All posts by CPNN Coordinator

About CPNN Coordinator

Dr David Adams is the coordinator of the Culture of Peace News Network. He retired in 2001 from UNESCO where he was the Director of the Unit for the International Year for the Culture of Peace, proclaimed for the Year 2000 by the United Nations General Assembly.

International civil society from Vienna: “We need negotiations that can strengthen the logic of Peace instead of the illogic of war.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Pressenza

After two intense days of work and discussion, the Final Declaration of International Civil Society has been circulated by the Promoters of the Vienna Peace Summit, and it will be sent to political leaders around the world, calling on them to act in support of a ceasefire and negotiations in Ukraine.

An important achievement – to which, among the summit organizers, the Italian entities of the “Europe for Peace” coalition contributed – that will enable the international peace movement to work jointly in the coming months on paths toward a just and possible Peace; a path to Peace that must be based on the principles of common security, international respect for human rights and self-determination of all communities. And with an upcoming date already defined: in fact, the Summit’s Final Declaration includes an invitation to civil society in all countries to join together in the implementation of “a week of global mobilization (from Saturday, September 30 to Sunday, October 8, 2023) for an immediate ceasefire and for Peace negotiations to end this war.”

The two days of debate [were used to] build a political alternative to a war that continues to upset the entire World with its evil and its capacity to destroy lives and the environment. Plenary speeches and working groups addressed from different perspectives what determines this war in terms of suffering, disasters, crises, and risks of nuclear accident or war. They also addressed, of course, how to be able to concretely solidarize with the Ukrainian people [who have been] under siege and bombardment for 16 months. Because saving lives is the priority, and war is certainly not the answer.

“We listened, moved, to the testimonies of Yuri, Olga, Oleg, Karina, and Nina who conveyed to us what it means to live under bombs or in exile, to have to decide in a matter of seconds where to go, whether to flee one’s own country or to hide so as not to end up in jail on terrorism charges. Those who participated in the Vienna Summit measure themselves against this reality, seeking paths of dialogue to rebuild mutual trust, to reaffirm solidarity. The path we call for must be taken by all civil society movements in order to make the alternative to war possible,” stresses Sergio Bassoli of the Peace Disarmament Network and one of the coordinators of “Europe For Peace.”

In the Final Declaration, the organizations of the broad coalition present highlight that they are “firmly united in their conviction that war is a crime against humanity and that there is no military solution to the current crisis,” expressing alarm over the ongoing war.

Condemnation for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is explicitly reiterated, stressing that “the institutions created to ensure Peace and Security in Europe have failed, and the failure of diplomacy has led to war. Diplomacy is now urgently needed to end the armed conflict before it destroys Ukraine and endangers humanity.”

The work of all civil society organizations involved will converge on this shared demand: “negotiations that can strengthen the logic of Peace instead of the illogic of war.”

(Continued in right column)

Questions related to this article:
 
Can the peace movement help stop the war in the Ukraine?

(Continued from left column)

Below is the text of the “Vienna Declaration for Peace” drafted by the organizations participating in the summit:

Peace by peaceful means. Ceasefire and negotiations now!

We, the organizers of the International Summit for Peace in Ukraine, call on the leaders of all countries to act in support of an immediate ceasefire and negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.

We are a broad and politically diverse coalition representing Peace movements civil society, including believers, in many countries. We are firmly united in our belief that war is a crime against humanity and that there is no military solution to the current crisis.

We are deeply alarmed and saddened by the war. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and injured, and millions are displaced and traumatized. Towns and villages throughout Ukraine, as well as the natural environment, have been destroyed.

Far greater death and suffering could still occur if the conflict escalates to the use of nuclear weapons, a risk that is higher today than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We condemn Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The institutions created to ensure Peace and Security in Europe have failed, and the failure of diplomacy has led to war. Diplomacy is now urgently needed to end the armed conflict before it destroys Ukraine and endangers humanity.

The path to Peace must be based on the principles of common security, international respect for human rights, and self-determination of all communities.

We support all negotiations that can strengthen the logic of Peace instead of the illogic of war.

We affirm our support for Ukrainian civil society defending its rights. We pledge to strengthen dialogue with those in Russia and Belarus who put their lives at risk to oppose war and protect democracy.

We call on civil society in all countries to join us in a week of global mobilization (Saturday, September 30 to Sunday, October 8, 2023) for an immediate ceasefire and for Peace negotiations to end this war.

Vienna, June 11, 2023

(Editor’s note: Some participants, according to Medea Benjamin regretted that the final declaration failed to condemn NATO for provocations that led to the war and sabotage of early attempts at mediation.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

Government-ELN agreements, a milestone this week in Colombia

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION . .

An article from Prensa Latina (translation from Prensa Latina English – first five paragraphs – and by CPNN – rest of article)

The agreements between the Colombian Government and the National Liberation Army (ELN) in the third cycle of dialogues in Havana became a significant issue this week for the country and Latin America.

This Friday (June 9), at noon from Havana, Cuba, the parties formalized the bilateral ceasefire agreement, which will last 180 days (six months).

This new pact expands prohibited actions and provides for a robust UN monitoring and verification mechanism, with the accompaniment of the Catholic Church and social oversight, as well as the participation of the guarantor and accompanying countries.

This ceasefire will also allow the territories to have the conditions of tranquility required by the people and communities in the process of participation of society in the construction of peace that has been agreed upon during this cycle.

For the first time, the State and the ELN reached an agreement that implies the block treatment of the first three points of the Mexico Agreement, where the second cycle of talks took place; the participation of society in the construction of peace, democracy for peace and transformations for peace, Senator Iván Cepeda said.

– – –

The agreed cessation has progressive phases. The first, enlistment, is immediate. Then, on July 6, the end of offensive operations begins until reaching full validity, of 180 days, as of August 3, while monitoring and verification will begin soon.

(continued on right column)

(Click here for the Spanish version of this article.)

Questions related to this article:

What is happening in Colombia, Is peace possible?

(continued from left column)

A National Participation Committee will also be created, which will have the participation of 30 sectors of society to contribute to the transformation of the country and the achievement of Peace.

“We reached a partial agreement with the ELN like never before, which will be progressive until the final agreement in May 2025,” said President Petro.

The priority will be to achieve the protection of the civilian population in the conflict areas, starting with children, he added.

The head of state assured that human rights and international humanitarian law guide the agreement. He stressed that the participation of society will be fundamental, as well as the proposal for a great National Agreement that his government supports.

The parties thanked Cuba for its role as guarantor and for facilitating its territory to reach these agreements that will alleviate the communities affected by the internal conflict.

“The main effort in this process we owe to Cuba. Without that effort it would be impossible to be here,” said ELN commander Antonio García, at the closing of the Third Cycle of the Dialogue Table.

Likewise, Pablo Beltrán (the ELN negotiator) assured that the inclusion of Cuba on the US list of countries sponsoring terrorism is an injustice, while he thanked the Cuban government and people for their vocation for peace.

President Petro also described the inclusion of Cuba on that list as a profound injustice.

“I was telling President (Joe) Biden that if there has been an act of profound diplomatic injustice… a stab in the back… it was that Cuba ended up in that abject designation. From here I tell President Biden that this act of injustice must be amended, “he stressed.

Prior to this agreement, considered a milestone in Colombia, and one of the most significant achievements within the Total Peace policy of the Government of Gustavo Petro and Francia Márquez, a forceful mobilization of the people took place in support of the mandate of both leaders and their change proposals.

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, Latin America

Austrian Censorship of Peace Conference Is An Outrage

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article by By David Swanson, Kathy Kelly, John Reuwern and Brad Wolf from World Beyond War

Forty-eight hours before a global peace conference in Vienna, Austria, was to begin, the venue host abruptly cancelled. Peace, it seems, cannot be discussed, especially peace in Ukraine.

This news is a disturbing step in a growing trend.

Owners of the venue which was to host the Summit for Peace in Ukraine, announced on Wednesday, 7 June, 2023, their decision to cancel the agreement holding the summit on their premises. Fortunately, a new location was secured in Vienna (and anyone on Earth can sign up to take part online), but not before a smear campaign against the summit had been launched.

The venue owners reportedly explained: “We have decided to comply with the wishes of Ukraine and its embassy operating in Austria and have cancelled the rental of all rooms in the ÖGB catamaran for the event ‘International Summit for Peace in Ukraine’ next weekend.”

This was not just one venue taking this position. “On Wednesday, the Press Club Concordia also refused to make its premises in a central location in downtown Vienna available for a press conference of the ‘summit’.”

Supporters of the summit note the chilling innuendo caused by the abrupt cancellation of the summit. Speakers widely regarded for their moral and intellectual guidance have been undermined in statements intended to justify objections to the summit.

This is not an isolated incident. Western liberal ideals have long asserted that the best answer to mistaken speech was wiser speech and more of it. We now have a rapidly growing liberal consensus in favor, instead, of censoring media outlets, canceling speaking events, and forbidding people with unwanted points of view from even gathering together. Powers are being granted to governments, social media platforms, and other tech corporations that believers in democratic self-governance spent centuries claiming nobody should have.

Those who turn against free speech are often groups afraid they cannot win an honest debate. And so, they take up censorship. The movement for peace in Ukraine can take this as a compliment. Governments fear such a discussion of peace and instead smear this peace summit and the speakers.

An Austrian press report announced on Thursday that the venue (ÖGB Catamaran) had been withdrawn because the event was “under suspicion of propaganda.” What sort of propaganda? Well: “According to its own statements, the ‘International Summit for Peace in Ukraine’ wanted to show ways out of the war.” Under international law, propaganda for war is illegal and must be banned. Not a single nation on Earth complies with that requirement, raising up the value of free speech as trumping the rule of law. But speaking in favor of bringing a war to an end has now acquired the status of forbidden propaganda.

Moreover, the report explains, “some announced participants have no current fear of contact with the media of the aggressor.” In other words, if talk of negotiating peace is shut out of the media controlled by only one side of a war, speaking to media controlled by the other side — even to say exactly what one would have said to any other media outlet — is grounds for not only censorship but a ban on meeting and strategizing.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Question related to this article:
 
Free flow of information, How is it important for a culture of peace?

Can the peace movement help stop the war in the Ukraine?

How can we be sure to get news about peace demonstrations?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

The report gives some specifics: “The internationally prominent U.S. economist Jeffrey Sachs, for example, as well as Anuradha Chenoy, ex-dean of India’s Jawarharlal Nehru University and an important representative of global civil society networking, have given interviews to the TV station Russia Today (RT). The channel has been blocked across the Union for Russian war propaganda in the wake of EU sanctions. Sachs also answered questions from Russian TV host and war advocate Vladimir Solovyov in December 2022. Solovyov has often called for attacking Germany and Great Britain as well.”

The “Press Club Concordia” also explained that the problem was that Jeffrey Sachs might do an interview on Russian media.

Not only is diplomacy shunned, but speaking to members of the media with whom one disagrees is equated with advocating whatever those journalists have advocated. This can only contribute to distrust, enmity, and war without end.

Not only did the venue say it was doing the wishes of the Ukrainian embassy, but the Ukrainian ambassador to Austria tweeted that peace activists were the fifth column and henchmen of the Russian government.

And who created the idea that the whole world must obey the wishes of the government of Ukraine? The government of the United States — a country where little time passes these days without news of some event cancelled to fulfill the wishes of the government of Israel.

Further, “Noam Chomsky, who will speak at the summit via video, for example, believes that NATO has ‘marginalized’ Russia for too long.” Whether that fact is in dispute, or merely the acceptability of stating it out loud, was not explained.

“Also physically present in Vienna, according to the program, should be Clare Daly, an Irishwoman and member of the EU Parliament and the parliamentary group Die Linke. Daly also spoke repeatedly to RT about the West’s ‘complicity’ in the war in Ukraine. She believes the sanctions are wrong: they would not harm Russia and would not help Ukraine. In the EU Parliament in early 2023 voted against a resolution holding Russia legally responsible for the war. Daly said she does support those parts of the text that condemn Russia for the invasion and call on the government in Moscow to immediately cease all military action and withdraw from Ukraine. However, she said she opposes providing weapons to Ukraine and expanding NATO’s presence in the region.”

So, opposing both sides of a war is just as unacceptable as opposing one side, in the view of these censors.

This is where we have arrived. Proposing to negotiate peace — without even suggesting what those negotiations should arrive at — is so unacceptable to proponents of war, that it cannot be discussed — not in any large gathering. And yet, despite the wars being waged in the name of “democracy” it is not clear how such censorship is driven by democracy or in align with democratic values. Nor is it clear how many steps, if any, remain between the varieties of censorship we have now and hardcopy book burnings of the past.

(Editor’s note: We were informed on June 13 that “the websites for the International Peace Bureau and the Peace in Ukraine summit were hacked the day after the conference but should be up and running soon.”)

Europe, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Can Pope Francis bring peace to Ukraine?

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY .

An article by Thomas Reese in the National Catholic Reporter

Pope Francis has launched a peace mission aimed at finding a settlement of the Russia-Ukraine war, upsetting Ukraine’s allies with his refusal to insist that Russia leave Ukraine as a starting point for negotiations. For their part, the Russians simply ignore the pope.

Western supporters of Ukraine accuse the pope of moral equivalency, treating both sides as equal. This is nonsense.

Just four weeks into the war, the pope condemned  the “the violent aggression against Ukraine” and the “senseless massacre where every day there is a repetition of slaughter and atrocities,” in his Sunday Angelus in March 2022. “There is no justification for this!”


Photo of meeting between the Pope and Ukrainian President Zelensky on May 13 (EFE)

The Vatican has always said that it wants a “just peace.” When America Media’s Gerard O’Connell  asked Archbishop Paul Gallagher, the Vatican’s foreign minister, what a just peace meant for the Vatican, Gallagher said it meant a withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory.

This is not to say the pope holds the West blameless. In June of last year Francis told La Civilta Cattolica, a Jesuit publication, that a couple of months before the war an unnamed “wise” diplomat had expressed concern to him about NATO. “They are barking at the gates of Russia,” the diplomat said. “And they don’t understand that the Russians are imperial, and they will not allow any foreign power to approach them. The situation could lead to war,” concluded the diplomat.

While Francis made clear that this was the diplomat’s opinion, it is hard not to conclude that Francis agreed with him. He seems to believe, as many in the Global South do, that NATO somehow either provoked or failed to prevent the war.

Francis has also noted “the interest in testing and selling weapons” to combatants in the war. There is no question that the American military-industrial complex is profiting in Ukraine, financially as well as strategically: The Russian war machine is being severely degraded without the loss of a single American life.

(Continued in right column)

Questions related to this article:
 
Religion: a barrier or a way to peace?, What makes it one or the other?

Can the peace movement help stop the war in the Ukraine?

(Continued from left column).

But responding to those who accuse him of being pro-Putin, Francis told La Civilta Cattolica: “No, I am not. It would be simplistic and erroneous to say such a thing. I am simply against turning a complex situation into a distinction between good guys and bad guys, without considering the roots and self-interests, which are very complex.”

The pope acknowledged “the brutality and ferocity with which this war is being carried out” by the Russian side. “While we witness the ferocity and cruelty of Russian troops,” he said in the La Civilta Cattolica interview, “we should not forget the problems, and seek to solve them.”

The pope is not cheering on either side in this war, which is an essential quality needed in a mediator. The pope has appointed Cardinal Matteo Zuppi  as a special envoy for peace in Ukraine. Both sides have used the Vatican for facilitating exchanges of prisoners, which is a good sign.

With Ukraine unwilling to give up any of its territory — including Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014 — is there something else that would appease Russia and allow Putin to save face in defeat? I think there is: nuclear weapons.

The West has always feared the Red Army sweeping into Europe — indeed, it’s the reason NATO exists. Because the U.S. and Europe were unwilling to pay for enough conventional weapons to stop what they considered a formidable force, they relied on tactical nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the Red Army’s invasion.

We now see that the Russian army is a Potemkin army, more show than substance. If Ukraine all by itself can hold off the Russians and score victories, NATO would wipe the floor with them without using tactical nuclear weapons.

This military reality calls for a rethinking of NATO’s nuclear policy. As part of settling the Ukraine-Russia war, NATO and the U.S. should do two things: First, swear off the first use of nuclear weapons in Europe. Second, negotiate the elimination or at least reduction of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.

Ukraine will have to agree to not “officially” join NATO. The war has already made Ukraine part of NATO unofficially. Ukraine would continue to receive weapons, but no NATO troops can be deployed on Ukrainian soil.

Putin, as an authoritarian autocrat, can continue this war indefinitely. We must give him something to get him to stop. He could save face by telling his people that the war succeeded in forcing NATO into this deal.

There is a temptation to let the war go on as long as Russia is stymied and suffering huge military losses in the speculative hope that it will bring down Putin. But Ukraine is also suffering both military and civilian losses.

The pope reminds us to look at “the human side of the war,” the impact on people’s lives, the deaths, the refugees, the widows and orphans. The war cannot be examined only in terms of “geopolitical calculations.” Too many people are dying. The pope is right in calling for peace. Unnecessary tactical nuclear weapons in Europe would be a cheap price to pay for it.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

A global analysis of violence against women defenders in environmental conflicts

. . WOMEN’S EQUALITY . .

Excerpts from publication by Dalena Tran & Ksenija Hanaček in Nature

Abstract

Women environmental defenders face retaliation for mobilizing against extractive and polluting projects, which perpetrate violence against Indigenous, minority, poor and rural communities. The issue matters because it highlights the gendered nature of extractive violence and the urgent need to address the systemic patterns of violence that affect women defenders, who are often overlooked and underreported. Here we analyse violence against women defenders in environmental conflicts around the world. We use data from the Environmental Justice Atlas and employ log-linear and binomial regressions to find statistically significant patterns in displacement, repression, criminalization, violent targeting and assassinations committed against women defenders in extractive conflicts.


(Click on image to enlarge)

Statistical results indicate that violence against women defenders is concentrated among mining, agribusiness and industrial conflicts in the geographical South. Repression, criminalization and violent targeting are closely linked, while displacement and assassination appear as extreme outcomes when conflict violence worsens. Women defenders experience high rates of violence regardless of countries’ governance accountability and gender equality. This work contributes to the broader sustainability agenda by highlighting the need to address the impacts of extractive activities on women.

Main

Extractivism refers to projects extracting natural resources for exportation. It is an inherently unequal process often inciting extractivist violence, or the institutionalized use of brute force to displace and dominate communities for extractive and polluting projects such as mines or plantations. The extractive process frequently involves militarizing communities and assassinating environmental defenders, those advocating to protect environmental and human rights5. Such violence is typically justified by dehumanizing people and denying them agency through systematically excluding them from economic, social, political and cultural activities (for example, through classism, racialization and gendering). Extractive violence is also connected to ecocide, the notion that environmental destruction is criminal and has devastating genocidal impacts on affected communities dependent on the health of their environments for physical, spiritual, and cultural wellbeing. Genocidal outcomes are those exterminating and persecuting groups, assimilating survivors and erasing their culture.

Current literature describes a connection between colonial extractive attitudes, ecocide and genocide of Indigenous peoples, minorities, the poor and rural communities1. Ecocide typically begins with land grabbing, or forcefully dispossessing communities of their lands and natural resources. Such usurpation is secured through legal and institutional structures such as land ownership regimes disrupting common law tenure. This colonial control is also reinforced through covertly and overtly discriminatory ideological and discursive practices. Ensuing ecological destruction then becomes genocidal when causing conditions fundamentally threatening a group’s cultural and physical existence. More specifically, direct physical violence gives way to indirect forms of extermination through undermining place-based livelihoods, such as deforestation causing food instability, pollution causing health impacts, or structural inequalities increasing vulnerability to violence and ecological consequences.

There has been increasing attention to the ecocide–genocide nexus through environmental defender killings as well as slow violence wherein people suffer from long-term environmental harms. This study contributes an ecocide–genocide–gender connection to such literature. Violence against women environmental defenders (WEDs) is overlooked, and extractive violence is gendered. Corporations and states typically concentrate power among men during project negotiations, limiting women’s autonomy and normalizing their oppression. WEDs face retaliation because mobilizing defies gender expectations of docility (lack of retaliation) and sacrifice (absorption of extractive consequences).

(continued in right column)

Questions for this article

Protecting women and girls against violence, Is progress being made?

(continued from left column)

Assassinations are the most visible form of direct violence, but all threats to women defenders are difficult to document owing to censorship and a lack of dat. Lacking documentation of violence against women especially is also prevalent owing to discursive discrimination against women treating the loss of their lives as normal, deserved and ‘ungrievable. To address this gap, this article examines 523 cases from the Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas) involving WEDs, 81 of which involve WEDs assassinated for their advocacy. Routine assassinations of WEDs are not isolated incidences, but rather political tactics forcefully making way for extractivism. Media reports often focus on gruesome details to sensationalize yet trivialize WEDs’ struggles, often not recording names, let alone their struggle. Patterns of extractive violence against women thus remain overlooked.

In this Article, we address the following questions: (1) Where and under which circumstances do WEDs experience different forms of violence leading up to their assassinations? (2) How do structural patterns of violence affect women defenders? Log-linear regression traced distributions of violence against WEDs across conflict types, commodities and impacts. Binomial regression then addressed structural patterns in countries where WEDs were assassinated. This article contributes global patterns of violence against WEDs. We broaden analyses to circumstances leading up to and including assassinations because ecocide is not limited to killings, but rather encompasses displacement, repression, criminalization and violent targeting. Given our statistical approach and the nature of the material, we are aware of the potential dehumanization of WEDs’ circumstances and denial of their agency. However, quantitative data analysis using a large, representative sample is necessary for strengthening arguments that patterns of violence against women defenders found in qualitative, locally focused case studies are not outliers, but rather are occurring worldwide.
Results

Regarding circumstances informing WED assassinations, extrajudicial killings predominantly occurred in Latin America, Asia and Africa. Many cases were in the Philippines, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico (Fig. 1). Even in Southern cases, some in Costa Rica, Kenya, Rwanda and Saint Lucia targeted Global North expatriates. The data are skewed towards the Philippines. There were 19 WED assassination cases, more than double compared with Colombia in second place. Some Philippines cases were massacres or serial killings, assassinating 26 WEDs across 19 cases, whereas cases elsewhere targeted one or two at a time.

Figure 2 shows that the types of conflict with high statistical significance (P ≤ 0.05) of violence against WEDs were biomass and land, mineral extraction and industrial and utilities conflicts. The distribution of violence throughout biomass and land conflicts (n = 146) was that nearly half of all corresponding cases involved repression (41%), criminalization (43%) and violent targeting (48%) of women defenders. . . .

Discussion (excerpts)

. . . . Overall, an ecocide–genocide–gender connection is thus apparent in how assassinations and extractive violence were situated within contexts producing gender-specific vulnerabilities for women defenders. Ecocidal dispossession of lands and resources, as many of the EJAtlas cases corroborate, often began upon intrusion of masculinized extractive industries into communities. Genocide caused cultural and physical erasure of peoples standing in the way of extractivism, and ecocide further accomplished such erasure through undermining women’s agency. As occurred in the deadliest countries towards WEDs, changing land ownership regimes8 used patriarchal ideologies to foster ecocidal conditions (extermination, persecution, survivor assimilation and cultural erasure) emboldening violence in subtly gendered manifestations of repression, criminalization, violent targeting and assassination.

The ecocide of Indigenous peoples across Southeast Asian EJAtlas cases, for example, has distinctly gendered aspects. Many Southeast Asian Indigenous peoples formerly had alternative gender cosmologies beyond man–woman binaries and with relatively more egalitarian power relations. Colonization goes beyond territorial invasion. Consequently, colonization and ensuing extractive land grabbing brought new legal, administrative and market structures concentrating (often militarized) power among men. We argue that, through discrimination and violence, these institutions committed ecocidal–genocidal–gendered violence by exterminating and persecuting Indigenous community leaders, erasing formerly egalitarian gender roles and relations, and assimilating survivors into marginalized, binary and unequal gendered labour and social divisions.

Ecocide rewrites WEDs’ histories and bodies as inferior and deserving of extermination. Ecocidal control of populations2 then occurs as fear of and actually experienced gendered (lethal) violence not only deters mobilizations but also creates impunity as women are less able to mobilize safely and openly. Moreover, while most cases do not explicitly report WED involvement or violence, this reflects representational and mobilization inequalities. For instance, there is a difference in how Indigenous and non-Indigenous women defenders negotiate and are impacted by extractive violence in different ways. Such intersectional differences exist and should be explored in future work.

global, WOMEN'S EQUALITY

China Culture: Xi calls for protection of Chinese civilization, culture and heritage

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

President Xi Jinping has called for the protection of the country’s rich cultural heritage. Cen Ziyuan spoke with experts from the Chinese Academy of History, where he made the call in a speech on Friday.



frame from news video

CEN ZIYUAN Beijing “President Xi said a deep and comprehensive understanding of the Chinese past will allow the nation to draw upon its traditional culture to meet current challenges. The Chinese leader described Chinese civilization as unique, cohesive, innovative, uniform and peaceful. He said the nation is not afraid of facing up to challenges and stressed the need for creativity and innovation.”

LI GUOQIANG Deputy Director-General, Chinese Academy of History “The pursuit of peace and harmony is the foundation of the Chinese spirit. It is in the gene of Chinese civilization. In the 5,000-year history, our ideal world is of great unity. We value a culture of peace and unity.”

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Questions related to this article:

Does China promote a culture of peace?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

Chinese President Xi Jinping made his remark after visits to the China National Archives of Publications and Culture and the Academy.

He reaffirmed that China does not aim to impose its own values and system on others, and that Beijing will continue to contribute to world peace and international order.

LI GUOQIANG Deputy Director-General, Chinese Academy of History “In such a cultural value, we do not support hegemony. We do not colonize others or occupy them. We continue to be open and embracive about foreign cultures.”

President Xi stressed the unity of the country is China’s core interest.

He said the country is at a historic turning point and he called on experts working in the field of culture to continue preserving and innovating the riches of Chinese civilization.

LIU JIAN Deputy Head, Institute of World History Chinese Academy of History “The continuity of Chinese civilization is developed under a uniform area of land and supported by pluralism. The condition to sustain the continuity is to uphold the traditions and innovate. We embrace culture from abroad.”

Experts say the continuity of Chinese civilization is a reference and promotes dialogues and exchanges of world cultures.

LIU JIAN Deputy Head, Institute of World History Chinese Academy of History “But now we also put emphasis on peace. This is the foundation of connectivity. This is also China’s contribution to world civilization.”

The Chinese civilization has always been ready to interact with different others. Engaging with the Chinese culture is key to understanding the nation better while its people are mutually willing to share their stories with the world.

East Asia, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Truth of US fault in Jeju massacre must be conveyed via evidence to the world, argues ex-foreign minister of Australia

… . HUMAN RIGHTS … .

An article by Heo Ho-Joon in Hankyoreh

To achieve true reconciliation regarding the Jeju April 3 Incident, the US government must take responsibility for its historical wrongdoing in the same way as the Korean government, argues Gareth Evans, the former foreign minister of Australia. The US’ key role will be acknowledging responsibility and apologizing, he says.

These remarks came on the first day of the 18th Jeju Forum for Peace and Prosperity held at the International Convention Center Jeju in Seogwipo during the “Making the Solution of Jeju 4.3 a Global Model: Truth, Reconciliation and Solidarity” session hosted by the Jeju 4.3 Research Institute.


Gareth Evans, the former foreign minister of Australia, speaks at the Jeju Forum for Peace and Prosperity. (courtesy of the Jeju 4.3 Peace Foundation)

The previous day, Evans received the fifth annual Jeju 4.3 Peace Prize presented by the Jeju 4.3 Peace Foundation. Evans was awarded the prize for his involvement in the conclusion of the Paris Peace Agreements that brought peace and an end to civil war in Cambodia, an opportunity which he seized to create the international “responsibility to protect” norm in 2005 that enables the UN to intervene in order to protect civilians in the event of state-sponsored genocide. Evans has also been involved in peace work such as nuclear nonproliferation and banning chemical weapons.

The 4.3 Peace Prize Special Award was awarded to painter Kang Yo-bae for his contribution to informing people about the Jeju April 3 Incident through his “History of People’s Uprising in Jeju” and “The Camellia Has Fallen” series of works in the 1990s.

Efforts to inform the international community of the tragic history that took place 70 years ago in Jeju must be taken, Evans argued.

“If mass atrocity crimes of the kind that occurred here on Jeju are not remembered and seared into the nation’s and the world’s consciousness, [. . .] then the prospect is all too real that these horrors will recur again, that people will fail to recognize the early warning signs of catastrophe before it is too late, and that we will fail as an international community to develop the kind of prevention and response strategies that minimize that risk,” he said.

Expressing concern about the movement to reveal the truth about crimes against humanity weakening in the international community, Evans said that the truth of and responsibility for the Jeju April 3 Incident must be conveyed to the international community so that it may serve as a basis for the creation of principles for solving these sorts of problems.

Evans argued that the level of responsibility the US should bear for the Jeju April 3 Incident must be explicitly stated based on historical evidence, and blame should be clearly assigned through fact-finding work.

The former foreign minister stressed that the US is “failing to properly acknowledge this responsibility.” Accordingly, he said, we must urge the US to acknowledge its responsibility in ethical and moral terms by thoroughly bringing the truth to light through evidence.

(Article continued in right column)

 

Question related to this article:

Truth Commissions, Do they improve human rights?

(Article continued from left column)

Evans recalled the moment when former German Chancellor Willy Brandt knelt down in front of the Monument to the Ghetto Heroes in Warsaw, Poland, in December 1971, and noted how the world remembers how Germany has continued to apologize for the Holocaust. He suggested that Japan should take a leaf out of Germany’s book and apologize for the horrific brutalities it committed in colonies in the past.

Furthermore, Evans suggested that, in the same way that President Barack Obama paid respects at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, Biden should express a similar sentiment with regard to the uprising and massacre in Jeju 70 years ago. Doing so will make the US a nation that “warrants respect,” he said, and will serve to bolster the alliance between Korea and the US.

During a press conference after the fact, Evans called for accountability from the US government with regard to the massacre of Jeju citizens during the Jeju April 3 Incident.

Saying that while it may appear impossible for the US government to share responsibility for the Jeju April 3 Incident in the same manner as the Korean government, Evans noted that what is clear is that the specific nature of US responsibility must be revealed. Real conciliation is about acknowledging and accepting one’s own mistakes, he stressed.

In his acceptance speech for the peace prize, Evans emphasized the “necessity to retain memory of the worst if we are to progress at all toward achieving the best.”

“If we fail to remember the indescribable horror and misery that is involved in any major war, we are at profound risk of sleepwalking into another,” he said of the need to improve global and regional performance when it comes to conflict prevention and response.

Evans also brought up the recent Korea-US summit.

“South Korea is closer to the eye of the storm than my own country, and most others,” he said. “Your preoccupation with North Korea’s ever-increasing nuclear weapon capability and endless rhetorical belligerence is perfectly understandable.”

But he cautioned against heeding the “many domestic voices” that are arguing for South Korea to arm itself with nuclear weapons. “For that to happen would be disastrous for the global non-proliferation regime, and with it your country’s international reputation, while doing little or nothing to actually enhance your security.”

Evans expressed concern about Presidents Joe Biden of the US and Yoon Suk-yeol of South Korea having “doubled down on their commitment to nuclear deterrence,” saying, “What South Korea, like Australia, should focus on ensuring in all our alliances with the US is not extended nuclear deterrence, with all [the] enormous risks that entails, but extended conventional deterrence.”

“If we want to build a worldwide culture of peace, there is a crucial need not only for us to remember what has gone so badly wrong in the past, but to stay optimistic about changing things for the better,” Evans stressed. “I’m sure that this is the spirit which sustained the people of Jeju during those long decades of government denial and suppression of the truth, before democracy and decency finally prevailed. I know it is the spirit which will sustain the effort to universalize the Jeju model of truth, reconciliation, and international solidarity.”

In the closing session of the Jeju Forum on the afternoon of June 2, Evans spoke with Governor Oh Young-hun of Jeju on the topic of “Promoting the Culture of Peace.”

East Asia, HUMAN RIGHTS

Spain: The Forum for a Culture of National Security approves the proposal to create a Culture of Peace Group led by Crue

. . DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION . .

An article from Crue Universidades Españolas  (translation by CPNN)

The Forum for a Culture of National Security approved on May 30 the five proposals of the working groups of the entities, institutions and organizations that are part of this body. Among the projects submitted to consensus was the creation of the “Culture of Peace” working group, which will be led by Crue Universidades Españolas, co-led by the Ministry of Social Rights and which will have the collaboration of the Coexistence Pact, an entity which is part of Crue.

(Editor’s Note: Crue Universidades Españolas, established in 1994, is a non-profit association of 76 Spanish universities: 50 public and 26 private.)

The Crue delegate for European Affairs, José María Sanz, was in charge of presenting the general lines of a working group that seeks to promote compliance with SDG 16 (promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies) and target 7 of SDG 4 (promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and the contribution of culture to sustainable development).

(Article continued in right column)

(Click here for the original Spanish version of this article.)

Question related to this article:

How can we develop the institutional framework for a culture of peace?

(Article continued from left column)

Crue’s proposal contemplates two main activities: carrying out a diagnosis in universities on social sustainability and prevention and response to violence –for which a panel of social sustainability indicators will be defined that will help to carry out a diagnostic report– and the promotion among universities of the International Day of Coexistence in Peace (May 16).

The other working groups approved were:

* Human Security through non-formal education, led by the Youth Council in Spain and co-led by the Youth Institute;

* The culture of local security: Self-protection, led by the Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces (FEMP) and co-led by the Association of Professional Specialists in Civil Protection and Emergencies (ANEPPE);

* Culture of belonging within a more egalitarian society, led by the Spanish Confederation of Student Parents’ Associations (CEAPA) and co-led by the Spanish Observatory on Racism and Xenophobia;

* The incidence of transversal professional criteria in the field of preventive action and as a means for resolving action, led by the Professional Union and co-led by the Ministry of Labor and Social Economy.

The Forum was established on 26 November and is made up of an equal number of people representing the General State Administration and the public sector, and designated people representing civil society organizations, academia, associations and non-profit entities. The main lines of action of the Forum are, first, to promote in the educational system and in training courses the values of education and a culture for peace, democratic values, non-violence, tolerance, solidarity, equality and justice. ; and second, to articulate and transfer a message of equal treatment and opportunities, of non-discrimination, of development of a democratic, participatory culture and of rejection of any type of violent radicalism.

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, Europe

Mexico: UAEMéx and the Judiciary promote a culture of peace

… EDUCATION FOR PEACE …

An article from Capitale México (translation by CPNN)

Today, more than ever, it is vital to remember and value the importance of generating a culture of peace in our society, stated the rector of the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico (UAEMéx), Carlos Eduardo Barrera Díaz. Along with the president of the Superior Court of Justice of the State of Mexico, Ricardo Sodi Cuellar, he awarded of the First State Oratory Contest for the Culture of Peace, closing the “Week of Access to the Culture of Peace.”

In the Aula Magna “Licenciate Magistrate Gustavo A. Barrera Graf”, the rector emphasized that peace is the construction of a coexistence based on respect, understanding, tolerance and empathy. “Peace is achieved when we recognize our interdependence and commit to treating others with dignity and fairness,” he said.

(Article continued in right column)

(click here for the original version in Spanish).

Questions for this article:

Mediation as a tool for nonviolence and culture of peace

Is there progress towards a culture of peace in Mexico?

(Article continued from left column)

He highlighted that the collaboration between the Judiciary of the State of Mexico and the UAEMéx was essential to make this event possible and urged those present to continue building bridges and promoting peace in all areas of our lives.

In his turn, Ricardo Sodi Cuellar celebrated that the university offers a Bachelor’s Degree in Alternative Conflict Resolution, since building peace is the most important desire of any society.

“Mediation is a fine, elegant art, where people learn through the mediator, who is the one who facilitates this aspect, to build the foundations for peace, to resolve a conflict. This is important because society always has conflicts and the way in which we resolve them will bring us closer to or further away from peace,” said the magistrate.

In his turn, Judge Enrique Víctor Manuel Vega Gómez stressed that in order to talk about building a culture of peace, one depends on the involvement of society.
He asserted that holding this event, in which the Universidad Mexiquense de Seguridad also participated, is a way of leading youth towards the creation of a participatory democracy, that promotes peace.

The director of the Faculty of Law, María José Bernáldez Aguilar, pointed out that the combination of efforts between state institutions is essential for the construction of a solid and lasting culture of peace.

By joining forces, she said, we demonstrate that building a culture of peace is not an individual task but a joint effort that requires the active and committed participation of all institutions and social actors. “It is through this collaboration and teamwork that we can lay the foundation for a more peaceful and just future,” she said.

EDUCATION FOR PEACE, Latin America

Caravan of peace in Senegal: The kings of Oussouye and Sine spread the good word

. . DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION . .

An article by Alioune Badara in Le Quotidien

The Diola and Serer communities want to put culture and joking cousinhood at the service of peace. To implement this vision, Maa Sinig Niokhobaye Diouf Fatou Diène, the King of Sine, visited Maan Sibiloumbaye Diédhiou, the King of Oussouye. As part of the strengthening of ties of brotherhood and cohabitation, the kings of Oussouye and Sine initiated a caravan for peace. Diolas and Sérères took advantage of this visit to deepen the bonds of cousinhood, which constitute a social cement.


This is a trip for a good cause. The Serer and Diola communities want to support the State in promoting the culture of peace in Senegal. Following the establishment of a joint committee in November 2022 in Fimela, located in the Fatick region, to prepare for the visit of the King of Sine to the King of Oussouye, in order to strengthen the ties between the two, a cultural caravan for peace was organized. At the head of the caravan is Maa Sinig Niokhobaye Diouf Fatou Diène, the king of Sine, accompanied by Jaraaf and other members of the royal institution of Sine. They left Diakhao to visit Maan Sibiloumbaye Diedhiou, the King of Oussouye.

(article continued in right column)

(Click here for the French original of this article)

Question related to this article:

 

Can traditional leaders serve a culture of peace?

(article continued from left column)

The caravan was officially started in Fatick before the Governance by the authorities of the region. The royal institution of Sine specifieD that, “The Maa Sinig-Bu Badjum Ayi Cultural Peace Caravan provides an opportunity to harness the vast potential of Senegambia’s cultural and natural heritage, to strengthen social cohesion and the fight against poverty, and to promote sustainable development. at the base. This cultural caravan for peace, designed to benefit the entire Nation, aims to facilitate the synergy between state decisions, local initiatives and community actions, for the achievement of development objectives on a democratic and consensual basis.”

After a warm welcome in Oussouye, the kings of Sine and Oussouye invited the two communities to perpetuate these meetings, but also to look into the future of their communities, the role they can play in the development of the country. . Moreover, in his speech during the official ceremony held at the royal court of Oussouye, Maa Sinig Niokhobaye Diouf Fatou Diène, the king of Sine, returned to the very strong moments with their Diola cousins. “We communed together. It is an old tradition that we have perpetuated between the members of the two communities who are cousins. We found this relationship well maintained by our grandfathers, we have continued to maintain these links today.”

Echoing these words, the King of Oussouye confirmed the words of his peer. He also praised the centuries-old relationship that exists between the two communities. This caravan was also an opportunity for the two communities to show their multiple cultural facets. Through a cultural evening in the public square of Oussouye, Sérères and Diolas unveiled an artistic program that was also a traditional show.

In Diola and Serer mythology, Aguène and Diambogne were two sisters who once took a canoe to cross the Gambia River. But, their boat split in two, causing their separation. According to some historians, this legend begins in Ndakhonga, where the boat left for the high seas before it broke in two. One took the direction of the South, Aguène, the mother of the Diolas. And the other, that of the North, Diambogne, the mother of the Serers. This legend is today the foundation of the pleasant cousinage between Diolas and Sérères, cement of a peaceful cohabitation between the two communities.

Africa, DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION,