JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 7, Nº. 1 (May-October 2016), pp. 55-72
Think positive peace in practice. Evaluate the effectiveness of the United Nations
in the implementation of a comprehensive peace
Madalena Moita
57
There has been a transition of the United Nations narrative to that of positive peace
(consecrated as well on the ground) through greater attention and involvement of the
organization in political processes for the resolution of armed conflict, in particular, by
integrating UN mediation teams. How this involvement takes place may be a more
effective conditioning factor on the ground, a dynamic that we have tried to verify
through comparing two case studies.
Positive peace in the discourse of the UN
In 1964 in the first issue of the Journal of Peace Research, Johan Galtung, regarded as
one of the founding fathers of studies for peace, alluded to an alternative concept of
peace that would mark a rapture in the way of conceptualising and making peace. Its
reflection had been generated by concerns about the vicious cycle of violence that
returned to previously interventions (Galtung, 1964).
Contrary to the dominant tendency to see peace from the point of view of the study of
war, which deeply conditions conflict resolution practices on the ground, Galtung
proposed an autonomisation of the debate on peace.
He called this perception of peace “positive” (in front of its minimum negative version
associated with the absence of war) and suggested a more comprehensive itinerary of
social construction that could provide a creative transformation of political, economic,
cultural, religious conflicts as well as other forms of social renewal and proximity that
come out of the variants of violent opposition. Galtung conceived a process of collective
construction that sought balance and social justice, denying violent structures that
were the basis of more visible violence that assumes, in its limited shape, the contours
of war.
The most significant validity of its proposal, beyond offering a new analytical category
to understand the phenomenon of peace, is its new understanding about violence,
which moves towards a more direct observation of it as well as the structure from
which it originates.
The concept of structural violence that Galtung associates with economic exploitation,
political repression, social injustice and inequality, suggested that to reply to direct
violence (of a more episodic character) it is essential to resolve the deeper causes of
conflict in view of invisible violence that exists in a continuous form in whole social
structures (Galtung, 1969)2.
More than suggesting a goal of a fairer, more-balanced society, Galtung proposed a
guide a response to conflicts that achieves a profound transformation in the structural
causes of violence, which uses in-depth knowledge of its context, actors, dynamics and
incompatibilities. This guide suggest that, instead of a dissociative approach to
resolution of conflict that breaks relationships among parties, the containment of
violence, A associative approach that advocates the bringing together of parties in a
collective and integrative effort to construct peace.
2 Galtung works later on a third concept of violence called cultural violence, which is inherent in the
previously stated dimensions. This involves the symbolic aspects of everyday life that are manifested in
the systems of norms, religion, ideology and language, which legitimise direct and structural violence
(Galtung, 1990).