Peace is fine example of an emergent topic. Peace, generally understood as a state or period in which there is no war, has no single cause and cannot be described as a mere sum of its parts. The achievement of peace depends on many interrelated factors. From this perspective, it can hardly be a surprise that is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve peace by means of an analytical approach. Despite all our research and knowledge about history, political science, peace studies, the United Nations, NGOs and peace interventions, the achievement of global and durable peace is still a long way off.

Interventions – a term that is also frequently used in healthcare – and emergent topics don’t always go well together. Anthropologist Ruben Andersson, affiliated with Oxford University, describes in No Go World [1] what interventions can provoke in our complex world. He discusses migration problems and argues that military means do not solve them.

He bases this argument on the global expansion of so-called ‘no go zones’. These zones, that are often found in conflict areas, are classified as dangerous or unsafe. Andersson points out that in recent decades, despite costly military and humanitarian interventions, security services, the erection of walls and the tightening of border security, the number of ‘no go zones’ has sharply increased. If you look at travel advisories issued by the US State Department, the advice ‘do not travel’ (level 4) rose from twelve to eighteen countries or territories between 1996 and 2013. During the same period of time the number of travel advisories the British Foreign Office issued increased from thirteen to forty [2]. Ironically, this increase in travel advisories coincided with the so-called ‘War on Terror’. It goes to show that peace and security cannot be enforced with interventions.

Johan Galtung, a Norwegian sociologist and the principal founder of peace and conflict studies, wrote in 1964 about positive peace, a concept that stands for more than just the absence of violence, or fear of violence (negative peace) [3]. Galtung was a pioneer when it came to peacebuilding and conflict mediation, striving for a better outcome for all parties. This stands at odds with military strategies which are devised to defeat opponents.

The Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) publishes an annual Positive Peace Report. Positive Peace is defined as the attitudes, institutions and structures that create and support peaceful societies. The IEP argues that we should not think in terms of linear causality, but that systems thinking is necessary, because a linear approach can lead to unintended consequences [4]. We totally agree with that. However, we are surprised that the IEP subsequently defines eight pillars of Positive Peace, thereby providing us with eight indicators. This brings us back to an analytical, reductionist approach with a model designed by someone who made arbitrary choices for the users of the model. The definitions of the pillars are mere opinions (see Chapter 1).

“If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.” – Nelson Mandela

There is no such thing as objective peace. Nor can you impose your own standards on others. Instead, opt for the platinum rule: Treat others the way they want to be treated (chapter 15). Set your sights on positive peace, have a cup of coffee with your enemy and listen to his or her theory of change. Use the strongpoints of all parties involved, deploy all resources and let peace grow organically. That, in our opinion, is the essence of systems thinking.