So I think a "positive peace" solution would be a solution that allows refugees to rebuild their lives and to live with the same basic security and stability that many of us middle class North Americans live with, regardless of whether they have the same living standard or not.Bootstrap wrote:So how would you apply this for refugees fleeing violence from countries like Syria, Iraq, the Congo, etc? What does positive peace look like?Szdfan wrote:In peace studies, there are two theoretical conceptions of peace: "negative" peace and "positive" peace. Negative peace is simply the absence of violence. It's the kind of peace that exists when a ceasefire is called or when UN or foreign troops protect a population from violence. Positive peace is "filled with positive content such as restoration of relationships, the creation of social systems that serve the needs of the whole population and the constructive resolution of conflict."
In the "Christ-Like Response to Trump's Border Security Order" thread, my friend Robert said:
I disagree with his characterization. Immigration does not force people to leave their life, land and family. War forces people to leave. Persecution forces people to leave. Epidemics force people to leave. Natural disasters force people to leave. Lack of economic opportunity forces people to leave. Immigration is the attempt to start over in another place, because the situation at the place of origin is unlivable. Immigration is a solution to a problem, it is not the problem itself (except for those who don't want immigrants coming into their country).Robert wrote:While many people's hearts are in the right place, immigration is not the solution. It forces people to leave their life, land, and family.
The ideal solution, of course, is that the situation on the ground changes (war ends, persecution ends, the diesease is erradicated, infrastructure and homes are rebuilt, new economic opportunities emerge) and refugees can return home and rebuild their lives. Unfortunately, that's not always the case - the conflicts in Syria and Iraq are going to take years, decades or even a generation or two to resolve.
The purpose of refugee camps is to provide temporary housing and safety for those fleeing the crisis. It's a form of negative peace. It provides temporary safety from violence. Refugee camps provide temporary shelter to those displaced by whatever has happened. The problem is when refugees are unable to return home.
The Dabaab camp in Kenya near the Somali border houses 350,000 refugees. This camp has been there for almost 25 years. The Kenyan government prohibits the construction of permanent structures, but as Bono wrote in the New York Times in April following his visit there, "it is fiction to think the people here are going anywhere soon."
According to the United Nations High Commisioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 4.8 million Syrians are in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq. 1 million refugees have requested asylum in Europe. A positive peace solution would attempt to create a situation with enough stability and sustainability that would allow for the creation of permanent housing, sufficient food, electricity and economy that would allow people to build stable lives for themselves rather than a "permanent temporary" solution that warehouses people.
One solution is to allow people to immigrate to wealthy, stabile countries and provide them the resources to start a new life in that place. Certainly culture is a challenge and immigrant families have their own unique dynamics, but it's not an insurmountable challenge. I think what Bootstrap's church is doing is a form of positive peacemaking - they are providing the friendship and resources to help this immigrant family adjust to the new country they live in with the hope that this family can start over and build a new life for themselves.
Obviously, it is not possible to bring all of the 65 million displaced people throughout the world into Europe and the US. Robert's correct that the problem is overwhelming. But because not everyone can immigrate doesn't mean that we shouldn't let anyone. Because we can't help everyone doesn't mean we shouldn't help those we can help.
Immigration is a consequence of an unequal world. As long as their are rich, stable countries and poor, unstable ones, people from those poor unstable countries are going to try to find opportunities in the rich ones.
For those who want to create "safe zones" rather than allow immigration, are you prepared to commit the military forces to keep these people safe? Are you prepared to do the kind of nation building that creates a stable system that allows people to build a life and prosper?
Negative peace focuses on the short term, positive peace on the long term.