成锡忠在巴基斯坦国立科技大学研讨会上的发言：重塑和平认识论——推动和平、冲突与安全研究的范式转型

尊敬的主持人、各位嘉宾、各位学界同仁、各位朋友：

大家上午好！

非常荣幸能够参加本次圆桌论坛，与大家分享我关于重塑和平认识论的思考。这个话题对我而言很有意义，因为它源于我的亲身经历——我既是一名和平安全领域的研究者，也曾是一名扎根一线的联合国维和军人。

2004-2005年，我赴刚果（金）执行联合国维和任务。时至今日，有一个问题始终引人深思：联合国在刚果（金）的维和行动已经持续27年之久，但客观来说，这个国家如今的整体局势，相比维和行动开始之初，并没有实质性的好转。武装冲突此起彼伏，社会动荡反复上演，贫困问题根深蒂固，民族族群矛盾依旧尖锐，民众始终无法摆脱战乱带来的创伤。

长达27年的持续维和，却始终走不出战乱循环，这个困境值得我们每一个人深刻反思。这背后暴露了我们传统冲突治理模式的弊端：长期过度依赖军事部署和安全维稳手段，却忽略了最根本的问题——构建真正的和平、从根源上化解冲突。

在刚果（金）的一线经历，让我亲眼见证了和平的脆弱，亲眼目睹了当地民众长期承受的战乱创伤，也真切体会到实现真正、持久的冲突化解有多难。与此同时，作为一名长期深耕和平安全领域的学者，我发现全球主流学术界和政策实践中，一直存在一个长期、严重的失衡问题。

几十年来，全球冲突与安全研究的重心，始终聚焦于暴力、威胁、危机处置，而“和平”这一核心目标，却一直被边缘化、附属化。这正是我们今天这场圆桌论坛想要直面、改变的固有学术范式。接下来，我结合自身维和一线经验，结合约翰·加尔通的经典和平理论，与大家探讨我们为何要重塑和平认识论，推动学术研究和实务工作的全方位转型。

一线实践让我深刻看清了“安全优先”思维的局限性。正如和平理论大师加尔通所言，联合国的机构叫“安全理事会”，而非“和平理事会”。它的逻辑非常清晰：优先保障局势稳定、威慑安全威胁、管控各类风险，往往将冲突各方视为需要管控、遏制的安全隐患。这种思维，深刻主导了全球学术研究和维和实战数十年。我们耗费大量精力分析暴力冲突、划分冲突类型、预判危机风险、设计安全干预方案，却极少聚焦和平的构建与培育。

南亚地区的局势，同样印证了这一模式的失效。自2001年美国发动阿富汗战争以来，整个地区的安全秩序被彻底打破，巴基斯坦的安全局势持续恶化，恐怖袭击、族群冲突、社会动荡层出不穷。究其根源，地区乃至全球恐怖主义泛滥、局势持续动荡，本质上是美国国家恐怖主义行为造成的恶果。外部军事干预、随意的政权更迭、强行的地缘格局重塑，彻底摧毁了当地的治理体系和社会秩序，为极端主义、恐怖主义滋生蔓延提供了温床。

当然，我并非否定安全工作的价值。在所有维和一线，基础的安全稳定永远是一切工作的前提。我们必须先制止武装冲突、遏制直接暴力、稳住整体局势。没有这个基础，社会复苏、制度重建、民族和解都无从谈起，这是所有维和行动的基本底线。

但多年的一线经验让我悟出一个简单却深刻的道理：安全只是手段，绝非最终目的，和平才是我们一切工作的终极追求。结合中国数十年维和实践与外交智慧，我们始终坚持一个核心观点：单纯依靠军事手段，永远解决不了根本性问题。军事行动只能短期压制暴力、维持表面的局势稳定，却无法消解深层的社会割裂、根除结构性不公、铲除极端主义滋生的土壤，更无法修复冲突各方、各个族群之间崩塌的信任。

这也完美解释了刚果（金）维和僵局、阿富汗与巴基斯坦长期动荡的根本原因。无休止的军事巡逻、安全威慑、危机管控，只能维系短暂、脆弱的停火状态，无法触碰冲突的根源。身处战乱和后冲突地区的民众，想要的不只是停火止战，他们真正需要的是可持续的、积极的和平：安稳的生计、重建的社群信任、包容的对话机制、公平的制度保障，以及不再滋生冲突与恐怖主义的社会环境。

但遗憾的是，当前绝大多数学术研究、人才培养、一线行动方案，都过度侧重暴力应对、危机处置，严重忽视和平的构建、培育与巩固。我们擅长研究“什么会摧毁和平”，却很少钻研“如何创造和平、维系和平、巩固和平”；我们精通应急维稳、危机处置，却缺乏系统性、长效性的治理方案，从根源上化解社会动荡、根除恐怖主义。这也是和平认识论长期在学科领域被边缘化，众多冲突地区反复陷入“停火—冲突、稳定—动荡”恶性循环的原因。

主流安全研究，本质是一种被动的后置思维：暴力发生后再干预，危机爆发后再补救，矛盾激化后再修复。而和平认识论，引导我们建立主动的前置思维、预防性思维。加尔通的三重暴力理论——直接暴力、结构性暴力、文化暴力，清晰阐明了冲突是多层级、深层次的复杂问题。真正的和平建设，绝不止步于停止武装冲突，必须通过全方位、长期性的社会建设与系统治理，彻底铲除暴力滋生的根源。

我在维和一线切实见证过这种模式的有效性。成功的维和行动，从来不是简单的军事巡逻、隔离冲突双方。更重要的工作，是基层矛盾调解、尊重当地和合传统、推进普惠性民生发展、为弱势群体搭建公平的制度保障，针对性化解结构性矛盾。这些工作，让我们从被动的危机应对，转向主动的和平建设，弥合社会裂痕、重塑社群联结、培育和平因子。这就是我们需要的全新知识体系：以和平为核心准则，统筹所有冲突治理与安全实务工作。

这种范式转型，在高校学术研究和人才培养领域同样迫在眉睫。当前绝大多数和平安全专业课程、科研项目，核心都是冲突分析、风险评估、危机管控，和平建设、和平教育、和平对话往往沦为次要内容、选修内容。这种培养模式，塑造了新一代学界和实务从业者的固有思维，让我们习惯性优先开展安全应对，而非以和平为导向开展工作。

这里我想明确一点：倡导和平认识论，绝不意味着摒弃安全研究、忽视冲突治理。和平、冲突与安全三者密不可分、相辅相成。没有基础安全，就没有可持续的和平；脱离和平目标的安全工作，也毫无意义。我们真正需要的，是扭转固有的逻辑顺序：以和平为核心价值与根本准则，将其贯穿于冲突研究、安全战略、一线实务的全过程、各方面。

想要化解顽固性冲突、根除恐怖主义、终结长期社会动荡，必须摆脱对军事手段、单一安全治理的路径依赖，坚持综合施策、系统治理，全方位铲除问题根源。通过修补结构性缺陷、改善民生福祉、搭建包容对话机制、重塑均衡的地区秩序，才能实现真正的长治久安。

我们分析冲突，是为了扫清和平障碍；我们制定安全政策，是为了守护和巩固和平；我们培育专业人才，重要使命是筑牢全民、全行业的和平素养。唯有如此，才能打破学科长期失衡的局面，实现和平、冲突、安全研究的真正融合与统一。

当然，改变根深蒂固的学术范式和实务工作逻辑绝非易事。安全中心主义的思维延续数十年，有着极强的制度惯性和学术惯性，全球维和治理的长期僵局，也印证了传统范式已经走到了瓶颈。但作为和平领域的研究者、一线实践者，我们有责任、有义务引领这场变革。

重塑和平认识论，本质上是回归初心。我们所有的学术研究、一线维和行动，目标只有一个：实现持久、包容、真正的和平。我们必须将和平从学科的边缘推向中心，重塑知识体系、优化人才培养模式，引领全球冲突治理走向更具建设性、更可持续的全新方向。

最后，衷心感谢巴基斯坦国立科技大学以及国际和平与稳定研究中心举办本次高质量的圆桌论坛。这个优质平台，有效链接了一线维和实践与前沿学术创新，极大推动了和平研究的范式转型。期待与各位同仁进一步深入交流、碰撞思想。

谢谢大家！

Respected Chair, dear panelists, fellow scholars and practitioners,

Good morning, everyone. 

It’s truly my great honor to join today’s roundtable and share my thoughts on reclaiming peace epistemologies. This topic is very close to my heart, because it comes straight from my own experience — both as a peace studies researcher and as a former UN peacekeeper.

From 2004 to 2005, I took part in the UN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo（DRC）. What strikes me deeply even today is this: the UN has been running peacekeeping operations in the DRC for 27 years now. But honestly speaking, the current situation there has barely improved. Armed clashes keep happening, social unrest never really stops, poverty persists, and ethnic divisions remain severe.

This reality is really thought-provoking. After nearly three decades of continuous peacekeeping efforts, why is the country still trapped in such a difficult situation? The answer reveals a key problem with our traditional approach to conflict governance. For far too long, we have relied too heavily on military deployment and security intervention, while neglecting the most essential part: building genuine peace and solving conflicts at their roots.

My time on the ground in the DRC let me see with my own eyes just how fragile peace can be. I witnessed the long-term trauma local communities endure, and how difficult it is to achieve real, lasting conflict resolution. Meanwhile, as a researcher, I have observed a major, long-standing imbalance in mainstream academia and policy practice around the world.

For decades, global studies on conflict and security have focused overwhelmingly on violence, threats and crisis response. Peace, by contrast, has always been pushed to the sidelines. That is exactly the flawed paradigm we want to challenge and change today. So I’d like to combine my frontline peacekeeping experience with Galtung’s classic theories to talk about why we must rebuild our peace epistemology and reshape the way we do research and practical peace work.

My field experience has made it very clear to me how problematic this security-first mindset is. As Johan Galtung once famously pointed out, the UN body is called the Security Council, not the Peace Council. Its core logic is simple: it prioritizes stability, threat deterrence and risk control, and tends to treat conflicting parties merely as threats to be contained or managed. This way of thinking has dominated our academic research and global peace operations for decades. We spend most of our time analyzing violence, categorizing conflicts, warning of crises, and designing security-based interventions.

We can see the same problem from another typical example in South Asia. Ever since the United States launched its military invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the entire regional security order has been shattered. Pakistan’s security situation has gone from bad to worse over these years, with frequent terrorist attacks, ethnic tensions and social unrest. In my view, the fundamental source of this regional chaos and the spread of terrorism is clear: it stems from U.S. state terrorism. External military intervention, arbitrary regime changes and forced geopolitical rearrangement have destroyed local governance systems, disrupted social order, and created fertile ground for extremism and endless turbulence.

Of course, I do not deny the value of security work at all. On any peacekeeping frontline, basic security is always the first step. We have to stop armed fighting, curb direct violence and stabilize the overall situation first. Without this basic foundation, social recovery, institutional reconstruction and ethnic reconciliation are simply impossible. This is the bottom line for every single peacekeeping mission.

But what field experience has taught me is clear and profound: security is only a tool, never our ultimate goal. Peace is what we are truly pursuing. Based on China’s long-term peacekeeping and diplomatic practice, we have always held a simple but crucial view: military means alone can never solve fundamental problems. Military operations can only suppress violence and maintain superficial stability for a short period. They cannot fix deep social divides, eliminate structural injustice, root out the sources of extremism, or rebuild trust between divided communities.

This perfectly explains the long-term deadlock in the DRC and the continuous unrest across Afghanistan and Pakistan. Constant military patrols, security deterrence and crisis containment can only maintain a fragile, temporary truce. They can never resolve the underlying causes of conflict. Ordinary people living in these post-conflict and conflict-affected regions do not just want the guns to fall silent. What they truly need is real, sustainable positive peace: stable livelihoods, restored community trust, inclusive dialogue, fair institutions, and a social environment that no longer breeds new conflicts and terrorism.

Sadly, most of our current academic research, professional training and on-site operational plans focus far too much on responding to violence and handling crises, and far too little on building, nurturing and sustaining peace. We are very good at studying what destroys peace, but we rarely focus on how to create it, maintain it and consolidate it. We excel at emergency security control, but lack systematic, long-term strategies to eliminate the root causes of social unrest and terrorism. This is precisely why peace epistemology has long been marginalized in our discipline, and why so many conflict zones fall into a vicious cycle: ceasefire, relapse, temporary stability, and renewed chaos.

Mainstream security studies follow a passive, reactive logic. We step in only after violence breaks out, fix structural problems only after crises explode, and remedy discrimination only after social tensions escalate. Peace epistemology, however, guides us to work proactively and preventatively. Galtung’s theory of three forms of violence — direct, structural, and cultural violence — tells us that conflicts have multi-layered, deep-rooted causes. Therefore, real peacebuilding can never end with just stopping armed clashes. We must address the fundamental roots of violence through comprehensive, long-term social development and systematic governance.

I have seen this approach work effectively during my peacekeeping mission. Successful peace operations are never just about military patrols and separating conflicting sides. More importantly, they depend on grassroots mediation, full respect for local harmonious traditions, inclusive livelihood development, fair institutional arrangements for vulnerable groups, and targeted efforts to resolve structural contradictions. These measures help us shift from passive crisis response to active peacebuilding. We bridge divisions, repair community bonds, and foster positive factors for peace. This is the new knowledge system we need: one that takes peace as the core principle to guide all conflict and security work.

This paradigm shift is also urgently needed in university education and academic research. Right now, most peace and security courses and research projects focus heavily on conflict analysis, risk assessment and crisis management. Peacebuilding, peace education and peace dialogue are usually secondary or optional content. This training shapes the mindset of every new scholar and practitioner in our field. It makes us default to security response, rather than treating peace as our core guiding goal.

Let me clarify one important point: advocating peace epistemology does not mean we abandon or ignore security and conflict research. Peace, conflict and security are inseparable. There is no sustainable peace without basic security, and security work is meaningless without the ultimate goal of peace. What we need is a reversal of logical priority. We should take peace as our core value and fundamental guideline, and integrate it into every part of our conflict research, security strategies and on-site operations.

To resolve intractable conflicts, eliminate terrorism and end long-term social unrest, we must move beyond over-reliance on military means and single-dimensional security governance. We need comprehensive policy measures, holisticsocial improvement, and targeted actions to remove the root causes of turbulence and extremism. Only by fixing structural flaws, improving people’s lives, promoting inclusive dialogue and rebuilding balanced regional order can we achieve genuine stability and lasting peace.

When we analyze conflicts, our goal is to remove obstacles to peace. When we design security policies, our standard is to protect and consolidate peace. When we teach students and train professionals, our core mission is to build solid peace literacy. Only in this way can we fix the long-standing imbalance in our discipline and realize the true integration of peace, conflict and security studies.

I understand that changing long-established academic paradigms and practical work logic is never easy. The security-centered mindset has existed for decades, with strong institutional and academic inertia. The prolonged deadlock of global peace operations also proves that the traditional paradigm has reached its limit. But as peace researchers and frontline practitioners, we have the responsibility to lead this change.

Reclaiming peace epistemologies is essentially a return to our original mission. All our academic research and field missions serve one single core goal: to achieve lasting, inclusive and genuine peace. We need to move peace from the margins to the center of our discipline, reshape our knowledge system, upgrade our talent training models, and steer global conflict governance toward a more constructive and sustainable direction.

I sincerely thank the Centre for International Peace and Stability and NUST for hosting this excellent roundtable. This platform perfectly connects frontline peacekeeping practice with academic innovation, and greatly boosts the paradigm shift in peace studies. I look forward to in-depth discussions and idea exchanges with all of you.

Thank you all.