Category Archives: global

Manifesto for Peace Media in the 21St Century

. . DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION . .

An article from Comunicacion y paz

The manifesto presented below has been agreed upon by the Spain chapter of the Latin Union of Political Economy of Communication, Information, and Culture (ULEPICC-Spain) and the Research Network on Community, Alternative, and Participatory Communication (RICCAP). The initiative emerged from the presentations and dialogues that took place within the framework of the VIII International Congress on Communication and Peace of ULEPICC-Spain (Complutense University of Madrid, March 2023) and the II International Congress on Communication and Citizenship of RICCAP (University of Extremadura, May 2023). It urges media outlets and political representatives to be mindful of the analyses and representations they provide of conflicts, as well as to take firm steps to update the media system and improve its role in the prevention and peaceful and fair resolution of conflicts. It also encourages the academic community and citizens to get involved in peace processes through co-responsibility and participation.

For the short term, it proposes a guide of good journalistic and communicative practices. Although the dominant journalistic structure, business model, and culture of the media are important obstacles to its implementation, we encourage professionals to take advantage of opportunities to advance towards peace communication. For the medium term, it poses the need to carry out structural reforms that create the necessary conditions to make peace communication effective in a systematic way. 

The manifesto includes an agenda of priorities to favor democratization in access, production of content, ownership and governance of media and communication. To this end, it is essential to reach agreements through participation and solidarity among all the actors involved in the transition towards total peace. The improvement of the communication system, together with the transformation of eco-social and geostrategic structures, would not only curb the organized barbarity of war, but would also contribute to the good conviviality of citizens, improve the autonomy and working conditions of communication professionals and increase the credibility of journalism.

The #PeaceMediaManifesto is a living document, so we encourage you to send your suggestions for strengthening it to comunicacionypaz@ulepicc.org. All individuals, media, institutions, associations and research groups that share its principles and proposals are invited to sign it.

MANIFESTO

° For a Peace Communication that favors the just transformation of conflicts and helps to stop wars, to rebuild relationships through reconciliation, and to create more egalitarian social and geostrategic structures.

° For communicative justice that promotes social and environmental justice through collective and democratic participation.

° For the improvement of the quality of journalism and communication, and for the radicalization of democracy.

° In the face of media coverage that marginalizes causes, contexts, and solutions, and reproduces conflict and structural violence.

° In the face of media that do not act as a counter-power but as accessories to the military-industrial complex at the service of the dominant power structures.

° In the face of the emergence or prolongation of armed conflicts that are presented as irresolvable…

… this Manifesto urges the media and those responsible for media and politics to:

1. Produce an in-depth diagnosis of the nuances, roots, results, and responsibilities of any conflict, portraying the complexity of eco-social problems based on their structural elements.

2. Promote approaches that include the voices of the people who suffer the consequences of conflicts and that prioritize agents promoting transformation and dialogue.

3. Support social, negotiated, and diplomatic solutions for the resolution of any conflict, offering examples and practical evidence that have proven successful in the past.

4. Carry out a preventive, slow and contextualized journalistic work that contributes to the de-escalation of conflicts and prioritizes the prospects for peace, before, during, and after the outbreak of violence.

(Article continued in right column)

(Click here for the 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)

5. Prevent negative and stereotyped representation of historically marginalized social groups, drawing a line to avoid journalistic coverage that incites hatred or discrimination.

6. Foster community communication to understand the global roots of local problems (and how large-scale conflicts also impact smaller contexts).

7. Defend and promote the achievement of human rights (and other emerging rights) as a criterion of newsworthiness to avoid false objectivity and false equidistance.

8. Provide ways for citizens and their organizations to access, participate in, or appropriate the media system in order to represent their cultures, rights, interests and solutions for peace and dialogue.

9. Promote meetings between journalists, universities, and the third sector to foster social dialogue and share knowledge on conflicts and peace practices.

10. Transform the framework of individual security based on warmongering discourse to one of positive and shared security based on restorative narratives and values of participation, equality, co-dependence and eco-social justice.

We consider that these are practices that the media can begin to apply, even if it is to a limited extent, through the application of protocols to identify ideological biases and shortcomings, as well as good practice guides that orient the processes of content production towards peace journalism and communication.

However, the systematic production of peace communication also requires deep structural reforms that generate conditions that allow professionals to be free from the economic and ideological interests of conflict and violence. History and the critical analysis of current coverage and treatment show that the media and large technology companies tend to promote dominant narratives of conflict and war, which contributes to the self-serving propaganda of only one side and avoids critical, preventive, and pro-conflict resolution positions. With the popularization of technological networks, there has been an expansion of fake news and hate speech fueled by the ultra-right and ‘deniers’ (scientific, climate, gender, etc.), which target the most disadvantaged sectors and promote extreme positions of confrontation and social and emotional polarization. 

Beyond direct violence, there are more invisible structural, cultural, and symbolic inequalities that are just as threatening as the first and that are often neglected and help the established media economic model. The datafication of social experience and mass surveillance through Big Data are fundamental phenomena of violence that, based on their opacity, can have a decisive influence on social behavior according to dominant economic and political interests. Likewise, the logic of profit maximization has led to the proliferation of clickbait in commercial media as a consumption and business model. These phenomena, which are central to today’s media systems, are opposed to data justice, corporate transparency, user privacy, professional integrity and ethics, and genuine and independent public service media practices. The most recent threat comes from the uncritical use of Artificial Intelligence in journalism, such as the complete writing of news stories without checking sources or biases based on class, gender, culture or ethnicity.

In order to exist, peace requires not only the absence of physical violence, but also the promotion of ideals of social, economic, and environmental justice that contribute to eradicate structural violence. At the present juncture and fueled largely by conflicts and their economic, ideological and cultural interests, the enormous threat posed by historical problems such as class, ethnic and gender inequalities, chronic economic crises, and the climate emergency is being revealed. 

In this context, it is equally necessary to analyze, criticize and improve both the use and access and the impact of the technological devices that provide material support to communications in the different phases of the contemporary linear economic system: extraction, production, distribution, consumption, and generation of waste. Without media education and environmental awareness that favors structures and practices for fairer, more egalitarian and eco-sustainable access to technologies, it will not be possible to promote the elimination of violence and conflicts. In this sense, it is absolutely necessary to open a social conversation about the current harmful relationship between technology, peace, and environmental sustainability in order to think of viable alternatives.

Likewise, based on a critical analysis of the dominant media system, it is essential to think of public policies that promote structural reforms that will facilitate the democratization of access, production, ownership, and governance of the media. This would benefit communication professionals and improve their autonomy, working conditions and motivation. More time, security, incentives, and freedom to inform and communicate will favor good journalism and communication practices that contribute to the visibility of initiatives for peace and eco-social justice.

Authoritarian phenomena such as war, inequality, and polarization, on the one hand, and peace, diversity, and the construction of the commons, on the other, are extremes in a dispute currently underway in which different interests oppose each other with a profoundly asymmetrical correlation of forces. Only by coming together and generating spaces for reflection, empowerment and collective action will we be able to tip the balance in favor of democratic deepening in a society of free and equal people.

In an effort to contribute to these processes, today, as yesterday, we reflect, share and shout “No to war” and to the intensification of conflicts. Instead, we offer our collaboration to the movements committed to peace and eco-social justice. We need real democracy so that we do not have to shout

NEVER AGAIN

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, global

World Court to Review 57-Year Israeli Occupation

. . HUMAN RIGHTS . .

An article from Human Rights Watch

An unprecedented number of countries and international organizations are expected to participate in the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) oral hearings on Israel’s occupation beginning February 19, 2024, Human Rights Watch said today (February 16). Fifty-two countries and three international organizations will participate in the oral proceedings, more than in any other case since the world’s highest court began functioning in 1946.


The broad participation in the hearings and the many written submissions reflect growing global momentum to address the decades-long failure to ensure respect for international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

“The International Court of Justice is set for the first time to broadly consider the legal consequences of Israel’s nearly six-decades-long occupation and mistreatment of the Palestinian people,” said Clive Baldwin, senior legal adviser at Human Rights Watch. “Governments that are presenting their arguments to the court should seize these landmark hearings to highlight the grave abuses Israeli authorities are committing against Palestinians, including the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.”

The oral proceedings stem from a December 2022 request by the United Nations General Assembly for an advisory opinion  by the court on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The court has the opportunity to address the prolonged occupation, to consider Israel’s practices and policies violating international legal prohibitions against racial discrimination, including the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution, and to appraise the legal responsibilities of other countries and the UN to address violations of international law arising from the occupation.

Although ICJ advisory opinions are non-binding, they can carry great moral and legal authority and can ultimately become part of customary international law, which is legally binding on states.

These proceedings, which will last six days, are distinct from the case brought  by South Africa to the same court alleging that Israel  is violating the Genocide Convention amid the hostilities between Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups that escalated following the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks.

The General Assembly first asked the ICJ for an advisory opinion related to the Occupied Palestinian Territory in December 2003. In July 2004, the ICJ’s advisory opinion  found that the route of Israel’s separation barrier violated international law and that it should be dismantled.

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

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

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

Presenting the Palestinian side of the Middle East, Is it important for a culture of peace?

(continued from left column)

The December 2022 request to the court is wider in scope. The General Assembly asked the court to give its opinion on the “legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation” of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including “its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures,” and on the legal consequences of the occupation and Israel’s practices for all states and the UN.

The request provides the court the opportunity to evaluate the situation two decades after its last advisory opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and provide guidance on the law, including the continued application of international humanitarian law and human rights law. The court could also assess Israel’s conduct under international human rights law, including prohibitions on racial discrimination, and international criminal law, including the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.

The ICJ adjudicates disputes between states and issues advisory opinions on international law. It lacks jurisdiction over the conduct of non-state armed groups like Hamas. The International Criminal Court (ICC), by contrast, addresses serious international crimes allegedly committed by individuals, including members of armed groups. The ICC prosecutor confirmed that since March 2021 his office has been conducting an investigation into alleged atrocity crimes committed in Gaza and the West Bank since 2014, and that the court has jurisdiction over international crimes committed by all parties in the current hostilities between Israel and Palestinian armed groups.

Human Rights Watch has documented that Israeli authorities are committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution  against Palestinians. Given that the responsibilities  of an occupying power toward the rights of the occupied population increase over time, Human Rights Watch has also called for Israel to provide Palestinians in the occupied territory with rights at least equal to those it grants its own citizens, in addition to the protections of international humanitarian law.

The ICJ is composed  of 15 judges elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council for nine-year terms. Fifty-seven states and international organizations had filed a written statement  in the proceedings in July 2023, before the October escalation in hostilities. Fifteen states and international organizations filed additional written comments in October and November 2023. Among those participating in the oral proceedings are Palestine, South Africa, Belgium, Brazil, the United States, Russia, France, China, Namibia, Pakistan, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the African Union. Israel submitted a written statement and chose not to participate in the oral hearings.

The ICJ will issue its legal opinion at a date to be determined. Past practice suggests that the opinion will be issued before the end of 2024.

– – – – – –

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.

global, HUMAN RIGHTS, Mideast, United Nations, ,

Message from World Beyond War Annual Report

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

An excerpt from the annual report of World Beyond War

Message from David Swanson, Executive Director

World BEYOND War is growing at an increasing rate. In 2023 we hired organizers in Latin America and Africa, who join our Canada Organizer and our Organizing Director on staff, along with our Executive Director, Education Director, Technology Director, Development Director, Social Media Manager, a researcher, and an intern. Much of our activity is done by volunteers, however, and we leaped from 22 active chapters the year before to 32 chapters in 21 countries in 2023. Our Declaration of Peace now has signers in 196 countries.

In 2023 we placed an increased focus on media work (production of web tools, videos, podcasts, articles, and social media, as well as outreach to media outlets) and reshaped our strategy for ongoing work to emphasize not only education and activism, but the third area of media and communications.

This was a year in which two very different wars, in Ukraine and in Palestine, were big stories in the media. We’ve worked to increase opposition to those wars, to nudge war opponents toward opposing all sides rather than cheering for certain warmakers, to activate newly engaged peace advocates, and to recruit them into a lasting movement for war abolition and peace-building beyond the current crises.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

In 2023, we sought, through our annual conference, our annual film fest, and numerous articles and interviews, to more effectively address the perennial question of how to use nonviolence in the face of violence, how to employ unarmed civilian defense, diplomacy, the rule of law, and alternatives to mirroring the violence of an attacker or invader. We’ve planned a new online course on the topic for 2024.

With the close of 2023, World BEYOND War becomes 10 years old. We’ve educated huge numbers of people about peaceful alternatives. We’ve played a leading role in passing resolutions, in divesting funds from weaponry, in preventing the construction of new military bases. We’ve built a large and growing community of informed global citizens working together, strategically, and cooperatively for steps away from the institution of war and toward a sustainable world. We aim to do much more each year than the year before.

With the close of 2023, World BEYOND War was working with allies around the world to press — with some intial success — for the application of the rule of law to the horrific war on Gaza — among many other steps, generating a half-million emails to governments in support of prosecution at the International Court of Justice. Not only is the reliability of international bodies being tested, but the risk of even wider and more deadly wars is on the rise.

The case for a wiser path is needed more desperately than ever. We are finding our global footing none too soon. Peace!

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, global

Global South unites for sustainable development, urges shift in global balance of power

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article from Xinhua, China News (with links added by CPNN)

Leaders of developing countries gathered in the Ugandan capital of Kampala over the past week, reaching a consensus to promote South-South cooperation to enhance their capability of pursuing sustainable development, seek strength from unity and increase the role of the Global South in international affairs.

High-level representatives of more than 100 countries and heads of United Nations agencies attended the 19th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) that concluded on Saturday and the 3rd South Summit of the Group of 77 (G77) that wrapped up on Monday.


UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres (L) greets President of the UN General Assembly Dennis Francis (R) during the opening session of the Third South Summit of the Group of 77 and China in Kampala, January 21, 2024. /CFP

Participants said they are optimistic about the future of the Global South in world affairs, gearing up to influence the outcomes of the UN Summit of the Future scheduled for September in New York. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described the September summit as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reinvigorate global action, recommit to fundamental principles, and further develop the frameworks of multilateralism so they are fit for the future.

In the outcome documents of the two summits, the countries of the Global South said they hope to play an influential role in shifting the balance of the geopolitical landscape from conflict, confrontation and mistrust to diplomacy, dialogue, peace and understanding.

NAM countries, in their declaration over the weekend, said they would positively contribute to the summit to enhance cooperation on critical challenges and address gaps in global governance.

Developing nations stressed that there is a need to reform the multilateral global governance architecture, including the United Nations and the international financial system. This reform would make the institutions fit for purpose, democratic, equitable, representative and responsive to the current global realities and the needs and aspirations of the Global South, according to the NAM Kampala Declaration.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

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

Questions related to this article:

How can ensure that development is equitable?

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

They said the current violation of international laws and UN resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, coupled with the unfair treatment of developing countries facing debt distress amid a slow-growing global economy, are the key issues that have revitalized the call for a reformed global system.

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who is also the chairperson of the NAM Summit, said the forum should be used to exercise considerable influence, particularly at the UN, for an effective transformative process. “In the negotiations for the Pact of the Future, the outcome document of the upcoming UN Summit of the Future, we should clearly define priorities that favor developing countries by maintaining unity, solidarity, and collective coordination among member states,” Museveni said.

Dennis Francis, president of the UN General Assembly, said addressing the current global challenges requires creativity and consensus-building to fashion effective solutions.

Francis said the current crises, ranging from the Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Palestine and those in Africa, raise questions about the relevance and value of the UN in terms of its ability to resolve global issues. He argued that the Summit of the Future will offer a historic opportunity to forge a new global consensus to transform the multilateral system to deliver better impact for people.

The Global South, according to Secretary-General Guterres, bears the responsibility of changing the form of the global system, noting that those who currently benefit from it are unlikely to lead its reform.

“We have a chance to cultivate a just, peaceful, and prosperous future, where no one is left behind. But for that, a lot needs to be changed and reformed. Together, let’s unite and fight to make that a reality,” Guterres told the 3rd South Summit on Sunday.

He urged the international community to reform and revitalize multilateralism so that it works for everyone, everywhere, and meets the challenges of today. “We rely on the G77 plus China to make the Summit of the Future a success. To seize this opportunity and to find common solutions. The summit will consider deep reforms of the international financial architecture,” the UN top envoy said.

(Editor’s note. Putting the terms “Group of 77” and “Kampala” into the Google search engine for the preceding month on February 16, we found articles about the event above from press in Uganda, India, Brazil, Bahamas, Philippines, South Africa, Jordan, Angola, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Guyana, Pakistan, Saint Vincent, Bhutan, Namibia, Cameroon, Yemen, Mongolia, Tanzania, Myanmar, Morocco, Cuba, Maldives, Kenya, Eritrea, Mozambique, Nigeria, Malaysia, Oman, Seychelles, Zimbabwe and Somalia, as well as from China and from the United Nations, but with the exception of an agency by the name of Newsbeezer, ABSOLOUTELY NO ARTICLE IN ENGLISH from a press agency based in Europe or North America! By using other languages, we found an article in French in the news site of l’Humanité which remarked that the event was totally ignored by the West (” un événement totalement passé sous silence dans les pays occidentaux”>. And in Spain, one could read about the event in Spanish on the news media that subscribe to EFE. )

global, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, United Nations, ,

The UN Summit of the Future: a fight at the end of the tunnel?

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

An article by Richard Gowan for Friedrich Ebert Stiftung

Ongoing crises keep multilateralism in turmoil, but ambitious reforms are still on the table. What to expect from the September 2024 UN Summit of the Future?

Germany faces a tough task trying to build consensus among members of the United Nations on how to strengthen multilateralism in the year ahead. The German mission in New York is working with Namibia to facilitate preparations for the Summit of the Future, an event that will take place during the annual high-level week of UN meetings in September 2024.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres originally proposed this summit in 2021 as an opportunity for presidents and prime ministers to debate improvements to the global system in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. But with arguments over Ukraine and Gaza simmering at the UN, diplomats fear it will be hard to make new agreements on international cooperation this year.

The right summit at the wrong time?

Guterres and his advisers argue that it is necessary to take a hard look at the state of multilateralism for three main reasons. Firstly, it is clear that existing international institutions lack the mechanisms and authority necessary to deal with challenges such as pandemics and climate change effectively. Secondly, there are as yet no serious global regimes to regulate new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (A.I.), which the Secretary-General predicts will profoundly reshape societies, economies and international relations. Lastly, many non-Western countries feel that they lack real influence at the UN and in other international organizations, where the U.S. and European countries often still dominate decision-making.

The mood at the UN is currently very sour

In a best-case scenario, the Summit for the Future would be an opportunity for UN members to tackle these challenges simultaneously, reforming existing institutions to make them more inclusive and effective, and establishing new bodies to fill gaps in the system. Guterres has, for example, floated the idea of establishing a new international agency to regulate the uses of A.I., as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) oversees the uses of nuclear power.

While diplomats acknowledge the Secretary-General’s breadth of vision, many question whether this is a propitious moment to tackle such big issues. The mood at the UN is currently very sour. Developing countries have become increasingly vocal in criticizing richer states’ failures to meet past pledges to invest more in development aid and climate adaptation. The war between Hamas and Israel has reopened old wounds in the UN General Assembly. The bulk of states from the so-called “Global South” have condemned the U.S. and many European countries for failing to show solidarity with the Palestinians. Arab diplomats ask how the UN can hold talks on “the future” when there is no future for young people in Gaza.

A ‘Pact for the Future’: Germany and Namibia taking the lead

Germany and Namibia have volunteered for the unenviable task of managing preparations for the Summit of the Future against the bleak backdrop. The two co-facilitators are working on the initial draft of a Pact for the Future for leaders to adopt in September. Once they circulate this text – which is meant to be ready by the end of January – negotiations on the document will begin in earnest. This is likely to be a grinding and protracted process, as the General Assembly has agreed that UN members will have to agree the final Pact by consensus.

An opportunity for civil society groups that advocate a stronger multilateral system

This is not a prospect that fills New York-based diplomats with glee. Many see the existence of the summit as a problem to be solved, not an opportunity to be seized. But this may be a mistake.  For as long as hostilities drag on in Gaza, it will be difficult to focus on the Pact of the Future.

But if and when the war recedes, talking about improving the international system – even in quite technical ways – could be one pathway to restoring some sense of common purpose among UN members, although it is unlikely to erase memories of recent disputes. The Summit is also an opportunity for civil society groups that advocate for a stronger multilateral system to focus attention on global issues, even if they cannot secure big reforms.

Mind the gaps: climate change and human rights missing

While Germany and Namibia led preparatory talks on the substance of the Pact last year, UN members were only able to agree on a skeletal outline. There will be chapters on: peace and security; development; science and technology; future generations and global governance. UN officials and diplomats say that they expect the paper to be 20 to 30 pages in length at most, and to be pitched at the strategic level. This means that even if negotiators do agree to some big reforms in principle through the Pact, it won’t go deep into the details.

The exact contents are still up for debate

Some observers have highlighted two potentially worrying gaps in this outline. One is climate change, which Guterres has previously argued should be an overarching theme for the organization.  UN officials say that they hope the Pact will endorse existing agreements and processes for dealing with global warming, even if it doesn’t propose any new ones. The second notable omission from the outline is a dedicated chapter on human rights, although the Pact is supposed to refer to the rights-related dimensions of the other topics it covers. Many Western diplomats worry that the UN system as a whole is paying less attention to rights issues than in the early post-Cold War period, and are likely to insist that the Pact refers to common values and freedoms.

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

What is the United Nations doing for a culture of peace?

(Article continued from left column)

More broadly, the exact contents of the Pact are still up for debate. The negotiators have no shortage of material. In the course of 2023, Guterres released a series of eleven policy briefs  on issues ranging from education to the governance of outer space to stimulate the negotiations. He also convened a High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism  which released a report on potential reforms to international institutions last summer. But everyone involved in the process recognizes that UN members will pick and choose topics.

Reforming the international financial architecture

It seems certain that developing countries will want to focus a lot of upcoming discussions around the Pact on the oversight and activities of international financial institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Many non-Western officials would like to gain a greater share of decision-making power in these institutions, which are currently still dominated by the U.S., the EU and other major Western economies.  They would also like to see these global lenders make it easier for poor countries to access financing. While the Biden administration and European governments agree that it is necessary to get money flowing to vulnerable nations, it may be harder to get a deal on governance reforms.

UN Security Council reform

Another tricky global governance issue waiting in the wings is UN Security Council reform. Since Russia used its veto to block criticism of its all-out aggression against Ukraine in 2022, many UN members have argued that it is time to overhaul the membership and rules of the Council. While the Biden administration has also used its veto to protect Israel from pressure over its campaign in Gaza, the U.S. still claims to want reform. Germany, as a long-time aspirant to a permanent Council seat, might like to see progress too. There is, however, no chance that UN members will agree on a broadly acceptable model for reform in the next nine months. The best possible outcome may be for member states to agree to hold a set of high-level talks on the issue pegged to the 80th anniversary of the UN Charter in 2025.

Governing A.I. and other new technologies

If Security Council reform is a well-worn subject for UN diplomacy, the planned chapter of the Pact on “science and technology” could open up new fields for discussion.  In addition to his proposal for an IAEA-type body to oversee A.I., Guterres has proposed  that UN members agree a treaty banning Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) by 2026, and establish new mechanisms to manage biotechnologies. Some powerful players at the UN agree that it is time to start developing more international rules of the road in this area. The U.S. has floated a non-binding UN General Assembly resolution on the use of A.I. to promote sustainable development. In parallel with the main Pact for the Future process, Sweden and Zambia are co-facilitating talks on a Global Digital Compact  which could also be adopted in September; this agreement would outline guiding principles for managing the internet, A.I., and data.

Coalitions of member states may table more ambitious side agreements

But if this is a good time to talk about new technologies, diplomats and scientific experts seem less convinced that this is the right moment to establish new institutions and binding agreements around those new technologies. Marietje Schaake, a former Member of the European Parliament who participated in a panel advising Guterres on A.I. last year, recently argued  that it is premature to start designing new agencies to govern this evolving field. Instead, she argues that governments and A.I. developers need to hammer out the basic principles and laws that should govern A.I. before building international frameworks to monitor them. The Summit of the Future offers a hook for exploratory discussions of this type, but it is probable that UN debates about how to govern such new technologies will extend well into the future.

Given the many obstacles to agreeing major reforms in the Pact of the Future, some UN members are already predicting that the document will prove fairly insubstantial. This does not mean that the Summit of the Future will necessarily be a dud. As I have argued elsewhere, coalitions of member states may table more ambitious side agreements – which would not require all UN members to assent – on advancing priorities such as women’s rights that can be signed off in September. As a leading advocate for focusing on the security implications of climate change, to take another example, Germany could well be part of a coalition pushing for greater UN engagement on climate and peace, even though Russia – which vetoed a 2021 resolution on the topic in the Security Council – would want to keep this out of the Pact.

The role of civil society

While UN member states will formally take the lead on these initiatives, civil society organizations can also add some extra energy to the pre-Summit process. Many diplomats, especially from smaller missions in New York, admit that they have had little time to think in depth about what the Summit can deliver. The Secretary-General has put a significant number of complex issues on the table for discussion while other urgent issues such the war in the Middle East, have sucked up time. In the coming month, non-governmental actors can step in to advise UN members on what the Summit can achieve on issues like new tech.

Civil society can add some extra energy pre-summit

Civil society actors can also use their global networks to focus more global attention to the Summit of the Future. UN officials admit that they have struggled to get the international media to focus on the event, given the sheer flow of bad news stories coming out of the UN in recent times. While Guterres would like to draw political leaders into this discussion about global issues (and gave visiting heads of state and government packs of his policy briefs at the UN last September) very few capitals are prioritizing UN reform.  A push by international civil society networks in the coming months to raise awareness of the Summit would be welcome.

The way forward

Nonetheless, Germany and Namibia must make the best of their roles in preparing the Pact of the Future. There will surely be arguments among member states along the way.  But the co-facilitators can at least aim to frame this process as an opportunity to promote diplomatic dialogue among UN members about the future of multilateralism after a very divisive period. It may be possible to agree on common starting principles and begin long-term dialogues on issues such as new technologies and international financing which, even if they do not lead to spectacular results in 2024, could pave the way for more substantive deals down the road. 

About the author 

Richard Gowan is the UN Director of the International Crisis Group (ICG) and oversees the organization’s advocacy work at the United Nations in New York.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

Proposal to the UN Summit of the Future for a UN Council of Peace

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

A submission on the UN Website for the Summit of the Future

From Global Alliance for Ministries and Infrastructures for Peace (GAMIP), https://gamip.org Organizational sponsor: Paul Maillet, Board Member, pmaillet48@gmail.com

Chapeau

Project – Creation of a UN Council of Peace

The challenge of our times is in daring to create new thinking about peace.

Our proposal is to incrementally increase a focus of peace away from the existing central attention to global security through military means, with the establishment of a UN Council of Peace. This council will require enough resources so it will be sustainable and effective with sufficient authority and leadership so that over time it will help bring a new paradigm/worldview of peace.

In the preamble for the UN Charter, to achieve its stated ends, it is written that UN members are to practice tolerance and live together in peace as good neighbours, followed by a goal to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.
`
Sadly, the maintenance of international peace has been constructed through a perpetual threat of military dominance and annihilation.

The UN Charter was developed with two world wars as background history. At that time, the victors of the Second World War chose to become the leaders of global security. In retrospect, it would have been difficult not to place peace within the security framework at that time. For 75 years, these leading states have practiced “tolerance of one another” by imposing a nuclear threat regime upon the world.

Why Now?

The UN needs to strengthen itself to better face the onset of the climate crisis, war and conflict, the erosion of democracies, and the current dominance of military security.

Peace is often an after-thought, for when military affairs of conflict get settled. Since the inception of the UN , the priorities and rivalries managing current affairs have failed Peace. The world is desperate for a UN Council of Peace, as part of UN fiscal priorities, so that nations can prioritize the establishment of new, effective peace-driven institutions.

What is Peace?

We agree that “peace is a human right. It is essential to the realization of human rights. Peace is also a product of human rights: The more a society promotes, protects and fulfils their obligations towards these rights, the greater the chances for curbing violence and resolving conflict peacefully.”

In the current worldview of security, peace is narrowly defined as the absence of hostility, violence, conflict or war; and now perceived as “stable” by nuclear deterrence.

However, a worldview of peace as an intrinsic state of relationships, becomes an intergenerational vision of freedom, political social justice, harmonious co-existence, and a movement away from the primacy of military means.

Question for this article:

What is the United Nations doing for a culture of peace?

What is missing at the UN?

There exists many initiatives regarding UN and peace, such as the Agenda for Peace, the New Agenda for Peace and UN A/RES/52 -243. “Declaration and Programme for a culture of peace”; all that require structure to be effective.

The UN project of “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets have integrated peace into their objectives. It “seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom.” It reveals a determination “to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear and violence. There can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development.”

In particular, goal SDG 16 is to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.

However, there is abundant proof for the need to do much better. The creation of a UN Council of Peace could provide a means to help fulfill the original and optimistic ideals of the UN Charter. We believed that peace must be the foundational framework for global decisions and not an elusive outcome of the present-day “primacy of military” security context.

Potential Organizational Factors

Both the General Assembly (Chapter 4, article 22) and the Security Council (Chapter 6, article 29) can establish subsidiary organs as they deem necessary for the performance of their functions.

Usually, membership of UN organs has been provided through UN Member representation. However, other bodies such as credible academic institutions, peace movements or expert individuals should be welcome, and their participation in a founding Council of Peace would be encouraged.

For example, one could envision the inclusion of The Elders group, whose engagements and values would benefit the elevation of peace as a primary, hopeful value, together with their commitments towards Multiculturalism, Human Rights, Gender equality and Women in Leadership and intergenerational dialogue.

One could envision a fulsome reform of the UN Trusteeship Council to focus on codifying new major principles of international relations, centering on peace first, prohibition of the use of force in international relations, and a commitment to disarm the planet.

Lastly, one could envision a wider public citizen engagement for partnership and funding, recognizing that citizens rarely have a say in priorities and spending for national and international security.

Potential Status

The vision of this project would see the UN Council of Peace initially empowered as an advisory group and ultimately with decision making authorities within the United Nations, in relation to the Secretary General, the General Assembly and Security Council. We believe that the time is now, for the Creation of the UN Council of Peace. In the name of humanity, let us “Give Peace a Chance.”

We remain available should you have any questions on this proposal, Paul Maillet, pmaillet48@gmail.com, Canada Dr. Sylvie Lemieux, slemieux3599@rogers.com, Canada

(Editor’s note: On the UN website, the proposal is accompanied by footnotes citing the documents that are mentioned.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

Proposal to UN Summit of the Future from Fabrica dos Sonhos, Brazil

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

A submission on the UN Website for the Summit of the Future

From Fábrica dos Sonhos and Right to Dream Movement, www.fabricadossonhos.org / www.fabricadossonhos.net, Myrian Castello, Executive Director, mcastello@fabricadossonhos.net

Chapeau:

Embracing the urgency of our interconnected challenges and dreaming of the world we want to live in, we propose a Pact for the Future that amplifies commitment and action. Our vision is action-oriented, concrete, and transformative, fostering inclusivity, innovation, regenerative solutions and sustainability. By uniting nations and generations, we forge a path to a future where no one is left behind.

Chapeau:

Embracing the urgency of our interconnected challenges and dreaming of the world we want to live in, we propose a Pact for the Future that amplifies commitment and action. Our vision is action-oriented, concrete, and transformative, fostering inclusivity, innovation, regenerative solutions and sustainability. By uniting nations and generations, we forge a path to a future where no one is left behind.

Chapter I. Sustainable Development and Financing for Development:

1. Transform the global financial architecture to be more inclusive, just, and responsive, investing upfront in SDGs, climate action, and future generations. Re-soul and open space for new economies supporting initiatives and grassroots movements.

2. Reform global economic governance to enhance the voice and representation of developing countries, fostering coherence under the United Nations.

3. Ensure fair and diverse representation, and data based driven in decision-making.

4. Partnership and commitment of 1st, 2nd and 3rd sector, also between countries and generations.

5. Incentivize family agriculture to prevent food deserts and create opportunities so that people want to stay and work with the soil and food production.

6. Support indigenous communities including the demarcation of indigenous lands to protect their rights and preserve biodiversity.

Chapter II. International Peace and Security:

1. Reform the Security Council to reflect the global South’s diversity and ensure equitable representation.

2. Promote the New Declaration for a Culture of Peace in the XXI Century

Question for this article:

What is the United Nations doing for a culture of peace?

3. Strengthen collective security through regional and local approaches and invest in sustainable development to address underlying drivers of conflicts.

4. Promote disarmament, prevent weaponization in emerging domains, and enhance peace operations with a focus on responsible innovation.

5. Invest in education and in a culture of peace.

6. Take care of the environment.

7. Exchange for good, knowing different realities is easier to empathize with and commit to make a change.

Chapter III. Science, Technology and Innovation, and Digital Cooperation:

1. Foster a culture of innovation, recognizing dreaming as a Universal Human Right and a new SDG.

2. Prioritize racial equality as a new SDG and human right, ensuring the inclusion of diverse voices in shaping the digital future.

3. Phase out fossil fuels, limiting global warming to 1.5°C, while supporting indigenous communities and embracing evidence-based decision-making.

Chapter IV. Youth and Future Generations:

1. Establish dedicated national youth consultative bodies to empower young voices in decisionmaking.

2. Create public policies and actions so that all can feel safe and with that they can dream and achieve more.

3. Recognize Dreaming as a Universal Human Right, infusing hope and aspirational thinking into policymaking.

4. Enshrine racial equality as a new SDG and human right, affirming our commitment to a diverse and inclusive global governance.

5. Cultivate opportunities for youth, mainly the ones living in outskirts and the countryside, ensuring their active participation in shaping the future.

Chapter V. Transforming Global Governance:

1. Decentralize decision-making to the local level, employing evidence-based approaches to address unique challenges.

2. Cultivate a culture of peace for all, emphasizing diplomacy, dialogue, and conflict resolution.

3. Bring culture and art to the local and global level.

4. Re-Humanize global leaders and people in power beyond their titles.

This concise document outlines actionable recommendations that, when implemented, will propel us toward a future characterized by sustainability, inclusivity, and a culture of peace.

We want to be part of the creation of the future that will make a better world for us all. Present and future generations.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

Book Review: Frontlines of Peace

.. DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION ..

A book review by Dr Anurug Chakma from the Australian Institute of International Affairs (published under a Creative Commons License)

In her book, Séverine Autesserre investigates the persistence of an “unlikely peace” in certain conflict-ridden areas like Idjwi in Congo and Somaliland in Somalia. She argues that locally-led grassroots peacebuilding efforts uphold a unique peace in these regions.

Conflict arises from a multitude of factors, ranging from the absence of state presence throughout the territory, governance crises, democratic deficits, and pervasive violence to corruption, extreme poverty, unemployment, geographical location, and regional tensions. Despite these challenges, why does an “unlikely peace” prevail in certain parts of conflict-affected countries like Idjwi and Somaliland but not in other areas? Séverine Autesserre addresses this important question in her fascinating and insightful book.


Drawing from her extensive fieldwork spanning two decades across 12 conflict zones, including Congo, Somaliland, and Colombia, Autesserre argues that template-driven, outsider-led, and top-down international peacebuilding often emphasises governmental institutions, political leadership, and international interventions while neglecting the significance of locally-led grassroots peacebuilding efforts in sustaining peace in various conflict-affected countries.

Throughout her scholarly work, Autesserre has insisted on a “culture of peace” in communities like Idjwi, where strong taboos against violence are instilled from childhood. To prevent the escalation of local-level tensions, local people reach out to grassroots actors such as religious networks, traditional institutions such as mwamis (the traditional chiefs), and village chiefs and community groups instead of resorting to violence or asking for help from the police or the army.

In Somaliland, traditional governance and grassroots initiatives have led to peace, with local elders organising 39 peace conferences, with communities supporting them through hosting, financing, and providing security.

In Colombia, the residents of peace zones protect themselves by refusing cooperation with warring parties, remaining neutral and unarmed, and employing collective strategies to deter threats.

Similar peace zones are found worldwide, from Afghanistan, Bosnia, Fiji, and Indonesia to Mozambique, Northern Ireland, and the Philippines. The bottom line is that the involvement of government elites or institutions is not always required to control violence at the local level.

Superstitions also play a vital role in preventing local-level violence between different groups, a concept Autesserre defines as “alternative peacebuilding.” They act as a deterrent to violence from both insiders and outsiders, similar to spiritual and religious systems in other regions that discourage conflict. One notable example is the blood pact, a traditional ceremony where individuals in Idjwi pledge allegiance by exchanging blood, symbolising a commitment to never harm one another. Although this practice has diminished in recent years due to concerns about hygiene and modernisation, it retains deep respect within the community. The case of Idjwi, approximately equivalent in size to Malta and inhabited by 300,000 individuals, is noteworthy for its capacity to uphold peace amid the catastrophic conflict of Congo that has resulted in the loss of millions of lives. This highlights the considerable influence of these beliefs in preserving peace on Idjwi Island.

To highlight the crucial role of local participation in peacebuilding, the author references the peacebuilding strategy of the Life & Peace Institute (LPI) as an illustrative example. Initially, LPI adhered to the notion that external actors could lead peacebuilding efforts, but this approach proved counterproductive. LPI then shifted its approach to embrace the Participatory Action Research Method. In this revised approach, outside researchers, project implementers, and intended beneficiaries collaborated as co-investigators to collectively identify and address problems. They then engaged in multiple cycles of research, action, and reflection, empowering ordinary citizens to analyse community conflicts, agree on solutions, and implement them. LPI continuously monitored its actions, partners, and impacts, incorporating local advice and learning and adjusted strategies accordingly. Despite being messy, time-consuming, and unconventional, this process proved effective.

(Article continued in right column)

Questions for this article:

How important is community development for a culture of peace?

What are the most important books about the culture of peace?

(Article continued from left column)

Autesserre  discusses the many  drawbacks of international peacebuilding, often labelled as “top-down tyranny.” She remarks that time constraints, recruitment processes, and security protocols influence the effectiveness of template-oriented international peacebuilding. Most international peacebuilders don’t have time to understand the conflict, andtime constraints remain strong due to  the high turnover among staff within peacebuilding organisations, where diplomats, NGO personnel, peacekeeping contingents, and UN civilian employees frequently rotate every few months to a few years, preventing the development of a deep understanding of local dynamics. International interveners often travel from one conflict zone to another without adequately grasping the nuances of the situations they aim to address. In addition to this, peacebuilding organisations frequently recruit and deploy staff outside their area of expertise, undermining the relevance and impact of their interventions. Finally, strict security protocols enforced by headquarters contribute to the disconnect between foreign peacebuilders and local populations, hindering information collection essential for designing robust interventions.

Autesserre also notes that international interveners often neglect grassroots tensions, favouring top-down approaches guided by “liberal peacebuilding” principles. They impose the Western-led and donor-driven agenda that disregards the intricacies of local contexts and fosters a dependency on international aid, further exacerbating conflict dynamics. Driven by the stereotypes that external “experts” possess the solutions to conflicts, international interveners tend to overlook the expertise and perspectives of local populations. This approach, rooted in the Peace Inc. paradigm, underestimates the capabilities of local individuals, which often prove counterproductive.

The failure to understand local contexts for needs assessment leads to ineffective and sometimes absurd initiatives. For instance, in 2010 United Nations peacekeepers tried to protect civilians in Congo by distributing cell phones to point persons in some villages. In theory, the villagers would call the nearest peacekeepers if attacked, though in reality, there was no mobile internet access and no electricity to charge the devices.

International peacebuilding is affected by two further crucial factors: how the impacts of interventions are assessed and how the funds are released and distributed among intended beneficiaries. For evaluating their program impact, foreign peacebuilders and their donors prioritise quantifying the qualitative impact of their actions, neglecting local populations’ involvement in assessing success.

Another claim is that the flow of international aid incentivises participation in grassroots conflict resolution for financial gain rather than genuine peacebuilding, leading to numerous cases of “briefcase NGO” corruption. These examples add to the erosion of local peace infrastructures and, eventually, a legitimacy crisis in the eyes of local communities.

The lessons learned from Afghanistan, Congo, Somalia, South Sudan, and Timor-Leste illustrate that depending exclusively on top-down strategies leads to disastrous consequences. Similarly, relying solely on bottom-up approaches can only result in a fragile and temporary decrease in violence, as national leaders manipulate or interfere from neighbouring armed factions, thus undermining any local peace effort. Additionally, civilians do not possess the capability to overcome armed groups independently, nor do they have the necessary networks to establish peace across an entire nation.

Hence, peacebuilding success hinges on leveraging insiders’ and outsiders’ knowledge, perspectives, networks, and resources. For this reason, model and experienced peacebuilders, akin to Vijaya Priyadarshini Thakur, Déo Buuma, Urbain Bisimwa, and Banu Altunbas, understand the importance of bolstering and reinforcing local peace efforts rather than imposing a donor-driven peacebuilding agenda.

Hence, Autesserre suggests that foreign peacebuilders must challenge existing stereotypes such as the belief that outsiders always know best, the perception that local individuals are untrustworthy and incompetent, the notion that using standardised templates are beneficial, the belief that only top-down initiatives are necessary, the misconception that grassroots peacebuilding cannot occur during ongoing violence, and the idea that peacebuilding is always expensive and time-consuming. Their program needs to incorporate not only national elites but also local leaders, beneficiaries, and citizens. More importantly, long-term engagement is also crucial to deeply understanding the local context and building trust and credibility with local stakeholders, which is essential to make peacebuilding successful and sustainable.

This is a review Séverine Autesserre’s Frontlines of Peace (Oxford University Press 2021). ISBN: 9780197530351

Dr Anurug Chakma is a Research Fellow within the Migration Hub at the School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet) at the Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia. For inquiries or further communication, Dr Chakma can be reached at anurug.chakma@anu.edu.au. 

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, global

The Rez of the Story: What is a culture of peace?

EDUCATION FOR PEACE .

An article by Vince Two Eagles in the Lakota Times (located on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota, USA)

Yesterday, February 4th, was recognized as the “International Day of Human Fraternity by the United Nations.” The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres calls for we humans to “…reaffirm our commitment to bridging divides, fostering religious understanding and cooperation among people of all cultures and beliefs. Together, let us forge a path towards a more peaceful, just and harmonious work for all.”

The headline reads, “Human fraternity for peace and cooperation” on the UN website. The very valid question, “What is the culture of peace?” is asked and answered as follows:

“The culture of peace is a set of values, attitudes, traditions and models of behavior and ways of life based on:

1. Respect for life, ending of violence and promotion and practice of non-violence through education, dialogue and cooperation;

2. Full respect for the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of States and non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law;

3. Full respect for and promotion of all human rights and fundamental freedoms;

4. Commitment to peaceful settlement of conflicts;

5. Efforts to meet the developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations;

6. Respect for and promotion of the right to development; Respect for and promotion of equal rights and opportunities for women and men;

7. Respect for and promotion of the right of everyone to freedom of expression, opinion and information;

8. Adherence to the principles of freedom, justice, democracy, tolerance, solidarity, cooperation, pluralism, culture diversity, dialogue and understanding at all levels of society and among nations; and fostered by an enabling national and international environment conducive to peace; (Source: A/ RES/53/243).”

The UN site goes on to state:”We need — perhaps more than ever before — to recognize the valuable contribution of people of all religions, or beliefs, to humanity and the contribution that dialogue among all religious groups can make towards an improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind.”

(continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Can the vision of a culture of peace help inspire action?

(continued from left column)

“We also need to underline the importance of raising awareness about different cultures and religions, or beliefs, and the promotion of tolerance, which involves societal acceptance and respect for religious and cultural diversity, including with regard to religious expression. Education, in particular at school, should contribute in a meaningful way to promoting tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief.”

“Furthermore, we must acknowledge that tolerance, pluralistic tradition, mutual respect and the diversity of religions and beliefs promote human fraternity. Thus, it is imperative that we encourage activities aimed at promoting inter-religious and intercultural dialogue in order to enhance peace and social stability, respect for diversity and mutual respect and to create, at the global level, and also at the regional, national and local levels, an environment conducive to peace and mutual understanding.”

“Within that frame, the General-Assembly took note of all international, regional, national and local initiatives, as appropriate, as well as efforts by religious leaders, to promote inter-religious and intercultural dialogue, and in this regard took note also of the meeting between Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmad al-Tayyib, on 4 February 2019 in Abu Dhabi, which resulted in the signing of the document entitled ‘Human fraternity for world peace and living together’.”

“Following the devastation of the Second World War, the United Nations was established to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. One of its purposes is to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems, including by promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.”

“In 1999, the General-Assembly adopted, by resolution 53/243, the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace, which serves as the universal mandate for the international community, particularly the United Nations system, to promote a culture of peace and non-violence that benefits all of humanity, including future generations.”

“The declaration came about as a result of the long held and cherished concept — contained within the Constitution of UNESCO — that “since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” The Declaration embraces the principle that peace is not merely the absence of conflict, but also requires a positive, dynamic participatory process, in which dialogue is encouraged and conflicts are resolved in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation.”

“On 20 October 2010, the General-Assembly in resolutionA/RES/65/5 pointed out that mutual understanding and inter-religious dialogue constitute important dimensions of a culture of peace and established World Interfaith Harmony Week as a way to promote harmony between all people regardless of their faith. It further recognized the imperative need for dialogue among different faiths and religions to enhance mutual understanding, harmony and cooperation among people.”

“At the core of all the faith systems and traditions is the recognition that we are all in this together and that we need to love and support one another to live in harmony and peace in an environmentally sustainable world. Our world continues to be beset by conflict and intolerance with rising numbers refugees and the internationally displaced in a hostile and unwelcoming world around them. We are also, unfortunately, witnessing messages of hate spreading discord among people. The need for spiritual guidance has never been greater. It is imperative that we double our efforts to spread the message of good neighborliness based on our common humanity, a message shared by all faith [and non-faith] traditions.”

“The United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 4 February as the International Day of Human Fraternity, with resolution 75/200.”

And now you know the Rez of the story.

Doksha . . . (“see you later” in the Sioux language)

EDUCATION FOR PEACE, global, North America,

Fredrik S. Heffermehl (1938-2023)

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

An article by  Peter van den Dungen in World Beyond War

Norwegian peace activist and lawyer who waged a long campaign against the Norwegian Nobel Committee for not respecting the will of Alfred Nobel.
A growing unease that the persons Alfred Nobel had in mind as deserving winners of his peace prize were losing out and that the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decisions were often failing to respect Nobel’s intentions (as expressed in his will), led Norwegian lawyer and peace activist Fredrik S. Heffermehl to start a campaign to oblige the Committee to bring its awards more in line with the requirements of the will. With considerable justification he argued that successive Committees had never undertaken a legal analysis of it (as regards the prize for peace) or considered the circumstances which had given rise to the prize.

Heffermehl, who has died at his home near Oslo on 21 December (only weeks after celebrating his 85th birthday on 11th November), was a leading member of the Norwegian peace movement, of the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), and one-time vice-president of the International Peace Bureau (1910 Nobel laureate). As an active supporter of many public campaigns concerning the abolition of war, disarmament, peaceful conflict resolution, strengthening of the United Nations and international law, and global cooperation, he was well aware that the lack of funding inevitably limited the extent and success of such efforts in which mobilisation of large numbers of people is dependent on raising awareness, inspiring hope, and encouraging engagement. The contrast with the military establishment and the vast resources at its disposal could not be greater. This now consists of an increasingly out of control Juggernaut, the military-industrial complex that U. S. President Dwight Eisenhower (a World War II four-star general) had warned against in his 1961 farewell address to the American people. At the end of the 19th century Alfred Nobel had predicted a return to barbarity within a few decades if the powers that be failed to reform the international system so that recourse to war was no longer an option. Both world wars, and the countless wars since then and continuing today, have confirmed his premonition. For the second year in succession, the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists stands ominously at ninety seconds to midnight – a time of unprecedented danger.

The questions of what is peace, and who deserves what is widely regarded as the world’s most prestigious prize, are raised every October when the Norwegian Nobel Committee announces the name(s) of the new laureate(s). Another opportunity for further debate presents itself two months later when the award ceremony takes place in Oslo on 10th December, the day when Alfred Nobel died in 1896. The prize for what he called ‘champions of peace’ is one of five annual prizes that the Swedish inventor and successful entrepreneur included in his last will and testament drawn up the previous year. The will specified that most of his enormous wealth should be invested in a fund, the interest on which should be used to annually award prizes to those who have conferred ‘the greatest benefit on mankind’. Unlike the prizes for physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature, the prize for peace was (and remains) controversial. Heffermehl was its most severe, persistent and passionate critic while also being the most eloquent interpreter of what the prize should have been and still could be.

There was already dismay among those in the know in 1901 (when the first prize was awarded) that Frédéric Passy, the grand old man of the French and international peace movement, had to share the prize with Henry Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross. The will specified that the peace prize should go to ‘the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses’. Although the work of the Red Cross is highly meritorious, whether it meets the criteria specified by Nobel is highly debatable. The prize was not meant for helping victims of war, but for efforts leading to its abolition. The same is true for awards that have honoured work promoting, e.g., human rights, freedom of the press, labour relations, food security, care for the environment.

It cannot be doubted that Nobel was greatly influenced by his friendship with the Austrian baroness Bertha von Suttner, author of the bestselling anti-war novel, Lay down your arms (1889) that was translated into most European languages. She wrote the novel after having learnt of the existence of a peace society (the International Arbitration and Peace Association, created in London in 1880 by Hodgson Pratt), in order to bring more people into the peace movement. Soon, she herself became a famous and highly respected leader of it. Money is the sinews of war, and she pleaded with Nobel that it was also the sinews of peace. She founded the Austrian Peace Society, co-founded the German Peace Society and was much involved in the annual conferences of the international peace movement that were held in the quarter century before World War I. Nobel frequently replied positively to her request for funding without which she would have been unable to pursue her work. In her penultimate letter, after Nobel had mentioned his poor health, she urged him to continue his support ‘even from beyond the grave’. It was widely known at the time that Nobel’s posthumous support for the peace movement (through the creation of a peace prize) was due to Bertha von Suttner who was widely expected to be the first recipient. She had to wait until 1905.

In a remarkable campaign stretching back nearly two decades and documented in many articles and several books (English editions in 2010 and 2023), Heffermehl argued that Nobel’s prize was meant to support the peace movement and also to allow young and talented idealists who were working towards a world without war not to have to worry about earning a living as well. In his most recent and highly original book, The Real Nobel Peace Prize: A Squandered Opportunity to Abolish War (see https://realnobelpeace.org/), he examined every award, and all nominations received by the Committee, through this lens, making extensive use of its archives.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

His meticulous research resulted in a list in which more than half of all laureates (including presidents and foreign ministers) have been replaced by leading promoters of peace and international law. He demonstrated how, again and again, promising ideas and initiatives promoting disarmament, demilitarisation and the abolition of war have been overlooked in favour of work promoting, e.g., Norwegian foreign policy, or concerning areas which have only a tenuous link to the pursuit of world peace and a new global order of cooperation, not confrontation. Heffermehl also showed decisively that the Committee could not have been more wrong when, on fifteen occasions (excluding the years of World War II when Norway was occupied), it decided to make no award on the spurious ground that no candidate was considered qualified. There are no instances of this disreputable practice after 1972.

Heffermehl’s middle name was Stang; he was related to Fredrik Stang, a law professor who was also a leading politician as well as a chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee for almost two decades (1921-1940). Heffermehl attended the annual Nobel peace prize ceremony in Oslo for the first time in 1964 when Martin Luther King delivered his Nobel lecture. He was routinely invited to all ceremonies in future years but this came to an abrupt end when he started his campaign after having carefully examined Nobel’s testament. As recounted in great detail in his most recent book, he found the best peace ideas and people in the archives of the Norwegian Nobel Committee (because of the fifty-year secrecy rule, Heffermehl could only consult them for the period from 1901 until the early 1970s). However, they were often overlooked or deliberately sidelined when it came to choosing laureates. Although the United Nations was established ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’ – which was also the objective of Bertha von Suttner and Alfred Nobel – that promise remains unfulfilled. The belief in security by military power continues to reign supreme, even in the nuclear age. A former Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman, Heffermehl observed that what he often found missing in the military sector was consumer protection. While arms and weapons are the most profitable of all markets, he found little truth in its promises of security. Indeed, he argued that the arms industry is selling solutions to problems that it actively creates. Nations respond to fear of other nations by making themselves more frightening, guaranteeing an endless upward spiral in both cost and danger.

Arguably Heffermehl had an over-optimistic view of the potential of the peace prize to materially contribute to the abolition of war (as long as it was awarded in accordance with the founder’s intentions). As he put it succinctly and memorably, ‘the prize that should have been and the world that could have been’.

More than ever, survival in the atomic era necessitates ‘the reduction and abolition of standing armies’ that Nobel stipulated and putting recourse to war (now with weapons of mass destruction) beyond the law. It is thanks to Heffermehl’s campaign that during the past fifteen years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee developed the habit of justifying its choice of laureate by indicating how it fulfils Alfred Nobel’s mandate – even though this frequently amounts to paying lip-service only. As part of his campaign, Heffermehl compiled every year a list of individuals and organisations known to have been nominated and entitled, in his estimation, to receive the prize. He criticised the secrecy surrounding the nomination process and encouraged greater transparency and wider participation. He also took issue with the selection process of the five members of the Committee: whereas knowledge of, interest in, and support for the peace movement should have been a condition to qualify for membership, these attributes have rarely been in evidence. Members are appointed by a committee of the Norwegian parliament in a way that reflects its political composition; membership of the Committee is regarded as a badge of honour but does not necessarily imply expertise. For a long time, members of the Committee were not only members of parliament but at times also prime minister, or foreign minister leading Heffermehl to quip, ‘The managers of the Norwegian military also managed the prize to abolish the military’.

Although the Committee dismissed his campaign as one man’s misguided obsession based on a misreading of Nobel’s will, he enjoyed the support of many legal scholars from Norway and beyond, and even from former justices of the Norwegian Supreme Court, including a former Chief Justice. It goes without saying that his campaign was also supported by leading representatives of the global peace and disarmament movement who, like Bertha von Suttner, are dependent on financial support without which progress is hard to achieve. Against the Committee, Heffermehl also drew on the fascinating private diaries of Gunnar Jahn, a jurist and leading politician, who was a member of the Committee for almost thirty years and who served as its chairperson for a quarter of a century (1941-1966). In his earlier book, The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted (2010), Heffermehl included long extracts, translated for the first time from the Norwegian, showing that on several occasions Jahn threatened to resign because he could not countenance the choice of candidate by fellow members. On such occasions, Jahn justified his unease, and preference for another laureate, by explicitly referring to the terms of Nobel’s will and finding that his colleagues were instead putting forward a candidate whose otherwise praiseworthy work had little to do with peace in the understanding of Alfred Nobel. In his diary Jahn complained that the other committee members were not the least interested when he mentioned Nobel.

In his forensic examination of Nobel’s will, Heffermehl was also able to draw on the insight of Ragnvald Moe, a long-serving secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. In a book that was unusual in tracing the history of the Nobel peace prize and of the peace movement from 1896 to 1930 (published in 1932 in French), Moe noted the changes Nobel had made pertaining to the prize for peace in his final testament compared with the previous version and concluded that they ‘more adequately cover the various aspects of the peace movement in the 1890s’.

Very recently Heffermehl’s campaign achieved an astounding climax when a former chairman of the Committee (2009-2015) declared that Nobel’s understanding of peace (and ‘champions of peace’) should be the guiding principle of the Committee and poses restrictions on the nature of the work that can be considered for the award. He is the prominent politician, Thorbjørn Jagland, a former Norwegian prime minister and foreign minister. In 2009 he combined the posts as Nobel committee chair and president of parliament, and afterwards combined being a committee member and secretary general of the Council of Europe. In his memoirs (2021), he wrote that ‘there can be no doubt that Alfred Nobel wanted the world to overcome nationalism and militarism. A new world order had to develop – he wanted to do something with the world. It is clear that the criteria in the will are restrictions on who the prize can be awarded to. It cannot be given to all people of good will who wish the best for humanity. The winners of the award must have a clear agenda which can be said to lead towards the goal of the abolition of militarism and nationalism and the formation of a new international order’. Heffermehl quoted Jagland’s words in his speech at an event in central Oslo last November launching The Real Nobel Peace Prize and rightly claimed that he had now an ally with impeccable credentials. It may well be that Jagland, eventually, had been persuaded by the case so tenaciously pursued by Heffermehl. Heffermehl said, ‘I wish to declare my war of sixteen years with the Nobel awarders over. We can proceed on the basis of a common interpretation’. It is ironic that only a few weeks later he passed away at this crucial turning point. It remains to be seen whether his campaign will have had a lasting impact on future decisions of the Nobel Committee.

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, global