This month’s CPNN bulletin shows that initiatives for a culture of peace are taking place in most regions of the world. As discussed in previous blogs, Latin America and Africa are in the leadership, although this may be difficult for the North to accept . The Arab States took two steps forward with the “Arab Spring”, although the turnaround in Egypt moved them one step back. The only region which seems to lag is East Asia.
The apparent lag of East Asia may be an illusion caused by our different terminologies. I recall a personal luncheon with the Ambassador from China to UNESCO at the time when I was director of the International Year for the Culture of Peace. After listening intently to my description of our initiatives for the culture of peace, he said suddenly, “Oh, now I understand. You are talking about social harmony.” The terminology of China was molded in the philosophy of Confucius which is quite different from Western philosophy.
The universality of the culture of peace was ensured by the adoption in 1999 of the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace by the UN General Assembly which is the closest we come to a universal forum of humanity. Just as the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights provided universal recognition for human rights, so, too, the 1999 Declaration and Programme of Action has provided, with its 8 action areas, a universal basis for the culture of peace.
This was summed up by Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury who shepherded the Declaration and Programme of Action through the difficult process of adoption. Presenting the document to the General Assembly, the Ambassador said that it brought in subjects that the Assembly had rarely touched in its 50 year history: “I believe that this document is unique in more than one way. It is a universal document in the real sense, transcending boundaries, cultures, societies and nations. Unlike many other General Assembly documents, this document is action-oriented and encourages actions at all levels . . . All people from all walks of life and all sorts of backgrounds can contribute to its implementation.”
As Ambassador Chowdhury correctly stated, one aspect of its universality is its relevance to the everyday actions of people throughout the world.
Another aspect of the universality of the UN declaration was ensured by the manner in which we prepared it. We began by analyzing and forming the alternative to its antithesis which is another universal culture, the culture of war, which has dominated the world at least since Neolithic times. It has become, over time, the culture of the state. As I have often remarked, if you placed Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Napoleon and General MacArthur in a room with interpreters, they would find themselves in complete accord.
Given the universality of the culture of war, the only way we can arrive at a culture of peace is through a universal transformation of one to the other. In a previous blog, with the title “Can a Culture of Peace be created in only one zone of the world?”, I answered that it has not been possible, because previous attempts limited in scope have been crushed by the culture of war.
Only when the states of the culture of war crash universally will there be a chance to install a culture of peace. This occurs periodically, including four times in the previous century: World Wars I and II, the Great Depression, and (in half of the world) the crash of the Soviet Empire. And it will no doubt occur fairly soon again in this 21st Century.
But when the next crash comes, will we be ready to establish a culture of peace universally? That is the key question. If we only establish the culture of peace in one or two regions, it is likely that the culture of war will be re-established and once again return to crush our attempts at a culture of peace.