, scant attention is paid to the consideration of peacebuilding as an indigenous undertaking. The focus remains on the role of the international community, whether played by NGOs or UN agencies. This obviously also has to do with who writes and develops such concepts, but may result in donor-bias.

The view of peacebuilding as a mainly external undertaking implies that it is interpreted as action. In the post-conflict situation, the international community moves into the former conflict zone, establishes itself and launches a set of peacebuilding programmes. It acts as a conscious and purposeful peacebuilder.

An alternative view of peacebuilding is the one that is promoted in a joint research project currently undertaken by the Bonn International Center for Conversion and the Centre for Conflict Resolution based in Cape Town.²⁶ One of the aims of the project is to identify policies and interventions to promote lasting peace.²⁷ As opposed to the above interpretation, the main actors are seen to be indigenous. Conversely, the term peacebuilding is used to describe the result of these actions, that is, the aggregate process. Figure 2 summarises this alternative way of using these concepts.

 

The issue of who are the main actors in peacebuilding is interwoven with whether and how it should be co-ordinated.

One perspective sees centralisation of efforts as critical to successful implementation. "[A] coherent approach to peace-building on the ground [is] a condition sine qua non for success ... The overall leadership for peace-building during a peace-keeping operation and in the immediate aftermath (‘short-term peace- building’) should be the UN’s responsibility."²⁸ "Peace-building ... will have to reckon with dozens, if not hundreds of international NGOs active on the ground which may ... greatly complicate a situation ..."²⁹ Perhaps this could be described as a top-down perception of peacebuilding.

Another perspective is that of multi-track diplomacy. According to the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy, it is a more egalitarian perception of peacebuilding. It sees the efforts of NGOs and other volunteer organisations as just as important as efforts undertaken through bilateral programmes and intergovernmental organisations (IGOs). It is believed that different tracks, or efforts by various actors and with a variety of means, complement each other and create a positive synergy.³⁰ Or, as expressed at a Canadian government/NGO consultation by an NGO representative: "A Track-one and a Track-two approach are absolutely essential ... NGOs and the churches bring significant financial resources, skills, understanding and political experience to the international community’s collective peace-building experience."³¹

The former Canadian Ambassador to the UN, Peggy Mason,³² has suggested that NGO diplomacy can play a useful role as a means of short-circuiting institutional rigidities and parochialism among governments and UN agencies. The multi-track perspective, as opposed to a closely co-ordinated process, is also likely to be more open to a learning feedback, especially among NGOs working at the community level.

There is likely to be a certain tension between these alternative conceptualisations of peacebuilding, even if they are not strictly incompatible.

The table summarises the main findings of the paragraphs above. Under each dimension, two separate tendencies are mentioned.

Dimension	Tendency 1	Tendency 2
Aim of peacebuilding	Promote good governance and dispute settlement mechanisms	Address root causes of conflict
Means of peacebuilding	Primarily political intervention	Broad intervention in political, economic, security and humanitarian spheres
Temporal aspect of peacebuilding	Short-term	Long-term
Main actors of peacebuilding	International community	Indigenous actors
Process/action dimension	Peacebuilding equated to the actions undertaken	Peacebuilding seen as the result, as the aggregate process
Organisation of peacebuilding	Peacebuilding is centralised under the auspices of the UN, more stress on co-ordination than on diversity	Peacebuilding is facilitated by a multitude of actors, more stress on diversity than on co-ordination

The six dimensions of the divergent usage of the term ‘peacebuilding’ as identified above, may not be entirely independent, in the sense that a position taken on one has no implications for positions taken on the others. It could be argued that, what emerges from the discussion, are two relatively separate concepts of peacebuilding, each with their own characteristics. These should be seen as ideal types in Weber’s sense: they are not necessarily found in their pure form in the literature or in reality, but represent polar points around which texts on peacebuilding position their inherent notion of the concept.

The first concept is the short-term involvement of the international community. It is characterised by centralism and political measures. Action is primarily undertaken by external agents, even though attention is paid to the consent and support the indigenous players. In other words, it is composed of the characteristics in the middle column.

The second concept is the long-term efforts by mainly indigenous actors to promote political and economic development, and a sustainable solution to the root causes of conflict. This entails action in both political, economic, humanitarian and social spheres in a broad comprehensive effort that can only be carried through by relying on a multitude of diverse actors. Inherent in this concept’s idea of diversity is the emphasis on the emergence of local NGOs and a civil society. This second concept is composed of the characteristics in the right column.

One could ask what the deeper rationale is behind this divergence on the concept. Why is there a rationale for promoting two different interpretations of peacebuilding and why do disagreements arise in the literature in the first place?

It is generally recognised that the process of transforming a society towards a state of positive peace is a long one, yet the resources and the possible perseverance of the UN and other international organisations are limited. In the immediate aftermath of a violent conflict, the international community can play an important role as a security guarantee and in the provision of resources (financial and intellectual) for the redesign of institutions. Its role can be especially salient when civil wars have ended not in the conquest of one of the parties (like in Ethiopia and Uganda), but in a peace settlement between two parties (like in Mozambique). In the latter case, the situation is more stable and external peacebuilding more important in its further stabilisation. The set of programmes undertaken by the external agents is quite easily conceived of as peacebuilding actions. From this arises the first concept of peacebuilding.

On the other hand, the timeframe available for the international community is limited. This is not only because of limited resources, but also because peace efforts should not be perceived by the host nation as the responsibility of others - a situation not unlikely to emerge in the case of long-term external involvement. National ownership of the peacebuilding process is vital for its eventual success. Moreover, it is doubtful in many cases whether external, short-term involvement can do anything but provide an enabling environment or an initial impetus towards finding solutions for the root causes of conflict. This is one of the reasons for the focus on good governance and non-violent conflict resolution. Especially where civil war was the consequence of resource scarcity (the Horn of Africa³³) or skewed land property structures (Central America), what can be accomplished by good governance is limited.³⁴ In this case, the nations involved must engage in long-term activities in a number of sectors. A great number of indigenous agents must undertake their own tasks in a long-term process, of which the result, it is hoped, will amount to peace. From this arises the second concept of peacebuilding.

Each concept has its own implications for effective action. For instance, dealing with cases like Mozambique in future, peacebuilding would be usefully conceived of as short-term, international involvement. On the other hand, future cases reminiscent of Uganda would be more effectively addressed through peacebuilding efforts along the lines of the second, indigenously dominated concept.

The reader is hereby warned not to let the suggested distinction overshadow the inherent six dimensions. The proposed distinction is a first cut, and does not preclude the possibility of further conceptualisation of peace-building by grouping tendencies in a different way than has been done here. Perhaps a better and more useful dichotomy of concepts could be formed by grouping tendencies differently.

This article has demonstrated the existence of several dimensions in the diverging opinion on the concept of peacebuilding. Reflecting on the causes of disagreement, it has been suggested that the literature implicitly promotes two distinct concepts of peacebuilding. A consideration of the six dimensions by grouping tendencies from each, has attempted to make this distinction explicit.

The distinction between the first and second concept of peacebuilding should be seen as a guiding tool when reading literature on the topic, to enable the reader to be aware of the divergent dimensions inherent in the notion of peacebuilding. In the design of peacebuilding support programmes, it is also important to be aware of these different perceptions, levels and timeframes.

This article was written within the framework of the research programme on Demilitarisation and Peacebuilding in Southern Africa, which is led by the Bonn International Center for Conversion and the Centre for Conflict Resolution (Cape Town), and executed with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Canada. It is published as part of the Training for Peace Project, a joint project of the ISS, ACCORD and NUPI, with funding from Norway.

UN, An agenda for peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peacekeeping. Report of the Secretary-General, United Nations GA and SC, A/47/277, S/24111, 17 June 1992. <www.un.org/Docs/SG/agpeace.html>



Ibid., p. 57.



Ibid., p. 55.



Ibid., p. 57.



R Paris, Peacebuilding and the limits of liberal internationalism, International Security, 22(2), Fall 1997, p. 55.



I would like to express my gratitude to Kees Kingma (BICC), Peter Batchelor (CCR), and Guy Lamb (CCR) for their valuable input and comments on earlier versions of this article.



J Galtung, Peace by peaceful means: Peace and conflict, development and civilisation. Sage, London, 1996, pp. 1-3.



UN, op. cit., 1995, p. 49; DAC, DAC guidelines on conflict, peace and development co-operation, OECD, 5-6 May 1997, <www.oecd.org/sge/council/ministerial/papers/eng_cmin20.pdf>, p. 11; G Carbonnier, Conflict, postwar rebuilding and the economy: a critical review of the literature, WSP Occasional Paper, 2, March 1998, <www.unicc.org/unrisd/ wsp/pop2/toc. htm>



In addition, it is frequently alleged that ethnic particularities and fanaticism are independent causes of conflicts and wars in the developing world. However, several authors interpret these more as rallying identities in the face of resource inequities. See IWZartman (ed.), Elusive peace: Negotiating an end to civil wars, The Brookings Institution, New York, 1995, p. 5; J Markakis, Resource conflict in the Horn of Africa, Sage, London, 1998, p. 4.



DFAIT, DFAIT/NGO peacebuilding consultation, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, December 1996, <www.dfait-maeci.gc. ca/peacebuilding/gngoc_report-e.asp>



CPCC, What activities constitute peacebuilding?, Canadian Peacebuilding Co-ordinating Committee, no date, <www.cpcc.ottawa.on.ca/ chart.htm>



C Kumar & E Cousens, Policy briefing: Peacebuilding in Haiti, International Peace Academy, no date, <www.ipacademy.org/haiti. htm>



W Kühne (ed.), Winning the peace: Concept and lessons learned of post-conflict peacebuilding. Report from an International Workshop, Berlin, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Ebenhausen, Germany, 4-6 July 1996, p. 5.



European Commission, Conflicts in Africa: Communication from the Commission to the Council: The European Union and the issue of conflicts in Africa: Peacebuilding, conflict prevention and beyond, Collection, 2, June 1995 — November 1997, <europa.eu.int/comm/dg08/recueil/en/en17/ en171.htm>



A de Soto, in Kühne, op. cit., p. 1.



UN, op. cit.



UN, Supplement to an agenda for peace: Position paper of the Secretary-General on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, 3 January 1995, <www.un.org/Docs/ SG/agsupp.html>



Paris, op. cit.



SIPRI, Peace, security and conflict prevention. SIPRI - UNESCO Handbook, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998.



Kumar & Cousens, op. cit.



DAC, op. cit., p. 2.



W Kühne (ed.), The transition from peace-keeping to peacebuilding: Planning, co-ordination and funding in the twilight zone, International Workshop, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Ebenhausen, New York, 10 March 1997, p. 41.



L Axworthy, Address by the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, 18 February 1998, <www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/english/news/statements/98_state/98_010e. htm>



Kühne, op. cit., 1996, 1997.



Ibid., 1997, p.7.



Involving a number of researchers in several Southern African countries, this project is co-ordinated by BICC and CCR.



BICC and CCR. Demilitarisation and peace-building in Southern Africa: Project Description, Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC), Bonn, and Centre for Conflict Resolution (CCR), Cape Town, 1998.



Kühne, op. cit., 1997, p. 7.



Kühne, op. cit., 1996, p. xviii.



IMTD, IMTD’s philosophy, Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy, 1998, <www.igc.apc.org/imtd/PHIL.HTML>



E Regehr, Opening statement on behalf of the Canadian Peacebuilding Co-ordinating Committee, in DFAIT, op. cit.



P Mason, Personal communication, Bonn, June 1998.



As argued in Markakis, op. cit.



According to Zartman, op. cit., any conflict always has two aspects. There must be unequal distribution of some kind of good or resource, and there must be an identity aspect around which front-lines are formed. It could perhaps be argued that if the latter aspect is more dominant, the conflict lends itself easier to solution by peaceful means than if the resource competition aspect is the main one.

Note: all World Wide Web references valid on 1 July 1998.