I like to try to solve all issues at once. This week, I turned to peace education in the hope for answers. After all, peace education comes with the promise to eliminate human suffering, right?

Take UNESCO’s definition of ‘peace’ taken from the UNESCO Recommendation on Education for Peace and Human Rights, International Understanding, Cooperation, Fundamental Freedoms, Global Citizenship and Sustainable Development: “peace not only requires the absence of war or armed conflicts but also requires an inclusive, democratic and participatory process in which human security, respect for State sovereignty and territorial integrity, dialogue and solidarity are encouraged, internal and international conflicts are resolved through mutual understanding and cooperation, sustainable development in all its dimensions is achieved, universal access to lifelong and life-wide education, including in emergency and conflict situations is provided, poverty in all its forms and dimensions including extreme poverty is eradicated, all human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons without exception are upheld and active global citizenship is promoted” (UNESCO, 2023).

Right.

Upon reviewing international peace education frameworks, Bar-Tal (2002) ends up concluding that “peace education is by nature elusive” (42).

I argue that peace education is not only elusive but also self-contradictory at this geopolitical moment. It is a moment at which the logics of war and peace have become turned upside down. Consequently, peace education can no longer correlate positively with achieving international peace.

80 years ago, when post-war optimism was rife, Western European civic education curricula emphasised the study of democratic values, civic duties, and national political and legal systems (Bar-Tal, 2002). Other regions have prioritised issues of equality and human rights (e.g., South America), multiculturalism and reconciliation (e.g., Canda), or disarmament (e.g., Japan).

Torn between peace and security

Countries vulnerable to security threats and/or with martial law have been using education to strengthen civil society’s responsiveness and resilience to military conflict (e.g., Vietnam, Singapore, China, Turkey)—an approach that more and more countries have had to consider since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. For instance, in Germany, where civic education has focused traditionally on values and institutions, there has been heated debate about allowing the national army to visit schools. Skeptics stress that there is a fine line between an information campaign and a recruitment campaign. Information campaigns of the German army have fallen short to address the sacrifices recruits are asked to make, from the suspension of personal autonomy, over financial resignation sanctions through to risking one’s life at the frontline (GEW, 2025). It is paradoxical that the German ministry responsible for education hesitates to design critical security education frameworks while granting the army to deliver doctrines of defence to students unfiltered, in the interest of the army.

In her article, “How we talk about war and peace today”, Kameliya Tomova (2024) reflects on the changing role of civic education under the shadow of war, taking the viewpoint that talking with students about national defence must cease to be a taboo. Society must open its eyes to growing security threats and demonstrate capacity to protect national sovereignty and the rights and freedoms it holds dear. Indeed, history has shown that aggressors abuse appeasement; Hence, the strong warnings against a peace-deal on Putin’s terms. Person (2025) sums up the one option available to the West which is to settle “the war […] on the battlefield, not at the negotiating table”.

Since February 2022, security has become a key priority for the EU. The Union has imposed sanctions, supplied weapons, and drafted security policies such as Readiness 2023, a new strategic defense initiative aiming to boost military infrastructures, security investments, and resource supplies for Ukraine (European Commission, 2025).

At the same time, European education policy refrains from legitimising military- and security-focused curricula, as such a focus conflicts with European ideals of peaceful coexistence. The return of war to Europe has confronted peace education with the dilemma that peace is bound up in security issues. The survival of liberal democratic states depends on military resistance and deterrence.

However, if we frame the military as indispensable, we may end up letting blind obedience, uniformity, patriotism, and hyper-patriarchal dynamics reign society once again. We risk giving up freedom, democracy, and protection of minorities even before a foreign power had invaded to take freedom, democracy, and tolerance for diversity away. This self-inflicted loss of values might be the cost of turning peace education into security education.

Recommendations for education policy

Bar-Tal (2002) proposes that peace education should be an orientation for curriculum-design, ensuring that all educational intervention is underpinned by and works to sustain common ends and values. However, at a time when the survival of our common ends and values depends on warfare, it looks like peace education can only give contradictory orientations. Still, recognising the dilemma of peace education can help guide policy. Below a number of key policy recommendations:

• Clearly differentiate and define ‘peace’ and ‘security’ (make sure to invite philosophers to the table);
• Contextualise ‘peace’ and ‘security’ in the present geopolitical state of play and in national needs;
• Consider the implications of orienting education towards peace vs security for leaner well-being, society, and geopolitics;
• Prioritise learner well-being;
• Regulate which actors may deliver education on peace and security;
• Set focus on building critical thinking, empowering learners to make informed judgements and autonomous decisions about their involvement in issues related to peace and security;
• Review teacher training programmes and, where needed, provide capacity-building and resourcing.

At the turn of the 21^st century, Khong (2001:234) prompted us to ponder “how much of our safety are we willing to trade off for how much peace?” We are overdue to ponder over this question in education.

References

Bar-Tal, D. (2002). “The elusive nature of peace education”. In Salomon, G., & Nevo, B. (Eds) Peace Education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

European Commission (2025). White Paper for European Defence – Readiness 2030. European Commission. https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6d5db69-e0ab-4bec-9dc0-3867b4373019_en?filename=White%20paper%20for%20European%20defence%20%E2%80%93%20Readiness%202030.pdf

Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft (GEW) (2025). “Einfluss der Bundeswehr an Schulen zurückdrängen”. GEW.de. https://www.gew.de/mein-arbeitsplatz/schule/bundeswehr/einfluss-der-bundeswehr-an-schulen-zurueckdraengen

Khong, Y. F. (2001). Human security: a shotgun approach to alleviating human misery? Global Governance a Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 7(3), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-00703003

Person, R. (2025, March 14). Why Ukraine Shouldn’t Negotiate with Putin, Journal of Democracy, 36(1), 21–35. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/why-ukraine-shouldnt-negotiate-with-putin/

Tomova, K. (2025, June 24). How we talk about war and peace today. NECE – Networking European Civic Education, Europe. https://nece.eu/how-we-talk-about-war-and-peace-today/

UNESCO (2023). Recommendation on Education for Peace and Human Rights, International Understanding, Cooperation, Fundamental Freedoms, Global Citizenship and Sustainable Development. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/recommendation-education-peace-and-human-rights-international-understanding-cooperation-fundamental?hub=87862

The dilemma of peace education / Helena Kruder by is licensed under a