The Global Peace Index

The Global Peace Index is another very interesting initiative which has attracted a lot of high profile participation and support.  As my old friend Wikipedia explains:

“The Global Peace Index (GPI) is an attempt to measure the relative position of nations’ and regions’ peacefulness. It is maintained by the Institute for Economics and Peace and developed in consultation with an international panel of peace experts from peace institutes and think tanks, together with the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney, Australia with data analysed by the Economist Intelligence Unit.”

The GPI site explains further that:

“The index is composed of 24 qualitative and quantitative indicators from highly respected sources, which combine internal and external factors ranging from a nation’s level of military expenditure to its relations with neighbouring countries and the level of respect for human rights. “

Here are the rankings (you can see both 2008 and 2007, and you can see the direction and degree of change over the two periods) .  And for those of you of a methodological persuasion, the details of the index’s composition can be found here.  You can see that they’ve made a serious effort to include dimensions of both positive and negative peace.

Believe it or not, in an earlier lifetime I did a bit of quantitative research, and I think this is quite well done–though it is, and will probably be for the forseeable future, a work in progress.  There has been, apparently, some criticism of the indicators (have a look toward the bottom of the Wikipedia article), but, that is also potentially positive; and, after all, this is inherently controversial stuff.  Still, I think this is a very useful index to have, and the prestigious support it has received is all to the good.

IGbarb says:  check it out!

Article nine: an interesting idea

I just came across the site of the Global Article9 Campaign .  What is “article 9″ you wonder?  Well it refers to Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, which states:

“Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”

In the Wikipedia article about this subject, I also learned that the Italian constitution has a similar article; in this case article 11:

“Italy repudiates war as an instrument offending the liberty of the peoples and as a means for settling international disputes; it agrees to limitations of sovereignty where they are necessary to allow for a legal system of peace and justice between nations, provided the principle of reciprocity is guaranteed; it promotes and encourages international organizations furthering such ends.”

There is, apparently, an important difference between the Japanese and Italian articles.  The Japanese constitution is usually interpreted to mean that Japan cannot send troops outside the country for peace keeping, whereas the Italian constitution does not.

However, beyond such questions, these articles are extremely important.  Many have argued that a major reduction in international warfare requires that countries make such solid commitments and “enshrine” them in domestic law–preferably their constitutions.  In fact, one might wonder how a country can be seen as “peace loving”, if it is not wiling to make such a commitment.  This would have the added benefit of seeming more immediate and “real” to citizens, who often are not well informed about international treaties (such as the U.N. Charter).  It should also be noted, that such constitutional commitments to peace do not prevent a country from having either a significant internal police force or, if deemed necessary, fully adequate means to protect itself from the aggression of others.

So, one wonders, why have more states not moved in this direction?

(usual caveat:  IGbarb is not, with this post, necessarliy endorsing the goals of the Article9 campaign)

Is peace a human right?

I think most of us would agree that if there are such things as human rights–and, despite skepticism in certain quarters, there are–then peace should figure among them.  After all, the benefits of human rights (freedom, democracy, equality of economic opportunity, secure cultural identity, to mention just a few) would seem to depend on peace.  One of the first “victims” of violent conflict is human rights, as “security” becomes a community’s top priority, and the argument that some aspects of human rights have to be sacrified in the name of security becomes plausible and even compelling.

Oddly enough, if you look at the main human rights documents, peace, as such, is not mentioned explicitly as a right.  In an apparent effort to address this omission, the U.N. General Assembly passed, in 1984, the “Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace” , which reads:

“The General Assembly,
Reaffirming that the principal aim of the United Nations is the maintenance of
international peace and security,
Bearing in mind the fundamental principles of international law set forth in the Charter of
the United Nations,
Expressing the will and the aspirations of all peoples to eradicate war from the life of
mankind and, above all, to avert a world-wide nuclear catastrophe,
Convinced that life without war serves as the primary international prerequisite for the
material well-being, development and progress of countries, and for the full implementation
of the rights and fundamental human freedoms proclaimed by the United Nations,
Aware that in the nuclear age the establishment of a lasting peace on Earth represents the
primary condition for the preservation of human civilization and the survival of mankind,
Recognizing that the maintenance of a peaceful life for peoples is the sacred duty of each
State,
1. Solemnly proclaims that the peoples of our planet have a sacred right to peace;
2. Solemnly declares that the preservation of the right of peoples to peace and the
promotion of its implementation constitute a fundamental obligation of each State;
3. Emphasizes that ensuring the exercise of the right of peoples to peace demands that the
policies of States be directed towards the elimination of the threat of war, particularly nuclear
war, the renunciation of the use of force in international relations and the settlement of
international disputes by peaceful means on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations;
4. Appeals to all States and international organizations to do their utmost to assist in
implementing the right of peoples to peace through the adoption of appropriate measures at
both the national and the international level.”

Gap closed, right?  Yes and no.  Most, I think, would agree that this declaration gives great credibility to peace as a human right.  However, some analysts try to distinguish between what is a right of “peoples” and a human right; the former belonging somehow to a collective and the latter to the individual person.  I don’t find this very convincing, since you can find references to “peoples” throughout U.N. documents, including the Charter itself and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

So, is peace a human right?  I would say “yes”, but some of the legally-minded might still be debating its exact nature and status as a right.  Still, important steps in the right direction have been taken.

The Global Art Project for Peace

There are so many “gems” among the links you find on the Dayton Peace Museum page.  For instance, check out The Global Art Project .

“The mission of the Global Art Project (GAP) is to spread world peace by promoting tolerance and non-violence through art. The Project expresses the idea: We Are All One. People of all ages and from all around the world who choose to participate each create a work of art expressing their vision of global unity. The art is displayed locally in each participant’s community. Global Art Project then organizes an international exchange by matching participants group-to-group and individual-to-individual.”

There is a nice video that explains how the founder, Katherine Joston, got started.   She really started from square one.  Since she started, in 1994, there have been 90,000 participants from seven contients.

Once again, we see that the arts are a very effective way to promote peace, and that peace is really what people everywhere want.  It is really that simple.

Peace Museum in Dayton

I just came across the Dayton International Peace Museum , which calls itself “a space to make peace”.  This looks like a great place and if, somehow, I ever find myself in Dayton Ohio, I’m there.  The site is practically a peace education in itself.  Located in what is apparently quite an historic building, the Pollack house (that was once moved in one piece from one location to another) the museum:

“…houses permanent and rotating exhibits, a host of peace activities, and special events that focus on changing our culture of violence to a culture of peace.”

Check out their Peace Database . I certainly did not know that Thomas Jefferson had written a Peace Prayer.  There are so many resources here, I am definitely going to delve into them from time to time on these pages.  Just one last note for now:  if you scroll down near the bottom you will find a link to “Peace Quotes for a Culture of Peace” .  Just check that out for a few minutes (hours?)!

Anyway, this is a museum right, so what about the exhibits?  Well they look great.  They even have a Golden Rule room developing the important idea that all religions believe in this fundamental idea.

There is also a Summer Peace Camp for kids, which promotes the idea that “peace is fun”

IGbarb says:  check it out!!!

(watch this space for more on related themes to come)

Nukes and peace

I just wanted to share a few thoughts about nuclear weapons, since they have been in the news again (Iran, Russia, etc…).  However, I am not writing to critique any particular policy…just to offer a few observations.

First of all, nukes are really scary.  If you are not scared of nukes (sure there are other things to be scared of too…it’s not “either/or” of course) you should be.  I think its healthy to be scared of nukes.  Second, nukes are amazing. What do I mean?  Well, what is happening with a nuclear explosion?  Seems to me (and I got this off of a British TV mini series, the name of which escapes me) that a nuke is releasing the energy put in the creation at the big bang.   Of course, nuclear power is too, but in a more controlled way.  This is very primal…this is really getting to the heart of things…and we use this amazing force for weaponry?!  One might ask if this is a sign of a mature species.  One might wonder, if we haven’t had to be very lucky to have survived the nuclear age. You don’t think so?  Go read up on what we know now about the Cuban missile crisis (look at the section in this article called “Historical Notes”).  Just plain good luck and not great statesmanship got us through that one.  We didn’t know at the time that the Russian general on the ground had tactical/battlefield nuclear weapons and the authority to use them.  If Kennedy had chosen invasion rather than blockade…who knows what might have happened.

Some say nukes can’t be uninvented, so we just have to get used to them.  I’ve never understood this.  We have the ability to produce any number of vectors that could destroy life on the planet.  Does that mean they should be deployed and we should just get used to them?   Hmmmm…

OK…do you know how many nukes there were altogether during the Cold War?  Some tens of thousands/1  Do you know how many it would have taken to pretty much wipe out humanity (what with nuclear winter, and one thing or another) probably no more than a couple of hundred.  Why do you suppose there were so many?  Also remember that most of these were MIRVs (multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles) which means that a single missile might have about seven warheads…Again, one might question (as many have) whether rationality was really the order of the day…Hmmmm

So, are nukes compatible with positive peace?  I would say probably not, at least not over the long run.  Basically, nukes are about fear, distrust and the drive to dominate; none of which are compatible with stable peace.  So disarmament–not just of nukes, of course–has been correctly identified as a central part of building sustainable peace.  Also, btw, nukes and other sophisticated arms systems are very, very (not to say astronomically) expensive, and peace building efforts could certainly use the resources liberated by reducing arms expenditures.

Maria Montessori and peace education

“Averting war is the work of politicians; establishing peace is the work of education.“ Maria Montessori

If you have not heard of this wonderful woman run (don’t walk) to the Wikipedia article about her.  You might note in particular that through her pedagogical methds some of her “special ed” kids actually did better than “normal” kids on the Italian state exams!  That is amazing!  She had to be on to something.

What is of particular interest to us, is that she included dimensions of peace education from early on, and the various Montessori organizations have developed them in a wonderful way.  Look at this page, for instance.  The whole explanation is very informative, but here is one passage that I think gives a sense of how they approach peace ed.:

“As children become more aware of their inner peace and learn to relate harmoniously with others, they begin to develop sensitivity and awareness for people of other cultures and the global environment”

As you go through this document, you begin to see that a sense of inner peace is infused early on into children, which is then drawn upon to help them learn ways to foster outward peace in social relations.

Here is an overview of an actual Montesorri School’s peace education curriculum.  Again, it becomes clear that personal fulfillment is inseparably tied to inner and outer peace, and more broadly to living in harmony will all aspects of creation.

Here is a great page of links on the subject, including information about Gandhi’s visit with Maria Montessori.

IGbarb says:  check it out!

Two of my favorite war/peace songs

A few years back when I was teaching a class on regional conflicts, and multimedia computers were first available in classrooms, I tried for a while to find a nice class “theme song”.  I found some great tracks, which I will share from time to time (not for downloading of course, that would not be legal ).  One that my students really liked was “The War Song” by Boy George and Culture Club.  The song starts with what is the refrain:

“War war is stupid
And people are stupid
And love means nothing
In some strange quarters”

(full lyrics available here)

What appealed to the students, I think was that as the course went on, and we talked about Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the Balkans, etc… it became clearer and clearer that war really was stupid, and people are stupid if they let themselves be manipulated into violence by leaders with very dark agendas.

One of my personal favorites is “Civil War” by Guns N’ Roses (and I am not a big fan of the group, by any means).  The song starts with what I think is part of the famous monologue from the film “Cool Hand Luke” about “What we have here is a failure to communicate…” and then launches into a sometimes soft and lyrical, sometimes heavy metal indictment of violent conflict.  Here is one verse I really like:

“My hands are tied
The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
For the love of God and our human rights
And all these things are swept aside
By bloody hands time can’t deny
And are washed away by your genocide
And history hides the lies of our civil wars”

…and then ends with Axel Rose asking : “What’s so civil ’bout war anyway”  (what a great one-liner!…full lyrics here ).

There are many, many other great peace songs (yes, of course, including “Blowin’ in the Wind” ), so please share some you like.

On Democratic Peace

I just came across the Wikipedia article on “Democratic peace theory”.  It is very long and detailed for this site, and someone even mentioned at the top that it might be inappropriate for Wikipedia.  Anyhow, if you go through it (have courage, you can make it) you will see that there has been a lot of effort invested in trying to find out if the democratic peace hypothesis–ie that “democracies don’t go to war with each other”– is quantitatively provable.  As you will also see, this involves being very specific by what you mean by “war” and what you mean by “democracy”.

This is an interesting question, but I can’t help but feel that it misses the point a bit.  First of all, let’s consider the origins of this idea.  As the article explains, Immanuel Kant believed that democracy, by letting people have more impact on government decisions, should act as a brake on international war, since the people (from whom come the soldiers after all) would only be willing to fight in cases of self defense. This seemed to suggest that democracies should be comparatively less war like than other types of governments, but that has not been shown to be the case historically.  However, it does seem to be the case that democracies don’t fight quite so much with each other, and that is the direction that democratic peace research has taken.

OK…but wasn’t Kant onto something in any event?  I mean, at first glance, this is a reasonable idea, isn’t it? The problem with his reasoning is, as Aristotle and others have pointed out, democracy can degenerate into demagoguery, or rabble-rousing; and this might account for some of the adventurist wars of democracies (the Spanish America war comes to mind in this regard).  But demagogues, have to have something to work with…the public has to have the right “buttons”–prejudices and fears–to push.  Which indicates to me that democratic institutions alone are not enough because the society has to have at least some elements of what UNESCO has called a “culture of peace”:

“The key-values of this culture are tolerance, solidarity, sharing and respect of every individual’s rights—the principle of pluralism that ensures and upholds the freedom of opinion—that strives to prevent conflict by tackling it at its source, including new non-military threats to peace and security such as exclusion, extreme poverty and environmental degradation. Finally, it seeks to solve problems through dialogue, negotiation and mediation, so that war and violence are no longer possible. (This paragraph takes its inspiration from the Dossier d’information de l’UNESCO, CAB-99/Ws/4, page 14–though I actually found this passage cited here )

So, unless their populations are to some degree egalitarian, tolerant and predisposed to non-violent conflict resolution (where possible) it stands to reason that democracies can be whipped up into bellicose frenzies from time to time, when people are afraid and the proposed enemy is seen as alien and/or less than human.

Thoughts?

Just thinking back…

It’s election day in the U.S.A., and yours truly is non-partisan (which is not to say I don’t have a personal preference).  Still, the fact that there is a good chance that someone of African extraction may be elected President, and that it might just as well have been a woman as him, makes me think back on all that I’ve witnessed in my lifetime (there’s a point to this, I promise…and sorry if this sounds a bit like a certain Billy Joel song )

John Glen going into space (heck I can remember the furor over Sputnik).

The Cuban missile crisis (and the look of worry on my father’s face after Kennedy’s speech).

Where I was when Kennedy was shot (it seemed like our Shop teacher was blaming us, he was so angry and upset)…and the assassinations of Bobby and MLK.

Later, there was the counter culture and, yes, I was at Woodstock  (I know what you are are thinking…sorry…”don’t ask, don’t tell” )

The end of the Cold War

…and so much more, and so much more…

When I get in this kind of mood I often think of the Paul Simon song “The Boy in the Bubble”.  I’d heard it many times, and then one day I think I “got” it, and since then the refrain is often in my head:

“These are the days of miracle and wonder,
This is the long distance call,
The way the camera follows us in slo-mo
The way we look to us all,
The way we look to a distant constellation
That’s dying in a corner of the sky,
These are the days of miracle and wonder
And don’t cry baby don’t cry
Don’t cry”

…and now a “black” man may become President!  Even if he doesn’t, he got this far.  Even if his government is not a major success, still, it happened.  The symbolic importance is unmeasurable.

Sooooooo….if all this, why not peace?  Real peace, positive peace…in these days of “miracle and wonder”, this perhaps most basic need can surely be fulfilled.  The only real questions are how long will it take, and what will be the cost.