January 21, 2025 • 31 mins
In this week’s Inside Geneva podcast episode, we ask: what makes a good peace agreement?
“Peace is not just a status. Peace is a process, and it’s a process that is part of politics in general,” says Laurent Goetschel from Swisspeace.
So, are quick peace deals possible?
“When someone says, ‘I want to have an agreement in 24 hours,’ my response as a professional is, ‘Okay. What are our ideas? What is possible right now? What is the most that can be made out of this possibility, if indeed it is a possibility?’” says Katia Papagianni from the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.
Does peace mean more than just the end of fighting?
“Peace, meaning just the absence of war, can be the result of a negotiation, maybe even a short negotiation between powerful actors directly or indirectly involved in the conflict. But it’s not only about stopping hostilities. It’s about working towards conditions that tackle the major issues. And this is a longer-lasting process,” adds Goetschel.
Can a peace agreement offer everything that everybody wants? Can all human rights be protected immediately?
“A peace agreement cannot guarantee the protection of human rights; it can just keep the door open and create some form of foundation for the political actors of a country to actually pursue the aspiration of protecting human rights,” adds Papagianni.
Join podcast host Imogen Foulkes to hear about the tough, practical realities – and the hard work and patience needed – to create a sustainable peace agreement.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Fowkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
In today's program, Peace is not just a status.
I mean peace is is a processand it's a process which is part
of politics in general.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
When someone says I want to have an agreement in 24
hours, my response as aprofessional is OK.
What are our ideas?
What is possible right now?
What is the most that can bemade out of this possibility, if
indeed this is a possibility?
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Peace, meaning just the absence of war, can be the
result of a negotiation, maybeeven of a short negotiation
between powerful actors directlyindirectly involved in the
conflict.
But it's not only about thestop of hostilities.
It's about working towardsconditions which tackle the
(01:02):
major issues, and this is alonger lasting process.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
The peace agreement cannot guarantee the protection
of human rights.
It can just keep the door openand create some form of
foundation for the politicalactors of a country to actually
pursue the aspiration ofprotection of human rights hello
(01:33):
and welcome again to insidegeneva.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
I'm imogen folks, and in today's program we're going
to take a look at a very topicalsubject peace deals, how to
create them and how to sustainthem.
Is peace simply the end offighting or is is it more than
that?
Why do peace agreements fail?
Would a fair peace deal inUkraine be easy to achieve?
Why has peace in the MiddleEast been so elusive for so long
(01:55):
?
And what about human rights?
Where do they fit into peacenegotiations?
I should tell you, theinterviews in this programme
were done amid rumours of aceasefire in Gaza, but before it
was officially announced.
And as I record this, we arestill waiting for that ceasefire
to begin and for the release ofthe hostages.
(02:15):
Our two guests today areexperts in the field of peace,
so let's hear from them.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
My name is Katia Papagiani and I work for the
Geneva-based Centre forHumanitarian Dialogue, and we
call ourselves HD for short.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
And what does the HD Centre do?
I mean humanitarian dialoguesounds great, but what do you do
exactly?
Speaker 3 (02:39):
So we are a conflict mediation organisation.
We are based in about 30countries around the world and
practically this means that wefacilitate dialogue among a
number of different conflictactors.
It can be at the local level,among communities, it can be at
national level, amonggovernments, militia and armed
groups, or it can be at theinternational level, among
(03:01):
actors who are invested inresolving any conflict that we
may be engaged in.
And our particular contributionto this work is that we are a
non-governmental actor.
We're impartial and independent, and this is becoming a great
advantage in today'sgeopolitical realities.
(03:22):
We see the multilateral systemstruggling to respond to armed
conflict around the world.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
My name is Laurent Goeckel.
I'm a professor of politicalscience at the University of
Basel and director of SwissPeace, a Swiss Peace Research
Institute.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Tell me about Swiss Peace, because peace at the
moment is a kind of a rarecreature.
What does Swiss Peace?
Because peace at the moment isa kind of a rare creature.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
What does Swiss Peace actually do?
Swiss Peace does research, sowe do basic research on
mediation, transitional justice,all kinds of themes which are
relevant in the practice ofpeace politics and peace policy.
The bulk of our work, however,is a mandate project.
We advise governments,international organizations,
(04:09):
large non-governmentalorganizations on all kinds of
peace-related matters.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
I often hear people say, oh, why can't we just have
peace?
Why can't we just have peace?
Do you think that many people,including politicians,
misunderstand what creating theconditions for peace are?
Speaker 1 (04:29):
I guess there is still more to be found out about
how to actually promote peace,and that's why also, an
institution like ours makessense, has a reason to exist,
makes sense, has a reason toexist.
But on the other side, peace isnot just a status, peace is a
process, and it's a processwhich is part of politics in
(04:53):
general, be it within states orbetween states.
And because it is part ofpolitics, it is also subject to
changing power, relations,constellations.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
The hunger created by war made this tragedy.
The dead and wounded werestarving people.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
And once again in the center of Europe, innocent
women, men and children aredying of fear for their lives.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
During war it's quite rare to hear people, even those
fighting, insist they want tojust carry on with the conflict
whatever the cost, but neitheroften can they be brought to the
peace negotiating table.
As Katia Papagiani explains,the suffering and loss endured
by a population at war may makeit hard to accept a peace
(05:51):
agreement with the enemy.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Once people are engaged in armed conflict, once
they choose the violent way ofresolving differences as opposed
to the peaceful way, then theyhave made a lot of sacrifices
along the way peaceful way, thenthey have made a lot of
sacrifices along the way.
During wartime, properties arelost, lives are lost,
territories are lost and, ofcourse, populations are
displaced.
People pay a very heavy priceduring wartime and, as a result,
(06:21):
making the leap from war topeace is extremely complicated.
So, yes, everyone wants peace,but once you get to the details
and the practicalities of how toget there, it becomes messy.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
What practicalities would you say are essential then
?
As you say, when countries goto war, they lose particularly
their civilians, and their armedforces lose an awful lot.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
It's the million dollar question right now, with
so many conflicts around theworld, imogen.
But if I step back, I wouldcome up with four main
components of what gives a peaceagreement the greatest chance
of survival, and the first isthat all the important actors,
those who have military andpolitical power, have to be part
(07:05):
of the agreement.
If they're not, we run the riskthat they will become what we
call, in our field, spoilers,that sooner or later they will
come back and challenge whateverit is that has been agreed.
And so the first inescapablereality of peace agreements is
that everyone, even those thatin some quarters may be seen as
really distasteful partners inpeace, they have to be at the
(07:26):
table.
The second requirement is thatthe neighbourhood, those around
the conflict, have to supportthe agreement, and in many cases
we see that the oppositehappens, that the neighbourhood
actually doesn't support anagreement, doesn't see
themselves and their interestsreflected in the agreement and,
down the line, may end upundermining it.
(07:47):
The third is that we have tohave some form of guarantees and
this is a word now we hear alot also on front page news the
guarantees, security guarantees,guarantees for peace.
And what does this mean?
It means that essentially allthose who lend the support to
the agreement feel that there issome sort of mechanism that
gives them confidence that theother side will not serve the
(08:10):
conflict again, that their ownsecurity and the security of
their constituencies is notgoing to be sacrificed and that
their interests somehow will beprotected.
And the fourth is some form ofwhat we call peace dividend,
meaning that the ordinary personliving in any given country
will see a difference betweentheir life before the agreement
and after the agreement.
(08:30):
And there is a very importantshort window opening once
agreements are signed to deliverthis peace dividend, to make
people happy, realize that thereis something different, to know
that their children can go toschool, that there is water that
can be consumed safely, thatthere is food, that there is
possibility to return to theirhomes, etc.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
And so, keeping Katia's four essential
preconditions for peace in mind,I had a question for Laurent
Guttel of Swiss Peace.
Can you give me an example of apeace agreement that has worked
, and maybe one which wasclearly destined to fail from
the beginning?
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Well, I mean in terms of working.
One has to say it's neverabsolute, but there are relative
successes.
A relative success is what hasbeen achieved.
In Bosnia-Herzegovina.
There was a lot of violencegoing on.
(09:34):
If we think about Srebrenica,there were really terrible
things happening during thecivil war.
It's a complex situation withthree different ethnic groups
and there was the involvement ofthe international community the
UN, but also the European Unionand in the end an agreement was
(09:55):
found which tries to includethe major relevant ethnic groups
over there.
Nothing is perfect.
We can read a lot about manyproblems, particularly also
socio-economic problems in thisregion, but there is no violent
conflict going on.
If I may just add anothersuccessful example, people tend
(10:16):
to forget about it, but it's ofcourse European integration.
The European Union didn't justfall from the sky.
I mean, it started as a totallyopen-ended process after a
major war and well, until today,if we think about the two
former major antagonists, franceand Germany, it's still working
(10:38):
Well.
And if we think about failure,obviously the case which comes
to mind is the Israel-Palestineconflict, where we did have an
attempt and a moment with a lotof optimism with the Oslo
agreements in 1993.
(11:00):
But then it became clear verysoon afterwards and possibly it
was already clear for theparties themselves because they
had been involved in thenegotiations but we weren't that
there were actually no realserious intentions from the
major parties to implement it.
And if you negotiate anagreement just to move on with
(11:24):
the same line of behaviour youhad before, then of course
you're doomed to fail.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
So I think we're beginning to see that the road
to peace is a challenging one,requiring commitment, compromise
and inclusivity.
I will prevent, and very easily.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
World.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
War III very easily.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
So what do our seasoned peace experts make of
Donald Trump's claim that he canend the war in Ukraine in 24
hours?
Speaker 3 (11:50):
I will have the disastrous war between Russia
and Ukraine settled.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
It will be settled quickly.
I had expected Katya to suggestthis was a fantasy, but in fact
she was more optimistic.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
The first thing I think of is maybe there's
something there In the mediationfield.
We're always saying toourselves we have to always be
ready.
Should an opportunity open,even a slight opening of a door
for reduction of violence orpossibility of ending a conflict
, we have to be ready to jump atthe opportunity.
So we have to have ideas up oursleeves, proposals and options.
(12:26):
So when someone says I want tohave an agreement in 24 hours,
then my response as aprofessional is okay, what are
our ideas?
What is possible right now?
What is the most that can bemade out of this possibility, if
indeed this is a possibility?
The second thing that I think ofis that, even if it looks like
it would be 24 hours, or even if, in some cases, agreements have
(12:50):
been reached quickly in a fewweeks or a couple of months, the
reality is that there is monthsand months, and sometimes of
years, of ideas that have beendeveloping, that have been
discreetly exchanged amongparties, options that have been
meticulously developed, contactsthat have been made, trust that
(13:10):
has been developed.
So even if conflict iscontinuing on the front page
news, it doesn't mean that allof this work is not taking place
in the background.
So when someone says I can havepeace in 24 hours, then I'm
thinking what kind of work hastaken place?
What foundation is there, whatcan be built on so that
something can happen quickly, ifindeed there is political will
(13:32):
to make something quickly?
And my third response to it isthat there better be a
commitment for the long term,because agreement is the almost
the part.
The difficult part is how toactually stick to supporting the
parties and the people of agantry to implement these
difficult things and verycontroversial and sensitive
(13:54):
things that they have agreed toimplement.
And so sure, let's supportsomeone who says that they want
an agreement 24 hours orwhatever, someone who says that
they want an agreement 24 hoursor whatever.
Let's build on whatever hasbeen taking place in the
background, discreetly,confidentially, quietly.
But then let's ask the verydifficult question of what is
the staying power of those whoare proposing a quick agreement
(14:20):
to help parties to implementthat agreement.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Laurent Goethal, though, was a little more
cautious.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
Peace is a word and people understand very different
things when they use it.
So if you use peace in thesense of, it's called negative
peace, meaning just theimmediate absence of violence,
which should not beunderestimated as a value, by
the way, if we think aboutongoing hostilities in a war.
(14:48):
But peace meaning just theabsence of war can be the result
of a negotiation, maybe even ofa short negotiation between
powerful actors directlyindirectly involved in the
conflict, and then they agree tostop the fighting.
This may be also the necessaryfirst step in certain contexts,
(15:10):
but the way an institution likeSwissPeace understands peace is
in a so-called positive way.
It's not only about the stop ofhostilities.
It's about working towardsconditions which are of mutual
benefits to involved parties andwhich tackle the major issues.
And this is a longer lastingprocess.
(15:32):
So this cannot be achieved justwith a deal, but a deal can be
part of a peace process.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
What's your take, though, on what some analysts
have called the approach of aquick deal, say between Russia
and Ukraine, that it won't be apeace deal, it will be more like
an imposed defeat?
Can it sustain or does it storeup problems for the future?
Speaker 1 (15:57):
It depends the way it's being achieved and its
substance.
So if we now take the case ofUkraine, let's assume that the
government in place in Kievwould be forced to recognize the
new borders within its countryand to definitely forego its
aspirations to recover theseterritories, and that no proper
(16:21):
security guarantees would belinked to it.
Then this might just be anintermezzo for future military
conflicts, because most probablyRussia would feel encouraged to
restart the war in a certainmoment and the world community
wouldn't really believe in along-lasting peace.
But it could also be, if wetake the same situation, that
(16:44):
there would be like a short-termfreeze.
This would be the first step tostart a longer process of
negotiations which would includemore parties and which would be
part of a rethinking of theso-called European security and
peace architecture.
Then this might be a first steptowards, maybe a different
(17:05):
solution.
What it would look like is onething, but what is more
important is that there would bea higher probability that
whatever following steps wouldemerge out of such a deal, they
would be handled in anon-violent way.
This would be closer to peacethan the first version.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
After months of war and negotiations that lasted
almost as long, a ceasefire hasfinally at last been agreed by
Israel and Hamas.
Just a few hours after theceasefire agreement was
announced, men in northern Gazawere back digging through the
rubble for the dead and woundedafter an Israeli strike.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
And what about Gaza, if I dare ask, because there are
certain ideas being floatedthat this could be, it's
destroyed now it could beredeveloped, could be good real
estate.
I've heard people say Is thiskind of rebuilding investment
just that?
(18:06):
Would that be a good idea?
Speaker 1 (18:08):
Now, the way you describe the situation is Gaza
is a very materialistic,hardware perspective.
I think we have to think aboutthe people.
You have these two, two and ahalf million people and unless
you transfer them to some desertin the area, they will remain
there.
So you have to deal with thepeople, and the question who is
(18:32):
building what where is dependenton how you deal with the people
.
And in my view, I mean it's notjust Gaza, it's the whole
context.
And if we take this wholecontext, we have about the same
amount of Palestinianinhabitants, be they Israeli or
not, be they in the West Bank orin Gaza, and of Jewish Israelis
(18:53):
.
There are about seven, sevenand a half million people in
each group and if we arethinking about the long-term
peace perspective, they have tofind the solution, how to
coexist in this context.
So it's not about building areal estate for whoever in Gaza
(19:13):
or not.
It's about finding a solutionfor the people living there.
Otherwise, unless there is amassive forced transfer of
population, there will be nopeace.
Listening to the government ofBenjamin Netanyahu, listening
also to persons not being in thegovernment there and even
further to the right, orlistening to certain statements
(19:36):
of the incoming US-Americanadministration.
I don't doubt that there arecertain ideas going into this
direction, but personally I'mconvinced this wouldn't lead to
a peaceful solution of theconflict.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
Something else I was beginning to learn talking to
Katia and Laurent.
A peace deal rarely bringseverything everybody wants.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity
and rights.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
It's very common to hear United Nations officials
suggest that no peace can besustainable without respect for
human rights.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Peace, like development, is built and
nourished through rights.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
But can those rights really all be guaranteed for
every group and community?
The moment the guns fall silent?
Katia believes pragmatism andpatience are needed.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
I think we need to look at this question, take a
step back and think a bit morecomprehensively.
What do we mean by peace andwhat do we mean by sustainable
peace?
Of course, respect for humanrights is a very long-term goal.
Societies who are exitingconflict don't have the
institutions, don't have thepolitical cultures, don't have
(20:48):
the emotional and mentalcapacities to be thinking in
very advanced ways and to beimplementing in advanced ways,
like in other societies,protection of human rights.
However, what the agreementshave to do is to keep the door
open.
To keep the door open for theseconversations to continue
taking place, for negotiationsto continue taking place, so
(21:11):
that we can have, so to speak, aprogressive realization of
human rights.
The most important thing that apeace agreement can do is to
create the political space forthese negotiations to continue,
for these discussions tocontinue, for domestic actors to
battle with each otherpeacefully about what they want
(21:31):
for the country, what is theirvision for the country, what do
they mean for protection ofhuman rights and, of course,
with the support of theinternational community.
So, building a capacity toresolve disagreements peacefully
, including on human rights, isthe job of the peace agreement.
The peace agreement cannotguarantee the protection of
human rights.
It can just keep the door openand create some form of
(21:55):
foundation for the politicalactors of a country to actually
pursue the aspiration ofprotection of human rights.
The day's other headlines beginin Russia, where President
Vladimir Putin held his annualyear-end press conference.
Putin reaffirmed his commitmentto continuing the war in
Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is
vowing to keep up theretaliatory attacks against
Hamas.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
But watching the news , listening to some government
leaders, it's hard to feelconfident that the willingness
to compromise, the creativityand, above all, the patience and
staying power required tonegotiate a workable peace deal
are really present.
Speaker 3 (22:36):
We need Greenland for national security purposes.
People really don't even knowif Denmark has any legal right
to it, but if they do, theyshould give it up.
The Panama Canal is vital toour country.
It's being operated by China.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
China President Donald Trump, now just back in
office, has suggested he mightuse military force to annex
Greenland or the Panama Canal.
How does that fit into any kindof peaceful negotiation?
Laurent Guchel again.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
I think, also based on the experience of his first
presidency, that Donald Trumpsays many things, many short
things, according to hispreferred formats of
communication.
He gets attention, he's centerstage, but the implementation
usually doesn't go into atotally different direction but
(23:28):
isn't like a one-to-one work onwhat he suggested in his tweets
Basically, I mean I wouldtranslate what he said in regard
to Panama and Greenland hethinks these are interesting
territories for the US and theyhave to look at it more closely
and the rest is just Trump style.
But obviously it gets mediaresonance.
(23:50):
If he had said, well, greenlandis getting more important in
view of climate change andnatural resources and the
strategic importance of theArctic, we wouldn't be talking
about it right now.
I don't I mean from the firstpresidency of Donald Trump, but
also from what he's been saying.
Otherwise, he has his personalstyle of communication and he
(24:13):
has his affinity to cuttingdeals linked to his businessman
past, which is marketing quiteefficiently.
But I don't see him ininternational politics as a
warmonger.
And the Republicans in general.
They live this America firstlogic.
(24:35):
And this America first logicdoesn't imply that they conquer
half of the world.
It rather implies that theydisentangle and they protect
their interests and there mightbe rising taxes and cut down on
globalisation, which is not good, but it doesn't mean a military
war and conquest.
Speaker 2 (24:56):
We can only hope that Loroy's right, that the bark in
this case is much more worryingthan the actual bite, but still
there are currently, accordingto the International Committee
of the Red Cross, over 120conflicts raging around the
world.
It's hard really to see apromise of peace anywhere, and
(25:17):
so, in the hope of leaving youlisteners with at least a hint
of optimism, I had one finalquestion for Katya Papajani.
People are very concerned aboutthe kind of conflicts that
we're looking at right nowRussia, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza.
When you look at them, justwith your experience, do you
(25:40):
think that there's a possibilityto end them fairly?
Speaker 3 (25:45):
Yes, very much so.
That's why we are in thisbusiness, in this effort, of
course, because we believe thatthere is always a possibility.
And one thing that keeps megoing in my work is to be on a
daily basis, in contact with allof my colleagues who are
working in Sudan, who areworking on the Ukraine conflict
(26:06):
and all the other conflicts thatyou have mentioned, and to know
that there are ideas thatpeople are exchanging with each
other in safe and confidentialspaces about all of those
conflicts, that there are stepsthat are being explored, that
there are steps that are beingexplored, that there are options
that are being developed andthat the space for dialogue
never dies, even when theconflict is at its highest.
(26:28):
So, yes, I think that there aresolutions out there, that there
are people, serious people, whoare working for these solutions
, and what we need is a momentum, so to speak, a push to make
the leap from war to peace insome of those settings and, of
course, a political vision toenter the eventual settlements
and the commitment, as I saidearlier, to stay in it for the
(26:51):
long term, to help all theparties to implement whatever it
is that they agree on.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
So the message is never shut the door on the
chance for peace.
Always be prepared tocompromise.
Include everyone, from the mostbrutal warring parties to
ethnic and indigenous groups,political leaders, civil society
and, of course, women, who tendto be left out of the decisions
both to start wars and to endthem.
(27:18):
That brings us to the end ofthis edition of Inside Geneva.
My thanks to Laurent Guchel andto Katia Papagiani for their
time and their analysis.
I hope you've enjoyed thisweek's episode and do join us
(27:55):
next.
Review us wherever you get yourpodcasts.
Check out our previous episodes, how the International Red
Cross unites prisoners of warwith their families, or why
survivors of human rightsviolations turn to the UN in
Geneva for justice.
I'm Imogen, folks.
Thanks again for listening.
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Fowkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
In today's program, Peace is not just a status.
I mean peace is is a processand it's a process which is part
of politics in general.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
When someone says I want to have an agreement in 24
hours, my response as aprofessional is OK.
What are our ideas?
What is possible right now?
What is the most that can bemade out of this possibility, if
indeed this is a possibility?
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Peace, meaning just the absence of war, can be the
result of a negotiation, maybeeven of a short negotiation
between powerful actors directlyindirectly involved in the
conflict.
But it's not only about thestop of hostilities.
It's about working towardsconditions which tackle the
(01:02):
major issues, and this is alonger lasting process.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
The peace agreement cannot guarantee the protection
of human rights.
It can just keep the door openand create some form of
foundation for the politicalactors of a country to actually
pursue the aspiration ofprotection of human rights hello
(01:33):
and welcome again to insidegeneva.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
I'm imogen folks, and in today's program we're going
to take a look at a very topicalsubject peace deals, how to
create them and how to sustainthem.
Is peace simply the end offighting or is is it more than
that?
Why do peace agreements fail?
Would a fair peace deal inUkraine be easy to achieve?
Why has peace in the MiddleEast been so elusive for so long
(01:55):
?
And what about human rights?
Where do they fit into peacenegotiations?
I should tell you, theinterviews in this programme
were done amid rumours of aceasefire in Gaza, but before it
was officially announced.
And as I record this, we arestill waiting for that ceasefire
to begin and for the release ofthe hostages.
(02:15):
Our two guests today areexperts in the field of peace,
so let's hear from them.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
My name is Katia Papagiani and I work for the
Geneva-based Centre forHumanitarian Dialogue, and we
call ourselves HD for short.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
And what does the HD Centre do?
I mean humanitarian dialoguesounds great, but what do you do
exactly?
Speaker 3 (02:39):
So we are a conflict mediation organisation.
We are based in about 30countries around the world and
practically this means that wefacilitate dialogue among a
number of different conflictactors.
It can be at the local level,among communities, it can be at
national level, amonggovernments, militia and armed
groups, or it can be at theinternational level, among
(03:01):
actors who are invested inresolving any conflict that we
may be engaged in.
And our particular contributionto this work is that we are a
non-governmental actor.
We're impartial and independent, and this is becoming a great
advantage in today'sgeopolitical realities.
(03:22):
We see the multilateral systemstruggling to respond to armed
conflict around the world.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
My name is Laurent Goeckel.
I'm a professor of politicalscience at the University of
Basel and director of SwissPeace, a Swiss Peace Research
Institute.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Tell me about Swiss Peace, because peace at the
moment is a kind of a rarecreature.
What does Swiss Peace?
Because peace at the moment isa kind of a rare creature.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
What does Swiss Peace actually do?
Swiss Peace does research, sowe do basic research on
mediation, transitional justice,all kinds of themes which are
relevant in the practice ofpeace politics and peace policy.
The bulk of our work, however,is a mandate project.
We advise governments,international organizations,
(04:09):
large non-governmentalorganizations on all kinds of
peace-related matters.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
I often hear people say, oh, why can't we just have
peace?
Why can't we just have peace?
Do you think that many people,including politicians,
misunderstand what creating theconditions for peace are?
Speaker 1 (04:29):
I guess there is still more to be found out about
how to actually promote peace,and that's why also, an
institution like ours makessense, has a reason to exist,
makes sense, has a reason toexist.
But on the other side, peace isnot just a status, peace is a
process, and it's a processwhich is part of politics in
(04:53):
general, be it within states orbetween states.
And because it is part ofpolitics, it is also subject to
changing power, relations,constellations.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
The hunger created by war made this tragedy.
The dead and wounded werestarving people.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
And once again in the center of Europe, innocent
women, men and children aredying of fear for their lives.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
During war it's quite rare to hear people, even those
fighting, insist they want tojust carry on with the conflict
whatever the cost, but neitheroften can they be brought to the
peace negotiating table.
As Katia Papagiani explains,the suffering and loss endured
by a population at war may makeit hard to accept a peace
(05:51):
agreement with the enemy.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Once people are engaged in armed conflict, once
they choose the violent way ofresolving differences as opposed
to the peaceful way, then theyhave made a lot of sacrifices
along the way peaceful way, thenthey have made a lot of
sacrifices along the way.
During wartime, properties arelost, lives are lost,
territories are lost and, ofcourse, populations are
displaced.
People pay a very heavy priceduring wartime and, as a result,
(06:21):
making the leap from war topeace is extremely complicated.
So, yes, everyone wants peace,but once you get to the details
and the practicalities of how toget there, it becomes messy.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
What practicalities would you say are essential then
?
As you say, when countries goto war, they lose particularly
their civilians, and their armedforces lose an awful lot.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
It's the million dollar question right now, with
so many conflicts around theworld, imogen.
But if I step back, I wouldcome up with four main
components of what gives a peaceagreement the greatest chance
of survival, and the first isthat all the important actors,
those who have military andpolitical power, have to be part
(07:05):
of the agreement.
If they're not, we run the riskthat they will become what we
call, in our field, spoilers,that sooner or later they will
come back and challenge whateverit is that has been agreed.
And so the first inescapablereality of peace agreements is
that everyone, even those thatin some quarters may be seen as
really distasteful partners inpeace, they have to be at the
(07:26):
table.
The second requirement is thatthe neighbourhood, those around
the conflict, have to supportthe agreement, and in many cases
we see that the oppositehappens, that the neighbourhood
actually doesn't support anagreement, doesn't see
themselves and their interestsreflected in the agreement and,
down the line, may end upundermining it.
(07:47):
The third is that we have tohave some form of guarantees and
this is a word now we hear alot also on front page news the
guarantees, security guarantees,guarantees for peace.
And what does this mean?
It means that essentially allthose who lend the support to
the agreement feel that there issome sort of mechanism that
gives them confidence that theother side will not serve the
(08:10):
conflict again, that their ownsecurity and the security of
their constituencies is notgoing to be sacrificed and that
their interests somehow will beprotected.
And the fourth is some form ofwhat we call peace dividend,
meaning that the ordinary personliving in any given country
will see a difference betweentheir life before the agreement
and after the agreement.
(08:30):
And there is a very importantshort window opening once
agreements are signed to deliverthis peace dividend, to make
people happy, realize that thereis something different, to know
that their children can go toschool, that there is water that
can be consumed safely, thatthere is food, that there is
possibility to return to theirhomes, etc.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
And so, keeping Katia's four essential
preconditions for peace in mind,I had a question for Laurent
Guttel of Swiss Peace.
Can you give me an example of apeace agreement that has worked
, and maybe one which wasclearly destined to fail from
the beginning?
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Well, I mean in terms of working.
One has to say it's neverabsolute, but there are relative
successes.
A relative success is what hasbeen achieved.
In Bosnia-Herzegovina.
There was a lot of violencegoing on.
(09:34):
If we think about Srebrenica,there were really terrible
things happening during thecivil war.
It's a complex situation withthree different ethnic groups
and there was the involvement ofthe international community the
UN, but also the European Unionand in the end an agreement was
(09:55):
found which tries to includethe major relevant ethnic groups
over there.
Nothing is perfect.
We can read a lot about manyproblems, particularly also
socio-economic problems in thisregion, but there is no violent
conflict going on.
If I may just add anothersuccessful example, people tend
(10:16):
to forget about it, but it's ofcourse European integration.
The European Union didn't justfall from the sky.
I mean, it started as a totallyopen-ended process after a
major war and well, until today,if we think about the two
former major antagonists, franceand Germany, it's still working
(10:38):
Well.
And if we think about failure,obviously the case which comes
to mind is the Israel-Palestineconflict, where we did have an
attempt and a moment with a lotof optimism with the Oslo
agreements in 1993.
(11:00):
But then it became clear verysoon afterwards and possibly it
was already clear for theparties themselves because they
had been involved in thenegotiations but we weren't that
there were actually no realserious intentions from the
major parties to implement it.
And if you negotiate anagreement just to move on with
(11:24):
the same line of behaviour youhad before, then of course
you're doomed to fail.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
So I think we're beginning to see that the road
to peace is a challenging one,requiring commitment, compromise
and inclusivity.
I will prevent, and very easily.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
World.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
War III very easily.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
So what do our seasoned peace experts make of
Donald Trump's claim that he canend the war in Ukraine in 24
hours?
Speaker 3 (11:50):
I will have the disastrous war between Russia
and Ukraine settled.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
It will be settled quickly.
I had expected Katya to suggestthis was a fantasy, but in fact
she was more optimistic.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
The first thing I think of is maybe there's
something there In the mediationfield.
We're always saying toourselves we have to always be
ready.
Should an opportunity open,even a slight opening of a door
for reduction of violence orpossibility of ending a conflict
, we have to be ready to jump atthe opportunity.
So we have to have ideas up oursleeves, proposals and options.
(12:26):
So when someone says I want tohave an agreement in 24 hours,
then my response as aprofessional is okay, what are
our ideas?
What is possible right now?
What is the most that can bemade out of this possibility, if
indeed this is a possibility?
The second thing that I think ofis that, even if it looks like
it would be 24 hours, or even if, in some cases, agreements have
(12:50):
been reached quickly in a fewweeks or a couple of months, the
reality is that there is monthsand months, and sometimes of
years, of ideas that have beendeveloping, that have been
discreetly exchanged amongparties, options that have been
meticulously developed, contactsthat have been made, trust that
(13:10):
has been developed.
So even if conflict iscontinuing on the front page
news, it doesn't mean that allof this work is not taking place
in the background.
So when someone says I can havepeace in 24 hours, then I'm
thinking what kind of work hastaken place?
What foundation is there, whatcan be built on so that
something can happen quickly, ifindeed there is political will
(13:32):
to make something quickly?
And my third response to it isthat there better be a
commitment for the long term,because agreement is the almost
the part.
The difficult part is how toactually stick to supporting the
parties and the people of agantry to implement these
difficult things and verycontroversial and sensitive
(13:54):
things that they have agreed toimplement.
And so sure, let's supportsomeone who says that they want
an agreement 24 hours orwhatever, someone who says that
they want an agreement 24 hoursor whatever.
Let's build on whatever hasbeen taking place in the
background, discreetly,confidentially, quietly.
But then let's ask the verydifficult question of what is
the staying power of those whoare proposing a quick agreement
(14:20):
to help parties to implementthat agreement.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Laurent Goethal, though, was a little more
cautious.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
Peace is a word and people understand very different
things when they use it.
So if you use peace in thesense of, it's called negative
peace, meaning just theimmediate absence of violence,
which should not beunderestimated as a value, by
the way, if we think aboutongoing hostilities in a war.
(14:48):
But peace meaning just theabsence of war can be the result
of a negotiation, maybe even ofa short negotiation between
powerful actors directlyindirectly involved in the
conflict, and then they agree tostop the fighting.
This may be also the necessaryfirst step in certain contexts,
(15:10):
but the way an institution likeSwissPeace understands peace is
in a so-called positive way.
It's not only about the stop ofhostilities.
It's about working towardsconditions which are of mutual
benefits to involved parties andwhich tackle the major issues.
And this is a longer lastingprocess.
(15:32):
So this cannot be achieved justwith a deal, but a deal can be
part of a peace process.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
What's your take, though, on what some analysts
have called the approach of aquick deal, say between Russia
and Ukraine, that it won't be apeace deal, it will be more like
an imposed defeat?
Can it sustain or does it storeup problems for the future?
Speaker 1 (15:57):
It depends the way it's being achieved and its
substance.
So if we now take the case ofUkraine, let's assume that the
government in place in Kievwould be forced to recognize the
new borders within its countryand to definitely forego its
aspirations to recover theseterritories, and that no proper
(16:21):
security guarantees would belinked to it.
Then this might just be anintermezzo for future military
conflicts, because most probablyRussia would feel encouraged to
restart the war in a certainmoment and the world community
wouldn't really believe in along-lasting peace.
But it could also be, if wetake the same situation, that
(16:44):
there would be like a short-termfreeze.
This would be the first step tostart a longer process of
negotiations which would includemore parties and which would be
part of a rethinking of theso-called European security and
peace architecture.
Then this might be a first steptowards, maybe a different
(17:05):
solution.
What it would look like is onething, but what is more
important is that there would bea higher probability that
whatever following steps wouldemerge out of such a deal, they
would be handled in anon-violent way.
This would be closer to peacethan the first version.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
After months of war and negotiations that lasted
almost as long, a ceasefire hasfinally at last been agreed by
Israel and Hamas.
Just a few hours after theceasefire agreement was
announced, men in northern Gazawere back digging through the
rubble for the dead and woundedafter an Israeli strike.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
And what about Gaza, if I dare ask, because there are
certain ideas being floatedthat this could be, it's
destroyed now it could beredeveloped, could be good real
estate.
I've heard people say Is thiskind of rebuilding investment
just that?
(18:06):
Would that be a good idea?
Speaker 1 (18:08):
Now, the way you describe the situation is Gaza
is a very materialistic,hardware perspective.
I think we have to think aboutthe people.
You have these two, two and ahalf million people and unless
you transfer them to some desertin the area, they will remain
there.
So you have to deal with thepeople, and the question who is
(18:32):
building what where is dependenton how you deal with the people
.
And in my view, I mean it's notjust Gaza, it's the whole
context.
And if we take this wholecontext, we have about the same
amount of Palestinianinhabitants, be they Israeli or
not, be they in the West Bank orin Gaza, and of Jewish Israelis
(18:53):
.
There are about seven, sevenand a half million people in
each group and if we arethinking about the long-term
peace perspective, they have tofind the solution, how to
coexist in this context.
So it's not about building areal estate for whoever in Gaza
(19:13):
or not.
It's about finding a solutionfor the people living there.
Otherwise, unless there is amassive forced transfer of
population, there will be nopeace.
Listening to the government ofBenjamin Netanyahu, listening
also to persons not being in thegovernment there and even
further to the right, orlistening to certain statements
(19:36):
of the incoming US-Americanadministration.
I don't doubt that there arecertain ideas going into this
direction, but personally I'mconvinced this wouldn't lead to
a peaceful solution of theconflict.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
Something else I was beginning to learn talking to
Katia and Laurent.
A peace deal rarely bringseverything everybody wants.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity
and rights.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
It's very common to hear United Nations officials
suggest that no peace can besustainable without respect for
human rights.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Peace, like development, is built and
nourished through rights.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
But can those rights really all be guaranteed for
every group and community?
The moment the guns fall silent?
Katia believes pragmatism andpatience are needed.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
I think we need to look at this question, take a
step back and think a bit morecomprehensively.
What do we mean by peace andwhat do we mean by sustainable
peace?
Of course, respect for humanrights is a very long-term goal.
Societies who are exitingconflict don't have the
institutions, don't have thepolitical cultures, don't have
(20:48):
the emotional and mentalcapacities to be thinking in
very advanced ways and to beimplementing in advanced ways,
like in other societies,protection of human rights.
However, what the agreementshave to do is to keep the door
open.
To keep the door open for theseconversations to continue
taking place, for negotiationsto continue taking place, so
(21:11):
that we can have, so to speak, aprogressive realization of
human rights.
The most important thing that apeace agreement can do is to
create the political space forthese negotiations to continue,
for these discussions tocontinue, for domestic actors to
battle with each otherpeacefully about what they want
(21:31):
for the country, what is theirvision for the country, what do
they mean for protection ofhuman rights and, of course,
with the support of theinternational community.
So, building a capacity toresolve disagreements peacefully
, including on human rights, isthe job of the peace agreement.
The peace agreement cannotguarantee the protection of
human rights.
It can just keep the door openand create some form of
(21:55):
foundation for the politicalactors of a country to actually
pursue the aspiration ofprotection of human rights.
The day's other headlines beginin Russia, where President
Vladimir Putin held his annualyear-end press conference.
Putin reaffirmed his commitmentto continuing the war in
Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is
vowing to keep up theretaliatory attacks against
Hamas.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
But watching the news , listening to some government
leaders, it's hard to feelconfident that the willingness
to compromise, the creativityand, above all, the patience and
staying power required tonegotiate a workable peace deal
are really present.
Speaker 3 (22:36):
We need Greenland for national security purposes.
People really don't even knowif Denmark has any legal right
to it, but if they do, theyshould give it up.
The Panama Canal is vital toour country.
It's being operated by China.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
China President Donald Trump, now just back in
office, has suggested he mightuse military force to annex
Greenland or the Panama Canal.
How does that fit into any kindof peaceful negotiation?
Laurent Guchel again.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
I think, also based on the experience of his first
presidency, that Donald Trumpsays many things, many short
things, according to hispreferred formats of
communication.
He gets attention, he's centerstage, but the implementation
usually doesn't go into atotally different direction but
(23:28):
isn't like a one-to-one work onwhat he suggested in his tweets
Basically, I mean I wouldtranslate what he said in regard
to Panama and Greenland hethinks these are interesting
territories for the US and theyhave to look at it more closely
and the rest is just Trump style.
But obviously it gets mediaresonance.
(23:50):
If he had said, well, greenlandis getting more important in
view of climate change andnatural resources and the
strategic importance of theArctic, we wouldn't be talking
about it right now.
I don't I mean from the firstpresidency of Donald Trump, but
also from what he's been saying.
Otherwise, he has his personalstyle of communication and he
(24:13):
has his affinity to cuttingdeals linked to his businessman
past, which is marketing quiteefficiently.
But I don't see him ininternational politics as a
warmonger.
And the Republicans in general.
They live this America firstlogic.
(24:35):
And this America first logicdoesn't imply that they conquer
half of the world.
It rather implies that theydisentangle and they protect
their interests and there mightbe rising taxes and cut down on
globalisation, which is not good, but it doesn't mean a military
war and conquest.
Speaker 2 (24:56):
We can only hope that Loroy's right, that the bark in
this case is much more worryingthan the actual bite, but still
there are currently, accordingto the International Committee
of the Red Cross, over 120conflicts raging around the
world.
It's hard really to see apromise of peace anywhere, and
(25:17):
so, in the hope of leaving youlisteners with at least a hint
of optimism, I had one finalquestion for Katya Papajani.
People are very concerned aboutthe kind of conflicts that
we're looking at right nowRussia, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza.
When you look at them, justwith your experience, do you
(25:40):
think that there's a possibilityto end them fairly?
Speaker 3 (25:45):
Yes, very much so.
That's why we are in thisbusiness, in this effort, of
course, because we believe thatthere is always a possibility.
And one thing that keeps megoing in my work is to be on a
daily basis, in contact with allof my colleagues who are
working in Sudan, who areworking on the Ukraine conflict
(26:06):
and all the other conflicts thatyou have mentioned, and to know
that there are ideas thatpeople are exchanging with each
other in safe and confidentialspaces about all of those
conflicts, that there are stepsthat are being explored, that
there are steps that are beingexplored, that there are options
that are being developed andthat the space for dialogue
never dies, even when theconflict is at its highest.
(26:28):
So, yes, I think that there aresolutions out there, that there
are people, serious people, whoare working for these solutions
, and what we need is a momentum, so to speak, a push to make
the leap from war to peace insome of those settings and, of
course, a political vision toenter the eventual settlements
and the commitment, as I saidearlier, to stay in it for the
(26:51):
long term, to help all theparties to implement whatever it
is that they agree on.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
So the message is never shut the door on the
chance for peace.
Always be prepared tocompromise.
Include everyone, from the mostbrutal warring parties to
ethnic and indigenous groups,political leaders, civil society
and, of course, women, who tendto be left out of the decisions
both to start wars and to endthem.
(27:18):
That brings us to the end ofthis edition of Inside Geneva.
My thanks to Laurent Guchel andto Katia Papagiani for their
time and their analysis.
I hope you've enjoyed thisweek's episode and do join us
(27:55):
next.
Review us wherever you get yourpodcasts.
Check out our previous episodes, how the International Red
Cross unites prisoners of warwith their families, or why
survivors of human rightsviolations turn to the UN in
Geneva for justice.
I'm Imogen, folks.
Thanks again for listening.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.