Several questions arise here: What parity is there between peace in the world and peace within us? Is peace a universal concept, or is it a necessarily contested term (i.e. is it peace primarily for the victor)? How is the recognition of difference intrinsic to peaceful politics?

The analogy made between the “Wild West” and the apparently anarchical conditions of contemporary global politics draws attention to crucial issues concerning the relation between justice and power. This is an essentially ontological question, bearing on what is the basis of our shared reality. If, as some argue, justice is reducible to power – i.e. if peace starts with the Sheriff and a fight – then the conditions of peace will be similarly unstable. In contrast, if peace has its basis in a universal idea of justice, with power ancillary to principles, then the consistency and stability of rationally-based consensus will shine through. Principles are in this sense a more solid basis for sustainable peace than power. The practical challenge then is to take the role of individual agency and the principles of peace more seriously than any supposed fatalism of war and power politics.

Interviewed by Dr. Toivo Koivukoski of Nipissing University as part of the Agents of Peace Project, exploring the role of agency in peace-building.