| Over two-thirds of negotiated settlements to civil wars have failed (1945--1993). One possible reason for such failure is that official peace negotiations are typically concerned with behavioral change, not attitiudinal or value-based change. Consequently, improving relationships within divided societies has seldom been an explicit objective. However, for peace to be sustainable, internal conflict demands former enemies learn to live and work side-by-side immediately following a political settlement. Using Cambodia to demonstrate the shortcomings of a geostrategic approach to peacemaking, the paper analyzes the failure to strategically and tactically integrate relationship-building and reconciliation into the Paris peace negotiations and the UN managed implementation missions.;Adopting a constructivist approach---emphasizing contributions of conflict resolution literature and complexity theory---the project suggests that this current era constitutes another juncture where theory and practice converge around violent conflict, similar to the period when Morgenthau's realism ascended to theoretical dominance. The study illuminates the emergence of new new meanings associated with recent socio-political transformations and demonstrates that tremendous opportunities for theoretical and applied change exist. In particular, the challenges of dealing effectively with contemporary conflict afford international relations a justifiable reason to broaden its connotation of agency to include the individual and move more toward social theory. Similary, policymakers should no longer hold fast to the metaphors and pre-conceived notions of a Cold War reality.;Although the geostrategic paradigm is waning, an alternative has yet to fully emerge. Accordingly, a heterogamous conceptual framework is offered for understanding causes and dynamics of contemporary conflict and for developing policy-options toward sustainable peace. It is demonstrated that the foundations of an evolving geosocial paradigm for conflict management exist based on the principles that (1) peace negotiations must be thought of as but part of a larger peace process which includes many nonstate actors, (2) the purpose, content, and structure of official negotiations must integrate relationship-building and reconciliation, and (3) politics must be conducted in the service of relationships. Thus, maintaining a constructivist approach, two orientations toward peace are juxtaposed: sis vi pacem, para bellum (if you want peace, prepare for war) and sis vi pacem, para pacem (if you want peace, prepare for peace). |
