Hi, thanks for your comments! I had initially considered "people to people" as the primary level of analysis, although "government to government" certainly comes into play. And then there's "people to government" that you allude to in describing reconciliation.

After having more time to think about this issue, it has subsequently occurred to me where the breakdown may lie. There are many (most?) situations where government is simply unresponsive to the will of the people. Perhaps it is a "macho factor". I'm also thinking that governments act in the short-term self-interest of their people. I like to think that the system has our best interests at heart, but one can never be sure with systems - they tend to take on a life of their own.

Rwanda comes to mind, where people on the outside request their governments to act, but nothing is done, simply because there's nothing to be gained by doing so. I'm starting to draw a parallel between this situation and the documentary: The Corporation.

Does communication make a difference? Sure, if it's loud enough. But we shouldn't have to be yelling for peace, should we?

With so many interests competing in the market, YES, we need to yell for peace...otherwise other pettier interests will take over the focus and direct people to self-interest issues and we will again forget that peace requires a focus on the common good, above and beyond petty individual interests.

As you can say, the free flow of information facilitates dialogue, mutual understanding and reconciliation....Let's have the concepts straight here, as I do with my students first day of class: Which level of analysis are we talking about here?
1) People to people
2) Government to government

If you look at popular movements towards reconciliation (and I can recall two efforts for reconciliation between argentines and Falkland Islanders, separated by the '82 Falklands War) they can prosper up to a certain point. It get to a moment when, regardless the amount of people mobilized, that never is enough, everybody is looking up to state level decisions that need to me made to oficialize such peace process.
Governments are always behind and there is not a "Ministry of Reconciliation" ready to act, but State and country level interests uphold. Little to discuss here, but reconciliation is always derided as a "soft" process with no immediate results, and who wants to be associated with a process whose results will be seen after the long term?
In my experience, there is always a "macho factor" in the resistance to yield to peacemaking processes that can't be marketed as a "win" for the ruling group. As long as we have this mindset, simple citizens will have to begin tearing down the Berlin walls with their own hands to send the message to their own governments that times have changed and that they have to accept a person-to-person; people to people wish to make peace.