LAUSR

The peace theorist Johann Galtung once observed that “peace, like health, covers conceptually a vast territory: and war, like disease, comes in many varieties.” Indeed, Galtung’s observations supported Kenneth E. Boulding’s belief that more health services were needed for people attempting to promote a positive peace. Boulding argued that when people try to improve the need for more health services, governmental systems often invoke a “temptation... to deny consumers sovereignty” on health care, “and to say that the poor must have what the professionals think is good for them whether they want it or not.” Not surprisingly, and despite the global growth in peace research after the Cold War, such market-led decisions tend to result in a negative peace, where the direct violence may have ended but the underlying causes remain. And those most affected by the violence get only the peacebuilding and health services that professionals want rather than what they need. Consequently, and as David Chandler describes, the United Nations (UN) concept of “post-conflict peacebuilding” is increasingly viewed as being inefficacious and in “crisis,” particularly by those victims and survivors it was designed to help. This raises a key question: what peace and health solutions are needed to radically transform the quality of life outcomes of those who suffer the most from violent conflict and civil wars?