Refraining from violence

Pegida and AfD, Trump, Brexit, the risk of Europe disintegrating, the war in Syria. Are we living in particularly uncertain times, or is that just the way we perceive it? 

Daase: You have to ask yourself: What does “certainty” mean? I believe that there is a general uncertainty in comparison to earlier times. Many things that previously seemed certain are being set in motion. You need only think of the EU, about international institutions, which we thought had a certain degree of stability. How could anyone come to the conclusion that it is better to give up on a successful project like the EU and fall back on times of nationalism? That was unthinkable for us. And now, in many countries, it’s only a few voters that separate us from this. Things are similar on the global-political side. There too, there was previously a notion of fundamental stability. Of course there were conflicts and many wars, but there was a clear understanding of what international politics and war and peace are. That’s not the case today. Even the difference between war and peace is no longer so clear. There are conflicts everywhere: ethnic conflicts, terrorism. All phenomena that blow apart our traditional categories to a certain extent. At the same time though, you have to admit that there are also a lot of positive developments. Fewer wars, fewer dead.

How do unpredictable statesmen like Trump, Putin and Erdogan change the world, and how dangerous are they?

Daase: They already have a great deal of potential to cause chaos. The hope is always that the system will entrap these people again. We've seen this with Trump on a few occasions. For example, he was forced to do without certain advisors. There are certain things Trump simply doesn’t know. In the evening he doesn’t read dossiers and prefers to watch television, which in itself is problematic. But where specialists and experts with in-depth knowledge become involved in government, his politics also become more sensible. That’s the hope, at least. At the same time, Trump is of course often the one who ultimately makes the decision, and he has a spontaneity that can be extremely dangerous. Who knows what will happen if North Korea provokes him further? Will he then simply put his foot down and press the button?

What is peace actually, and how can it be created?

Daase: There are many ways of defining peace. There are entire libraries on the topic. It’s hard to imagine the end point of peace. Paradisiacal images and utopias come to mind here, but probably for our work it’s more important to set a course in the direction of peace. That means, therefore, that peace is refraining from violent means to an ever greater extent and striving for the far-off ideal. 

So a gradual disarmament?

Deitelhoff: Exactly. But it’s not only about ridding conflicting parties of their physical weapons. They also need to be disarmed on a communication level. The discourse, which is either polarized or collapses completely, needs to be changed. One very important point here, which we know from peace negotiations, is recognition. One reason why there is often so little progress in conflicts is the fact that the conflicting parties do not recognize each other as legitimate discussion partners. In face-to-face discussions it is easier to convey respect and to make it more credible. But if we’re talking about conflicts between societies or within societies, then a great deal of trust has already been lost. Frequently external actors are still involved on both sides and then it becomes a great deal harder to reestablish trust.

The SCHIRN exhibition Peace proposes that the peace of interaction and communication is determined by all the players existing in the ecosystem. What do you think of this theory?

Daase: First I think it’s important to recognize that peace isn’t something for which politicians alone are responsible; rather, it's up to all of us as individuals. We all bear responsibility for how our society deals with problems, with the environment, with migrants and with everything that affects us. That’s where peace begins. 

Deitelhoff: I get the impression that a multidimensional image of peace permeates this theory. Here, the environment is also taken into account in the sense of biodiversity and climate as part of peace. We cannot create lasting peace through the establishment of political institutions and discussions. We also need to consider the consequences of our actions on the environment in a very basal sense: for plants and for animals. If we don’t succeed in limiting global warming, we simply lose the basis of our very existence. Even now, we’re seeing this with water, which is ever more frequently becoming a primary cause of conflict because certain societies no longer have sufficient access to it. So yes, this theory holds up.