Many to Many
Issue Number 73
September 2000
1. Transparency - Editorial
2. After Seattle - UNCTAD X
3. Women 2000
4. We the People’s Millennium Forum-Declaration and Agenda for Action
Strengthening the UN for the 21st Century
5. “The House that Peace Built”
6. Missile Defence and the Future of the Anti-Ballistic Missile System
7. “Beat Swords Into Plowshares”
8. Creating a Culture of Peace - The UN and I
9. Voices of the Poor
10. Towards a Culture of Peace
11. Earth Charter
1. Transparency
Is it any wonder that the word transparency is today being evoked with
ever greater frequency in a world where deceitfulness
seems to obscure so many of our transactions and relationships: and
when Michail Gorbachev called for glasnost within
Russia, he simultaneously re-awakened a longing for openness and honesty
in people throughout the world.
However, there is an ingrained public weariness, often amounting to
cynicism, when political, industrial or economic leaders
call for more transparency. As with the magician’s conjuring trick,
making even big objects disappear, we feel sure the
“elephant” could still be there, although we are told otherwise. It
is, we suspect, simply a matter of clever deception.
Such a general lack of belief in the honesty and sincerity of leadership
is compounded by the almost compulsive and
voyeuristic zest with which we lay bare private and public lives. In
our search for something or somebody to trust and believe
in, we seem to have developed a ruthless inquisitorial behaviour, which
in itself breeds mistrust and defensiveness, adding
another veil of diffusion to our view of the world. Longing for goodness
we have come to expect the worst, our attention
tricked into following the conjuror’s moving hand.
We have indeed created an atmosphere which, despite all its exposures,
is not conducive to becoming more honest and open.
Even so, as long as this industrious probing into what is worthy or
unworthy of our trust deepens our understanding, it could
be preparing us for a time where transparency in human affairs becomes
fully possible. We might find that we ourselves are
also being included in the general scrutiny taking place, and that
we, all of us, could be expected to contribute to making our
world more transparent.
Before the light is allowed to pass through all parts of the community
without diffusion, disguise or pretext, as the dictionary
puts it, “transparency” can still be deceptive and capable of hiding
“elephants”. We may well come to realise that true
transparency needs more than light passing through: that it needs also
a willingness to respect and trust each other.
A “see through” world could be a grim, sad and desolate sight. But true
transparency could help up create an enlightened
world in which the mind soars and the heart sings.
“You may think I am a shadow but inside I am a Sun” Damia Gates, Grade
4
2. After Seattle - UNCTAD X
It was only some two months after the tumultuous Seattle World Trade
Organisation (WTO) Conference and yet in a wholly
new millennium that the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD X) met in Bangkok, February
2000. Particular effort had been made to ensure meaningful participation
of civil society. A series of civil society and
parliamentary meetings had been arranged, among these an NGO Plenary
Caucus attended by some 160 representatives and
social movements from over 40 countries, and a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary
Union. The discussions throughout this
period resulted in various statements such as for instance the NGO
“Bangkok Appeal”, which called for convergence on
common civil society platforms and coordination of national and international
actions. And in their Final Declaration, adopted
unanimously, the Parliamentary Meeting stated that:
“Multilateral and international systems - be they in the area of trade,
finance, social or environmental regulation - should
invariably be transparent in their design, application and practice.
While significant advances have been made in recent years
in improving transparency in some international organisations such
as the World Ban, there is still a lack of transparency in
the decision-making and functions of various multilateral bodies. Although
membership of these organisations is almost
universal, some important decisions are taken by just a few. Moreover,
secrecy surrounds the operation of such bodies and
access to relevant information is largely confined to Government, excluding
legislators and civil society.”
Local Thai NGOs and grassroots organisations had also organised a series
of peaceful demonstrations; this “Assembly of
the Poor”, consisting of about 2000 people, including landless farmers,
fisherfolk, indigenous people, slum dwellers and
unemployed industrial workers, protested peacefully against the current
forms of globalisation.
The theme of UNCTAD X was: “Development strategies in an increasingly
interdependent world: applying the lessons of
the past to make globalisation an effective instrument for the development
of all countries and peoples.”
The formal inter-governmental negotiations at UNCTAD X, presided over
by the Deputy Prime Minister and Trade Minister
of Thailand, Dr Supachai Panitchpakdi (also to be WTO Director-General
from 2002) resulted in two documents, namely a
Plan of Action, setting out a work programme for the next four years,
and a political statement, the “Bangkok Declaration:
Global Dialogue and Dynamic Engagement”.
Many NGOs expressed their disappointment with the “Plan of Action” feeling
that, after the collapse of Seattle, the
developing country constituency of UNCTAD as well as the secretariat
had failed to “seize the moment to challenge the
WTO” and forge alternative trade rules from within the UN system which
could be seen to have legitimacy and to be more
democratic. Even so the text recognises that the various “imbalances
and asymmetries” facing developing countries in the
international trading system which go against their interests must
be urgently addressed with the support of the UNCTAD
secretariat. The Plan of Action also gives UNCTAD a stronger mandate
in contributing to reform of the international
financial system.
UNCTAD X was seen by many as the “rebirth” of an organisation which,
after the creation of WTO ion 1994, was
considered by some developed countries, including the U.S. to have
outlived its purpose. The Bangkok Declaration reaffirms
UNCTAD as the focal point within the United Nations for “the integrated
treatment of development and the interrelated
issues in the areas of trade, finance, investment, technology, and
sustainable development..”
In his closing statement, the UNCTAD Secretary-General, Mr. Ricupero,
referred to the socalled Washington consensus
with its 12 rules of economic policy which proved to be too restrictive
and have a tendency to neglect the problems of
poverty. Instead of a new set of 12 points of consensus Mr. Ricupero
would prefer to refer to a Bangkok “convergence”,
starting from opposite ends of the political and ideological spectrum
and gradually converging toward some common
ground. Rather than formalising a new consensus, it is more important
to urge that extremism in economic policy be
abandoned by all sides.
Mr. Ricupero reminded the conference of the words of the Indian minister
of commerce and industry when he told the
plenary that “the end of socialism does not silence the cry of the
poor, and out of the pain of poverty must be born new
dreams of justice - a new world economic order.”
“Today I want to insist that the building of an international community
that will respect the aspirations of all its members for
sustainable development must rest on the same moral foundation as does
sustainable development itself: the fundamental idea
is once again that of generalised reciprocity.”
But real reciprocity still has to be constructed and the concept of mutuality respected by all.
The international financial crisis which erupted in East Asia in the
mid-1997 with devastating social and economic
consequences throughout the developing countries was a major topic
for discussion at the UNCTAD X meetings, as were
proposals for reform of the international financial system. While it
was acknowledged that economies in the region showed
clear signs of recovery, Mr. Yilmaz Akyuz, Chief Macroeconomist at
UNCTAD, pointed to the “catastrophic social fall-out
lagging behind”, saying that although economies are recovering, people
are not.
The Director-General of the IMF, Michel Camdesus, in his farewell speech
before retiring from office, called for “a
progressive humanisation of basic economic concepts”. Insisting that
economic growth alone is not enough: that it could
“even be destructive of the natural environment or precious social
goods and cultural values”, Mr Camdessus went on to call
the widening gap between right and poor peoples and nations “morally
outrageous, economically wasteful and potentially
socially explosive”. Poverty, said the IMF Director-General, is “the
ultimate systemic threat facing humanity”.
Mr. Camdessus also reminded governments of the need to implement the
commitments made during the UN conferences of
the 1990’s, in particular the commitment to reducing by half the number
of people in absolute poverty by 2015.
Financing for Development
Mr. Camdessus’ remarks were preceded by a series of resolutions approved
by the 54th UN General Assembly
(September-December 1999) regarding the financing for development and
the creation of a “stable international financial
system, responsive to the challenges of development”.
The General Assembly decided, in resolution 54/196, to convene a high-level
intergovernmental event in 2001 which will
address “national, international and systemic issue relating to financing
for development in a holistic manner in the context
of globalisation and interdependence.”
This meeting would also address the mobilisation of financial resources
for “full implementation” of the commitments made
at the summits and conferences organised by the United Nations in the
1990s.
The Assembly decided that steps should be taken as soon as possible
to establish a preparatory committee which, no later
than March 2000, should consider the form, timing, duration, format
and agenda of the final event, together with the
modalities for the participation of “instititutional stakeholders”,
such as World Bank, IMF, WTO, UNCTAD, and others,
including NGOs and the private sector.
The first substantive session of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom)
took place 31 May - 2 June in which, despite
“difficult negotiations”, a preliminary agenda was agreed upon. Decisions
were also reached on a schedule on regional
consultations as well as hearing to be held with NGOs and the private
sector.
A second and third substantive session by the PrepCom is scheduled for
12-23 February 2001 and 2-12 April 2001 in New
York.
The IMF Director-General surprised the UNCTAD X conference audience
by - at the end of his farewell speech - making an
astounding suggestion regarding the reform of the governance of international
financial institutions, namely that the G7 - G8
summit should be replaced every two years by a meeting of the heads
of state and governments of the countries
(approximately 30 at any one time) who have Executive Directors on
the Boards of either the IMF or the World Bank.
Elaboratin on his suggestion, Mr. Camdessus said that: “provided such
a meeting was prepared with the active participation
of all countries of the respective consitutencies, this would be thoroughly
representative of the entire membership of 182
countries. As it would be attended by the Secretary-General of the
United Nations and by the heads of the relevant
multilateral organisations, it would offer a way of establishing a
clear and stronger link between the multilateral institutions
and a representative grouping of world leaders with unquestionable
legitimacy.”
<br><a href="#INDEX-TOP">TO INDEX-TOP</a>
3. Women 2000
The 23rd special session of the UN General Assembly was entitled “Women
2000: Gender, Equality, Development and
Peace for the 21st Century” and took place at the UN headquarters between
5-10 June 2000. It was attended by 2,003
government delegates and 2,043 representatives of 1,036 non-governmental
organisations (NGOs).
The session was convened in order to review and appraise what progress
had been made in implementing the Nairobi
Forward-Looking Strategies and the Platform for Action from the Fourth
World Conference on Women, Beijing 1995. This
Platform for Action (PFA) sets time-specific targets for eliminating
discrimination in health, education, the workplace,
decision making and the law, and identifies 12 critical areas of concern:
poverty; education; health care; violence against
women; women and armed conflict; women and the economy; women in power
and decision making; institutional
mechanisms; human rights of women; women and the media; women and the
environment; and the girl child.
The special session met in plenary and heard statements from 178 member-states,
3 non-member states, 16 observers, 4
heads of UN and specialised agencies, the chair of the committee on
the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW) and 5 NGOs. 77 percent of the plenary statements were made
by women.
While the special session was “very contentious” with negotiations running
late into the night, the General assembly
president, Theo Ben-Gurirabl (Namibia) was nevertheless satisfied that
there had been “no backward movement in any of the
Beijing language” and that the PFA remained fully valid for national
and international actions. The outcome document of the
session contains a Political Declaration and “Further actions and initiatives
to implement the Beijing Declaration and
Platform for Action”. The Political Declaration reaffirms governments’
commitments and recognises their primary
responsibility in implementing the PFA, the 12 critical areas of concern
and the Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies. It calls
for continued international cooperation, including attainment of the
internationally agreed target of 0.7 per cent of gross
domestic product (GDP) of industrialised countries for official development
assistance (ODA). It also reaffirms the goal of
universal ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All
discrimination Against Women and commits to
strengthening and safeguarding a national and international enabling
environment, including through the protection of human
rights. Governments furthermore agreed to regularly assess PFA implementation,
with a view to meeting in 2005 to consider
new initiatives.
After the session, Angela King, Assistant Secretary-General and Special
Advisor on Gender Issues and the Advancement of
Women, expressed her delight that “the dire predictions that there
would be a roll-back have proved false. We were
determined to get a strong document that did not in any way diminish
the gains women had achieved in Beijing. We were
also determined to go beyond Beijing, and we did, despite the efforts
of countries that made the process an arduous one.”
In his closing remarks, Mr. Ben-Gurirab called on the United Nations
organisations, Bretton Woods Institutions, the World
Trade Organisation, other international and regional inter-governmental
bodies, parliaments and civil society to support
government efforts and develop complementary programmes to achieve
the goals of the PFA. He said the outcome document
acknolwdges the role NGOs must continue to play in the promotion of
gender equality, development and peace.
Source: NGLS Roundup, Jly 2000, Palais des nations, CH-1211 Geeva 10,
Switzerland, NGLS publications available online
(website: ngls.tad.ch).
4. We the Peoples Millennium Forum Declaration and
Agenda for Action
Strengthening the United Nations for the 21st Century
United Nations, New York 22-26 May 2000
After numerous national and international conferences, meetings and
other more local activities and consultations, civil
society from all parts of the world has made its contribution to a
We the Peoples Millennium Forum Declaration and Agenda
for Action. This document, formulated by the 1,350 civil society organisations’
representatives attending the New York
Forum, will be presented to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
At the opening of this Forum, Secretary-General Kofi Annan welcomed
the participants, stressing that it was in bringing the
power of the world’s peoples to the United Nations that the principles
of the UN Charter would come alive and be made to
work for all in the twenty-first century. He acknowledged that “during
the cycle of world conferences of the last decade, it
was you who set the pace on many issues.” Kofi Annan pointed out that
while non-governmental organisations have
understood the need for global action on any particular issue, there
was now a widespread recognition that all the many
issues are, as are indeed the world’s peoples and nations, interconnected
and interdependent.
Indicating the need for a wider definition and deeper understanding
of “globalisation”, he suggested that the challenge was
“to make globalisation mean more than bigger markets”:
“I believe the poor are poor not because of too much globalisation,
but because of too little - because they are not part of it,
because they are excluded.”
Globalisation challenges all international institutions and all governments
to “learn to govern with the voice of the peoples,
with a view to meeting the needs of peoples.”
The Secretary-General went on to mention his Millennium Report with
its four headings “freedom from want’, “freedom
from fear”, “sustaining our future”, and “renewing the United Nations”,
and told the audience that his Report, entitled
“We the Peoples-the Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century”,
although written for governments, was also a report
for the world’s peoples. Offering some examples of how civil society
could inspire and work with governments to achieve
common goals, Kofi Annan also mentioned ways it could help “to bridge
the digital divide”, which today is leaving billions
of people without any technological means of communication; that “half
the human race has yet to make or receive a phone
call, let alone use a computer”. Through joining one of the digital
bridges announced in his Report, such as the United
Nations Information Technology Service (UNITeS), members of civil society
could greatly assist the work of bringing the
information technology with all its benefits to the entire human family.
Another example given to the civil society representatives at the Forum
was to continue to keep the pressure on our
governments, encouraging them to sign and ratify the some 500 international
treaties and conventions which have been
formulated since the birth of the UN, creating a comprehensive legal
framework for a better world.
The outcome of the Forum deliberations, which would have taken into
account the many submissions from people and
non-governmental organisations throughout the world, resulted in a
20-page Declaration and Agenda for Action.
This document starts with a vision statement entitled “Our Vision”, the full text of which is the following:
“Our vision is of a world that is human-centred and genuinely democratic,
where all human beings are full participants and
determine their own destinies. In our vision we are one human family,
in all our diversity, living on one common homeland
and sharing a just, sustainable and peaceful world, guided by universal
principles of democracy, equality, inclusion,
voluntarism, non-discrimination and participation by all person, men
and women, young and old, regardless of race, faith,
disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity or nationality. It is a world
where peace and human security, as envisioned in the
principles of the United Nations Charter, replace armaments, violent
conflict and wars. It is a world where everyone lives in a
clean environment with a fair distribution of the earth’s resources.
Our vision includes a special role for the dynamism of
young people and the experience of the elderly and reaffirms the universality,
indivisibility and interdependence of all human
rights - civil, political, economic, social and cultural.”
In the following pages are outlined recommendations on issues categorised:
A. Eradication of Poverty: Including Social Development and Debt CancellationB. Peace, Security, and Disarmament
C. Facing the Challenge of Globalisation: Equity, Justice and Diversity
D. Human Rights
E. Sustainable Development and the Environment
F. Strengthening and Democratising the United Nations and International Organisations.
No doubt this We the Peoples Millennium Forum with its comprehensive
Declaration and Agenda for Action, should be seen
by all who for years have worked towards a more democratic and open
United Nations, as an encouraging step forward
towards true democracy.
The full text of this document is available on: http://www.millennium
forum.org/html/papers/mfd26May.htm
5. The House That Peace Built
According to Jeff Halper, professor at Ben Gurion University in Israel
and coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against
House Demolitions, the Palestinian population of the West Bank, Gaza,
and East Jerusalem is entangled in a politically
motivated web of restrictions that, among other things, denies their
ability to obtain building permits. The end result is that
palestinian homes are routinely demolished for being illegal.
The American Friends Service Committee organised a speaking tour which
it hoped would open the way for a wide range of
organisations to work together, from Arab, Jewish, and Christian groups.
The tour itself was in fact co-sponsored by US
Arab and Jewish peace organisations in partnership with AFSC.
The tour’s co-speaker was Salim Shawamreh, a Palestinian engineer and
grassroots peace worker whose home had twice
been demolished. In the Spring issue 2000 of the Quaker Bulletin, published
by the American Friends Service Committee
(AFSC), the following wonderful testimony to the spirit of peace was
given:
“Salim Shawarmeh and his family have experienced both the politically
motivated Israeli policy and practice of home
demolitions and the desire for peace shared by many Israelis and Palestinians.
After being denied a building permit four times, the Shawarmehs built
a much-needed home, with the Israeli army tore down.
Salim and his family rebuilt with help from the Israeli Committee Against
House Demolitions, as well as Palestinian and
international non-governmental organisation. The house was again destroyed.
Undaunted, the Shawaamrehs, along with
Israeli, Palestinian, and international peace activists, rebuilt the
home.
Today, Salim’s house is known in the area as “the house that peace built”
because of the spirit of cooperation that prevailed
during it’s construction. It stands as a symbol of the desire of all
Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace and equity.”
Contact: Quaker Service Bulletin, 1501 Cherry Street, Philadelphia,
PA 19102, US
6. Missile Defence and the Future of the Anti-Ballistic Missile System
A notable but little publicised 3-day seminar on the above topic was
held in Beijing in March of this year, hosted by the
Chinese People’s association for Peace and Disarmament (CPAPD). The
participants consisted of a high level group from
chinese military, academic circles and government institutions and
a delegation of ten guests from Europe. The latter were all
members of the Oxford Research group (ORG), United Kingdom.
At the conclusion of the seminar a summary was given by Ambassador Sha
Zukang, Director-General of the Department of
Arms Control and Disarmament, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China. The
Ambassador stated that missile defence systems
might be able to give the US a temporary sense of “absolute security”
but that such a sense of security would be nothing
more than an illusion. Missile defence was not an answer to Weapons
of Mass Destruction (WMD) and missile threats. It
could only lead to the upset of global strategic balance, the erosion
of mutual trust and cooperation between major powers
and the disruption of international as well as regional peace and stability.
That would be detrimental to all countries, including
the United States.
Ambassador Sha concluded with the assertion that future progress in
this area would depend on whether certain countries
could “jettison their hegenomic mentality and practice; would respect
the legitimate security interests of other countries, and
make genuine efforts to maintain international and regional peace and
security.” Peace and security attained through
international cooperation, the Ambassador maintained, was the only
kind of peace and security that could benefit all
countries.
Participants included: Dr. Frank Barnaby, Scientific Consultant to oxford
Research Group, former Director, Swedish
International peace Research Institute; Dr Scilla Elworthy, Director,
Oxford Research Group; air Marshall Sir Timothy
Garden, former assistant Chief of Defence Staff and Director of the
Royal Institute of International Affairs, UK; Professor
Gu Guolian, Director of the Centre for Arms Control & Non-proliferation
Studies, Chinese Academy of social Sciences;
Ambassador Sha Zukang, Director-General of the Department of Arms Control
and Disarmament, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, China; Professor Van Xuetong, Director, Chinese Foreign Policy
Research Centre, Institute for Contemporary
International Relations, China.
A full report on this seminar is to be found in the publication “PEACE”,
June 2000, serial no. 55, Special Issue for the
CPAPD/ORG Seminar PO Box 188, Beijing, 100036 China.
Russia-China Summit The Beijing summit meeting between Russian President
Vladiimir Putin and President Jian Zemin of
China in late July underscored the strong opposition to United States’
plans for a missile defence shield at the March
seminar. The joint statement issued by the two leaders warned of grave
security consequences if the plans were to go ahead,
not only to the national security of Russia and China and other countries
but also to the international strategic stability of the
United States itself. With its plans for the missile defence shield
the US was, the statement maintained, seeking unilateral
military and security advantages and would make a new arms race with
China and russia inevitable. This view was also
expressed by former Soviet President Mikhail Gobachev who, interviewed
recently in New York, urged the US to engage
more deeply in a partnership with Europe. In the interview Mr. Gorbachev
criticised US Secretary of State Madeline
Albright’s reported remark that, in exceptional circumstances, the
US would have the right to use military force unilaterally.
“I don’t think” he said, “the world will accept this approach.”
The US gives as its reason for planning to build a missile shield its
claim that North Korean missiles will be able to strike
US cities by 2005 and it also fears the possibility of attacks from
other “states of concern” such as Iran and Iraq. A Treatre
Missile Defence (TMD) system would shield its troops and allies in
Asia.
Among the territories protected by such a system would be Taiwan, which
China regards as a rebel province and has
threatened to invade it if the island declares independence or stalls
beyond China’s endurance over unification talks.
Two recent failed attempts by the United States to hit and destroy “enemy
warhead” in space can scarcely give the US
Government reason for confidence in the building of such a missile
defence system. But with the mind-set now prevalent in
the United States, including the known support for such a system on
the part of both presidential candidates, it would seem to
be not so much a matter of “if” such a system will be deployed but
“when”.
High-level Russian officials have voiced a concern that the collapse
of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty coinciding with the
building of a US theatre missile defence system would entirely undermine
disarmament agreements concluded over the past
30 years. This is denied by the United States, but many countries remain
unconvinced about the feasibility, even the
desirability of such a defence system and there is the need for the
US to come up with more cogent arguments than hitherto
in favour of the project, perceived to be serving the interest of the
world as a whole, if strongly help contrary opinions are to
be set at rest.
7. “Beat Swords Into Plowshares”
Given the tragic history of Okinawa, when the eight wise men of the
world meet there it would be particularly appropriate if
they turned their minds, in this International Year of the Culture
of Peace, to the subject of ridding the world of war and
genocide.
Confronted with a world that cannot be changed, reasonable people adapt
and accommodate. But the turning points of history
and progress in human civilisation have come from those who set out
to change the world. This is a story about a group of
unreasonable people who met recently to set up the Steering Committee
of a group called Global Action to Prevent War. An
International Coalition to Stop Armed Conflict and Genocide.
War is as pervasive as the wish for peace is universal. Some of the
most charismatic and influential personalities in human
history - Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi - have preached
the renunciation of force and the need to
eliminate it from human relationships.
The causes of war are many and complex. Our call to end it is single-minded
and simple. Cynics insist that war is an inherent
part of human society. To end war would be to end history. Maybe. But
crime and poverty, too, have always been part of
human history. Any political leader who admitted to giving up on the
fight to end crime or poverty would quickly be returned
to private life by voters. Paradoxically, in the case of war, those
who seek to abolish it are the ones to be considered soft in
the head.
The 20th century illustrates the paradox only too well. On the one hand,
we placed increasing normative, legislative and
operational fetters on the right of the countries to go to war. For
example on August 28, 1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact was
signed in Paris outlawing war. This was preceded by the League of Nations
and followed by the United Nations. Yet the 20th
century turned out to be the most murderous in human history with over
250 wars, including two world wars and the Cold
War, and with more dead than in all previous wars of the past 2,000
years.
This deadly situation must not continue into the new century. We already
have the resources and the knowledge to cut the
level of armed violence drastically and make war increasingly rare.
What has been missing is a programme for the worldwide,
systematic and continuing application of these resources and this knowledge.
Global Action offers such a programme and is building a worldwide coalition
of interested individuals, civil society
organisations and governments to carry it out.
For internal conflicts, we propose a broad array of conflict prevention
measures t be applied by the UN, regional security
organisations and international courts. For conflicts between neighbouring
countries, Global Action proposed force
reductions, defensively oriented changes in force structure and a set
of confidence-building measures and constraints on
force activities tailored to each situation.
Major powers could cooperate in preventing smaller wars among others
and undertake step-by-step cuts in their own
conventional and nuclear forces.
Global Action’s conflict-prevention and conventional-disarmament measures
will promote nuclear disarmament. Countries
like China, Russia and India are unlikely to relinquish nuclear weapons
if the main effect of doing so is to reinforce the
already large conventional superiority of the United States. Nuclear
cuts will in turn facilitate conflict prevention and
conventional disarmament. Other governments are not likely to slash
their conventional armed forces unless convinced that
nuclear weapons are on the one-way road to extinction.
Global Action’s deliberate focus is on violent armed conflict. The world
also faces fundamental crises of poverty,
environmental degradation, and human-rights violations. All these challenges
must be met before human security and a just
peace can be achieved. To meet these challenges, many efforts must
be pursued; no single campaign can deal with all of
them. But efforts to address these global problems can and should complement
and support one another. Progress toward
the abolition of war will make it possible to focus remaining energy
and efforts on resolving the fundamental structural
problems. The costs of war for human development are truly horrific.
The analogy we like is with domestic violence. Faced with incidents
of violence within the family, the first and most urgent
order of business is to stop the violence. Only then can we look at
probably causes and possible solutions including, if
necessary, separation and divorce.
Global Action’s programme is as comprehensive and coherent as we can
make it now. But it is evolving work in progress,
incorporating many suggestions from participants; readers’ ideas are
very welcome at www. globalactionpw.org. Though its
component measures are practical and effective, the goal of Global
Action is ambitious and cannot be achieved quickly. But
sustained, coordinated efforts can turn killing fields into playing
fields and rice fields.
This article was specially written for The Japan Times by Ramesh Thaku,
vice rector of the United Nations University in
Tokyo, and founding member of the executive committee of Global Action,
July 2000.
8. Creating a Culture of Peace - The UN and I
“Blessed are the peacemakers - for they shall inherit the earth.”
This was the ironic caption on a cartoon commentary of the efforts of
Barak and Arafat to reach a peace agreement. It caused
me to wonder whether world peace was an impossible dream.
Today war continues to wreak havoc in the lives of young and old, yet
our current world leaders acknowledge the need for
peace. Many believe the United Nations’ goal of developing a culture
of world peace is achievable. We all recognise that war
doesn’t just destroy, it also denies opportunity for personal growth,
achievement and successful contribution to society. In
their pursuit of peace our world leaders also acknowledge this.
Fifty five years ago the desire for peaceful co-existence was the catalyst
for the formation of the United Nations. The
preamble of the UN Charter says it aspires to “reaffirm faith in fundamental
human rights” as well as “faith in the dignity
of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations
large and small”.
Yet today there are at least 20 war zones in our world. Russia, Israel,
East Timor Zimbabwe and Iraq for example. The media
brings into our own secure New Zealand world the graphic horrors of
those wars - their bloodshed, destruction, consequent
famine and social upheaval.
Through its organisations UNICEF and WHO the UN is committed to picking
up the pieces after war - providing war’s
human casualties with access to food, health, welfare, education and
hope. We can take pride in knowing that our New
Zealand doctors, teachers and armed forces are actively supporting
the UN in its role as peacekeepers in these troubled war
zones.
The UNHCR is responsible for the resettlement of refugees. We as New
Zealanders are committed to accepting and
integrating into our community structure many refugees who have been
displaced by war.
I believe, however, that the UN ideally, should not have to alleviate
the desolation and adversity of war. Rather its efforts
should focus on fostering a peaceful future.
At my school there are currently students of 38 nationalities - many
of these students my age come from war-torn countries.
Within our school we have developed our own multicultural community.
Through recognising that acceptance of individual
difference is a prerequisite for harmony we have learned respect for
each other’s beliefs and nurtured a culture of peaceful,
supportive co-existence.
This experience is enriching for us all, but perhaps more valuable is
that we larn the rich rewards of acceptance, tolerance, and
understanding. I believe that by becoming more aware of other cultures,
our won existence is more fulfiled.
This is surely the UN dream that in affirming faith in human rights
we create a culture of peace and build the foundations for
prosperity for all of us.
If my school, a microcosm of the world community, is able to function
in peace by recognising and valuing each culture, then
the UN’s goals are surely achievable. They are not just dreams. We
should all actively pursue them. If each of us can
recognise, accept and value the differences in each other’s cultures,
races and creeds then together we can forge greater,
richer, more vibrant nations - nations which foster a culture of peace.
As individuals we must make a personal commitment to promoting tolerance
and understanding within our communities. We
must learn to negotiate and to compromise as a means to resolving conflict.
In the words of Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of committed
people can change the world. Indeed it is the
only thing that ever has”. World peace is not an impossible dream.
It is a realistic goal for the 21st century and one we
should all work to achieve.
Rebecca Rose, Fairfield College, Hamilton, winner of the United Nations
Association of New Zealand Peace Award 2000.
9. International Year of Volunteers, 2001 (IYV 2001)
The idea for an international year of volunteers emerged from discussion
between various non-governmental organisations,
among these the International Association for Volunteer Effort (IAVE)
and the UN Volunteers Programme (UNV). it seems
to them most appropriate that the role of volunteers and their services
within the local and global community should be
highlighted, discussed and enhanced as the world enters the 21st century.
This eventually found its way to the UN Economic and Social Council
(ECOSOC) and was placed on the agenda in July
1997. In its resolution (1977/44 of 22 July 1997) ECOSOC recommended
to the United Nations Generally Assembly that
their resolution be adopted and 2001 proclaimed the International Year
of Volunteers. And so it came to be that the General
Assembly formally passed a resolution in which it decided to take the
action called for in the ECOSOC proposal.
The idea has since gained increasing support from governments, national
and international NGOs, and different UN bodies
like UNICEP, UNESCO, UNAIDS, World Food Programme, UN High Commissioner
for Refugees and many others, all
agreeing that volunteer service is more than ever needed within the
social, economic, cultural, humanitarian, peacebuilding and
many other fields of human concern.
IYV Objectives: Four main objectives have been identified:
1) Increased recognition. It is hoped that both national and local authorities will put in place effective mechanisms enabling them to consult with voluntary services thus benefiting from their rich resources of hands-on experience. Awards for “best practices” of individual, group, local community and national NGO could also be set up.2) Increased facilitation. It is hoped that each society will look into how to encourage people to volunteer their services, whether short or long term; that the State will contribute by allowing its different training facilities to be used for volunteer efforts to “encourage technical competence, sound management and accountability in the volunteer sector.”
3) Networking, through greater emphasis and use of the media, radio, TV and electronic media.
4) Promotion. More effort could be aimed at highlighting the importance of the work of the volunteer and creating a “climate of public and official opinion in even more supportive of voluntary action.” The competence of professionalism of volunteers should be further stressed and the benefits accruing to society from their activities be emphasised.
The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, will inaugurate the International
Year of Volunteers in New York on 5 December
2000, the International Volunteers Day.
this will be followed by the XVIth International Association for Volunteers
Effort (IAVE) World Conference which s being
held in Amsterdam between 14-18 January 2001 on the theme “renewal
and rejuvenation of voluntary work worldwide.”
For more information on the many conferences, meetings, and other agencies:
Team IYV 2001. c/o UNV, Postfach 260 111,
D-53153 Bonn, Germany, www.ivy2001.org. e-mail: Team@iyv2001.org
10. Voices of the Poor
In March 2000 the World Bank published a study on the causes and effects
of global poverty. This study, called “Voices of
the Poor: can anyone hear us?” is based on the personal accounts of
over 60,000 men and women in 60 countries. The book
tells the reader of the daily struggles and aspirations of the poor;
about the realities of living in poverty and what the poor
need to improve their lives.
The study is the result of ten years of intensive consultations with
the poor, which it is hoped will aid and drive new World
Bank policies effectively to reduce poverty. “Voices of the Poor” raises
major challenges to both our institutions and to all
who are concerned about poverty, says Clare Short, British International
Development Secretary, in her foreword to the book.
While the bottom line of poverty is constantly living with hunger,
the study highlights the multidimensional structure of
poverty “with its persistence linked to a web of recurring factors.”
Poverty has important psychological dimensions, says the study, such
as a sense of dependency, humiliation, voicelessness
and shame. Too many interactions with government representatives are
“marred by rudeness and humiliation as the poor
seek services such as health care, education for their children, social
and relief assistance, police protection or justice from
local authorities.”
This, together with their daily experiences with often corrupt civil
servants, makes poor people mistrusting of governments
and their officials, feeling that they could do much more to fill the
needs of the poor.
The study describes how households are crumbling under the stresses
of poverty: “they can disintegrate as men, unable to
adapt to their ‘failure’ to earn adequate incomes under harsh economic
circumstances, often turn to alchoholism or domestic
violence, leading to a breakdown of the family structure. In contrast,
women tend to swallow their pride and do demeaning
jobs or anything that puts food on the table for their children and
husbands.”
Furthermore, according to the study, poverty can also erode social solidarity
and social bonds which leads to increased
lawlessness, violence and crime, to which the poor are most vulnerable.
The author of “Voices of the Poor” is Deepa Narayan, Senior Social Development
Specialist of the World Bank. “Around
the world, poor people’s experiences highlight the role of power and
social structures in determining who has opportunity
and who is excluded”, said Deepa Narayan.
One of the priorities of the 21st century must be to create governance
systems which include both local and global levels and
which can respond adequately to the needs and concerns of the poor.
But for this to happen, investment in their organisations
is required so that they are able to negotiate directly with governments,
NGOs, traders and international agencies.
Source: Go Between 80. Contact: Ben Jones, Poverty Group, Poverty Reduction
and Economic Management Network,
World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, US. email bjones@worldbank.org.
11. Towards a Culture of Peace
It would seem an appropriate moment in time to remember and revive an
initiative which
emerged in the beginning of the 20th century, started by a Russian
artist and archeologists, Nicholas Roerich.
As a young man be became aware of the lack of respect and of the negligence
with which humanity often let some of the
most beautiful creations of its own making simply erode or be destroyed
by weather or human warfare. Nicholas Roerich felt
that the cultural heritage of each country was the treasures of the
whole of humanity and that the concept of what constitutes
cultural heritage needed to be broadened to include not just artistic
but also educational and scientific expressions of
creativity.
After the first World War with all its human suffering and senseless
destruction, Nicholas Roerich resolved to write a treaty
in which his proposal for the protection of all cultural products and
activities - with the help and advice of the legal
profession- was clearly set out. This treaty was called the Roerich
Pact.
Nicholas Roerich also designed a banner of peace, which he envisaged
would fly at all sites of cultural and historical value,
clearly showing the neutrality of these places. Because of the similarity
of intent of this Pact with its banner of Peace and that
of the Red Cross and their symbol, the Roerich Pact was often called
the Red Cross of Culture.
The Roerich Pact movement spread through the nineteen-twenties and thirties
and on the 15 April 1935, The Pact was signed
by all the member states of the Pan-American Union, in Washington,
in the presence of the then US President, Franklin
Roosevelt. Later other countries also signed.
Symbol of Banner for Peace Nicholas Roerich chose the symbol of the
three dots enfolded in a circle because it has been
used throughout the ages by humankind and appeared in cultures all
over the world.
Whether the interpretation is that of past, present and future within
the womb of eternity; religion, science, and art making up
the circle of culture; or any other interactive trinity of life, this
symbol can be found throughout the Himalyan countries on
the coat of arms of the Popes, on the breast of Christ in Hans Memling’s
painting, on the shield of the Crusaders, in the
Temple of Heaven in Beijin, on Samarkand’s cost of arms as well as
on the pottery of the neolithic age.
This symbol, whose origin seems beyond while also accompanying humankind
on its long cultural pilgrimage, could
therefore bee seen as rightfully representing the protection of our
cultural heritage and of our continuous journey towards a
culture of peace. http://www.roerich.orga/banner_of_peace.html
“The Institute of the Heart will enter into the Society of Culture,
because the heart is inseparable from culture.” HEART,
1932
11. Earth Charter
An Earth Charter has been in the making for the past eight years. More
than 100,000 people from broad spectrum of the
global community, including the environment business, politics, religion,
and education, have participated in the deliberations,
leading up toe the announcement, 14 March 2000 in Paris, of a comprehensive
document of new global ethical guidelines.
The Earth Charter bridges between the human rights and the rights of
all other life forms, links material progress with moral
progress and seeks to shape global responsibility for the deeply-rooted,
economic and environmental problems that plague
humanity, “the Earth Charter is a call for an awakening of universal
responsibility” says Steven Rockefeller, chair of the
Earth Charter drafting committee.
The intention is for the Earth Charter to be presented to the United
Nations in 2002, ten years after the UN Conference on
Environment and Development, the socalled Rio Earth Summit.
The first four guiding principles of the Charter are to:
• respect Earth and life in all its diversity;
• care for the community of life with understanding, compassion and love;
• build democratic societies that are just, sustainable, participatory and peaceful; and
• secure Earth’s bounty and beauty for present and future generations.
Among the sponsoring organisations of the Earth Charter are the
Earth Council and Green Cross International, founded by
Mr. Gorbachev in 1993.
Contact: Anne Glauber, Senior Vice-President, Ruder Finn, 301 East 57th
Street, New York, NY 11002, US. email:
glaubera@ruderfinn.com, www.earthcharter.org.
<br><a href="#INDEX-TOP">TO INDEX-TOP</a>
Return to HOMEPAGE
