The legitimacy of military intervention as a means of resolving conflicts is continuously waning – one only has to consider the negative reaction of people around the world to such interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, to realise this. As such, discussions on non-military intervention, and the various forms in which it could take, have become far more prevalent in the international community.
Non-military intervention requires a complex and long-term strategic package, incorporating the needs and voices of local communities, state institutions, and international organisations. As such, it is generally considered more difficult in terms of planning and implementation than a military venture. Despite this, it is increasingly seen as the only way to ensure lasting and sustainable peace and stability.
Non-military intervention can take many forms and span across a wide range of different sectors. Existing examples include youth initiatives, educational reforms, platforms for dialogue between conflicting parties, along with campaigns involving media and the arts. Projects can be implemented on both a grass-roots level and nation/region wide, enabling a multitude of engagement possibilities.
The OICD feels that non-military intervention provides key opportunities to engage identities for peace-building purposes. Such projects bring individuals and groups together, helping to promote cohesion, whereas deployment of military forces for conflict resolution tends to emphasize and reinforce existing divisions.
With this in mind, we would like to pose a number of questions to our followers:
What other benefits, or drawbacks, does non-military intervention provide as a method of conflict resolution?
What are the barriers to implementation of non-military projects and initiatives in conflict or post-conflict zones?
Who should be the driving force behind such initiatives? (Governments, NGOs, International Community etc.)
We look forward to hearing your opinions!
