Citation

Sylvester C. J. Peace Res. 1980; 17(4): 305-323.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1980, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/002234338001700403

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This article addresses two relatively neglected issues in the field of peace research: (1) attitudes of system managers toward peace (defined as the absence of war); and (2) the relative importance of several socialization factors in determining those attitudes. Using interview data from a sample of UN elites, we describe the priority they accord peace, their preferred targets of peace (global vs. national or regional beneficiaries), policies they favor to realize peace, and preferred fora/procedures for negotiating policy. Then, we compare the impact of generational membership, North-South differences, and UN roles on respondent support for peace and propensity to favor policy change. Descriptive data reveal that peace is less important to these elites than economic welfare and social justice. This ordering, which is consonant with UN agenda trends, suggests spotty attention to peace initiatives in the future coupled with potential discrepancies in resource allocation between high and low political areas. In addition, peace is valued largely by globalminded elites, implying potential gaps between global schemes to end war and use of violence by nationalistic elites to attain preferred ends. Finally, while little disagreement exists concerning the importance of UN negotiation to attain peace, there is considerable disagreement over appropriate policy direction for the future. These aggregate tendencies are clarified by results of hypothesis tests showing level of development the best predictor of peace support and generational membership important to policy preferences. Explanatory findings, which tend to counter conventional socialization wisdom, implicate a North-South dimension in prepolicy debates, with DC affiliates favoring higher peace prioritization. However, in debates over policy, cohort differences, particularly the disproportionately change-oriented views of older elites, could have impact on outcomes. Thus, results of both analytic modes suggest important cognitive and socialization impediments to peace which may require reconciliation before policy progress can be made.