Negative Peace: Part 1

Developed by Johan Galtung, the triangle of violence identifies three interlinked components:
- Direct violence (visible): physical harm, war, bullying.
- Structural violence (invisible): harm caused by social structures (laws, economic systems) that marginalize or discriminate.
- Cultural violence (invisible): beliefs and attitudes that legitimize direct or structural violence (prejudices, stereotypes).
These components reinforce each other, sustaining violence and are crucial for understanding negative vs. positive peace.
The triangle frames peacebuilding, conflict resolution, and transformation discussions.

Negative peace: Absence of direct violence (e.g., war, bullying).
Positive peace: Addressing structural and cultural violence to achieve a just and equitable society.
Both are essential for lasting peace; conflict transformation integrates both to change relationships and social structures.
Critique: Focusing only on negative peace (stopping violence) without addressing underlying structural and cultural issues often leads to conflict re-emergence.

Aims for long-term, ambitious change in relationships and societal structures, requiring both negative and positive peace for durable resolution.

A key component of negative peace, diplomacy is the management of relationships between countries.
It requires knowledge of cultures and norms, and serves to maintain stable relations, resolve conflicts, and promote national interests.
Diplomacy can also be used for strategic manipulation or gaining public support.

Track Two diplomacy: Unofficial discussions (non-governmental actors, civil society) for private, trust-building talks.
Track 1.5 diplomacy: Mixes unofficial government officials with non-governmental experts.
Track 1 diplomacy: Official, government-to-government negotiations.
Non-official tracks offer forums for sensitive discussions, involve civil society, and maintain communication when official ties fail.
Secrecy in diplomacy:
- Advantages: Allows bolder proposals without public pressure, builds trust.
- Drawbacks: Can create public suspicion, reduce accountability, and undermine legitimacy.

Core Idea: National interests and practical considerations override moral or ideological concerns.
Implications: States prioritize survival and self-interest, pursuing human rights only if beneficial; allies should not dictate decisions.
Morgan Dawes' rules emphasize prioritizing national security and not compromising essential interests.

Balance of Power: Assumes stability is promoted when states are equally strong, deterring war through mutual threat and potential arms buildup.
Criticisms: Can lead to indecisive wars; doesn't always hold that stronger states attack weaker ones.
Einstein's Quote: "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war," highlighting the paradox of deterrence.

General and Complete Disarmament (GCD): Aims to eliminate all global weapons but is highly difficult due to definitional issues, national interests, and the challenge of universal agreement.
Weapons-free zones: Prohibit weapons in specific areas, with varied success.
Arms control: Aims to reduce war likelihood, prevent destabilizing competition, and increase trust—a more modest yet often beneficial approach.
Challenges: States push others to disarm while retaining their own; hidden military budgets.

Ratified in $1970$ , aims to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation while promoting peaceful nuclear energy.
Recognizes five nuclear-weapon states (NWS): $\text{China}, \text{France}, \text{Russia}, \text{the United Kingdom}, \text{and the United States}$ .
North Korea renounced the NPT in $2003$ .
Criticisms include weak enforcement, limited inspections, and reliance on self-interest and diplomatic pressure.
Realpolitik influences compliance, balancing proliferation costs and benefits.

National Interest vs. Human Rights: Realpolitik creates tension, as national security can override human rights.
Secrecy vs. Transparency in Diplomacy: Secrecy aids negotiations but can harm trust; transparency builds legitimacy but may constrain talks.
Negative vs. Positive Peace: Halting direct violence without addressing structural/cultural causes risks conflict re-emergence.
International Regimes: Treaties like NPT provide frameworks despite enforcement issues, and inclusive peace processes are crucial.

Nuclear weapon states under the NPT: $\text{China}, \text{France}, \text{Russia}, \text{the United Kingdom}, \text{the United States}$
NPT force date: $1970$
North Korea withdrawal/renunciation: $2003$
Einstein quote on deterrence: "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

Peace studies emphasize understanding violence from social structures and cultural norms, needing both material and ideational factors for durable peace.
Diplomacy is vital for managing interstate relations, balancing secrecy, transparency, and accountability.
Nuclear nonproliferation is a global security cornerstone, with international regimes reducing risks amidst competing national interests.
Conflict transformation requires integrating direct violence reduction with structural and cultural reforms, involving governmental and non-governmental actors.

The triangle of violence shows that violence comes from three interlinked sources: direct, structural, and cultural violence.
Negative peace is the absence of direct violence; positive peace requires addressing structural and cultural violence for just and equitable societies.
Diplomacy operates within negative peace and can be used for both constructive engagement and strategic manipulation; secrecy, track diplomacy, and realpolitik shape its outcomes.
Disarmament is challenging; arms control, weapons-free zones, and pragmatic treaties aim to reduce risk and build trust, though enforcement remains a major issue.
The NPT represents a practical, ongoing effort to curb proliferation while recognizing geopolitical realities and power dynamics.