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.

Ecuador: culture of peace and democracy through the strengthening of Indigenous Justice

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article from Manos Unidas

After almost four years (from March 2021 to November 2024) we have reached the end of the project “Promoting a culture of Peace and Democracy through the strengthening of Indigenous Justice”, developed in Ecuador and co-financed by the European Union and Manos Unidas.


In this project we have had four local partners, the Ecuadorian Central for Agricultural Services (CESA), the Indigenous and Peasant Movement of Cotopaxi (MICC), the Central University of Ecuador (UCE) and the Council of the Judiciary (CJ), the latter being equivalent to the General Council of the Spanish Judiciary.

The reason for this project arose in a context of a serious conflict in Ecuador in 2019, when indigenous peoples and the most vulnerable populations saw their rights and the possibility of having a dignified life increasingly limited (rising prices for basic goods, failures in public services, etc.). One of the most serious situations was the criminalization (arrest and prison sentences) of indigenous leaders for the application of Indigenous Justice. Hence the title of the project is to promote a culture of peace and democracy, seating both parties (indigenous peoples and the State) at the same table, with the support of civil society (CESA and Manos Unidas) and the Academy (UCE).

Let’s put some context to better understand the demands of the peoples and nationalities of Ecuador:

(Article continued in right column)

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

Question for this article

Indigenous peoples, Are they the true guardians of nature?

(Article continued from left column)

The Ecuadorian Constitution of 2008 explicitly recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples, marking a milestone in the history of the country. In this regard, the Magna Carta establishes several provisions that seek to guarantee equality, justice and respect for the cultural, social and economic diversity of indigenous peoples. Among the most notable points we can point out the recognition of the plurinationality of the State (art. 1); the recognition of collective rights (art. 57), which includes the right to practice and promote their own forms of justice and traditional legal systems within their communities, as long as they do not contravene human rights; and finally, an intercultural justice system is established (art. 171) in which the possibility of indigenous peoples managing their own system of justice and conflict resolution is recognized, based on their traditions and customs, as long as they do not contravene constitutional principles and human rights.

High participation of women

The project has achieved great successes, as more than a thousand people from indigenous organizations have been trained in Indigenous Justice, Gender and New Masculinities and Community Communication, with a participation of women of more than 40%. A manual on Indigenous Justice with a gender perspective has been developed. Three public policies on intercultural dialogue, cooperation and coordination of dialogue systems between ordinary and indigenous jurisdictions have been approved, printing and distributing 3,000 copies of these policies so that they reach all ordinary justice operators in the country. Four courses on strategic litigation have been held in various regions of the country, with the participation of 200 people, and the project has closed with the II International Congress “Beyond Legal Pluralism”, with the collaboration of seven universities and more than 800 participants, including students, academics, professionals and authorities of indigenous peoples and nationalities.

The project was born in an attempt to reduce social tension and resolve cases of criminalization of indigenous leaders in the province of Cotopaxi. Unfortunately, we have been able to resolve few cases and the current context of Ecuador is not easy, but by building bridges we have generated a movement that will transform the entire country. The seed we planted is bearing fruit with the first applications of the policies of cooperation and coordination between ordinary and indigenous justice, allowing judges to delegate their powers to indigenous justice. The Indoamerican University has already committed to holding the third edition of the congress on legal pluralism and we have 20% more women in leadership positions in the communities.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Latin America, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Niger: Amid social challenges, youth advance culture of peace

. TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY .

An article from Bahai

 In a region where youth are increasingly recognizing their capacity to contribute to social harmony, more than 300 young people from across Niger gathered in Maradi recently to explore the part they can play in building peaceful communities.

“Through Bahá’u’lláh’s vision of a peaceful world, we understand that young people must arise and bring about transformation, making their contributions to creating a modern and spiritually grounded civilization,” said Aboubacar, 24, one of the conference participants in comments to the News Service.

The conference, which brought together participants from 21 localities across the country, exemplified in its very structure the commitment to transcending barriers that divide people—conversations and study took place in four languages: French, Zarma, Hausa, and Gourmanchéma. Through this multilingual exchange, participants explored concepts such as the relationship between personal spiritual growth and service to society.

“We learned that these two aims reinforce each other,” explained Tahere, 18, another participant. “Spiritual development gives us the strength and motivation to serve, while service to humanity becomes a way to put spiritual values into practice.”

She described how the gathering itself became a transformative space, where participants from diverse backgrounds strengthened bonds of friendship while examining false dichotomies that often confront youth. “We sometimes think we must choose between our personal development and service to society, but the conference helped us see how these reinforce each other as we work to build a better world.”

Countering religious extremism

The significance of these efforts to contribute to social harmony was highlighted at the conference’s opening session by Illiassou Nomawou, Secretary General of the Maradi regional government, who attended on behalf of the Governor. Speaking to the attendees, he emphasized how the Bahá’í community’s educational initiatives are helping to foster constructive patterns of thought and action in a region where religious extremism poses challenges to social cohesion.

“You have set an example through your dedication to unity and your prayers for the country,” Mr. Nomawou said. “The authorities are calling for greater fraternity… and this is precisely what you are doing.” The Secretary General observed how the spiritual and moral educational programs these young people participate in helps them develop the qualities and capacities needed for constructive citizenship. “This will truly contribute to the development of the country,” he added.

(Click here for this article in French.)

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
Youth initiatives for a culture of peace, How can we ensure they get the attention and funding they deserve?

(continued from left column)

Overcoming passivity through service to society

Discussions at the conference examined the choices facing youth today and the harmful forces that breed passivity.

“Young people face a crucial choice,” said Abdourahaman, 23. “We can either arise to contribute to the spiritual and moral education of the rising generations, helping to create peaceful communities, or remain passive in the face of forces that threaten social harmony.”

He emphasized how indifference to seemingly small conflicts can have far-reaching consequences that eventually affect an entire community. “The conference helped us understand that we cannot be mere observers of harmful social forces affecting our neighborhoods and villages—we must be active participants in building peace.”

The conference highlighted how one of the most powerful ways for youth to act on this commitment is to accompany younger generations through the same educational programs that had awakened their own minds to the possibilities of what could be and nurtured in them capacities to serve.

“If we want to contribute to positive change, then we need to support each other through all trials and difficulties,” said Illia, 25. “We must be like the strands of a broom tied together by a single knot.”

Collective vision galvanizes action

Through sharing their experiences, participants saw how their modest efforts, when viewed together, revealed a powerful pattern of transformation—that the moral and spiritual education of children and youth enables them to apply principles such as the equality of women and men, unity in diversity, and consultation to the building of agreement and the overcoming of conflict in their daily lives.

Seeing this pattern of transformation in their collective experience galvanized participants to strengthen their commitment to fostering communities characterized by unity and peace.

The youth realized that to sustain and expand these efforts, more young people would need to arise to serve as facilitators of educational programs in their neighborhoods. In the weeks following the conference, some 100 participants dedicated themselves to intensive periods of study and practice to take on this role, preparing to facilitate moral and spiritual education programs for children and youth in their communities.

“The conference helped us understand that youth represent the future of our country,” said Badi, 17. “By serving society, we can simultaneously grow personally and increase our ability to contribute to social progress.”

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on United Nations Alliance of Civilizations” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Africa, TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview to Tucker Carlson, Moscow, December 6, 2024

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

Excerpts from the transcript of video provided by Russian Ministry

Question [from Tucker Carlson]: Minister Lavrov, thank you for doing this. Do you believe the United States and Russia are at war with each other right now?

Sergey Lavrov: I wouldn’t say so. And in any case, this is not what we want. We would like to have normal relations with all our neighbors, of course, but generally with all countries especially with the great country like the United States. And President Vladimir Putin repeatedly expressed his respect for the American people, for the American history, for the American achievements in the world, and we don’t see any reason why Russia and the United States cannot cooperate for the sake of the universe.


video of interview

Question: But the United States is funding a conflict that you’re involved in, of course, and now is allowing attacks on Russia itself. So that doesn’t constitute war?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, we officially are not at war. But what is going on in Ukraine is that some people call it hybrid war. I would call it hybrid war as well, but it is obvious that the Ukrainians would not be able to do what they’re doing with long-range modern weapons without direct participation of the American servicemen. And this is dangerous, no doubt about this.

We don’t want to aggravate the situation, but since ATACMS and other long-range weapons are being used against mainland Russia as it were, we are sending signals. We hope that the last one, a couple of weeks ago, the signal with the new weapon system called Oreshnik  was taken seriously.

However, we also know that some officials in the Pentagon and in other places, including NATO, started saying in the last few days something like that NATO is a defensive alliance, but sometimes you can strike first because the attack is the best defense. Some others in STRATCOM, Thomas Buchanan is his name, representative of STRATCOM, said something which allows for an eventuality of exchange of limited nuclear strikes.

And this kind of threats are really worrying. Because if they are following the logic which some Westerners have been pronouncing lately, that don’t believe that Russia has red lines, they announced their red lines, these red lines are being moved again and again. This is a very serious mistake. That’s what I would like to say in response to this question.

It is not us who started the war. Putin repeatedly said that we started the special military operation  in order to end the war which Kiev regime was conducting against its own people in the parts of Donbass. And just in his latest statement, the President Putin clearly indicated that we are ready for any eventuality. But we strongly prefer peaceful solution through negotiations on the basis of respecting legitimate security interest of Russia, and on the basis of respecting the people who live in Ukraine, who still live in Ukraine being Russians, and their basic human rights, language rights, religious rights, have been exterminated by a series of legislation passed by the Ukrainian parliament. They started long before the special military operation.

Since 2017, legislation was passed prohibiting Russian education in Russian, prohibiting Russian media operating in Ukraine, then prohibiting Ukrainian media working in Russian language, and the latest, of course there were also steps to cancel any cultural events in Russian, Russian books were thrown out of libraries and exterminated. The latest was the law prohibiting canonic Orthodox Church, Ukrainian Orthodox Church. . . .

The Minsk agreements  were signed. We were very sincerely interested in closing this drama by seeing Minsk agreements implemented fully. It was sabotaged by the government, which was established after the coup d’état in Ukraine. There was a demand that they enter into a direct dialogue with the people who did not accept the coup. There was a demand that they promote economic relations with that part of Ukraine. And so on and so forth. None of this was done. . .
.
The people in Kiev were saying we would never talk to them directly. And this is in spite of the fact that the demand to talk to them directly was endorsed by the Security Council. And putschists said they are terrorists, we would be fighting them, and they would be dying in cellars because we are stronger.

Had the coup in February 2014 had it not happened and the deal which was reached the day before between the then president and the opposition implemented, Ukraine would have stayed one piece by now with Crimea in it. It’s absolutely clear. They did not deliver on the deal. Instead they staged the coup. The deal, by the way, provided for creation of a government of national unity in February 2014, and holding early elections, which the then president would have lost. Everybody knew that. But they were impatient and took the government buildings next morning. They went to this Maidan Square and announced that they created the government of the winners. Compare the government of national unity to prepare for elections and the government of the winners. . . .

Question: I want to go back to what you said a moment ago about the introduction or the unveiling of the hypersonic weapons system that you said was a signal to the West. What signal exactly? I think many Americans are not even aware that this happened. What message were you sending by showing it to the world?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, the message is that you, I mean the United States, and the allies of the United States who also provide this long-range weapons to the Kiev regime, they must understand that we would be ready to use any means not to allow them to succeed in what they call strategic defeat of Russia.

They fight for keeping the hegemony over the world on any country, any region, any continent. We fight for our legitimate security interests. They say, for example, 1991 borders. Lindsey Graham, who visited some time ago Vladimir Zelensky for another talk, he bluntly, in his presence said that Ukraine is very rich with rare earth metals and they cannot leave this richness to the Russians. We must take it. We fight.

So they fight for the regime which is ready to sell or to give to the West all the natural and human resources. We fight for the people who have been living on these lands, whose ancestors were actually developing those lands, building cities, building factories for centuries and centuries. We care about people, not about natural resources which somebody in the United States would like to keep and to have Ukrainians just as servants sitting on these natural resources.

So the message which we wanted to send by testing in real action this hypersonic system is that we will be ready to do anything to defend our legitimate interests.

We hate even to think about war with the United States, which will take nuclear character. Our military doctrine  says that the most important thing is to avoid a nuclear war. And it was us, by the way, who initiated in January 2022 the message, the joint statement  by the leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council saying that we will do anything to avoid confrontation between us, acknowledging and respecting each other’s security interests and concerns. This was our initiative. . . .

Question: If I could just go back to the question of nuclear exchange. So there is no mechanism by which the leaders of Russia and the United States can speak to each other to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that could kill hundreds of millions of people.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Is the media an arm of the culture of war?

(Continued from left column)

Sergey Lavrov: No. We have this channel which is automatically engaged when ballistic missile launch is taking place.

As regards this Oreshnik hypersonic mid-range ballistic missile. 30 minutes in advance the system sent the message to the United States. They knew that this was the case and that they don’t mistake it for anything bigger and real dangerous.

Question: I think the system sounds very dangerous.

Sergey Lavrov: Well, it was a test launch, you know.

Question: Yes. Oh, you’re speaking of the test, okay. But I just wonder how worried you are that, considering there doesn’t seem to be a lot of conversation between the two countries. Both sides are speaking about exterminating the other’s populations. That this could somehow get out of control in a very short period and no one could stop it. It seems incredibly reckless.

Sergey Lavrov: No, we are not talking about exterminating anybody’s population. We did not start this war. We have been, for years and years and years, sending warnings that pushing NATO closer and closer to our borders is going to create a problem.

In 2007, Putin started to explain to the people who seemed to be overtaken by the ‘end of history’ and being dominant, no challenge, and so on and so forth.

And of course, when the coup took place, the Americans did not hide that they were behind it. There is a conversation between Victoria Nuland and the then American ambassador in Kiev when they discuss personalities to be included in the new government after the coup. The figure of $5 billion spent on Ukraine after independence was mentioned as the guarantee that everything would be like the Americans want.

So we don’t have any intention to exterminate Ukrainian people. They are brothers and sisters to the Russian people. . . .

Question: So, what are the terms under which Russia would cease hostilities? What are you asking for? . . . .

Sergey Lavrov: Well, the terms, I basically alluded to them. When President Putin spoke in this Ministry of Foreign Affaires on the 14th of June  he once again reiterated that we were ready to negotiate on the basis of the principles which were agreed in Istanbul and rejected by Boris Johnson, according to the statement of the head of the Ukrainian delegation.

The key principle is non-block status of Ukraine. And we would be ready to be part of the group of countries who would provide collective security guarantees to Ukraine.

Question: But no NATO?

Sergey Lavrov: No NATO. Absolutely. No military bases, no military exercises on the Ukrainian soil with participation of foreign troops. And this is something which he reiterated. But of course, he said, it was April 2022, now some time has passed, and the realities on the ground would have to be taken into account and accepted.

The realities on the ground are not only the line of contact, but also the changes in the Russian Constitution  after referendum was held in Donetsk, Lugansk republics and Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. And they are now part of the Russian Federation, according to the Constitution. And this is a reality.

And of course, we cannot tolerate a deal which would keep the legislation which are prohibiting Russian language, Russian media, Russian culture, Ukrainian Orthodox Church, because it is a violation of the obligations of Ukraine under the UN Charter, and something must be done about it. And the fact that the West (since this russophobic legislative offensive started in 2017) was totally silent and it is silent until now, of course we would have to pay attention to this in a very special way. . . .

Question: In the last month since the election, you have all sorts of things going on politically in bordering states in this region. In Georgia, in Belarus, in Romania, and then, of course, most dramatically in Syria, you have turmoil.
Does this seem like part of an effort by the United States to make the resolution more difficult?

Sergey Lavrov: There is nothing new, frankly. Because the U.S., historically, in foreign policy, was motivated by making some trouble and then to see if they can fish in the muddy water.

Iraqi aggression, Libyan adventure – ruining the state, basically. Fleeing from Afghanistan. Now trying to get back through the back door, using the United Nations to organize some ‘event’ where the U.S. can be present, in spite of the fact that they left Afghanistan in very bad shape and arrested money and don’t want to give it back.

I think this is, if you analyze the American foreign policy steps, adventures, most of them are the right word – the pattern. They create some trouble, and then they see how to use it.

When the OSCE monitors elections, when it used to monitor elections in Russia, they would always be very negative, and in other countries as well, Belarus, Kazakhstan. This time, in Georgia, the monitoring mission of OSCE presented a positive report. And it is being ignored.

So when you need endorsement of the procedures, you do it when you like the results of the election. If you don’t like the results of elections, you ignore it.

It’s like when the United States and other Western countries recognized unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo, they said this is the self-determination being implemented. There was no referendum in Kosovo – unilateral declaration of independence. By the way, after that the Serbs approached International Court of Justice, which ruled that (well, normally they are not very specific in their judgment, but they ruled) that when part of a territory declares independence, it is not necessarily to be agreed with the central authorities.

And when a few years later, Crimeans were holding referendum with invitation of many international observers, not from international organizations, but from parliamentarians in Europe, in Asia, in post-Soviet space, they said, no, we cannot accept this because this is violation of territorial integrity.

You know, you pick and choose. The UN Charter is not a menu. You have to respect it in all its entirety. . . . .

Question: What do you think of Donald Trump?

Sergey Lavrov: I met him several times when he was having meetings with President Putin and when he received me twice in the Oval Office when I was visiting for bilateral talks.

Well, I think he’s a very strong person. A person who wants results. Who doesn’t like procrastination on anything. This is my impression. He’s very friendly in discussions. But this does not mean that he’s pro-Russian as some people try to present him. The amount of sanctions we received under the Trump administration was very big.

We respect any choice which is made by the people when they vote. We respect the choice of American people. As President Putin said, we are and we have been open all along to the contacts with the current administration. We hope that when Donald Trump is inaugurated, we will understand. The ball, as President Putin said, is on their side. We never severed our contacts, our ties in the economy, trade, security, anything.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Europe, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Cameroon: young African scholars rally to cultivate culture of peace

. . DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION . .

An article from News Watch Cameroon

Young people are generally vulnerable to radicalisation by extremist groups, but experts say the young people, especially in Africa, are hardly invited to the dialogue table where peace processes are being discussed. Some young African scholars want to change the narrative.

Drawn from over 20 countries on the continent, the students of the Pan African University Institute of Governance, Humanities and Social Sciences (PAUGHSS), the African Union’s premiere institution of higher learning, have taken part in a strategic discussion on how to promote a culture of peace on the continent.


Inaugural panel of two-day strategic discussion on “Cultivating a Culture of Peace”

Hosted by PAUGHSS in collaboration with Civic Watch, implementing organisation of the #defyhatenow initiative in Cameroon, the two-day strategic discussion on “Cultivating a Culture of Peace” in Cameroon and across Africa held at the campus of the University of Yaounde II, Soa on the outskirts of the Cameroon capital from November 28 to 29. It was organised as part of activities to mark the UN International Day of Peace, albeit belatedly. The day is observed globally on September 21 of each year.

Desmond Ngala, Founder of Civic Watch and #defyhatenow Country Project Manager for Cameroon said conflicts affect young people on a daily basis and there is need that the age group be brought to the dialogue table to discuss peace processes. By organising the two-day discussion, with varsity dons, experts and the young African scholars, he said, they want to get expertise “but also experiences from different countries across Africa”.

“I must tell you that more and more, young people are not invited to the dialogue table as far as questions of peace are concerned. By organizing this strategic discussion, we are also pushing out the highest call—let’s bring young people to the table”, said Ngala.

(continued in right column)

(Click here for another version in French of this article)

Question related to this article:
 
Youth initiatives for a culture of peace, How can we ensure they get the attention and funding they deserve?

(continued from left column)

Organisers of the two-day gathering said this year’s theme, “Cultivating a Culture of Peace” matches their institutions’ mutual objectives of fostering peace, unity, and understanding amongst the people in Cameroon and Africa, and is also a powerful reminder that for peace to be possible, everyone must play a part.

New threats require new reforms

In his inaugural lecture, Prof Joseph Vincent Ntuda Ebode, Director of the Center of Research for Political and Strategic Studies of the University of Yaounde II said at the end of the Cold War, the African Union put in place a Peace and Security mechanism to prevent conflicts and ensure stability of countries across the continent. However, the emergence of new threats that were inexistent at the time the instrument was put in place require new reforms at the level of the continental body.

“For example, the AU peace and security mechanism focused on combatting inter-tribal conflicts within countries. By the time it was established, terrorism was not a general threat as it is today. This new threat cannot be managed like inter-tribal conflicts. So, to solve the problem of terrorism for example, we need a new reform at the level of the AU that will put in place forces to fight it,” said Prof Ntuda Ebode who is an expert in International Security and Defense.

Diverse cultures, one objective

In order to promote peace across countries of the continent today, it is undeniable that young people must be taught values such as dialogue, diversity and social cohesion, according to Dr Biloa, PAUGHSS Deputy Director. He said during the two-day discussion, they were going to imbibe in the young scholars the idea that the values will lay the foundation for the construction of Africa and the development of African countries.

“The two-day discussion has brought together young people from different regions of Africa—with diverse cultures, but with one objective—cultivate a culture of peace across the continent,” said Dr Biloa.

Like the other speakers, Prof Arrey William Herman of the Protestant University of Central Africa said it important include all segments of the population in peacebuilding processes for as he puts it: “any peace built for the people without the people is peace built against the people”.

Besides masterclasses and panel discussions with experts from UN agencies, development partners, diplomatic corps, government, and academia, the young scholars also shared experiences of what peace means to them.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Africa, DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION

Activists Occupy Canadian Parliament Building to Protest Gaza War & Arming of Israel

. . HUMAN RIGHTS . .

An article from Democracy Now (licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License)

“Canada needs to stop arming Israel and implement an immediate arms embargo.” In Ottawa, over 100 Jewish activists began a sit-in inside a Canadian parliamentary building Tuesday to demand Canada stop arming Israel.

Rachel Small, a member of the Jews Say No to Genocide Coalition and a member of the sit-in, says that the Canadian government’s claims that it is halting arms shipments to Israel are obfuscating the fact that Canadian weapons are still being transported via the United States. “We’re here to make sure that they … actually cut off the flow,” says Small. Such protest “is what we should be seeing more of,” adds Israeli journalist and former conscientious objector Haggai Matar.

Transcript of video

AMY GOODMAN: Haggai, you asked if people are doing enough. I want to break into this conversation with this breaking news. In Canada, about 150 Jewish activists and allies have just launched a protest inside the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa to demand Canada stop arming Israel.

We’re joined now by Rachel Small, a member of the group Jews Say No to Genocide Coalition.

Rachel, can you describe where you are and what you’re doing and what you’re calling for?

RACHEL SMALL: Thank you. We are in a Parliament Hill building. Right now we have completely taken over the lobby of this building, that has hundreds of parliamentarians’ office in here.

Our demand is clear: Canada needs to stop arming Israel and implement an immediate arms embargo. We know that every F-35 fighter jet, every Boeing Apache helicopter dropping bombs on Lebanon and Gaza right now is full of hundreds of Canadian components. We’re here as Jews to say this violence cannot continue in our name. And we’re here as people of conscience to say that the absolute bare minimum Canada needs to be doing right now is stop arming a genocide.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Haggai Matar, your response to these kinds of actions occurring abroad? Does this have an impact on the Israeli public?

HAGGAI MATAR: Well, first of all, I want to commend the activists on the ground now in Ottawa. It’s incredible. This is the exact kind of protest that people should be taking on in Canada, definitely in the U.S., which is the biggest supplier of weapons and funding and diplomatic support to Israel. So, yes, this is what we should be seeing more of.

I’m afraid that in Israel, again, these protests are usually seen as antisemitic or, in the case of Jews protesting, of self-hating Jews or people that are unhinged. That’s the way it’s being perceived. It’s our job as Jewish Israelis on the ground, talking in Hebrew, talking to people in our communities, to try and help them understand that it’s not the world that has gone mad, it’s us.

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

How can war crimes be documented, stopped, punished and prevented?

How can a culture of peace be established in the Middle East?

(continued from left column)

AMY GOODMAN: Interesting that the prime minister, Justin Trudeau, just met with President-elect Trump in Mar-a-Lago in Florida. Rachel Small, we’re looking at the group of people. One of them, I think, says “Jews for a Free Palestine.” What has been Trudeau’s position? And what’s going to happen to you this morning?

RACHEL SMALL: We have seen an unprecedented wave of resistance across Canada over the past 13 months, many, many thousands of people across the country not only petitioning their MPs, not only protesting, not only meeting with them, but actually holding blockades at weapons factories, doing just really everything we can to get Canada to stop arming Israel.

And that pressure has resulted in the Canadian government taking a stance that we would have not thought possible a year or two ago. They have committed to stop arming Israel. They have, in fact — the foreign affairs minister recently, in fact, said that Canadian weapons are not going to be going and used in Gaza.

Unfortunately, it’s not true. Unfortunately, we know that they have not tackled all the permits, and they have continued to conveniently send weapons to the U.S. without even requiring a permit. Those are going into every F-35 Israel is using. That is going into Israel’s primary weapons of war.

So we have backed the Canadian government into a corner where they know what the right stance is. They know they need to stop arming Israel. And we’re here to make sure they do it. The broad Arms Embargo Now coalition has come together across the country and has, in fact, gotten 45 parliamentarians to formally endorse the call for an arms embargo. We just need the government to step up and take that action to actually cut off the flow of all weapons to and from Israel. It’s the bare minimum they need to be doing.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Rachel Small, member of Jews Say No to Genocide Coalition. If you’re having a little trouble understanding her, she’s inside the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa. There are scores of people behind her, lead Canadian organizer with World — with the group World Beyond War. And in the studio with us in New York, though usually in Tel Aviv, is Haggai Matar, Israeli journalist, activist, executive director of +972 Magazine, a conscientious objector himself. Juan?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, Haggai, we only have about a minute left, but I wanted to ask you about President-elect Trump’s decision to select former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee as the next U.S. ambassador to Israel. Huckabee is not only a leading U.S. Christian Zionist who’s openly advocated for Israel’s annexation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, he declared in 2008 that there’s really no such thing as a Palestinian. What do you expect from this kind of ambassador from the new Trump administration?

HAGGAI MATAR: So, obviously, Trump appointments and Trump policies are terrifying to us and should be, too, to anyone who cares about the rights of Palestinians. I do want to also point out, however, Trump policies have an inherent contradiction. As an isolationist, Trump does not want to get involved in too many wars. As someone who wants to break deals with Saudi Arabia and Arab Gulf states, he may want to ensure that they don’t drift into the Iran-China field of influence. And those two policies, being pro-annexation and pro-settlements and pro-Israel and being pro-war and wanting to sign deals, they collide. And I think it’s our role on the left to kind of put a wedge in there and try and make sure that it becomes more and more apparent how those policies conflict with each other.

AMY GOODMAN: Haggai Matar, I want to thank you so much for being with us, Israeli journalist, activist, executive director of +972 Magazine, former conscientious objector, refused to serve in the Israeli army.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

HUMAN RIGHTS, Mideast, North America,

English bulletin December 1, 2024

. A TALE OF TWO SUMMITS .

Two global summits were held in November, with two completely different results. One was held in a country of the global south seeking independence from northern domination. The other was hosted by a country profiting from the sales of oil and was dominated by the interest of the US and Europe.

The meeting of the G20 was held in Brazil, and its President Lula da Silva, played a major role in its conclusions.

In his speech at the closing of the summit, Lula paid tribute to the accomplishments of the developing countries as they have occupied the leadership of the G20 over the past four years and he hoped from more as he passed the leadership to South Africa.

Here are some excerpts from his speech:

“We launched a Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty and began an unprecedented debate on taxing the super-rich.

“We put climate change on the agendas of Finance Ministries and central banks and approved the first multilateral document on the bioeconomy.

“We issued a Call to Action for reforms that make global governance more effective and representative. . .

“We have a responsibility to do better.

“It is with this hope that I pass the gavel of the G20 presidency to President Ramaphosa.

“This is not an ordinary handover of the presidency — it is the concrete expression of the historical, economic, social, and cultural ties that unite Latin America and Africa. . . .

“I remember the words of another great South African, Nelson Mandela, who said: it is easy to demolish and destroy; the heroes are those who build.

“Let us continue building a just world and a sustainable planet.”

The rich countries wanted the summit to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but Lula, as host of the summit, did not allow this. Instead, the summit statement simply says: “The G20 condemns the war in Ukraine and its impacts on the global economy and supply chains.” In the words of one expert, “Brazilian diplomacy always tries to build bridges.”

Lula was not the only Latin American president to show progressive leadership at the summit.

The newly-elected president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, criticized the rise in global military spending and advocated for increased investment in reforestation programs. She argued that allocating just 1% of global military spending to reforestation programs could significantly impact poverty, migration, and climate change mitigation. ““I come on behalf of a generous, supportive and wise people to call on the great nations to build and not to destroy. To forge peace, fraternity and equality. . . The proposal is to stop sowing wars and instead sow peace and sow life.” 

And the president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, criticized the North for failing to address the poverty and hunger of the Global South. “The only effective policy to stop the exodus of people from the south to the north is for the south to be more prosperous, to not be hungry. . . Every blow to a migrant abroad is simply the recognition of the inability of the rich North to end hunger in humanity.”

Petro demanded the rejection of the practice of food security based on countries that export food to the rest of the world based on an intensive use of oil and coal. It fails to relieve hunger and it contributes to global warming that threatens the extinction of humanity.

Instead, he demanded a restructuring of international finances to promote food sovereignty, which consists of being able to produce enough food in countries where there is hunger. That requires a carbon-free agriculture based on the peasantry and the small farmer.

Petro, Sheinbaum and Lula met with Gabriel Boric, the president of Chile and the four presidents agreed on the importance of working together as the Latin-American progressive governments and spoke of the importance of maintaining such relationships. 

In contrast to the positive aspects of the G20 summit, the conclusions of the United Nations climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, were considered to be a complete failure according to organizations concerned with the future of our planet. The article by Common Dreams quotes the following organizations in this regard:

Center for International Environmental Law
Oil Change International
Indigenous Environmental Network
Climate Home New
Carbon Market Watch
Friends of the Earth International
Friends of the Earth Ireland
Climate Action Network Europe
Oxfam International
Union of Concerned Scientists
Center for Biological Diversity

In conclusion, while leaders from Europe and North America continue to aggravate global warming and threaten World War III, Lula, Petro and Sheinbaum give us hope and vision to help us overcome these crises, which, as Petro says, threaten the extinction of humanity. Let us listen to them and take action with them!

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION



Brazil: President Lula’s Speech At The Closing Session Of The G20 Summit And Handover Of The Presidency To South Africa

HUMAN RIGHTS



C­o­m­p­a­n­i­e­s P­r­o­f­i­t­i­n­g f­r­o­m t­h­e G­a­z­a G­e­n­o­c­i­d­e

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT



After Ending in Overtime, COP29 Called ‘Big F U to Climate Justice’

WOMEN’S EQUALITY



Rwanda: Positive masculinity as a weapon of peace
  

TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY



Ontario youth advance a culture of peace

EDUCATION FOR PEACE



Yucatán: UADY will host the first Nobel Peace Summit Center for Education

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION



Videoconference November 14 for a Culture of Peace Revolution

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY



The Real Nobel Peace Prize: Join the World, not the U.S. Empire
d-democratic

Speech of Gustavo Petro, President of Colombia, to the G20 Summit

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

Transcription from the Video of his speech (transcription by Vizard and translation by CPNN)

Thank you to President Lula and to Brazil for inviting me to this forum.

It is the second time that a Colombian president has been invited, President Santos first and now me.

I want to speak on behalf of a part of Colombian society that I hope will be the majority.

Hunger. If there is no hunger in the south, there is no migration from the south to the north.


Frame from video of speech

Any policy that seeks to put migrants in concentration camps, any programs that seek and hunt migrants to return them to their countries of origin, will fail.

It will fail, it has failed.

The only effective policy to stop the exodus of people from the south to the north is for the south to be more prosperous, to not be hungry. That is the effective policy. And I invite the members of the G20 to practice it with reason and truth, not with hypocrisy.

Every blow to a migrant abroad is simply the recognition of the inability of the rich North to end hunger in humanity.

Ending hunger in humanity requires, in my opinion, three approaches that I want to leave with you.

First is the reject the concept of food security based on countries that export food to the rest of the world based on an intensive use of oil and coal. This has not ended hunger in the world.

Second, I propose to build, instead of the concept of a free world market for food security, the concept of food sovereignty, which consists of being able to produce enough food in countries where there is hunger. That requires a carbon-free agriculture based on the peasantry and the small farmer, not on the large agrarian multinational.

It is the peasantry and the small farmer of each country who should till the land and fulfill its social function as the primary means to feed their own people and the world.

We call this agrarian reform: that the peasantry of the world and the small farmers should have greater power as citizens, with full political and economic rights, as a basic guarantee for a decarbonized agriculture that feeds all citizens, all people in humanity.

Third, I would like to see this meeting go deeper into the topic of artificial intelligence. If artificial intelligence, which is going to expand exponentially, is fed by fossil fuels, oil and coal, it will interact with the climate crisis, deepening it. The climate crisis and artificial intelligence both have enormous potential to increase hunger in the world. Artificial intelligence can put hundreds of millions of workers out of work, and they will go hungry. Hunger in the world will increase if we are not able to at least set two objectives.

The first objective, contrary to someone who spoke here from Latin America, is to create a global public policy regulation of artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is the accumulated intellect of humanity in the digital cloud. Its privatisation can substantially increase hunger and, as Hawking has said, both with the climate crisis and with artificial intelligence, we have come to the edge of human extinction.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

(Click here for the original speech in Spanish.)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

Only global political regulation, true multilateralism, can overcome the immense danger it represents and put artificial intelligence at the service of human beings and not the other way around.

And a second objective to avoid throwing hundreds of millions of workers into the streets, increasing the exodus and increasing hunger, is a concept conceived in Brazil by sociologists who are now called dishonest, but who are profound thinkers on human problems. The concept is a universal citizen income.

Universal citizen income provides the possibility of ending hunger in the world. It demands that the millions of unemployed workers have something to eat. It leads us to demand a restructuring of international finances that is absolutely essential to overcome the climate crisis being discussed in Azerbaijan today, and to overcome hunger in the world.

I will end with some statements that I want to leave on behalf of a part of Colombian society.

First, the G20 must oppose the genocide in Gaza and call it what it is, without hypocrisy, genocide. If the G20, the powerful of the world, do not oppose genocide, humanity has no future.

Two, all kinds of economic blockades against any people in the world must cease, no matter the regime, because the blockade is a comprehensive and systematic violation of human rights, not of governments, but of human beings.

Three, regarding the war between Ukraine and Russia, I oppose the decision to permit the launch of missiles at Russia. There is no other solution than direct dialogue between Russia and Ukraine. Any peace talks that exclude one of the two peoples are only a war conference, not a peace conference. It is the Slavic peoples who must solve their problems and therefore the Russia-Ukraine dialogue must begin in order to achieve peace. Hopefully, it will take place on the basis of the precepts of the Munich agreement that Europe has forgotten.

Finally, I agree with the approach of the Republic of China on building a dialogue between civilizations. The new multilateral dialogue is not an imposition of some over others, but rather a global planetary democracy, and that implies, given human diversity, the recognition of this diversity and the construction of a dialogue between civilizations and not a confrontation, as Huntington said in the United States. I do not believe, and I have to say it here publicly, in something in that regard that was expressed at this conference.

I am a progressive, a radical democrat and a socialist. And I believe and am proud of it.

It is common struggle and human solidarity that has kept us alive on this planet since day one when we got together to hunt animals to eat, when we got together to make a bonfire to warm ourselves on cold nights.

We are not a society of individual atoms competing with each other. That is not the case even for the least intelligent animals.

We can only survive on this planet, overcome hunger, disease, inequality, overcome war, overcome the climate crisis, which is the main problem we face today, and put artificial intelligence to our service, if we help each other, if we are supportive, if we are a community, if we have common objectives, if we have common purposes and if we help each other.

Competition between human beings and nations has only brought us to the brink of extinction.

The possibility of building a diverse civilization of humanity, even beyond this planet, taking care of this planet, depends on us helping each other, on us being supportive, and on us embracing the fact that the human species is a community.

Thank you, again, President Lula, for your very kind invitation.
– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, global, Latin America,

Brazil: President Lula’s Speech At The Closing Session Of The G20 Summit And Handover Of The Presidency To South Africa

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

An article from the G20

President Lula’s Speech At The Closing Session Of The G20 Summit (official English translation).

Today, Brazil completes the penultimate stage of a four-year sequence in which developing countries have occupied the leadership of the G20.

Indonesia, India, Brazil, and, now, South Africa bring to the table perspectives that are of interest to the vast majority of the world’s population.

Starting in Bali, passing through New Delhi, and arriving in Rio de Janeiro, we strive to promote measures that have a concrete impact on people’s lives.


Video of speech with English interpretation

We launched a Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty and began an unprecedented debate on taxing the super-rich.

We put climate change on the agendas of Finance Ministries and central banks and approved the first multilateral document on the bioeconomy.

We issued a Call to Action for reforms that make global governance more effective and representative, and we engage in dialogue with society through the G20 Social.

We launched a roadmap to make multilateral development banks better, bigger, and more effective and gave African countries a voice in the debt debate.

We established the Women’s Empowerment Working Group and proposed an eighteenth Sustainable Development Goal to promote racial equality.

We defined key trade and sustainable development principles and committed to tripling global renewable energy capacity by 2030.

We created a Coalition for Local and Regional Production of Vaccines and Medicines and decided to expand financing for water and sanitation infrastructure.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

(Click here for the original speech in Portuguese.)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

We welcome events from the World Health Organization’s Investment Round, believing that more resources are needed to collectively respond to new and persistent health challenges.

We approved a Strategy to Promote Cooperation in Open Innovation and address asymmetries in scientific and technological production. We also decided to establish a task force on the governance of artificial intelligence at the G20.

This year, we held more than 140 meetings across 15 Brazilian cities.

We once again adopted consensus statements in almost all working groups.

We left a lesson: that the greater the interaction between the Sherpa and Finance tracks, the greater and more significant the results of our work will be.

We worked hard, even though we knew we had only scratched the surface of the world’s profound challenges.

After the South African presidency, all G20 countries will have exercised group leadership at least once.

This will be an opportune moment to evaluate the role we have played so far and how we should act from now on.

We have a responsibility to do better.

It is with this hope that I pass the gavel of the G20 presidency to President Ramaphosa.

This is not an ordinary handover of the presidency — it is the concrete expression of the historical, economic, social, and cultural ties that unite Latin America and Africa.

I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the Brazilian presidency, especially those who worked to make our achievements possible.

I wish our comrade Ramaphosa every success in leading the G20. South Africa can count on Brazil to exercise a presidency surpassing our achievements.

I remember the words of another great South African, Nelson Mandela, who said: it is easy to demolish and destroy; the heroes are those who build.

Let us continue building a just world and a sustainable planet.

Thank you very much.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, global, Latin America,

Lula, The “Only Adult in the Room”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Un artículo por Andy Robinson* en CTXT Contexto y Acción (non-comercial use)

While Western leaders were trivializing the nuclear threat over caipirinhas, Brazil was seeking consensus in the face of the risk of World War III

There can be no tougher test for the G20 sherpas – the diplomats in charge of achieving consensus at meetings of the most powerful countries in the world – than the news of the preamble to a possible Third World War.

But something similar happened at the beginning of the Rio summit last week, when the still president of the United States, Joe Biden, gave the green light to Ukraine to fire long-range ATACMS missiles at targets in Russia. Keir Starmer, the prime minister of the obedient United Kingdom, a junior partner, would soon follow suit with British Storm Shadow missiles.

The news reached the Copacabana and Ipanema hotels, where the heads of state of dozens of countries were staying – led by Xi Jinping, Joe Biden, Shigeru Ishiba, the prime minister of Japan; Emmanuel Macron, Olaf Scholz and the host and mediator, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Ukraine launched the first ATACMS missile against Russia during the opening of the summit, after a heavy Russian offensive the day before. To further tense the atmosphere in Rio, Russia announced the same day that it had modified its defence protocols to allow the use of nuclear weapons against a conventional offensive.

To anyone in Rio who had seen Doctor Strangelove or read Annie Jacobsen’s new book Nuclear War: A Scenario, it all seemed like a dangerous provocation from one nuclear superpower to another. Even thoughtful columnists like David Sanger, a nuclear strategy expert for the New York Times, recalled that “until this weekend, President Biden had refused to allow these attacks (…) for fear that they could provoke World War III.” Newsweek headlined: “Will Biden’s decision regarding ATACMS missiles provoke World War III? Our experts give their answer.”

Despite the routine tone used to talk about the end of humanity, the news made a dent in the bars of Rio de Janeiro. “Você entendeu o que eu entiende?” said a Carioca as the news was reported on GloboNews. Even evangelicals with apocalyptic convictions, who attended Sunday mass on the eve of the G20, seemed somewhat uneasy.

But European and American leaders and their advisers were enjoying the city of wonders and caipirinhas. Emmanuel Macron strolled through Copacabana and allowed himself to be photographed. Keir Starmer played football with a local children’s team and tried to convince the little ones that his team, Arsenal, is “the best in the world”. Biden’s daughter was photographed in front of the enormous Samauma tree in the Botanical Garden.

Curiously, there was no official announcement about the decision to authorise the attacks. When the news broke, Biden was in Manaus, and it was hard not to wonder whether the octogenarian president, lost in the middle of the Amazon rainforest, had heard that the decision had been taken to take the first step towards catastrophe. The deep state in Washington seemed to be in charge, perhaps in order to make life difficult for Donald Trump, who has promised to “end the war in 24 hours” once in the White House. Not even Kubrick would have imagined such a staging.

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for the original Spanish version.)

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

(Continued from left column)

When they finally had to comment, Western leaders took Putin’s warnings about a possible nuclear response as one of the Machiavellian Russian leader’s bluffs. NATO missile strikes on Russia would serve as a final lesson before Trump takes office. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer criticised all of us who worry about the possibility of a Third World War as “irresponsible”.

In the face of the attitude of Western leaders in Rio, I could only recall what Jeffrey Sachs, the veteran economist at Columbia University, had told me. Sachs negotiated an economic rescue plan for the USSR (Russia) in 1990 with Gorbachev and Yeltsin, which was sabotaged by the then administration of George Bush Sr., bent on weakening Russia and expanding NATO as far as possible.

Authorizing long-range missiles against Russia, he explained to me, “could lead to escalation, and eventually to nuclear war. It is part of the continuing recklessness and arrogance of the US deep state, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Pentagon, the National Security Agency and the arms contractors. It is also part of the UK’s continuing destructive role in the world system, which of course goes back to the British empire.” (The entire interview, with parts still unpublished, will be available to read shortly on my new Substack account.)

To quote Yanis Varoufakis, the Brazilian diplomats and Lula seemed “the only adults in the room” at the avant-garde Museum of Modern Art, where the summit was held. When the European and American delegations pressed for Russia to be explicitly condemned in the final communiqué, Lula refused. Aware that any hardening of neutral language would raise hackles in delegations from China and much of the global south, he opted for “a more moderate tone,” Celso Amorim, Lula’s veteran foreign policy adviser who met Putin in April last year, told me. In the end, the statement simply says: “The G20 condemns the war in Ukraine and its impacts on the global economy and supply chains.”

Lula has tried since the start of the war in Ukraine to seek a negotiated multilateral solution – meeting Zelensky in New York, but also holding talks with Putin – and has always criticised NATO expansion. Biden’s decision “is a dangerous escalation,” said Guilherme Casarões, of the Getúlio Vargas Foundation in São Paulo. “Brazil has not specifically spoken out on the issue, but its position is to defend respect for international law, (…) and the principle of nuclear disarmament.”

European leaders lashed out at the final statement. “Disappointing,” Starmer said. “Insufficient,” agreed Olaf Scholz. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, on the other hand, praised him for “calling for an honest and reasonable conversation about a peace based on realistic criteria.”

But Lula knew that “any different formulation could harm the consensus,” said Casarões. Brazilian diplomacy “always tries to build bridges,” summed up Olicer Stuenkel, another expert from the Getulio Vargas Foundation.

However, there may be a paradox in the dramatic story of the G20 in Rio de Janeiro. Because it is not only NATO that plays with reckless frivolity in the game of roulette that could end with the end of the world. Putin, of course, is a player as reckless as the neocons of the deep state in Washington: “Lula and Amorim wanted to put on the table the idea of ​​a broader, more multilateral negotiation to get out of the impasse in Ukraine,” said Rodrigues. “And that Russian offensive was, I believe, a tactic to undermine that possibility of seeking peace. Putin is no longer interested in negotiating anything; he is on the offensive and has a United States with Donald Trump at the helm that is going to offer him interesting things.”

*Andy Robinson is a correspondent for ‘La Vanguardia’ and a contributor to Ctxt since its founding. In addition, he belongs to the Editorial Board of this media. His latest book is ‘Oro, gasolina y aguacates: Las nuevas venas abiertas de América Latina’ (Arpa 2020)

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

ICESCO Director General: Peace education is an investment in a safer, more prosperous future for humanity

… EDUCATION FOR PEACE …

An article from ICESCO

Dr. Salim M. Al-Malik, Director General of the Islamic World Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ICESCO), stressed that peace education is the best way to find innovative and collaborative solutions to current global challenges such as conflicts, wars and the climate crisis. He added that the first step involves integrating peace education into education systems, noting that ICESCO has implemented many pioneering initiatives in this regard, convinced that peace education is an investment in a safer and more prosperous future for all humanity.

This statement was part of Dr. Al-Malik’s virtual address delivered on Wednesday 27 November 2024, at the opening of the two-day Global Summit for Peace Education, held by the Global Peace Education Network, in Paris, in cooperation with ICESCO as a strategic partner. The Summit brings together several senior officials and representatives of international institutions concerned with promoting global peace, including Mr. António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations.

(Continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Where is peace education taking place?

(Continued from left column)

Dr. Al-Malik reviewed ICESCO’s main efforts in the field of peacebuilding, including the Leadership Training in Peace and Security Program (LTIPS), which has so far trained 180 young men and women from 68 countries to become ICESCO Young Peace Ambassadors, building their capacity and leadership skills to participate effectively in peacebuilding efforts in their communities, in line with the Organization’s “360° Peace Approach”.

He explained that technologies will play a key role in shaping the future, placing everyone under a moral obligation to ensure the responsible use of new technologies, particularly AI, underlining the important role of peace education through the ethical use of technologies in education systems. “In this respect, ICESCO launched the Riyadh Charter on AI Ethics for the Islamic world and held rich discussion sessions on peace and climate change during its participation in COP29,” he added.

ICESCO Director General concluded his address by affirming that the Organization seeks to promote the values of coexistence, understanding and mutual respect among all, through its Center for Civilizational Dialogue, and stressed ICESCO’s willingness to host the next edition of the Global Summit for Peace Education at its headquarters in Rabat, Morocco.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

EDUCATION FOR PEACE, global