On dialogue

Earlier this month I mentioned dialogue in a post.  I think that dialogue is really the only way to get beyond many of the problems and issues that cause conflict.  The “Dialogue among Civilizations” got some publicity a few years ago, but seems to have been pushed off the page by subsequent events.  However, there is much in the thinking behind this initiative that is valuable, and should not be obscured by contemporary crises and violence.  The central idea was that dialogue should be the basis of a new international relations, based on exchange among diverse cultures, and this strikes me as a fundamentally sound idea.

One of my colleagues wrote the following about dialogue a few years ago,and I think this gets the heart of the matter:

“As each culture struggles to find its place and identity in a globalized world we are
discovering that each has held many solutions to the questions others have long been asking.  Dialogue is key to unearthing these “hidden treasures”; once we are able to unlock the secrets of effective communication and pierce through the walls of misperception and mistrust we can gather these valuable insights, lessons and opportunities that enrich us all.  A new and mutually rewarding relationship has the potential to emerge where accumulated  wisdom and insights for necessary progress provide the basis of a valued coexistence. Such  a relationship would be premised not on ideas of cultural superiority, but on mutual respect  and openness to cultural eclecticism and, ultimately, synthesis.” (from this co-authored article, which I’ve cited before)

In other words, solutions to most problems are out there, but they are distributed among various culture and peoples.  We need to find ways to exchange and to be inspired by each other’s knowledge and insight.

BTW, 2001 was the International Year for the Dialogue among Civilizations.  Hopefully we can keep it going.

Mediation for Peace

In one of my classes we are discussing the role of NGOs in conflict situations, and it so happens I just came across the site of The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (the HD Centre) , which looks to be a very committed and well established actor in conflict resolution.  As their homepage explains:

“The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (the HD Centre) is an independent organisation, based in Geneva, Switzerland, dedicated to helping improve the global response to armed conflict.

It attempts to achieve this by mediating between warring parties and providing support to the broader mediation community. The HD Centre is driven by humanitarian values and its ultimate goal to reduce the consequences of violent conflict, improve security, and ultimately contribute to the peaceful resolution of conflict.

It maintains a neutral stance towards the warring parties that it mediates between and, in order to maintain its impartiality it is funded by a variety of governments, private foundations and philanthropists.”

If you click around the site you will see that they both have mediation projects (in places like Myanmar, Kenya, Timor, etc…) and do a number of quite innovative things to support mediation worldwide.  Have a look at the Oslo Forum page, to get an idea of the scope of these efforts.

Generally, the site is very rich, including interesting publications and quite up to date information on the Centre’s activities.

As this very comprehensive article from Wikipedia points out, mediation is an important area of conflict manangement and resolution, since it facilitates communication and opens dialogue among parties who are very likely not talking to each other at a time when communication is essential to stop violence and begin to get past conflict.  Organizations such as the HD Centre provide a service of great value in improving the practice of mediation, in carrying out mediation, and in participating and strengthening the network of international mediators.

Living through a general strike

Where I live we are in the second week of a general strike.  Most businesses and local government administrations are paralyzed.  Gas stations are closed till further notice.  Schools are closed till further notice.  The particular circumstances that gave rise to this movement derive from both the current global financial crisis and the longer term history of the region (I think this is probably the case for all major social crises) and I don’t want to discuss them here.

However, the strike has gotten me thinking about the broader issue of unions, labor relations, class conflict, etc…and how all these factors are affected by globalization.  Watching what is going on locally, and having lived through some other long term strikes elsewhere, it seems to me that two elements are essential to get past such crises and to ultimately reduce their frequency.  First, what the Europeans call the “social partners”–unions, owners and government–have to have a working relationship of trust, and good channels of communication.   However, the history of industrial relations in many countries has led to a high level of (often deserved) mistrust.  Again, the past weighs heavily on the present.  Secondly, once there is a minimum of trust, there has to be a shift in mindset from the problem being the other side, to the problem being the conditions that produced the crisis.  As Fischer and Ury have elaborated in detail, you have to separate people from issues.  You can think of this as moving away from one group being on one side of the table confronting the other group on the other side of the table, to having both groups on the same side of the table facing a statement of the issues to be resolved.

This, and related ideas and techniques, are important because they show there is never a real impasse unless one or both sides wants there to be an impasse.  There is always a way forward.  However, if one or both sides sees the conflict as zero sum–what I win you lose, and vice versa–then power relations will be the determining factor.  In the short run the more powerful side will prevail, probably causing havoc in the meantime, giving rise to resentment on the part of the losers, and thus setting the stage for subsequent rounds of confrontation when the losers have regrouped.  It is hard to see how society will benefit from this over the long run (I acknowledge that the Marxists have a different perspective, but that would be too long to discuss in this post).

So, like so many other issues, real conflict resolution and real peace among the actors, depends on good faith and an understanding that we are “in this thing together”.  If there is long history of distrust, time will inevitably have to be invested in confidence building and even reconciliation in extreme cases, before all can move forward together.  To me this indicates that peace among the social partners is possible, but that there are no shortcuts since, as in so many areas, past conflict and violence have created a climate of insecurity and hostility that has to be diffused before real and lasting solutions to concrete problems can be found.

Peace Invocations

Here are a few peace invocations I have found.  There are many very beautiful ones, and I will share more from time to time.

First something from the Buddhist tradition:

“Peace to all beings
Whether near or far
Known or unknown
Real or imaginary
Visible or invisible
Born or yet to be born.
May all beings
Be well and happy
And free from fear.

Peace to all beings
Within and beyond the imagination
In the world of ideas
In the world of memories
And in the world of dreams.
May all beings
Be well and happy
And free from fear.

Peace in all elements
Of earth, air, fire and water
Fulfilled in space
Peace.

Peace in all universes
From the smallest cells in our bodies
To the greatest galaxies in space
Peace
And light rising

Peace to all beings
Within each being here
To those beings that have been in the past
And to those beings that are yet to be in the future
May all beings
Within each being here
Be well and happy
And free from fear.”

Now something from the Hindu tradition:

“There is peace in the sky, there is peace on earth. There is peace in the heavans, there is peace in this world. There is peace in the waters, there is peace on land. There is peace within the plants, animals, flowers, insects and herbs. There is peace with men, and peace with women and children. There is peace with the Gods and peace with the Goddesses. May this all-pervading peace enter into us and permeate us to the very core of our beings. Om peace, peace, peace.”

And finally, something from Gaelic:

“Deep peace I breathe into you.
Oh weariness here!
Oh ache here!

Deep peace, a soft white dove to you,
Deep peace, a quiet rain to you,
Deep peace, an ebbing wave to you!

Deep peace, red wind of the east from you,
Deep peace, grey wind of the west to you,
Deep peace, dark wind of the north to you,
Deep peace, blue wind of the south to you!

Deep peace, pure red of the flame to you,
Deep peace, pure white of the moon to you,
Deep peace, pure green of the grass to you,
Deep peace, pure brown of the earth to you,
Deep peace, pure grey of the dew to you,
Deep peace, pure blue of the sky to you!

Deep peace of the running wave to you,
Deep peace of the flowing air to you,
Deep peace of the quiet earth to you,
Deep peace of the sleeping stones to you!

Deep peace of the Yellow Shepherd to you,
Deep peace of the Wandering Shepherdess to you,
Deep peace of the Flock of Stars to you,
Deep peace from the Son of Peace to you,
Deep peace from the Heart of Mary to you,
From Brigid of the Mantle,
Deep peace, deep peace!

And with the kindness of the Haughty Father,
Peace!

In the name of the Three who are One,
Peace!

And by the will of the King of the Elements,
Peace! Peace!”

To believe in and promote peace, it seems to me you have to be able to draw on sources of inspiration that help you to feel peace and be peaceful.   Invocations such as these help you to recenter and calm the mind and heart.  You then know that peace is possible because you are experiencing it.

The Dalai Lama on Peace

The 14th Dalai Lama is an interesting and somewhat controversial figure.  I found a site which presented some of his ideas about peace.  The page is called “A Human Approach to Peace”, and that expresses well his outlook. Here are a few excerpts:

“Science and technology, though capable of creating immeasurable material comfort, cannot replace the age-old spiritual and humanitarian values that have largely shaped world civilization, in all its national forms, as we know it today. No one can deny the unprecedented material benefit of science and technology, but our basic human problems remain; we are still faced with the same, if not more, suffering, fear, and tension. Thus it is only logical to try to strike a balance between material developments on the one hand and the development of spiritual, human values on the other. In order to bring about this great adjustment, we need to revive our humanitarian values.”

“I do not speak as a Buddhist or even as a Tibetan. Nor do I speak as an expert on international politics (though I unavoidably comment on these matters). Rather, I speak simply as a human being, as an upholder of the humanitarian values that are the bedrock not only of Mahayana Buddhism but of all the great world religions. From this perspective I share with you my personal outlook – that:

1. Universal humanitarianism is essential to solve global problems;
2. Compassion is the pillar of world peace;
3. All world religions are already for world peace in this way, as are all humanitarians of whatever ideology;
4. Each individual has a universal responsibility to shape institutions to serve human needs.”

“As one brought up in the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, I feel that love and compassion are the moral fabric of world peace. Let me first define what I mean by compassion. When you have pity or compassion for a very poor person, you are showing sympathy because he or she is poor; your compassion is based on altruistic considerations. On the other hand, love towards your wife, your husband, your children, or a close friend is usually based on attachment. When your attachment changes, your kindness also changes; it may disappear. This is not true love. Real love is not based on attachment, but on altruism. In this case your compassion will remain as a humane response to suffering as long as beings continue to suffer.”

IMHO, the Buddhist tradition, and its accessible formulation by the Dalai Lama has a lot to teach us about expanding our affective and humanitarian “horizons”, and about the sources of violence at all levels.  While some might dismiss the four points of the Dalai Lama’s personal outlook as simplistic or idealistic, I think they merit serious reflexion and indicate, once again, that esoteric, inner peace is inextricably linked with exoteric, outer peace.

[Note:  no endorsement of the Dala’i Lama’s political engagements implied]

Capitalism and peace

Where I live there is a general strike (over the cost of living, and related matters) going on, so this topic came to mind.  Many (for instance Marx) have argued that economics, or the system of production in a country (or the world) is the cause of the most basic conflicts; ie those among the classes.  Others (ie economic liberals) have argued that free market capitalism is the engine of wealth, progress and, therefore, peace.  At the moment, in the midst of a world economic crisis, it is easy to fault capitalism and to see it as a system that favors the accumulation of wealth by some, and the exploitation of others.  This seems even more probable in our era of “globalization” when it is clear that capital is much more mobile than labor, since capital moves around the planet at the speed of light, while labour, obviously, cannot be so mobile.

Capitalism is an economic system, a tool.  It can be used for selfish ends, to create and perpetuate social inequality. While complete social equality is neither practical nor desirable, extremes of wealth and poverty are certainly linked to social tensions that lead to violent conflict.  However, the impact of capitalism on society depends on decisions by individuals and groups, decisions informed by values.  In recent decades we have seen the emergence of “conscious capitalism” or “conscious business”, which highlights the need for ecological concerns and questions of social justice and welfare to figure into business planning and production.  The brief Wikipedia article on the topic explains”

“Conscious Business is a term used to describe a business enterprise that seeks to be aware of the effects of its actions, and to consciously affect human beings and the environment in a beneficial way. Conscious Business also refers to a movement towards “Value’s based” economic value, where “Value’s” represent social and environmental concerns globally as well as locally.”

There are many views about this topic, and I am not, as usual, promoting a specific agenda.  However, I think it is important to understand that in the economic realm, as in all other areas, we (understood as both producers and consumers) have choice, and our values (and the degree of commitment we have to our values) influence these choices.  It strikes me as very positive that we are now more aware of the conditions in the factories that produce, for example, our clothes, and that we are concerned about what happens to the waste produced by those, and other factories, even if they are located far away.

In other words, the values that facilitate and sustain peace, need to find expression in our economic activity, and there is mounting evidence that even short term prosperity can be compatible with the promotion of these values.

Some more on nonviolence

Today is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.day (probably everybody knows that this year!), so I thought it would be timely to look into some of Dr. King’s ideas about nonviolence.  Here is an interesting summary of his views (not from Wikipedia this time 🙂 ) . The connection with Gandhi is clear and interesting:

“While at the seminary, King also read about Gandhi and his teachings. King was struck by the concept of satyagraha, which means truth-force or love-force. He realized that ‘the Christian doctrine of love operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence was one of the most potent weapons available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.” ‘  As this site explains, it took some time for Dr. King to be convinced that Gandhi’s methods could work in the U.S…but once he was committed the world changed.

Dr. King wrote about “six principles of nonviolence”, but a few hops around the Net reveal that they are not always listed in exactly the same way.  Here is a short summary from the King Center:

“Fundamental tenets of Dr. King’s philosophy of nonviolence described in his first book, Stride Toward Freedom. The six principles include: (1.) Nonviolence is not passive, but requires courage; (2.) Nonviolence seeks reconciliation, not defeat of an adversary; (3.) Nonviolent action is directed at eliminating evil, not destroying an evil-doer; (4.) A willingness to accept suffering for the cause, if necessary, but never to inflict it; (5.) A rejection of hatred, animosity or violence of the spirit, as well as refusal to commit physical violence; and (6.) Faith that justice will prevail.”

We all know what Dr. King achieved, and how he lived these principles.   It is clear in his approach that Faith and self-sacrifice are key elements in changing enemies into friends and replacing conflict with reconciliation.

Nonviolence (1)

This is another very big subject.   if you check out this article, you will see that while most of us have at least a vague idea of how Gandhi used non-violence in the struggle for Indian Independence and Martin Luther King used it to help gain civil rights in the U.S., there is much more to the idea than just civil disobedience.  There is a philosophical aspect to nonviolence which I find very attractive, and which seems to me to be fundamental to peace:

“Love of the “enemy”, or the realization of the humanity of all people, is a fundamental concept of philosophical nonviolence. The goal of this type of nonviolence is not to defeat the “enemy”, but to win them over and create love and understanding between all.” (from the Wikipedia article linked above).

Here is something from Ghandi which shows how profound and far-reaching the concept and praxis of non-violence was to him:

Character of Nonviolence

Nonviolence is the law of the human race and is infinitely greater than and superior to brute force.

In the last resort it does not avail to those who do not possess a living faith in the God of Love.

Nonviolence affords the fullest protection to one’s self-respect and sense of honour, but not always to possession of land or movable property, though its habitual practice does prove a better bulwark than the possession of armed men to defend them. Nonviolence, in the very nature of things, is of no assistance in the defence of ill-gotten gains and immoral acts.

Individuals or nations who would practice nonviolence must be prepared to sacrifice (nations to last man) their all except honour. It is, therefore, inconsistent with the possession of other people’s countries, i.e., modern imperialism, which is frankly based on force for its defence.

Nonviolence is a power which can be wielded equally by all–children, young men and women or grown-up people, provided they have a living faith in the God of Love and have therefore equal love for all mankind. When nonviolence is accepted as the law of life, it must pervade the whole being and not be applied to isolated acts.

It is a profound error to suppose that, whilst the law is good enough for individuals, it is not for masses of mankind.

For the way of nonviolence and truth is sharp as the razor’s edge. Its practice is more than our daily food. Rightly taken, food sustains the body; rightly practised nonviolence sustains the soul. The body food we can only take in measured quantities and at stated intervals; nonviolence, which is the spiritual food, we have to take in continually. There is no such thing as satiation. I have to be conscious every moment that I am pursuing the goal and have to examine myself in terms of that goal. (taken from this site )

Note how Gandhi links non-violence to faith.

Whether or not one is interested in the application of non-violence in the context of civil disobedience, it seems to me the idea–even just the word–is very important.  It is possible to live, create and prosper nonviolently:  violence is not an inherent part of human life, and we can choose to overcome it individually and collectively.

P.S.  There is an International Day for Nonviolence sponsored by the U.N.

The Family and Peace

The family is a fundamental unit of society (perhaps the fundamental unit), and what is learned there seems to have a profound and long term impact on the individual.  So, if peace, and the values that support and sustain peace, can be learned in the family, this should facilitate and accelerate peace efforts in the community, the nation and beyond.  Many have made arguments similar to this, including, for instance the Pope (again, just informing not necesarily endorsing); but I wanted to make a few observations not always included in “family values” discourse.

Peace, at least positive peace, involves solidarity,  justice, equality and dialogue.  If a child grows up in a family where these are practiced between parents and among all family members, then such virtues will seem right and natural, and the child will, almost intuitively, react to injustice and conflict, and want to see them reduced and eliminated.  Gender equality, ie between the father and mother, would seem essential to achieve this end.  However, if a child grows up in a patriarchal (or conceivably matriarchal) environment where one parent dominates the other, where that parent’s word is always law and where, in the extreme case, there might even be the overt or covert use of violence to maintain parental authority; then such a child might feel oppression, force and domination of the weak by the strong are normal.

What I’ve portrayed here are extremes, and probably over simplications, but I think the basic point is valid:  (positive) peace in the family cannot but “spill over” toward  peace at other levels of society.   So, efforts to help the family everywhere, and particularly in post-conflict societies, should be high on everybody’s agenda.

Nationalism and Peace (1)

Many conflicts seem to be about nationalism, in one form or another (ethnic nationalism, in particular), so I thought it would be worth considering this important force in the modern (and for that matter, post-modern) world.  First, I need to say that this is a big subject (there are courses just on types of nationalism), and I am only going to mention a few aspects.  For background, you can go (you guessed it!) here.   Of course, we also need to consider what a nation is.  While the Wikster article mentions all the traditional bases of “nationhood”, at the end of the day, a nation is a group that, for a variety of reaons, has come to think of itself as a nation, and around which grows up a consciousness/ideology of nationalism.

I think there are a variety of problems with nationalism, as far as peace is concerned.  The one I want to discuss here goes back to the period when nationalism as we know it emerged (19th century Europe).  At that time, the idea of Social Darwinism (associated with Herbert Spencer and others), was popular.  The idea was that human society divided (neatly and naturally) into nations which were involved in a process of struggle for domination that paralleled the process of natural selection among other species.  So, nations were “organic” groupings, and struggle (which included violent conflict) among nations was a force for progress and therefore “good”, since it meant the best and strongest survived and perpetuated themselves.  If you are hearing arguments associated with 20th century Fascism here, you are on the right track.  While the world has, seemingly, rejected Fascism, the idea that a nation should be strong and even “virile”, is still very much with us.  Today nationalism (particularly in conflict situations) often takes the form of “chauvinism” which, according to Mr. W:

“…is extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of a group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group. Jingoism is its nationalistic, militarized form”

While patriotism, the love of country, and nationalism are sometimes seen as synonymous, this is not the case:  you can love your country, without wanting necessarily to see it dominate others.

In the 21st century, we know (if we stop to think about it) that nations are not natural groupings, and that a constant struggle for dominance among them is not the engine of history.  Therefore, it seems to me that patriotism, which can be compatible with love of one’s species and one’s planet, needs to be, once again, distinguished from the more extremist forms of nationalist ideology which have contributed to the frequency and intensity of conflict over the last several decades.