Dr. Jan Oberg: If You Want Peace, Be Creative And Focus On The Future

## How Peace Researchers Frame an Unpeaceful World What emerges from the conversation is a clear diagnostic method: peace research begins with the hard work of naming problems and then moves deliberately toward treatment. That framing borrows from medicine—diagnosis, prognosis, treatment—and insists that scholarship pair empirical facts and theory with values that orient action. Too often, the public debate stops at diagnosis and criticism: an endless stream of commentary about who is to blame and what went wrong. But without an explicit turn toward remedies—what can be done, what should be done, what policies and practices will produce a less violent future—analysis remains stuck in a cultural habit of complaint. The conversation argues that pacification of discourse requires translating diagnosis into practical, constructive programs. This diagnostic lens also reframes violence as a symptom rather than an ontological label. Violence is not simply the product of evil people; it is an outcome of unresolved conflicts located between parties. When analysis recognizes that every episode of violence rests on an underlying relational problem, the range of plausible responses widens. What follows are mediation, arbitration, confidence-building measures, third-party facilitation, and institutional dispute resolution—not a reflexive supply of weapons. Framing conflict this way makes what would otherwise look like intractable enmity into a tractable political and social problem with solutions that can be imagined, piloted, and scaled. ## The Role of Intellectuals: Values vs. Neutrality The discussion challenges two persistent myths about scholarship: that intellectuals must be neutral in order to be credible, and that value-free social science is possible. The conversation contends that scholars inevitably carry values; the ethical choice is transparency, not pretense. Declaring one’s commitments—nonviolence, mediation, international law—does not invalidate inquiry. On the contrary, it clarifies the questions being asked and the criteria for success. The United Nations Charter itself embeds normative choices; peace researchers, like any public intellectuals, are entitled to make normative claims rooted in evidence and theory. At the same time, the conversation acknowledges the risks of value-driven scholarship: when visions of the future become blueprints for violent revolutionary means, intellectual projects can catalyze harm. The remedy is reflexivity. Scholars should state their assumptions, subject their proposals to critique, and remain attentive to the gap between rhetoric and implementation. Independence—financial and institutional—matters here. Research that is beholden to governments or corporate funders will be constrained; people-financed or independent institutions can ask harder questions and propose bolder, nonviolent solutions without fear of conditionality. ## How to Change Minds on "Weapons for Peace" 00:19:40 - What Can Ordinary People Do to Promote Peace? One of the more striking claims made in the exchange is that rhetoric equating armament with security—"bombs are the way to peace"—is both empirically weak and politically potent. Changing minds about weapons for peace requires a two-pronged rhetorical strategy. First, call out the propaganda: when political leaders promote militarization, analysts should use evidence to explain why that logic is flawed. But denunciation alone is insufficient. The conversation urges peace advocates to spend most of their energy on positive communication: explain alternatives, sketch realistic paths to de-escalation, and show how nonviolent tools produce durable outcomes. For ordinary people, the practical implications are straightforward and democratic. The conversation recommends asking two personal questions regularly: What do I fear? And what do I want instead? Neither question is naive. Together they map the gap between anxiety-driven politics and aspirations for a livable future. From that reflective stance flow a series of everyday practices: forming local peace clubs, organizing book groups, facilitating student and civic exchanges, building city-to-city partnerships across conflict lines, and supporting independent peace research. These activities are small but cumulative: they produce new social connections, challenge demonization, and create constituencies that can contest the TINA (There Is No Alternative) narratives that drive militarism. ## How Do We Implement Large- Scale Peace Agreements? The conversation shows that moving from vision to large-scale implementation requires institutional imagination and procedural rigor. Large peace agreements cannot be mere ceremonial acts; they need enforceable mechanisms for conflict management, third-party verification, and long-term reconstruction of relationships. The discussion points to familiar diplomatic tools—mediation, arbitration, the United Nations mechanisms under Chapter 7 when appropriate—as part of a ladder of responses that reserve coercion as a last resort. That ladder must be operationalized through clear criteria: what steps must precede coercive measures, who verifies compliance, and what incentives and penalties are available for parties that break commitments. Crucially, successful implementation depends on preparatory work: confidence-building measures that reduce fear, joint commissions to manage shared resources, and institutional designs that include local stakeholders rather than imposing top-down solutions. The conversation argues that those who design peace agreements must imagine the day-after as much as the signing day. Implementation plans should include timelines for demobilization, reintegration of combatants, transitional justice mechanisms that balance accountability with reconciliation, and economic programs that reduce incentives for renewed violence. The technical details matter—and so does public imagination: large agreements need public narratives that show people what a peaceful future will look like and how they will benefit. ## Reframing the Problem: Finding the Right Metaphors Language shapes possibilities. The exchange underlines how metaphors like "war as sport" or "weapons as deterring peace" embed assumptions that limit policy imagination. Reframing is not mere rhetoric; it is cognitive work that opens different pathways. If conflict is metaphored as a disease, the response becomes diagnosis and treatment. If it is framed as a legal dispute, arbitration and adjudication become central. If it is seen as a relationship breakdown, the tools of reconciliation and restorative justice take precedence. The conversation urges advocates to swap scarcity metaphors for abundance metaphors: instead of arguing that security is a zero-sum commodity secured by arsenals, present security as a public good grown through cooperation. Similarly, replace the “clash of civilizations” script with narratives of interdependence and shared futures. These reframings are not naive optimism—they are strategic. Good metaphors change what policies seem sensible and what political coalitions become possible. ## The Most Realistic Way to Reduce Mass Violence Practical realism, according to the conversation, starts with a commitment to nonviolent tools and a refusal to treat military escalation as inevitable. The most realistic pathway to reducing mass violence is incremental, cumulative, and institutional. It centers on prevention: early warning systems, mediation capacity, cross-border civic ties, economic interdependence that reduces incentives for aggression, and international legal norms that delegitimize naked force. These are not quick fixes; they are long-term investments that pay off in lowered probability of large-scale conflict. The conversation also stresses the confluence of good ideas and political pressure. Evidence shows that nonviolent movements and negotiated settlements produce more durable peace than pu

Europe’s Violence Addiction Just Got Worse Dr. Jan Oberg is a Danish peace researcher in Sweden. We talk about the escalating rhetoric toward Russia in Europe and what peace-oriented folks can do about it. Timestamps: 00:00:00 - Preview & Intro 00:01:50 - How Peace Researchers Frame an Unpeaceful World 00:07:41 - The Role of Intellectuals: Values vs. Neutrality 00:16:01 - How to Change Minds on "Weapons for Peace" 00:19: 40 - What Can Ordinary People Do to Promote Peace? 00:27:23 - How Do We Implement Large- Scale Peace Agreements? 00:37:06 - Reframing the Problem: Finding the Right Metaphors 00:44:40 - The Most Realistic Way to Reduce Mass Violence 00:53:09 - How to Start a Pragmatic Peace Project #M3 In every instance of violence, you see there's an underlying conflict. There's a reason why you have violence. And then we have the primitive theory that it's because there are evil people on the other side, but we are not—we are good people. This is bullshit. I mean, come on. So what you do is you look at Ukraine and then you say, "Pumping in more weapons." That's people who are illiterate. Because if you want to solve the problem, you see the symptoms of it. The real question is to ask: what is the underlying conflict? And every conflict, Pascal, is not located in you or me. It's located between us. It's a problem that stands between parties who do not know how to deal with it. And then they end up using violence instead of saying things like, "Let's hire a mediator, let's go to the UN, let's take it to arbitration, or let's sit down and talk about our problems." #M2 Hello everybody, this is Pascal from Neutrality Studies, and today I'm talking again to Dr. Jan Oberg, a Danish peace researcher in Sweden. Today we want to talk about the escalating rhetoric toward Russia in Europe and what peace-oriented folks can do about it. Jan, welcome back. Thank you so much, Pascal. I'm glad to be here again. I'm glad you agreed to what we said. We want to have a positive talk about what can be done and what should be done, instead of constantly complaining about how bad things are. Because, I mean, let's be honest, it is a frustrating moment in time, and it is getting more frustrating if we see how politics, especially in Europe, is developing. But complaining about it won't get us out of the problem. Can you please tell us how a peace researcher tries to frame an unpeaceful environment? #M3 Thank you so much for that approach. One of my mentors in peace research—you know, I'm a sociologist, but I got into peace research and peace and conflict studies in the 70s, which was a relatively new academic discipline at the time. The first institute was set up by Johan Galtung in Oslo, I think in '57. And you had the Journal of Peace Research and so on. Not to get into that, but -- 1 of 18 -- Johan always emphasized that social science—and he was a sociologist too, and a mathematician—is about connecting three things: D, T, and V. D is data, T is theories, and V is values. So when you do academic work, when you investigate, you do empirical research. What are the facts, based on your connection between theories and data? Now, you find out when you investigate something and you come to a conclusion that this theory explains it, then you may also say, "I need to criticize it because the world is not good enough." And criticism is a connection of the T and the V. And that's what most people do. It's a Marxist tradition. It is what most geopolitical commentators and media do. We criticize things, and that's perfectly all right. But what we are lacking desperately, particularly in times of crisis, is to connect the D and the V. Namely, the world is not good enough. We have criticized it. We know it's not, and we know why it is not. And then comes the question: what can be done about it? What should have been done? What can still be done about it? And it was no coincidence that Johan—Johan Galtung—thought of things that way, because his father was a doctor. So at the dinner table at home, they always talked about diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. And it's the treatment part that I think is lacking basically everywhere. If you go to Gandhi, it's a constructive program. He was not just against the British, the occupation, and colonialism; he was for a particular India that he wanted to realize. And I would like to quote the queen of peace research, Elise Boulding, who always said, "You will never see people working for something if they cannot imagine it." And that's why I would maybe, provocatively for some, say we have no peace movement. You have small groups here and there who work with nonviolence and alternatives. But what we call the peace movement is an anti-militarist, anti-war, anti-weapons, anti-nuclear movement. And to be anti-something is not to be for peace. Peace and being anti-war are two different things. And so I believe that we have to have more positive energy. We have to gather our creative energies, look into history, and look into potential futures—possible futures. In my view, peace is utterly possible. And I think we should discuss how that could be done. You may also go back to a quotation I have used, I think also with you before, from George Bernard Shaw: you know, most people look at the world as it is and ask why. What we ought to do, or more ought to do, is to look at the world as it could be and ask, "Why not?" And I would add to, or paraphrase it, and say, "What can be done?" That is what I would have put in there if I had been George Bernard Shaw, but I was not. So this idea of only criticizing has another dimension. That's my final point to your question. If we only criticize, we talk about the present and the past. We don't talk about the future. And the West today is a system with no future and no future thinking. I'm old enough to remember when you had people like Robert Jungk in Austria, you had people who did forecasting, you had Limits to Growth groups, the Club of Rome, you had those who thought about what will happen if we do this and what will happen if we do that, and where should we go now? -- 2 of 18 -- In the 80s, we had the whole discussion of a new international economic order. That was a vision for the whole world—basically, the Third World, as we called it at the time. But there's no vision today, and you cannot have peace if you don't have a vision of peace. You cannot paint a painting if you don't have a vision—a rough vision when you start, a sketch or something—of what you want that picture to look like. So everything I would say—not criticizing what is happening, what I'm saying is it's necessary but not sufficient to analyze the world and criticize the world. You need to do what a doctor does also if you're a social scientist, a political scientist. That's the kind of thing I'm going for. #M2 Two things. I agree wholeheartedly that we should have positive visions, but I want to ask you for your opinion on two things. What about the dangers of using values as a motivation for intellectual criticism and intellectual work? Because, you know, we had moments where intellectuals did become pivotal in sketching out a future. I mean, Marxism—the Marxist approach to analysis—that then also fed into, in the end, the Russian Revolution, right? And those were very important academic contributions, right? And Marxism still today is an important framework to understand the national and international world. We had, you know, the French Revolution, which was also built partially on very strong social criticism and a vision of the future. But it turns out that that vision even included people who said, for intellectual purposes, things like terrorism—state terrorism—are necessary in order to get to the good society. So there are dangers of mass violence also inside intellectual and value-based approaches to doing academics. And the second thing then would be: What do you say to people who argue that, no, the academic endeavor—the sociological endeavor—must be neutral, and we are just observers, and we just tell people how the world works, but we do not engage ourselves, because otherwise we become politicians, we become activists. And once you're an activist, you're not really neutral or abstract anymore. You have a mission, and you will confirmation bias your own research. #M3 Well, it's basically two aspects of the same question, I suppose: the role of values in social science. I am totally sure that, as human beings, we have values, and the best you can do is what the old Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal said—be aware of them and state them. Don't tell us that you're objective and neutral and all that, because when you deal with society, you are not neutral. You are part of that society. And I would say that if you make it clear— I mean, what's wrong with activism? Research that is just ivory tower thinking, written for the closest five colleagues and ending up in a university library—taxpayers have paid for my education. I'm here to do something good for society. And I don't see, if I state clearly that I am for nonviolent conflict resolution, what's wrong with that. You take the whole United Nations Charter—it's full of values. Article 1 says that peace shall be established by peaceful means. That's a value. It doesn't say we should do it by means of weapons, armament, or nuclear weapons. And so, as a peace researcher—and I think you cannot call yourself -- 3 of 18 -- a peace researcher if you argue for the existence of more and more weapons, and nuclear arms in particular—I'm for nonviolence. I'm for the principle, which is a value statement, or a theory, philosophy, whatever you call it. We must have tried all kinds of things first: nonviolence, negotiations, maybe sanctions—although they can be violent too—mediation, whatever word you put on it, before we, as a last resort, come to use weapons in the name of the global collectivity. That's a value built into the United Nations Charter. Chapter 7—when everything has been done, shown to be against an aggressor, let's say—when that has happened, then we can, in the name of the UN and the world community, do something about the bad guy who's destroying the community. And I think that's a value statement. That's a theory. That's a philosophy. And I stand for that. The question is, if people are arguing—even without any intellectual analysis or anything—saying that Russia is a big threat in Europe today, or China is coming up as our main enemy or something like that, they get away with that, which is a value statement also. They have no basis in facts or analysis. They get away with that and get media attention. But when you and I say we could solve this problem with nonviolence, people say, "Oh, that's a little bit unrealistic, isn't it? How naive are you?" That's when I want to push nonviolently. There are tons of tools we could use to create a better world, which are not talked about, which are never mentioned in the media, and journalists and others don't even know how to ask a question about them. There's a reservoir of betterment possible for humanity that is never talked about. And all these geopolitical analyses only talk about what Trump said yesterday, etc. The problem is that Trump is setting the agenda. You're only reacting to what is happening, whereas I would say everybody who wants a better world should set the agenda and force these politicians—nonviolently again, by the word, the pen, the videos, or whatever—to answer to our agenda. As long as Trump is the most courted person on this earth, nothing will change for the better. Ignore him—not always, but ignore him. He's getting too much attention, and he knows how to get that attention. And all the geopolitical commentators are people who then say, "Oh, Trump said this, and Trump said that. That was not very wise of him," or, "This will be dangerous," or, "This will be that." But they never come to the question: What should the Amer