UN Adopts New Resolution on Culture of Peace
an article by David Adams
On November 10 the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/58/11 concerning the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World. The objective of the decade, which runs from 2001-2010, is to strengthen the global movement for a culture of peace.
The resolution was similar to that adopted a year ago (click here for text), but there was a big increase in the number of sponsors. Last year there were 22 sponsors. This year there were 55 sponsors. Among them were 19 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). This is especially significant because the OIC foreign ministers, at their annual meeting in September called for "a long term strategy which should aim at creating and promoting a culture of peace" as a response to the threats to peace and security being felt around the world. The introduction to the UNESCO report on the Decade (document A/58/182) considers the culture of peace to be an appropriate response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and the events in Iraq.
As previously, the resolution encourages the "expansion of the Culture of Peace News Network as a global network of Internet sites in many languages." It also congratulates UNESCO for maintaining the culture of peace website.
A major review of the International Decade is due to take place in the fall of 2005 at the General Assembly, and the resolution speaks of the possibility of holding a plenary meeting as close as possible to the general debate where heads of countries usually come to speak. In addition to the annual report from UNESCO, reports are requested from the civil society to the UN concerning observance of the Decade and activities promoting a culture of peace and non-violence.
Question(s) related to this article:
Can the UN help move the world toward a culture of peace?,
* * * * *
Latest reader comment:
The following comes from my blog of October 2012
The United Nations and the Culture of Peace
My ten years working in the United Nations system left me with a sweet and sour taste: the sweet side was the universality of the UN, both its staff and mandate, and its great significance for raising the consciousness of the peoples of the world; the sour side was the jealousy of the Member States who make sure that the UN does not encroach on their freedom to rule over their own citizens, as well as people in other countries that they may dominate through neo-colonial relations. This became crystal-clear to me when the United States delegate, during the informal meetings of the UN General Assembly in 1999, opposed the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace, saying that it would make it more difficult for them to start a war. In fact, throughout history, war (call it “defense” if you prefer) has always been the most fundamental “right” of the state
With this in mind, I have been pleasantly surprised by the extent to which the UN system has once again taken up the culture of peace as a priority, as shown in this month's CPNN bulletin, just as it was a priority in the Year 2000 when I was the director of the UN International Year for the Culture of Peace
Of course, this does not happen by chance, and great credit belongs to two men who played key roles for the Year 2000, Federico Mayor Zaragoza, who made the culture of peace a priority of UNESCO, and Anwarul Chowdhury, who played the role of midwife at the UN General Assembly, guiding the culture of peace resolution through nine months of opposition by the powerful states. Once again, this last month, these two men motivated and spoke eloquently at the High Level Forum on a Culture of Peace at the UN
As always it was the countries of the South who supported the initiative (see the CPNN article of September 24 and its discussion), but at least this month it was not blocked by the powerful states
In fact, it is my impression that the powerful states pay less and less attention to the United Nations. When there was a financial crisis a few years ago, the powerful states did not turn to the UN agencies , the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but set up their own temporary system of finance ministers, and when it came time for the review of nuclear non-proliferation, President Obama held his own meeting with heads of state in Washington and ignored the UN conference where the only head of state to speak was that of Iran. And the US has pulled out of UNESCO entirely, forcing drastic cuts in its budget
In fact, the lack of attention by the powerful states may provide the UN system with an opportunity to push the agenda of the culture of peace without their opposition - let us hope that the UN can take advantage of this
Of course, in the long run, the UN, or any other institution, cannot mandate a culture of peace; instead, the culture of peace can only grow from the consciousness, both understanding and action, of the peoples of the world (see last month’s blog below). That’s why the role of the UN for consciousnes-raising is ultimately its greatest contribution!