ANALYSIS OP THE PEACE CORPS CONCEPT
"by Professor Johan Galtung (Norway)
Pew post-war phrases have come into such common use as "peace corps" has done.  The phrase may even have brought a president into power, and opinion polls show a level of knowledge and an acceptance that rarely applies to concepts so new to our political vocabulary.  Persons ranging from pacifists to power-oriented politicians talk acceptingly of "peace corps", and this at once gives rise to the suspicion that it has more than one meaning  Let us explore the possible meanings, in order to find a fruitful basis for an analysis of the possible structures and functions of a peace corps.
By a "peace corps", then, we mean any mobile unarmed body of mostly young people deliberately set up to contribute to peaceful relations between people and nations.  Its means should be entirely non-violent, its goals should be by means of cross-national low-level contact and co-operation.  Peace-promotion, and its structural and functional autonomy should make it an explicit and deliberate instrument for peace.  Its effectiveness does not enter into the definition.  In the definition is further emphasized that its means is contact, between rank and file, not high-level contact alone. This contact should cut across national and group barriers, thus the definition excludes the United Na.tions and its emergency forces, but include any such body, whether private, governmental or international in character.
There are at least three schools of thought regarding the uses of such an unarmed force.  The common elements arc already emphasized in the definition s non-violence and contact. Schematically, it may be said that the three schools of thought take as their point of departure the three phases of any conflicts genesis, dynamics and resolutions  Thus, we gets
 1.	An effort to prevent an incipient conflict by attacking its causes.
 2.	An effort to fight conflicts by participating non-violently as a second party
 3.	An effort to end conflicts by acting as a third party.
For short, we shall call the three concepts "technical assistance", "second, party" and "third party" types of peace corps respectively.
It is interesting and important that G-andhi' s "peace corps" worked very consciously along three lines.  This means that not only do we have his experiences on which the world, can draw in all three fields, we also have some information, however unsystematic and conditioned by particular circumstances, as to possibilities of combining the three kinds of peace corps in one institution. At, present, there is little doubt tha.t the U.S. Peace Corps adheres to the first school of thought as do the plans for a Norwegian Peace Corps: whilst the peace corps contemplated by the World Peace Brigade Committee seems to be more along the first and third lines, with an element of the second.  There are no doubt also many other possibilities comparible with our definition, but we shall limit ourselves to these three.  Let us then look closer at the ideas behind the three schools of thought.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Peace corps directed at the possible causes of war and conflict to-day take the form of "technical and economic assistance", a very broad term that covers all possible one-way flows of technical and economic aid from one country to another.  There is never immediate nor complete compensation for the value obtained,  Pee.ce corps, however, are not identical v?ith technical assistance; by our

•p
«i   C TO r
TO -H rC R5 rCj 0
- 2 -
definition they are technical assistance plus personal contact. There are two kinds of technical assistances one directed at construction of something new, the other at reconstruction of something which was destroyed in a natural or social catastrophe. The aid given to refugees falls into the latter category; most of what is presently listed as "technical aid" in the former. Although these two kinds may be technically similar, their social psychology is entirely different.  We shall not debate here whether such work is relevant to the problem of peace or war, as most people consider it to be relevant
SECOND PASTY
A peace corps designed to participate in one side of a conflict is entirely different.  Peace corps as technical assistance are aimed at bringing about asked-for changes in the local society, and the desirability of these changes are fairly consensual.  A peace corps participating in a social conflict is by definition not trying to promote consensual goals, otherwise there would have been no conflict.  The peace corps may fight for the underdog against a numerically very inferior topdog; they may fight in such a way that concensus is created, or for a goal believed in by everybody outside the group or country whore the struggle takes place.  They nevertheless do not appear on the scene as neutrals, but as taking sides. At their disposal is the entire array of non-violent techniques known under such names as direct action, non-co-operation, civil disobedience, etc.  A case in point would be the defence of one country under attack by another.
THIRD PARTY
A peace corps designed to act as a third party in a conflict enters the scene as a neutral.  Its task is not to promote any particular goal or solution, but to reduce violence 1. by helping a transition from violent to non-violent forms of struggle, 2. by offering their good services to both sides with the intention of finding a solution that yields a minimum probability for future violence.  A peace corps of this kind could function much like arbitration and mediation teams, but in addition have a number of relatively unexplored functions, such ass acting as channels of communication between the parties; acting as rumour-stoppers and providers of correct and objective information* acting as assistants and fact-finders for research - and mediation-teams, etc.  In extreme cases there is also the possibility of acting as physical inbetweens by bodily intervention between two fighting parties.
THREE IN ONE
Thus, the three forms are different in intention and content, and the question is how, if at all, they can be combined.  Eirst of all, hov/ever, it should be pointed out what we mean by "combination". There are actually many possibilities depending on the level of organization; one can imagine a central, non-violent peace corps administration with three fairly independent divisions, much like army, navy and air-force, with inter-scrvice rivalries and problems of coordination, but also with a considerable autonomy.  One can also imagine the other extreme; one administrative body with personnel on all levels trained for all three purposes.  And to carry it even further, one can imagine the corps trying to engage in all three activities at the same place and same time.  Obviously, the problems of coordination and combination are different in each case.
There is also a second variable which has to do with the location of strain or even of incompatibility.  Strain or incom-patibility means that one action or set of actions seems to exclude or make difficult another action or set of actions for some people. The problem is for whom.  It may be quite possible for a peace corps member to combine technical assistance and Red Cross "tyoe work with civil disobedience, but for others his participation in"a conflict

- 3 -

as a second penis technical ahle "by others i.e., the emot detached objec can he located "between peace these three lo

rty may detract considerahly from the acceptance of assistance.  Other actions may he completely accept-, hut impossible to perform together for an individual, ional involvement in second party intervention and the tivity in third party mediation.  Actually, the strain
in outsiders in the individual peace corps member, corps members, etc. hut we shall limit ourselves to cations of strain.

To he systematic, let us make a
To start out § imagine an outsider, not himself participating in the peace corps activities hut rather an object of them, and he ohserves different kinds of combinations of the three types of activities.  The question is to what extent they will he "associative"
or "dissociative" in his mind, conrolcte tables

PEACE CORPS 1	i Peace corps j Peace corps
as          as
tech. asst. ! second party	Peace corps I
as    j
third party i	
G-iving Technical j Assistance (T.A.)	>><'		i	
i As a 2nd party      S	^X^		
| As a 3rd party		^><C	
These diagonal cells indicate the six relationships we have to consider  We start in the upper right-hand corner.  What effect does a peace corps giving technical assistance have on a corps as a third party in a conflict?
By and large, it seems that a very fundamental part of the pacifist "belief can he expressed as followss the institution that has been of non-partisan service to both si6.es in a conflict is best fit to enter a conflict as a third party.  Expressed in one sentence by means of services rendered, technical assistance yielded, or aid in distress a good-will and general aura of invulnerability may be created that can be drawn upon in times of conflict.  There are some very practical and quite valid arguments, it seems, that favour this proposition.  First of alls technical assistance legitimizes contact of the kind needed for future work as a third party in a conflict.
Further, technical assistance by a peace corps means relevant, functional contact, not the kind established during the tourist season.  The TA peace corps member will have developed a feeling for the web of work-relations and have a number of personal friends whose evaluation of the situation he can utilize.  Just as important is the local population's knowledge of him, and the positive image they will have of him if his mission has been of any value to them. In other words, in a situation of conflict he will know some very basic facts and be known, and may thus better understand and see possible solutions.  Thus, it seems that the proposition above is relatively tenable; peace corps as TA does facilitate peace corps as a third party in a conflict.
This looks so obvious that it may be worthwhile pointing out some difficulties.  Eirst of all, there is a danger involved in the way TA activities have been presented as instrumental to something different from welfare in the local community.  Eor the recipient, TA will above all be a bene per se if it is of any value at all. If it shall serve as an instrument to facilitate intervention in future conflicts, (or for any other political purpose like a guarantee against attack, a way to fight fascism or other undesirable

CO
o o|
- 4 -
political factions, etc.) it may fail for lack of acceptance and response.  People may well resent efforts to use their distress as a "brick in a political game.  This may "be an argument against too close organizational combination, "but it may also well "be that it has more to do with the way in which TA is given than the presence of possible additional and future functions.
Secondly, on our small list of objectionst   is it necessarily true that to know and be known is instrumental to efficient mediation and arbitration?  It may be detrimental to a certain kind of ^ objectivity, and it is quite possible that the many primary relations that have developed during TA work will catch the peace corps members in a web of loyalties and allegiances that may cause a number of difficulties.  Probably, one answer to this lies in the way we have indicated that third party activities should be carried outs as assistants and workers on the immediate human level of interaction, more than as real arbitrators.  The latter would have to be very experienced, people and thus beyond the age range usually considered for peace corps personnel.
In the G-andhian school of thought the idea, of community service would be regarded as both a necessary and sufficient condition of conflict intervention.  Only through services does one gain a moral right to intervene, but the ties thus created will also imply a moral obligation to intervene.  The disinterested outsider is not the right person because of his lack of sincere concern, and the concern will have to be proved and tested for its true quality and endurance.  Although the moral stand here does not concern this kind of analysis, the empirical factor of importance is the relevance of TA as a kind of testing ground for the even more difficult work in times of crisis.  But this presupposes even a low-level organisational combination, in fact, most of our-. Argument does. In most cases it will not be sufficient for some people j.n the organisation to have participated in TA activities and for others to participate in third party activities.  Although the former may transmit a lot of their experiences to the la.tter, and the local population may transmit a lot of their positive attitude of the former unto the latter, there is no real substitute for personal experience or for the friendship between one person and another.
Third party activities probably need not adversely affect the technical assistance work.  Both forms of activity require devotion to the total community, not only to fractions of it.  Both forms require contacts with the total community, and contacts made in one context will be of value for the other context, since people important in a conflict also are likely to be important for social changes they will be people who are Hinfluentials", but not necessarily of high social status from the total community point of view.
CORPSMEN'S VIEW
So far, we ha.ve mostly studied the relation between the first and third kind of peace corps from the onlooker's point of view.  We shall now try to look at it from the peace corps member's point of view.  As just pointed out, no fragmentalization of loyalty should be necessary.  But there is certainly a diversity of skills.  One who is a good member of a TA team may not necessarily be adept at reconciliation in conflict situations.  And oven though his technical and human skills are considerable, the simple factor of human courage may make a man who is suitable for the most intricate problems of human relations in connection with social change useless in a dangerous situation.  This may actually be more important than the differential in skills needed for the two purposes, particularly inasmuch as the peace corps member in a TA team is seen more as an expert on human relations than on technical matters.  For the latter purpose there is the technical expert, already a well-known person on the international scene

- 5 -
CHOOSING SIDES
Let us move on to the second pairs peace corps as TA and peace corps as a second party in a conflict.  Here there seems to be a distinct asymmetry;  TA experience will be useful, but the deliberate participation on one side, however justified it is by local or other standards, is hardly conducive to further TA work. TA work will, and not quite without reason, be seen as a trick, as a way of gaining access for other purposes.  But even if such access is possible, there is the difficulty inherent in the tremendous change in perspective.  TA addresses itself to the total community or ought to do so; its acceptance will depend on this in many cases. Becoming a party to the conflict means that one side is seen as more legitimate than the other.  The non-violent method of conflict is distinctly different from the violent method in the way in which it incorporates the goal of the adversary.  He is seen less as an enemy than as a member of a whole to which all belong, even though he has a different approach and point of view.  Yet there will nevertheless be an asymmetry in the way the peace corps enters the conflict.  Its knowledge of the local scene, its contacts, its reputation for objective constructive behaviour may have had a great impact on both sides; there will nevertheless be a difference between being of equal service to both sides and furthering the cause of one side more than the other.
For the individual peace corps member there is the serious question of how loyalty to one party can be combined with the loyalty to the totality needed when TA is administered.  The traditional solution to this problem is the idea that the other party does not belong, that he is the enemy, the intruder, the traitor, the exploiting upper class, the imperialist, the coloured, etc.  Services rendered to them are not seen as rendered to the society but to somebody outside it who by fault or accident happens to live in the some territory.  Thus, a non-violent force that enters the scene to help the side of its choosing may not experience any difficulty if it has given (or later on will give) TA; they may sincerely feel both services go to the entire society, only not to the alien element in it. But there may also be situations like in the Congo, where most outsiders did not have immediate sympathies with local groups but waited for others to take sides so that they could get their cues that way. In such situations the ideology of TA to the whole of Congo and nonviolent support to only one group seems unworkable.
On the other hand, TA administered to both sides before a conflict bren,ks out in the open or TA even administered to both sides during the conflict has obvious advantages.  It will facilitate the acceptance by the party one is helping of the peace corps and it may also tend to weaken the adversary's front.  Non-violent assistance by a party extending its technical services to both parties may represent a moral challenge.  The difficulty with this theory, however, is that conflicts are very likely to be between groups of different rank (which is true of all the examples listed above), in which case there may be difficulties in finding goods or values both parties need, or goods and values that the peace corps knows how to extend.  A TA peace corps will very likely have its expertness linked to the kind of activities that are highly relevant in developing countries, but considerably less relevant to the colonial power.  In tha.t case some kind of functional equivalent of the TA rendered to one of the parties must be found.  That will hardly be easy, since the value desired by the colonialist will be the means to stay in power, and this is exactly what must be denied.  Much political acumen is needed to find such an equivalent if it exists.  This does not mean that the local population should not try non-violent means in a struggle but only that it seems very difficult for a peace corps that also wants to extend TA to combine the two activities.
EVEN LESS COMPATIBLE
These difficulties are increased even further when one examines the combining of the second party with third party work, although the situation is very asymmetric.  Experience in third' party work may add

- 6 -
considerably to the kind of experience and detailed knowledge that is valuable in a conflict, particularly if the activity has "been in the same area.  It may also add to the probability that the adversary will accept one's position, even though he may come to regard it as treason and speculation.  But it seems highly unlikely that a force known for partisan participation in conflicts will have much chance as a source of mediation in conflict.  The acceptance of the judiciary in.any country depending on the degree to which it is seen as an instrument of speical interests, and the degree to which these interests are recognized in a particular legal case.  Thus, a peace corps which has participated in a particular kind of conflict may still be engaged to mediate conflicts of an entirely different kind, particularly if it is an intragroup conflict of the group they have helped - whether it is by TA or by non-violent assistance.  But if there is a clear resemblance between a conflict where they have participated and the conflict where they offer their services as mediators, it seems highly unlikely that both parties would accept.
As mentioned, third party training may be useful in a conflict -but it may also have a negative influence unless the participants are very well trained in the G-andhian philosophy or an equivalent where there is little or no difference in attitudes whether one participates or acts as an in-between.  Otherwise, the training in objectivity and balanced perception of both parties * points of view may be detrimental to the singlemindedness so often found in a conflict, and under a variety of cultural, social and personal conditions thought to be necessary for active and devoted participation.
This psychological factor is, however, of greater importance the other way round.  Singlemindedness, subordination to the general polarization of the human mind and the social group during conflict are normal, the preservation of objectivity and attachment to all human beings regardless of their stand in the conflict are not so easily fostered.  It seems to be an essential part of a peace corps thought to be international in its composition, and absolutely indispensable if it shall work as a third party in a conflict.  Thus, it seems that if the two types of activities we are discussing here should be combined at all, then the individual participant should learn the proper all-embracing attitude from third party activities, and then perhaps, transfer them to work in a conflict - but not start with work in a conflict in order to attempt a transfer to work on a conflict.  The letter seems much more difficult, although it may certainly also be argued that only he who has lived in a conflict is endowed with the capacity to mediate between conflicting groups.
Even with the relatively few factors we have considered does the picture become quite complex.  And we have not even touched on many of the difficulties that can and mry emerge.
However, it seems obvious that the difficulties in combining TA and third party activities can be overcome, and that the two will actually tend to strengthen each other if a suitable organizational combination is found - but the work as a second party in conflects presents the entire organization with clifficulties.  The possible harm done to its mediation potential is considerable, and perhaps so important that a choice must be made between the two.  This does not mean that a non-violent organization designed for defence or for the aid of another group coiild not or should not also engage in the other two types of activities, but an organization designed for TA and. third, party intervention might do well not to engage in second pn.rty activities as well.
In conclusion, it should be added that the entire field of a systematic use of youths for the purpose of furthering the cause of peace is still largely unexplored..  "Unc armee sans haine" has a great appeal, and whatever efforts are made should be coordinated in such a way as to provide for the maximum exchange of information and personnel. But this does not necessarily mean that all activities should be carried out by the same organization.
September 1961.