CHAPTER ELEVEN
The Peace Treaty

THE PEACE TREATY IS NOT AN END BUT A BEGINNING; IT IS the genesis of new relations between former enemies, a compass that guides cooperative and sustainable relationships. In line with the new peacemaking process, the peace treaty cannot merely concern itself with solutions to past tribulations, security arrangements, the distribution of spoils, and a formal definition of future relations. Historical peace treaties read like divorce papers, focused on the distribution of chattel with the aim of an amicable parting. The modern peace treaty should read more like the agreement of an arranged marriage—a relationship stemming not from idealism or love but from pragmatism, based on the realistic elements needed to sustain a relationship.

I have written about the need for a more transparent peace process. This is particularly true when it comes to the language of peace treaties. Not only do traditional agreements concentrate on subjects that have little to do with the real struggles of post-conflict societies, but also they often are littered with dense, legal jargon that may seem impenetrable to the average citizen. For example, the General Peace Agreement for Mozambique, Protocol II (1991) makes the following statement regarding the “criteria and arrangements for the formation and recognition of political parties”:

The principles in this part of the treaty—in essence, pluralism and democracy—are valuable, but the language of the statement is distancing and abstract. To make peace a truly participatory process, with the inclusion of all citizens as peacemakers, peace treaties should also be inviting and clearly written so that the concepts therein can be disseminated among as many people as possible.

Because the modern peace treaty is the foundation of modern peace, it is important for the agreement to consider and formalize within the document itself the four pillars of glocalization, peace ecology, peacebuilding, and creative diplomacy. Here, I describe a ten-part structure for modern peace agreements, outlining the conditions most conducive to a lasting peace. This structure can be tailored to the needs of each conflict situation and the demands of the parties involved, so that peace can be built within the specific cultural considerations of those societies.

Part I Goals and Vision

The introductory section serves as a reiteration of the treaty’s commitment to modern peace. Here, peace leaders have the opportunity to state the treaty’s goals as reconciliation and cooperation, not simply as the cessation of war. By formally recognizing the principles of mutual respect, equality, dignity, and respect for human rights and cultural and religious differences—potentially in conjunction with relevant UN covenants and declarations—the peace agreement can embody the values that are so fundamental to modern peace. The introduction is also a good place to offer a general, long-term vision of the future relationship between the signatories, with mention made of such issues as economic integration, 115 confederative relations, joint territorial areas and more, depending on the circumstances.

Part 2: Definition of Peaceful Relations

The second part of the peace treaty can pave the way for future cooperation between the two parties by calling for the immediate establishment of diplomatic and consular relations, including embassies in the respective capitals (which can be helpful in the peacemaking process), without necessarily waiting for the full implementation of the treaty. Peaceful relations involve eradicating the impediments that existed during the conflict and replacing them with a comprehensive relationship in the economic, social, political, and cultural spheres. This section of the modern peace agreement can provide an important framework for lifting legal barriers that previously prevented cross-border cooperation. In other words, the representation of each country should not be restricted to formal diplomatic players but instead should welcome the participation of a broad coalition of peacemakers in various sectors.

Part 3: Regional Framework

Areas that have advanced systems for regional integration tend to be more stable and less likely to fall back into violence—the EU and ASEAN approaches are good examples. Peace is a strategic interest not only of the countries directly involved but also of those countries that are interdependent with the core conflict area. The third part of the modern peace treaty, therefore, acknowledges the importance of the region at large and offers ways to integrate the conflict area into the surrounding region. Neighboring countries then have the opportunity to lend their support to the agreement by committing to diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties with the conflict parties. Parliaments, councils of foreign ministers, and economic groups (both public and private) are all excellent channels for cooperation. This part of the treaty also can establish 116 a financial mechanism—a regional peace fund or a development bank—to support peacebuilding projects by working with people and organizations within the core area on capacity-building and cooperative ventures.

Although these regional structures and activities generally become relevant only after the implementation of the conflict resolution, the location of the regional framework in the initial sections of the treaty indicates that regional peace is integral to peace within the core conflict area and that the region supports the peacemaking efforts.

Part 4: Rehabilitation

Economic and social rehabilitation of the conflict zone is imperative to the sustainability of peace. It is widely acknowledged, for example, that the decision to disband the Iraqi army in 2003 without conditions in place for the rehabilitation of those 250,000 soldiers was one of the major contributors to continued violence in Iraq.² A modern peace treaty must therefore be instrumental in ensuring that war economies—and the groups involved in their perpetuation—develop into fruitful peace economies linked by cooperative measures and ventures.

The treaty can outline means of eliminating potential legal and physical obstacles to cross-border economic links, and the measures each side must take to rehabilitate the conflict zone, particularly the repair and redevelopment of infrastructure and social support for those affected by conflict. Economic systems that function within the parameters of a free market economy can help spark economic growth. The economic institutions of each side need to be effective, transparent, and accountable; then, with the support of regional actors and the private sector, such institutions can provide local and foreign investors with the necessary incentives to give the conflict areas a much-needed economic boost.

The budgetary policy of each side should reflect a move toward a peace economy, decreasing defense budgets and increasing social, 117 educational, and infrastructure budgets. Ideally, a budget forecast of this nature would appear in the treaty; however, critics might protest that peace treaties and internal politics should not intersect. In response, one could argue that although security arrangements and troop deployment are matters of internal decision making, such elements have always been legitimate in traditional peace treaties. There is no reason why budgetary policies cannot follow suit.

The rehabilitation of destroyed infrastructures and the creation of new cross-border links also will serve as a basis for important joint economic ventures—a feature that absolutely has a place in modern peace. Such ventures can be described in detail in the peace agreement, to illustrate their social and economic value for both sides, to lay the foundation for cooperative work, and to portray the benefits of peace to the respective constituencies.

Potentially more important than the physical rehabilitation of the conflict space is the rehabilitation of the populations. This endeavor, essential to any peace process, must assist those who have become underprivileged and scarred as a result of the conflict, including displaced citizens, refugees, the disabled, families in mourning, returning prisoners of war, and former soldiers—particularly child soldiers. For the sake of social justice, it is essential that the parties commit to investment in the weaker segments of society—those who might otherwise be the victims of peace. By ensuring that the distribution of peace dividends reaches those most in need, a peace agreement can help narrow socioeconomic gaps and thus increase regional stability.

Part 5: Peacebuilding

In neither theory nor practice do clear lines exist between economic recovery, peacebuilding, glocalization, and peace ecology; they are equally important and often overlap. However, rough delineations in this part of the treaty can help identify potential projects and areas of cooperation between the two parties. Economic recovery pertains to the economic measures executed by the 118 parties, independently and jointly, in their move toward a peace economy.

Peacebuilding initiatives are most successful when they operate in tandem with diplomatic efforts. Whereas diplomatic regimes endeavor to solve issues of the past, peacebuilding practices are oriented toward the future. These practices, which enhance quality of life, can be quantified based on their multiplier effect and their capacity to save lives. From these points of view, cooperation on nutrition and health are extremely important.

Peacebuilding activities vary according to needs. These needs should be reflected in the modern peace treaty, with the fundamental need for peace exerting the strongest influence.

Part 6: Glocalization

Glocalization is a natural extension of peacebuilding. A modern peace treaty can provide a framework for specific measures to enhance city-to-city cooperation. By emphasizing interactivity in the treaty itself, peace leaders make the statement that glocalization is an integral requirement for a lasting peace.

It is important that this part of the agreement be detailed and extensive to ensure implementation and integration. For example, a peace treaty can establish committees, directed by mayors from each side of the conflict, to recruit local government workers for joint activities. A treaty also could support the creation of city triangles (one city from each side of the conflict and a third, international city), which would support development and municipal capacity building.

Peace leaders and peace bureaucrats can work together to identify ways of glocalizing peace in their unique regional context. Cooperative arrangements must be perceived as a core element of peacemaking, no less important than security. The decentralization of peace—participatory peace—is especially important during this era of rapid urbanization, to ensure that peace infiltrates all strata of society and is not merely saved for the elite. 119

Part 7: Peace Ecology

This section of the modern peace treaty allows both sides to commit to programs and activities designed to accelerate a revolution toward empathy and coexistence. For example, a joint campaign led by public relations professionals from both parties can market a new, common language of communication, emphasizing the benefits of peace and evoking a lasting feeling of trust and partnership between former enemies. Peace leaders also can use this section of the treaty to commit to presenting positive peace rhetoric and to making periodic appearances in the other side’s media. This section goes to the core of negotiations, and a detailed outline of peace ecology activities—including peace education, cultural exchange, interfaith dialogue, and youth empowerment—will greatly improve the chances of successful implementation.

Part 8: Comprehensive Security

Although the security aspects in a modern peace treaty are less central than they were once considered, and in their traditional sense are insufficient on their own, they are still absolutely necessary. Security in the modern era, as it is manifested in a modern peace treaty, is achieved by diverse means. Both traditional and more innovative measures need to be employed to realize and sustain peace.

All sides previously engaged in the conflict must commit to a zero-tolerance rule regarding terror activity by dismantling terror infrastructures, including financing mechanisms, and taking on the responsibility of preventing all forms of terrorism. Cooperation between the parties and on a regional level will facilitate exchange of both intelligence and operational methods. Any violent activity taken on by antipeace elements must be utterly eradicated to cultivate an environment conducive to sustainable peace.

According to the tenets of modern peace, troop deployment on both sides of the border should be limited and must be defined in great detail in a modern peace treaty. Demilitarization along 120 the conflict border will enhance trust and contribute to a positive peace ecology. Similarly, when border crossings are conducted in a way that respects the dignity of individuals and encourages cooperation, both parties will benefit from more effective and efficient security. Sea and air provisions can be dealt with according to international law and should resemble those of countries living within peaceful borders—thereby presenting a model for other security arrangements.

Cooperative security and monitoring measures, facilitated by joint security coordination centers, can support peace by building relationships between armies. A binational and multinational force can be established for the purposes of patrols, antiterror activities, and border protection. This type of joint security action—getting armies that have fought one another to start working together—provides practical value and, no less important, symbolic value.

International peacekeeping forces—involving binational or regional forces—can add great value by monitoring security arrangements and maintaining stability. International observers such as the United Nations or NATO also can provide crucial support and oversight for cross-border security cooperation. To ensure that peace is not merely a stage between wars and to limit the expansion of existing armies, detailed and transparent arms control agreements are an important component of the modern peace treaty. These clauses are related to the national priorities of each party, and specifically to the curtailment of defense budgets (as discussed in part 4 of the peace document).

These security arrangements will be most successful if they are independently effective while also being employed as peacebuild-ing measures that contribute to peace ecology through bilateral cooperation.

Part 9: Implementation Monitoring

Traditionally, monitoring the implementation of a peace agreement has centered on security and military aspects—but with the 121 modern peace treaty’s new concentration on the four pillars, this section of the document also widens its focus. Peace leaders can use this opportunity to define a comprehensive high-tech monitoring system that will supervise the implementation of all aspects of the treaty, including the goodwill and credibility of third parties (regional partners, major donors, and global actors).

Monitoring the implementation of the peace treaty is crucial to ensuring that all relevant parties are fulfilling their obligations and are contributing meaningfully to the process. Particularly during times of transition, measuring the development of peacebuilding projects and activities will help all parties and international actors identify which endeavors are most successful and which ones need more attention. Credible benchmark research—including tools such as the peace barometer or other survey methods undertaken by reliable international institutions—also can be used to continuously measure public attitudes toward peace, the former enemy, and the treaty implementation.

The triangular structure of city networking can be useful in monitoring regional peacebuilding, peace ecology, and glocalization of the treaty. Comprehensive reports regarding implementation, issued periodically by the relevant parties, can be useful as the focus of periodic summit meetings among the leaders. These meetings provide a forum for constructive dialogue, capacity building, and enhancement of the implementation of the treaty.

Part 10: International Involvement

Traditionally, the role of the international community in a peace treaty has focused on power and national interests: parties to the prior conflict seek political and economic support for transformations within their societies while third parties (from the international community) endeavor to obtain strategic footholds in the post-conflict region. This narrow-minded approach only perpetuates selfish aims instead of cultivating cooperation. A better strategy—one that can lead to regional growth as well as national 122 transformation—is for international actors to model the behavior they want most to see in the post-conflict societies and to put structures into place to support the four pillars. By dedicating a section of the peace agreement to international contributions, all parties formalize the critical role of the international community in the core conflict area.

Although the international community certainly has a role in modern peacemaking, outside actors will be most effective if their contributions run parallel to a bilateral negotiation process, which remains the best approach to creating a modern treaty. The conflict parties play the key role in all aspects of peacemaking, and the role of the international community is to provide them with essential support during peacebuilding and treaty implementation.

The modern peace treaty is only one part of the peacemaking process—but it is a crucial one. By structuring this important document to emphasize the four pillars of modern peace as well as regional and international contributions, post-conflict parties can pave the way for all peacemaking activities that follow. A modern treaty that strives toward transparency and participation from many sectors of society can set up the framework for participatory implementation and cooperation.