The event "Thinking peace - perspectives beyond the logic of war", organized by the Peace Academy Rhineland-Palatinate in cooperation with ELAN - Entwicklungspolitisches Landesnetzwerk Rheinland-Pfalz e.V. and the One World Promoter Programme, dealt with current challenges of peace policy and the role of peace education. Against the backdrop of increasing global conflicts, growing armament and social polarization, speakers and participants discussed ways to strengthen peace logics.

Global developments and peace policy challenges
An introductory contribution by Claudia Baumgart-Ochse(PRIF - Leibniz Institute for Peace and Conflict Research) painted an impressive picture of the current conflict situation. The number of violent conflicts, conflict-related refugee movements and fatalities is increasing worldwide. At the same time, there is a decline in democratic structures: according to the data presented, one in five democracies is now eroding. Progress towards the global sustainability goals is also stagnating or declining. These developments make it clear that international politics is increasingly geared towards military security. Peace policy approaches are coming under pressure, although the need for civil conflict resolution is growing.

Peace education as a response to crises
In the second presentation, Nele Anslinger(gewaltfrei handeln e.V.) focused on the importance of peace education. The starting point was the observation that non-violence is often perceived as unrealistic in times of war and armament. Using key concepts - such as Johan Galtung's definition of violence (direct, structural and cultural violence) - it was made clear that peace is more than just the absence of war. Peace education starts here and encompasses three dimensions: Peace knowledge (understanding conflicts), peace competence (e.g. change of perspective, tolerance of ambiguity), peace action (concrete non-violent practice). The aim is to strengthen individual conflict resolution and dialog skills. Peace education cannot solve geopolitical conflicts directly, but it creates important conditions for a more peaceful society. Especially in the face of militarization and authoritarianism, it keeps alternative logics of action open.

Exchange and group work: perspectives from practice
In the subsequent group work phase, the participants reflected on the presentations and discussed consequences for their own work. A central topic was the tension between nonviolence and current armament policy. Many participants asked whether and how the two approaches are compatible and where the limits of peace policy concepts lie. At the same time, a growing gap between international politics and individual capacity for peace was perceived, which creates a feeling of powerlessness for many.
In the field of education, the importance of peace education was particularly emphasized. There was discussion on how it can be more firmly anchored in curricula and implemented in practice - for example through more space in lessons, external offers or greater promotion of community and social learning in schools.
Working with young people also played an important role. It was emphasized that peace education should not be patronizing, but should open up differentiated perspectives - especially in the context of current debates such as compulsory military service. At the same time, the desire was expressed to make peace policy positions more public, for example through visible actions such as peace marches.
Further discussions revolved around structural challenges: Participants pointed out that funding for development cooperation and peace work is being cut in some cases, even though the need is increasing. Career prospects in the field of peace work were also described as uncertain.
In addition, social challenges such as racism and anti-Semitism were discussed, as well as the question of how civil society actors can counter an increasing "defense logic" in politics and society.
A great need for networking, exchange and support emerged in all groups. Among other things, the following were mentioned

• Stronger state-wide networking of peace education actors in Rhineland-Palatinate,
• further training opportunities - not only for professionals, but also for families and political decision-makers
• Joint development of materials,
• early educational opportunities in nurseries and schools,
• and more space for creative and publicly visible activities.

At the same time, the wish was expressed that the effectiveness of peace education should be researched more and made more visible.

Conclusion
The event made it clear that peace education is more important than ever in the face of global crises - even if its impact often remains indirect. It strengthens individual and social prerequisites for dealing constructively with conflicts and offers an important counter-perspective to dominant military logics. At the same time, it became clear that peace work faces major challenges: politically, financially and socially. This makes networking, visibility and the continuous development of approaches that see peace not just as a goal, but as a joint learning and shaping process, all the more important.

The event "Thinking peace - perspectives beyond the logic of war", organized by the Peace Academy Rhineland-Palatinate in cooperation with ELAN - Entwicklungspolitisches Landesnetzwerk Rheinland-Pfalz e.V. and the One World Promoter Programme, dealt with current challenges of peace policy and the role of peace education. Against the backdrop of increasing global conflicts, growing armament and social polarization, speakers and participants discussed ways to strengthen peace logics.

Global developments and peace policy challenges
An introductory contribution by Claudia Baumgart-Ochse(PRIF - Leibniz Institute for Peace and Conflict Research) painted an impressive picture of the current conflict situation. The number of violent conflicts, conflict-related refugee movements and fatalities is increasing worldwide. At the same time, there is a decline in democratic structures: according to the data presented, one in five democracies is now eroding. Progress towards the global sustainability goals is also stagnating or declining. These developments make it clear that international politics is increasingly geared towards military security. Peace policy approaches are coming under pressure, although the need for civil conflict resolution is growing.

Peace education as a response to crises
In the second presentation, Nele Anslinger(gewaltfrei handeln e.V.) focused on the importance of peace education. The starting point was the observation that non-violence is often perceived as unrealistic in times of war and armament. Using key concepts - such as Johan Galtung's definition of violence (direct, structural and cultural violence) - it was made clear that peace is more than just the absence of war. Peace education starts here and encompasses three dimensions: Peace knowledge (understanding conflicts), peace competence (e.g. change of perspective, tolerance of ambiguity), peace action (concrete non-violent practice). The aim is to strengthen individual conflict resolution and dialog skills. Peace education cannot solve geopolitical conflicts directly, but it creates important conditions for a more peaceful society. Especially in the face of militarization and authoritarianism, it keeps alternative logics of action open.

Exchange and group work: perspectives from practice
In the subsequent group work phase, the participants reflected on the presentations and discussed consequences for their own work. A central topic was the tension between nonviolence and current armament policy. Many participants asked whether and how the two approaches are compatible and where the limits of peace policy concepts lie. At the same time, a growing gap between international politics and individual capacity for peace was perceived, which creates a feeling of powerlessness for many.
In the field of education, the importance of peace education was particularly emphasized. There was discussion on how it can be more firmly anchored in curricula and implemented in practice - for example through more space in lessons, external offers or greater promotion of community and social learning in schools.
Working with young people also played an important role. It was emphasized that peace education should not be patronizing, but should open up differentiated perspectives - especially in the context of current debates such as compulsory military service. At the same time, the desire was expressed to make peace policy positions more public, for example through visible actions such as peace marches.
Further discussions revolved around structural challenges: Participants pointed out that funding for development cooperation and peace work is being cut in some cases, even though the need is increasing. Career prospects in the field of peace work were also described as uncertain.
In addition, social challenges such as racism and anti-Semitism were discussed, as well as the question of how civil society actors can counter an increasing "defense logic" in politics and society.
A great need for networking, exchange and support emerged in all groups. Among other things, the following were mentioned

• Stronger state-wide networking of peace education actors in Rhineland-Palatinate,
• further training opportunities - not only for professionals, but also for families and political decision-makers
• Joint development of materials,
• early educational opportunities in nurseries and schools,
• and more space for creative and publicly visible activities.

At the same time, the wish was expressed that the effectiveness of peace education should be researched more and made more visible.

Conclusion
The event made it clear that peace education is more important than ever in the face of global crises - even if its impact often remains indirect. It strengthens individual and social prerequisites for dealing constructively with conflicts and offers an important counter-perspective to dominant military logics. At the same time, it became clear that peace work faces major challenges: politically, financially and socially. This makes networking, visibility and the continuous development of approaches that see peace not just as a goal, but as a joint learning and shaping process, all the more important.