changed my logo

Just a quick note to say I’ve changed my peace “logo”. I’ve still got a dove, but this one also has the world in it. Just a bit more “global”, and I think that fits the blog.

Why (do) we fear world government(?)

Earlier this month I wrote a bit about world government, and I have invoked the topic from time to time.  I see it as closely connected to peace, because even if most people become saints (or close to it) we will need some institutions with global scope to handle problems of global scope, including differences among states and peoples.  However, a brief hop around the Internet reveals that the idea of WG scares many people, and it seems to me important to try to understand why.  When you wade through the various views (and some are very extreme), I think the main issue (xenophobia and conspiracy theories aside) is that most people assume world government will be centralized and oppressive–as many governments at the national level are or have been at one time.  We are not historically very far removed from national dictators (you could argue that there still are some, for that matter), and the idea of having a world dictator is not very attractive.

I can understand these concerns.  They indicate, among other things, that the theory and practice of “governance” at all levels needs to evolve and improve.  However, let me put on my political scientist’s “hat” for a moment, and remind everybody that there are many kinds of government, and many ways to govern.  Furthermore, the fearful image that the term “world government” evokes in many people is probably the least likely form that it could, in reality, take.  Consider, instead, the idea of a confederation . According to my old pal “the Wik“:

“Usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution, confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues such as defense, foreign affairs, or a common currency, with the central government being required to provide support for all members.”

This is a sort of minimalist system, which respects the principle of “subsidiarity”,  currently operating in the European Union.  Again, to quote “the Wikster“:

“Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralised competent authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.”

I personally think that a loose confederal system is already emerging at the global level, but that discussion will have to wait for a later post.  My point here is that WG is not necessarily any “scarier” than government at any other level.

What’s up with the ICJ?

I’ve written a bit about some of the major U.N. bodies, but I have not yet talked about the International Court of Justice. Many are surprised to learn that the ICJ exists, and others are surprised that it seems to play such a limited role in our conflict-ridden world.  In fact, the ICJ has rather specific functions as explained in this Wikipedia article:

“The International Court of Justice (known colloquially as the World Court or ICJ; French: Cour internationale de Justice) is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by member states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international organs, agencies and the UN General Assembly. The ICJ should not be confused with the International Criminal Court, which also potentially has “global” jurisdiction.”

The article explains in detail what the Court can and can’t do.  The basic “problem”, if you will, is that the Court has very limited jurisdiction.  The parties (states) to a conflict, have to agree (in most instances) to submit the case to the ICJ, and they can even withdraw from a case being considered, if they think the case is going against them.  It is possible for a state to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in regard to many issues, but few states have done this.  In fact, what many have done is accept this jurisdiction but then submit a list of exceptions which tends to be very broad.  Another issue, is that the ICJ is an institution of International Law understood as the law among states:  individuals and organizations cannot bring cases to the court.  The article cited above provides a list of the most common criticisms of the Court.

I think the ICJ reflects where humanity is in regard to many issues of peace and world order.  The need for a world court has been recognized, but the steps taken so far have been limited and, therefore, ineffective in many areas.  Still, the Court exists and if/when states begin to realize that lasting peace requires more effective global institutions with broader jurisdiction, it can become more central to the resolution of conflicts among states and peoples.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

You probably know of a few things done with the money Andrew Carnegie earned (sometimes by being fairly ruthless in his business practices I’ve heard).  This Endowment has been around for some time, has many programs and has centers in several major world cities. As explained on their “about” page:

“The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing cooperation between nations and promoting active international engagement by the United States. Founded in 1910, its work is nonpartisan and dedicated to achieving practical results.”

There is also a nice video about the Endowment’s new vision for its activities as a “Global Think Tank”.

To get an idea of the scope of their work, check out the Issues page .  One might wonder what, if anything, is not covered.  You can also see who are their experts, and find excellent articles on a wide variety of subjects using the search function on the site.

While nobody is “neutral”, my experience using publications from the Endowment indicates that they are serious about their commitment to peace and conflict resolution.  So, all in all, I think this site is a great resource, and…

IG barb says:  check it out!

Human Rights Education

As readers of this blog probably know, I’m convinced that one of the major keys to peace is education.  Here is a site that highlights and provides means to promote, human rights education (they are not entirely politically neutral, so the usual caveat applies). The PDHRE “about” page explains:

“Founded in 1988, the People’s Decade of Human Rights Education (PDHRE-International) is a non-profit, international service organization that works directly and indirectly with its network of affiliates — primarily women’s and social justice organizations — to develop and advance pedagogies for human rights education relevant to people’s daily lives in the context of their struggles for social and economic justice and democracy.”

Human rights are one way of understanding positive peace:  a peaceful world would be one in which human rights are realized.  Also, human rights are often misunderstood, if not to say, misrepresented.  For instance, you might have heard of the “Asian” critique of human rights, which basically suggests that human rights are Western in origin, and are too individualistic for Asian societies.  While, I would not altogether dismiss this, as it turns out there are very (very) few Asian countries that have not signed on to the main Human Rights documents. I mention this here primarily to indicate that there is a need for human rights education.  If you think about it, it is a bit strange that people learn so much about literature, science and other fields, but so little about their basic human rights.

The PDHRE site has many useful documents.  You might start with the manual “Understanding Human Rights” , which is available in many languages.  You will also see on the home page that they have a variety of articles dealing with such topics as freedom of belief, women, the information society, globalization and many others, from a Human Rights perspective.

IGbarb says:  check it out!

Peace Poster Contest

You have, no doubt, heard of the Rotary and Lion’s Clubs.  While I knew they were “service” organizations, I did not appreciate the extent to which they supported programs of international understanding and peace.  For instance, I just came across the Lion’s International Peace Poster Contest , which has been underway for some years already.  As the site explains:

“Each year, Lions clubs around the world proudly sponsor the Lions International Peace Poster Contest in local schools and youth groups. This Contest encourages young people worldwide to artistically express their visions of peace.”

You can see the winner for 2007-2008, for which the theme was “Peace Around the World” here ; and all the finalists here .  These are really quite good, and the comments are very touching.

The theme for 2008-2009 is “The Power of Peace”, and students aged 11, 12 or 13 on November 15 (ie last month) are eligible to participate.  The site gives more details, including the various deadlines that have to be met to be considered for a prize etc…

As you have probably figured out by now, I think this sort of thing is great.  In fact, I wish I’d done more of it when I was in school.  I can remember doing ‘trick or treat” for UNESCO one year at Halloween, but that is about it.

Kudos to the Lions for a great idea!

“Complaining” about peace

Erasmus, the 15th/16th century Dutch humanist and Catholic theologian, was quite a prolific writer.  I have just come across some excerpts from his The Complaint of Peace, published in 1521 .  The Amazon page where you can buy the book (not endorsing, just informing) sums it up well:

“He [Erasmust] lived at the time of the Renaissance, in the late 15th to early 16th centuries, a period of profound change, and a time when every European nation managed to go to war with another European nation. This book, THE COMPLAINT OF PEACE, grew from his reaction to his warlike times. His desire for peace permeates his work. THE COMPLAINT OF PEACE presents an oration by Lady Peace, who observes with sadness how unwelcome she is in all corners of Christendom, and builds to an appeal: “I appeal to all who call themselves Christians! I urge them, as they would manifest their sincerity, and preserve their consistency, to unite with one heart and one soul, in the abolition of war, and the establishment of perpetual and universal peace.” Now, 500 years later, Peace’s words still retain their relevance.”

Here are two other moving passages, in which you can feel Erasmus’s concern about his age and his passion for his theme (remember it is Lady Peace who is speaking):

“THOUGH I certainly deserve no ill treatment from mortals, yet if the insults and repulses I receive were attended with any advantage to them, I would content myself with lamenting in silence my own unmerited indignities and man’s injustice. But since, in driving me away from them, they remove the source of all human blessings, and let in a deluge of calamities on themselves, I am more inclined to bewail their misfortune, than complain of ill usage to myself; and I am reduced to the necessity of weeping over and commiserating those whom I wished to view rather as objects of indignation than of pity.” (the opening passage]

and…

“If I am truly that peace so extolled by God and by men; if I am really the source, the nourishing mother, the preserver and the protector of all good things in which heaven and earth abound; if, without me, no prosperity can endure here below; if nothing pure or holy, nothing that is agreeable to God or to men can be established on earth without my help; if, on the other hand, war is incontestably the essential cause of all the disasters which fall upon the universe and this plague withers at a glance everything that grows; if, because of war, all that grew and ripened in the course of the ages suddenly collapses and is turned into ruins; if war tears down everything that is maintained at the cost of the most painful efforts; if it destroys things that were most firmly established; if it poisons everything that is holy and everything that is sweet; if, in short, war is abominable to the point of annihilating all virtue, all goodliness in the hearts of men, and if nothing is more deadly for them, nothing more hateful to God than war — then, in the name of this immortal God I ask: who is capable of believing without great difficulty that those who instigate it, who barely possess the light of reason, whom one sees exerting themselves with such stubbornness, such fervor, such cunning, and at the cost of such effort and danger, to drive me away and pay so much for the overwhelming anxieties and the evils that result from war — who can believe that such persons are still truly men?”[note:  this is one sentence!]

Erasmus was, of course, a man of his times, and his primary concern was the bellicose behavior of Christian kings toward one another.  However, I think one can fairly extend the scope of his argument to all of humanity today; and that the basic lament of “Lady Peace” would, in many respects, be the same.

A “road” to peace

If you’ve had a look at the sub-title of this blog, you will note that I am interested in the “many aspects” of peace.  Well, I found what is for me a new “aspect”.  Thanks to Stumbleupon (great time waster and sometimes informative), I came across the site of the Freewayblogger .  If you go to the homepage, you will see that I have to inject my usual caveat (ie that I don’t necessarily endorse the views found on the page), right away 🙂 .

As you cannot miss, the idea here is that putting signs on or near highways is a good way to get a message (almost any kind of message) across; and I thought the “Operation:  Peace on Earth Page” was interesting for its variety of sign placements.  As the page points out:  “…nothing says ‘Peace on Earth’ quite like a whole bunch of signs saying ‘Peace on Earth’ “.  Also, I give the author credit for pointing out that this sort of effort might not be entirely legal, so please take this into consideration before starting your own “freeway blog.”

Still, all in all, IGbarb says:  check it out!

(Note: it doesn’t look like the site has been updated in a while…maybe the freewayblogger found out that not all law enforcement agreed with what she/he was doing 🙂 )

First post on “world government”

I received an interesting link from Simon, a Belgian friend.  This is, as you can see, an article from the Financial Times of the UK, which is not a paper known for its extreme and radical views.  I talked a bit about “global governance” in October when discussing the financial crisis, and in the FT article some of those ideas are mentioned.

The article starts with two often repeated points that most major problems are global, and that the means  (transportation and communication) to facilitate collective action in response to these problems exist.  However, it adds an important third point:

“…a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that [ie sometime in the next two centuries]. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.”

The article goes on to elaborate on this, and, of course, mentions the usual caveats.  These notwithstanding, the article highlights the fact that what is holding back the process is the “human element”.  The fact that politically and culturally most populations and governments are afraid, or at least profoundly skeptical, of world government, even presented in its softer guise of “global governance.”

The implications of this for peace are obvious.  A stronger U.N. system of collective security, as well as other more effective security and development oriented global institutions are probably necessary to achieve and consolidate peace.  However, for this to happen, peoples’ world views have to change to begin to see the “earth as one country”.  Much research in political science indicates that effective institutions (in this case global) must rest on supportive values (in this case also global).

Which again brings us back to education, and the media–and this article indicates that some of the media, at least, are starting to catch on.

Ethnic Conflict

I am sure everybody has heard of this.  However, there are many ways of understanding this unfortunately all too common phenomenon.  First, for background checkout old reliable (ie Wikipedia); and if you want to learn more, check out the great sources on the CRInfo page .  Though this is probably not necessary, here is the definition and explanation of significance from the Wikipedia article:  “An ethnic conflict or ethnic war is a war between ethnic groups often as a result of ethnic nationalism. They are of interest because of the apparent prevalence since the Cold War and because they frequently result in war crimes such as genocide”.

OK…my main concern today is with the “primordialist” explanation of ethnic conflict, and why it is limited, if not to say misleading.  The idea is that certain groups have deep-seated, long standing hostility toward each other, and that explains why there is so much violence associated with contention among ethic groups.  The news media have been full of this for decades; whether currently in Afghanistan, or among tribes in Africa; or some years ago in the Balkans.

At first glance, this makes sense.  Consider the Balkans again.  The standard explanation here was the “pressure cooker analogy”, which portrayed the tensions as always being there, but they were contained (as in a pressure cooker) during the Cold war and more or less inevitably exploded when that constraining pressure was removed.  The horrors of genocide and ethnic cleansing seem irrefutable proof of this argument.   However, what I never understood is:  if there was such hate among these groups, why was ethnic cleansing necessary?  Why were they intermixed, intermarried and routinely living and working together?  That doesn’t really make sense does it?  They should already have been separated.  

As far as I’m concerned it’s time to  throw out that old pressure cooker and look elsewhere for understanding.  In fact, it seems that there are two other factors which explain ethnic conflict more convincingly.  One is simply change, particularly, rapid change.  In a multi-ethnic society, stability is established through understandings and communication among the various groups.  When change happens, the understandings are called into question because there is a new context and communication to re-establish them becomes difficult.  No group wants to be taken advantage of, so all have an incentive to act first to maintain or improve their situation in a fluid environment.  Since valued resources (political, economic, security, etc…) are scarce and since communication channels for mediation are limited to non-existent, conflict, often violent, ensues in many cases.  It takes time and effort for communication to be re-established. 

The second factor, and this I have read applies in particular to Africa (where “tribalism” is thought to be endemic), is simply economic scarcity.  The reasoning here is not complex at all.  When times are hard we tend to fall back on those who are closest to us:  people from our home, who speak our language, who share our religion.   In a plural society, this may create a perceived “zero sum” game of competition among the various groups, which as we have seen can become quite desperate and violent.  There is much more to the African context, but what I want to emphasize is that there also diverse groups coexisted, traded and even lived in close proximity for very long periods of time without violence; which tends to undermine the primordialist argument.

So, while ethnocentrism certainly plays a role, it needs a “trigger” to become violent, and I am suggesting that the most common trigger is the fear and uncertainty produced by rapid social and political change and economic deprivation.