THE BRICS SUMMIT

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

The global divide between North and South widened this month at the summit of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) that took place in Johannesburg:

The complete BRICS Declaration, a major historic document, is published in full by media in South Africa, Brazil, China, South Africa, Russia, Azerbaijan, Nigeria, India, Nicaragua, Peru, and Colombia. But in Europe and North America, only alternative media and no major media has published the full text, as of a search in Google as of August 28.

Worse than that, the reports about the Summit by the major media of the North distorted its message with regard to the war in the Ukraine, in a way that continues to justify the actions of NATO.

Here is the paragraph of the BRICS declaration in this regard:

“9. We recall our national positions concerning the conflict in and around Ukraine as expressed at the appropriate fora, including the UNSC and UNGA. We note with appreciation relevant proposals of mediation and good offices aimed at peaceful resolution of the conflict through dialogue and diplomacy, including the African Leaders Peace Mission and the Chinese proposed path for peace.”

The BRICS approach to the war is correctly reported by media in India, Turkey and Brazil as follows:

The Print, India: BRICS countries to continue support efforts to end Russia-Ukraine conflict through dialogue: Ramaphosa

Anadolu Ajansi, Turkey: BRICS countries support mediation proposals to end Russia-Ukraine conflict

Government of Brazil: Speech by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva during the Brics Summit open plenary session including the following: “The war in Ukraine highlights Security Council limitations. BRICS must act as a force towards understanding and cooperation. Our willingness is expressed in the contributions of China, South Africa and my own country to the efforts to resolve the conflict in Ukraine.”

The opposite approach is taken by the major media of the North:

Putting the words “BRICS” and “Ukraine” into the Google search engine for the dates of the conference and two days after, August 22-26, we find the following articles in media of the North which concentrate on Putin’s remarks instead of the Summit declaration.

New York Times: In Speech to BRICS Nations, Putin Again Blames West for Ukraine War

BBC: Putin blames West for Ukraine war after drone attacks on Russia

Radio France International: Sommet des Brics à Johannesburg: Vladimir Poutine justifie sa guerre en Ukraine

The question of the war in the Ukraine was a only a minor issue at the BRICS summit. In addition to the paragraph quoted above, there are 94 paragraphs in the Declaration, covering most of the major political and economic issues of our times.

The Declaration places BRICS initiatives in the context of the United Nations, include a paragraph calling for its reform to to increase the representation of developing countries in the membership of the Security Council. There are also references to the SDGs (Strategic Development Goals) of the UN and to its specialized agencies, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.

There is no mention of UNESCO, despite reference to its domains of education, science, culture and communication. For example, there is a reference to proposals made during the 10th Meeting of BRICS Ministers of Education, the BRICS Network University, the BRICS Science Technology and Innovation Steering Committee and the BRICS Working Group on Culture. Curiously, there is no reference to the communication initiative, reported recently in a CPNN article, at the Shanghai meeting of media organizations including representatives from Press TV,TeleSUR, RT and CGTN, and members of progressive media organizations such as Pan African TV, ArgMedios, and Brasil de Fato, and over 100 researchers and media professionals from China, Ghana, Zambia, South Africa, Brazil, and Russia seeking to develop an alternative to American and European dominance of the media. 

Although the Declaration places BRICS within the existing context of the United Nations System, it also makes reference to many independent parallel initiatives such as the following:

BRICS Counter-Terrorism Working Group
BRICS Working Group on security in the use of ICTs
Action Plan 2021-2024 for Agricultural Cooperation of BRICS Countries
BRICS Digital Economy Working Group
BRICS Framework for Cooperation on Trade in Service
BRICS Alliance for Green Tourism
BRICS Intellectual Property Rights cooperation mechanism
BRICS Payment Task Force
BRICS Think Tank Network for Finance
BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement
BRICS Virtual Vaccine Research and Development Center
BRICS High-Level Forum on the Traditional Medicine
BRICS Working Group on Nuclear Medicine
BRICS Remote Sensing Satellite Constellation agreement
BRICS Energy Research Cooperation Platform
BRICS Youth Energy Summit
BRICS Youth Summit
BRICS Business Forum
BRICS Business Council
BRICS Women’s Business Alliance
BRICS Academic Forum
BRICS Think Tanks Council
BRICS Political Parties Dialogue
BRICS Sport Cooperation Framework
the BRICS Games
BRICS Urbanisation forum

As the BRICS expands and the American/European Empire begins to crumble, what will be the relation between the many BRICS initiatives and those of the United Nations? Will the United Nations be able to reform itself so that the Global South gains equality, or will the United Nations continue to be dominated by the US and Europe to the point that a new global organization will emerge to replace it?

This tension is most evident on the questions of war, peace and the global economy The United Nations, controlled by its Security Council, is unable to resolve the questions of war and peace, most recently, in the case of the War in the Ukraine. And the World Bank is unable to help the countries of the South. Can they be reformed or must they be replaced? Already the New Development Bank of BRICS begins to replace the World Bank.

The gulf between North and South is likely to increase even more next year when six more countries join the BRICS (Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran,Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates), and the BRICS Summit is scheduled to take place in Russia.

* * * * *

LE SOMMET DES BRICS
Le fossé mondial entre le Nord et le Sud s’est élargi ce mois-ci lors du sommet des pays BRICS (Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine et Afrique du Sud) qui a eu lieu à Johannesburg :

La Déclaration complète des BRICS, un document historique majeur, est publiée dans son intégralité par les médias en Afrique du Sud, au Brésil, en Chine, en Afrique du Sud, en Russie, en Azerbaïdjan, au Nigeria, en Inde, au Nicaragua, au Pérou et au Colombie. Mais en Europe et en Amérique du Nord, seuls les médias alternatifs et aucun média majeur n’ont publié le texte intégral, selon une recherche effectuée sur Google le 28 août.

Pire encore, les reportages sur le Sommet par les principaux médias du Nord ont déformé son message sur la guerre en Ukraine, d’une manière qui continue de justifier les actions de l’OTAN.

Voici le paragraphe de la déclaration des BRICS à cet égard :

“9. Nous rappelons nos positions nationales concernant le conflit en Ukraine et aux alentours, telles qu’exprimées dans les contextes appropriés, notamment le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies et l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies. Nous notons avec satisfaction les propositions pertinentes de médiation et de bons offices visant à une résolution pacifique du conflit par le dialogue et la diplomatie, y compris la Mission de paix des dirigeants africains et la voie de paix proposée par la Chine.”

L’approche des BRICS dans la guerre est correctement rapportée par les médias en Inde, en Turquie et au Brésil comme suit :

The Print, India: BRICS countries to continue support efforts to end Russia-Ukraine conflict through dialogue: Ramaphosa

Anadolu Ajansi, Turkey: BRICS countries support mediation proposals to end Russia-Ukraine conflict

Gouvernement du Brésil : Discours du Président Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva lors de la séance plénière ouverte du Sommet des Brics, comprenant le texte suivant : « La guerre en Ukraine met en évidence les limites du Conseil de sécurité. Les BRICS doivent agir comme une force vers la compréhension et la coopération. Notre volonté s’exprime dans le contributions de la Chine, de l’Afrique du Sud et de mon propre pays aux efforts visant à résoudre le conflit en Ukraine.

L’approche inverse est adoptée par les grands médias du Nord :

En insérant les mots « BRICS » et « Ukraine » dans le moteur de recherche Google pour les dates de la conférence et deux jours après, du 22 au 26 août, nous trouvons dans les médias du Nord les articles suivants qui se concentrent sur les remarques de Poutine au lieu du Sommet : déclaration.

New York Times: In Speech to BRICS Nations, Putin Again Blames West for Ukraine War

BBC: Putin blames West for Ukraine war after drone attacks on Russia

Radio France International: Sommet des Brics à Johannesburg: Vladimir Poutine justifie sa guerre en Ukraine

La question de la guerre en Ukraine n’a été qu’un sujet mineur lors du sommet des BRICS. Outre le paragraphe cité ci-dessus, la Déclaration compte 94 paragraphes qui couvrent la plupart des grandes questions politiques et économiques de notre époque.

La Déclaration place les initiatives des BRICS dans le contexte des Nations Unies et comprend un paragraphe appelant à sa réforme afin d’augmenter la représentation des pays en développement parmi les membres du Conseil de sécurité. On y trouve également des références aux ODD (Objectifs stratégiques de développement) de l’ONU et à ses agences spécialisées, le Fonds monétaire international et l’Organisation mondiale du commerce.

Il n’y a aucune mention de l’UNESCO, malgré la référence à ses domaines de l’éducation, de la science, de la culture et de la communication. Par exemple, il y a une référence aux propositions faites lors de la 10e réunion des ministres de l’Éducation des BRICS, de l’université du réseau BRICS, du comité directeur de la science, de la technologie et de l’innovation des BRICS et du groupe de travail des BRICS sur la culture. Curieusement, il n’y a aucune référence à l’initiative de communication, rapportée récemment dans un article du CPNN, lors de la réunion de Shanghai des organisations médiatiques, y compris des représentants de Press TV, TeleSUR, RT et CGTN, et des membres d’organisations médiatiques progressistes telles que Pan African TV,  ArgMedios, et Brasil de Fato, ainsi que plus de 100 chercheurs et professionnels des médias de Chine, du Ghana, de Zambie, d’Afrique du Sud, du Brésil et de Russie cherchant à développer une alternative à la domination américaine et européenne des médias.

Bien que la Déclaration place les BRICS dans le contexte existant du système des Nations Unies, elle fait également référence à de nombreuses initiatives parallèles et indépendantes telles que les suivantes :

– Groupe de travail antiterroriste des BRICS
– Groupe de travail des BRICS sur la sécurité dans l’utilisation des TIC
– Plan d’action 2021-2024 pour la coopération agricole des pays BRICS
– Groupe de travail sur l’économie numérique des BRICS
– Cadre de coopération des BRICS sur le commerce des services
– Alliance BRICS pour le tourisme vert
– Mécanisme de coopération des BRICS en matière de droits de propriété intellectuelle
– Groupe de travail sur les paiements des BRICS
– Réseau de groupes de réflexion des BRICS pour la finance
– Arrangement de réserve contingente des BRICS
– Centre virtuel de recherche et de développement de vaccins des BRICS
– Forum de haut niveau des BRICS sur la médecine traditionnelle
– Groupe de travail des BRICS sur la médecine nucléaire
– Accord sur la constellation de satellites de télédétection BRICS
– Plateforme de coopération en matière de recherche énergétique des BRICS
– Sommet des jeunes sur l’énergie des BRICS
– Sommet de la jeunesse des BRICS
– Forum des affaires des BRICS
– Conseil des affaires des BRICS
– Alliance des femmes d’affaires des BRICS
– Forum académique des BRICS
– Conseil des groupes de réflexion des BRICS
– Dialogue des partis politiques des BRICS
– Cadre de coopération sportive des BRICS
– Les jeux BRICS
– Forum sur l’urbanisation des BRICS

Alors que les BRICS s’étendent et que l’empire américano-européen commence à s’effondrer, quelle sera la relation entre les nombreuses initiatives des BRICS et celles des Nations Unies ? Les Nations Unies seront-elles capables de se réformer pour que les pays du Sud obtiennent l’égalité, ou les Nations Unies continueront-elles à être dominées par les États-Unis et l’Europe au point qu’une nouvelle organisation mondiale émergera pour la remplacer ?

Cette tension est plus évidente sur les questions de guerre, de paix et d’économie mondiale. Les Nations Unies, contrôlées par leur Conseil de sécurité, sont incapables de résoudre les questions de guerre et de paix, plus récemment dans le cas de la guerre en Ukraine. Et la Banque mondiale est incapable d’aider les pays du Sud. Peuvent-ils être réformés ou doivent-ils être remplacés ? La nouvelle banque de développement des BRICS commence déjà à remplacer la Banque mondiale.

Le fossé entre le Nord et le Sud risque de se creuser encore davantage l’année prochaine lorsque six pays supplémentaires rejoindront les BRICS (l’Argentine, l’Égypte, l’Éthiopie, l’Iran, l’Arabie saoudite et les Émirats arabes unis) et que le sommet des BRICS aura lieu en Russie. .

THE DIALECTICS OF HISTORY: AGGRESSION PRODUCES A REACTION OF SOLIDARITY

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

History is dialectical, as described by Hegel, Marx and Engels.

We see this in our times as three policies of aggression have led to the increased solidarity of those who have been attacked.

1. The commercial media is full of stories about the first case: Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, ostensibly to stop the extension of NATO has led to the opposite, a rapid extension of NATO countries around its borders.

2. The commercial media has denied space to the second case: American aggression in the form of economic sanctions has led to an extraordinary solidarity of the Global South to demand a new economic order.

Here is an excerpt from the statement made on behalf of the Group of 77 and China by H.E. Mr. Alejandro Gil Fernández, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy and Planning of the Republic of Cuba, at the general debate of the high-level segment of the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development under the auspices of ECOSOC in New York on 17 July 2023:

“Since its inception, the G77 and China has been advocating for a new international economic order. Now it´s more evident than ever that these transformations cannot wait any longer. The UN Secretary General recently recognized that the Global Financial System is biased, morally bankrupt and skewed to benefit wealthy countries. This is no longer a plea only from developing countries. The reform of the international financial architecture, especially of IMF and the World Bank, cannot continue to wait. We need to strengthen the participation of developing countries in international economic decision-making, norm-setting and global economic governance, so as in order to adapt to changes in the global economy.”

We have reprinted the statement in full in the Culture of Peace News Network (CPNN).

As shown in the map reproduced in CPNN, the Group of 77 includes 134 countries, almost all of the Global South.

As we have discussed in other recent blogs, a new economic order is already under construction.

The dynamics of this new world order are clearly explained here by Rick Wolff, an economist who was my friend and fellow activist during the 1960’s. Seeking to maximize profits, the capitalists of the Global North abandoned workers in their home countries and invested in the Global South. As as result, it is the BRICS countries of the Global South that have become more powerful economically (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).

As described in my blog this May: “The New Development Bank is a concrete example of the increasing independence of the Global South from the economic dominance of the American Empire. Related to this is the long list of countries that have indicated they want to be associated with BRICS, including Argentina, Algeria, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria, and Mexico. Already, without the inclusion of these other countries, the BRICS now represents 31.5 percent of the global economy, while the G7 share has fallen to 30 percent.”

3. The third case continues to develop, although not yet to the extent of the others described above: Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people continues to produce condemnations at a high level and the development of an international campaign patterned after the campaign that ended South African Apartheid.

This is documented this month in the bulletin of CPNN that is entitled, “News from the Palestine Israel Conflict”

THE DIALECTICS OF HISTORY: NOT NECESSARILY PROGRESSIVE !

1b. In the case of the solidarity of NATO in the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine, we see that it is accompanied by the increased strength of the extreme right in European elections. Is this leading to a return to the 1930’s rise of fascism? Time will tell.

2b. In the case of the solidarity of the Global South against American sanctions, much depends upon the future behavior of China. Does China promote a culture of peace?

On the political level, this question is raised in CPNN with regard to the recent report on the 11th World Peace Forum held in Beijing, which claims that “China will unswervingly advocate, build and uphold world peace.” In this regard, we return to the question posed in the conclusion of the blog in June: (On the political level, for example with regard to the war in Ukraine), “among the peacemakers are the Chinese to some extent. We can only hope that this aspect of Chinese policy will dominate in the coming turbulent period of history. Will the Chinese be able to resist peacefully the provocations of the American Empire such as those connected with Taiwan? Faced with such provocations in the Ukraine, the Russians fell into the trap of war: we must hope that the Chinese will not do so in Taiwan.”

On the economic level, will China really promote a culture of peace in their economic relations with other countries, or will they end up exploiting them?. We concluded last month’s blog with the following: “we have discussed how the New Development Bank, established this year in China by the BRICS countries, may help countries of the South to escape from economic sanctions. And trade with China has now outstripped trade with Europe and North America for the countries of South America. Will these new trade relations independent of Europe and North America enable the countries of the South to escape from exploitation? We hope so, but only time will tell.”

Economist Wolff responds this question by writing: “When Chinese entities invest in Africa, of course their investments are structured to help both donors and recipients. Whether the relationship between them is imperialist or not depends on the specifics of the relationship, and its balance of net gains.” It seems that he also thinks that “only time will tell.”

3b. And finally, with regard to the growing solidarity against Israeli apartheid, much depends on the future nature of the Palestinian struggle. Will the nonviolent approach prevail? Or will the struggle turn violent? If it turns violent, there is the danger that a subsequent state will be a culture of war, as was so often the case with revolutions in the 20th Century. The South African revolution was an exception thanks to the leadership of Nelson Mandela, but one man alone cannot determine the course of history and South Africa since the leadership of Mandela is far from a culture of peace.

* * * * *

LA DIALECTIQUE DE L’HISTOIRE : L’AGRESSION PRODUIT UNE RÉACTION DE SOLIDARITÉ

L’histoire est dialectique, comme l’ont décrit Hegel, Marx et Engels.

Nous le voyons à notre époque alors que trois politiques d’agression ont conduit à une solidarité accrue de ceux qui ont été attaqués.

1. Les médias commerciaux regorgent d’histoires sur le premier cas : l’invasion de l’Ukraine par la Russie, ostensiblement pour arrêter l’extension de l’OTAN a conduit au contraire, une extension rapide des pays de l’OTAN autour de ses frontières.

2. Les médias commerciaux ont refusé toute place au second cas : l’agression américaine sous forme de sanctions économiques a conduit à une extraordinaire solidarité des pays du Sud pour exiger un nouvel ordre économique.

Voici un extrait de la déclaration faite au nom du Groupe des 77 et de la Chine par S.E. M. Alejandro Gil Fernández, vice-premier ministre et ministre de l’économie et de la planification de la République de Cuba, lors du débat général du Forum politique de haut niveau sur le développement durable sous les auspices de l’ECOSOC à New York le 17 juillet 2023 :

“Depuis sa création, le G77 et la Chine plaident en faveur d’un nouvel ordre économique international. Il est maintenant plus évident que jamais que ces transformations ne peuvent plus attendre. Le Secrétaire général de l’ONU a récemment reconnu que le système financier mondial est injust, moralement en faillite et biaisé au profit des pays riches. Ce n’est plus seulement un plaidoyer des pays en développement. La réforme de l’architecture financière internationale, en particulier du FMI et de la Banque mondiale, ne peut pas continuer à attendre. Nous devons renforcer la participation des pays en développement dans la prise de décision économique internationale, l’établissement de normes et la gouvernance économique mondiale, afin de s’adapter aux changements de l’économie mondiale.”

Nous avons reproduit la déclaration dans son intégralité dans le Culture of Peace News Network (CPNN).

Comme le montre la carte reproduite dans CPNN, le Groupe des 77 comprend 134 pays, presque tous du Sud global.

Comme nous l’avons évoqué dans d’autres blogs récents, un nouvel ordre économique est en construction.

La dynamique de ce nouvel ordre mondial est clairement expliquée ici par Rick Wolff, un économiste qui fut mon ami et camarade militant dans les années 1960. Cherchant à maximiser les profits, les capitalistes du Nord ont abandonné les travailleurs dans leur pays d’origine et ont investi dans le Sud. En conséquence, ce sont les pays BRICS du Sud qui sont devenus plus puissants économiquement (Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine et Afrique du Sud).

Comme décrit dans mon blog de mai  : “La nouvelle banque de développement est un exemple concret de l’indépendance croissante des pays du Sud vis-à-vis de la domination économique de l’empire américain. À cela s’ajoute la longue liste de pays qui ont indiqué qu’ils souhaitent être associés aux BRICS, notamment l’Argentine, l’Algérie, l’Iran, l’Indonésie, l’Arabie saoudite, la Turquie, l’Égypte, le Nigeria et le Mexique. Déjà, sans l’inclusion de ces autres pays, les BRICS représentent désormais 31,5 % de l’économie mondiale, tandis que la part du G7 est tombée à 30 %.

3. Le troisième cas continue de se développer, bien que pas encore à l’ampleur des autres cas décrits ci-dessus : l’agression israélienne contre le peuple palestinien continue de produire des condamnations à un niveau élevé et le développement d’une campagne internationale calquée sur celle qui a mis fin à la apartheid africain.

Ceci est documenté ce mois-ci dans le bulletin de CPNN qui s’intitule “Nouvelles du Conflit Palestine Israël”

LA DIALECTIQUE DE L’HISTOIRE: PAS NÉCESSAIREMENT PROGRESSISTE !

1b. Dans le cas de la solidarité de l’OTAN face à l’agression russe en Ukraine, on voit qu’elle s’accompagne d’une montée en puissance de l’extrême droite aux élections européennes. Cela conduit-il à un retour à la montée du fascisme des années 1930 ? Le temps nous le dira.

2b. Dans le cas de la solidarité des pays du Sud contre les sanctions américaines, tout dépend du comportement futur de la Chine. La Chine promeut-elle une culture de la paix ?

Sur le plan politique, cette question est soulevée dans CPNN à propos du récent rapport sur le 11e Forum mondial de la paix tenu à Pékin, qui affirme que “la Chine défendra, construira et maintiendra sans relâche la paix mondiale”. A cet égard, nous revenons à la question posée en conclusion du blog en juin : (Sur le plan politique, par exemple à propos de la guerre en Ukraine), « parmi les pacificateurs sont les Chinois dans une certaine mesure. Nous ne pouvons qu’espérer que cet aspect de la politique chinoise dominera dans la période mouvementée de l’histoire à venir. Les Chinois pourront-ils résister pacifiquement aux provocations de l’Empire américain comme celles liées à Taïwan ? Face à de telles provocations en Ukraine, les Russes sont tombés dans le piège de la guerre : il faut espérer que les Chinois ne le feront pas à Taïwan.”

Sur le plan économique, la Chine va-t-elle vraiment promouvoir une culture de la paix dans ses relations économiques avec les autres pays, ou finira-t-elle par les exploiter ?. Nous concluons le blog du mois dernier par ceci : « nous avons discuté de la manière dont la Nouvelle Banque de Développement, créée cette année en Chine par les pays BRICS, peut aider les pays du Sud à échapper aux sanctions économiques. Et le commerce avec la Chine a maintenant dépassé le commerce avec l’Europe et l’Amérique du Nord pour les pays d’Amérique du Sud. Ces nouvelles relations commerciales indépendantes de l’Europe et de l’Amérique du Nord permettront-elles aux pays du Sud d’échapper à l’exploitation ? Nous l’espérons, mais seul le temps nous le dira.

L’économiste Wolff répond à cette question en écrivant : “Lorsque des entités chinoises investissent en Afrique, leurs investissements sont bien sûr structurés pour aider à la fois les donateurs et les bénéficiaires. Que la relation entre eux soit impérialiste ou non dépend des spécificités de la relation et de son équilibre des gains nets”. Il semble que Wolff pense aussi que “seul le temps nous le dira”.

3b. Et enfin, en ce qui concerne la solidarité croissante contre l’apartheid israélien, beaucoup dépend de la nature future de la lutte palestinienne. L’approche non violente prévaudra-t-elle ? Ou la lutte sera-t-elle violente ? S’il devient violent, il y a le danger qu’un État ultérieur soit une culture de guerre, comme ce fut si souvent le cas avec les révolutions du XXe siècle. La révolution sud-africaine a été une exception grâce au leadership de Nelson Mandela, mais un homme seul ne peut pas déterminer le cours de l’histoire, et l’Afrique du Sud depuis le leadership de Mandela est loin d’avoir une culture de la paix.

TOWARDS A MAYORS’ SECURITY COUNCIL

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

A proliferation of city and mayoral organizations are filling the void left by the failure of the nation-states. As stated by one of the most recent, the Strong Cities Network: “Nation states have dominated the global political arena for centuries, but with more than half of the world’s population today residing in cities, it may be time to rethink who should be at the table when it comes to decisions on how we can reduce violence.”

The latest issue of the CPNN bulletin lists recent actions by the following organizations and forums of cities and mayors contibuting to nuclear disarmament, sustainable development, reduction of international tensions and reduction of urban violence :

Mayors for Peace
Cities Appeal of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
World Urban Forum
ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability)
Global Parliament of Mayors
International Cities of Peace
Strong Cities Network (SCN)
World Forum on Cities and Territories of Peace
United Cities and Local Governments

We may suppose that this proliferation of initiatives reflects a growing realization that the system of nation states is failing as we have documented over the past couple of years in CPNN.

Sustainable development. The CPNN bulletin of January 1 this year is devoted to the Global Climate Change Conference in Madrid which failed just as the previous Conferences failed.

Nuclear disarmament. The CPNN bulletin of June 1, 2018 was devoted to the United Nationsl Disarmament Conference that never took place because of the opposition of the nuclear states.

Around the world we see the beginning of failed states, consumed by violence: Libya, Yemen, and a case can be made for Mexico. Johan Galtung has gone so far as to imagine that the United States will split into two countries as the American Empire crumbles.

The situation is so serious that UN Secretary-General Guterrres devoted his annual press conference on February 4 to the “wind of madness” sweeping the globe. ” From Libya to Yemen to Syria and beyond — escalation is back. Arms are flowing. Offensives are increasing.” And the “doomsday clock” of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has been moved to the closest to midnight of an apocalypse since the lock was first started in 1947 to warn of the dangers of nuclear war.

We may point our finger at the United Nations Security Council as the key element of the failure. The Council was established after World War II to ensure peace and stability in the post-war world. For the first half of its existence it was hobbled by the Cold War, and there were hopes that after the falll of the Soviet Empire it would be able to fulfill its function. But now, it is now evident that the nation-states are not capable of this.

The time has come to begin a process of transferring the decision-making of the UN Secuity Council from the nation-state to the city.

Cities have no interest in nuclear weapons. They are not invested in the arms race or in the polluting industries that cause global warming. They have no frontiers to defend or tarrifs to impose.

The process can be started now with a Mayors’ Security Council (MSC) similar to the Virtual Parliament recently begun by the Global Parliament of Mayors. The MSC would regularly issue press releases stating how they would vote on issues facing the UN Security Council. Immediately they would begin the process of nuclear disarmament. And they would be more serious in addressing the global climate crisis. They would raise the hope that “another world is possible.”

To survive at this point in human history, we need a new vision and a new approach. The MSC could begin this process.

* * * * *

VERS UN CONSEIL DE SÉCURITÉ DES MAIRES

Une prolifération d’organisations de villes et de maires comble le vide laissé par l’échec des États-nations. Comme l’a déclaré l’un des plus récents, le Strong Cities Network: «Les États-nations dominent l’arène politique mondiale depuis des siècles, mais avec plus de la moitié de la population mondiale résidant aujourd’hui dans les villes, il est peut-être temps de repenser qui devrait être autour de la table quand il s’agit de décisions sur la façon dont nous pouvons réduire la violence. “

Le dernier numéro du bulletin du CPNN liste les actions récentes des organisations et forums de villes et maires suivants, contribuant au désarmement nucléaire, au développement durable, à la réduction des tensions internationales et à la réduction de la violence urbaine:

Maires pour la paix,

L’appel des villes par la Campagne internationale pour l’abolition des armes nucléaires
Forum urbain mondial,

ICLEI (Gouvernements locaux pour la developpement durable),
Parlement mondial des maires,
Villes internationales de paix,
Réseau des villes fortes (SCN),
Forum mondial des villes et territoires de paix,
Cités et Gouvernements Unis

Nous pouvons supposer que cette prolifération d’initiatives reflète une prise de conscience croissante de l’échec du système des États-nations comme nous l’avons documenté au cours des deux dernières années dans CPNN.

Le développement durable. Le bulletin de CPNN du 1er janvier de cette année est consacré à la Conférence mondiale sur le changement climatique à Madrid qui a échoué tout comme les conférences précédentes ont échoué.

Le désarmement nucléaire. Le bulletin du CPNN du 1er juin 2018 était consacré à la Conférence des Nations Unies sur le désarmement qui n’a jamais eu lieu en raison de l’opposition des États nucléaires.

Partout dans le monde, nous voyons le début d’États en déroute, dévorés par la violence: la Libye, le Yémen, et peut-être le Mexique. Johan Galtung est allé jusqu’à imaginer que les États-Unis se diviseraient en deux pays lors que l’Empire américain s’effondrera.

La situation est si grave que le Secrétaire général de l’ONU, M. Guterrres, a consacré sa conférence de presse annuelle du 4 février au “vent de folie” qui balaie le monde. “De la Libye au Yémen en passant par la Syrie et au-delà – l’escalade est de retour. Les armes crachent. Les offensives augmentent.”

Et l’horloge apocalyptique du Bulletin of Atomic Scientists a été déplacée au plus près de minuit depuis son début en 1947 pour avertir des dangers de la guerre nucléaire.

Nous pouvons pointer du doigt le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies comme l’élément clé de l’échec. Le Conseil a été créé après la Seconde Guerre mondiale pour assurer la paix et la stabilité dans le monde d’après-guerre. Pendant la première moitié de son existence, il a été entravé par la guerre froide, et il y avait l’espoir qu’après la chute de l’empire soviétique, il serait en mesure de remplir sa fonction. Mais maintenant, il semble évident que les États-nations n’en sont pas capables.

Le moment est venu d’entamer un processus de transfert de la décision du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies de l’État-nation à la ville.

Les villes n’ont aucun intérêt pour les armes nucléaires. Elles ne sont pas investies dans la course aux armements ou dans les industries polluantes qui provoquent le réchauffement climatique. Elles n’ont pas de frontières à défendre, ni de tarifs à imposer.

Le processus peut commencer dès maintenant avec un Conseil de sécurité des maires (MSC) similaire au Parlement virtuel récemment initié par le Parlement mondial des maires. Le MSC publiera régulièrement des communiqués de presse indiquant comment il votera sur les questions auxquelles le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies est confronté. Ils entameraient immédiatement le processus de désarmement nucléaire. Et ils seraient plus sérieux dans la lutte contre la crise climatique mondiale. Ils susciteraient l’espoir qu’un “autre monde est possible”.

Pour survivre à cette période dangereuse de l’histoire humaine, nous avons besoin d’une nouvelle vision et d’une nouvelle approche. Le MSC pourrait commencer ce processus.

Click here to read comments.

The Pope, Religion and the Culture of Peace

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

In this month’s bulletin of CPNN I have written about the initiative of Pope Francis for nuclear disarmament, and, along with and the bishops and churches of the Amazon, for sustainable development and the rights of indigenous peoples, key components of the culture of peace.

One of the initial reactions to the bulletin was to object that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church do not support the culture of peace insofar as they continue to call homosexuality a disease and and to oppose abortion. This point of view considers that a person’s sexual orientation and a woman’s control over reproduction are fundamental human rights and hence components of the culture of peace.

Of course the Pope’s remarks about homosexuality and abortion reflect a long-standing dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as many other religious institutions.

This debate reminds me of the excellent discussion about religion and culture of peace published in 2000 by Elise Boulding in her book Cultures of Peace: The Hidden Side of History:

“Every religion then contains two cultures: the culture of violence and war and the culture of peaceableness. The holy war culture calls for mobilization against evil and is easily politicized. The culture of the peaceable garden relies on a sense of the oneness of humankind, often taking the form of intentional communities based on peaceful and cooperative lifeways, sanctuaries for the nonviolent….”. .

In my opinion, the Pope’s initiatives go beyond the usual “two cultures” of religion. I see them as an important contribution to the agenda of history. Hence, at the conclusion of the bulletin I write that they “may be seen as a major step in the transition from a culture of war to a culture of peace.”

It is the general theme of this blog that there is an agenda of history in the sense that certain problems/challenges are more urgent than others. This theme is present in the remarks quoted in the bulletin by Cardinal Czerny at the final press briefing of the Amazon Synod, that the ecological and human crisis is so deep that without a sense of urgency “we’re not going to make it.”

Nuclear disarmament is such a problem/challenge. Unless we can achieve it, the other components of the culture of peace, including human rights, will never be achieved.

As for the ecological crisis and the necessity of sustainable development, there is a sense in which they are less urgent than nuclear disarmament. The ecological threat is real but while a nuclear war could completely destroy our world in a matter of hours and days, the ecological threat is a matter of decades and centuries.

Unlike the perspective that I am presenting, it seems that people, and especially the young generation, are more conscious of the ecological threat than the nuclear threat. For them the evidence of global warming is visible every day, while the nuclear threat remains abstract and hidden. Therefore, it is tactically and strategically effective that nuclear disarmament be linked as much as possible to the movements for sustainable development.

Of course, the two issues are profoundly related in the sense that both concern preservation of our planet, and like all components of the culture of war and culture of peace they are part of a cultural continuum. This was expressed by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres: “Today peace faces a new danger: the climate emergency, which threatens our security, our livelihoods, and our lives. That is why it is the focus of this year’s International Day of Peace.” And it was emphasized in the effective mobilizations for the International Day of Peace in France by Mouvement de la Paix and by the analysis for the occasion by their spokesman Roland Nivet: “Climate and peace are the same fight. The struggles for peace and climate, social justice and human rights, nuclear disarmament are linked. They unite us today and must be the cement of our unity of action for tomorrow.”

The initiatives of the Pope are especially timely because they support this linkage of nuclear disarmament and sustainable development and they send out this message to the Catholic churches around the world and their more than a billion religious followers.

  • * * *

Le pape, la religion et la culture de la paix

Dans le bulletin de CPNN de ce mois-ci, j’ai évoqué l’initiative du pape François en faveur du désarmement nucléaire et en faveur du développement durable et des droits des peuples autochtones, comme faisant partie des éléments essentiels de la culture de la paix.  Ces derniers ont été faits avec les évêques et avec les églises de l’Amazonie.

L’une des premières réactions au bulletin a été de faire remarquer que le Pape et l’Église catholique romaine ne soutiennent pas complètement la culture de la paix dans la mesure où ils continuent de qualifier l’homosexualité de maladie et de s’opposer à l’avortement. Ces points de vue considèrent que l’orientation sexuelle d’une personne et le contrôle de la procréation par une femme sont des droits de l’Homme fondamentaux et donc des éléments essentiels de la culture de la paix.

Bien sûr, le points de vue du pape sur l’homosexualité et l’avortement reflètent une prise de position de longue date de l’Église catholique romaine, ainsi que de nombreuses autres institutions religieuses.

Ce débat me rappelle l’excellente discussion sur la religion et la culture de la paix publiée en 2000 par Elise Boulding dans son livre Cultures of Peace: The Hidden Side of History:

“Chaque religion contient alors deux cultures: la culture de la violence et de la guerre et la culture de la paix. La culture de la guerre sainte appelle à la mobilisation contre le mal et est facilement politisée. La culture du jardin pacifique repose sur le sentiment de l’unité de l’humanité, prenant souvent la forme de communautés intentionnelles basées sur des chemins de vie pacifiques et coopératifs, des sanctuaires pour les non-violents…. “. .

À mon avis, les initiatives du pape vont au-delà des “deux cultures” habituelles de la religion. Je les considère comme une contribution importante à l’ordre du jour de l’histoire. Par conséquent, à la fin du bulletin, j’écris qu’ils “pourraient être considérés comme une étape majeure dans la transition d’une culture de la guerre à une culture de la paix”.

Le thème général de ce blog est qu’il existe un agenda de l’histoire en ce sens que certains problèmes – défis sont plus urgents que d’autres. Ce thème est présent dans les remarques citées dans le bulletin du cardinal Czerny lors de sa conférence de presse finale du Synode d’Amazonie, selon lesquelles la crise écologique et humaine est si profonde que, sans sentiment d’urgence, nous n’allons pas survivre.

Le désarmement nucléaire est un tel problème – défi !  À moins d’atteindre cet objectif, les autres éléments de la culture de la paix, y compris les droits de l’Homme, ne seront jamais atteints.

En ce qui concerne la crise écologique et la nécessité d’un développement durable, il est en quelque sorte moins urgent que le désarmement nucléaire. La menace écologique est réelle, mais son rhythme est plus lent. Une guerre nucléaire pourrait complètement détruire notre monde en quelques heures et quelques jours alors que la menace écologique est une affaire de décennies et de siècles.

Contrairement à la perspective que je présente, il semble que les gens, et en particulier la jeune génération, soient plus conscients de la menace écologique que de la menace nucléaire. Pour eux, les preuves du réchauffement climatique sont visibles chaque jour, tandis que la menace nucléaire reste abstraite et cachée. Par conséquent, il est tactiquement et stratégiquement efficace de lier autant que possible le désarmement nucléaire aux mouvements en faveur du développement durable.

Bien entendu, les deux problèmes sont profondément liés en ce sens qu’ils concernent à la fois la préservation de notre planète et que, comme toutes les composantes de la culture de la guerre et de la culture de la paix, ils font partie d’un continuum culturel. Dans ce sens, le Secrétaire général de l’ONU, Antonio Guterres, a déclaré: “Aujourd’hui, la paix fait face à un nouveau danger : l’urgence climatique, qui menace notre sécurité, nos moyens de subsistance, notre vie. C’est pourquoi cette année la Journée internationale de la paix sera placée sous le thème de l’action climatique.” Et il a été souligné dans les mobilisations effectives pour la Journée internationale de la paix en France par le Mouvement de la paix et par l’analyse effectuée pour l’occasion par son porte-parole Roland Nivet: “Climat et paix même combat. Les luttes pour la paix et le climat, la justice sociale et les droits humains, le désarmement nucléaire sont liées. Elles nous unissent aujourd’hui et doivent être le ciment de notre unité d’action pour demain.” “

Les initiatives du pape sont particulièrement opportunes, car elles soutiennent ce lien entre le désarmement nucléaire et le développement durable et envoient ce message aux églises catholiques du monde entier et à leurs fidèles qui sont plus d’un milliard.

The Paradox of the United Nations: Peace vs. Culture of Peace

Featured

If we consider the purpose for which the United Nations was formed: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” it is failing badly. This spring, when we hoped that the United Nations would convene a High-Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament, the meeting was cancelled due to pressure from the United States and its allies. And most recently, we see that the proposal for a peacekeeping force to protect the Palestinian people cannot be implemented because of the American veto.

This month in the CPNN bulletin, we look at recent moves towards peace in the Philippines, Colombia, Korea and Etheopia/Eritrea. What is remarkable is the absence of the United Nations from these initiatives. Only in Colombia did the United Nations play an important role by supervising the disarmament of the FARC guerilla army.

This impotence of the UN is not new. We saw it two decades ago when our work for peace in El Salvador and Mozambique was not supported by the US and its allies.

On the other hand, if we look at the culture of peace, the 90% of the iceberg of peace which is not visible on the surface, we see that the UN is continually developing a culture of peace at the local level.

Education for peace: the ‘Back to Learning’ education campaign of UNICEF will benefit half a million children in South Sudan.

Democratic participation: UN Women contributed to the historic leap in Tunisia where women now make up 47 per cent of local government.

Sustainable development: UNESCO and UNWTO are encouraging cultural tourism as a means of fostering sustainable development.

Women’s equality: As described in their annual report, UN Women is supporting women politicians, electoral officials, voters, lawmakers, civil society activists and many others to claim their equal right to lead and be heard.

Human rights: Although the task is often frustrating, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights works for implementation of the UN Declaration on Human Rights which is the keystone of work in this area.

Tolerance and solidarity: The United Nations continues to support youth projects for tolerance and solidarity through the Youth Solidarity Fund.

Free flow of information: In Africa UNESCO supports the development of local radio initiatives against gender violence.

Disarmament: Although the UN is failing at the highest level for disarmament, it is quite capable of action when the member states support it, as described above in the case of Colombia.

And on a more general level, the United Nations continues to hold annual high level forums dedicated to the development of a culture of peace and UNESCO continues to support the development of a culture of peace in Africa.

Imagine how effective the UN could be if the stranglehold of the member states as expressed by the veto of the United States were to be replaced by a radical revision of the UN management with direction by representatives of cities or parliaments, as I have repeatedly proposed!

Movement for Sustainable Development: Model for Culture of Peace?

Featured

From the beginning, sustainable development has been considered to be an essential component of the culture of peace, one of the eight action areas of the Programme of Action for a Culture of Peace, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1999.

In our analysis of the National Culture of Peace Programme in El Salvador, published in 1996, Francisco Lacayo Parajon considered that the global ecological movement provided the best model for the development of a global movement for the culture of peace. He described seven stages of its development, beginning with the adoption of a new paradigm, open to the participation to various sectors, so long as they share the same basic principles and culminating in its internalization in the daily life of people, until it becomes a benchmark of a great majority of societies.

Is the global movement for sustainable development still a good model for the culture of peace? I think the answer is yes, but in a way we did not envisage in 1996.

To some extent, it is true as we predicted that the new paradigm of sustainable development has become accepted and integrated into the thinking of a large proportion of humanity. But there is a new and different stage emerging now, as described in this month’s bulletin of CPNN, based on simple economic forces. This can be seen in the changing nature of fossil fuel divestment: Originally, it “was entirely driven by moral concerns—institutions pulled their money out of oil, gas, and coal companies because they didn’t want to be contributing to the destruction of a stable climate. Now, divestment is increasingly seen as a smart financial move for investors.” An example of this comes from India where “new renewable energy is less expensive to build than it costs to run most of the existing coal fired power in the nation—let alone construct new plants.”

Should we be surprised that economic forces turn out to be the most powerful factor in social change? Not if we were Karl Marx 150 years ago who analyzed historical change as follows: the era of social revolution is preceded by a transformation of the material productive forces of society, i.e. its economy, due to their conflict with the previous material productive forces which have become fetters. Put in terms of example of India, the reliance on coal-fired power is becoming more expensive than the new technologies of wind and solar power.

But is this relevant for the movement for a culture of peace? Yes, if we take seriously the analysis made several decades ago by the economist Lloyd Dumas in his book The Overburdened Economy. He shows that in the long run military production is a burden to the economy, draining its talent and material resources away from production which is useful for people. This was, in fact, the reason for the collapse of the Soviet economy (and Soviet empire) at the end of the 1980’s and it seems likely to produce the collapse of the American economy (and American empire) in the next few years. Recalling how the collapse of the Soviet empire produced a collapse of the linked economies of Eastern Europe, we should understand that the collapse of the American empire will have a similar effect throughout the world due to the interdependence of economies which has increased over time.

Already we see that the paradigm of a culture of peace, as opposed to a culture of war, is becoming internalized in the consciousness of a large proportion of humanity.

Can we not expect that the closer we come to a collapse of the present system, the more it will become evident that wise financial investment should seek out productive sectors instead of militarized sectors of the economy? If and when this occurs, then the time will be ripe for a social revolution from the culture of war to a culture of peace.

The struggle to eliminate violence against women is essential to the culture of peace

Featured

The advance this year of the struggle to eilmininate violence against women is an important step forward for the global movement for a culture of peace. Here’s why.

First of all, violence against women has always been an intrinsic component of war. This goes back to prehistory when women were excluded from war due to the fact the practice of patrilocal exogamous marriage (husband remains in his native village and marries a wife from outside) ensured that wars were conducted between the husband of a woman on one side and her father and brothers on the other side. As a result, since warriors were exclusively men, they were free to capture and rape the women they found when vanquishing another community.

The male domination of the culture of war has characterized all human societies since the beginning of history. The male rulers of the first empires were not only the military commanders but also the heads of the state religion. Female heads of state and religion were so rare that they are considered to be curiosities of history: for example the pharaoh Hatshepsut in ancient Egypt, and the (mythical?) female Catholic Pope in the Middle Ages.

The male domination of the culture of war has come down to our present world system transformed by previous changes in economic systems, from slavery to colonialism to neo-colonialism, but all of these systems remain essentially sexist.

Huge economic industries, part of the culture of war, are essentially sexist. Of course, female prostitution goes back to the beginning of recorded history. But what about modern advertising the use of scarcely clad female models to sell automobilies, beauty products, etc. etc.? In capitalist economies, women are often considered as a commodity to be bought and sold. Seen in this context, rape can be considered in many cases as the forceful theft of the female commodity.

Apart from physical violence the exploitation of women in the modern economy is a form of structural violence. Women are not paid for their essential work in the bearing and raising of children. And in the workplace they continue to be paid substantially less than men in the equivalent occupation.

Political leaders often echo the sexism. The current US President is an example as reported on many occasions (for a list see the this article in The Guardian). Fortunately, we find more political leaders speaking out against sexism, such as the Presidents of France, Turkey and Canada as described in this month’s CPNN bulletin.

Second, violence against women diminishes their capacity to play their essential role as leaders in the transition to a culture of peace. Their role is essential as a result of their exclusion and suffering from war and the culture of war which gives them special reason to take action. In fact, we find women in leadership wherever there are campaigns for a culture of peace, but it would be even greater if all women were free from the threat of violence.

Third, the struggle for any one of the eight program areas of the culture of peace is a struggle for the others as well, because the movement for a culture of peace is an integral and synergistic struggle. For example, the rights of women are an important component of human rights in general. Similarly, sustainable and equitable economic development and democratic participation require the economic and political equality of women. Education for peace requires that girls have the same access to education as boys. In fact, as UN Secretary-General António Guterres has said, unless the international community tackles the problem of violence against women, the world will not eradicate poverty or reach any of its other goals.

In general, we should not make the mistake of thinking that the struggle to eliminate violence against women is just a struggle of the women themselves. It has to be the struggle of everyone, men as well as women, if we are to advance towards a culture of peace.

How history moves: Economic change precedes; political change follows

Featured

(pour la version française, voir en dessous)

When I visited and worked in the Soviet Union and later in Russia I was able to see how history moves. I watched from within as an empire crashed.

The crash of the Soviet empire, foreseen a decade before by Johan Galtung, was first an economic crash, and then secondarily to that, a political crash. The empire crashed economically because it lost the arms race to the West. The West, led by the United States which devoted something like 40% of its budget to the military, forced the Soviet empire to match them, soldier by soldier, boot by boot, rocket by rocket, military scientist by military scientist. But since the Soviet empire had only half the size of the West’s economy, it had to double the percentage of their economy devoted to the arms race.

Hence, it went bankrupt first and the West won.

Once the Soviet economy crashed, the political system crashed on top of it. The people stayed home, the soldiers stayed in their barracks, and the oligarchs, aided by CIA economic advisors, finished the economic collapse by drastically devaluating the ruble. The people stayed home because they were totally alienated from the system. They used to say you could find truth anywhere except in Pravda (which means truth in Russian) and the news anywhere except in Izvestia (which means news in Russian).

In this month’s CPNN bulletin, we see once again how political change lags behind. Here it concerns the solution to the problem of global warming. We have known for many years that to halt the global warming, we need to change from fossil fuels to renewable energy. But politically, we could not make the change. Last year’s global summit of the world’s nations failed to address the challenge of abandoning fossil fuels.

It’s the economic factors that are making the change. Renewable solar energy has become so cheap and readily available that it is more and more replacing energy from fossil fuels. And the faster we change over to renewable energy for economic reasons, the faster the political change will follow.

The first great sociologist, Karl Marx, understood this dynamic when he developed his theory of historical change. Here’s what he wrote in his Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:

The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

How does this apply the great historical change that we have yet to make: the transition from the culture of war to a culture of peace?

There is a growing psychological and political consciousness around the world that this transition is necessary. The movement for a culture of peace has been inspired by the movement for sustainable development which has been the greatest political movement of the past half century.

But as we are seeing, the movement for sustainable development can only become effective as a sequel to economic changes which make sustainable development possible and profitable.

The sequence of economic change first, political change second, applies equally to the transition towards a culture of peace. A culture of peace will become politically possible after the economy of the culture of war has crashed. When will that come? Too soon, because we are not ready for it!!!

The same economic fate that destroyed the Soviet empire is already far advanced towards the destruction of the American empire – and for the same reason – devotion of the greatest part of the economy to armaments and wars. Johan Galtung predicted in 2004 that the crash would come by the year 2020. The economic crash will be followed by a political crash; Americans and European are already as alienated from their political system as the Russians were in 1989. As evidence, just look at the abstention from voting in national elections.

When the American empire crashes, the rest of the world will crash with it, just as Eastern Europe crashed when the Soviet Union crashed.

At that moment, there will be a window of opportunity to establish a culture of peace – but that can happen only if we are prepared with institutional frameworks that can replace the nation states. If we are not prepared, we risk the replacement of the present system by a fascist system – just as happened after the crash of 1929 in Europe (and almost in the United States as well).

Whereas the question of global warming and changes of energy sources are matters of many decades, the question of the collapse of the economy of the culture of war is a matter of only a few years. Like the collapse of the Soviet Union, it threatens to catch us by surprise.

I work with cities in the hopes that they will be able to provide an institutional framework to replace the role of the nation states as the basis for the United Nations Security Council (See blog of June 1), but the work is painstakingly slow. Too slow. History is moving faster than us!

      • Comment bouge l’histoire: Les changements economiques passent avant le politique !

        Durant les années où j’ai voyagé et travaillé en URSS, puis plus tard en Russie, j’ai vu comment l’Histoire bouge. Je regardais de l’intérieur pourquoi et comment s’écrase un empire.

        Le crash de l’empire soviétique, prévu une dizaine d’années auparavant par Johan Galtung, fut d’abord un crash économique, puis ensuite seulement, un crash politique. L’empire s’est écrasé économiquement parce qu’il a perdu la course aux armements à l’Ouest. L’Occident, dirigé par les Etats-Unis, qui consacrait environ 40% de son budget à l’armée, força l’empire soviétique à les égaler, soldat contre soldat, botte contre botte, fusée contre fusée, scientifique militaire contre scientifique militaire ! L’empire soviétique ayant seulement la moitié de la taille de l’économie de l’Ouest, il a dû consacrer le double à la course aux armements et a donc fait une ponction enorme dans son économie.

        Par conséquent, il a fait faillite et l’Occident a gagné !

        Une fois que l’économie soviétique est tombée, le système politique s’est écrasé à son tour. Les citoyens sont restés chez eux, les soldats sont restés dans leurs casernes, et les oligarques, aidés par des conseillers économiques de la CIA, ont terminé l’effondrement économique en dévaluant le rouble. Les citoyens sont restés chez eux parce qu’ils étaient totalement aliénés au système et qu’ils n’avaient plus confiance en lui. Je les ai même entendu dire que l’on pouvait trouver la vérité partout, sauf dans Pravda (qui signifie la vérité en russe) et les nouvelles partout sauf dans l’Izvestia (ce qui veut dire nouvelles en russe)

        Revenons à l’actualité, dans le bulletin de CPNN ce mois-ci, nous voyons une fois de plus que les changements politiques sont à la traine en ce qui concerne le problème du réchauffement climatique. Nous savons depuis de nombreuses années que pour arrêter le réchauffement de la planète, nous devons quitter les combustibles fossiles et développer les énergies renouvelables. Hélas, politiquement, nous ne pouvons pas faire de changement. Le sommet mondial des nations du monde de l’an dernier n’a pas réussi à relever le défi d’abandonner les combustibles fossiles.

        Ce sont les facteurs économiques qui mènent la danse . L’énergie solaire renouvelable est devenue si peu chère et si facilement disponible qu’elle commence à remplacer l’énergie des combustibles fossiles. Plus vite nous passerons à l’énergie renouvelable pour des raisons économiques, plus vite le changement politique suivra.

        Le premier grand sociologue, Karl Marx, a bien compris cette dynamique quand il a développé sa théorie du changement historique. Voici ce qu’il a écrit dans sa préface à la “Critique de l’économie politique.”

        “L’ensemble de ces rapports de production constitue la structure économique de la société, la base concrète sur laquelle s’élève une superstructure juridique et politique et à la­quel­le correspondent des formes de conscience sociales déterminées. Le mode de production de la vie matérielle conditionne le processus de vie sociale, politique et intellectuel en général. Ce n’est pas la conscience des Hommes qui détermine leur être; c’est inversement leur être social qui détermine leur conscience. À un certain stade de leur développement, les forces productives matérielles de la société entrent en contradiction avec les rapports de production existants, ou, ce qui n’en est que l’expression juridique, avec les rapports de propriété au sein desquels elles s’étaient mues jusqu’alors. De formes de développement des forces productives qu’ils étaient ces rapports en deviennent des entraves. Alors s’ouvre une époque de révolution sociale. Le changement dans la base économique bouleverse plus ou moins rapidement toute l’énorme superstructure.”

        Comment cela s’appliquera t-il au grand changement historique que nous avons encore à faire: le passage de la culture de la guerre à une culture de la paix?

        Une conscience psychologique et politique croissante apparait dans le monde entier sur la necessité de cette transition. Le mouvement pour une culture de la paix a été inspiré par le mouvement pour le développement durable qui a été le plus grand mouvement politique du dernier demi-siècle.

        Mais comme nous le voyons, le mouvement pour le développement durable n’a pu devenir effectif que suite aux changements économiques qui rendent le développement durable possible et rentable.

        Les séquences “changement économique d’abord, changement politique après” s’appliquent également à la transition vers une culture de paix. La culture de paix va devenir politiquement possible qu’après l’implosion de l’économie de la culture de la guerre.

        Le même sort économique qui a détruit l’empire soviétique est déjà bien avancé vers la destruction de l’empire américain – et pour la même raison – l’attribution de la plus grande partie de l’économie à l’armement et aux guerres. Johan Galtung a prédit en 2005 que l’accident viendrait avant l’an 2020. Le crash économique sera suivie d’un crash politique. Les Americains et les européens sont déjà autant aliénés à leur système politique que les Russes l’étaient en 1989. Comme preuve, il suffit de regarder le taux d’abstention aux élections nationales.

        Lorsque l’empire américain s’écroulera, le reste du monde va suivre, tout comme l’Europe de l’Est s’est écroulée lorsque l’Union soviétique est tombée.

        À ce moment-là, il y aura une fenêtre d’opportunité pour établir une culture de la paix – mais cela ne peut se produire que si nous sommes prêts avec les cadres institutionnels qui peuvent remplacer les Etats-nations. Si nous ne sommes pas prêts, nous risquons le remplacement du système actuel par un système fasciste – tout comme cela est arrivé après le crash de 1929 en Europe (et presque aux États-Unis également).

        Alors que l’affaire du réchauffement planétaire et des changements de sources d’énergie sont les questions sur plusieurs décennies, l’effondrement de l’économie de la culture de guerre est une affaire de seulement quelques années. Comme l’a fait l’effondrement de l’Union soviétique, il menace de nous surprendre.

        Je travaille avec les villes dans l’espoir qu’elles seront en mesure de fournir un cadre institutionnel pour remplacer le rôle des Etats-nations comme base pour le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies (Voir le blog de 1 juin), mais le travail est très lent. Trop lent. Histoire se déplace beaucoup plus vite que nous!

  • Political will – Will it be there for the global meeting on climate change?

    Featured

    This is the question posed by this month’s CPNN bulletin with regard to the global meeting on climate change to take place at the end of the year in Paris.

    It is generally agreed, at least by the citizens of the world, that we need to reverse the global warming that comes from the exhausts of power plants, automobiles, factories, airplanes, etc.

    So what has been keeping national governments from reaching agreements all these years, despite the desires of their citizens? Where has there been democracy?

    The first and most obvious reason has been the powerful lobbies of the oil industry and their allies that have tried to deny the obvious fact that there is global warming and that it comes from their pollution. They have tried to convince us with pseudo-scientific articles. By now, however, the peoples of the world have seen through their false propaganda and they overwhelmingly demand action to stop global warming.

    But more important, the big corporations have paid legislators not to take action that could reduce their profits. In other words they have corrupted the national governments.

    The outcome in Paris will depend on the relative weight of corruption and democracy.

    What should we expect?

    If nuclear armaments are any precedent, we should expect that democracy will lose, that corruption will win, and that global warming will continue.

    After all, we have known for decades that nuclear weapons are an even greater danger than global warming for the future of our planet, and yet there has been no effective action to eliminate them. This year the meeting of national governments at the United Nations in May produced no agreement. Why? Because the United States followed the political demands of Israel that their weapons program should not be questioned.

    National governments are corrupted. In my opinion they are hopelessly corrupted. By the culture of war. Over the centuries, for millennia, in fact, they have come to monopolize war and to construct their power on its basis. Their power has been shared with the miltary-industrial complex, and more recently the military-industrial-media complex, since the media also have been corrupted.

    For this reason, it is of the utmost importance that cities, provinces and regions, as well as civil society, have taken up the cause of preventing climate change. Unlike national governments, they cannot make war, and hence they are relatively free from the culture of war. This month we recognized climate initiatives by the provinces and regions of the Americas, by the mayors of the world meeting with the Pope, by mayors from Africa and Europe meeting with the mayor of Paris, and by the civil society meeting in Mozambique, as well as election results from the oil-rich province of Alberta, Canada, where voters threw out the incumbent party and elected candidates who pledged to establish tougher policies against climate change.

    The leadership of cities, provinces and regions to prevent climate change is a good precedent for their leadership on a more general level, the transition from a culture of war to a culture of peace.

    Food Sovereignty is Culture of Peace

    Featured

    In CPNN this month, we ask the question “What is the relation between peasant movements for food sovereignty and the global movement for a culture of peace?”

    Here is my own response to the question.  It is based on the many articles in CPNN this month about the global movement of peasants for food sovereignty.

    Yes, they are an important part of the global movement for a culture of peace, for several reasons.

    First, they are the first line of defense against one of the main advances of the culture of war.  As we said in the document that we sent from UNESCO to the UN to define the culture of peace, it “represents a major change in the concept of economic growth which, in the past, could be considered as benefitting from military supremacy and structural violence and achieved at the expense of the vanquished and the weak.”  What better way to describe the advances of a few transnational corporations, supported by so-called “free-trade treaties” who are attempting to monopolize the seeds that farmers use throughout the world and to impose monoculture agriculture based on their seeds and their pesticides?

    The transnational corporations are supported by the power (ultimately military) of nation states around the world, not only by the great powers, but also by the governments of the small countries.  An example is Guatemala, where despite pressure from a strong peasant movement to support a Rural Integral Development law, the law is blocked by a coalition of right-wing parties.

    Second, the peasant movements are organized not only locally, and to an increasing extent, on a global scale.  Look at the map of protests on April 17, the International Day of Peasant Struggle against Transnational Companies and Free Trade Agreements. There are actions on every continent.

    The peasant movements are based ultimately on the wisdom and experience of their ancestors as described in the blog from this February, “Listen to the indigenous people.”  This is clearly stated in the declaration of the 6th Congress of the Latin American Coordination of Countryside Organizations: “We emerged from the heart itself of the 500-year process of indigenous, peasant, black and popular resistance.”

    The peasant struggle ultimately concerns all of us.  As we concluded in the February blog, we need to “organize local cooperatives and local food production instead of importation and agro-business . . .  In this way we can protect ourselves against the crash of the American empire and the global economy that it manages.”

    Finally, we can say that the peasant movement for sustainable agriculture is not only part of the global movement for a culture of peace, but perhaps its most critical component because it will enable us to survive after the crash and during the period when it may be possible to make a transition from the culture of war to a culture of peace.  For this reason it is especially important that we see more and more young people turning back to small-scale, “human-scale” farming, as described in the CPNN interview this month.

     

    An Institute to Train for Culture of Peace Tourism

    Featured

    The following is excerpted from the talk I gave at the recent symposium on Tourism and Peace (See this month’s CPNN bulletin).

    Tourism is an enormous enterprise with enormous resources, and it needs a culture of peace.  Tourism is the first industry to suffer when there is violence.  And it has a great potential to promote all the eight program areas of culture of peace.

    Acknowledging my gratitude to a good friend here today, Lou D’Amore, who has shared with me this idea, I propose that we should develop an Institute to train workers for culture of peace tourism

    As a model for this, let us recall the early years of UNESCO after World War II, when UNESCO helped establish three institutes for training literary workers.  The institutes, located in Mexico, Iran and Egypt, trained a generation of literacy workers, coming mostly from national ministries of education.  The subsequent engagement of these literacy workers led to an great increase in literacy throughout the world.   Even if it is not mentioned in most history books, the drive towards universal literacy should be considered one of the great achievements of the modern era.

    It is proposed here to learn from that experience to develop an institute to train a new generation of workers for another kind of literacy, the literacy of peace.  The UNESCO experience provides a reasonable model for such an institute.

    First, it could be self-financing with income from tuition paid by institutions such as ministries of tourism, hotel, tourist agency and airline companies who send their workers to get training, as well as young people seeking a career in this field.  The faculty could be recruited from activists and retired officials who believe sufficiently in the challenge of culture of peace tourism that they would work for minimum salaries, and from people on-loan from relevant organizations involved in the tourist trade.

    An important lesson was told to me by a veteran of the UNESCO literacy institute in Iran: one should minimize the involvement with buildings and infrastructure by renting space from existing educational institutions rather than building or owning the buildings with its costs of maintenance, cleaning staff, guardians, etc.

    Where should such an institution be located?  In Africa, of course.  Nowhere else is tourism so vital to the economy of a continent.  And nowhere else is there so much to offer to tourists and those who host them.

    How should we go about establishing such an institute?  First, a sponsor is needed.  The most appropriate would be the United Nations World Tourism Organization.  Then, clients are needed.  The most appropriate would be ministries of tourism.  And finally, we need faculty.  From among the distinguished gathering of experts on tourism for peace gathered here this week in Johannesburg, I’m sure we could find an excellent faculty.

    There is another reason that we should locate such an institute in Africa.  In the North, especially Europe and North America, the states have become so linked to the culture of war that they would have a conflict of interest to support a culture of peace.  In Africa, on the other hand, the independent state is a new development dating only from the post-colonial era, and although it is often corrupt, it is not so linked to the culture of war.  Its involvement with culture of peace tourism would point it in a good direction for the future.

    To conclude, I hope that together we can develop an institute for culture of peace tourism, and I offer my services to help work on this.    I hope others will join in.

    Listen to the indigenous people

    Featured

    This month’s CPNN bulletin carries remarks by indigenous peoples who are guarding their environment against the destruction brought by our modern civilization:

    From Brazil: “We indigenous peoples have shown that we will never allow our lands to be recolonized, invaded or destroyed, even if that means sacrificing our own lives.”

    From Canada: “We have one Earth, and unless this government is hiding another healthy Earth somewhere, we need to take care of the one we’ve got, and it’s now, it’s now we have to step up.”

    From Colombia: “sooner or later indigenous peoples will be recognized as the true guardians of nature.”

    And it is in the same spirit that the most radical environmental law in global history, the “Mother Earth” law, was adopted in Bolivia, a country with a majority of the people indigenous and a President who is indigenous.

    We should listen to all of them for several reasons.

    They remind us that our very existence depends upon having a sustainable development that does not destroy the earth on which all development depends.   We need to be reminded of this because our lives have become so specialized that we have come to think that food simply comes from a supermarket and that water simply comes from a faucet.   Our civilization puts a priority on exploitation of mineral, oil and water resources without regard to the future, and the imposition of highly-mechanized, monoculture agricultural production which cannot even feed those who produce it.

    Indigenous peoples realize that the destruction of their environment will lead not only to their inability to survive as individuals, but even more profoundly, it will lead to the destruction of their culture.  We need to take this seriously for our own culture.

    Our culture has become urban over the past few centuries, and we depend upon agricultural systems outside of the city.  Often the agricultural production is so distant that we must depend upon transportation systems that bring their products from hundreds and thousands of miles away.   Meanwhile, small farms, people directly tied to the land, have been run out of business by large-scale, monoculture industrial farming.  We take it for granted that all this will continue.

    But we should not take this for granted.  The culture of war, in which we live, is based upon exploitation and exploitation is not sustainable, neither of resources nor of people.  Sooner or later, the culture of war crashes.  This can happen through violence, as it did in the two World Wars of the 20th Century.  Or it can happen through economic collapse as it did in 1929 and for half of the world in 1989.

    A global economic crash at this time of history would be far more disastrous than the crash of 1929 because we are more urban, there is less sustainable agriculture, and the transportation of food is, at the same time, more essential and more vulnerable to a financial collapse, because it is largely dependent upon oil transported in tanker ships.

    In the face of this possibility, Johan Galtung, the dean of peace researchers, recommends that we “organize local cooperatives and local food production instead of importation and agro-business, local banks instead of investment banks, local construction of affordable housing to provide jobs as well as housing.”  In this way we can protect ourselves against the crash of the American empire and the global economy that it manages.  And if Galtung is correct that this may happen within the next five years,  we have no time to waste.

    During this time there is great danger of war and/or a shift to fascist states.  Hence our work for a culture of peace is crucial, and we can also take lessons on this from some indigenous peoples.  As the indigenous of Cauca have told us, “We survived by struggle, but we are peoples with a culture of peace.”

    Not only do we need to listen to to indigenous peoples, but even more we must follow their example.  The very survival of our culture is at stake.  And soon.

    Rio+20: Window into history

    Featured

    The events surrounding Rio+20 last month, the huge meeting of governments that was called together by the United Nations, can be seen as a window into history as it is occurring.  The nation-states are failing and new institutional frameworks are growing up to take their place.

    Most commentators agree that the meeting was a failure at the level of national governments.  Many heads of state were present and there were many months of preparation, but the meeting was unable to take any strong action on global warming. The failure was especially great because the meeting of scientific experts just before the Rio+20 event stated clearly that global warming is threatening great damage to the earth. See the CPNN article about the UNESCO Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Development.

    Since sustainable development is key part of a culture of peace, we see once again that nation-states, with their culture of war, are not capable of making a culture of peace.

    At the same time we can see other institutional forces developing to create a culture of peace, including youth, civil society, indigenous peoples and especially cities.  For details see the CPNN bulletin for July.

    The increasing role of cities for sustainable development is in line with what I have written in my recent book, World Peace through the Town Hall.  Cities have not had a culture of war since the Middle Ages when they had their own armies, city walls for defense and gates where they could control who entered and left the city.  Now these are only sites you can visit as a tourist in the old cities of Europe.  Instead, cities are involved in promoting all of the aspects of a culture of peace.  Sustainable development is one of the eight aspects of a culture of peace.

    It is not by accident that these events took place in Brazil.  Ever since the Rio Conference and Environment and Development in 1992 and the 15 million Brazilian signatures on the Manifesto 2000 for a culture of peace, the people of Brazil have been in the leadership of the Global Movement for a Culture of Peace.  The World Social Forums, started in Porto Allegre in Brazil, have contributed greatly.  And you can find many articles in CPNN about local initiatives for a culture of peace in Brazil, including at the level of city governments.