Peace Economics, Peace Studies?
The problem I have with mainstream peace and conflict resolutions programs is the almost exclusive emphasis, when it comes to war or peace, on mediation and peace making. The problem with that is that it assumes an approach of damage control after the fact of a conflict. I would prefer to prevent conflicts in the first place. Most of those in peace studies would agree with me, let’s prevent conflict in the first place.
I welcome the structural violence debate, but I worry about other means of preventing conflicts. Many people assume that we must “be the peace we want to see”. Modeling is a good thing. But we already have many models in the world worth following. And we still have wars.
I come from the position that we will always have wars if we perpetuate the institutions of war. The military industrial complex has great creativity in finding ways to justify its existence. Leaders have all the incentive to go to war and perhaps become a great leader in the minds of followers for generations to come.
Pretexts for almost any war usually turn out to be phony in hindsight, some more obviously than others. I believe the best way to limit war is to limit the military budget, and that most other approaches are marginal at best. Those who have the foresight to limit their military are usually richly rewarded in the long run. The list of examples is very long. It seems that most all great powers start out this way. That is the main goal of peace economics, to show the way to success. To prove that the peacemakers truly do inherit the earth. Then the next step will be to stop the new breed of leading nations from repeating the arrogance of the old order. Comparison link enclosed:
Dr. Peace, http://www.realeconomy.com