DISARMAMENT: A MAJOR PEACE STRATEGYAuthor(s): Pertti JoenniemiSource: Instant Research on Peace and Violence, Vol. 6, No. 1/2, DISARMAMENT, DÉTENTE,DEVELOPMENT Papers from the IPRA Disarmament Study Group (1976), pp. 1-2Published by: Tampere Peace Research Institute, University of TampereStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40724790 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 18:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Tampere Peace Research Institute, University of Tampere is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Instant Research on Peace and Violence.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.31.195.30 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:24:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DISARMAMENT: A MAJOR PEACE STRATEGY

One of the basic lessons learned from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe is that profound improvements in international relations require time. This applies to the efforts of disarmament as well. In endeavouring at disarmament the same virtues are needed that have shown their importance in connection with the CSCE: patience and strength to continue and deepen the process in spite of backlashes and the difficulties of every-day politics.

The prerequities of disarmament are even more demanding than those needed for the realization of détente. The favourable developments in the climate of international relations - which for their part made the convening of the CSCE possible - are based on a common understanding between the states concerned that arising conflicts are no longer to be solved by military means but by peaceful settlement. Peace in the sense of avoiding wars by joint efforts over the bloc barriers has become a recognized reality. In the field of co-operation some principles have been agreed upon for the erection of a new basis for peace in Europe. However, from the still prevailing negative concepts of peace one must proceed further towards a clear priority of positive peace.

In this process the attitudes on armament and disarmament are of crucial significance. It may not be difficult to erect a system of co-operation over the bloc barriers but if this structure is to be supplemented with decline in the trends of armament and a dissolution of the military alliances the diffi- culties become apparent. But these diffi- culties must not be over-emphasized. Al- though the requirements of a real peace system in Europe still are much of a challenge to the dominant ways of analysing peace and security there are also signs that conceptualizations such as »si vis pacem, para bellum» are giving way for new ways of thinking.

The need for rethinking and more far- reaching conceptualizations has not yet been commonly recognized. Some parties who at the CSCE spoke warmly for dis- armament also stressed the necessity of maintaining »equilibrium» and »security» - the very values that prevent any real measures of disarmament. Although it was stated in the final act of the CSCE that dis- armament increases peace and security, the multilateral measures are still more efforts at thinning, stabilizing and decreasing direct military confrontation in Europe.

This content downloaded from 185.31.195.30 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:24:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2

Military means and heavy accumulation of armaments have for a long time enjoyed priority in the endeavours for peace and security. Now, with the CSCE this mood has suffered a considerable blow. It has now been convincingly demonstrated that matters of security can also be handled by diplomatic means. These experiences un- doubtedly add to the demilitarization of public opinion. With this change in spirit, the tools of confrontation remain more clearly than before without justification.

These are trends of great importance. In European thinking ideas such as »si vis pacem, para bellum» and views of war as a continuation of politics have had devastating effects. In the present climate of East-West relations faith in these ideas and old doc- trines equating military preparations with security has been shaken, but not yet as profoundly as needed for real disarmament to come about. Disarmament in Europe means the establishment of a European security system able to solve conflicts be- tween European countries without the use of military violence and later without the use of structural violence. In the long run it must mean the abolishment of injustice, domination and non-legitimate power,

structural as well as open violence. It is only natural that on such measures there exists no common agreement among the states in Europe. On the other hand, how- ever, there is increased discussion about the terms necessary in the creation of a permanent peace system.

Thus the present issue of Instant Research on Peace and Violence is not merely devoted to attract the attention of the reader to the dangers that exist in the world of today because of ever-increasing armaments. Neither is the sole aim to stress the urgency of action in this field. It is felt that a discussion of new paradigms that might replace the traditional paradigms of peace and national security is what researchers in particular have to aim at in the present international situation. The aim is to in- crease and deepen the understanding of what the consequences of the objective factors in international relations really are, which make it impossible to aim at solving international conflicts by military means.

Pertti Joenniemi Co-ordinator of the IPRA Disarmament Study Group

This content downloaded from 185.31.195.30 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:24:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions