BY JULIUS VICTORINO A. FERNANDEZ
PEACE is universally revered as a noble aspiration—a timeless pursuit that transcends borders, cultures, and generations. It is the word etched into treaties, echoed in speeches, and projected onto the global stage as the ultimate goal of diplomacy.
Yet, for all its symbolic power, peace often remains elusive.
More often than not, it becomes trapped in an unending loop of negotiations that give the illusion of progress while failing to produce meaningful results. These peace talks, at times, begin to resemble political theater—carefully choreographed performances that prioritize appearances over action.
The imagery of peace negotiations is compelling: leaders shaking hands, signing documents, standing before the cameras with solemn expressions and hopeful words. These moments are staged as turning points, hailed by media outlets as breakthroughs. They generate headlines and stir cautious optimism among the public.
But too often, the performance ends when the cameras stop rolling. Promises dissolve into delays. Commitments are sidestepped or quietly abandoned. Talks, rather than resolving conflict, become self-perpetuating, leading only to more talks.
This repetitive pattern has a cost—both psychological and political. For the public, the constant cycle of negotiations without tangible outcomes fosters disillusionment. The same diplomatic vocabulary is recycled in every round: “constructive dialogue,” “historic opportunity,” “confidence-building measures.”
While these phrases offer comfort, they rarely provide clarity. They signal movement but not direction. Over time, the public begins to see through the script, recognizing the spectacle for what it is—a series of staged gestures with little follow-through.
The consequences of this theatrical approach to peace are far-reaching. Perhaps the most damaging is the erosion of trust—not only in the actors at the negotiating table but in the very idea of peace itself.
When dialogue becomes a substitute for action and symbolism replaces substance, people grow cynical. They begin to expect failure, to see peace as a hollow concept rather than a concrete possibility. And when hope gives way to resignation, it becomes harder to mobilize public support for future peace efforts.
But true peace cannot be built on posturing and platitudes. It is not achieved through ceremonies or carefully worded communiqués. It is forged through honest engagement, difficult conversations, and courageous choices. It requires transparency, accountability, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. Most of all, it demands a break from the performance-driven approach that has long dominated global diplomacy.
The world does not need another scripted summit. It does not need more handshakes for the cameras or more treaties that gather dust. What it needs are leaders willing to speak plainly, act boldly,
—————————————————————————————
Julius Victorino A. Fernandez is a 3rd-year college student currently studying AB Political Science at the University of Cebu.
