AARMS INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Vol. 10, No. 2 (2011) 223235

Received: April 26, 2011
Address for correspondence:
VETON LATIFI
E-mail: vetonlatifi@yahoo.com
The preventive diplomacy and the process of the
peace-building since the end of the Cold War
VETON LATIFI
South-East European University (Macedonia)
This paper aims to identify the expectations and promises of peace-building from one
side and the essential ingredients of preventive diplomacy on the other side in
contemporary conflicts in Europe following the end of the Cold War. Peace-building
can take place at any stage of the eruption cycle. If preventive diplomacy does not take
place at the first sign of the major tensions and problems remain still unaddressed, then
the early stages of an evolving conflict in the transformational processes may serve as
early warning indicators and the application of appropriate preventive measures will
follow it.
Prior to the recent emerging expanding tandem role of preventive diplomacy and the
peace-building tools, in the past conflict transformation were largely as a political
problem across the world and an emerging source of new waves of further violence. The
last cases of conflicts in Europe following the end of the Cold War proved that preventive
diplomacy can work successfully when is designed within a common set of the peace-
building process. The paper will discuss the main beliefs and pillars of the philosophies of
the two growing disciplines: preventive diplomacy and the peace-building.
Introduction
The post-conflict processes of peace-building that followed the end of the Cold War in
Europe showed that for the countries emerging from conflicts, peace-building provide
an opportunity to establish new institutions (at all three levels: social, political, and
judicial), which can give impulsion to further developments. Unless there is
reconstruction and development in the upshot of the conflicts, there can be little
expectation that peace will undergo.
The process of peace-building includes action to make out and maintain structures
that will tend to strengthen and coagulate peace in order to avoid a reversion into the
conflict. If we consider that preventive diplomacy aims to prevent the outbreak of
conflicts, then logically it is to be expected that peace-building starts during the course
of a conflict to prevent its recurrence.
V. LATIFI: Preventive diplomacy
224 AARMS 10(2) (2011)
While the ending of the Cold War has eased confrontation between the superpowers,
international stability has contorted since 1991. There has been an outbreak of intra-
state conflicts in many countries and regions of the world, to which the International
Community appeared to have no adequate response initially. The costs of these conflicts
in human, economic, social, and other terms were enormous. In the first half of the
1990s it was obvious that a glance at the poor results of international efforts to prevent
escalation of these conflicts makes it obvious that far more energy and finance should
be devoted, in the first place, to prevention.
In fact, such lesson for the International Community was accepted only when peace-
building process in Bosnia and Herzegovina as the first post-Cold War conflict in
Europe, was shown as unsuccessful story; and when Kosovo conflict appeared in 1999
in the international scene risking the ruining all the efforts made for stabilizing the
Balkans. The latter was applied to bring in uncomfortable test the capabilities of the
international organizations. The vacillating responses of the International Community to
the crises over disintegrating Yugoslavia and ethnic frights elsewhere in Europe have
demonstrated a need for better tools to prevent or repair internal political and ethnic
abrasion in Europe.
Prior to the recent emerging expanding tandem role of the preventive diplomacy and
the peace-building tools, conflict transformation in the past showed to be largely a
political problem across the world and an emerging source of the new waves of further
violence. The last cases of the conflicts in Europe following the end of the Cold War:
Kosovo (1999) and Macedonia (2011) proved that preventive diplomacy can work
successfully when it is designed and launched within a common set within the peace-
building process.
The acceptance of the so called concept Prevention better than cure proved that
the young discipline called conflict prevention has been learning fast. However, best
practice and lessons learned from recent conflicts all over the world have yet to be
brought together into a disciplined body of knowledge.
1
Peace-building as a relatively new concept has risen to the scene and discussion in
the 1990s. It arose in response to three factors: 1) to the fears of the new forms of the
conflicts following the end of the Cold War; 2) to the spread of civil wars in the Third
World; and 3) to the attempt of the former Secretary-General of Organization of the
United Nations (UN), Boutros Boutros-Ghali, to develop more inclusive measures than
the traditional forms of UN peacekeeping.

1
VETON LATIFI, International involvement and the role of prevention in post conflict peace-building in:
L. GEORGIEVA Conflicts Prevention: From the idea to the culture for prevention of conflicts, Friedrich Ebert
Stiftung and the Initiative for Peace building and Democracy, Skopje, December 2004.
V. LATIFI: Preventive diplomacy
AARMS 10(2) (2011) 225

Conflict prevention and preventive diplomacy
The main focus of preventive diplomacy is to identify and respond to looming conflicts
in order to prevent the eruption of violence. In principle, preventive diplomacy is based
on the beliefs that conflicts are better to be cured before they become fierce. The main
argument looks to the cost-benefit dimensions: once a vicious conflict has erupted, it is
extremely difficult to bring it to an end. Before the application of the preventive
diplomacy tools, enormous damage has been inflicted including the loss of many lives.
Preventive diplomacy didnt worked in certain conflicts following the end of the Cold
War as the discipline started only then to emerge as a successful mechanism in
preventing the conflicts.
Preventive diplomacy is defined by Michael Lund as a definite stage in the life-
cycle of a conflict, characterized by, among other things, the exclusion of coercion or
military-related instruments.
2
Other interpretations like that of Bruce W. Jentleson
see preventive diplomacy as characterized by its function of excluding the occurrence of
violence in opposition to war diplomacy which is supposed to be mainly directed at
limiting or terminating violence.
3
The conceptualization of preventive actions and measures is important in
differentiations of the stages and nature of conflicts, which seem to prevail in the initial
typologies of the conflicts.
Preventive diplomacy may take many forms, such as diplomatic denunciations,
imposing sanctions, providing good offers, peacekeeping, diplomatic protests, active
monitoring, and other forms of third-party intervention.
It offers the possibility of avoiding much of the pain and suffering associated with
violent conflict. Since preventive diplomacy showed to work, significant bloodshed has
not occurred in many conflicts across the world and especially that was the case of the
last two conflicts in Europe: Kosovo and Macedonia.
In trying to adapt the preventive diplomacy conceptual approach to the
Mediterranean reality through analysis of the Arab-Israeli experience, two Egyptians
authors have proposed to define preventive diplomacy as all non-violent efforts that
seek to pre-empt the eruption or escalation of violent inter-state conflicts ...;
4
they have
noted that successful mechanisms and structures of conflict prevention developed by the
1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty are part of a comprehensive endeavor to solve the

2
Michael Lunds definition in ROBERTO, ALLIBONI Confidence-Building, Conflict Prevention and Arms
Control in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, Perception, 19971998, Volume II, Nr. 4.
3
Ibid.
4
ABDEL MONEM SAID ALY and GAMAL A. G. Soltan in the paper presented at the EuroMeSCo meeting in
Cairo, 1516 February 1997.
V. LATIFI: Preventive diplomacy
226 AARMS 10(2) (2011)
conflict between the two countries and that preventive measures included in the treaty
work, as both security arrangements and confidence building measures.
5
In relation to conflict prevention, concepts and ideas developed by the Working Group
on Arms Control and Regional Security (ACRS) of the Middle East Peace Process
6
have
been of unambiguous significance. Among these ideas was that of setting up a Regional
Conflict Prevention Centre. One of the tools for successful efforts in the field of conflict
prevention is launch of initiatives for Regional Conflict Prevention Centers.
7
Its basic tasks would include conflict prevention and conflict resolution. It would
work as well as a centre for seminars and training in arms control and regional security,
and other activities related to the implementation of specific confidence- security
building measures.
The primary mission of such a center would be information gathering on possible
intra-and inter-state conflict: in the economic field, in the social field, in the political
field (including lack or loss of legitimacy of current regimes and leaderships, large-
scale violence and human rights violations).
Some other objectives usually centers on conflict prevention aims such as:
development of confidence- building measures and talks on disarmament; exchange of
information on matters relating to human rights, fundamental freedoms, racism and
xenophobia; exchanges between leaders of political and civil societies, the cultural and
religious world, universities, research communities, the media; exchanges between
private associations, trade unions and public and private enterprises; thematic meetings
of ministers, senior officials and experts; exchanges of experience and information and
by any other appropriate means; contacts between members of parliaments, regional
authorities, local authorities and social partners, etc.
8
There are disputes in scientific quarters about the elusive concept of conflict
prevention and its most suitable conceptual framework. The most important tendency
today is to try to streamline the range of conflict prevention to make it as operational as

5
Ibid.
6
PETERS, J., Pathways to Peace: the Multilateral Arab-Israeli Peace Talks, London, Royal Institute of
International Affairs, London, 1996, p. 36.
7
At the Paris summit of OSCE in 1990, a Conflict Prevention Centre (CPC) was created with the task of
supporting the implementation of several CSBM included in the 1990 Vienna Document. Later on, in 1991, at
the first meeting of the Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers, which took place in Berlin, the CPC was
designated the nominating institution for the peaceful settlement of disputes mechanism set out at the
Valletta Meeting in January and February 1991. Subsequently, however, the CPC has been turned into a unit
with logistical tasks.
8
MARIQUINA, A. Conflict Prevention in Framework of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership: A European
Point of View, in Perception, Volume IV, Number 2, 1999, pp. 4849.
V. LATIFI: Preventive diplomacy
AARMS 10(2) (2011) 227

possible.
9
In this sense, there is an understanding to separate conflict prevention from
short-term actions of preventive diplomacy specifically aimed at preventing the eruption
of violent conflicts, i.e. before they must be managed or subjected to enforcement or
other kinds of intervention.
There can be identified three main disputes and concerns within the academic circles
regarding preventive diplomacy. First, the difficulty in applying preventive diplomacy
as often only a very narrow window of opportunity exists during which parties may
launch legitimate intervention to prevent the outbreak of violence.
The second concern that the precipitate intervention may create a self-fulfilling
prophecy and eventually stimulate conflict in the minds of disputing parties, for
instance if outside parties and international institutions with their diplomatic preventive
intervention appear to legitimize nationalist claims for self-determination at the outset
of a conflict, and undermine existing political authorities. But, in practice exactly that
aspect seems to be the leading advantage and the heart of the preventive diplomacy in
the process of the conflict prevention.
Third, the timing of the engagement of preventive diplomacy is an extremely
critical, yet elusive, factor in the process of conflict resolution. But, obviously if outside
parties wait too long, the doorstep of violence may be crossed before preventive
diplomacy can be engaged. Once that doorstep is crossed, any opportunity to resolve the
conflict may be seriously delayed or lost altogether.
10

Peace-building and peace-builders
Peace-building is a complementary process to peacekeeping. While peacekeeping
involves military forces provided by third sides in an effort to control or prevent
violence, peace-building involves the social, physical and structural initiatives that can
help make the reconstruction and reconciliation happen. Since the end of the Cold War
most international peacekeeping operations entails to some extent peace-building.
While the nature of conflict has shifted, we see fewer inter-state wars and more
intra-state conflicts and civil wars. That means that the nature and instruments of
conflict prevention in peace building should be re-discussed as well. For instance, there
is growing the role of non-state actors in the last practices of conflict prevention. Even
within societies polarized through ethnic lines, there are always people working for

9
ROBERTO, ALLIBONI Confidence-Building, Conflict Prevention and Arms Control in the Euro-
Mediterranean Partnership, Perception, 19971998, Volume II, Nr. 4.
10
For instance see the claim of Martin Griffiths, Terry OCallaghan and Steven C. Roach, in International
Relations: The Key Concepts, (2008), p. 263.
V. LATIFI: Preventive diplomacy
228 AARMS 10(2) (2011)
peace on the ground. NGOs, womens organizations, religious leaders, the business
community, media and other civil society actors, are all natural allies of nations and
agencies working for peace on the international stage. Mobilizing and coordinating such
an alliance is not easy. Get it right, and the coalition may be powerful enough to prevent
the outbreak of a conflict. Get it wrong, the situation may get worse.
In principle peace-building philosophy is based on two major pillars or beliefs. First,
efforts should channel the energy generated by conflict in constructive, non-violent
rather than destructive and violent directions. Its aim is not to eliminate conflict, but to
generate positive change. Second, normal socio-political processes can transform
conflicts by parties acting alone; by third sides of expert level; and by advocacy efforts
and political intervention.
For instance, researchers are discovering how complex and specific each conflict is.
NGOs are finding out just what they can and cannot do to promote peace within divided
communities. They are increasingly aware of the need to liaise with governments,
which in turn are beginning to welcome cooperation with non-state actors.
Non-governmental actors from civil society can make a significant contribution as
they are often closer to conflicts or potential conflicts. As Strobel
11
argues, the role of
the media and their contribution as sources of information in conflict prevention and
peace-building must also be stressed.
Peace-building occurs at all levels in the community, nationally, and internationally.
In the past decade the number of peace- builders working at all levels of society conflicts
around the world has raised significantly. The contribution of civilians, whether working
from the bottom-up or top-down to resolve the conflicts can no longer remain unnoticed.
In February 1997, in a large public gathering on conflict prevention in Amsterdam an
Action Plan for European leaders known as the Amsterdam Appeal was drawn up. This
Appeal presents terms for an effective EU approach to preventing conflict, and outlines
key advocacy issues for NGOs. It stresses the need for participation by a range of actors,
including NGOs, and urges coalition-building among NGOs and with national
governments and European institutions. Schools, arts, sports, churches- mosques,
womens organizations, the media, and business have all demonstrated their potential for
building peace. Their role is getting increasing recognition.
Among others the post-conflict strategy of peace-building includes: reintegration of
displaced populations; demobilization and retraining of ex-warriors; repairing key
transport and communications networks; recovering the rule of law and the national
economy; decentralization; de-mining, etc. These tools and actions showed to be the top

11
STROBEL, W. P., The Media and US Policies toward Intervention, CROKER, CH. A. and HAMPSON, F. O.,
Managing Global Chaos, Washington DC, USIP, 1996.
V. LATIFI: Preventive diplomacy
AARMS 10(2) (2011) 229

measures of the peace-building strategy in all the armed conflicts in Europe following
the end of the Cold War: and the three conflicts that followed the dissolution of former
Yugoslavia.
Institutions, mechanism and instruments for conflict prevention
Preventive diplomacy primarily requires attention to early warning to identify
situations that might lead to violent conflict. But, that is not enough to prompt an
appropriate response, however. There must also be a capability to distinguish warnings
of real conflicts from false alarms. The problem for preventive diplomacy is often not
the inability to identify potential trouble spots but, rather, one of understanding such
situations well enough to forecast which ones are likely to explode and when.
12

Once the early crisis has been recognized, the next and often more difficult problem
is to get the parties to enter into direct negotiations like it was the case of conflicts of
dissolution of former Yugoslavia.
Several international organizations have generated a set of important instruments of
conflict prevention following the end of the Cold War in Europe. The most developed
instruments available so far for preventing conflict are those of the OSCE.
13
These
instruments were created to fit to various possible types of conflicts in the new European
order, such as those deriving from the dissolution of the USSR, the transition from
Communist regimes to democracies and market systems, and national minority troubles.
An important OSCE institution in the field of conflict prevention is High
Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM). His task of identifying and promoting
an early resolution of ethnic tensions that might endanger peace, stability or relations
between OSCE participant states has been rapidly expanded. Visits, reports, on-site
missions, recommendations, the encouragement of dialogue, confidence and co-
operation have allowed the containment or early resolution of ethnic conflicts.
The IC infrastructure for conflict prevention (including the instrument of the
HCNM) has not proved very successful, however. The case of Yugoslavia was a clear
example.

12
MARTIN GRIFFITHS, TERRY OCALLAGHAN and STEVEN C. ROACH, in International Relations: The Key
Concepts, (2008), p. 263.
13
According to the 1996 Lisbon Declaration, the OSCEs concept of co-operative security, is based on
democracy, respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, market economy and social
justice. It excludes any quest for domination. It implies mutual confidence and the peaceful settlement of disputes.
V. LATIFI: Preventive diplomacy
230 AARMS 10(2) (2011)
But that doesnt mean that in the field of early warning,
14
the OSCE hasnt tried to
improve its capacity for gathering information. One of its instruments is the intensive
use of regular, in-depth political consultations within the structures and institutions of
the organization. The possibilities of dialogue and political consultation were expanded
after the establishment in December 1993 of the Permanent Committee subsequently,
the Permanent Council which meets at least once a week. Other instruments for early
warning are the Moscow Mechanism on the human dimension, the Vienna Mechanism
on unusual military activities and the Berlin Mechanism.
Information gathering, as a central aspect in early warning, requires a different and
broader approach. The crucial precondition for preventative diplomacy is early warning,
and the latter cannot exist without appropriate information gathering.
At the end of the Cold War, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
(CSCE)
15
created new instruments and mechanisms to face the possible development of
conflict in Central Europe. Uncontrolled inter-ethnic conflicts were an almost unknown
phenomenon in Europe during the Cold War. As they began to re-emerge abruptly,
international institutions were unprepared and lacked instruments to deal with this
challenge. For this reason, the CSCE was little by little transformed from a forum for
negotiation and dialogue into an active operational structure, i.e. the OSCE.
One of the instruments for achieving a successful prevention in both post and pre
conflict peace building is through measures for confidence and security building. Most
of international organizations (mainly the organizations for collective security) have
been developed the Confidence and Security Building Measures (CSBMs) as provisions
for the exchange and verification of information regarding the participating states
armed forces and military activities.
At the Budapest summit in 1994, the CSCE became a primary instrument of early
warning, conflict prevention and crisis management in the region. At the OSCE
summit in Lisbon in December 1996, it was decided to continue efforts to further the
efficiency of the organization as a primary instrument for early warning, conflict
prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. These efforts came to
action in the Kosovo and Macedonian conflict.
CSBMs of the OSCE include: an annual exchange of military information; risk
reduction measures (i.e. mechanism for consultation and cooperation as regards unusual
military activities); provisions regarding military contacts and co-operation; prior

14
Leatherman and Vyrynen in their paper Structure, Culture and Territory: Three sets of early warning
indicators presented at the 36 th Annual Convention of International Studies Association (Chicago, 2125
February, 1995) argue that early warning is a pre-condition for conflict prevention.
15
Transformed later to the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe).
V. LATIFI: Preventive diplomacy
AARMS 10(2) (2011) 231

notification of certain military activities; observation of certain military activities;
exchange of annual calendars of military activities; constraining provisions on military
activities; compliance and verification measures; a network of direct communications
between the various capitals; Annual Implementation Assessment Meetings; a global
exchange of military information; stabilizing measures for localized crisis situations;
principles governing arms transfers.
16

The aim of these measures is to promote mutual trust and dispel concern about
military activities by encouraging openness and transparency.
17
The current provisions
evolved in three stages: the Helsinki Final Act regime (19751986), the Stockholm
Document regime (19861990) and the Vienna Document regime (since 1990).
Confidence-Building Measures (CBM) and Confidence and Security-Building
Measures seem differentiated. The primary goal is to achieve mutual and common
understanding on important issues of common interest, and to highlight shared values
and common aspirations. For that to be done, as Mariquina
18
stresses more are needed:
political initiatives, exchange of information, documentation, experiences and codes of
conduct on issues such as tolerance, coexistence, the fight against racism, xenophobia
and discrimination, co-ordination and mutual assistance on matters such as prevention,
management and response to natural and man-made disasters or air-sea search and
rescue operations, the enhancement of understanding and tolerance among religions and
civilizations, etc.
Comparative approaches of the preventive diplomacy and the process of the peace-
building in case of the last three conflicts in Europe: Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Kosovo and Macedonia
International involvement in the countries of the region has been mostly directed at
attaining military security in the conflicts and after. But it has evolved in few years
following the growth of the discipline on preventive diplomacy and peace-building.
It was different form of international intervention in Bosnia- when the IC military
intervened during the conflict. Different in Kosovo when the IC was directly involved
in fighting with one of the sides in conflict (Serbian forces-charged for abuse of human

16
OSCE Handbook, Second edition, 2002.
17
The cornerstone of the current CSBM regime was laid in basket I of the Helsinki Final Act (Section 2),
where the participating States agreed to certain measures designed to contribute to reducing the dangers of
armed conflict and of misunderstanding or miscalculation of military activities which could give rise to
apprehension, particularly in a situation where the participating States lack clear and timely information.
18
MARIQUINA, A., Conflict Prevention in Framework of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership: A European
Point of View, in Perception, Volume IV, Number 2, 1999, p. 46.
V. LATIFI: Preventive diplomacy
232 AARMS 10(2) (2011)
rights). Macedonia however is another case in this view: international intervention
through a military component happened only since the Framework Agreement which
ended up the armed conflict was signed and only then the International Community
launched a NATO mission to collect the weapons from the Albanian rebels.
The latter case brought on the scene two things. First, that international intervention
may not be necessary when conflict prevention works properly. Second, the
involvement of international community with its military component directly in the
process of peace-building (only after the conflict finished), was a successful test for the
international involvement in one conflict after the end of the Cold War and showed the
twinning tandem of preventive diplomacy and peace-building as a possible way of
intervention when they are designed and launched together within the same toolkit of
the conflict resolution of the contemporary conflicts.
In case of Macedonia worked out the model of co-operative security with less
dependent military components, a concept that the Organization for Security and Co-
operation in Europe (OSCE) was trying to develop for many years.
In the latest European conflict in Macedonia in 2001, peace-building and preventive
diplomacy seemed to be applied with a specific approach compared to the other
previous cases in the Balkans. The finally learnt lesson came from the fact that the
international community was involved there since the very beginning phases in
preventing the conflict and as well as involved later in the process of peace- building.
Without aiming to minimize the range of the Macedonian conflict in 2001 and the
peaceful process that followed, there is a significant difference, from other conflicts
resolution in the region during the 1990s: This conflict closed in the beginning of its
outbreak and this was achieved within the framework of the existing constitutional
order.
19
So, the conflict in Macedonia never reached the levels seen in the previous
wars in former Yugoslavia and by the standards of the fighting in Bosnia, Kosovo and
Croatia. The 2001 conflict in Macedonia was not especially bloody.
20

Intense international pressure was accordingly exercised to prevent the conflict from
reaching the levels seen in previous Balkan conflicts. International involvement in
Macedonia was specific compared to other conflicts in the Balkans. It was applied in

19
Democracy, Security and Economic Development in SEE, CKID and KAS, Skopje 2002, p. 88.
20
Official data from the Ministry of Interior Affairs and Ministry of Defense of Macedonia indicates that by
the end of July 2001, a total of 38 members of the security forces (the army and police) had been killed and
220 wounded. The level of casualties among Albanian guerilla fighters killed was not made public as a final
figure, but according to the IWPR book Ohrid and Beyond (eds. Skopje, 2003, p. 35) that refer to the
representatives of Democratic Union for Integration (DUI) party established after NLA disbanded, 74
guerrillas were killed and no more than 35 Albanian civilians perished. About 15 civilians were physically
attacked and tortured and around 20 kidnapped. The fate of at least 12 kidnap victims is still unknown.
V. LATIFI: Preventive diplomacy
AARMS 10(2) (2011) 233

the framework of preventive diplomacy and peace-building efforts, rather than using
military force.
The International Community responded with rapid and direct involvement when
Macedonian conflict emerged and before it got wide-spread. In contrast to the Bosnian
crisis of 19911995, United States and European Union policy moved in tandem in the
case of Macedonia combining preventive diplomacy and post-conflict peace-building
measures. Despite continuing incidents, the violence was brought under control. The
signing of the Ohrid Agreement in August 13, 2001, put forward a wide-ranging
program of human rights reforms in favour of ethnic Albanians and ceased the conflict.
The case of the latest European conflict in 2011 in Macedonia brought two things
with it. First, that international military intervention may not be necessary when conflict
prevention works properly. Second, the involvement of international community with
its military component directly in the process of peace-building (only after the conflict
finished), was a successful test for the international involvement in the Balkans and
showed it as a possible way of intervention.
21

The conflict prevention set at the end was successfully completed due to the more
long-term approach of the international involvement after the conflict reached an end.
The International Community kept on working its peace-building and conflict
prevention mechanisms in continuity in Macedonia as well as few years after the end of
the conflict within the set of the peace-building strategies.
Conclusion
While there is a tendency today in scientific literature and in the policy approaches of
states and international agencies operating in conflict prevention to focus dominantly on
use of preventive diplomacy tools, however today there is unavoidable a certain
combination of short-term and long-term actions of conflict prevention and peace-
building at the same time. In particular, important action aimed at developing initial
confidence through peace-building has to be regarded as an indispensable middle-term
structural systemic measure of conflict prevention.
Peaceful processes in Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina have shown that
conflicts (regardless whether they are inter-state or intra-state conflicts) remaining
unsolved have to be discriminated from potential conflicts due to the new changed
strategic, political, economic, social or environmental settings of the modern conflicts.

21
International involvement and the role of prevention in post conflict peace-building, Veton Latifi in
Conflicts Prevention: From the idea to the culture for prevention of conflicts, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung &
Initiative for Peace building and Democracy, Skopje, 2004, 107.
V. LATIFI: Preventive diplomacy
234 AARMS 10(2) (2011)
The conflict resolution of the latest European conflict in Macedonia in 2001 showed
to work successfully the philosophy of the preventive diplomacy and the approach of
the peace-building and that at the same time the third sides intervention can be most
effective when it recognizes that a much earlier point of intervention is available.
Before a conflict turns violent, the issues in the dispute are fewer and less complex, and
conflicting parties are not highly mobilized and polarized.
Peace-building in the last three conflicts after the end of the Cold War in Europe,
which occurred in the Balkans show two tracks. One track contains the international
efforts to restore peace and achieve stabilization of the countries through prevention and
confidence building instruments. Parallel to it the second track aims to help countries in
the process of the reforms requested for the European integration. In fact, the whole
peace-building process in the Balkans following the conflicts is a process of
Europeanization.
Ways to advance conciliation before conflicts turn violent and to ensure law and
order and respect for individual rights are at a premium along with longer-range
economic reform and reconstruction programs.
To be effective, preventative diplomacy demands a broad approach which integrates
as many actors as possible. International NGOs, as well as local organizations, can play
a decisive role in preventing or de-escalating conflicts. The strengths and limitations of
the approach have yet to be evaluated properly. The problems of integration and
coherence built-in to new forms of diplomacy have yet to be worked out fully.
References
BANKS, M. Four conceptions of peace, in SANDOLE, S. and SANDOLE, I. (Eds) (1987): Conflict Management
and Problem Solving: Interpersonal to International Applications, New York, New York University Press.
BOULDING, E. The dialectics of peace, in BOULDING, E. and BOULDING, K. (Eds) (1995): The Future:
Images and Processes, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI (1992): An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peace-making and
Peacekeeping, New York: United Nations.
BRAUCH, H.G. (1994): Partnership Building Measures for Conflict Prevention in the Western
Mediterranean, in Mariquina, A. and Brauch, H.G., Confidence Building and Partnership in the Western
Mediterranean: Tasks for Preventive Diplomacy and Conflict Avoidance, Madrid, Research Unit on
Security and International Co-operation (UNISCI) papers No. 1.
CHAYES, A. and HANDLE, A. (1996): Preventing Conflict in the Post-Communist World, Washington DC,
Brookings Institution.
CHIGAS, D. (1996): Preventive Diplomacy and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe:
Creating incentives for Dialogue and Co-operation in CHAYES, A. and HANDLE, A., Preventing Conflict
in the Post-Communist World, Washington DC, Brookings Institution.
Conflict Prevention Service of the European Union (COPS), (2000): BASICS Research Report 2000. 2.
Democracy, Security and Economic Development in SEE, (2002): CKID and KAS, Skopje.
V. LATIFI: Preventive diplomacy
AARMS 10(2) (2011) 235

EVANS, G. (1993): Cooperating for Peace: The Global Agenda for the 1990s and Beyond, Sydney, Allen &
Unwin.
Improving the Coherence and Effectiveness of the European Union Action in the Field of Conflict
Prevention, 9 December 2000, report available at: http://ue.eu.int/Newsroom/Load
Doc.cfm?MAX=1&DOC!!!&BID=105&DID=64389&GRP=3038&LANG=1
IWPR, eds. (2003): Ohrid and Beyond, Skopje.
GEORGE, A. and HOLL, J. (1997): The Warning-Response Problem and Missed Opportunities in Preventive
Diplomacy, Washington, DC, Carnegie Commission.
GRIFFITHS M., OCALLAGHAN T. and ROACH S. (2008): International Relations: The Key Concepts,
Routledge, Second ed., p. 263.
LAKE, D. and ROTHCHILD, D. (Eds) (1998): The International Spread of Ethnic Conflict: Fear, Diffusion, and
Escalation, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
LATIFI, V. (2003): Macedonian Challenges in the Process of Democratization and Stabilization, KAS, Skopje.
LATIFI, V. (2004): International involvement and the role of prevention in post conflict peace-building in L.
GEORGIEVA Conflicts Prevention: From the idea to the culture for prevention of conflicts, Friedrich
Ebert Stiftung and the Initiative for Peace building and Democracy, Skopje.
LUCAS, M. R. (1993): The CSCE in the 1990's: Constructing European Security and Co-operation, Baden-
Baden, Nomos.
LUND, M. S. (1996): Preventing Violent Conflicts: a Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy, Washington DC, US
Institute for Peace (USIP).
MARIQUINA, A. (1999): Conflict Prevention in Framework of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership: A
European Point of View, in Perception, Volume IV, Nr. 2.
OSCE Handbook, (2002): OSCE, Vienna, second ed.
OSCE improving capability to react to crisis, News Release, 27 November 2000 available at:
www.osce.org/news/generate.php3?news_id=1318
OSCE, Lisbon Declaration on a Common and Comprehensive Security Model for Europe for the 21 st
Century, (1996).
PETERS, J. (1996): Pathways to Peace: the Multilateral Arab-Israeli Peace Talks, London, Royal Institute of
International Affairs, London.
Revised Draft of the Acton Plan for the Development of the Political/Security Chapter of the Barcelona
Process, Brussels, 5 March 1997.
ROBERTO, A. (1997): Confidence-Building, Conflict Prevention and Arms Control in the Euro-
Mediterranean Partnership, Perception, Volume II, Nr. 4.
RYAN, S. (1995): Transforming violent intercommunal conflict, in RUPESINGHE, K. (ed.), Conflict
Transformation, New York, St Martins Press.
SANDOLE, D. J. D. (1994): Dealing with Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Cold War Europe: Enhancing CSCE
Capabilities for Early Warning, Conflict Prevention and the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, paper
presented at International Peace Research Association (IPRA) XV General Conference, Malta, 31
October4 November.
STROBEL, W. P. (1996): The Media and US Policies toward Intervention, CROKER, CH. A. and HAMPSON,
F.O., Managing Global Chaos, Washington DC, USIP.
WOODHOUSE, T. and RAMSBOTHAM, O., (Eds) (2000): Peacekeeping and Conflict Resolution, London: Frank
Cass.