Tariq Saeedi
Peace is, arguably, one of the most talked about but least understood things. In making this statement, we are not arguing that the importance of peace is not truly understood – it is. What we are asserting here is that the nature of peace is not fully understood at all times, by all of the stakeholders.
Our contention: Peace is simultaneously an art and a science. Any form of peace is not sustainable without mastery over both of these dimensions.
The scientific nature of peace reveals itself in diplomatic protocols, precisely worded treaties, verification mechanisms, and conflict resolution frameworks. Peace agreements specify borders to the meter, outline disarmament schedules to the day, and establish monitoring systems with meticulous detail. International relations experts analyze power dynamics, economic interdependencies, and strategic interests with mathematical precision. This scientific approach provides the necessary infrastructure for peace.
Firmly attached to this is the fact that any reliance on solely the scientific foundation of peace (peace as a science) is not independently tenable. Consider how politicians often initiate conflicts they cannot conclude. They may understand the mechanics of mobilizing armies and the strategic objectives of warfare, but find themselves unable to navigate the intricate path back to peace. This illustrates a profound truth: knowing how to calculate force is simpler than mastering the delicate art of reconciliation.
The artistic dimension of peace (peace as an art) encompasses the nuanced human elements that no treaty can fully capture. It requires cultural sensitivity, emotional intelligence, and creative problem-solving. Peacemakers must read between lines of communication, recognize unspoken fears, and craft solutions that allow adversaries to preserve dignity while moving forward. The art of peace demands restraint when instinct calls for escalation, patience when urgency presses, and imagination when conventional approaches fail.
This dual nature of peace manifests itself decisively at every stage including the processes related to starting and continuing a war. The decision to go to war is generally taken by the Baby Boomers, Gen X, and early Millennials. On the other hand, the people who actually go to the war front to lay their lives are from the later part of Millennials and Gen Z. — In short, those who decide to go to war are not directly facing the brunt of the war.
This imbalance possibly explains why we have developed sophisticated metrics like the Human Development Index while neglecting what might be called a “War Destruction Index.” — We treat Human Development as both an art and a science but we refuse to accord a similar status to peace.
The War Destruction Index, if we establish such a thing, would bridge the science and art dimensions of peace by quantifying not just infrastructure damage and casualties, but also cultural losses, psychological trauma, and generational impacts. It would give concrete expression to costs that often remain abstract to decision-makers, potentially fostering more balanced approaches where science and art inform each other.
The narrowest definition of peace—the mere absence of active violence—represents peace reduced to its scientific minimum. True peace encompasses justice, cooperation, mutual understanding, and shared prosperity. It is not merely the silencing of weapons but the harmony of communities. Negative peace (absence of violence) can be established through scientific approaches alone, but positive peace (presence of justice and harmony) requires the art of community building, cultural understanding, and shared vision.
The responsibility for nurturing the delicate balance falls to all of humanity. No single nation, leader, or organization can unilaterally ensure global peace. It requires collaborative effort that transcends boundaries of nationality, generation, and perspective. Scientists and artists, diplomats and community organizers, military strategists and peace activists—all have essential roles in this vital endeavor.
The path forward demands integration rather than division. When we separate the science of peace from its art—when treaties are drafted without cultural understanding, when force calculations ignore human suffering, when generational disconnects isolate decision-makers from consequences—we achieve only fragile and temporary cessations of conflict.
True and lasting peace emerges when we honor both its scientific precision and its artistic soul. In this balance lies humanity’s best hope for a future where peace is not merely an intermission between conflicts, but the defining characteristic of our shared existence. /// nCa, 25 March 2025