Abstract: Peacemaking is dominated by the liberal peace model. This approach is aimed at transforming societies torn by conflict through the dissemination of liberal values and institutions. The interventionism of liberal peacemaking is justified by labeling societies in conflict as ‘failed states’. Consequently, they can no longer invoke sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention. Bottom-up peacemaking, which relies on the available social institutions, is emerging as an alternative to liberal peacebuilding. This approach mirrors three principles of China’s stance on international relations, i.e. building a community of shared future for mankind, putting the people first and the Global Civilization Initiative. In Israel-Palestine bottom-up peacemaking can build on the rapprochement between the Mizrahim Jewish community and the Palestinian community, based on their joint Arab heritage.   

Keywords: Liberal peace, harmony, receptor approach, bottom-up peacemaking

1. Introduction

In addition to its major role in peacekeeping, China has recently also stepped up its peacemaking activities,[1] which is exemplified by its successful attempt to normalise relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran.[2] Encouraged by this favourable outcome, China has announced that it is willing to facilitate peace talks between Israel and Palestine.[3] Therefore, the question arises how China will approach its enhanced peacemaking role.

This paper makes the point that it is advisable for China to adopt a bottom-up approach to peacemaking rather than to embrace the dominant liberal peacebuilding agenda. To substantiate this position section 2 will discuss the characteristics of the liberal peacebuilding approach, while contrasting it to bottom-up peace efforts, which can serve as an alternative path. Section 3 will lay out some important Chinese concepts in the area of international relations, as outlined by President Xi Jinping, to demonstrate that they match the bottom-up peace approach. In section 4 these concepts will be applied to the case which tops China’s peacemaking agenda, i.e. the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

2. Liberal versus bottom-up peace

Efforts to bring peace to societies torn by conflict are mostly based on the liberal peace model. This approach is aimed at transforming the society through the dissemination of liberal values and institutions. Underlying this approach is the premise that liberal democracies do not fight each other.[4] Liberal peacebuilding is a social engineering exercise based on a one-size-fits-all approach: the communities concerned are redesigned into liberal societies by building institutions and by ‘training’ the local population to accept liberal values such as universal human rights and liberal democracy. The interventionism of liberal peacebuilding is justified by labeling societies in conflict as ‘failed states’: as a consequence they can no longer invoke sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention.[5]

Although support for liberal peacebuilding is widespread, it is also subject to criticism, and alternatives are therefore emerging. Thus, Gearoid Millar explains that the stated end goals of peace interventions are not universally constant, but locally rooted and defined by history and culturally defined.[6] The perceptions of the communities subjected to liberal peacebuilding often diverge from those of the international actors promoting it. What constitutes peace, justice, reconciliation and development is culturally defined. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on the aspirations and experiences of the communities subjected to peace interventions rather than the ambitions of international actors, national elites, or local implementing partners. This can be achieved by conducting ethnographic peace research.

Similarly, Mac Ginty and Firchow have argued that local communities should be encouraged to develop their own set of indicators of peace and change, referred to as Everyday Peace Indicators (EPI), rather than having to accept those imposed on them by outsiders[7]. The authors conducted a project based on EPI in South Africa, South Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe, funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Indicators were identified through focus group meetings in each locality. The list of indicators that emerged is different from the standard indicators that international organisations and INGOs often use.

In the same vein there is a growing literature on the local,[8] and cultural turn in peacemaking.[9] These approaches have in common that they develop peace bottom-up and therefore the term ‘bottom-up peacemaking’ will be applied throughout this paper. Consequently, the attention for locally embedded peace efforts is growing. Such activities are aimed at realizing the right to peace in a bottom-up manner,[10] in accordance with the so-called ‘receptor approach’. [11]

Underlying the receptor approach is the idea that human rights have been part and parcel of all societies, including the Southern ones, for centuries or even millennia, in the shape of values and social institutions. Social institutions are sets of patterned strategies, consisting of norms, values, and role expectations, which people develop and pass on to succeeding generations for dealing with important social needs. By relying on ethnographic research such social institutions and cultural values which match international human rights obligations are being identified. Where these institutions and values fall short of the obligations, they can be amplified with the help of home-grown remedies. Where possible, therefore, the receptor approach relies on the remedial force of local culture and the agency of the people rather than on Eurocentric solutions per se. According to the receptor approach, therefore, the right to peace should be realised bottom-up while relying on social institutions.[12]

3. China’s approach towards international relations

3.1 Building a community of shared future for mankind

According to President Xi Jinping, the ideals of the UN, such as peace, development, equity, justice, democracy and freedom, lofty though they are, are not always put into practice. Therefore, UN members should continue their efforts to achieve these goals.[13] To realise the purposes and principles of the UN Charter a new type of international relations should be developed which acknowledges that all countries are interdependent and share a common future. Therefore, a community of shared future for mankind should be created.[14] To make this point, President Xi referred to an ancient Chinese proverb: "The greatest ideal is to create a world truly shared by all."

According to President Xi, harmony ought to be a key component of the community of shared future for mankind. However, harmony should not be confused with sameness.[15] According to President Xi, the world is more colourful as a result of cultural diversity. He referred to a traditional Chinese maxim: "A single flower does not make spring, while one hundred flowers in full blossom bring spring to the garden". If there were only one kind of flower in the world, people will find it boring no matter how beautiful it is. Therefore, civilizations must accept their differences. They should draw inspiration from each other to boost the creative development of human civilization and enable progress.[16]

These observations have their roots in classical Chinese thought. Chinese tradition cherishes 'harmony through diversity'.[17] Philosophically, harmony presupposes the existence of different things and implies a favourable relationship between them.[18] A soup made of only one ingredient is tasteless, a symphony composed of only one instrument is boring, and a government consisting of only one voice is stagnant and dangerous.[19]
The value of harmony lies in its harmonizing contradictory parts, by which opposites are transformed into mutually dependent elements.[20] Sameness leads to stagnation, while diversity creates dynamism and advances growth. Things come together even as they constantly change and flourish. Harmony is sustained by energy generated through the interaction of different elements in creative tension.[21]

3.2 Putting people first

China attaches much value to people-centred development, which has also served as the foundation of its very successful poverty alleviation strategy.[22] This people-centred philosophy, which was launched during the Fifth Plenary of the 18th CPC Central Committee, articulates "that development is for the people, that it is reliant on the people, and that its fruits are shared by the people."[23]

People-centred development is based on the concept of "yi ren wei ben', or 'putting people first': "For years China has put the people first during its development, increasing their benefits, ensuring the people are their own masters and supporting development in an all-round way", according to President Xi's Congratulatory Letter to the International Symposium on the 30th Anniversary of the Adoption of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development.[24]

The 'putting people first' philosophy consists of three elements. First, policies must focus on the people's needs. This means that the government should address the pressing concerns of the people and should give priority to their interests.[25] Second, policy should tap into the people's wisdom. This means that policy should rely on their experiences and practices. They are invited to provide input for and comment on government measures through internet consultations and other channels of communication. This leads to policies which are more targeted and effective.[26] Third, the policies should stimulate the people to play an active role by showing initiative and by contributing ideas, creativity and enthusiasm.[27] 

Although 'putting people first' is a modern philosophy which was launched by the Central Committee, it clearly has classical roots.[28] It is closely connected to the notion of benevolent government or 'ren zheng' promoted by Mencius, which encouraged the rulers to think and act in the interests of the people.[29]

The concept of 'putting people first' emphasises the role people can and should play themselves to promote and protect human rights, while it stresses the need to focus on local conditions. For these reasons the concept is closely connected to the object and purpose of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which entrust realising human rights first and foremost to the people themselves.

3.3 The Global Civilization Initiative

Earlier this year, President Xi Jinping launched the Global Civilization Initiative when he addressed the CPC in Dialogue with World Political Parties High Level Meeting.[30] In his address President Xi emphasised that on the path towards modernisation countries are free to follow diverse paths while maintaining their independence. Countries seeking modernisation do not only have to follow the general laws governing this process, but, more importantly, should also rely on their own national conditions and unique features, including their histories and cultures. The people of a country are in the best position to determine what kind of modernisation best suits them.
There is no single answer to the question what kind of modernization is necessary, nor does a small number of countries enjoy a monopoly on the way to achieve it. Countries should not prescribe their own development model while suppressing other countries’ paths towards modernisation. They should show respect for the diversity of civilizations and their distinctive values, while refraining from imposing their own models upon others.  

3.4 China’s positions on international relations support bottom-up peacemaking

The concepts discussed above, i.e. ‘building a community of shared future for mankind’, ‘putting people first’ and the ‘Global Civilization Initiative’, cherish cultural difference and oppose replacing it by one-size-fits-all universalist norms. Therefore, these concepts are closely aligned with bottom-up peacemaking.  

4. Israel/Palestine as a case study.

4.1 The liberal Israel/Palestine peace process is not working

Since China has announced its willingness to facilitate peace talks between Israel and Palestine, it is worthwhile to see what the elements analysed above could mean for China’s efforts in this regard.

The Oslo Peace Accords, which were signed in 1993, are a typical example of liberal peacemaking by political elites aimed at building liberal formal institutions and facilitating neoliberalism. Israel engaged in the Oslo process to shed its reputation as an occupier and to replace it with the image of a peacemaker. The PLO took part to regain some of its lost legitimacy and to ensure dominance over its domestic opponents. The peace negotiations triggered by the Oslo Accords were based on the assumption that any change in the status of the Palestinians requires Israel’s approval, which allowed it to dictate the terms of the peace.[31]

Both Israel and Palestine have effectively abandoned the process since. It is clear that Israel is unwilling to work towards the establishment of a Palestian state, while Palestine prefers to seek international support for its cause over negotiating with Israel. This means that the liberal peace efforts have grinded to a halt, although donors, the US and the EU keep up the appearance of an ongoing peace process.[32] China should therefore prevent getting bogged-down in a liberal peace process going nowhere.

4.2 A bottom-up approach as a viable alternative

4.2.1 Introduction

Instead of introducing liberal institutions, the existing bottom-up initiatives which they are supposed to overwrite should be recognised and expanded.[33] Realizing the right to peace bottom-up offers a very suitable alternative to liberal peacemaking. By taking the micro-level as the point of departure, sustainable peace can be achieved with the help of the insights of ethnography and theology. The aim should be to uncover acts of good neighbourliness, which are currently being performed under the radar, to identify the conditions under which they occur, and to turn these into replicable best practices which can be made suitable for wider application.    
The starting point of such an exercise should be to move beyond the Israeli-Palestinian binary which underlies much of the analysis of the conflict. Thus, the Jewish population in Israel is not a monolith, but consists of several communities with different backgrounds and worldviews.[34] The Ashkenazim, who are of European and American origin, and who played an important part in founding the state of Israel, are mainly liberal and secular. The Mizrahim, on the other hand, who are the descendants of the Jews who emigrated to Israel from Arab countries, tend to be religious. For decades they were treated as second-class citizens.[35] Because of their Arab roots, the Mizrahim share a cultural heritage with the Palestinians. The potential of using the common background of the Mizrahim and the Palestinians as a springboard for peace is still to be explored.[36]
This is hardly surprising, since in addition to commonalities between the Mizrahim and the Palestinians, there are also issues which divide the two communities.[37] Thus, the Mizrahim tend to vote for political parties which express anti-Palestinian sentiments, such as Likud, although they seem to be motivated to do so by socio-economic rather than anti-Arab considerations. In addition, the Mizrahim as a Jewish community are part of the Zionist framework, while the Palestinians clearly are not. Abigail Jacobson and Moshe Naor make the point that the contacts between the Mizrahim and the Arabs in Mandatory Palestine have on the whole been positive, but that they are being presented as tense and negative within the dominant Zionist frame.[38] This suggests that history is being framed in light of collective memory:[39] struggle and opposition match the Zionist worldview and therefore history has to be adapted to this with retroactive effect.

Nonetheless, a rapprochement is developing between Mizrahim and Palestinians, based on their joint Arab heritage. The potential of this convergence for harmonious relations in the region is the topic of a research project which is being carried out at Utrecht University. It focuses on three trends in particular.

4.2.2 Growing mutual religious understanding  

Religious beliefs plays an important part in inter-community relations in Israel-Palestine. Attempts to establish harmonious relations, therefore, need to take this religious dimension into account. Thus, in religious quarters the Oslo process lacks legitimacy, because it is regarded as a secular mechanism.

Attempts to use religion to further peace require a profound understanding of the sources of the two main religions, i.e. Judaism and Islam, as well as the impact they have on the situation on the ground in the region.[40] In addition, rather than implementing projects which have been developed by external actors with a secular background, a bottom-up approach should build on the religious initiatives to promote mutual religious understanding which are already being undertaken at grass-roots level in the region. Nissim Mizrachi and Erica Weiss discuss a number of such initiatives.[41] Promoting mutual religious understanding is important in light of the fact that Israel currently is experiencing religionisation.[42]

4.2.3 Everyday encounters in public places

In some areas in Israel-Palestine, everyday encounters occur frequently at public places between Mizrahim and Palestinians. Research conducted by Allport has demonstrated that such intergroup encounters are likely to reduce prejudice and anxiety between the groups, while stimulating tolerance towards each other.[43] The validity of Allport’s contact theory has been confirmed by a meta-analysis conducted by Pettigrew and Tropp.[44] There are indications that the public places where Mizrahim and Palestinians engage in such everyday encounters become shared cultural places.[45] Under those circumstances, cultural proximity diminishes the importance of ethno-national boundaries.

At first sight, these intergroup exchanges at public places may be surprising, because historically Israel-Palestine has been a patchwork of cultural and religious communities, as has been demonstrated by Horowitz and Lissak.[46] These communities do not normally interact with each other. However, as Susanne Wessendorf has demonstrated, such non-mixing in the private realm can go hand in hand with mixing in public places.[47] This is indeed what is happening in Israel-Palestine. Although Jewish and Palestinian communities lead separate lives, they are not isolated from each other. They are semipermeable in the sense that ideas and norms flow between them.[48] The integrity and autonomy of the different communities is preserved, while their seclusion is avoided by building habits, practices, and appropriate forms of interaction between Palestinians and Jews in social contexts.[49]

Bottom-up peace-making should respect this ‘live and let live’ culture, while identifying and amplifying opportunities for crossing boundaries. Mizrachi and Weiss have demonstrated convincingly that the boundaries between these communities need to be maintained and even reinforced, rather than removed for these initiatives to be successful.[50] Peaceful coexistence and not creating a melting pot should be the aim. The Chinese notion of harmony, which relies on the dynamism of difference, clearly works in the Israel-Palestine setting. As Erica Weiss makes clear, according to the communities sameness is not a necessary prerequisite for making peace with other groups.[51]

4.2.4 Re-culturalization

Another development with potential is the fact that Israel is undergoing a process of re-culturalisation.[52] The Mizrahim were often supposed to give up their language and their culture when they came to Israel. They had to adopt an Israeli identity. But the cultural roots were never completely abandoned. Since use of the Arabic culture was discouraged and next generations lost proficiency, composing Arabic film music became a very popular way of expressing attachment. Currently, there is a growing cultural awareness among the Mizrahim, which expresses itself in a more favourable attitude of third generation Mizrahim towards Arabic and the growing popularity of performances in Arabic by Mizrahim singers.[53] This development is already receiving a boost from the adoption of the Abraham Accords. This means that the importance of cultural factors is likely to grow.

The ninth recital of the preamble to the Accord with the UAE states that the Arab and Jewish people are descendants of common ancestor, Abraham, and in that spirit the signatory states foster in the Middle East a reality in which Muslims, Jews, Christians and peoples of all faiths live in a spirit of coexistence. As Hagemann makes clear, in this way the Accords recognize the regional ties of the Jewish people to the Middle East.[54] To enhance the success of bottom-up initiatives, it is important to consider Israel a Middle-Eastern country rather than a European outpost in an alien environment. Not only is Israel geographically located within the Middle East, a majority of its inhabitants, in particular the Palestinians and the Mizrahim, have Arabic roots.[55]

The Abraham Accords in several ways support enhancing the Middle-Eastern character of Israel. Thus, they offer opportunities for cultural exchange, which are already being seized upon by Mizrahim artists and performers. They could also facilitate teaching Arabic as a second language in Israel. Proficiency in Arabic will make it much easier for Israelis to integrate into the Middle-East. The Israeli government has abolished most of the Arabic courses as part of formal education. Therefore private initiatives supported within the Abraham Accord framework will be valuable.

Despite the fact that the Israeli-Palestine conflict has been deliberately excluded from the ambit of the Abraham Accords,[56] bottom-up peace-making initiatives are likely to gain from these agreements. Thus, the Accords offer opportunities for cultural exchange and people-to-people contact, which will enable the Mizrahim to enjoy their Arabic cultural roots and will also make it easier for Israelis to learn Arabic.
 
  
*  Professor of Cross-cultural Law, Utrecht University; I am grateful to Joosje Thoma, who was involved in the Israel-Palestine research project in 2021-2022 and who offered valuable insights on the ethnography of peace in the region.