Unveiling Women as Pillars of Peace Peace Building in ...

What Constitutes Conflict?
Conflict is a situation with at least two identifiable groups in conscious opposition to each
other as they pursue incompatible goals. These groups may be tribal, ethnic, linguistic, cultural,
religious, socio-economic, or political (Dougherty and Pfltzgraft 1990:187). Every conflict
involves a struggle over values and claims to scarce resources, power, and status. The aims of the
opponents are to neutralise, injure, or eliminate their rivals.
Conflict may be interstate (between states) or intrastate (within states). Interstate conflict
has been of concern for a long time. Mechanisms to resolve conflict and restore peace and order,
defined in security terms by the United Nations Charter, have usually addressed interstate conflict.
Diplomatic efforts for mediation and reconciliation are a principal feature of such mechanisms.
These efforts call on outside actors who are unaffected by the conflict and therefore considered
acceptable as impartial mediators.
The world is experiencing more conflicts within states, and strategies that focus on
interstate conflicts are becoming ineffective in conflict resolution and ill suited for peace building.
This is largely because the complexity of emerging conflicts challenges the assumptions of
conventional strategies. First, most of the intrastate conflicts do involve competition for limited
resources, but they are driven by ethnic, religious and inter-communal issues rather than a clear
ideological predisposition (Cutts1998). Second, they are marked by intense brutality and
disregard for the rules of war. Finally, the distinctions between civilians and combatants are
fading (Roberts 1999). A combination of these factors leads to deeply fractured societies and
“humanitarian dilemmas” (Weiss and Collins 1996).
Intrastate conflicts carry several implications for peace processes. Broadly, such conflicts
undermine the states within which they occur and by extension the state system that is based on the
integrity of national sovereignty. In the present context where sovereign states still have a
substantial role in the world system, intervention in conflict requires negotiation of the principle of
non-interference in the internal affairs of nation states. 0utside parties to peace building are
constrained by the requirement of consent from at least one party to the conflict. 2 Typically,
negotiations for access to victims have stalled, accentuating the damages of war. Sudan, Angola,
Congo, and more recently Chechnya, are examples. Thus, while evolving international norms and
practices challenge absolute state sovereignty and argue for the supremacy of human rights, claims
of national sovereignty pose a dilemma for intervening parties.
Second, effective intervention in internal conflicts requires understanding the different
elements of the communities and how they are related to the current situation. This includes
familiarity with history, economic and power interests, perceptions and expectations, fears and
feelings, and values and cultures. The operation of these factors, from local to national and
international levels, must also be understood. Information of this sort is not always readily
available to outside actors. Ignorance may lead to well-intentioned involvement that contributes to
the escalation of conflict and exacerbates its negative consequences. 3
Finally, internal conflicts violate human rights. Only well-focussed efforts that address the
root causes of the abuses can stop such violations. This requires addressing issues of structural
violence and, more important, justice. Justice is the foundation for sustainable peace. Concerned
parties, whether political or civil, who do not confront justice issues jeopardise efforts for conflict
resolution and reduce the chances for achieving sustainable peace. Thus, while support continues
for women’s small grassroots projects, the small initiatives must not be allowed to eclipse the
4