U.S.-U.N. relations: an interesting site

If this subject interests you, you might check out The Better World Campaign.  Besides the George Clooney video I mentioned earlier, there is a short video (you can see the video on youtube here–check out some of the links to other interesting videos, found on the right) making the case that peacekeeping is cheaper than unilateral action in regard to conflict. There are a number of other interesting features including a page with information (from quite credible sources, such as the Brookings Institution) about U.N. related issues in the context of the 2008 elections, many links to useful resources , etc…

U.S.-U.N. relations is an important topic for many reasons, and this is just one of the many sites you can find that deal with it, directly or indirectly. For some understandable, and some not so easily understandable, reasons the U.N. is not as well regarded in the U.S. as it once was. After all, in the context of the immediate post-World War II world, the U.S. was the driving force in creating the organization and in drafting its Charter. It is, therefore, difficult to imagine an effective or reformed U.N. without increased and consistent U.S. support. As I wrote in an earlier post, educational and public information efforts are necessary in this regard, and I think the kind of information found on this site could be useful.

P.S. More information of this kind can be found on the official site of the United Nations Association of the U.S.A. which has partnered with The Better World Campaign to promote U.N. related issues in the U.S.

Peace Magazine

If those of you who have been by here more than once suspect I just Google a lot to find topics to write about, you are correct to some extent. However, I do this primarily to increase my own knowledge of what is happening in the name of peace. For instance, did you know you could subscribe to a magazine about peace; a magazine that has been around (in one form or another) since 1983! Here’s the basic info blurb about the magazine:

“Journalists, educators, and activists keep up to date on the important work of peacemaking by reading this popular and respected magazine. Four times a year we publish articles, news stories, book and film reviews, letters, and a Peace Crossword. We discuss disarmament; conflict resolution; nonviolent sanctions; peace institutions (e.g. the United Nations and the World Court); conflicts and crises around the world; profiles of activists and researchers; and controversies about development, population, and environmental protection.

Our stories are technically accurate, yet intelligible to any reader with a general education and some interest in international affairs and global security.

Peace Magazine is published by Canadian Disarmament Information Service (CANDIS) — a nonprofit organization. We rely heavily on volunteers, including our associate editors who select and commission articles for each issue.” (you can find the whole info page here)

This is a subscription, print and paper, magazine, but you can find archives up to the prevoius year (ie 2007 at the moment) on line.

After looking through the list of topics in the archives, and skimming a few articles, I would say this looks like a good source of information (in fact, I might well use it as a source from time to time–got to get beyond the Wikipedia quick fix ), which tries to be balanced (which is not to say, necessarily, politically neutral).

Oh, did I mention it was published in Canada?

IGbarb says: Check it out!

(usual caveat: just endorsing the utility as an information source, not any political perspective)

The U.N. redux

I received a comment on my previous post about the U.N. which made me think that a little more background (spread out over several posts) on what the world organization is, and is not, might be useful.  First of all, the Charter is something of a contradiction.  If you read the Preamble, you find the following:

“WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,”

Then in Chapter One, Article One we find the purposes of the organization:

” 1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. “

All this, taken at face value, is an agenda for a world government, since it would require very developed institutions and significant power and authority to realize these goals. However, in Chapter One, Article Two we learn that: ” The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” In other words, one could say that the founders of the U.N. did not really (for various reasons) endow the organization with the means to achieve its ends.

In case you thought peace studies was just a “Western” thing…

I just came across an interesting place: the Center for Security and Peace Studies, Gadjah Mada University – Yogyakarta, Indonesia (emphasis added) (and their site is right here on WordPress!).  I know nothing about the place besides what I have seen on the internet, but they would seem to have a very up to date orientation to their subject(s):

“The center has three main programs, those are security sector reform, conflict resolution, and peace building which now focuses on seven issues area of concern; (1) ethnic-religious conflict and multiculturalism; (2) self-determination and regional autonomy; (3) public policy conflict and governance; (4) security sector reform; (5) civil society and democratization; (6) crisis management; and (7) human rights advocacy.”

Sure, you could argue that the interest in PCR (peace and conflict resolution) in this region is not surprising, given the conflicts in the last decades in places like Aceh and East Timor. But, just between you and me, that is always the case: interest in peace studies always spikes when there are problems that are either nearby or high profile in the media, or both. Sad perhaps, but true.

Reforming the United Nations

As you might know, the United Nations was created to “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”. However, at the same time it is based on the sovereign equality of states. Therefore, it is not clear the organization can really achieve its prime objective as currently designed. As the Charter explains, the Security Council has responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, but the five permanent members of the Council (do you know who they are?) have what is popularly known as the “veto”, so no decisions can be taken against their will. This was probably a good idea in some ways, because it would be hard to imagine any Security Council “peace enforcement” action being very effective against the United States, Russia or China and even against either Britain or France (though that might not be totally impossible).

However, today, after decolonization, the end of the Cold War and many other important events, the whole Charter has definitely started to show its age (there are actually references to “enemy powers”), and reform has been talked about more and more. Here is the official U.N. page of the subject. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, you will see that the list of areas needing reform is quite long, and, to say the least, very challenging.

The Global Policy Forum’s page on this subject starts with: “The UN needs reform. On that everyone agrees. But there is sharp disagreement on what kind of reform is needed and for what purpose.” And there lies the “rub”. As Roland Robertson the sociologist (and one of the first people to write about globalization, btw) once said, the world is united but not integrated. It seems to me making a more relevant and (at least to some degree) more powerful global organization is essential to really guarantee international peace and security and to have any chance at all of saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war.

However, there is still much work to be done to bring this about. As I have said before, I think one important part of a solution to this problem lies in education. Currently, students graduate from high school with only a minimal understanding of what the U.N. is, how it works, and what needs to be done to make it more effective; and few really acquire the values and perspective necessary to function as responsible world citizens. An alternative is the evolving field of Peace Education, and many organizations and institutes are working on curricula that highlight issues related to world order as well as conflict resolution skills. We’ll get back to peace education, but in the meantime here is a U.N. site that lays out a rudimentary curriculum. Did you learn that in school? I don’t remember that I did.

Some more peace monuments

A few posts ago, I mentioned the peace arch. Today, I found a very interesting site which featured 12 “peace monuments”, including the Arch. The site had already, apparently, done a page on “incredible monuments dedicated to war” , and on the newer page asks readers to compare the monuments to peace with the monuments to war.

The peace monuments are very interesting architecturally, including for instance, a Peace Pagoda in London. However, several of them are still very closely linked to war, such as the Friedens Engel (Peace Angel) in Munich, which was “…built in 1896-99 to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Treaty of Versailles (1871) that ended the Franco-German war of 1870-71″; or the Peace Monument in Washington D.C., whch was “…built to commemorate the naval death during the American Civil War”–and which stands on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol.

My two favorites, as you might guess, are the Wall for Peace in Paris and the Peace Tower of St. Petersburg, both of which were the work of “artist Clara Halter and architect Jean-Michel Wilmotte”

I’m thinking that traveling around to see these monuments, and others like them, might be an interesting kind of tourism!.

Some Buddhist ideas about peace.

Despite the teachings about peace found in nearly all religious traditions, some religions have been, for various reasons, involved in (if not directly the cause of) many of the worst historical and contemporary violent conflicts. However, among the older religions, the Buddhist tradition is the exception in this regard. I know of no major wars that were fought in the name of Buddhism…do you? Therefore, I think the teachings of Buddhism in regard to peace are worth our attention.

Here’s the text of a lecture given by Ron Epstein at San Franciso St. Univ. some years ago, which presents a nice summary of Buddhist teachings on peace. In one section he explains that:

“…force and violence, even to the level of killing, never solves anything. Killing generates fear and anger, which generates more killing, more fear, and more anger, in a vicious cycle without end.”

If you look further into Buddhist teachings you will find the idea that the world is impermanent and that suffering comes from trying to hold on to what is impermanent (ie attachment). The key to true freedom and enlightenment is detachment and compassion for others (and for their suffering) and for all life. From this derives a way of life which involves purifying ones’ thoughts and actions and serving others in the spirit of compassion.

Looking at Buddhist peace “praxis”, I think we can say that this tradition promotes the idea–discussed in an earlier post–that outer peace can only come through the conscious search for and practice of inner peace. Though, again, the latter implies an active commitment to service.

Here is another essay (by a former military officier), which applies Buddhist teachings to the problem war and the promotion of peace.

(note again: ideas found in the above linked articles are not endorsed by IGbarb, except as being interesting)

Blog Action Day: Poverty and Peace!

Today thousands of bloggers all over the world are blogging about poverty and what to do about it. This is this year’s theme for Blog Action Day. Pop over there to see it as it happens.

Muhammad Yunus, the Father of micro credit scheme the Grameen Bank and Nobel Peace Prize winner, certainly thinks poverty is a threat to peace. He said, when accepting the prize that:

” By giving us this prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has given important support to the proposition that peace is inextricably linked to poverty. Poverty is a threat to peace.”
(you can read all his remarks here ).

As you might be aware micro credit schemes have been successfully applied in many contexts, and, while not a panacea, have shown that the poor (and certainly poor women) are, contrary to received ideas, not bad credit risks, that they do want to improve their condition and that they are highly motivated to do so, if only given a bit of assistance. This also demonstrates that development aid does not necessarily have to be very high tech (at least at first) or to even put a lot of pressure on already strapped first world national budgets (it never has actually). Rather a minimum of infrastructure and a minimum of individual support injected into societies where there is already an ethos of collective action can be very effective. This is definitely one area where thinking outside the box, or maybe refusing to accept that the “box” even exists can reveal new approaches and a basis for hope that poverty is not an intractable problem.

One can learn from crises

I know the roller coaster world economic situation is very disturbing, for many reasons. However, I found some encouraging signs in the midst of the seeming chaos. It appeared that rather quickly world leaders understood the need for working together, for unity, for some kind of coordinated action. Here are just a few references to the “u” word: MSNBC , Euronews , and VOA (Voice of America). I’m sure you can find many more.

You see, this is what some scholars call an indicator of burgeoning “global governance”. People are afraid of world government (though you could argue that a basic confederal system is already in place through the U.N.–but that’s another story); but at the same time, it is glaringly obvious that anything resembling peace and prosperity on this planet will require much closer policy coordination from all the prominent “players”–and that doesn’t just mean governments! Consider this: have you read any interesting science fiction in which the advanced civilzation of the future does not include the political and economic unity (in some form–not all of which are very attractive admittedly) of individual planets, and then the planets unification in some sort of federation (or empire, if the Dark Side gains the upper hand ). Seems to me unity, and the infrastructure to keep it in tact _is_ the future. Or to put it more simply: no unity, not much of a future.

Worth thinking about maybe.

The Peace Arch

Am I the last person in the world to learn about this? This is very cool. As the Wikipedia (OK, OK I like Wikipedia for quick reference…who doesn’t?) article explains:

“The Peace Arch is a monument situated on the Canada – United States border between the communities of Blaine, Washington and Surrey, British Columbia. The Peace Arch, which stands 20.5 meters (67.2 ft) tall, was built by Sam Hill and dedicated in September of 1921, and commemorates the signing of the Treaty of Ghent in 1814. The monument is built on the exact United States – Canada boundary, between Interstate 5 and Highway 99, in the grass median between the northbound and southbound lanes. The Peace Arch has the flags of the U.S. and Canada mounted on its crown, and two inscriptions on both sides of its frieze. The inscription on the U.S. side of the Peace Arch reads “Children of a common mother”, and the words on the Canadian side read “Brethren dwelling together in unity”. Within the arch, each side has an iron gate hinged on either side of the border with an inscription above reading “May these gates never be closed”. Peace Arch Park consists of Peace Arch Provincial Park on the Canadian side and Peace Arch State Park on the American side of the border. Within the park is a major border crossing which has never closed, symbolising a long history of peace between the two nations.”

On the site of the “United States Canada Peace Anniversary Association” you can find a very interesting and detailed history of the Arch, which includes a video with some very interesting footage about the Arch and related events.

Finally, here is a nice photo of the arch.

I know we tend to take the U.S.-Canada border–the longest unfortified border in the world–for granted (though maybe less so in these days of the War on Terror). Still, I think this arch symbolizes the fact that borders don’t have to be such terrible barriers, if the will to open them (both physically and psychologically) exists. I think it would be great if more initiatives of this kind were undertaken across nation-state borders. Maybe there are some already. Do you know of any?