Alev Yalcinkaya

Definitions of Peace and Reconciliation in Russia and the Balkans

This chapter discusses definitions of peace and reconciliation in a sample of respondents from three Balkan states and Russia. Distinctions between a positive and negative peace were considered, as well as peace building and reconciliation as processes of seeking genuine, just, and enduring ends to a conflict. The national context for peace and reconciliation in the region was discussed along with consideration of the region’s historical stigmatization. A strong inclination toward positive peace and a belief that it could be achieved through a demanding process were expressed by respondents in all four countries. Exploratory analyses revealed group differences in definitions based on gender, military service history, and engagement in peace protests; for example, women were more likely than men to give positive peace definitions, while men were more likely than women and non-protestors were more likely than protestors to question the achievability of peace. The majority of respondents defined reconciliation as a process, although there were again some demographic group differences in definitions. For example, women were more likely than men to give process definitions, and respondents with military service history were more likely than nonmilitary respondents to question the achievability of reconciliation. Awareness that a number of acts are necessary to achieve reconciliation (and therefore peace) is present, perhaps stemming from historical and current experiences of participants. Lack of future orientation in the answers of respondents could be concerning.

Middle East Perspectives on the Achievability of Peace

This chapter focuses on Middle Eastern perspectives regarding the achievability of world peace. The Middle Eastern region, although rife with national and transnational conflict, has undertaken many peacebuilding efforts, such as the Madrid-Oslo process, as outlined in this chapter. This chapter also briefly discusses conflicts in this area that have hampered peace. A sample of 398 respondents from Middle Eastern countries responded to two survey questions regarding the achievability of world peace. Responses were coded for agency, disengagement, and humanitarian engagement, as well as prerequisites for peace. Despite living in an area that has been conflict laden for thousands of years, respondents to the survey were largely optimistic regarding the achievability of world peace, offering many solutions they believed could bring about peace. Perhaps not surprisingly, there was also considerable recognition that war, hate, and violence are barriers to the achievement of peace. This chapter ends by discussing the region’s future in relation to the recent Arab Spring, mentioning important steps necessary to achieve peace and factors that must be taken into consideration in peace efforts.

Perspectives on Protest in Russia and the Balkan Peninsula

This chapter explores perspectives of ordinary people from Greece, Russia, Serbia, and Slovenia on the individual’s right to protest against war and in favor of peace, as well as different kinds of personal agency displayed in qualitative responses to a scenario in which police are described as beating peaceful protesters. Adopting Bronfenbrenner’s ecological approach, we first overview these countries’ recent history of conflict within and around their borders and their protests experiences as parts of the macrosystems in which views concerning the right to protest were shaped. Then, we examine patterns of responses to the right protest and to the police beating scenario using coding manuals informed by Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement and his notion of agency. We also investigate several contextual factors from the different ecological levels to see if they contributed to differences in perspectives. Greeks, Russians, Serbians, and Slovenians provided responses that their great majority supported the right to protest and expressed prosocial agency in the view of aggression. Implications and limitations of the study are also discussed.

Perspectives on Apology and Reconciliation in the Middle East

This chapter examines, within the ecological model, developed by Bronfenbrenner (1979) and later refined by (Belsky, 1993), the individual, social, and cultural factors that influence the attitudes toward apology and reconciliation in the Middle East. The sample consisted of 341 participants (males = 181, female = 159) from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Oman, and Bahrain. In addition to demographic and military service history questionnaires, participants were asked to fill out the Personal and Institutional Rights to Aggression and Peace Survey (PAIRTAPS; Malley-Morrison, Daskalopoulos, & You, 2006). Three major categories were identified in responses to the apology item: the response (a) indicates that the effectiveness of the apology depends on the situation, (b) agrees with the idea that an apology will lead to reconciliation, or (c) disagrees with idea that an apology will lead to reconciliation. In addition, responses regarding reconciliation were categorized into three major categories: (a) reconciliation is possible by a specific means; (b) reconciliation is not possible; and (c) the participant does not know if reconciliation is possible.

Perspectives on Apology and Reconciliation in Russia and the Balkan States

This chapter discusses perceptions of apology and its role in reconciliation in a sample of respondents from three Balkan states and Russia. Sociopsychological perspectives on apology and national contexts for apology and reconciliation in the region are presented. The countries under consideration can be seen as having participated in double roles—as victim or as perpetrator or both—in different historical periods. A sample of 466 participants from Greece, Russia, Slovenia, and Serbia provided qualitative responses to items concerning apology and reconciliation from the Personal and Institutional Rights to Aggression and Peace Survey (PAIRTAPS). The majority of responses (59 %) to the apology item indicated beliefs that the likelihood of an apology leading to reconciliation depends on the situation. Exploratory chi-square analyses revealed differences in responding based on gender, engagement in peace protests, and military experience. For example, more peace protestors than non-protestors indicated that recognition of wrongdoing can improve the possibility for reconciliation, and those not being in military and women in a greater degree believe that apology can lead to reconciliation. The majority of responses (90 %) indicated that reconciliation is achievable through various steps.

Achieving World Peace: Views from Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, and Greece

This chapter deals with perception of ordinary citizens from Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, and Greece regarding the possibilities or elusiveness of achieving world peace. Despite important differences among these states, there are also many interconnections, mainly among dyads and triads of the four: Slavic group of people, Orthodox Christianity, similar languages, and enough similarities to justify common analysis. The sample consisted of 440 participants, aged from 18–82; 59 % are women. They were asked to signify their level of agreement with the item “I believe world peace can be achieved” and then to explain the answer. They also completed the statement “The best way to achieve peace is….” Bandura’s theory of moral engagement provided the framework for the coding manual. Analyses of coded responses were conducted to determine the relative distribution of responses within the coding categories, and some exploratory statistical tests were run to see if there were differences in frequencies of responses based on demographic groups. Despite differences among the countries in level of development, political culture, and current politics, the great majority of answers in all subsamples showed a clear propensity among the ordinary people of the region to argue in favor of world peace. The hope is that the results will not serve as information for the mighty who will find to which level they can oppress others in order to obtain dominance (euphemistically: “national interest”).Rather, it is hoped that the results will contribute to the optimism of ordinary people, regardless of their social system and geographical meridian, regarding a broad commitment to achieve world peace as an ultimate goal of humankind.

Definition of Peace and Reconciliation in the Middle East

This chapter begins by providing a context for Middle Eastern definitions of peace and reconciliation, with particular attention to the control of the region by major powers exercising economic dominance, maintenance of client rulers during and beyond the Cold War, the relationship between Israel and the United States, and the role of two Zionisms – Christian Zionism and Jewish Zionism – in contributing to lasting conflicts in the Middle East. A sample of 601 participants from Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran, Israel, Jordon, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates responded to the Personal and Institutional Rights to Aggression and Peace Survey (PAIRTAPS), including providing definitions of “peace” and “reconciliation.” Rather than viewing peace just as the cessation of violence, the majority of participants focused on structural requirements for lasting peace such as justice and fairness, as well as describing the benefits of peace. Reconciliation was commonly conceptualized as a process such as coming to terms, making agreements, compromising, and negotiating. This chapter concludes with a consideration of the extent to which circumstances in the Middle East are reaching the kind of tipping point in the balance of power leading each party to the conflict to believe that, on balance, it may have more to gain by the cessation of conflict than by its continuance.

Perspectives of Protest in the Middle East

The freedoms of assembly and association are mentioned as individual rights in various international legal documents. They are recognized as cornerstones of a functioning democracy, and much has been written about these rights as they are understood and pertain to western democratic societies. With the aim of expanding our understanding beyond the west, this chapter focuses on perspectives on protest held by persons living in 12 Middle Eastern countries. Given the diversity within and among these states, a brief comparative overview of their demographics follows a discussion of protest and freedom of assembly as global concepts. The wave of protests that recently occurred throughout the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) region is examined, as these protests are active examples of the thoughts shared by survey respondents. Analysis of the qualitative survey data collected from nationals of each state revealed that the majority of respondents are pro-protest (91 %). They view protest as a socially sanctioned right, a human right, and a moral responsibility. Men were more likely than women to portray protest is a moral responsibility. Persons with military service were more likely to view protest as a socially sanctioned right, while persons with no military service most often cited the goal of protest as peace. Seventy-five percent (75 %) of respondents were in favor of exercising pro-social agency in response to police violence against nonviolent protesters and gave examples of personal initiative, activism, and legal action as ways they would respond to the police in such instances.

Views on National Security in the Middle East

Unlike much of the rest of the world, government policy toward national security in the Middle East has generally been determined by decisions made by countries outside of the region. The Middle East, a term sometimes considered “Eurocentric” (Adelson 1995; Koppes 1976), is used to designate a region of countries at the intersection of Africa, Asia, and Europe. The region includes between 20 and 40 countries, including at least the following: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Jordon, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen (see www.mideastweb.org for more information). The countries comprise a diverse mosaic of languages, traditions, and histories and are difficult to characterize as a group.

Definitions of War, Torture, and Terrorism in the Middle East

The term “Middle East” was conceived in 1902 by Alfred Mahan, a United States Navy flag officer, to describe an area covering a large region in northeastern Africa and southwestern Asia (Adelson 1995). The term was created by outsiders for military purposes, not by the people living there. Today, the Middle East is considered to include nineteen territories: Armenia, Afghanistan, Bahrain, the Gaza Strip, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the West Bank, and Yemen (CIA World Factbook 2011). The Middle East is a diverse region with various ethnicities, tribes, government systems, religions, sects, political ideologies, landscapes and weather, economic situations, traditions, and histories. Living in these 16 countries are Jews, Christians, and Muslims, along with adherents of other older religions, such as the followers of prophets Abraham and Noah. The area is also rich in the variety of ethnic groups, which include Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Persians, Indians, and European and Eastern Jews, among others (Owen 2004). Religious sects and movements include Sunnis, Shiites, Reform Jews, Orthodox Jews, Christian Orthodox and Maronites (in Lebanon), and Christian Copts (in Egypt). There are nationalistic movements among Arabs, Iranians, Turks, Egyptians, Pakistanis, and others.