An Alliance I like

I was just looking at the Global Alliance for Ministries and Departments of Peace website .    Their “About” page explains what they are doing this way:

“The Global Alliance for Ministries and Departments of Peace is a worldwide community of civil society campaigns, organisations, committed citizens and elected and appointed government officials from over 30 countries (so far) who;

are calling and working for the establishment, in their governments and in governments around the world, of ministries and departments of peace that reflect and support the emergence of a global culture of peace and non-violence; and

subscribe to the organisational  and conflict resolution principles stated below.

The purpose of the Global Alliance is to enable and facilitate the capacity of its network to share and provide one another with resources, encouragement, and support for existing and new national campaigns for Ministries and Departments of Peace. It also seeks, through the combined activities of the Global Alliance and its broader networks, to increase global understanding amongst civil societies and governments around the world of the need for Ministries and Departments of Peace.”

This page goes on to discuss their organization’s principles (such as Good Will, Inclusivity, Clarity and Simplicity…and many more), and to explain their principles of  conflict resolution, which I think merit being cited at length:

“The Global Alliance for Ministries and Departments of Peace Campaign calls for an approach to resolving conflict, internationally and domestically that is rooted in the understanding that conflict must be addressed from a commitment to meeting the fundamental needs of all humanity for security, mutual respect and justice. Such an approach, which we might call the “peace approach” are founded on the following basic principles:

·         Bottom-Up: Peace building from below to develop a new architecture of peace based upon the aspirations of civil societies.

·         Partnership: Civil society working in partnership with governments to reveal possibilities for dialogue and conflict transformation in a given situation – domestic as well as international.

·         Inclusion: Engaging and empowering all stakeholders in a given conflict transformation.

·         Listening: Respectfully and empathetically listening to and recognising the legitimacy and needs of all parties.

·         Root Causes: Responding to the most fundamental human needs of sustenance, identity, security, and recognition.

·         Creativity: Opening space for the emergence of various possible outcomes to a given conflict and their potential for transformation.

·         Healing: Recognising mutual healing as a key to conflict transformation.

·         Modelling: In our attitudes, behaviours, life, and work, modelling the peace we seek in the world and taking responsibility for peaceful outcomes.”

I was interested to learn that two countries already have Ministries/Departments of Peace:  Nepal and the Solomon Islands.

It looks like these people are serious…

IGBarb says:  more grease to their collective elbows!

G-8 to G-more?

As readers of this blog probably know by now, I think the evolution of global governance is closely related to the emergence of peace on this planet (see this post, for example).  I have also concluded that watching the ups and downs of the G-8 is one interesting way to monitor possible changes in GG.   In that regard, have a look at this article from Time magaine about the recent summit .

“There was a time when eight was enough: The annual meetings of the leaders of the world’s eight most industrialized nations (well, seven, plus Russia, which while lagging well behind in the economic stakes, was deemed a politically wise addition back in the mid-1990s) were once the unquestioned epicenter of global economic and military might. The G-8 summits staged in scenic spots around the world offered an opportunity for the key leaders of the Northern Hemisphere to chart the direction of the world economy, for thousands of protesters to gather and voice to Quixotically challenge that direction amid clouds of tear gas.

But things have changed as the G-8’s power has been challenged — not by the anti-globalization protesters, but by the rising economic and political influence of the countries shut out of the exclusive club. The guest list for this week’s summit in Italy made clear that the core members — the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Canada and Russia — are no longer capable of addressing the key global problems among themselves. After only a half-day of meeting in the central Italian host city of L’Aquila, the G8 expanded its table to include the so-called G5 emerging economies — China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico. After all, no discussion of consequence on the direction of the world economy, or on curbing global warming, could be held without them. Then Egypt was added as a “plus one.” Then came three additional European countries, Spain, the Netherlands, and Turkey; members of the Major Economies Forum (17 countries) and four more African countries.”

President Obama, in his typically eloquent way (that man can speechify!) put it nicely:  ” ‘There was a time when Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin could shape the world in one meeting. Those days are over,” he said. “The world is more complex today. Billions of people have found their voice, and seek their own measure of prosperity and self-determination in every corner of the planet.’ “

And so it goes…the reality of a globalizing world with more and more pressing border-spanning issues is surely but slowly (oh so slowly it seems at times) understood, and even manages to get on the world political agenda, despite vested interests that don’t want change.

IGbarb says:  watch this space!

Good news, of sorts

President Obama is in Russia (you can find this in the media, squeezed between information about Michael Jackson’s funeral, etc… ).  He has concluded an agreement with Russian President Medvedev on reducing nuclear weapons.   One article I found put it this way:

“BARACK Obama yesterday thrashed out a deal which could see Russia and the US scrap about 1000 nuclear warheads each.
Obama, determined to rebuild relations strained by Russia’s war with Georgia and the US’s European missile defence plans, signed a preliminary agreement with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev at a Moscow summit.
The deal commits the two countries to cutting their nuclear warhead arsenals to as few as 1500 each, the lowest levels of any US-Russia arms control deal.
The agreement was signed by the two presidents after about three hours of talks at the Kremlin and is designed to guide negotiators working on a replacement for the strategic arms control reduction treaty (START), which expires in December.
Under current treaties, each country is allowed a maximum of 2200 warheads and 1600 launch vehicles.
But experts believe both sides have more than that and the new targets will effectively mean them giving up about 1000 warheads.”

If you refer back to an earlier post on this blog about nuclear weapons, you might feel inclined to say “yes, but…they still have enough ‘firepower’ to destroy the planet several times over”, and you would, according to my non-expert calculation be right.

So, how does one interpret this new agreement?  In the context of recent (ie moderately tense) U.S.-Russian relations it is probably a good thing:  a contribution to stability, and at least short term peace (refer back to the article cited above to see all the areas where ties were strengthened between the countries).    However, as discussed here , the basic problem of nuclear arms as symbols of power and prestige in international relations remains, and it seems to me that any new momentum towards disarmament created by this agreement has to be “broadened and deepened” if the perceived importance of nukes to national security is to change, and the world to become a (somewhat) safer place.  This would require, IMHO, a significant change in the very concept of “security”…but that is another story…stay tuned!

the fourth on the fifth

I probably should have written this yesterday, but hey, it was a holiday, right?    Anyhow, I just wanted to reflect a bit on the U.S. Declaration of Independence.  This is always a bit risky, since the document and the people who signed it are regarded as sacred, or close to it, by many U.S. citizens.   Still, I think there is something to be gained by looking at a few of its basic ideas.

Most people are familiar with this passage (I think my mother made me memorize it at one point in my childhood):

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

As is well documented elsewhere, what is expressed here is Lockean “liberalism” (not to be confused with the modern version of welfare liberalism).  You can learn about liberalism and its variants in this quite thorough Wikipedia article .  How and why liberalism came to exist in the late 18th and then 19th centuries is an interesting story, but one that is too long for this blog post.  One way to summarize its emergence would be that the old artistocratic order was coming to an end in Europe, and the new bourgeousie wanted freedom from the old institutions to pursue making money.  Ok, that explanation might be just a tad to the left, but remember the founders of America were gentleman farmers tired of paying taxes imposed from Britain.  Also, what seems to be a historical reference above to the idea:  “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”  is no such thing.  This is not how governments had been established heretofore, though later in the 19th century you could argue that this was the case.  So, in a sense, this is clearly an ideological statement:  a group with a political agenda (perhaps a very good one–don’t get me wrong), was “spinning” past events to justify their largely unprecedented act of rebellion.

However, the problem with liberalism, from my point of view, is that it is rather negative.  It is quite eloquent about what it doesn’t want–government interference in the private sphere of human activity–but it doesn’t say much about what should go on in that sphere.  We can probably agree on the need for “life”, and “liberty” (within some limits), but what in the world is the “pursuit of happiness”?    So, to me, as great a document as the Declaration was in historical context, today we can see that something is lacking.  The Declaration is referring to individual “happiness”, but I think we can see today that individual happiness and collective well-being need to exist in a dynamic equilibrium:  you can’t sacrifice one for the other.

This brings me back to the idea of positive peace and human rights.   I can’t see how there could be generalized human happiness unless the kinds of values represented in the human rights covenants are extended to populations, and these, while predominantly individual and “liberal”, also include some social protection of the vulnerable by governments.

So, to sum up, if in the 18th and 19th centuries societies threw off the “yoke of oppression”, the question of what to do with our freedom–including how to consolidate and preserve it–is still very much with us.    In that sense, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the human rights regime to which it gave rise, seems to me to be the necessary fulfillment and extension of all that is best in the Declaration of Independence.

(Just) a touch of Michael Jackson

Work with me here  .   Despite all the comparisons, MJ was much more of a Global Citizen than “the King”, and if you take the time to read and think about the lyrics of some of his songs (I said “some”) you will see this.   Personally, I was very impressed with “Black or White” when it came out.  The video was very well done, and the lyrics had an important message about racial equality and understanding….and more.

First, consider the neatly put racial message:

“I Said If
You’re Thinkin’ Of
Being My Baby
It Don’t Matter If You’re Black Or White

I Said If
You’re Thinkin’ Of
Being My Brother
It Don’t Matter If You’re
Black Or White”

…which also has a little bite:

“Don’t Tell Me You Agree With Me
When I Saw You Kicking Dirt In My Eye”

…and the refrain over and over again:

“It’s Black, It’s White
It’s Tough For You
To Get By
It’s Black , It’s White…”

But for somebody who teaches about world affairs and is interested in peace and conflict resolution, the part I really like is the rap sequence by LTB:

“Protection
For Gangs, Clubs
And Nations
Causing Grief In
Human Relations
It’s A Turf War
On A Global Scale
I’d Rather Hear Both Sides
Of The Tale
See, It’s Not About Races
Just Places
Faces
Where Your Blood
Comes From
Is Where Your Space Is
I’ve Seen The Bright
Get Duller
I’m Not Going To Spend
My Life Being A Color” (emphasis added; full lyrics available here )

Great Stuff!  I even used to quote this in some of my graduate classes!

So, in all the “sound and fury” about MJ’s passing, try to keep in mind that he was, at times, a keen observer of the world around him, its ills and its potential for positive change.

Back again, and a few interesting links

Hello Readership,

I was away for a few days and took a short break from blogging.  This may happen again in August, depending on how “laid back” I am feeling while on vacation.  I was in the U.S. for a week (in the Northeast), and as always it was interesting to get back in touch with America and things American.

OK…back to “work.”  Just before leaving, I came across the Tamera:  Healing Biotope site, which seemed  worth sharing.  Here is their explanation of what they are doing:

“What is Tamera?
“Those who don`t want war need a vision for peace”

The “Healing Biotope 1 Tamera” in Southern Portugal is an international training and experimental site for the development of peace research villages and healing biotopes worldwide. Under the motto “Think Locally, Act Globally,” approximately 200 people live, work and study in Tamera. Tamera’s aim is to develop an example of a model for a nonviolent co-existence of people and between people and nature. The main tasks of Tamera are: the education of young people within the “Monte Cerro” peace study, the building of a village model called “Solar Village” which produces its own food and solar energy, and global networking under the name of GRACE.”

You can go here to learn more about the movement’s founders and history (they’ve been around since 1995).  One of the founders, sociologist and psychoanalyst Dieter Duhn, explains the raison d’etre of Tamera this way:

“The patterns of order of the human society shall agree with the patterns of life and creation. Without harmony between biosphere and socio-sphere, between human and universal life, the healing of the earth will no longer be possible. This is why it is necessary to build up model settlements and future communities where this harmony can be investigated and put into practice. People are needed who are willing to place their lives at the service of this task.”

If you click around you will see that they are actively involved in peace education, including the creation of “Peace Villages”.

I think there is much to be learned here, and I find the idea of providing an example of peaceful living very insightful.  Many people don’t believe in peace because they have never seen it in action…so why not show them?

IGbarb says:  check it out!

(though usual caveats apply:  just informin’ not promotin’)

The Culture of Peace News Network

I’ve learned writing this blog that while many dreadful things are happening in the world, there are also many positive responses, and the number seeems to be growing.  However, one doesn’t hear much about them–you have to look.   One place to look is The Culture of Peace News Network:

“CPNN, the Culture of Peace News Network, is a space where readers exchange information about events, experiences, books, music, and web news that promote a culture of peace. It is a self-sustaining network in which You, the reader, are invited to write a news report and contribute to its discussion. CPNN is a project of the United Nations International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World.”

I really like the interactive map on the home page.  You just click on a region and you get a list of the reports for that area.  I clicked on Africa and learned a number of things about which I had no idea.  For instance, I certainly did not know there was a Shalom Centre for Africa in Rwanda.  I then clicked on Latin America and learned that there were people Working for a Culture of Peace in the Valley of the Cauca, Colombia .    The author of this second report, Ramiro Evalle Yanes, writes:

“During the past seven years I have been directing a project called the PEACE CHAIR (”CÁTEDRA DE PAZ”) in the department of the Valley of the Cauca, Colombia. Its objective is the construction of a peace culture, based on respect for human rights, the fulfillment of duties, the founding of a citizen culture and the peaceful resolution of conflicts in the schools.

The project is directed at 200,000 students of pre-school, primary and baccalaureate. With my work team at the Secretariat of Education (we are 3), we have prepared 9000 teachers to be multipliers of the project in each school. All the teachers have received all the training, and they go back to their schools, bringing the project to their colleagues and to the students.

One of the special missions is to establish mediation centers in each school. We enter in stage six of the program. These centers involve some teachers but they must be formed by the students themselves from the third to the eleventh grade. The students acquire training, using material that we provide to them, and little by little they acquire a peace culture.”

He goes on to describe how the project had to deal with the local narco-trafficker (they refused the money and assistance he offered ).  Amazing story!

Each report also poses questions for discussion and encourages readers to talk things over.

This is an impressive use of new media to promote a Culture of Peace.

IGbarb says:  Check it out!

Check out the “Peace Geek” !

Peace Geek is an informative blog.   As the blogger her/himself describes it, Peace Geek presents:  “Insightful analysis of random news stories related to violence and nonviolence in the U.S. and abroad, with an emphasis on what can be done to make things better (with some occasional humor and random acts of journalism mixed in).”

As you might have noticed, my recent post about Sarasota FLA came from there.  Here’s a list of some of the other stories on the site just this month:

* “Soldiers of Peace” – CSN&Y
* Needed: Peace Heroes
* Act Now to Reduce Youth Violence
* The Line Between “Free Speech” and “Irresponsible  Speech
* Twin Cities Premier: “Soldiers of Peace”
* Rep. Donna Edwards Supports a Department of Peace
* What is Real National Security?
* The Culture of Availability

The article on “What is Real National Security” is very interesting, indeed, and I would suggest you read it.  It contains both “good” and “bad” news.  The good news is that some people in high places seem to be getting the message that planes and tanks cannot address many (perhaps most) of the real security challenges of the 21st century.  The bad news is that the bureaucratic structures responsible for defining and pursuing security are still very much in a 20th century mindset.   As Peace Geek argues:

“In the face of our own ignorance, obstinance and partisan fear-mongering, how are we to move beyond the outdated systems, structures and beliefs that block us from understanding that human security–not just for Americans, but for everyone–is the only thing that will truly keep us safe?”

As somebody once said:  “the first step to finding a solution is to correctly formulate the problem” (or words to that effect ); and I think Peace Geek as put the matter clearly and succinctly.

Go Sarasota!

I ran across the following story here :

“Sarasota, Florida, Supports a U.S. Department of Peace
(Sarasota, FL- June 1, 2009)

On a 3-2 vote, the Sarasota City Commission approved resolution 09R-2099 to support legislation to create a U.S. Department of Peace (H.R. 808) at their June 1 meeting. By passing this resolution, Sarasota (pop. 53,000) joins a long list of other cities around the country – including Detroit, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Chicago and Los Angeles – that are supporting this visionary legislation and asking their elected representatives to make it law. Overall, cities that have endorsed the Department of Peace legislation represent over 14 million citizens!

Before the vote, local activists Augie Schmitz (co-founder of the SW Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice) and Alex Coe (from the Alliance for Peace) voiced their support for H.R. 808 and informed the Commission about other peacebuilding activities going on locally. Ms. Coe had attended the Peace Alliance conference in D.C. in March, and had returned to Sarasota determined to better understand the local nonviolence organizations and look for ways to get existing organizations working together for maximum impact. Mr. Schmitz told the Commission about an upcoming forum designed to engage the community in defining programs that will help improve the lives of citizens by reducing violence, including programs to provide conflict resolution skills for children.

Mayor Richard Clapp spoke of the resolution as a statement of intent to Sarasota citizens and to the Congressional delegation that the City of Sarasota values efforts to reduce violence and make the community a model of peaceful existence. Commissioner Suzanne Atwell also spoke in favor of the resolution, adding that it was important for Sarasota to get behind the movement and recognize the symbolism of this type of legislation. Commissioner Fredd Atkins also supported the resolution. (You can send a note to these Commissioners thanking them for supporting the legislation by clicking on their names above.)

The two dissenting votes came from Commissioners Kirschner and Turner, largely along the lines of not wanting to tell Washington what to do. However, both Commissioners spoke in support of the local efforts to promote peace and nonviolence.”

You can see a video of the Commission meeting here (you will have to wait a while for the matter to come up–it is under “Unfinished business”).

This is interesting in and of itself (it’s a long time since I’ve seen local government in action).  It also shows that even city government can “think globally and act locally”.  And lest you think that what goes on in Sarasota is not very important, remember that one of the most powerful Democratic politicians of all time, Congressman “Tip” O’Neill , once said “all politics is local”.  Seems to me that the more peace becomes a concern in local politics, the closer we are to it.

The Peace Media Clearinghouse

This is an interesting joint project of the United States Institute of Peace and Georgetown University’s Conflict Resolution Program .   The Clearinghouse is:  “…a collection of key audio and visual resources and best practices related to conflict management.”

As the “About” page elaborates:

“The clearinghouse provides a central site where educators, students, organizations, and the community of practitioners working in the conflict management field can access multimedia materials that support conflict analysis and prevention, conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation.

These resources can aid professionals in training and educational settings as well as in various communities around the world. For example, these media can be used to highlight examples of peacemaking around the world, as tools to apply conflict analysis frameworks, or to enhance the understanding of conflict regions. The materials in the database range from free online videos to feature length radio programs and films about conflict zones. It also includes a variety of other multimedia like computer games, poster campaigns, and theater. The system allows users to search by media type, subject area, and country. The clearinghouse items are drawn from conflict related-media from around the world, and have been developed by a wide range of talent from non-governmental organizations, academia, and the private sector. Some were developed with a peacemaking goal in mind, while others are simply explorations of conflicts and related issues. They can be useful to those trying to understand or manage conflict.

In recent years, there has been an explosion of work in this area. The clearinghouse includes a section for “teaching guides” that have been developed to show people how to use the films in a training context. Additionally, we hope that increased dialogue on how to create and use multimedia will also allow for a distillation of lessons learned and development of best practices so as to advance the professionalism of this new field.”

The current site is still “in beta”, and you can see they also have big plans for the future development of the Clearinghouse.

This is exactly what we need to teach about peace and conflict resolution.

IGbarb says: an “explosion” of work in this area?   Hmmm…maybe not the greatest image , but more grease to your elbow anyway!