The Role of Youth In Peace Building

Peace Building: The term "Peacebuilding" came into widespread use after 1992 when Boutros Boutros-Ghali, then United Nations Secretary-General, announced his Agenda for Peace (Boutros-Ghali, 1992). Since then, "peace building" has become a broadly used but often ill-defined term connoting activities that go beyond crisis intervention such as longer-term development, and building of governance structures and institutions. It includes building the capacity of non-governmental organizations (including religious institutions) for peacemaking and peacebuilding. The emphasis of the United Nations has been on structural transformation, with a primary focus on institutional reform.

Peacebuilding involves a full range of approaches, processes, and stages needed for transformation toward more sustainable, peaceful relationships and governance modes and structures. Peacebuilding includes building legal and human rights institutions as well as fair and effective governance and dispute resolution processes and systems. To be effective, peacebuilding activities requires careful and participatory planning, coordination among various efforts, and sustained commitments by both local and donor partners. To summarize a construction metaphor used by Lederach, peacebuilding involves a long-term commitment to a process that includes investment, gathering of resources and materials, architecture and planning, coordination of resources and labour, laying solid foundations, construction of walls and roofs, finish work and ongoing maintenance. Lederach also emphasizes that peacebuilding centrally involves the transformation of relationships. "Sustainable reconciliation" requires both structural and relational transformations (Lederach, 1997, 20, 82-83).

Let us explore the role of youth as peace-builders through illustrating their unique power and untapped potential. Young people are typically considered a problem to peace and thus are left out or manipulated by decision-making process especially in societies that have difficulties handling change in constructive ways.

Youth as peace-builders: Similar to that of youth being violent, there is extensive evidence of youth not only being peaceful but of being agents of positive social change. However, this phenomenon has not been analysed by academic research. How many young people are violent and how many young people are peace builders? Social research using quantitative and qualitative methods can help to answer this question. My experience as a youth leader, worker and activist in several context suggest that there are many youth who are peace-builders. They are pro active agents in their communities, in their schools, work places, sports teams, youth groups and universities. Their stories are yet to be told.

McEvoy writes: In any conflict context one examines, the dominant presence of the young people in youth work, in community development, and in inter-ethnic and dialogue and peace group is clear. Many have direct experience of violence, conflict and imprisonment themselves. They are not well paid, their projects are under-funded, often stressful and can be life threatening. Like other civil society actors they are less visible in analysis of peace processes than key elites.

One of McEvoy’s final proposition is that “youth are the primary actors in grassroots community development/relations work; they are at the frontlines of peace building.” Along this line, Ardizzone studied the activities and motivation of youth Organisations in New York City. She highlights Global Kids, an organisation which conducts student-run conferences on children’s rights; Youth Force which teaches teens on how to respond when stopped by the police; and Youth Peace/Roots which tries to counter the active role military recruiters take with inter-city youth by educating about alternatives to militarism. She emphasizes that young people whom she interviewed show a commitment to changing the situation of their peers and the image adults have of youth: “The youth in this study have witnessed injustice and rather than becoming hopeless and apathetic, or perpetrators of direct violence, have chosen to work for social change.” Further studies should be taken to document similar and so visible initiatives in other geographical and cultural contexts, linked to studies of civil society strengthening.

Another aspect to highlight from the conclusion of Ardezzone is that there seem to be parallel with the emancipating functions that war some times has on women. Women are compelled to take on roles left vacant by men-typically soldiers-during times of war. In this case, youth take up the role of a generation of adults who are either hopeless, too comfortable to change or incapable of implementation transformation. The experience of agencies working with youth support this idea. The Oxfam International Youth Parliament Report “Highly affected, rarely considered”, cited earlier, states:

The experience of the International; Youth Parliament (IYP) is that an increasing number of young people are rejecting violence and becoming involved in peace-building efforts at the grass roots, national and international level. How are young people changing their societies? What is their specific power? How can their unique potential be harnessed? Extensive research is needed on innovative and spreading youth initiatives.

Finally there is need to tap the potential of youth by public policies of governments and international institutions. Involve then in all peace processes of their countries sine young people stand to be major stakeholders in the affairs of their nation.