Curiouser and curiouser: observe how an aspiration to coordinate or construct and administratively or diplomatically assert peace becomes itself yet another game and grammar of difference, of competition, of jockeying words, behavioural idioms, contested concepts and roles; exclusive and self-sustaining as a professional career or community of experts which, while the endeavour is nominally admirable, might still by pure self-containment almost entirely miss the point.
Building meanings, definitions, organisational bridgeheads, treaties, agreements, contracts and relatively unambiguous translations of a language and vocabulary of shared goals towards a world (or even a limited spatial, temporal or geographical context) without conflict is enigmatic. While it is true that any idiot with a gun, an opinion, a megaphone or other kinetic or abstract (information) channel of influence can disrupt, derail and disassemble attempts at peace-building, there are endemic (logical) reasons why the construction of complicated bureaucratic rationales can not provide anything more than transient contingencies in this domain.
Peace is an effectively metaphysical proposition and thus lies outside the labyrinthine grammars of administrative control.
Daedelus Kite 