The Peace Cup

Though I follow a number of sports (basketball, golf and to some extent baseball, tennis and American football) I am not very well informed about footbal (ie soccer)–in fact, what I know comes primarily from my wife, who is a huge fan.   Anyhow, I just noticed that the Peace Cup for 2009 is underway, and I thought to myself “hmmm, what’s that about?”.

Well Wikipedia explains that:

“Since 2003 the Peace Cup is being held every two years, the Sunmoon Peace Football Foundation invites football clubs from various nations. South Korea’s Seongnam Ilhwa Chunma participates in every tournament as both the club and foundation are sponsored by the same organiztion, the Unification Church. From 2003 to 2007, the Peace Cup was played between eight clubs, divided into two groups of four teams. The winner of each group qualified for the final, which was played in a single match.”

If you look around the Cups site (linked above) you will get a sense of the various effortts to promote peace associated with the Cup.   For instance, on the “Introduction” page The Chairman of the Peace Cup organizing committee, Dr. Chung Hwan Kwak says the following:

“The motivation behind the competition is to create a platform to showcase the very best of football being connected to the larger purpose of peace and development.  Clearly we understand that playing football cannot create peace when there is on-going actual conflict and that football, as with other sports, can be and has been wrongly used.

But we are completely convinced that with the right educational aspects being incorporated into the footbal experience FIFA President Joseph Blatter’s words will come true that, “Even if you can’t turn every child into a talented player, you can’t help but turn them into better people.” “

An associated organization, The Peace Dream Foundation , seems to be doing a number of things along the lines of “bringing people together through football”, and that makes perfect sense to me, particularly among young people from rival communities.  On this page, under the heading “Peace Dream Message”  you can see a number of statements by prominent people about the importance of the Cup and the Foundation (there are also some of these on the Cup’s page, but they seem to be in Spanish).

I “get” this, I think.  Peace has to start and exist on the grass roots level to be long lasting.  Sports operate on all levels of society–from the local football club to Real Madrid–so it makes sense to me to link the two to promote the values of peace.

(P.S. Starting tomorrow I’ll be away on vacation for some days, so my posting might be a bit erratic till the second week of August)

more “Detours”

Well, I guess this is Sheryl Crow week, because I think another track from the same album I mentioned yesterday (ie “Detours”) has an important message.  Check out the lyrics of “Out of our Heads”:

“If you feel you wanna fight me
There’s a chain around your mind
When something is holding you tightly
What is real is so hard to find

Losing babies to genocide
Oh where’s the meaning in that plight
Can’t you see that we’ve really bought into
Every word they proclaimed and every lie, oh

If we could only get out of our heads, out of our heads
And into our hearts
If we could only get out of our heads, out of our heads
And into our hearts

Someone’s feeding on your anger
Someone’s been whispering in your ear
You’ve seen his face before
You’ve been played before
These aren’t the words you need to hear

Through the dawn of darkness blindly
You have blood upon your hands
All the world will treat you kindly
But only the heart can understand, oh understand

If we could only get out of our heads, out of our heads
And into our hearts
Children of Abraham lay down your fears, swallow your
Tears and look to your heart

If we could only get out of our heads, out of our heads
And into our hearts
Children of Abraham lay down your fears, swallow your
Tears and look to your heart

Every man is his own prophet
Oh every prophet just a man
I say all the women stand up, say yes to themselves
Teach your children best you can

Let every man bow to the best in himself
We’re not killing any more
We’re the wisest ones, everybody listen
‘Cause you can’t fight this feeling any more, oh anymore

If we could only get out of our heads, out of our heads
And into our hearts
Children of Abraham lay down your fears, swallow your
Tears and look to your heart

If we could only get out of our heads, out of our heads
And into our hearts
Children of Abraham lay down your fears, swallow your
Tears and look to your heart”

Though I don’t necessarily subscribe to some of the possible theological implications of certain verses, the basic message is solid:  religion is not there to make us xenophobic or violent, and people of faith should not let themselves be manipulated by leaders with dark agendas.

“If you feel you wanna fight me
There’s a chain around your mind”

Good stuff!

Check out a video of a live performance on the BBC:

Once again we find that great truths often come through popular culture…or as Bruce Springsteen once sang

“We learned more from a 3-minute record, baby
Than we ever learned in school” (from “No Surrender”)

as the Crow sings

I’m not necessarily a big Sheryl Crowe fan, however, after listening to it several times I think her track “Peace be Upon Us” (from the Album “Detours”) has an important message.  Here are the lyrics:

“Walking down the street of dreams
Eating from the fruits of life
Tripping out on the smallest things
Trying to reach the light, trying to reach the light

Pick the key up off the floor
Put the key into the lock
Turn the lock, open up the door
Look at all you’ve got, look at all you’ve got

All the sinners and saints
All you creatures of faith
Don’t need to be afraid
If you know what I mean
Let me hear you say

Peace be upon us,
Peace be upon us,
Be upon us all
Peace be upon us,
Peace be upon us,
Be upon us all

If we speak in tongues of love
But we kill in the name of God
How can we profess to own his name
And still be so lost and still be so lost

The world will turn even when we’re gone
The earth will host many souls to come
Who will write the history, tales of
Wisemen, villains and innocent ones

All you shepherds and sheep
When you wake from your sleep
It will be a new day
If you know what I mean
Let me hear you say

Peace be upon us,
Peace be upon us,
Be upon us all
Peace be upon us,
Peace be upon us,
Be upon us all

As-salaamu alykum
Wa-alaykum assalaam
Assalaam alykum
Wa-alaykum assalaam

(The meek shall inherit the earth

Peace be upon us,
Peace be upon us,
Be upon us all
As-salaamu alykum
Wa-alaykum assalaam
Assalaam alykum
Wa-alaykum assalaam
Peace be upon us,
Peace be upon us,
Be upon us all”

As indicated above the Arabic section means “the meek shall inherit the earth”.

You can see the song being performed live here:

I read that some have interpreted the “us” in the title to be code for “U.S.”.  Either way, this is a nice message, and the music brings it home to the heart as well as the mind.

a few reflections

I know, I know…we hear about war often enough; and this seems to confirm the pessimistic view that violent conflict will always be with us.  However, if you stop and think about it, world events can be seen as confirming the approach of peace, rather than negating it.  How you may wonder.  Well consider the following idea.  The most widely held “theory” of international relations, called oddly enough “Realism” , seems to suggest that all states are power seeking and potential aggressors against all other states (or at least their proximate rivals).  However, if we consider the current configuration of international relations, war is becoming largely unthinkable (if not altogether impossible) within more and more groups of states.  One need only think of the states of North America (and remember the U.S. invaded Mexico over and over again in past centuries), or, most obviously, the European Union (the region where the entire theory and practice of power politics was created in the past–this should never be forgotten).   One might add to this most of the Caribbean, more and more of Central and South America (the occasional soccer “war”, notwithstanding ) ,  and probably Southeast Asia as well.  There are all sorts of good reasons for this trend; such as the need for closer economic ties among states in a region.  Once such ties are in place, and profitable, their disruption becomes a disincentive to violent conflict among the states involved.

There are certainly troubled regions, but even in some of these, events are not necessarily going according to the Realist view.  For instance, much of the international community has worked to prevent another outbreak of violent conflict between India and Pakistan.  You might feel that this could still happen (and it could); but when one considers all the elements that make this situation unstable (past history of conflict, territorial dispute involving an essential water resource, religious differences, terrorism, nuclear weapons and on and on…) it is rather amazing that the whole thing hasn’t blown up again in recent times.

It has become a commonplace to say that in our era international conflict has been greatly reduced while intranational or communal conflict has increased (which may or may not be true, depending on who you read).  However, the possible signifigance of this development is often overlooked.   One way to view this is that the world is, in a sense, “settling”–meaning that fewer and fewer international borders are in dispute (a frequent cause of war in the past), and this can only be a good thing.

So, all I am trying to say is that the world really has changed, and these changes can be seen as creating conditions conducive at least to “negative” peace (ie the absence of violent conflict among states).   But, as we have argued previously, negative peace is a “space” which needs to be filled by positive peace–human rights, good governance, equitable development, etc…–if violent conflict is to be reduced overall in human affairs.

The SG speaks out about…the SG!

I ran across this BBC article yesterday. It’s a pretty good read, and I thought it was quite fair.

“Halfway through his first term in office, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is receiving mixed reviews, but how does he think he’s doing in the job?

The former South Korean foreign minister succeeded Kofi Annan in January 2007 for five years.

Courteous and thoughtful, Ban Ki-moon describes himself as a harmoniser and a consensus builder.

For the past two-and-a-half years he has been trying to help resolve the world’s many conflicts against a geo-political backdrop where harmony and consensus are sorely lacking.”

It seems some (ie some journalists) find him too low key and have even gone so far as to call him the “Invisible Man”.   All in all, I think the article does a pretty good job of refuting this idea, and in putting the SG’s first half term in perspective.  However, as usual, there are bigger issues involved here.  First, despite being the visible “head” of the world organization the SG’s real powers (he does have a few) are rather limited (go read the U.N. Charter if you don’t believe me–it’s not long ).  To be blunt, the real power in the organization is in the Security Council, and actually in its five permanent members (Charter again…hint, hint–it really isn’t very long ) .

But beyond that, as the article indicates to some extent, effective diplomacy is often “quiet diplomacy”.  Why is this?  Because if you want governments to consider new (and hopefully more peace-oriented) policies, you don’t necessarily want to do this in the glare of the media all the time.  A government would most often reject the idea that their former policies were wrong if asked by reporters, and efforts to get them to move in a new direction would be stymied.  So,  good diplomacy is not often done in a fish bowel.  Many of the great achievements in diplomacy have been prepared by sometimes lengthy periods of secret talks.

So, while I am not taking a position on Mr. Moon, I think there is much to be said for his style, which indicates one viable way to operate between the Scylla and Charybdis of world public opinion on one side and the vested interests of the SC permanent members on the other.

H1N1: it really is a small world (after all)

H1N1 is still around and is probably going to hit big in the Fall.    As it happens it is only the latest in a serious of scares about “global pandemics” etc…; and this, along with the transnational spread of global crime, seems to be one of the scarier aspects of globalization.  You can learn more than you probably every wanted to about “globalization and disease” here.

As this article explains:

“In the current era of globalization the world is more interdependent than at any other time. Efficient and inexpensive transportation has left few places inaccessible, and increased global trade in agricultural products has brought more and more people into contact with animal diseases that have subsequently jumped species barriers.”

I should think it is obvious that if viruses and microbes don’t respect national borders, one has to think of the whole world as one system to find effective public health measures to control such outbreaks.   This article makes the point neatly:

“Experts grappling with these diseases no longer consider that the pursuit of a strictly national public health policy is adequate. The need for global cooperation increases the importance of international law in the public health arena.”

So, briefly put, the globalization of infectious disease is a Global Governance issue; and as we have discussed previously, effective global governance implies peace, since countries at war are not likely to cooperate effectively or at all to find solutions to even urgent transnational issues affecting them.

Once again, we see that “war is death” and “peace is life”.

Even on the links!

A year ago I started to play golf again (I figured basketball was just a touch too much for a senior citizen!).   I am, in fact, sitting here right now watching the British Open (go Tom Watson!).  Anyhow, I thought “why not?”, and googled Golf and Peace.  To be honest, there weren’t many very interesting “hits”.  However, I did happen upon the “Peace Portal Golf Course” .

The course looks to be a nice, normal golf course and is not the center of any special peace activities I could find.  However, there is a bit of history that explains the name.  Some time ago, I wrote about the Peace Arch: ” 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.”  Well, as it turns out:

“Peace Portal Golf Course was envisioned by Sam Hill, a Seattle lawyer also noted for constructing the International Peace Arch which marks the gateway between British Columbia and Washington state in 1921. Clubhouse and course construction began in 1927 and charter members formed a club at the fledging course in 1928 which celebrated it’s 80th Anniversary in 2008.” (see the whole history here ) .  Hill  “…hoped to make Peace Portal Golf Club a golf course of international note.  When he traveled, he would hand out world globes to people he met”.

This got me wondering about Mr. Hill, and it turns out he was quite a “character” (learn more here ), and even has a museum !

Hill, was, apparently, of Quaker origin and this may explain in part his concern about healing the wounds of World War I and promoting peace in North America.

I don’t know if you have to be eccentric to innovate as Hill did, but I guess it helps

(btw, he was not, it seems,  the source of the expression “What in the Sam Hill?  That refers to an earlier Mr. Hill)

Whirled Peace!

This is old news, but I just learned about it.  Apparently just over a year ago Ben and Jerry’s Ice cream got involved with the Lennon Foundation and Peace One Day to help promote awareness of U.N. Day.  Part of their invovlement was to create a John Lennon tribute flavor called “Imagine Whirled Peace” (I love that name!), which was “…a caramel and sweet cream-based ice cream with toffee cookies and chocolate peace signs”.

The article I found about this goes on to explain:

“When Ben & Jerry’s decided to engage in a campaign about peace, we couldn’t think of a better person to exemplify the message than John Lennon. Through his art and lyrics he imagined a world without war and asked us all to ‘Give Peace a Chance,’” said Jerry Greenfield co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s. “We’re urging people to log on to PeaceOneDay.org and to make their own commitment to Peace Day.”

To launch the product and the joint effort, the three organizations hosted a modern-day “Peace Bed-In” to recognize leaders in today’s movement, an homage to the “Bed-in For Peace” hosted by John Lennon and Yoko Ono  thirty-nine years ago to the day of the launch. The legendary event inspired an entire generation of people from around the world to think about peace during a critical time of war in 1969.

Participating in the current event, along with company founder Greenfield, were Maggie Syllenhaal, award-winning actress and demonstrated peace activist; Jeremy Gilley, founder of Peace One Day and director/producer/writer of the Cannes-debuted film, “The Day After Peace”; and Roy Kerwood, original photographer from Lennon’s 1969 Montreal Bed-in. The bed-in took place at the Ben & Jerry’s Times Square Scoop.

“As a company that has supported peace initiatives throughout our thirty year history, Ben & Jerry’s is thrilled to continue its commitment through a joint effort with Peace One Day,” said Walt Freese, Chief Euphoria Officer of Ben & Jerry’s. “Founder Jeremy Gilley, has worked tirelessly to help create a UN recognized annual day of global ceasefire and non-violence, now universally known as Peace Day. We applaud his efforts and are excited to join his mission to encourage people to recognize and celebrate Peace Day, and to support Peace One Day’s event on September 21st.”

Yoko Ono’s inspirational statement read by Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield expressed her continued support and vision for the campaign: “Make peace–a dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality.”

To further its peace-focused campaign, Ben & Jerry’s held a nationwide search to identify modern-day peace activists who embody the values set forth by Lennon through their work to create positive change in the world. Today, the search culminated with the announcement of two individuals whom were chosen to represent the next generation of peace pioneers.

The individuals recognized for their unique efforts to further the cause of peace and justice, were Aaron Voldman, co-founder of the Student Peace Alliance, a national student and youth movement for a culture and Department of Peace and Nonviolence; and Robert Kent, founder of the Peace Camp Initiative, a program that provides summer camp experiences for war-torn children from Israel and Palestine. Maggie Gyllenhaal and Jerry Greenfield presented the winners with a $10,000 donation from Ben & Jerry’s to the respective peace organizations.”

All to the good, all to the good.  Why don’t more corporations do things like this?

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!