Due to the latest development of peace and conflict awareness and sensibility throughout the globe, our initial statement ‚… to promote a culture of peace …‘ might be re-arranged or newly specified. The first WMO Conflict Insight Report and the corresponding discussion helped us to finalize this step. The core problem that was detected in this content is the term ‘peace’ itself that obviously grants too many options for interpretations and generally assumes that all of us believe in the same conception.
Nowadays, that we form a more global society than ever, we also might have in mind that all of us are individuals with different cultural backgrounds and life experiences who meet each other at a level of virtual interaction that was not common in the past. This level of interaction places its focus on the interest and exchange of private and professional experiences. The frequently used ’share’-button outlines that all of us have a story to tell, are truly unique and diverse. So, by using specific words in such a global society of internet users, we may want to give sufficient credit to and raise the level of our awareness towards our own diversity that further on has a direct influence on interpretation, evaluation, and the way we initiate action.
Analyzing in a very superficial way what the term ‘peace’ may currently mean to the community of researchers and activists, we will easily find enhanced expressions like ‚positive peace’ and ‚negative peace’ that create an even more complex content. As a result of such disclosures, we are not only dealing with the individual’s proper point of view, personal experiences, and cultural settings, but also with the task of creating a mutual understanding of what we are all longing for: harmony, respect, structured dialog, and non-escalating armed conflict.
In order to offer more transparency, we might want to replace in our mindset the easily used term ‘peace’ by ‘constructive dialog within an area of mutual respect and non-escalated armed conflict’.