There is a common misconception that studying 'peace' equips scholars with the ability to resolve conflicts, prevent wars, overthrow dictators, and ultimately save the world. This oversimplified mindset is fueled by the utopian connotations often associated with the word 'peace' itself. The question of what peace is, how people understand it, and the methods for creating, building, and maintaining it, along with the surrounding debates, are all worthy of exploration both in an academic context and through practical field applications. Thus, I argue, a blend of theoretical knowledge and practical experience through immersive field practicums should be a requirement in the peace and conflict study.
The field-practicum in Washington D.C. during this Spring 2024 semester aimed to build global connections and sew local reflections among Peace scholars of Kroc School. From the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (NIL) of the U.S. Department of State, I learned that the complexity of crimes related to illicit drug trafficking involves multiple factors, including international law on drugs, global inequalities, systemic poverty, international trade regimes, and cross-border human interactions.
Kroc School students met with the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (NIL) of the U.S. Department of State
The institution has long been involved in the global war against illicit drugs which is inextricably linked to many conflicts and wars today. However, to define what is ‘illicit’, is another matter that should be met with particular Western - or U.S. - standards that the Global South often doesn’t meet. For example, the cultivation and consumption of certain plants used in traditional medicine or cultural practices in the Global South may be deemed illicit by Western standards due to their psychoactive substances. This discrepancy highlights the imposition of ‘universal’ criteria that may not consider local contexts, cultural practices, and socio-economic realities of the Global South, leading to an enforcement that can exacerbate rather than resolve underlying issues.
While investigating systemic global violence related to drugs, the big picture of the Global South as the place of permanent drug crisis and war lingers in my head. I pondered how the global hierarchy dominated by the Global North has shaped many conflicts and illicit global trafficking in the Global South.
Moving on, when it comes to the peacebuilding efforts in the Eurasian region, the United States under its Department of State’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR), has made significant diplomatic efforts to constrain larger-scale conflicts following the Russia-Ukraine war. The United States Institute of Peace (USIP), a Congress-founded but independent institution devoted to the nonviolent prevention and mitigation of deadly conflict abroad, has also been working closely with the local communities in Ukraine, including the Orthodox Church, for the peacemaking process in the country.
.jpg?width=489&height=367&name=45bbf87d-cf36-4222-b243-b08d235d021c%20(1).jpg)
Observing the practicality of peacebuilding led me to question why the predominant model of peacebuilding seems to always involve U.S. intervention. This thought prompted me to reflect on the field of peace studies. While peace studies developed primarily in American academia during the Cold War milieu, how do we move from American-centric peacebuilding to inclusive, global, interdisciplinary peacebuilding? How should we, as peace scholars and practitioners, stop assuming we understand every instance of conflict from a Western academic view?
Criticism is necessary, considering that academia is elitist and often rooted in colonial imaginaries. Peace and conflict studies are no exception. Despite their normative commitment to global change in peace and justice, they rarely involve the voices of non-white, non-Western, non-English speaking scholars.
As a person from the Global South, I could not help but feel that networking with US government, US-based organizations and think tanks was such a waste of time as it would have little to do with conflict resolution and peacebuilding efforts in Indonesia, my home country. But the field-practicum in Washington D.C. taught me that (1) the field-practicum can serve as a platform for scholars and practitioners engaged in a difficult conversation on the Global South, with the hope of more effective and context-sensitive peacebuilding efforts. It provides a unique opportunity for academic theories and utopian ideals to confront the dystopian complex realities and challenges faced by these regions.
This is particularly important for scholars as field-practicum experiences allow for the testing and refining of academic concepts in real-world scenarios, revealing the nuances and intricacies that often go unnoticed in a classroom setting. In Kroc School, I have learned the importance of mediation and negotiation in conflict resolution, but talking to the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR) helped me realize that the negotiation process in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has remained stagnant for decades due to entrenched positions and a lack of willingness to compromise, highlighting the need for innovative approaches to conflict resolution, one that might involve localized Global South perspectives.
Kroc School students met with Financial subcommittees of the US Legislative Chamber at the US Capitol building
(2) The field-practicum experience in Washington D.C. offers a stark illustration of how liberal advocacy in peacebuilding is predominantly centered on Western perspectives. This experience not only cultivates critical perspectives among peace scholars but also enriches the discourse on peace studies, fostering interdisciplinary and inclusive approaches. For instance, during a meeting in the Capitol building, the Financial subcommittee emphasized that all budget allocations, including those for global conflict resolution, would be deliberated through U.S. legislative chambers, which are inherently politically driven. This raises the crucial question of the role of conflict analysts and peace practitioners in influencing decisions within Financial subcommittees and U.S. legislative chambers.
Kroc School students learned about Track 2 diplomacy in peacebuilding efforts from a US-based think tank, Migration Policy Institute (MPI).
(3) A field-practicum can be a transformative learning experience for peace scholars, fostering a healthy skepticism toward peace studies. This skepticism is not intended to discredit the field but rather to stimulate its continuous reconstruction and evolution away from imperialist practices. My experiences with the Migration Policy Institute, an independent think-and-do tank in Washington D.C., and Search for Common Ground, the largest dedicated peacebuilding organization, have prompted me to question their research implications and measurable outcomes of peacebuilding efforts on a global scale. As they navigate the role of the United States and its interests, I am particularly interested in how US-based think tanks and NGOs can effectively engage local actors in their peacebuilding advocacy, ensuring that initiatives are contextually relevant and truly inclusive.
Kroc School students learned about conflict resolution from the world’s largest peacebuilding organization, Search For Common Ground.
While it's important to consider how field-practicum will benefit one's career prospects and academic success, my experience went beyond these practical considerations. The field-practicum in Washington D.C. challenged me to question assumptions, confront biases, and recognize the influence of power dynamics and historical injustices embedded in traditional peacebuilding approaches, often reinforced by the United States and Western academia. This experience has underscored the importance of maintaining a critical stance and continuously reconstructing approaches in peace studies. By doing so, peace scholars can contribute to more equitable and effective peacebuilding practices that genuinely support collaborative and locally-driven efforts.
