Cultura de Paz Unesco

FROM A C U LT U R E
OF VIOLENCE
T O A C U LT U R E O F
PEACE
S
U E
T I S S
L I C
O N F
D C
E A N
A C
P E
FROM A CULTURE OF VIOLENCE
TO A CULTURE OF PEACE
Also in the Peace and Conflict Issues Series
Peace and Conict Issues after the Cold War

Non-military Aspects of International Security
From a culture
of violence
to a culture
of peace
Pe a c e a n d C o n f l i c t I s s u e s S e r i e s
UNESCO Publishing
The authors are responsible for the choice and the presentation
of the facts contained in this book and for the opinions expressed therein,
which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the
Organization. The designations employed and the presentation of material
throughout this book do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation
of its frontiers or boundaries.
Published in 1996 by the United Nations Educational,

Scientic and Cultural Organization,
7 place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France
Composed by ditions du Mouon, 94270 Le Kremlin-Bictre, France
Printed by Presses Universitaires de France, Vendme
ISBN 92-3-103290-9
UNESCO 1996
Printed in France
Preface
In keeping with its mandate to construct the defences of peace in the minds of
men and women, UNESCO publishes biennially a volume in the series Peace
and Conict Issues, prepared in consultation with the Advisory Board for this
series.
The present publication brings together the reections of eminent peace
researchers, philosophers and jurists on the multiple facets of a culture of peace.
It elucidates its very concept and examines normative bases and universally
recognized moral and ethical principles. It shows that a common system of values
grouped around such key notions as justice, human rights, democracy,
development, non-violence and peaceful resolution of conicts, and behavioural
patterns are the essence of a culture of peace.
Whilst recognizing that the construction of a culture of peace is a long-term
process, this volume dwells on the ways, means and partners necessary for its
implementation, notably education, the media, intercultural dialogue and cultural
pluralism. The sustained efforts of the whole international community states,
governmental and non-governmental organizations as well as individuals and civil
society are indispensable for the achievement of a culture of peace.
It is hoped that this book will provoke further reection on this subject which
will, in turn, make yet another contribution to the promotion of a culture of
peace.
Contents
Constructing a culture of peace: challenges and

perspectives an introductory note
Janusz Symonides and Kishore Singh 9
Peace behaviours in various societies

Elise Boulding 31
Normative instruments for a culture of peace

Emmanuel Decaux 55
Cultural peace: some characteristics

Johan Galtung 75
Social and cultural sources of violence

Santiago Genovs 93
Creating global/local cultures of peace

Linda Groff and Paul Smoker 103
Towards a planetary code of ethics: ethical foundations

of a culture of peace
Hans Kng 129
Understanding and dialogue between religions to promote

the spirit of peace
Flix Marti 145
Gandhi on the moral life and plurality of religions
Mrinal Miri 163
An Agenda for Peace and a culture of peace

Nazli Moawad 177
The teaching of Martin Luther King for a culture of peace

Solomon M. Nkiwane 195
The role of education for a culture of peace

Keith D. Suter 209
Towards a culture of peace based on human rights

Marek Thee 229
UNESCO and a culture of peace: promoting a global movement

UNESCOs Culture of Peace Programme 251
ANNEXES
I. Declaration on the Role of Religion in the Promotion

of a Culture of Peace 269
II. Advisory Board for UNESCOs series on Peace

and Conict Issues 273
9
Constructing a culture of peace:

challenges and perspectives an
introductory note
Janusz Symonides* and Kishore Singh**
A CULTURE OF PEACE: A NECESSITY FOR OUR TIME
At the end of the twentieth century humankind is still confronted with numerous
armed conicts, with the illegal use of military force and with various forms of
violence. Permanent and lasting peace and security still remain as a goal to be
achieved, as they were fty years ago at the moment of the creation of the United
Nations system.
An analysis of the present situation leads to the conclusion that the main
objective formulated in UNESCOs Constitution half a century ago, namely the
construction of the defence of peace in the minds of men and women, is more
than ever valid. Indeed, a peace based exclusively upon the political and economic
arrangements of governments would not be a peace which could secure the
unanimous, lasting and sincere support of the peoples of the world . . . and peace
must therefore be founded, if it is not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral
solidarity of mankind.
In a world where many regions suffer from increasing tensions, conicts
and violence, to make peace a tangible reality is of critical importance. Ethno-
nationalism, xenophobia, racism and discrimination against minority groups,
religious extremism and violations of human rights are the cause of an increasing
number of local and regional conicts. Violence fuelled by hate and directed
* Director of UNESCOs Division of Human Rights, Democracy and Peace.

** Programme Specialist in the same Division.
10 Janusz Symonides
and Kishore Singh
against non-nationals, refugees and asylum-seekers, and immigrant workers is a

serious threat to domestic security and the very fabric of states themselves. At
the same time, exclusion, poverty, urban decay, mass migration, environmental
degradation and new pandemic diseases, as well as terrorism and traffic in drugs,
create very real threats to internal and international security.
The present culture of violence based on distrust, suspicion, intolerance and
hatred, on the inability to interact constructively with all those who are different,
must be replaced by a new culture based on non-violence, tolerance, mutual
understanding and solidarity, on the ability to solve peacefully disputes and
conicts. The world is in need of such a new culture and of a common system
of values and new behavioural patterns for individuals, groups and nations, for,
without them, the major problems of international and internal peace and security
cannot be solved.
The end of the Cold War and of ideological confrontation between East
and West created new possibilities for the United Nations system and for the
whole of the international community to move towards a culture of peace.
Not only has the threat of a global nuclear war been removed to a great
extent but the role of the military factor in international relations is decreasing.
This, in consequence, paves the way towards disarmament and demilitarization
both internationally and internally and towards the elimination of enemy
images, distrust and suspicion. Moreover, the sharp divisions and useless
debates concerning the concept of human rights are being replaced by
recognition that the promotion and protection of all human rights is an
important element of peace and development and, as such, is a great concern
of the international community as well as a priority objective of the United
Nations.
The process of transition towards democracy is another factor conducive
to the construction of a culture of peace. Democracies, as proved by historical
experience, not only do not make war against each other but also through their
systems of governance rule of law, participation, transparency and accountability
diminish considerably recourse to violence.
In the new international atmosphere, UNESCO has undertaken a series of
activities aimed at the promotion of a culture of peace. It is worth noting that
the rst call to work in this direction was formulated in July 1989 by the
Constructing a culture 11
of peace: challenges
and perspectives an
introductory note
UNESCO International Congress on Peace in the Minds of Men, held in

Yamoussoukro, Cte dIvoire, which in its declaration proposed to help construct
a new vision of peace by developing a peace culture . . . .
At its 140th session in 1992, the UNESCO Executive Board discussed the
contribution to be made towards the promotion of a culture of peace, in the light
of the United Nations Secretary-Generals An Agenda for Peace.1 It decided that an
action programme should be established to promote a culture of peace, in
particular by strengthening and co-ordinating ongoing activities.
As declared by Federico Mayor, Director-General of UNESCO, at the
opening session of the Forum for Education and Culture held in San
Salvador, El Salvador, on 28 April 1993, the underlying spirit of a culture
of peace is to:
promote the apprenticeship and practice of a culture of peace, both in the
formal and non-formal education process and in all the activities of daily
life;
build and strengthen democracy as a key to a just and peaceful negotiated
settlement of conicts;
strive towards a form of human development which, with the participation
of the entire population, values the social capabilities and the human potential
of all members of society;
give pride of place to cultural contacts, exchanges and creativity, at national
and international levels, as a means of encouraging recognition of respect
for others and the ways in which they differ; and
strengthen international co-operation to remove the socio-economic causes
of armed conicts and wars, thereby permitting the building of a better world
for humankind as a whole.
In accordance with the resolutions of the twenty-seventh session of the General
Conference in 1993, an initial programme was prepared for 199495 providing,
inter alia, the elaboration of two or three country projects aimed at the creation
of a climate conducive to reconciliation in countries torn by war or civil strife
and where United Nations peace-keeping operations had been or are being
1. An Agenda for Peace, 2nd ed., New York, United Nations, 1995.
12 Janusz Symonides
and Kishore Singh
conducted. Such pilot projects were established in El Salvador, Mozambique and

Burundi.2
Another important step forward was made in 1995 when the twenty-eighth
session of the General Conference adopted a transdisciplinary project, Towards
a Culture of Peace. This project comprises four parts:
Education for peace, human rights, democracy, international understanding
and tolerance.
Promotion of human rights and democracy and the struggle against
discrimination.
Cultural pluralism and intercultural dialogue.
Conict prevention and post-conict peace-building.
The implementation of this project will involve all the sectors of the Organization.
It will also require increased co-operation with Member States, institutions and
organs of the United Nations system, regional and intergovernmental
organizations, the relevant non-governmental organizations and the intellectual
community.
This present volume of the UNESCO Peace and Conict Issues Series, From
a Culture of Violence to a Culture of Peace, should be seen as an example of such co-
operation with the intellectual community. Its main purpose is to enable a group
of eminent peace researchers, philosophers and jurists to present their views on
the concept of a culture of peace, on a common system of values, on ways and
means to construct it through the partners and networks which are so vital for
its promotion.
THE MAIN CONCEPTUAL ELEMENTS OF A CULTURE

OF PEACE
The term culture may be used both in a wide and in a restricted sense. In the
wider meaning, culture concerns the sum of human activities, the totality of
knowledge and practice, whereas in the restricted sense culture is understood
2. A detailed presentation is given in this volume by the UNESCO Culture of Peace

Programme, UNESCO and a Culture of Peace: Promoting a Global Movement
(p. 251).
and perspectives an
introductory note
mainly as the result of creative activities and the highest intellectual achievements,
such as music, literature, art or architecture.
A culture of peace should be understood in the broader sense. Such
understanding is formulated by several UNESCO documents. The
Recommendation on Participation by People at Large in Cultural Life, 1976,
explains that culture is not merely an accumulation of works and knowledge
which an lite produces . . . but is at one and the same time the acquisition of
knowledge, the demand for a way of life and the need to communicate. Similarly
the World Conference on Cultural Policies (1982) stressed that the term culture
was understood by the delegates as ways of thinking and organizing peoples
lives. Therefore culture is not only a knowledge of certain values but also an
adherence to them and a readiness to defend and follow them in everyday life.
Thus a culture of peace should be understood as the creation of peaceful, non-
violent behavioural patterns and skills.
This aspect is emphasized by Johan Galtung3 who, in his reections on
ethical, sociocultural and legal dimensions of a culture of peace, underlines the
need to enhance paxogenes and pacify bellogenes. As he argues, the test of the
validity of a culture of peace lies in how it affects behaviour in conict.
Elise Boulding4 analyses behavioural dynamics of peaceableness in selected
contemporary societies which set a high value on non-aggression and non-
competitiveness. She stresses a need to lay emphasis on the cultural context of
peaceful behaviour in everyday life partnership, family life, celebrations and
rituals, trade and exchange, all of which can contribute to peace and non-violence.
There is no human occupation which cannot be re-turned to peace-building.
Nevertheless, one fundamental question concerning human nature is
pertinent. Are human beings capable of peace? The view that man is the source
of all evil, including war, has a long tradition. Its advocates include, among others,
St Augustine, Hobbes, Luther, Spinoza, Malthus and Freud.
Contemporary research conducted by psychologists, biologists, educators
and sociologists does not conrm the thesis about mans unappeased and
irresistible drive for war. This position is taken in The Seville Statement on Violence,
3. See, in this volume, Cultural Peace: Some Characteristics (p. 75).

4. See, in this volume, Peace Behaviours in Various Societies (p. 31).
14 Janusz Symonides
and Kishore Singh
adopted in 1986 by a meeting of a group of well-known scientists organized

by UNESCO, who challenged the biological pessimism based on alleged
human aggressiveness which is so frequently used to explain or even to justify
war.
Recalling the Statement, Santiago Genovs5 deals with anthropological and
sociological dimensions of a culture of peace. His analysis demonstrates that
violence is neither part of our evolutionary legacy nor in our genes; it is in
our sociological and cultural roots. Moreover, there is nothing in the
neurophysiology of human beings which compels them to react violently and
it is possible to create a culture of peace founded on their natural pacic
behaviour patterns.
Aggressive behaviour does not stem from human nature but is either a result
of a process of education or a response to a painful stimulus. Individuals are
normally ready to adapt to their environment and, under normal circumstances,
prefer co-operation to aggressiveness. They are also capable of self-control, of
love, friendship and tolerance. In the process of their upbringing, these dispositions
can be developed.
As the culture which we are discussing here is that of peace, there is a need
to elucidate this notion. The word peace has a variety of meanings in different
contexts.
In international affairs, it is employed to denote relations between states.
Elsewhere, it is associated with internal conditions in a country, in a society,
between groups, organizations and social structures or between man and his
natural environment. In ethics or morality, the word peace is used to characterize
human relationships and attitudes or to determine an individuals frame of mind,
often qualied as inner peace. Given its various applications, the term is
polysemantic, by its very nature avoiding a univocal denition. In the law of
nations, peace denotes the contrary of war, which is most frequently dened
as a resort to armed struggle and hostilities. A war is a factual state, an attempt
to solve disputes and conicts and to achieve domination through armed force
and violence.
5. See, in this volume, Social and Cultural Sources of Violence (p. 93).
and perspectives an
introductory note
In general there are two understandings of peace: the negative, narrow

understanding, reducing peace to a mere absence of war; and the positive,
dening peace as a lack of war often enriched by further elements and guarantees
which make peace constructive, just and democratic. In its second sense, peace
is not a static state but a dynamically conceived aim of international and national
communities.
What are the main, indispensable values on which a positive peace can be
built? As the rst preambulary phrase of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights states, the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of
freedom, justice and peace in the world. The Yamoussoukro Declaration proposed
to base a peace culture on the universal values of respect for life, liberty, justice,
solidarity, tolerance, human rights and equality between women and men. If we
add democracy, development, burden-sharing and responsibility as well as non-
violence and peaceful resolution and transformation of conicts, the list can be
seen as relatively exhaustive.6
All these values may be grouped around such key notions as justice, human
rights, democracy, development, non-violence and peaceful resolution of conicts.
Though their underlying message appears clear, their interpretations are
nevertheless not free from controversy.
As Linda Groff and Paul Smoker7 observe, a concept of non-violence, for
example, has different meanings in different cultural and political contexts.
Different interpretations of non-violence can be advanced: non-violence as any
action to prevent war, non-violence as action to maintain a system, structural
non-violence and holistic inner and outer peace and non-violence.
A culture of peace cannot be built during the arms race and militarization
6. During the twenty-eighth session of the General Conference on 31 October 1995,

the Group of 77 adopted the Paris Declaration which, in paragraph 10, states: We
attach high priority to promoting a culture of peace, which includes freedom from
all forms of economic and social deprivation, poverty, social injustices, such as
exclusion and discrimination, and redresses agrant asymmetries of wealth and
opportunity, both within and between countries.
7. See, in this volume, Creating Global/Local Cultures of Peace (p. 103).
16 Janusz Symonides
and Kishore Singh
of societies which unavoidably generate enemy images, suspicions and threats.

Therefore disarmament and demilitarization are conditions sine qua non. Positive
peace assumes not only absence of war but also absence of the instruments and
institutions of war.8 In this context, Keith Suter9 suggests that a culture of peace
must completely reshape the military-industrial complexes built during the Cold
War period, sustained by scientists, media and trade unions. One possibility is
linked with military conversion.
The diminishing role of military factors, resulting in disarmament and
demilitarization, gives new importance to non-military dimensions of security.
This applies in particular to the notion of human security introduced in the
Human Development Report 1994, presented by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP). Indeed, the human being must be considered as the central
subject and ultimate beneciary of all efforts aimed at the creation of a common
and co-operative system of security. Human security in particular implies the
right to live in dignity. This cannot be achieved simply through the
implementation of political and civil rights but also through that of economic,
social and cultural rights, including the right to development.10
A culture of peace is intimately linked with a culture of human rights and
democracy. Peace cannot be preserved if the basic rights and fundamental
freedoms of individuals or groups are violated and when discrimination and
exclusion generate conict. Therefore the protection of human rights and the
promotion of a culture of democracy which imply, inter alia, the formation of
well-informed, democratically-minded and responsible citizens become important
elements for the construction of internal and international peace.
8. Asbjorn Eide, Methods and Problems in Peace Research, International Social Science
Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1974, pp. 1212.
9. See, in this volume, The Role of Education for a Culture of Peace (p. 209).
10. See Janusz Symonides and Vladimir Volodin, Concept and New Dimensions of
Security: Introductory Remarks, Non-military Aspects of International Security, pp. 921,
Paris, UNESCO, 1995. (Peace and Conict Issues Series.)
and perspectives an
introductory note
A N O R M AT I V E B A S I S F O R A C U LT U R E O F P E A C E
An analysis of the concept of a culture of peace shows that it cannot be achieved

without normative bases and universally recognized moral and ethical principles.
Such norms and values are necessary for all levels of peace relations between
states, groups and individuals.
The question at this moment is: do we already have certain elements of
these normative bases and shared values or is this only a postulate? Fortunately
the former is indeed true.
As regards inter-state relations, international law has outlawed aggression
and use of force. States are duty-bound, according to the provisions of Article 2
of the Charter of the United Nations, to settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not
endangered.
The United Nations Charter provides for a system of collective security: in
cases of threats to peace, or acts of aggression, the Security Council of the United
Nations is invested with the authority to take the necessary measures. It can, in
the last resort, legitimately use force for restoring or maintaining international
peace and security.
However, the fact that present-day conicts are preponderantly intra-state
or internal points to the need for adjusting the structure of the United Nations
to permit adequate reaction to new challenges. The effectiveness of the United
Nations action is primarily determined by the will of Member States. This
inevitably poses the question of the acceptance of the limitation of state
sovereignty. Further reection on the concept of domestic jurisdiction, on the
acceptance of the supremacy of international law, as well as on a new
interpretation of the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, is needed to
increase the possibility of effective United Nations action in cases of internal
conicts and massive violations of human rights.
A number of instruments also exist for promoting peaceful relations between
different groups. Thus Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (1966) condemns incitement to war, the advocacy of national,
racial or religious hatred and any form of discrimination, hostility or violence.
Furthermore, states parties to the International Convention on the Elimination
18 Janusz Symonides
and Kishore Singh
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) undertake to adopt immediate and

positive measures to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, racial discrimination.
The Declaration on the Preparation of Societies for Life in Peace, adopted
by the United Nations General Assembly (1978), stipulates certain duties and
obligations for states in order to promote peace and calls upon all states to
discourage and eliminate incitement to racial hatred, national or other
discrimination, injustice or advocacy of violence and war.11
As regards inter-human relations, the international law of human rights
embodies relevant values, norms and principles. States are duty-bound, as the
World Conference on Human Rights declared, to implement universally
recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, to develop and encourage
respect for these, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.
The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action stresses that:
All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The
international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner,
on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the signicance of national
and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds
must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic
and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental
freedoms.
Human rights instruments also provide monitoring procedures for which the
treaty bodies are responsible. Procedures for safeguarding human rights and for
examining alleged cases of their violation exist at both regional and global levels.
Besides, there are also national mechanisms in the form of constitutional or
administrative tribunals, ombudsmen, commissions, etc. However, these
procedures, cannot be seen as being fully satisfactory. There is an obvious need
to increase their effectiveness.
As Marek Thees12 analysis shows, human rights instruments as a standard-
setting guide already provide a framework for a new, just and peaceful world
order. A culture of peace must be viewed in its interface with democracy and
11. J. Symonides, Education for Peace, Bulletin of Peace Proposals, No. 2, 1980, pp. 23441.
12. See, in this volume, Towards a Culture of Peace Based on Human Rights (p. 229).
and perspectives an
introductory note
paramountcy of the rule of law. In the context of positive peace theory, one must
focus on social development and on the normative bases of the right to
development and the right to peace as solidarity rights.13
Emmanuel Decauxs14 contribution underlines the primacy of international
law and universal human rights and elucidates existing legal frameworks and
positive obligations for a culture of peace. By examining the formulation of
substantive provisions in relevant instruments, Decaux brings into focus what
he calls struggles against a culture of hate.
Further work on the normative framework for a culture of peace is of vital
signicance. It must recognize various critical issues: the need to strengthen
domestic laws, to favour legal harmonization at the regional level and to encourage
co-operation between states in the ght against increasing crime. A legal
framework must be comprehensive in providing both negative and positive
obligations which must be rooted in the conscience of each person and take into
account all levels of human relations. It must involve all possible actors, from
grass-roots associations to universal organizations, in a spirit marked by legal
pluralism.
A culture of peace includes, by denition, an ethical dimension and principles
of solidarity, burden-sharing as well as respect for each others culture and moral
values. This must be recognized as being essential. The normative bases should
be complemented and enriched by moral or ethical principles.
The question of global ethics is therefore intimately linked with the normative
bases for a culture of peace. Hans Kng15 pleads for a minimal consensus for
the emergence of world global ethics. In this, religions, by virtue of their moral
and spiritual values, can give men and women a supreme norm of conscience.
Kng suggests that, in the formulation of a planetary code of ethics, four
13. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2037 (XX) of 7 December 1965. For
an analysis of United Nations instruments and legal nature of right to peace, see
Adrian Nastase, The Right to Peace, in Mohammed Bedjaoui (ed.), International Law:
Achievements and Prospects, Dordrecht/Paris, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers/UNESCO,
1992, pp. 121929.
14. See, in this volume, Normative Instruments for a Culture of Peace (p. 55).
15 . See, in this volume, Towards a Planetary Code of Ethics: Ethical Foundations of a
Culture of Peace (p. 129).
20 Janusz Symonides
and Kishore Singh
irrevocable directives are useful, necessitating fourfold commitments: to a culture

of non-violence and respect for life; to a culture of solidarity and a just economic
order; to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness; and to a culture of
equal rights and partnership between men and women.
WAY S A N D M E A N S T O C O N S T R U C T A C U LT U R E
OF PEACE
Education
Education is at the heart of any strategy for the construction of a culture of
peace. It is through education that the broadest possible introduction can be
provided to the values, skills and knowledge which form the basis of respect
for peace, human rights and democratic principles. It is an important means to
eliminate suspicion, ignorance, stereotypes and enemy images and, at the same
time, to promote the ideals of peace, tolerance and non-violence, and mutual
appreciation among individuals, groups and nations. Education should not only
strengthen the belief that peace is a fundamental value of humankind and create
a non-violent mentality, but also mould an attitude of involvement and
responsibility for matters relating to peace at the local, national, regional and
global levels.
The obligation of states to develop education for peace and human rights
is already well established in international law. The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights was the rst instrument which, in its Article 26, paragraph 2, laid
down that:
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to
the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall
promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, social or religious
groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of
peace.
This formulation was repeated in Article 4 of the Convention against

Discrimination in Education (1960) and Article 13 of the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966). The obligation to provide
education for peace and human rights is formulated in a more developed form
and perspectives an
introductory note
in Article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) which, inter
alia, requires the preparation of the child for a responsible life in a free society
in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship
among all peoples, ethnic national and religious groups and persons of indigenous
origin.
The special role and the importance of broadly understood education is
emphasized by the United Nations Declaration on the Promotion among Youth
of the Ideals of Peace, Mutual Respect and Understanding between Peoples
(1965). It calls upon governments, non-governmental organizations and youth
movements to full by all means of education the postulate to bring up young
people in the spirit of peace, justice, freedom, mutual respect and understanding.
Since its inception, UNESCO has devoted itself to promoting education
for peace and human rights. In this effort a special role is played by the
Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-
operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (1974). It calls upon Member States to take steps to ensure that the
principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights become an integral
part of the developing personality of each child, adolescent, young person or
adult, by applying these principles in the daily conduct of education at each
level and in all forms. Member States should encourage a wider exchange of
textbooks, especially those concerning history and geography, and should take
measures for the reciprocal study and revision of textbooks and other educational
materials in order to ensure that they are accurate, balanced, up-to-date, without
prejudice, and enhance mutual knowledge and understanding between different
peoples.
The 44th session of the International Conference on Education (October
1994) adopted a declaration which underlines the great responsibility incumbent
not only on states and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations,
but also on all members of society as a whole, to work together with those
involved in the education system so as to achieve full implementation of the
objectives of education for peace, human rights and democracy and to contribute
in this way to sustainable development and to a culture of peace.
The long-term goal which UNESCO has set up in its Medium-term
Strategy (19962001) is the establishment of a comprehensive system of
22 Janusz Symonides
and Kishore Singh
education and training for peace, human rights and democracy that is intended
for all groups of people and embraces all levels of education, both formal and
non-formal.16
Inspired by this goal, the Organization will collaborate with governments
in framing national policies, plans, programmes and strategies aimed at the
development of peace education. It will foster the elaboration of manuals,
textbooks and teaching aids, as well as introducing innovative approaches and
providing support to Member States concerning the revision of school textbooks,
so as to remove any prejudices or stereotypes vis--vis other nations or vulnerable
groups. In addition, UNESCO will further strengthen and develop its co-
operation and partnership with teaching and research institutions and
networks.17
It is worth noting that the ftieth session of the United Nations General
Assembly (December 1995) adopted a resolution: the United Nations Decade
for Human Rights Education: Culture of Peace, which welcomes the adoption
of the UNESCO transdisciplinary programme Towards a Culture of Peace, and
in particular Unit 1, Education for Peace, Human Rights, Democracy,
International Understanding and Tolerance. The resolution encourages countries,
regional organizations, non-governmental organizations and the Director-General
of UNESCO to take all necessary action to ensure such education.
16. In 199395 the international community adopted a number of plans and programmes
which are the basis of UNESCOs activities aimed at the development of education
for peace, human rights and democracy: the World Plan of Action on Education
for Human Rights and Democracy (Montreal, 1993), the Declaration and Programme
of Action of the World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna, 1993); the Declaration
on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy and the Integrated
Framework of Action (adopted by the International Conference on Education in
Geneva in 1994 and approved by the UNESCO General Conference in 1995) and
the Plan of Action for the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education
(19952004).
17. These networks embrace: Associated Schools Project (now 3,000 schools in
125 states); Associated Universities Project; UNESCO Chairs for Peace, Human
Rights and Democracy (eighteen in 1995), Annual Meetings of Directors of Human
Rights Institutes.
and perspectives an
introductory note
The media
It is commonplace to say that the media, along with education, now exert a
predominant inuence on the forging of attitudes, judgements and values, that
they create images and often determine the relation to others. A dramatic
example of the devastating impact that the media has on human behaviour was
given in Rwanda, where the broadcasting of hatred incited genocide. Similarly,
in former Yugoslavia the media had their share in the incitement to ethnic
cleansing and war crimes. One can also nd encouraging cases of the positive
inuence of the media on the process of reconciliation, as in El Salvador and
Mozambique.
The importance of the media for the promotion of peace is broadly
recognized by international organizations, which have adopted a number of
normative instruments dealing with this subject. The rst of them, the
International Convention concerning the Use of Broadcasting in the Cause of
Peace was already adopted by the League of Nations in 1936.
In 1978 the General Conference adopted the UNESCO Declaration on
Fundamental Principles concerning the Contribution of the Mass Media to
Strengthening Peace and International Understanding, to the Promotion of
Human Rights and to Countering Racialism, Apartheid and Incitement to War.
The Declaration states that the strengthening of peace and international
understanding demands a free ow and a wider and better balanced dissemination
of information. Article II denes the essence and content of the mass media
contribution:
In countering aggressive war, racialism, apartheid and other violations of human rights
which are, inter alia, spawned by prejudice and ignorance, the mass media, by
disseminating information on the aims, aspirations, cultures and needs of all peoples,
contribute to eliminate ignorance and misunderstanding between people, to make
nationals of a country sensitive to the needs and desires of others, to ensure the respect
of the rights and dignity of all nations, all peoples and all individuals without
distinction of race, sex, language, religion or nationality. . . .
An analysis of the text of the Declaration allows us to conclude that the concept
of freedom of information is fully preserved. It does not call for state control or
24 Janusz Symonides
and Kishore Singh
censorship but refers rather to deontology, to professional organizations of

educators and journalists.
UNESCO is fully aware of the role played by warmongering propaganda
and incitement to hatred in triggering and aggravating conicts and encourages
the action of the media in defending the values of peace and mutual
understanding. The Organization sees the media as an important tool for
reconstructing civil societies torn apart by conict, and as crucial to the re-
establishment of social bonds and to the reconciliation process.
Freedom of information, plurality of the media, their independence and free
democratic access are recognized as necessary conditions but, at the same time,
important guarantees of their positive contribution to the shaping of human
minds, and propagation of peace and friendship.
The disturbing invasion of violence on the screen cannot be countered by
simple censorship and state control. Only by negative reactions and rejection by
viewers can their message of violence be abandoned. Another solution may be
found in the production of interesting, attractive programmes promoting positive
values of non-violence, tolerance and mutual understanding. This is an important
challenge for literature, theatre, cinema, graphics and music. The success of rock
concerts against racism and xenophobia is a good example of an artistic potential
which may be used for the promotion of a culture of peace.
Cultural pluralism and intercultural dialogue

In a world in which the crisis of cultural identities, discrimination and violation
of the cultural rights of national, ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, migrants
and indigenous peoples are among the major sources of conict, recognition of
cultural diversity becomes one of the most important factors in their resolution
and management. It is worth noting that the states parties to the Convention on
the Rights of the Child agreed that education shall be directed to: The
development of respect for the childs parents, his or her own cultural identity,
language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child
is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for the civilizations
different from his or her own (Article 29(c)). Thus the very idea of the recognition
and respect of cultural diversity and pluralism is well formulated.
Since its foundation, UNESCO has striven to develop dialogue between
and perspectives an
introductory note
cultures as an essential element of peace-building strategy. By encouraging

exchanges between the worlds prominent cultures and by helping newly
independent countries to affirm their cultural identity, the Organization has
helped to promote broad awareness of fruitful diversity. The international cultural
co-operation which has developed under the impetus of the Organization has
helped to bring out the concept of the common heritage of humankind, to make
many cultures better acquainted with one another and to promote cultural
diversity and cultural interaction, which should be seen as the best way to
eliminate prejudices and stereotypes and to promote mutual understanding and
condence.
PA R T N E R S I N A C U LT U R E O F P E A C E
Global partnership is vital for bringing about a culture of peace. The importance
of broader co-operation was stressed by the Yamoussoukro International Congress
on Peace in the Minds of Men, which invited states, intergovernmental and non-
governmental organizations, the scientic, educational and cultural communities
of the world and all individuals to help construct a new vision of peace.
T h e Un i t e d Na t i o n s
The United Nations, which was created with the main purpose of maintaining
international peace and security, has a central role in this domain. During the
last fty years, it has undertaken numerous activities aimed at restoring and
maintaining peace and these are being currently reinforced. The work of the
United Nations Organization linked with peace-keeping and peace-building have
become multifunctional, with co-ordinated programmes for eradicating the
original causes of conict.
The United Nations Secretary-Generals An Agenda for Peace presented a broad
framework and addressed the questions relating to preventive measures as well
as post-conict peace-building. It attached primary importance to action to be
undertaken to eliminate sources of conict which develop in a context of marked
social injustice and in the absence of democratic approaches to the resolution of
conicts, as well as the absence of mutual respect for each others cultures.
Recognizing that the sources of conict and war are pervasive and deep, An Agenda
26 Janusz Symonides
and Kishore Singh
for Peace18 called for the utmost efforts of the international community to enhance
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, to promote sustainable
economic and social development for wider prosperity.
Viewing a culture of peace in its interface with An Agenda for Peace, Nazli
Moawad19 put forward the idea that the transition from a culture of war to a
culture of peace calls for a new approach to conicts, so that our natural response
to conict would be non-violence. This new approach to a culture of peace implies
a shift in the paradigm of peace studies and presents certain dilemmas of a culture
of peace: growing cross-cultural conicts, poor understanding of diversity and
the transformation of perceptions of conict.
Furthermore, the United Nations Secretary-Generals An Agenda for
Development 20 also addressed peace concerns in a development perspective;
it acknowledged that only sustained efforts to resolve underlying socio-
economic, cultural and humanitarian problems can place peace on a durable
foundation.
Intergovernmental and non-governmental

organizations
In addition to the United Nations and its Specialized Agencies, intergovernmental
and non-governmental organizations must be seen as being important among
global partners for creating a culture of peace. Their role has been discussed in
the contribution to this volume by the Culture of Peace Programme.21 One must
in particular mention the role of the Council of Europe in promoting respect for
cultural identities and cultural pluralism which will pave the way for peaceful
relations among communities and peoples.
It is also worth noting that the objectives of the United Nations Year for
Tolerance (1995) are to educate, inform and empower individuals to assume
the responsibilities of dialogue, mutual respect, toleration and non-violence, and
to encourage pluralism and tolerance in the policies of Member States. This
18. See note 1 on page 11.

19. See, in this volume, An Agenda for Peace and a Culture of Peace (p. 177).
20. United Nations document A/48/935.
21. See UNESCO and a Culture of Peace: Promoting a Global Movement (p. 251).
and perspectives an
introductory note
assumed the participation of many institutions and societies, with UNESCO

as the lead agency. The follow-up programme for the Year will create a broad
coalition, involving wide-ranging actors: Member States, the United Nations
system, National Commissions for UNESCO, intergovernmental and non-
governmental organizations, municipalities and other actors in public and private
life.
States
States have a signicant role to play in constructing a culture of peace pursuant
to their obligations under international law. Observance and promotion of human
rights, democracy and peace primarily calls for state action. Implementation of
socio-economic and cultural policies is indispensable for creating conditions for
a culture of peace. This is of particular importance in adopting relevant legislative
measures and policy mechanisms and in encouraging non-governmental
organizations and various members of civil society in their endeavours for a
culture of peace.
The intellectual community

The intellectual community in particular deserves to be mentioned among global
partners for a culture of peace. UNESCO is co-operating with institutes,
associations and research centres, including the International Peace Research
Association (IPRA). Peace researchers, jurists, sociologists and scientists can
provide valuable analyses, perceptions and perspectives.
In this respect, it is pertinent to mention the Recommendation on the Status
of Scientic Researchers, adopted by the General Conference in 1974, which
stipulates that
Member States should recognize that scientic researchers encounter, with increasing
frequency, situations in which the scientic research and experimental development
on which they are engaged has an international dimension; and should endeavour
to assist scientic researchers to exploit such situations in the furtherance of
international peace, co-operation and understanding, and the common welfare of
mankind.
28 Janusz Symonides
and Kishore Singh
Religions
Religions have a great potential for contributing to a culture of peace. As observed

by Felix Marti,22 religions, understood in their true spirit, can make a valuable
contribution to a culture of peace. It is important to reinforce the sanctity of great
religious values, and the wisdom of non-violence, thus developing conduct which
can deactivate the spiral of violence.
In this respect, as Mrinal Miri23 shows, Gandhis contribution to inter-
religious harmony and to a culture of non-violence is of paramount importance.
Religion for Gandhi meant a belief in ordered, moral governance of the Universe.
As his life demonstrated, the power of ahimsa (non-violence) is incomparably
superior to that of violence.
Following in the footsteps of his mentor Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther
King embraced non-violent direct action in his civil rights campaign to ght
segregationist practices and the evils of racism, as Solomon Nkiwane24 observes.
This was a reaffirmation of the Gandhian philosophy that non-violence evokes
the most noble and courageous of human qualities.
In this context, it is betting to mention the Declaration on the Role of
Religion in the Promotion of a Culture of Peace, adopted at a meeting organized
in December 1994 by UNESCO and the Centre UNESCO de Catalunya,
Barcelona (Spain), where the participants spoke with one voice to spread the
message of peace in a violence-riven world. The Declaration has demonstrated
that the dialogue with eminent religious gures has a great potential for
contributing to UNESCOs ethical mission. An increasing number of its
adherents have committed themselves to resolving or transforming conicts and
to building a culture of peace based on non-violence, tolerance, dialogue, mutual
understanding and justice. The Declaration, which is the rst of its kind with
regard to religion and a culture of peace, has thus helped create a network bringing
22 . See, in this volume, Understanding and Dialogue between Religions to Promote

the Spirit of Peace (p. 145).
23. See, in this volume, Gandhi on the Moral Life and Plurality of Religions (p. 163).
24. See, this volume, The Teaching of Martin Luther King for a Culture of Peace
(p. 195).
and perspectives an
introductory note
together eminent religious gures, peace researchers, educators and human rights
activists for constructing a culture of peace.
CONCLUSIONS
As stated by Federico Mayor, prevention of conict and building of peace is a

long-term process which should address threats to global security at their very
roots. We must incorporate in our everyday behaviour attitudes forged through
the entire educational process.25
A profound transformation of the international community, leading to the
elimination of causes of conict and violence, is by no means an easy task. The
replacement of the existing culture of violence by a culture of peace, human rights
and democracy can only be achieved in a longer perspective.
By elaborating a transdisciplinary programme on a Culture of Peace for
19962001, UNESCO has given impetus to this process. However, the
construction of a culture of peace is a task which, in fact, would continue through
the next century, far beyond the Medium-Term Strategy.
Experience shows that, though political and economic changes may be
rapid, cultural changes, in particular changes in behavioural patterns of
individuals, groups and nations, take time. A culture of peace can be achieved
only when all potential partners are fully engaged in its realization.
Though the establishment of national programmes for reconciliation and
conict resolution is possible, nevertheless, because we are living in an
interdependent world, such culture cannot be set up only in one country or one
region. These programmes must be holistic. The construction of a culture of
peace assumes a comprehensive approach, both from the point of view of values
as well as of the ways and means. The contributors to this volume share these
common concerns. They underline the universal nature of a culture of peace.
Some of them have delved into the concept of a culture of peace, others into the
25. Introductory speech to the debate, Towards a Culture of Peace, Human Rights and
Democracy through Education for All, during the 44th session of the International
Conference on Education, Geneva, October 1994.
30 Janusz Symonides
and Kishore Singh
manner to achieve it, and yet others have concentrated on the partners of this
collective endeavour.
As an attempt to elucidate the concept of a culture of peace, this volume
responds to the need expressed by the 145th session of the UNESCO Executive
Board (1994) in discussions on the Programme and Budget for 199495 and the
Medium-Term Strategy (19962001).
The richness of the present volume lies not only in the reections on the
multiple facets of a culture of peace but also in making certain constructive
suggestions for future work.26 It is hoped that it will provoke further reection
by researchers, educators and the intellectual community on the very concept,
and on the norms and shared values on which a culture of peace is based, and
thus contribute to its further promotion.
26. Thus, Keith Suter suggests that UNESCOs National Commissions could create a
media peace award, using UNESCOs culture of peace as a criterion. Emmanuel
Decaux suggests that UNESCO could set up a watchdog committee for cultural
rights and a culture of peace, with a resource list of independent experts and
rapporteurs and a public assessment of individual or collective claims in regard to
violations of cultural rights. Hans Kng proposes that the UN or UNESCO establish
a consultative committee to elaborate a rst draft of a planetary code of ethics.
31
Peace behaviours in various

societies
Elise Boulding*
HUMANS AS NURTURERS, OR HUMANS

AS AGGRESSORS? DILEMMAS AND CONTRADICTIONS
IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETIES
Given the high levels of reported local and national inter-ethnic and intercultural
violence and high levels of military preparedness for inter-state violence on every
continent, and the images reected back to each society by the media and images
of violence pervading every polity, not only is the present portrayed as violent
but the historical record is written as the story of conquest and war from earliest
times. The fact that most human activity revolves around raising and feeding
families and organizing the work of production and of meeting human needs,
interspersed with times of feasting and celebration of human creativity in poetry,
song, dance and art, does not show through in our media depictions. Pervasive
images of human aggression sap our condence in the human capacity to create
a peaceful international order as we move toward the twenty-rst century.
Yet a closer inspection of the historical record, the bias towards reporting
wars notwithstanding, reveals a much richer tapestry of human activities. The
remarkable historical undertaking of Werner Steins Kulturfahrplan, translated as
The Timetables of History,1 is a brave beginning on a fuller account of the range of
* Member of Conict Resolution Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder,

Colorado, USA. This paper was prepared with the help of Patricia Lawrence,
graduate student in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Colorado.
1. See Bernard Grun, The Timetables of History (based on Werner Steins Kulturfahrplan),
New York, Simon & Schuster, 1975.
32 Elise Boulding
human doings over time. Timetables tabulates events year by year from A.D. 501
(and by half-centuries before that starting at 4000 B.C.). The column entries for
the year-by-year record include (1) history and politics, (2) literature, theatre, (3)
religion, philosophy, learning, (4) visual arts, (5) music, (6) science, technology,
growth and (7) daily life. Column (1), listing the battles and kingdoms won and
lost, is the fullest, but the other columns get fuller over time, recording peaceful
human activities in civilian society.
That humans are conict-prone, however, is undeniable. The social ubiquity
of conict stems from the basic fact of human individuality and difference in the
context of limited physical and social resources. Conict itself should not be
confused with violence, which is taken here to mean the intentional harming of
others for ones own ends. The differences in wants, needs, perceptions and
aspirations among individuals and among groups, stemming from individual
uniqueness, require a constant process of conict management in daily life at
every level from the intrapersonal (each of us has many selves), the family and
the community, to the international community. What keeps this unceasing
process of conict management largely peaceful is the equally ubiquitous need
of humans for one another, for social bonding and nurturing, without which no
society could function.
Hans Hass2 has undertaken a remarkable documentation of the universality
of human responsiveness to other humans. Travelling around the world with his
camera he has photographed a series of expressive human gestures of smiling,
greeting with glad surprise (eyebrows raised), comforting another in grief by
having the grievers head resting on the comforters shoulder, a reaching-out
gesture to protect a child in danger, in settings as far apart as France, Kenya and
Samoa. In cultures which practise disciplined control over such expressive
gestures, one nds their fullest expression in children who have not yet learned
the discipline. Hass points out that children learn early how much a smile can
do. Why do we humans smile so much? because we are not, basically,
unfriendly creatures. Thus our smile is a means of eliciting contact readiness
2. Hans Hass, The Human Animal: The Mystery of Mans Behaviour, New York,
G. P. Putnams Sons, 1970.
Peace behaviours 33
in various societies
with others and of conveying our accessibility to contact.3 A smile serves as a

social bridge-builder.
This universal need for bonding can be thought of as the key to the survival
of the human species. It is what draws humans toward negotiating with one
another in the face of conicting interests, needs, perceptions, whether in settings
of family, neighbourhood, workplace or public institutions. The historical fact
of war and social violence tells us, however, that negotiation is not the only
response to conict. In fact we may think of responses to conict as falling on a
conict-management continuum that ranges from destruction of the adversary
through mediating-negotiating behaviours to complete union with the other
(Fig. 1).
ce
ren ge
tion e ter an
na D ch ion
rm i
r m s ,
, E x
p tat n
e e n a tio
ext wa yst on tio
n
iat
io lA
d
era tio
n
of ed ts ati a t a ce gra
a r m i t r e a b it r
e d i
e g o u t u l i a n - o p
te ion
W L i T h A r M N M A l C o In Un
F IG. 1. The conict-management continuum.
Some societies tend toward the aggressive end of the continuum in their
behaviours, others toward the integrative, with many societies falling somewhere
in the middle. The historical reasons why different groups pattern their responses
to conict differently lie beyond the scope of this paper, but it is useful to
remember that former warrior societies have been known to change and adopt
more peaceful ways. It is also true that warrior societies of the past have all had
images of living in peace.
Every religion has a vision of a peaceful kingdom. The Greeks pictured
Elysian elds, where heroes hung their swords and shields on trees and walked
arm in arm, discoursing on philosophy and poetry. The Hebrew Bible gives us
Zion, the holy mountain where the lion shall lie down with the lamb and none
shall hurt nor destroy. The Koran gives us the sanctuary in the desert, from
3. Hass, op. cit., p. 123.

34 Elise Boulding
which no one shall be turned away. Even in Valhalla, the warriors who fought
each other by day feasted and sang together at night in the great hall of Asgard,
drinking mead from a cup that never ran dry.4
The wars of ancient China did not prevent Chang Huen-Chu from writing
these words: Heaven is the Father and Earth the Mother . . . wherefore all
included between Heaven and Earth are one body with us and in regard to our
dispositions, Heaven and Earth should be our teachers. The People are our
brothers and we are united with all things.5 The persistence of imagery of
peaceableness in the midst of war tells us something about an underlying
human longing for peace, about the enduring capacity of the human imagination
to visualize the other and better, and the resilience of the bonding impulse even
as violence rages all around.
The longing for peace would not be of much use if it could not be translated
into the skills of peace-building, however. Here it is instructive to look at an
example in the recent historical past of a warrior society turned peaceful: the
transformation of the Vikings, the scourge of Europe, into the architects not
only of the most peaceful region in Europe, Scandinavia, but also as the designers
of a set of diplomatic strategies and social institutions important for the
development of a peaceful international order. The skills of negotiation developed
in the pre-Viking institution of the Thing, the gatherings of landholders to make
decisions by consensus, were centuries later discovered to be more useful than
the forcible rule of conquered territories, in what became the Danelaw areas of
Britain. Similarly, negotiated trade turned out to be more productive than simple
pillaging. This new awareness also led to the eventual abandoning of the conquest
of Russia and of involvement in the imperial wars of seventeenth- and eighteenth-
century Europe. The choice of a peaceful separation of Norway from Sweden
in 1905, even though both sides had been armed for war, was a notable example
4. References for mythic images of the good society in warrior cultures may be found
in Elise Boulding, The Dynamics of Reshaping the Social Order: Old Actors, New
Actors, in Selo Soemardjan and Kenneth Thompson (eds.), Culture, Development and
Democracy, p. 203, Tokyo, UNU Press, 1994.
5. Leonard Tomkinson, Studies in the Theory and Practice of Peace and War in Chinese History
and Literature, Shanghai, Friends Centre, Christian Literature Society, 1940.
Peace behaviours 35
of a new style of diplomatic initiatives which was important in the evolution of

the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations.6
C U L T U R A L C O N T E X T S F O R P E A C E F U L B E H AV I O U R
I N E V E R Y D AY L I F E
The historical record on war/ghting, even if it greatly exaggerates the actual

human experience of violence in everyday life, nevertheless makes clear that there
are strong cultural values associated with physical dominance and conquest in
both tribal and imperial societies. One of the strongest sources for the cultural
legitimization of war lies in the teachings of each of the major religions. The
holy war culture is a male warrior culture headed by a patriarchal warrior god.
In the Hebrew Bible, the Israelites were enjoined to ght bravely in taking
possession of the Promised Land and not to turn back, because Jehovah was at
the head of their army. In the Koran, Allah enjoined jihad, or holy war for faithful
Muslims in defence of dar al-Islam against its enemies. From the eleventh to the
thirteenth century, many European Christians felt called by God to ght the holy
war of the crusades, to liberate the Holy Land from Muslims. In the eighteenth
century, Japanese Zen Buddhist warrior monks fought for their warlords as part
of their spiritual discipline.
Yet in each of these same religions, there are strong teachings about dealing
with differences through patience, forgiveness, reconciliation and love. The other
face of God is the loving face, of a God who protects the weak, a God who is
6. This vastly oversimplied account of a very complex history does not even touch
on the special qualities of local democracy in Scandinavia once slavery was abolished,
on renewed acknowledgement of an older tradition of strong roles for women, on
the fostering of community education programmes that led to high levels of literacy
at the local level. See Gro Steinsland and Preben Meulengracht Sorenson, Menneske
og makter i vikingines verden, Oslo, Universitsforlaget, 1994; Judith Winther, Kriegens
unnodvendighed, den nordiske unionstrid 1905, Vandkunsten, No. 4, 1990, pp. 620.
Note also a critical essay suggesting that Sweden, at least, may not continue its role
as model peace-making state, by Hans Mouritzen, The Nordic Model as a Foreign
Policy Instrument: Its Rise and Fall, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1995,
pp. 921.
36 Elise Boulding
served through prayer, self-discipline and the doing of good to all Gods creatures.
These other teachings emphasize an equal partnership between women and men
in family and society, give an important place to the nurturing and mediation
skills of women and set a high value on the skills of peace-making.
At the grass-roots level, the social bonds of kinship and intergroup alliances,
and the need for mutual aid systems in order to survive, whether in inner cities
or on overstressed farmlands, are strengthened by these gentler religious teachings.
It may be said that womens culture shares with religious culture a primary-level
responsibility for the well-being of a people. Womens cultures everywhere are
the source of the work of nurturing a society, a reservoir of experience and
knowledge in the bearing and rearing of children, in the healing of the sick, in
the growing, processing and actual serving of food, and in the providing of
clothing and shelter. Traditionally women have had the more difficult role in
marriage partnerships through the widespread practice of women moving to the
male partners community and being expected to serve as communication
channels and conict resolvers when differences between the communities arise.
It is very often women, therefore, who have had the most experience in doing
the background work for negotiation and mediation.
The role of infants and young children in the gentling of the human species
is often understated. Adults everywhere tend to respond to infants with smiles
and modulated voices. Watching small children discover with delight the most
ordinary and humdrum items of daily existence literally refreshes adults, as does
seeing children at play, creating a wondrous world of imagination which has no
purpose but itself.
Through most of human history people have lived in rural settings and in
small-scale societies. Just as each familial household develops its own problem-
solving behaviour, so each social group has developed its own strategies of
conict resolution over time, uniquely rooted in local culture and passed on from
generation to generation. Similarly each society has its own fund of adaptability,
built on knowledge of local environment and the historical memory of times of
crisis and change. Such knowledge and experience are represented in familial
households as they are organized into communities. The knowledge is woven
into religious teachings, ceremonies and celebrations; it is present in womens
culture, in the world of work and the world of play, in environmental lore, in
Peace behaviours 37
the memory of the past. These are the hidden peace-building strengths of every
society.
As societies become more complex, and lites become differentiated from
common people, centre-periphery problems based on mutual ignorance develop.
lites not only cease to share locally based knowledge but cease literally to share
a common language with locals. Traditional conict-resolution methods then
break down, and new ones are slow to develop during prolonged periods of
transition. Since, in this last decade of the twentieth century, there are only
185 states in the world, and 10,000 societies7 ethnic, religious and cultural
groups with signicant historical identity this breakdown of communication
and lack of common conict management practices between ethnic groups and
the larger states of which they are a part is one of the major problems contributing
to current levels of intra-state as well as inter-state violence. Rediscovery of the
hidden strengths of local cultures is one important aspect of peace-building for
this painful transitional period in contemporary history.
Given the diversity of negotiation and conict-resolving behaviours that
go on every day in every household and every community in the 185 states of
the present international order, how can everyday peace behaviour be illustrated?
This will be handled here in two ways. First, the character and dynamics of
everyday peace behaviour will be highlighted by choosing societies that set a
high value on peaceableness, and examining how they go about their conict-
managing/avoiding interactions as adults, and how they train their children in
such behaviour.8 Next we shall take a more general look at peace behaviours
to be found in societies in general, and those common elements underlying wide
differences in cultural patterns. The advantage of beginning with societies which
7. The 10,000 societies is a term sometimes used by anthropologists to refer to the

large number of separate ethnic groups spread across the globe. Estimates of the
actual number of societies range from 5,000 to 7,000, varying according to the criteria
used for counting.
8. I have drawn heavily on the very ne survey of anthropological studies of peaceful
societies, prepared by Bruce D. Bonta and published as Peaceful Peoples: An Annotated
Bibliography (Metuchen, N.J., The Scarecrow Press, 1993), in making choices on what
people select and what social practices are most signicant in generating societal
peaceableness. I wish to express my appreciation here for his outstanding work.
38 Elise Boulding
are known to be peaceful is that this approach offers behavioural specicity. It

highlights the strategies and skill-based nature of peaceful behaviour, and its
dependence on an explicit set of values about non-aggression. Only after that
shall we go on to see how every family in every society in fact gives some
degree of skill training to children to achieve the accepted norms of conict
resolution behaviour, whatever they may be. This is the basic process of
socialization at work.
In this pursuit of discovering local strengths in peaceableness, we shall
examine peace behaviours in two types of societies which are alive and functioning
at the present time: (1) small pre-industrial societal groups that maintain a
distinctive identity and yet also have some degree of contact with the larger world
and its urban centres, and (2) inter-faith Irish and North American Anabaptist
peace church communities that function actively within industrial core societies
but have distinctive ways of life which mark them as separate subcultures within
those societies.
T H E B E H AV I O U R A L D Y N A M I C S O F P E A C E A B L E N E S S
IN SELECTED CONTEMPORARY SOCIETIES
The societies selected here set a high value on non-aggression and non-
competitiveness, and therefore handle conict by a variety of non-violent means.
The four tribal societies to be examined are the Inuit of the Canadian part of
the Circumpolar North, the Mbuti of the north-eastern rainforests of Central
African Zaire, the Zuni of the desert Southwest of the United States and the
mountain-dwelling Arapesh of New Guinea. Each has distinctive ways of child-
rearing which produce distinctive adult behaviour, but they vary in the degree
to which these skills are conict-suppressing or conict-resolving and in the
degree to which the skills are based on a strongly dichotomous in-group/out-
group way of thinking in relation to neighbouring peoples. Where there is a strong
dichotomous sense, people are free to be aggressive towards outsiders and are
only expected to be peaceful in their own community. Where attitudes are more
inclusive of other peoples, peaceful behaviour is extended to outsiders.
Peace behaviours 39
The Inuit
The Inuit live in the Circumpolar North, spread out from eastern Siberia through
Greenland and Canada to Alaska, surviving a harsh and unforgiving winter cold
through co-operation and social warmth, a warmth which extends to the baby
animals that children bring home from the icy outdoors to cuddle. Violence and
aggression are under strong social prohibition. The social values are centred on
(1) isuma, which involves rationality, impulse control, thinking problems through
calmly and being able to predict consequences of behaviour, and (2) nallik, which
is love, nurturing, protectiveness, concern for others welfare, and total suppression
of hostility.
The distinctive child-rearing which produces these rational, compassionate,
controlled adults revolves around what Briggs9 calls benevolent aggression. This
involves an unusual combination of warm affection for infants and a complex
kind of teasing which creates real fear in children and then teaches them to laugh
at their fears. The title of one of Briggs studies, Why Dont You Kill Your Baby
Brother?, suggests the extremes to which the teasing goes, seen from a Western
perspective. That it works, in the sense that it produces people with both isuma
and nallik, and a remarkably peaceful society, I would ascribe to the fact that
young children are far more socially perceptive, far more sophisticated in their
assessment of social situations, than adults usually give them credit for,10 and
that they gure out what is going on and learn to respond creatively. Although
it is a tricky kind of socialization that one can imagine going wrong with some
individuals, it does make children self-reliant problem-solvers with a well-
developed sense of humour, affectionate, and acutely aware of the disciplined
anger-control processes going on inside themselves and others. Girls and boys
9. Jean Briggs, Never in Anger: Portrait of an Eskimo Family, Cambridge, Harvard University
Press, 1971. See also Briggs, The origins of non-violence: Inuit management of
aggression, in Ashley Montagu (ed.), Learning Non-aggression: The Experience of Non-
literate Societies, pp. 5493, New York, Oxford University Press, 1978.
10. Susan Isaacs, Intellectual Growth in Young Children, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1930. Note also Elise Boulding, The Nurture of Adults by Children in Family
Settings, in Helen Lopata (ed.), Research in the Interweave of Social Roles, Greenwich,
Connecticut, Jai Press, 1980.
40 Elise Boulding
get the same type of socialization and Inuit men and women are equally
resourceful. There is also a parallel process of much fondling of infants and arctic
baby animals, much food-sharing and communal eating, a lot of laughter and
playfulness. This unusual combination of affection and teasing seems to lead to
a high level of conict awareness and an equally high level of skill in problem-
solving. The skill of handling conict playfully, as in song duels (or drum
matches) between offended parties, and other similar rituals, produces enjoyable
public events rather than battles.
There is no basic we/they, in/out dichotomy, so the conict management
skills are in theory extendible to conict with non-Inuits. Conicts with less aware
parties such as the Canadian Government suggest limits to this. In recent years
the Inuit have suffered much from forced government resettlement projects and
now have their share of problems with unemployment and accompanying
dysfunctional behaviour. However, it is also noteworthy that there is now an
Inuit who is Canadas rst Circumpolar Ambassador, Mary Simon. With her
colleagues in the Council of Arctic Peoples, she is showing the hidden strengths
and resourcefulness of traditional Inuit culture by applying them to the protection
of the fragile arctic environment and the creation of new spaces for reconstructed
ways of life to enable the Inuits to maintain a viable society.11
The Mbuti
The Mbuti are hunter-gatherer, rainforest-dwelling pygmies in north-eastern Zaire
who have long had periodic contact with Bantu villagers, and who have been
movingly described by Turnbull.12 The basis for their peacefulness is their
relationship to the rainforest their mother, father, teacher and metaphoric
womb. The family hut is also symbolically a womb. Children grow up listening
to the trees, learning to climb them early so they can sit high above the ground,
11. Clyde H. Farnsworth, Envoy Defends World of Eskimo, New York Times, 22 February
1995.
12. Colin Turnbull, The Forest People, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1961. See also
Turnbull, The Politics of Non-aggression, in Ashley Montagu (ed.), Learning Non-
aggression: The Experience of Non-literate Societies, pp. 161221, New York, Oxford
University Press, 1978.
Peace behaviours 41
listening to wind and waving branches. Mbuti is a listening culture, but also a
singing and dancing culture, as adults and children sing to and dance with the
trees. Ekimi, quietness, is highly valued, as opposed to akami, disturbance. This
preference for quietness and harmony is reinforced at every stage of life, yet does
not preclude childrens rough-and-tumble play, and a lot of petty squabbling
among adults, which tends to be controlled by ridicule. While children are
slapped to control forbidden activities and nuisance behaviour, they are also taught
interdependence and co-operation. Adults seem to enjoy horseplay and noisy
disputes. Semi-humorous sex wars in which men and women line up for a tug
of war between the sexes serve as tension dissipaters, as the tugs of war break
up with much laughter. They are also an indication of the companionable equality
between women and men. Most groups have a clown, one person whose antics
also help keep conicts from getting out of hand. For all the squabbling,
disagreements rarely get serious.
The contrast between the forest as womb and the love of the silences of the
forest on the one hand, and the frequency of arguing and the use of joking and
ridicule to keep it under control on the other, is an interesting one. The Mbuti
themselves value letting it all hang out in modern parlance, not letting conicts
fester. There seems to be a nature-based social equilibrium here, based on a
combination of listening, singing, dancing and squabbling not easy for Westerners
to understand.
The Mbuti, like the Inuit, face a modernizing national government which
is destroying their environment and require adaptation to the limit of their capa-
bility, but the Mbuti we is an inclusive we. This suggests a potential for some
degree of long-term survivability, as they link with other rainforest peoples in
the new transnational indigenous peoples networks, but the destruction of their
lifestyle before other adjustments can be worked out is a very serious threat.13
13. In 1991, the rst representative of the Central African Forest Peoples made his way
to Geneva to create a linkage with the UN Working Group on Indigenous
Populations. Since then the newsletter of the International Work Group for
Indigenous Affairs (IGWIA) has been reporting increasingly on the activities of the
African rainforest peoples. A linkage with other rainforest peoples took place during
the 1993 International Year of the Worlds Indigenous Peoples. See the IGWIA
Newsletters (Copenhagen), Nos. 2 and 3, 1993.
42 Elise Boulding
The Zuni
The Zuni live in the arid mountain canyon country of western New Mexico in
the United States, many of them on a Zuni Indian reservation. A matrilineal
society noted for its peaceful ways of life, its arts and crafts and its antipathy to
overt violence, the Zuni are well-known through the writings of Ruth Benedict.14
As with the Mbuti, the love of harmony is based on a sense of oneness with
nature and a sense of place, yet that love of harmony does not preclude habits
of gossip and quarrelling.
The war gods who once ensured tribal survival in a period of warfare are
now thought to be channelling their sacred energy into the peaceful well-being
of the Zuni. Earlier in-group/out-group attitudes which kept that warfare going
are no longer salient. The culture devalues authority, leadership and individual
success. No one wants to stand out. There are rituals for sharing, for healing,
for conict resolution, which help children to learn appropriate group behaviour.
Problem-solving skills are highly developed but without any counterpoint of
individualism. There is a continued skill transmission of the remarkable
environmental knowledge which enabled a rich Zuni culture to develop in a very
arid environment, including traditional agricultural and irrigation practices that
are only now coming to be understood by Westerners as representing a very
sophisticated technology.
Children, after a very permissive and nurturant infancy, are disciplined by
masked demons who make an appearance to scold them for ghting. Sudden
withdrawals of goodies by adults prepare children for social obedience and non-
aggressive behaviour. Zuni youth therefore do not respond well to the incitements
to achievement and competition in use by teachers in Zuni schools, although
group performance levels are high. The economic, social and political inuences
the Zuni have been exposed to in the past half-century have emphasized the Zuni
14. Note the following: Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture, Boston, Houghton Mifflen,
1959; Irving Goldman, The Zuni Indians of New Mexico, in Margaret Mead (ed.),
Co-operation and Competition among Primitive Peoples, pp. 31353, New York, McGraw
Hill, 1937; John Whiting et al., The Learning of Values in Evon Vogt and Ethel
Albert (eds.), People of Rimrock: A Study of Values in Five Cultures, pp. 83125, Cambridge,
Mass., Harvard University Press, 1967.
Peace behaviours 43
value system and have increased local conict levels. However, the traditional
Zuni skills of co-operation are reasserting themselves in recent, very interesting
tribal developments, including the launching of a comprehensive Sustainable
Resource Development Plan built on a combination of traditional and new
scientic knowledge, which is expected to initiate a renaissance of the Zuni way
of life.15
The Arapesh
The mountain-dwelling Arapesh are one of many tribes living in the highly diverse
archipelago of New Guinea. Much has changed since Margaret Meads study of
them in 193016 and it should be clear that it is the 1930s Arapesh being described
here. This people had in common with the North American Zuni a distaste for
standing out, a preference for conformity, and a rejection of violence within the
community. This rejection is, however, accompanied by actual hostility towards
outsiders and little emphasis on dealing with conicts in a problem-solving way.
Arapesh children grow up experiencing co-operation as the key mode of
life. All tasks are group tasks. Any one household will plant many yam gardens,
each with a different group. We now know that this represents a very sophisticated
adaptation to a region with great diversity in soil quality and many micro-
climates at different altitudes in a bewildering variety of micro-ecosystems.
Spreading the risk of poor crop yields over many garden plots planted in different
locations at different times during the year ensures that there will be some food
at all times.
The major negative factor in the society is fear of sorcery, which is thought
to come from outside enemies who have somehow got hold of an individuals
personal dirt. Even nature-caused crop failures are thought of as sorcery-induced.
There are no gradations in social relations, only friends (insiders) and enemies
(outsiders). This leaves the Arapesh without any patterns for incorporating the
15. For an account of new Zuni developments, see Derek Dennistons High Priorities:
Conserving Mountain Ecosystems and Cultures, Worldwatch Paper, No. 123, February
1995, pp. 501.
16. Margaret Mead, Sex and Temperament, Three Primitive Societies, New York, Mentor
Books, 1950.
44 Elise Boulding
other, the different, the stranger, into their lives. This has made them very
vulnerable in the turbulent struggles between tribes, against present and former
colonial authorities, and against powerful mining companies destroying the
mountain environments through open-pit copper and gold mining.
In the four peace-valuing societies we have looked at so far, we have seen
a pattern of basic nurturing and sharing behaviour experienced from childhood.
Sex-role differentiation has been minimal. However, there has been considerable
variation in the ways conict is managed, from avoidance and suppression, as
among the Zuni and Arapesh, to acknowledgement and socialization for managing
conict, as with the Inuit and Mbuti. But all the societies, at the times their
behaviour was recorded, were living in relative isolation from the urban and
industrial centres of their respective countries. Now we turn to two cultures located
within politically modernized states, the rural Irish of Northern Ireland, and the
Anabaptist cultures of the historic peace churches in the United States, both rural
and urban.
T h e r u ra l No r t h e r n Ir i s h
Some of the rural communities of Ulster exemplify the possibility of non-violence
emerging from violence. Extremes of physical aggression experienced in urban
areas are rejected by both contending parties, Catholic and Protestant, in some
rural areas. In the communities described in Bontas collection of studies,17 the
Protestants have abandoned their former superior socio-economic status for a
more egalitarian stance vis--vis the Catholics, and communities of both faiths
work very hard at developing many joint activities. They deliberately form non-
sectarian groups, to prevent the religious polarization prevalent elsewhere in
Ulster. They have very self-consciously chosen bridge-building across cultural
and religious differences. Joint activities for children and youth as well as adults
are carefully planned. Hostile behaviour is quickly dealt with in the interests of
community harmony. Social, economic and cultural functions which involve co-
operation of Catholic and Protestant farmers and business people are given high
priority, and people strongly value good neighbourly relations. When violence
17. Bonta, op. cit., note 8.

Peace behaviours 45
does occur, it is blamed on outsiders. While locally inclusive in their peace-

building, they are threatened and vulnerable in the face of the larger-scale violence
taking place in the region. The success of current negotiations in the 1990s
between the two parts of Ireland and the United Kingdom may depend on the
extent to which other areas are willing to accept these peaceful inter-faith
communities as role models for relations on a larger scale.
The Anabaptist historic peace church communities

Anabaptism has its roots in sixteenth-century movements, originating in the
Swiss Alps, to defy all outward authority (including infant baptism, which forcibly
incorporated each new-born child into the local religious power structure). These
movements lived under Christs authority alone, abjuring all violence as Christ
taught. This unusual combination of medieval Christ-mysticism, Reformation
social protest and absolute, early Christian pacism spread through Europe. It
resulted in seventeenth-century (and later) migrations to the Americas in search
of religious freedom, and freedom from military service. The three main
communities presently active in the United States, known as the historic peace
churches, are the Brethren, the Mennonites and the Quakers. Other smaller
communities include the Amish, the Doukhobors, the Moravians and the
Hutterites. We will focus here on the three major Anabaptist communities.
Traditionally abstaining from political action because of their rejection of military
service,18 they have nevertheless become increasingly involved in various types
of public activity to remove social and economic injustice and to bring an end
to war as an instrument of state policy. In the Second World War, the three faith
communities co-operated to administer Civilian Public Service Camps for their
own young men and other conscientious objectors, as an alternative to military
service.
All three communities dene themselves as living in the world but not of
it, holding to testimonies of simplicity, gender and racial equality and personal
18. Although Pennsylvania was a colony founded by Quakers who originally constituted
a majority in the colonys legislative assembly, the issue of voting appropriations to
full military obligations to the King during the French and Indian Wars led most
Quakers to resign from the legislature in the later years of the Colony.
46 Elise Boulding
and social non-violence, yet nding themselves an increasingly urban and middle-
class professional population compared to their earlier, more rural origins. Their
challenge is not only to develop strategies for living their witness, but increasingly
in the twentieth century they have sought to nd ways to work for their vision
of a peaceable kingdom on earth and to rear their children to carry on efforts
for the social transformation of an increasingly violent larger society.19
The three faiths differ in degrees of hierarchical authority, with the Quakers
as the most egalitarian, having no hireling shepherds (as ministers are
traditionally referred to among Quakers).20 All three faiths stress democratic
participation of all members, including women, and decision-making at the local
level. Quakers, however, in the absence of authoritarian gures, developed a
special consensus approach to decision-making based on the sense of the Meeting,
as members sought divine guidance on what was to be done in the face of
sometimes conicting views of participating individuals. While consensus is
specically Quaker, the educational practices described here are also common
among Mennonites and Brethren.
Anabaptist testimonies begin in the home. While individual families certainly
fall short of the ideal, spouse relations are to be based on a full and equal
partnership and parenting is taken seriously by both parents. An important part
of parenting is the cultivation of the divine seed in each child, so times of silent
worship in the home, as well as discussion and reading, help prepare children
for their responsibilities. Explicit training in non-violent responses to conict, and
alternative ways of dealing with conict, are emphasized. Conict suppression is
not encouraged. Rather, children are urged to work things out. All this is in the
context of an affectionate family life and a nurturing local Meeting. The chief
enjoyment of Friends is connubial bliss, wrote an eighteenth-century observer
19. Among studies on the Anabaptist communities, see James Juhnke, Vision, Doctrine,
War: Mennonite Identity and Organization in America, Scottdale, Pa., Herald Press, 1989,
3 vols.; Duane Friesen, Christian Peace-making and International Conict, Scottdale, Pa.,
Herald Press, 1986; Elbert Russell, The History of Quakerism, New York, Macmillan,
1992.
20. During the nineteenth-century evangelical revival in the United States, a certain
number of Quaker meetings shifted to the more usual pattern of having ministers,
to cope with rapidly growing numbers of adherents.
Peace behaviours 47
of Quakers, and while divorce takes its toll in every religious community today,
Anabaptist families on the whole have a lot of fun together. On the other hand,
Anabaptist adults, and children too, also carry a certain load of guilt. Given their
acceptance of responsibility for peace and justice in the world, and the reality of
the huge gap between what any individual, family, or Meeting can do and what
is needed, guilt is inevitable. A healthy family and a healthy Meeting keep a
sense of humour about this. Laughter is an important safety valve. So are
imagination and skill in organizing useful local service projects which can absorb
individual energies creatively.
An important institution in the local communities of all three faith groups
is the Sunday School (called First-Day School by Quakers), where adults of the
congregation do their best to supplement the work of member families in
preparing children and young people, spiritually, intellectually and in terms of
social skills, for peace-making. Community history, and the stories of Quaker,
Mennonite and Brethren heroes and heroines are an important part of this
education.
While the forms of worship of the three faith communities are different, all
three have a strong emphasis on family life, on individual spiritual development
and on training for social service and peace-building. All three have developed
remarkable service bodies which do peace-building around the world, and
Brethren and Mennonites are particularly strong in non-violence training for their
youth, prior to giving a year or more of service in the United States or abroad.
The Childrens Creative Response to Conict Program,21 now used in elementary
to middle schools in a number of countries, was rst developed by Quakers to
help children deal with conict. A similar programme, Alternatives to Violence,
was developed to prepare prisoners for post-prison life. Each faith supports
outstanding schools and colleges which educate young people who seek an active
and committed social learning.
Because all three Anabaptist communities are committed to being in the
world but not of it, and to the work of social transformation toward peace and
justice for all peoples, training for dealing creatively with conict is an important
21. The Childrens Creative Response to Conict Program is now housed with the
Fellowship of Reconciliation, Box 271, Nyack, NY 10960.
48 Elise Boulding
value. Enemy concepts are not used, neither is the language of ghting. There
can be no enemies, only strangers with whom a relationship needs to be
developed. Peace-making is seen as building bridges across differences, nding
solutions to the problems of all disputants in ways which injure none, and
reframing disputes so that common interests can be discovered.
The world sometimes overwhelms the sense of faith-based identity, and
individuals can feel hopelessly compromised by the world they are trying to
change. The three historic peace churches formed the coalition New Call to
Peacemaking several decades ago, in order to strengthen each others resolve to
carry on peace-making activities. Currently they jointly support the training and
deployment of unarmed peace teams to go into situations of serious violence in
Africa and Central and Latin America.
P E A C E B E H AV I O U R S T H A T C A N B E F O U N D
IN ANY SOCIETY
Micro-societies such as we have been examining, which take peace and non-
violence as primary organizing values for their way of life, are rare in the closing
years of the twentieth century. Most of humanity lives in societies marked by
increasingly high densities of weaponry, from handguns to bombs to the terrors
of chemical and biological weapons. But underneath the layers of violence, each
society, without exception, has its peace behaviours, precious resources that
could be available to help bring about new and more peaceful forms of governance
locally and on a larger scale in the next century.
Where do we nd these peace behaviours, these peace culture resources?
In the recurring cycles, rhythms and rituals of human celebration, with its
feasting, singing, dancing and sharing of gifts; in the reproductive cycles of
human partnering, of birth, of lifelong everyday chores and the completion of
dying, which bind people together across kin groups; in the succession of
wounding and healing of human bodies as they move through lifes dangers in
those cycles; in the labour to produce sustenance from the earth; in the daily
round of trade, barter and exchange of goods and services; and perhaps most
wonderful of all, in human play, the playing of games, the play of artistic creation,
the play of the mind in pursuit of knowledge.
Peace behaviours 49
Celebrations are the play-life of a society, as well as occasions for

reaffirmation of identity and social values.22 But play by its very nature performs
a serious creative function for each community, as Huizinga23 has pointed out.
Taking place outside the realm of everyday life, play nevertheless creates
boundaries, rules and roles (lets play house you be Daddy and Ill be
Mummy), and structures within which children can create their own realities in
fantasy. Mary Reilly24 emphasizes the importance of play in learning non-violence
and self-control. Watching young monkeys at play, she comments on the
conversion of aggression into social complexity, as the monkeys learn control
over their movements in the course of rough-and-tumble activity. When childrens
rough-and-tumble dissolves into tears because a child is hurt, the same learning
is taking place. A society which encourages the play of the mind encourages the
exploration of other and better ways of ordering lifestyles. Polak, the Dutch
historian, discovered through his macro-historical studies that societies tended to
be empowered by positive images of the future, that visions themselves could
act as magnets drawing forth behaviours which could bring the envisioned future
into being.25 Polak wrote The Image of the Future in 1950 for a war-paralysed Europe,
as a call to begin imagining how things could be, to create visions which could
inspire action. A half-century later we have once more reached a state of social
despair, in both countries of the North and of the South. What are the possibilities
for the twenty-rst century?
22. For examples, see McKim Marriott, The Feast of Love, in Milton Singer (ed.),
Krishnna: Myths, Rites and Attitudes, Chicago, Ill., University of Chicago Press, 1968.
See also Richard Lannoy, The Speaking Tree: A Study of Indian Culture and Society, London,
Oxford University Press, 1971.
23. Johan Huizinga, Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture, Boston, Mass.,
Beacon Press, 1955.
24. Mary Reilly (ed.), Play as Exploratory Learning, Beverly Hills, Calif., Sage Publications,
1974.
25. Fred Polak, Images of the Future, translated from Dutch by Elise Boulding, one-volume
abridgement, San Francisco, Calif., Jossey-Bass/Elsevier, 1972.
50 Elise Boulding
P E A C E F U L S O C I E T I E S I N T H E T W E N T Y- F I R S T C E N T U R Y: A
POSSIBLE SCENARIO
Kenneth Boulding always used to say that what exists is possible. We have shown
in the preceding pages that peaceful behaviours do indeed exist in every society,
and that a few societies, and some subcultures within larger societies, actually
give peace a high priority. They value peaceableness so much that they have
found ways to handle conicts without violence. Energies which might be
channelled into aggression are instead channelled into a range of non-violent
activities.
As societies become more complex, there are more occasions for violence
at least in part, because equitable sharing of resources becomes more difficult as
the scale of social organization increases. Social systems which systematically
direct resources away from the poor, from women, from ethnic and religious
minorities, are systems characterized by what peace researchers call structural
violence. While it is the behaviour of individuals which maintains the systemic
injustice, individuals do not specically intend harm by the way they live. Yet
because much harm is done, the conditions for aggressive and violent responses
to injustice may be widespread. This is why Anabaptists and other pacists in
contemporary industrialized societies spend so much of their energy working on
social and economic injustice.
We should note that this picture of energetic activist pacists contradicts the
prevailing image of pacists as passive, non-reactive people with an
incomprehensible predilection for turning the other cheek. In the four peace-loving
tribal societies described, there is a lot of activity going on not only to keep
interpersonal relations in order, but to provide sustenance while maintaining the
integrity of the environment. Each of these societies, including the forest-dwelling
Mbuti, has to struggle to survive, but the struggle is a non-violent, problem-
solving struggle.
Pacist communities such as the Anabaptists are also characterized by non-
violent struggle, in this case not primarily for the survival of their own
community but for the survival of the planet. A more realistic image of the non-
violent way of life would be one of adventure, a constant taking on of difficult
challenges, a life requiring great ingenuity, imagination and problem-solving skills,
Peace behaviours 51
a life based on a capacity for self-discipline coupled with a great fund of affection
for the human species and a love of nature and all living things. Such an image
is at least as exciting as the warrior-hero image, and certainly takes as much if
not more energy. It is useful to remember that aggression is only one way to
use up that remarkable ow of psychic/physical energy which has led to such
an extraordinary array of human achievements thus far in the lifespan of the
species.
If we put the heroic warrior and heroic peace-maker side by side, what is
the future for each in the twenty-rst century? In the best possible scenario, the
heroic warriors gradually become heroic peace-makers.26 They can only do this,
of course, to the extent that the international community buckles down to the
serious work of local, regional and global governance which will reduce the need
for arms. This means gradual conversion of weapons production in every country
to meeting urgent civilian needs, together with a careful monitoring of the arms
trade and the replacement of nuclear non-proliferation agreements by an
outlawing of the production and use of nuclear weapons.
Many things have to happen at local and regional levels to make this
possible. However, the increasing involvement of transnational peoples
associations in issues of demilitarization and the creation of alternative problem-
solving mechanisms in all inter-state arenas concerned with the environment,
social and economic development and the peaceful settlement of disputes make
this a genuine possibility. Ethnic separatist movements will mature over time.
Already new models are developing for ethnic autonomy within existing states,
as happened several centuries ago in Switzerland, and is now happening in
several European countries, including Spain, even as the European Community
itself evolves. It is also happening among indigenous peoples in the
Circumpolar North and the tropics. These developments free creative energy
26. This is what William James was writing about in his Moral Equivalent of War, written
in 1910 and just reprinted in Peace and Conict: Journal of Peace Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 1,
1995, pp. 1729. An interesting exploration of this subject drawing on classical myths
and contemporary psychology is found in R. William Botcher and William S. Pollack,
A Time of Fallen Heroes: the Re-creation of Masculinity, New York, The Guilford Press,
1993.
52 Elise Boulding
for dealing with twenty-rst century challenges: the more careful use of the
earths limited resources, more attention to human and social development and
a more judicious approach to technological development, reducing it to the
role of servant rather than master. In this, they will have something in common
with the tribal societies and Anabaptist communities which we have been
considering.
Peoples associations and local civic and religious cultures, in this image of
the future, will pay increased attention to the education of the young, and the
nurturing of family and community life. This shift of focus will be essential to
prepare the next generation and generations to come for imaginative, adventurous
problem-solving and the resolution of as yet unforeseen conicts. We are talking
about a slow, century-long process; certainly not a rapid one. What is involved
is not so much social transformation as a gradual shifting of the balance between
violent and non-violent institutional and behavioural patterns over time. The
problem-solving and peace-making resources are already there at the local level,
however hidden. The role of the transnational associations can be to interface
between governmental and civic structures so that peace-building know-how is
drawn on with increasing frequency.27 The role of the media and the arts in
reecting such a shift will be of critical importance if there is to be a benecial
feedback system 28 which mirrors to the general public the actual impact of new
behaviours. UNESCO has a very special role to play in helping to bring about
this long-term shift, as the Organization works with non-governmental
organizations in all social sectors, and at all levels from grass roots to transnational,
as well as with governments.
This essay began by indicating how historians have biased our view of
history and the human condition by recording mainly wars and conquests. It is
tting to end with praise for that courageous group of historians who founded
27. This NGO/IGO/UN interfacing is described in Elise Boulding, Building a Global Civic
Culture, Syracuse, NY, Syracuse University Press, 1990.
28. Deviation-amplifying feedback loops are a very important aspect of the dynamics
of social change, and are brilliantly discussed by Magorah Maruyama in The
Second Cybernetics: Deviation Amplifying Mutual Causal Processes, American
Scientist, No. 51, 1963, pp. 16479, 2506.
Peace behaviours 53
the Council on Peace Research in History (now the Peace History Society) in
the 1960s to direct scholarly research toward removing that bias.29 They do not
work alone, since the task of shifting the cultural balance toward non-violence
is a challenge for all, whatever ones walk of life, ones age, ones gender, wherever
one lives on the planet we call home. There is no human occupation which cannot
be re-tuned to contribute to peace-building. The only limitation on that re-tuning
is the willingness to liberate our own imagination.
29. The Peace History Society, in addition to having fostered numerous publications on
peace-making in history, publishes the bi-monthly journal Peace and Change jointly
with the Consortium on Peace Research, Education and Development (COPRED).
55
Normative instruments for a culture

of peace
Emmanuel Decaux*
For centuries, there has been a form of natural coexistence between war and
peace, which can be traced back to the roots of public international law. The
title of Grotiuss most important work, published in 1625 at the dawn of the
modern inter-state system, was, signicantly, De jure belli ac pacis. Three centuries
later, in 1922, a great French scholar, Paul Fauchille, devised his Trait de droit
international public with a similar approach. It is interesting to note that his rst
tome was entitled Peace and comprised three volumes, whereas the second tome,
War and Neutrality, had only one.1 After the Second World War, the primacy given
to peace was even more spectacular and, after Charles Rousseaus work had
been published in ve volumes by a single publisher during the 1970s under the
title of Droit international public, it was another publisher who nally agreed to
publish a further volume under the title Le droit des conits arms in 1983. Thus,
a major state of the art of modern international law by a French scholar actually
covered the law of war.
At the same time, another mainstream which identies international law and
peace exists, according to the old motto of the Institut de Droit International,
created in 1873, Jus ac pax. This new trend was far-reaching within the circle of
* Professor and Head of the International Law Centre (CEDIN) of the University of
Paris X.
1. The emphasis was placed on the First World War, as the second tome was rst
published in 1921, with the three other volumes of the rst tome appearing
successively from 1922 to 1926.
56 Emmanuel Decaux
international lawyers and political gures involved in the Hague Conferences of

1899 and 1907.2 In France the main spokesman of this great cause was a
statesman, Lon Bourgeois, who forcefully dened peace as law enduring in
time. Indeed, without law, there cannot be a true peace, the peace which resides
both in the reality and in the minds, a peace which is grounded in the free consent
of consciences.3 From a different background, a great physician, Charles Richet,
published in 1907 a prophetic book entitled Le pass de la guerre et lavenir de la
paix.4
After the tragedy of the First World War, the most eloquent affirmation of
this culture of peace is not in Part I of the Treaty of Versailles, concerning the
League of Nations, but in Part XIII, about the International Labour Organisation:
peace can be established only if it is based on social justice. The wording of
the Covenant of the League of Nations was more pedestrian; even if speeches
about peace ourished in Geneva in the 1930s, it was a culture of war which
triumphed until the doomsday of 1945.
The new order in the aftermath of the war gave, for the rst time, a legal
value to the ideals of peace. The Charter of the United Nations gives expression
to the common will of the peoples to save succeeding generations from the
scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind,
and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of
the human person.5 Thus the main aims of the peoples of the United Nations,
according to the Preamble, are:
2. Cf. the anthology by Marcel Merle, Pacisme et internationalisme, Paris, Armand Colin,
1966, and by Charles Zorgbibe, La Paix, Paris, PUF, 1984. (Que sais-je?, No. 1600.)
3. Lon Bourgeois, Pour la socit des nations, Paris, Crs, 1910. This citation comes from
a message published in 1901 for the yearbook of the Association de la Paix par le
Droit, formed initially in 1887 by a small group of Protestant students in Nmes in
the South of France, which developed worldwide branches.
4. Paris, Ollendorff, 1907. His scientic approach foresees the work of the French
sociologist Gaston Bouthoul about war studies, polmologie. Cf., inter alia, Avoir la Paix,
Paris, Grasset, 1967. For a later survey of his method, see Le d de la guerre, Paris,
PUF, 1976, and Essais de polmologie, Paris, Denol, 1976.
5. This personal tone was the work of Marshal Smuts, but it was watered down by
several amendments. On the legal nature of the Preamble, see Jean-Pierre Cot and
Alain Pellet, La Charte des Nations Unies, Paris, Economica, 1991.
Normative instruments 57
for a culture of peace
to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours,
and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure,
by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall
not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery
for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.
At the same time, the Constitution of UNESCO was even more lyrical:6
That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences
of peace must be constructed . . . that the wide diffusion of culture, and the education
of humanity for justice and liberty and peace are indispensable to the dignity of man
and constitute a sacred duty which all the nations must full in a spirit of mutual
assistance and concern; that a peace based exclusively upon the political and economic
arrangements of governments would not be a peace which would secure the
unanimous, lasting and sincere support of the peoples of the world, and that the
peace must therefore be founded, if it is not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral
solidarity of mankind.
In the same spirit as that of the Charter of the United Nations, UNESCOs
Constitution was adopted with the aim to contribute to peace and security by
promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and
culture, in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and
for the human rights and fundamental freedoms. Through education, peace and
security are thus rooted in law. This mandate focuses on the facets of a new
culture of peace: tolerance, the spirit of good neighbourliness, the moral solidarity
of mankind, on the one hand, and the will to work towards common interests,
to promote collective security and to protect the rule of law, on the other. Thus
there is no antithesis between right and might. As Blaise Pascal aptly put it: La
justice sans la force est impuissante, la force sans la justice est tyrannique.
The Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in
1948, recognized human rights as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace
6. The initial draft by Clement Attlee was modied by Archibald MacLeish to give it
a lyrical note. See Richard Hoggart, An Idea and Its Servants, UNESCO from Within,
London, Chatto & Windus, 1978.
58 Emmanuel Decaux
in the world. The Universal Declaration rests on the concept of resistance to

oppression, stemming from the French Revolution: it is essential, if man is not
to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny
and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.
Therefore, as in the UNESCO Constitution, this long-forgotten reference of the
Universal Declaration shows the democratic dimension of international law, long
before the modern reference to the tat de droit in the Charter of Paris for a New
Europe of 1990, which was a landmark for the Conference on Security and Co-
operation in Europe (CSCE).
The Universal Declaration is intended, as stated in its Preamble, to promote
the development of friendly relations between nations, and emphasizes in its
Article 26 that education . . . shall promote understanding, tolerance and
friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the
activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. Even if there is
no specic provision in it about the right to education on human rights, the
Preamble states that every individual and every organ of society . . . shall strive
by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms.
Furthermore, it emphasizes the central role of all human beings, who are endowed
with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of
brotherhood. So, besides the right to liberty and equality, there is the duty of
fraternity and solidarity. On this basis, international co-operation between states
aims at achieving a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all
nations.
The normative instruments for a culture of peace have their foundation in
this legal tradition. The Universal Declaration itself does not have a binding force
but has great political signicance. It expresses the spirit of the constitutive
charter of the international order; it is an authentic interpretation of universal
norms.
A complete survey of the specic norms adopted to put these general
principles into practice is impossible in a short essay. To explore fully the legal
eld is already a vast exercise, and we shall only try to comment on the main
normative references, which are threefold:
1. The general texts lay stress upon the primacy of international law and of
universal human rights.
2. In this basic framework, they imply negative aspects in order to prohibit

war and hate, racial propaganda and intolerance.
3. They lay stress upon positive obligations, through peaceful co-operation,
friendship between peoples, good neighbourliness and tolerance.
THE PRIMACY OF UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS
The need to protect law against misuses of law was at the origin of several
escape clauses. Within the Universal Declaration, Articles 29 and 30 set the
main limits to these rights: These rights and freedoms may in no case be
exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations
(Article 29(3)); and, more precisely: Nothing in this Declaration may be
interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in
any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights
and freedoms set forth herein (Article 30). Accordingly, two similar articles,
Articles 5 and 20, of the two International Covenants on Human Rights of 1966
need closer examination.
We nd the same escape clauses in the Covenants. The formulation of
Article 5(1) is common to both the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights:
Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State,
group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed
at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their
limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.
The aim of these clauses is to prevent the abuse of freedom to destroy
freedom no freedom for the enemies of freedom and specically to check
the growth of nascent nazi, fascist or other totalitarian ideologies.7 There was
some concern about the vagueness of the clause, notably from the former Soviet
Union which thought it was open to abuse, but also from the United States
with its tradition of freedom of speech: it was thought that, widely interpreted,
the paragraph might permit a State, which so desired, to curtail very considerably
7. Marc Bossuyt, Guide to the Travaux Prparatoires of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, p. 105, Dordrecht, Nijhoff, 1987.
60 Emmanuel Decaux
the exercise of certain rights. In particular, a State might place undesirable

restrictions on the freedom of expression guaranteed in the draft Covenant. An
American proposal to delete these paragraphs was rejected by six votes to four
at the sixth session of the Commission on Human Rights in 1950.
There was also some discussion inside the Commission on Human Rights
about the inclusion of the word State as part of the objectives of the clause, as
well as group or person. The opinion was expressed that states were hardly
likely to undertake the obligations under the Covenant and then attempt to
destroy the rights or limit them to a greater extent than provided in it. It was
observed that states were already empowered to limit many rights, for such
reasons as the protection of public order or national security and that they
should not be encouraged to restrict further the provisions of the Covenants.
However, the draft of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
was unanimously adopted in 1951 and translated into the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1962. The two Covenants were nally
adopted in 1966 and entered into force in 1976.
Reference to the clause was made by the UN Human Rights Committee8
in regard to extraterritorial activities by the security and intelligence forces of
Uruguay: Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
places an obligation upon a state party to respect and to ensure rights to all
individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction, but it does not imply
that the State Party concerned cannot be held accountable for violations of rights
under the Covenant which its agents commit upon the territory of another state,
whether with the acquiescence of the government of that state or in opposition
to it. According to Article 5(1) of the Covenant: Nothing in the present Covenant
may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage
in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights
and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is
provided for in the present Covenant. In line with this, it would be inconceivable
to so interpret the responsibility under Article 2 of the Covenant as to permit a
State Party to perpetrate on the territory of another state, a violation of the
8. This committee is responsible for the monitoring of the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights.
Covenant which it could not perpetrate on its own territory.9 But, in an

individual opinion, the German expert, Christian Tomuschat, made a useful
clarication:
In principle, the scope of application of the Covenant is not susceptible to being

extended by reference to Article 5, a provision designed to cover instances where
formally rules under the Covenant seem to legitimize actions which substantially run
counter to its purposes and general spirit. Thus, Governments may never use the
limitation clauses supplementing the protected rights and freedoms to such an extent
that the very substance of those rights and freedoms would be annihilated; individuals
are legally barred from availing themselves of the same rights and freedoms with a
view to overthrowing the regime of the rule of law which constitutes the basic
philosophy of the Covenant. In the present case, however, the Covenant does not
even provide the pretext for a right to perpetrate the criminal acts which, according
to the Committees conviction, have been perpetrated by the Uruguayan authorities.
On another occasion, the Committee used the disposition of Article 5 to narrow

the scope of the Covenant against an Italian neo-fascist. In a decision of
inadmissibility, the Committee demonstrated the incompetence ratione temporis. It
stressed also an incompetence ratione materiae:
Moreover, it would appear to the Committee that the acts for which M.A. was
convicted (reorganizing the dissolved fascist party) were of a kind which are removed
from the protection of the Covenant by Article 5 thereof and which were, in any
event, justiably prohibited by Italian law having regard to the limitations and
restrictions applicable to the rights in question under the provisions of Articles 18(3),
19(3), 22(2) and 25 of the Covenant.10
9. Human Rights Committee, Selected Decisions under the Optional Protocol, Vol. 1, United
Nations, 1985. See also Communication No. 52/1979 on behalf of Sergio Ruben
Lopez Burgos against Uruguay, decision adopted on 29 July 1981, p. 91, para. 12.3,
as well as Communication No. 56/1979 by Llian Celiberti de Casariego against
Uruguay, decision adopted the same day, p. 94, para.10.3.
Nations, 1989. See also Communication No. 117/1981, M.A. against Italy, decision
(inadmissibility) of 10 April 1984, p. 33.
62 Emmanuel Decaux
T H E S T R U G G L E A G A I N S T A C U LT U R E O F H AT E
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has another more
specic clause to limit the scope of freedom of speech. It is Article 20, which
follows Article 19 devoted to the freedom of opinion: Any propaganda for war
shall be prohibited by law. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred
that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be
prohibited by law.
In 1947, the former Soviet Union was behind a more radical draft which
qualied as crime these actions, without any mention of incitement to violence.
The proposal of the former Soviet Union was rejected by ten votes to four.
In 1949, the debate shifted to the Commission on Human Rights, with a
more balanced perspective: On the one hand, the opinion was expressed that
legislation was not the most effective means to deal with the matter, and that if
propaganda should constitute a menace to public peace, Article 19(3) of the draft
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would be applicable. This
was the position of several Member States, such as the United States and the
United Kingdom, but also Poland. On the other hand, it was emphasised that
the strong inuence of propaganda on the minds of men rendered legislative
intervention necessary and that the general provisions of Article 19(3) were not
adequate, as they did not impose upon States Parties any obligation to prohibit
the advocacy of national, racial or religious hostility: this was the thesis of France
and of the World Jewish Congress.
Taking into account fears that an article prohibiting such advocacy might
lead to abuse and would be detrimental to freedom of expression, the
Commission specied that only such advocacy of national, racial or religious
hostility as constitutes an incitement to violence should be prohibited by the
law of the State. Some members of the Communist bloc, the former Soviet Union,
Poland, Ukraine and Yugoslavia, tried to blame the propaganda of fascist-Nazi
views, but other states, including France, considered the formulation too vague
and it was dropped.
The debate was continued during the 1960s, with the emphasis on freedom
of opinion and expression (Belgium, Japan, the United States) and the risk of
imposing prior censorship on all forms of expression and suppressing the opinions
of opposition groups and parties (Argentina, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway). But,

on the other hand, the former Soviet Union and its allies placed the emphasis
on the prohibition of war propaganda and racial hatred: The Article should
contain a specic provision which would prohibit war propaganda in order to
put an end to the Cold War and to promote peaceful coexistence.11
Mentioning war propaganda created new legal difficulties of denition and
interpretation. However, it was pointed out
that the question of propaganda had been dealt with in national laws and constitutions,
as well as in international instruments and documents, such as . . . the judgement of
the Nuremberg Tribunal, General Assembly resolutions 110(II) on Measures to be
taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war and 381(V) on
Condemnation of propaganda against peace, and the draft Convention on Freedom
of Information.12
This was an old debate between Western countries and the former Soviet Union.
During the preparation of the prosecution for the Nuremberg Tribunal, there
was indeed serious disagreement over the American proposal that the indictment
should include a general charge of waging a war of aggression. The Soviets
wanted to limit the charge to a Hitlerite war only. Were they possibly thinking
that any general denition of aggression might give rise to painful memories of
their invasion of the Baltic states in 1939? Nikitchenko, the Soviet judge, insisted
that, if the wording went beyond a specic condemnation of Nazi aggression to
a condemnation of war in general, it would not be agreeable to the Soviets, as
Lord Shawcross recalled with candour.13
The rst draft of Article 20 was adopted by eleven votes in 1952 (France,
with Soviet bloc and Third World countries) against three (Australia, the United
Kingdom and the United States) with three abstentions (Belgium, China, Sweden)
and, after the addition of the rst paragraph in 1961, the article as a whole was
11. Bossuyt, op.cit., p. 403 et seq.

12. Ibid., p. 408.
13. Life Sentence: The Memoirs of Lord Shawcross, London, Constable, 1995. See also George
Ginsburg and V. N. Kudriavtsev (eds.), The Nuremberg Trial and International Law,
Dordrecht, Nijhoff, 1990.
64 Emmanuel Decaux
adopted by fty-two to nineteen, with twelve abstentions in the Third

Committee.14
The vote reected the split caused by the Cold War. Western countries
looked upon the peace movement manipulated by the former Soviet Union as
an act of propaganda against the policy of national defence and membership of
the Atlantic Alliance, often described as warmongers by the communists and
fellow-travellers of the anti-militarist lobby. At the same time, for the former Soviet
Union, war propaganda was identied with the nationalism of Western countries,
whereas its own internationalist propaganda in other states or the involvement
of the Red Army in the Soviet bloc were considered as peaceful activities. We
have to place the legal debates of the United Nations in the context of these
shifts of propaganda for peace against blunt propaganda of war.
Several states made subsequent declarations and reservations about
Article 20(1). The most plain was that of the Netherlands: The Kingdom of the
Netherlands does not accept the obligation set out in this provision in the case
of Netherlands. Similarly, Norway and Sweden had reservations to Article 20(1).
In other cases, states tried either to recast their vote, without any legal implication,
or to banalize its scope in respect of their own legislation.
Denmark was more explicit in its reservation to Article 20(1): This
reservation is in accordance with the vote cast by Denmark in the sixteenth session
of the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1961 when the Danish
Delegation, referring to the preceding article concerning freedom of expression,
voted against the prohibition against propaganda for war. Finland adopted the
same point of view: With respect to Article 20(1) of the Covenant, Finland
declares that it will not apply the provision of this paragraph, this being compatible
with the standpoint Finland already expressed at the sixteenth session of the
United Nations General Assembly by voting against the prohibition of propa-
ganda for war, on the grounds that this might endanger the freedom of expression
referred to in Article 19 of the Covenant. Iceland adopted the same position.
On the other hand, in a constructive interpretation, The Government of
the United Kingdom interprets Article 20 consistently with the rights conferred
14. Between the two votes in 1952 and 1961, France drifted between a yes and a no
for the rst sentence, with an abstention for the second sentence and the whole article.
by Articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant and having legislated in matters of

practical concern in the interests of public order (ordre public) reserves the right
not to introduce any further legislation. In the same way, Australia interprets
the rights provided for by Articles 19, 21 and 22 as consistent with Article 20;
accordingly, the Commonwealth and the constituent States, having legislated with
respect to the subject-matter of the article in matters of practical concern in the
interest of law and order (ordre public), the right is reserved not to introduce any
further legislative provision on these matters.15 New Zealand had a very similar
position: The Government of New Zealand having legislated in the areas of the
advocacy of national and racial hatred and the inciting of hostility or ill will against
any group of persons and having regard to the right of freedom of speech, reserves
the right not to introduce further legislation with regard to Article 20.
In regard to the same law-making obligation, Belgium made a more radical
declaration: The Belgian Government declares that it does not consider itself
obligated to enact legislation in the eld covered by Article 20, paragraph 1, and
that Article 20 as a whole shall be applied taking into account the rights to freedom
of thought and religion, freedom of opinion and freedom of assembly and
association proclaimed in Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and reaffirmed in Articles 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant.
Luxembourg made the same declaration. In its declaration, France added a new
restriction to protect itself from these provisions: The Government of the (French)
Republic declares that the term war, appearing in Article 20(1), is to be
understood to mean war in contravention of international law and considers, in
any case, that French legislation in this matter is adequate.
The Human Rights Committee applied Article 20 in the case of the W. G.
Party.16 The party used tape-recorded messages linked to the telephone system
to spread propaganda against international nance and international Jewry
leading the world into wars. In application of the Canadian Human Rights Act
15. Human Rights: Status of International Instruments, p. 28 et seq., New York, United Nations,
1987.
Nations, 1989. See also Communication No. 104/1981, J.R.T. and the W.G. Party
against Canada, decision (inadmissibility) on 6 April 1983, p. 26.
66 Emmanuel Decaux
of 1978, this telephone service was curtailed. Mr T., the leader of this
unincorporated political party, claimed a violation of Article 19 of the Covenant
by Canadian authorities. But, for the Canadian defence, its domestic law in fact
gives effect to Article 20(2) of the Covenant. Thus, not only is the authors right
to communicate racist ideas not protected by the Covenant, it is in fact
incompatible with its provisions. The Committee ruled the same interpretation:
However, the opinions which Mr T. seeks to disseminate through the telephone
system clearly constitute the advocacy of racial or religious hatred which Canada
has an obligation under Article 20(2) of the Covenant to prohibit.
Perhaps more scope needs to be given to these crucial topics, keeping in
view the phenomena of the spread of racism and xenophobia, religious intolerance
and nationalist propaganda in various parts of the world. The main issues are
not only war propaganda between states, with mobilization and militarization of
public opinion, as during the 1930s, but hate and division inside national
communities, involving internal conicts with resurgent political racism. So the
legal framework of human rights laid down during the post-war period is
fundamental to allow democracies to shield their citizens and to maintain values
and principles. Openness is the main strength of democracies, but it is impossible
to tolerate the intolerable. In this ght, each state is no longer alone; as the
Charter of Paris for a New Europe states: Democracy is the best safeguard of
freedom of expression, tolerance of all groups of society. . . . Our States will co-
operate and support each other with the aim of making democratic gains
irreversible.17
The effectiveness of this solemn commitment of European countries is tested
with the tragic spread of ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia, from a dialogue
of hate to actual genocide. For the rst time since the creation of the Nuremberg
Tribunal fty years ago, the Security Council created an ad hoc tribunal to judge
persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law. The
aims of the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, as of the
similar International Tribunal for Rwanda, are both repressive and preventive.
To ght the cycle of violence and impunity by full individual accountability is
17. Arie Bloed, The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, p. 538, Dordrecht,
Nijhoff, 1993.
indeed also a means of deterring further violations of human rights. But these
reactions by the international community are often too late. The rst needs are
for watchfulness, early warning and preventive action.
So the conict between freedom of expression and prohibition of racial hate
ought to be clearly set by international bodies, such as the Human Rights
Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
(CERD). Likewise the European Court of Human Rights ruled with some
ambivalence on a case involving the modern media.18 The principal needs are
now to strengthen domestic law, to favour legal harmonization at the regional
level and to encourage co-operation between states in the ght against crime, as
stressed by the European Meeting of the National Institution for the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights in Strasbourg which dealt recently with that
topic.19 The National Institutions themselves, at the crossroads between non-
governmental organizations, public institutions and international bodies, are an
important mechanism for educating the public at large.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CULTURE OF PEACE
Indeed, the constructive aspect of a culture of peace can be traced to the provisions
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Preamble of the Declaration
contains an essential objective: to promote the development of friendly relations
between nations. In its own way, the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights species that the States Parties to the present Covenant
recognize the benets to be derived from the encouragement and development
of international contacts and co-operation in the scientic and cultural elds
(Article 15). Perhaps more implicitly, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights provides the rule that the right of freedom of expression must
be applied regardless of frontiers (Article 19). However, general rules in universal
18. Concerning the Jersild Case against Denmark, 23 September 1994, see the
commentary of Grard Cohen-Jonathan in Revue universelle des droits de lhomme,
No. 13, 1995.
19. Emmanuel Decaux, La lutte contre le racisme et la xnophobie, Revue universelle des
droits de lhomme, No. 13, 1995.
68 Emmanuel Decaux
textbooks are rather scarce. The eld of international co-operation can be given
more focus through regional or specialized approaches.
Effective co-operation must be a grassroots movement. Sometimes states
have tried to keep the monopoly of these contacts, in the name of friendship
between peoples. There are many bilateral treaties of friendship and co-operation
but the words seem besmirched. Only free circulation of persons and ideas can
give full meaning to such treaties. To build a culture of peace, one needs to
promote democracy and the rule of law, but also to democratize international
society.
Friendship is something that should exist not only between states but also
between peoples, giving a new meaning to transnational relations across borders.
International law has to develop transborder co-operation. The main example is
given by the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation
between Territorial Communities or Authorities, signed in Madrid in 1980
between the States Parties of the Council of Europe, but this Convention is also
open to adhesion by non-Member States. With the other recent European
conventions, such as the European Charter of Local Self-Government of 1985,
the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level
of 1992, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages of 1992 and
the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of 1995,
there is an impressive network of multilateral treaties giving to persons and to
peoples, but also to national minorities or to foreigners who have domiciles in
a particular country, a set of legal standards for peaceful activities.
On these grounds, the Member States of the Council of Europe are a
dynamic force for Europe as a whole. The Meetings on the Human Dimension
of the CSCE in Copenhagen in 1990 and Moscow in 1991 stressed the
importance of good neighbourliness and cross-border co-operation, especially in
relation to minority rights issues.20 For example, the Final Document of the
Copenhagen Meeting quotes the right for persons belonging to national minorities
to establish and maintain unimpeded contacts among themselves within their
country as well as contacts across frontiers with citizens of other States with whom
20. Emmanuel Decaux, La confrence sur la scurit et la coopration en Europe, Paris, PUF,
1992. (Que sais-je? No. 2661.)
they share a common ethnic or national origin, cultural heritage or religious

beliefs (para. 32.4) or to establish and maintain organizations or associations
within their country and to participate in international non-governmental
organizations (para. 32.6).21 The Geneva Report on National Minorities in July
1991 referred, inter alia, to encouragement of grassroots community relations
efforts between minorities communities, between majority and minority
communities, and between neighbouring communities sharing borders, aimed at
helping to prevent local tensions from arising and address conicts peacefully
should they arise; and encouragement of the establishment of permanent mixed
commissions, either inter-State or regional, to facilitate continuing dialogue
between the border-regions concerned. Furthermore, the report emphasizes the
important part of educational, cultural and religious associations: In this regard,
they recognize the major and vital role that individuals, non-governmental
organizations, and religious and other groups play in fostering cross-cultural
understanding and improving relations at all levels of society, as well as across
international frontiers.22
However, to develop a network is not enough one should see what the
nature of the new relations will be. Today, the onus is not on the states alone
but on each of its citizens. It would be necessary to describe the domestic
legislation of the states, the regional or subregional attempts at harmonization,
such as the Plan of Action against Racism, Xenophobia, Anti-Semitism and
Intolerance which took its impetus from the creation of a European Commission
against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), after the rst Summit Meeting of Heads
of State and Government of the Council of Europe in Vienna in October 1993.
In parallel, during the Summit of Corfu in June 1994, the Members of the
European Union created their own Consultative Commission against Racism
and Xenophobia. The fteen members of the Union conrmed its mission at
21. Bloed, op. cit., p. 457. Greece made an interpretative statement about this item to
stress that the exercise of these rights should be in accordance with the relevant
provisions of international human rights law and should respect, inter alia, the rights
and freedoms of others and the principle of territorial integrity of the States
concerned.
22. Ibid., p. 599.
70 Emmanuel Decaux
the Summit of Cannes in June 1995, with the purpose of creating a European
watchdog against racism.
This is also the main aim of the Pact on Stability in Europe to transform
these good intentions into legal instruments. The Pact was signed in March 1995,
under the patronage of the European Union, to promote bilateral arrangements
in order to develop transborder co-operation and mutual understanding between
peoples and national minorities, in the framework of the Organization for Security
and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).23 The Concluding Document of its
inaugural conference in 1994 had already clearly set the aims and principles of
the Pact: The objectives of stability will be achieved through the promotion of
good neighbourly relations, including questions related to frontiers and minorities,
as well as regional co-operation and the strengthening of democratic institutions
through co-operation arrangements to be established in the different elds that
can contribute to the objective. The Regional Round Tables for the Baltic Area
and for Central and Eastern Europe were the occasion to negotiate far-reaching
bilateral treaties, with the collective guarantee of the OSCE.
More recently, in May 1995, the OSCE and the Council of Europe, with
the co-operation of UNESCO, organized an international seminar on tolerance
in Bucharest. In each of these cases, the need for co-ordination of these various
initiatives to avoid duplication and overlapping was a major theme.
There is an urgent need for intercultural education. Already, the Universal
Declaration places the emphasis on the collective aims of education, not only on
individual achievement but on the full development of the human personality
and also its social component: It shall promote understanding, tolerance and
friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the
activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace (Article 26(2)). We
nd the same spirit in Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights:
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to
education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the
23. The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) became the OSCE
in 1995, following a decision of the Summit of Budapest in December 1994.
human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall
enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding,
tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups,
and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
The World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in June 1993, was an
unparalleled occasion to give new impetus to the long-term aims of education,
information and training at large:
The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms that States are duty-bound, as
stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in other international human
rights instruments, to ensure that education is aimed at strengthening the respect of
human rights and fundamental freedoms. . . . Education should promote under-
standing, tolerance, peace and friendly relations between the nations and all racial
and religious groups and encourage the development of United Nations activities in
pursuance of these objectives. Therefore, education on human rights and the
dissemination of proper information, both theoretical and practical, play an important
role in the promotion and respect of human rights with regard to all individuals
without distinction of any kind such as race, sex, language or religion, and this should
be integrated in the education policies at the national as well as international levels.24
The World Conference on Human Rights, in its chapter on human rights

education, takes into account the World Plan of Action on Education for Human
Rights and Democracy adopted in Montreal in March 1993 and stresses the
contribution of UNESCO to encourage States to develop specic programmes
and strategies for ensuring the widest human rights education and to promote
an increased awareness of human rights and mutual tolerance.25
UNESCOs Fourth Medium-Term Strategy (19962001) with regard to
contributing to peace-building gives priority to three main objectives:
24. A/CONF.157/23, I para. 33. See World Conference on Human Rights, The Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action, June 1993, United Nations, 1995.
25. Ibid., II, paras. 812.
72 Emmanuel Decaux
1. To encourage education for non-violence, tolerance, human rights,

democracy and international understanding.
2. To promote human rights and the struggle against discrimination.
3. To encourage cultural pluralism and intercultural dialogue.
However, at the same time, the interdependence of the objectives of peace and
development is emphasized, in order to contribute to peace-building and to the
emergence of a culture of peace.
Perhaps it is easier to set negative rather than positive obligations, to ght
against intolerance rather than to build tolerance. We cannot separate the two
sets of legal obligations. On the domestic level, there are no human rights without
equal opportunities, no true equality without effective solidarity. The same is the
case at the regional and the international level. Nobody can be free as a lone
individual. Nobody can be free if other people are not free, too!
Concluding this general survey of the new trends in positive international
law, we can try to offer some new prospects. First of all, a culture of peace is
rooted in the conscience of each person, so normative instruments must take
into account every level of human relations, from the spirit of brotherhood to
international co-operation, from grass-roots associations to universal
organizations. A close interaction of these relations and institutions is a major
step towards legal pluralism and true democracy in the international system, as
a basic condition for a culture of peace.
Within each state, a National Institution for Promotion and Protection of
Human Rights should be created and developed, with broad competencies
according to the guidelines set by the General Assembly in 1993.26 Being a focal
point between civil society and public authorities, these institutions are able to
promote, inside and outside the country, the values of tolerance and solidarity
which are the basis of a culture of peace. They already have an important part
to play in the ght against racism and xenophobia, but these actions need regional
co-ordination and international follow-up. UNESCO could therefore usefully
26. The so-called Principles of Paris are incorporated in resolution 48/134 of the
General Assembly, adopted by consensus on 20 December 1993. See Human Rights
Centre, National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, United
Nations, 1993. (Fact Sheet No. 19.)
place emphasis on its own priorities and help promote actions and measures
during international or regional meetings of these national institutions.27
The second level concerns bilateral relations. Good neighbourliness between
states is a prerequisite for a culture of peace. Bilateral treaties of friendship and
co-operation are an essential part of international peace networks but they are
not isolated. First of all, they refer to and consolidate the more general obligations
of umbrella agreements. In this way, the Pact on Stability in Europe is a good
example of an empirical joint operation. It brings together a set of condence-
building measures, international guidelines and collective guarantees. In the elds
of its competencies, UNESCO could constitute the framework of similar joint
operations combining international principles and possible targets. On the other
hand, bilateral treaties like international agreements can favour transborder co-
operation between local communities, so that borders are no longer a wall of
distrust and hate but become a bridge between peoples. A true culture of peace
should take place with an erosion of borders and with a new ow of goods, ideas
and peoples. Especially in countries with national minorities issues, the
development of transborder co-operation is a condence-building measure of
prime signicance. In this eld also, UNESCO has a central mission to facilitate
the ow of mutual information, regardless of frontiers, and promote a
dissemination of intercultural education.
It is at the international level that normative principles must be universally
established. Several international instruments already exist but need to enter in
force or to be strengthened. The aim of universal recognition, set by the Vienna
Conference, for the two International Covenants on Human Rights and for the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination and other relevant instruments must be a high priority for the
international community. These instruments share the values embodied in the
Universal Declaration and they should share the same international obligations
and benet from the same international monitoring. Nevertheless, there are some
gaps in the set of obligations, especially in the eld of cultural rights.
27. After the Vienna Conference, there were biennial international meetings, Tunis in
December 1993 and Manilla in April 1995. The third international meeting will take
place in 1997.
74 Emmanuel Decaux
In the same way as the OSCE principles for the Pact on Stability in Europe,
UNESCO could draft general guidelines and condence-building measures for
the new cultural framework which should combine the pre-eminence of the rule
of law and freedom of speech, respect for human dignity and education for
tolerance. The actual measures of implementation are as important as general
principles. We have to imagine ways and means of monitoring these international
obligations. UNESCO could set up a watchdog committee for cultural rights
and a culture of peace, with a resource list of independent experts and rapporteurs,
and assess individual or collective claims in regard to alleged violations of cultural
rights, and also undertake positive actions or policy remedies.
Such a set of commitments and mechanisms is only a reection of the
complexity of the new international system. After the simplication of the post-
war culture of peace establishing the monopoly of winners against former enemies,
as in Article 107 of the United Nations Charter, and the lip-service paid during
that period to peaceful coexistence which too often ignored human rights, a true
opportunity has now appeared, through co-operation and interaction with a
multiplicity of participants at various levels.
So a culture of peace is not simply another catchword, like the old pacism
of the 1930s and the 1950s, which weakened democracies against dictatorship
and which was characterized by more war and more aggression. It is a new ideal
rooted in the same democratic values and in an international set of duties and
obligations, through international organizations and agencies, human rights
monitoring and treaty bodies, mechanisms of preventive diplomacy and pacic
settlement of disputes. The vital link between domestic freedom and collective
security is the centre of a culture of peace. For the rst time, perhaps, since the
Abb de Saint-Pierre28 and Emmanuel Kant, it is not a moral Utopia but a legal
obligation. This will be also the fullment of the wish of Franklin D. Roosevelt
in 1945: More than an end to war, we want an end to the beginning of all
wars.
28. Abb de Saint Pierre, Projet pour rendre la paix perptuelle en Europe, 1713; new edition,
Paris, Fayard, 1986.
75
Cultural peace:
some characteristics1
Johan Galtung*
I N T R O D U C T I O N : W H AT I S I N A W O R D ? O R T W O ?
OR THREE?
With words as rich and important as culture and peace, we had better proceed
with some care. Consensus about their use is neither possible nor desirable, nor
necessary. But the reader has a right to know how the author thinks he is using
the words.
Culture is the symbolic aspect of human existence. Culture is
representation through symbols, usually visual or acoustic, organized
diachronically or synchronically.2 Recently that representation, as on colour TV
Professor of Peace Studies, University of Hawaii, Witten/Herdecke University,

European Peace University, Troms University.
1. Of course, another title would have used the commonly found expression, a culture
of peace. But cultural peace is the homologue of cultural violence (see Johan
Galtung, Cultural Violence, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1990, pp.
291305. The problem to be explored is what cultural peace might look like, in
order to recognize it if it should appear. The hunch is that there is less cultural peace
around than structural peace, and less structural peace than direct peace; in other
words, human beings behave remarkably peacefully in spite of negative structural
and cultural contexts. For an exploration of these concepts, see Johan Galtung, Peace
by Peaceful Means, Part I, Ch. 2 and 3, London/New York, Sage, 1995. Here, the book
will be referred to as PBPM.
2. Thus a text is visual and diachronic; speech is acoustic and diachronic, like music;
a painting is visual and synchronic, like a photo; a harmony is acoustic and
synchronic. Opera: all of the above. Dark silence: none of the above. The tactile,
76 Johan Galtung
in real time, or on the computer screen interactively, has become so close to

reality that the term virtual reality is used, an as-if reality. It may be objected
that this is not art, that art enhances some aspects of reality and plays down
others. But that is no objection: culture is a broader category than art.
Not unlike nance economy relative to real economy, culture takes on a life
of its own, with its own logic, in the end even representing nothing but itself;
evolving, breeding by cultures meeting and begetting new cultures, budding like
a virus drilling itself into human minds, programming those minds to reproduce
that culture and occasionally adding and subtracting something. The result is
certainly an enormous amount of culture, to speak a truism, one of the most
obvious examples being language, spoken and written, for which oralcy and
literacy are needed, both as sender and receiver.
Again, to draw on the parallel to nance/real economy: there has to be
some kind of synchrony. Humans do not live by bread alone, but they do not
live by the word, by symbols alone either. Too much culture relative to what
it represents and there is ination, a state of overculturation; too little and
there is underculturation, too little meaning available. We often talk about
ination in words, like speaking the word peace not to mention love
too often, with no reality counter-value. The Cold War history of peace is
an example.3 The result can be a lack of condence, and then a crash on the
tasting and olfactory senses seem to be underutilized as carriers of culture, possibly

because our discriminatory ability is less than for the visual and auditive senses.
3. Thus in the 1950s and 1960s the word peace was underused in the West partly
because it was overused in the East, and even if the socialist countries were serious
about international peace (both Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 would
be counter-indicative), the political repression inside the countries would be good
examples of the lack of real world counter-value. However, in the 1970s and 1980s
the word peace was used with increasing frequency in the West, for instance by
the German Social Democrats, by the non-communist peace movement and
increasingly by the governments, probably because of a feeling that the word had
retained its value in the population at large in spite of the socialist bloc misuse (which
the population recognized as such); and the non-use rather than misuse by the West
might backre because it might also be interpreted as lack of real world counter-
value, in other words that the West basically did not want peace. Eventually Reagan
had to give in and adapt to Gorbachevs peace/disarmament rhetoric, possibly
because people around the world were enthusiastic and believed it reected some
Cultural peace: 77
some characteristics
cultural stock exchange: some words, like stocks, become worthless. The value
depletion may be quick or slow, like the Dow Jones Index versus the Nikkei
Index.
On the other hand, are there people whose words can always be trusted.
And there are even those who can be trusted precisely because they do not talk
at all: speech is silver, silence is gold. In economics, gold has played that curious
double role of being both a real and a nancial good, the gold standard being
so attractive precisely because it was its own counter-value. The real reality
counter-value of that proverbial gold standard for the verbal market, silence,
would obviously be real world, not only symbolic, action.
Culture provides Homo sapiens, poor in instincts, with a virtual reality map
that serves as a guide to real reality. Deep culture, the crude, unembroidered
aspects embedded in individual or collective subconscious, serves to orient
human beings possibly toward the Greek ideals, the true, the good and the
beautiful, like a (computer) programme, a (genetic) code.
Peace is, of course, absence of violence of all kinds, direct (physical, and
also verbal), structural, cultural, directed at the body, mind or spirit of some
other being, human or not. A more pragmatic and dynamic conceptualization
of peace would be: peace is the condition for conicts to be transformed creatively
and non-violently. The focus is then on conict, rather than on peace. Peace is
a context (inner and outer) for a constructive way of handling conict, that human
condition that may serve both as a creator and as a destroyer.
Tell me how you behave in conict and I will tell you how much peace
culture you have. A culture of peace is not a set of peaceful, non-violent
representations of a reality. The test of the validity of a culture of peace lies in
how it affects behaviour in conict. The nance/real economy parallel is obvious:
the test of money is not the quantity of money, stock and bonds, but how much
real economy value they can be converted into. And this is the beauty of a peace
culture, any culture: it is translated, not converted into real world reality and
hence not depleted. The danger is ination, not depletion. The cash ow may
stop, not the ow of symbols.
Soviet reality. Morale: be careful with the big words, dene them; but be lavish when
there is real world counter-value.
78 Johan Galtung
As mentioned, we are all surrounded by an unimaginable amount of culture.

There may be a culture of peace somewhere out there in the symbolic realm,
even if only some, very few, nobody, living there has internalized that culture of
peace to the point of being able to handle conicts peacefully. Thus, we may
distinguish between a potential peace culture that has not entered and congured
our minds and mind-sets, and an actual/actuated peace culture that has been
enacted.
At this point educators become happy: who else is going to bridge that gap
between those who have not (yet) been effectively programmed for peaceful
behaviour, and those who have? Between the potential and the actual? If we
assume that a culture has to be received before it can be internalized, then a
problem is whether that culture has been mediated the mediator being the
educator or is unmediated, meaning, simply, received directly. Thus, I prefer
absorbing a Bach cantata without anybody telling me what happens, and how I
am supposed to receive. I want it to happen. I happen. I = it, it is part of me
and vice versa.
The problem is, of course, that mediated culture differs from the unmediated
version, having passed through the mediator. This is what makes schooling so
problematic: literature taught at school differs from the unmediated opening up
to a novel. A direct reading of Gandhi (or Buddha, or the soft, gentle aspects of
Jesus Christ) will always have an impact different from the countless mediated
versions.
Does that mean, educators, please stay away? Stay at home, go back to
wherever you came from, write texts, make speeches, stay among yourselves,
and have a good time! No. Educators may be useful if they have deeper readings
of the texts4 they mediate than most others. But if educators only transmit
culture, then education may itself contribute to out of sync detachment of
representation from reality; like a moral rascal teaching ethics. This is a heavy
argument against peace education conveying peace culture without some practice,
including peace action by the educator him/herself.
4. Text here taken in a broad sense, including, for instance, music.

Cultural peace: 79
CONFLICT TRIANGLES AND CONFLICT

T R A N S F O R M AT I O N T R I A N G L E S
Above, conict has been chosen to play an essential role in understanding peace
in general, and a culture of peace in particular. So, some words about conict
are needed.
The discourse used here starts with a simple formula:
CONFLICT = ATTITUDE /ASSUMPTIONS + BEHAVIOUR + CONTRADICTION
The (A,B,C)-triangle, in other words, with B at the top as the only observable
part. A and C have to be inferred, usually from violent inter-acts, physical and/or
verbal. However, from those acts no automatic inference can be made about
hatred, nor about any specic underlying contradiction among any number, n,
of goals (be they values, or interests, or both) held by any number, m, of parties.
Negative attitudes and contradictions are hypotheses to be tested in the praxis
of conict participation. The general hypothesis would be that violent behaviour
is produced by unresolved contradictions and negative attitudes; the problem is
which contradictions and which attitudes. There may be many candidates to be
tested. But even reduced violence is no guarantee that the candidates have been
found. There are many other possibilities: fatigue, a more important conict has
come up, etc.
According to this formula a conict may start in any corner and spread to
the other two. Conversely, it may also be transformed, even dis/re/solved from
any corner although the general advice would be to start in all three corners
at the same time: dampening behaviour, modifying attitudes, dissolving
contradictions. The question is how: and particularly under what conditions this
can be done non-violently and creatively.
Here is a formula derived from the conict formula:
CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION: EMPATHY + NON-VIOLENCE + CREATIVITY
for attitudes/assumptions, for behaviour, for contradictions.

The formula would apply to any outside conict/peace worker, and to any
inside party wanting to transform the conict. First, empathy with all parties;
not in the cheap sense of imagining how would I experience being in their shoes?
but in the sense of how do they experience being in their shoes? Second, the
80 Johan Galtung
limitation to non-violent action, among other reasons to break the violence breeds
violence cycles.
Third, creativity in order to transcend contradictions.
The problem is, of course, where do these commodities, as precious as
scarce, come from? Answer: from a culture of peace, as three key components
of such a culture.
Let us rst defend this thesis negatively: what happens if the culture is not
only poor in all three but even hostile? Clearly, without empathy, there is no
insight in A,B,C as experienced by the other parties (pluralis, the cultural idea
of only two parties is already violent.) Then Saddam Hussein becomes only an
invader of Kuwait (he was, indeed), not the head of a people that has suffered
deep trauma at the hands of the Occident (1258, 1916, 1917, 1922, 1961 to
mention some). His behaviour becomes only violent, even malevolent, autistic,
a manifestation of Evil. And what he sees as the nature of the contradiction sounds
like propaganda. The example is chosen not out of sympathy for any particular
person or people, but to show that countries with free press, rule of law and
democracy are also easy victims of shallow, misleading conict understanding
when empathy is absent.
If non-violence is not in the culture when appeals to reason and settlement
of the conict through direct dialogue, or normal mediation/arbitration/rule-of-
law, and even rule-of-man5 have proved insufficient, then recourse to violence
comes too easily, to settle the matter once and for all.
And in a culture that privileges mental inertia over creativity in reconciling
incompatible goals, violence also comes easily. If the solution to the conict were
within mainstream thinking, then that solution would probably already have been
found, and enacted. When this is not the case, a reasonable hypothesis would
be that sufficient creativity is needed to transcend mainstream thinking.6
It is also easily seen that one or two of these precious commodities are
5. PBPM, Part II, Ch. 4.

6. One classical, pedagogical example runs as follows: You are at the South Pole, ordered
to move on, but not permitted to move north. Mainstream thinking, knowing that
any step is northward, would lead to a standstill. Creative, non-paradigmatic,
countertrend thinking might make you jump.
Cultural peace: 81
insufficient. Empathy is ne, but it has to be translated into action. For a Gandhi
to understand the British, including to respect them and to wish for them an
even better future, is beautiful, but hardly sufficient to liberate both India and
England from the scourge of the structural and cultural violence known as
colonialism. An empathy with Saddam Hussein to the point of understanding
that his major goals were not necessarily to keep Kuwait against a coalition headed
by the USA, but to stand up against that coalition, in courage, thereby increasing
his honour and dignity, makes us understand why both he and Bush declared
themselves winners of that Gulf War. But it does not mobilize forces against his
crime, like a march of 100,000 unarmed civilians into Kuwait occupied by Iraq,
making an occupation meaningless, and also impeding a war that has killed close
to one million so far.7
Empathy and non-violence together, even under a Gandhis leadership,
were insufficient to nd a creative solution to the separatism of the Muslims
(Pakistan). History did not move forward. The ability of Mother India to serve
as a gracious host to an incredible variety of religions, as long as they did not
basically challenge the highly complex cultural nexus conventionally referred to
as Hinduism, was insufficient. Ecumenism broke down, European nation-statism
prevailed on one side as purity, with ethnic cleansing on both sides.
In short, these three cultural elements, internalized or not, constitute a holon,
even with highly synergistic properties. Delete one, like non-violence, and you
end up with Sun Tzu, or the Israeli Defence Forces: insight into yourself and the
enemy, brilliant, but violence none the less. Not peace. If empathy, non-violence
and creativity are internalized, then concrete procedures for what to do might
look as follows:
Establish a dialogue with at least one of the parties, but alone rather than
with the others. Try to understand what the basic goal is, underneath violent
acts and rhetoric.
Develop together a non-violent process to reach that goal.
When the basic goals of the parties are incompatible, the outside peace
worker may insert into the dialogue levels of creativity unavailable to parties
7. Including deaths due to economic sanctions.

82 Johan Galtung
blinded by cultural violence in addition to the hatred produced by direct

violence.
Only well-prepared parties should meet at the table.
Then, let 100, 1,000 peace dialogues blossom lest the misunderstanding
prevail that peace equals a document signed by the leaders.8
B E Y O N D E M P A T H Y, N O N - V I O L E N C E A N D C R E A T I V I T Y
Could empathy, non-violence and creativity, as cultural elements, and internalized

as personality traits, be part of something more comprehensive? Is there a cultural
genus behind each one of them? One possible answer would be: yes, karma for
empathy, reversibility for non-violence, exibility for creativity. Let us explore
them, starting with empathy.
Empathy would have as one consequence a perception of the violent act,
physical or verbal, the way the actor sees it: as the outcome of provocations
pushing him beyond a threshold that may already be low, given factors in that
persons inner and outer context (a history of violence in the family, being raised
in a violent culture, identifying with a nation that has suffered terrible traumas
and relates the provoker to the source of the traumas). Tout comprendre, cest tout
pardonner. No. At some point there was a choice. All the forces impinging on a
person may combine to determine the outcome, except for one force: the capacity
of the human spirit to rise above the other forces. But the spirit also needs
sustenance. The name of that sustenance is a peace culture.
So let us turn empathy in another direction; not towards one or two Others,
trying to understand the Other in Other, not only Self as Other. Let us turn
empathy to human life in general, trying to fathom the networks, the couplings
in time, forward, sideward, backward the after-life, the side-life as a totality.
I, mySelf, Other, only small grains in this endless ux of life but endowed with
the capacity to steer, to be in charge, to take on responsibility.
8. For personal experiences with this kind of approach, see Johan Galtung, On the
Politics of Peace Action: Non-violence and Creativity, in Judith McKibben (ed.),
Hawaiian Journeys in Non-violence, Honolulu, Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace,
1995.
Cultural peace: 83
We are all one in Jesus Christ, Paul said. Buddhists say: Co-arising
origination, meaning everything inuences everything. We are all in the same
boat is not a bad expression for the same idea, adding that, if the boat is leaky
even with holes in it and the water is pouring in, the basic problem is not who
drilled those holes but what to do. Indeed, we may always identify some knots
in this net of life, hang guilt certicates, even ropes around some necks, hanging
those selected for guilt-attribution (I hereby declare . . . guilty of . . . . Date . . . .
Signed . . . . ). As usual the basic message is not spoken: I . . . am not guilty.
Such certicates serve to glorify Self, not only to condemn Other. They draw
ne, mighty lines of ink, building walls of paper.
One way of summarizing this particular syndrome would be the Dichotomy-
Manicheism-Armageddon (DMA) syndrome: there are sharp lines dividing
human reality into two parts; one part, Other, is pure Evil, and the other, Self,
is pure Good; a nal, decisive battle is bound to come, better be prepared. A
syndrome like that can best be understood in terms of its negation. There are
lines but they are fuzzy and criss-crossing, dening more than two parties; no
party is only evil or only good, they are all yin/yang; there is no nal battle. The
rst syndrome is a part of cultural violence, the second a part of cultural peace.
The rst leads to clear fronts, polarization, mobilizing for a battle or a stalemate
deterred by balance of power; the second to inner and outer dialogues inside
Self and with Other over ways of improving the situation; or to inaction,
immobilized by doubt.
One way of summarizing the second syndrome has been done for thousands
of years already in the concept of karma: a shared destiny which is not
predetermined but can be improved at any time. The approach is exactly through
the inner dialogue which is then usually called meditation, and through the outer
dialogue among all parties to the conict, the conict formation. To search for
an answer to the perennial question of the rst syndrome, Who started?, is
meaningless since life is interactive, co-dependent origination anyhow. Somebody
may have red the rst shot, but then somebody else did something before that
and so on backward and sideward, till time immemorial, and out in the remotest
geographical and social periphery. There is no denial of Evil but denial of the
possibility of locating it neatly at one space point, and of allocating the First Evil
Act to one point in time.
84 Johan Galtung
How, then, about forward in time? If time is nite, then there is a nal state,
the state arrived at when time stops (or, more precisely, when change stops). But
if there is a nal state, then obviously that state is irreversible, otherwise it would
not have been nal. If it is irreversible, then obviously it is engraved, mildly
speaking, in stone, in steel. Any move away from the nal state, or efforts in that
direction, would be like crimes against History, Time, Nature. The step from
that idea to the use of violence to arrive at and uphold the nal state is short,
and is a major part of the Orwellian idea of irreversible society, exemplied in
this century in the violence of Nazism (Tausendjhriges Reich), global communism
and capitalism (End of History).
Posited against this would be the idea of reversibility: do nothing that cannot
be undone. If nothing is nal, nothing should be done as if it were. This can be
interpreted as leading to fatalism. But a stronger interpretation would be: any
state of affairs can be improved, hence do not make it irreversible.9
There are some important implications that follow. One implication is non-
violence. Violence is so terribly irreversible. Only in Disney-type cartoons do
attened, pierced beings, those crosses between humans and animals, rise from
the dead, given new life by their creator as if the Bible were born again; in real,
empirical life not.10
This also applies, even if less so, to non-lethal violence because, by denition,
it leaves traumas behind. The verbs used for violence, to harm, to hurt, already
carry this connotation of wounds, somatic and/or mental; and any physician of
the body and/or the soul knows that wounds are not easily localized (except
supercially) but tend to spread all over; moreover, they are not easily erased.
Both body and mind have memory, maybe particularly so of trauma, even if a
strong Self may rise to the occasion and process and erase, not only suppress,
9. Not, incidentally, to be confused with a Pareto optimum from which any move makes
nobody worse off. A Pareto optimum is, obviously, compatible with changes so that
some stand still and some move ahead, increasing the distance, which very often
means increasing the conict potential. Thus, a Pareto optimum does not serve as
an example of something that should be made irreversible.
10. It is hardly too far-fetched to suggest that this is one of the many reasons behind
the enormity of US violence: people may simply believe that life is reversible if
cartoon virtual reality stands out as more real than empirical reality.
Cultural peace: 85
even heavy traumas. The key probably lies in making them meaningful, learning
from them, turning them into sources of enrichment.
This also applies to traumas of the signicant Others, of those directly hit
and hurt: the bereaved, the friends and relatives of the wounded (crippled in
body or mind): their grief may also carry elements of irreversibility.
The second implication is ecological: do unto nature nothing irreversible
like killing a species; only take from nature what nature can renew, making your
take reversible. A simpler formulation would be: extend non-violence as theory
and practice to the non-human part of nature.
It is worth noting that a philosophy of reversibility differs from Kants
philosophy of universalizability.11 Kant may be interpreted as saying that the
principle underlying your action should be generalizable, even universalizable,
to the whole world (potentially to the whole universe), meaning: do only that
which others (all others) could also do. If every family on earth cannot have a
fridge without the ozone layer breaking down, then abstain from it yourself. If
your spiritual development does not reduce the possibilities of a similar
development for others, then no problem, do it.
Obviously, Kants dictum serves well to regulate behaviour in a materially
nite world, and steers activities towards that which is not or less limited: the
non-material. But does it rule out violence? Or is it more like engage only in
the (quality and quantity) of violence that you would be willing to permit
universally? Like peace enforcement,12 defensive violence, violence according
to Augustinian Rules for Just War or Islamic Rules for Holy War (fourth stage
of jihad)? This is actually in one sense the world in which we live; war being
legitimized through the idea that I now go to war, but under the same or similar
circumstances I would also have granted you the right to do so. Obviously this
does not rule out war, and universalization may even serve legitimization.
Finally, the search for an overarching concept for creativity. Above, the
word exibility has been given as an indicator, a road-sign, so to speak. The
idea is as follows. The action-space for a person P, in search of a way out of a
11. In Zum ewigen Frieden, rst published two centuries ago in 1795.
12. According to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, the expression being a good example
of a contradictio in adjecto.
86 Johan Galtung
conict, for instance, in a point in space, S, at a point in time, T, can generally

be divided into three subspaces: the conventionally possible, the potentially
possible, and the impossible CP, PP and IM for short. P searches CP and
nds nothing. Creativity not being his strong side among other reasons
because he lives in a culture where the world is seen as inexible, as governed
by ironclad laws of nature and laws of society enforced by iron sts he gives
up, assuming PP to be empty and IM to start where CP ends. It goes without
saying that, if violence is in CP and it usually is, most peoples around the
world have heard about it and learnt some by now, however innocent they may
have been at some point in time if CP is very limited and PP non-existing,
then violence would come at an early stage. Question: what is underlying these
kinds of attitudes?
One culturally embedded assumption has been indicated above: the faith
in iron laws, not of nature and of society. It is not by chance that we use the
same word (law, Gesetz, lov, loi, legge, ley, etc.) both for those of society and those
of nature. The origin for that sameness in the doubleness is easily seen: God
prescribed not only laws for man/humans but also for nature; to study nature,
hence, was to study God. Today, after the Enlightenment, we see the former as
given (by law-givers) and the latter as found (by scientists).
But the result is the same in all three cases, whether laws are given by God
or the successors to the theologians, the jurists and the scientists: action-spaces
are limited. There are constraints: laws of nature, laws of society. If people
believe these constraints to be inexible, immutable (or irreversible, to refer to
the preceding point), then so they are in their consequences (the Znaniecki-
Thomas theorem).
The negation of this would be a less God-given nature with laws established
once and for all, and less immutable social laws. To start with the latter: an
interesting characteristic of Anglo-Saxon common law, as opposed to Roman law,
is that the laws are themselves on trial because they also serve predictive functions.
If people break them en masse, then in what sense are they still a law? They are
not a social science law in the sense that they can be used to predict normal,
average behaviour, nor are they social laws in the sense of something that is
obeyed or at least not broken. What remains is an empty formulation, some
kind of epitaph over a dead law. A new law has to be born.
Cultural peace: 87
Within a culture of that type civil disobedience makes sense. Mass civil
disobedience adds a moral dimension to the decline of predictability, indicative
of what a new law might look like. That this is politics is beyond doubt: there
is nothing so political as a conict, any conict,13 and few ideas so revolutionary
as peace. Civil disobedience can also work with one person who says ich kann
nicht anders,14 but that person should rather be strong in all possible ways. Gandhi
combined Hindu ahimsa with Anglo-Saxon common law.
But how about laws of nature, can they also be transcended? A glance at
the history of natural sciences and their applications will immediately inform
us that the answer is yes: we do all the time. The typical approach is not to
change the laws but to introduce more variables so that what was (held to be)
impossible suddenly becomes possible, meaning that it was all the time potentially
possible.
A good example is the invention of the airplane: the contra-argument was
that it was impossible, otherwise it would already have been there; besides, why
do we have the laws of gravity anyhow, if not exactly to see to it that things that
are heavy are down and things that are light are up? Airplanes are heavy; the
conclusion is obvious. Within that single law discourse, yes, but when the
buoyancy created by two wings, at on the underside and curved on the upper
side, dragged through the air by even a relatively weak engine is added to the
force of gravity, then the thing takes off.
How about social science laws? Of course, they are more rubber and iron
laws but nevertheless, perhaps because people believe in them, something that
may serve as a barrier between CP and PP, and make PP look like IM. The
approach is exactly the same: a third variable is introduced in a relation between
two variables, showing that one cannot have industrial development without
destruction of the extended family because the workers have to move to the cities
and cannot bring all thirty members of the extended family. Solution: bring the
13. For that reason, slogans like the politics of everyday life and the politics of inner
life make complete sense and should not be regarded as reductionism. And peace
culture is as relevant there as anywhere a conict can be identied.
14. Luther, who somehow managed, in spite of working inside a Roman rather than an
Anglo-Saxon tradition.
88 Johan Galtung
industry to the villages, make parts, have a rst rate transportation-communication

system, like Japan and Switzerland.15
WHERE DO WE FIND KARMA, REVERSIBILITY

AND FLEXIBILITY?
Not much knowledge of culture and macro-culture (civilization) is needed to

know that one obvious answer to this question is Buddhism. The karma idea is
central, not in the frequently misunderstood (in the West) sense of
predetermination, but in the sense of whatever you say, and whatever you do,
sooner or later comes back to you. You say/do something bad and your karma
deteriorates; you say/do something good and your karma improves. The concept
is holistic, it takes anything you say and do (including the subvocal speech, the
cognitions-thoughts, and the subcutanous acts, the emotions-volitions). Above
all, there is a concept of individual karma but also of collective karma (you did
wrong to me/I did wrong to you) the more holistic, and more relational, we did
wrong to us, meaning you and I share a bad karma. What has to be changed is
our relation and through that also you and me. The term guilt locates what is
wrong at one karma point, in one actor, instead of predicating it of the karma as
a whole.16 Therapy follows from what has been said: not by the guilty engaging
in a confession-apology-penitence-catharsis sequence but through a process back
and forth between inner and outer dialogue to nd what went wrong and what
can be done.
But Oriental and Occidental approaches can and should be combined. The
point can be made that, if the guilty/non-guilty approach is too black-white, then
the karma approach is too 50/50. There are circumstances, even if the causal nexus
is extremely complex and cyclical rather than linear, where some are more
responsible (better than guilty) than others.
Interestingly, Buddhism also carries in its epistemology the two pillars of
15. For much more about this, see Johan Galtung, Science as Invariance-nding and
Invariance-breaking, Methodology and Ideology, Ch. 3, Copenhagen, Ejlers, 1977.
16. PBPM, Part II, Ch. 2.
Cultural peace: 89
reversibility and exibility here seen as essential.17 In Buddhist thinking, time,

being unlimited, has no end, nor any beginning, meaning that there is little or
no room for speculation about the state of origin and the nal state. From that,
however, reversibility does not follow: there could be room for innite progress
or innite regress, for instance. And there are elements of this in Buddhism as
nirvana is irreversible. On the other hand, for all of humanity we would be
operating with time perspectives of such a duration that for all practical purposes
such nal states carry few shadows into the present. The quality of the many
karmas oscillates, even if there is a happy ending in the very long run. There are
moral precepts, like the Noble Eight-Fold Path, the Panch Shila and the Panch
Dharma, but the epistemology opens for a never-ending creation process with one
possible interpretation being that the task is to identify those external
circumstances that favour inner growth.
This opens the cone of possible futures for any P in S, T. No god (or
successor) can prescribe forever what the laws of nature and society will be; one
reason being there is no god. However, Buddhists have, in practice, been more
interested in the laws of the inner human being than in social and natural laws,
Hindus and Chinese getting more into the social realm, and the West focusing
more on outer nature. Thus, Buddhists and Hindus have been bending the mind
like the West has been bending nature. And peace, they say, is located in the
minds of men; so reversibility and exibility of mind matter.
From the point of view of les sciences de lhomme, it would be nave to limit
the search for cultural paxogenes to religions alone. Of course paxogenes, peace
culture elements, can be found in all religions, in their softer rather than their
harder articulations. But culture should not be confused with the cultural
products/objects (among them religious texts and symbols) but should rather be
seen as the (symbolic) standards generating these products, such as the standards
for the true, the good, the right, the beautiful, the sacred. Any human group
develops such standards, perhaps not all ve types but at least the rst three. So
does any human category, dened by the lines classifying us humans, sometimes
17. For an exploration of Buddhist versus Christian epistemology, see Johan Galtung,
Methodology and Development, Ch. 1.1, Copenhagen, Ejlers, 1988, or Buddhism: A Quest
for Unity and Peace, Ch. 5, Colombo, Sarvodaya International, 1993.
90 Johan Galtung
also dividing us to the point that we can talk about fault-lines. A short list: gender,
generation, race, class, nation, territory (country).
My own experience from nearly fty years as a peace activist would be
that the carriers of peace are found among women more than among men; among
women of all ages, among men more among the young and the old (the middle-
aged being more dubious); race as such does not matter; among the middle
class more than in the upper and lower classes; certainly not among nations
ridden by Chosenness-Myths-Trauma (CMT) complexes, or among those
believing they have found the only valid truth for the whole world; and where
territory is concerned among the smaller countries rather than the larger, down
to the small and underutilized territorial units known as municipalities. And,
among non-territorial units, meaning non-governmental organizations, civil
society.
Let us regard these as hypotheses and try to identify underlying peace
cultures that may explain such ndings, even if it has to be done negatively in
the sense of postulating the absence of bellogenes rather than the presence of
paxogenes in category deep culture.
Gender
In patriarchies, males competing for positions might develop zero-sum views of
conicts more than women in an incessant search for ways of harmonizing the
goals of family members. It becomes me or you, not us. In that struggle there
is little or no room for admitting weakness, even to oneself. If there is imperfection
around the tendency, it will be to project it on the Other and attribute guilt rather
than to assume shared responsibility. Reversibility of any decision is tantamount
to the admission that the decision may have been wrong, a difficult position to
assume for the gender closer to the Omniscient/Omnipotent. Knowing their own
latent aggressiveness, men may, more than women, construct and embed
themselves in rigid hierarchies of ideas/theses (cultural violence, such as deductive
law) and of positions (structural violence, such as found in military-bureaucratic
hierarchies). Conclusion: no guarantee that women are carriers of peace cultures,
but the hypothesis that men in patriarchies are not.
Cultural peace: 91
Generation
Since much of what has been said about males above derives from positions in
society outside the family and as pater familias, it should apply less to the young
male on the way up but still a subordinate family member, and the old male on
the way down in society and family. Example: peace messages from retired senior
officers or defence ministers.
Race
No reason to assume any difference in the distribution of paxogenes and
bellogenes as long as gender, generation, class and nation are kept constant.
Class
The basic point to be made here is that class, as we know, it is basically dened
within a society, which up till now in practice means some combination of nation
and country. A person derives lite status from nation/country, for instance
through birth or education, and it is not automatically transmitted around the
world (not even for royalty). High at home, a nobody abroad; the opposite applies
more to the individual than to the socially construed person (nobody is a
prophet in his own country). As a consequence, lites would be particularly
inclined to play leading roles in inter-state and inter-nation conict for mutual
enhancement. And they will most easily be able to command the allegiance of
the segments of society most vulnerable to the lures of the carrot (for instance
because they may be starving, or at least unemployed) and the threats of the
stick (having little power). The result is an lite-working class national alliance,
and an inter-lite tacit alliance in sacricing workers.18
Not so, or less so, for the middle class. As opposed to the other two they,
the bourgeoisie, have a very similar lifestyle around the world: four members
in the family, four-room apartment, four-wheels on the car (the 4-4-4 syndrome).
18. A point often made about the First World War: the generals who sent the working
class across the trenches to kill each other were operating across considerable class
divides. In the end (1918) the soldiers revolted; in France that revolt was crushed
by Marchal Ptain.
92 Johan Galtung
They are the mass members of the peoples organizations, and at least potentially
cosmopolitan rather than nationalist.19 They can still be mobilized for war, but
they will try to avoid conscription, and seek peace-building roles instead.
Na t i o n
By denition nations are carriers of cultures, since that is how nations are dened.
However, I would prefer to build the denition of a nation and its culture around
something more primordial than language and religion, namely space and time,
and more particularly around the kairos points where glory and trauma, secular
and/or sacred, are dened. To protect the points in space, contiguous territory
around us seems to be the rational approach and, to protect the recurring points
in time, the memory, continuity of that territory in time. In short, the country,
with an organization of the state in its midst, even as a nation-state. At the micro-
level the family farm/estate/castle play the same role.
Te r r i t o r y
The essence has already been said: territory as the abode of the nation. A basic
problem, then, is whether territories and nations exclude each other. Drawing
borders, using rulers to rule, certainly makes territories look mutually exclusive,
although condominium, where administration is concerned and double citizenship
would still be possible. And the same would apply to nation: people are known
to speak more languages than one, some even to hold more religions than one,
and in multinational societies (like Hawaii) people can develop polynational
styles (like polyglot people), being conversant with more nations than one,
distributing their joy and grief more equally among the kairos points. One
condition for this, it might seem, is that there is no single nation dominating,
statistically or otherwise, the territory.
And here we choose to end. The theme is endless. So is the search to enhance
the paxogenes and pacify the bellogenes.
19. One reason why so much scorn was heaped upon them until the 1970s when the
potential usefulness for peace of these peoples organizations was discovered in the
Soviet Union.
93
Social and cultural sources

of violence
Santiago Genovs*
BACKGROUND
Since the moment I participated in the UNESCO meeting organized to adopt

the Statement on Race and Racism in Moscow in 1964, I realized we had to
work towards a Statement on Violence. That is the reason why I published a
series of books and works, as a result of direct or indirect experimentation with
regard to the contributions of other scholars on this subject. Furthermore, the
lm Pax and the animated cartoon Muscle and Culture (Genovs, 1976) were
prepared in the same spirit. While participating in another assembly on race
and racism in Athens in 1981, which was also organized under the auspices of
UNESCO, I became deeply convinced of the need for carrying this work
further.
Hence, based on my own research and that of others, I continued in the
same direction and tried to ght against taboos, prejudices, mistakes and
misunderstandings concerning the origins and sources of violence (Genovs, 1982,
1984a, 1984b, 1985, etc.). In general terms, a group of well-known researchers
(such as Lorenz, 1966, 1970; Lorenz and Leyhausen, 1973; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1970;
Ardrey, 1970; Storr, 1968; and, up to a certain point, others like Fromm, 1973;
Morris, 1969; Moyer, 1976; Ortega, 1982) maintained a different ethnological,
psychoanalytic and physiological point of view: that is, fundamentally, that
* Dean of the Institute for Anthropological Research, University of Mexico.

94 Santiago Genovs
violence is something innate to man.1 However, investigations by other authors

indicated that this was not so. Subsequently, a meeting between scholars in
different elds was held at the Monastery of la Rbida, near Seville in Spain, in
order to elaborate a statement on violence, The Seville Statement on Violence, which
has now been adopted by more than 100 international and national scientic
organizations, including UNESCO.
It is based on ve points:
1. It is scientically incorrect to say that violence is genetically determined.
2. It is scientically incorrect to say that it comes from our animal past.
3. It is scientically incorrect to say that, in the process of human evolution,
there has been a greater selection for aggressive behaviour than for other
kinds of behaviour.
4. It is scientically incorrect to say that humans have a violent brain.
5. It is scientically incorrect to say that violent behaviour is genetically
inherited.
Thus, just as wars begin in the minds of men, peace also begins in our minds.
The same species which invented war is capable of inventing peace. The
responsibility lies with each of us.
The Seville Statement was prepared by nineteen scientists from different parts
of the world and from many disciplines (genetics, neurophysiology, anthropology,
sociology, history, psychology, ethnology, palaeoanthropology, psychiatry).
The lm Pax, as well as a television series entitled Expedition to Violence,2
comprising ve one-hour parts, constitutes the most evident antecedents to The
Seville Statement on Violence.3
It is evident (Genovs, 1994; de Saint Blanquat, 1989) that we have not had
a palaeoanthropologically true proof of generalized, institutionalized violence
1. For contrary views, beyond my own, see among others: Mead, 1940; Roe and
Simpson, 1958; Scott, 1990; Alland, 1967; Montagu, 1976; Dastague, 1982;
Messmacher et al., 1986; Hinde and Groebel, 1988; de Saint Blanquat, 1989.
2. Spain, UNESCO-Mexico, produced by Televisa.
3. This is intended to give the scholar essential data which lead, historically and
scientically, to a 180 change about what we know today of the origins and sources
of violence and, starting from the integrative and interdisciplinary Seville Statement on
Violence, to dedicate ourselves fundamentally to its social and cultural aspects.
Social and cultural 95
sources of violence
during the process of hominization over the last 5 million years. Generalized,
institutionalized violence started with a great revolution of man, the Agricultural
Revolution approximately 7,000 years ago, and was exacerbated by the Industrial
Revolution approximately 200 hundred years ago.
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS OF VIOLENCE
It is clear that to exert violence, we use biology or its technological extensions.

However, the origin of generalized and institutionalized violence is not biological;
it is a phenomenon with which we are preoccupied, for we should certainly deal
with its sociological and cultural aspects.4
Even before civilization, evolution propelled by chance and need followed
a pattern going beyond what was logical or reasonable. Let us not return any
further to the past but start with the rst vertebrate, the amphioxus, found on
sandy beaches in Italy and subsequently elsewhere. We can say the world was
theirs. But, no, in time amphioxus became sh and owned three-quarters of the
earth. As time went by, sh became amphibious and owned both sea and land.
Again, in time, reptiles, in turn, became birds and other mammals. Birds remained
in the air, but mammals became primates, primates became hominoids and
hominoids became hominids and hominids became Homo faber,5 and . . . here we
are.
Thus the impulse to go further appears before culture, which constitutes,
nevertheless, a greater leap than any taken in all of the stages mentioned above.
It is an extra-biological leap which in some way continues the biological impulse
to go beyond what is known.
Culture, as we know it, starts when we begin to play with pebbles. This
game implicitly leads to the constant adventure of proceeding further and further,
4. Findings at the beginning of the 1950s are of questionable value, particularly in the
medico-genetic eld, and have led to a supposed biological determinism of all
behaviour, including violent behaviour; see Genovs, 1994.
5. Whether we have or have not reached the stage of Homo sapiens, as we pompously
call ourselves, remains still to be seen. The intraspecic violence can nish us all,
before we reach the stage sapiens.
96 Santiago Genovs
always searching for Utopia, the unknown which frequently we reach. In the
pursuit of this exclusively cultural and perennial search through ignorance, like
a child who sticks his nger into the eye of another child, we are hurt and it is
intraspecic violence which we perpetrate. Owing to cultural (historical, linguistic,
religious, economic, political, etc.) reasons or absurdities, we kill one another,
for all those reasons which elephants, sharks, tigers, etc., cannot discern. I insist:
cultural differences are the main motives of intraspecic violence today and
have been since the Agricultural Revolution. In the very rst place, the conscious
or unconscious search for leadership and power. Conscious or not, we are here
to know ourselves and to be appreciated by others. The more people who see
us, in the scope of our inalienable human egocentrism, the more reections we
obtain in the mirror made by others. But we also hope for respect, thus we seek
for leadership.6
Secondly, the constant change of roles, hour by hour, day by day, week by
week. Others frequently cannot adapt or understand these fast changes to new
roles, new masks: violence.
Thirdly, every day we are aware of greater differences in levels of
information, which create envy, uneasiness and violence among individuals or
groups possessing wide cultural information as opposed to those with almost
none, who are close to us, both at individual levels and in the extended social
environments.7
Fourthly, the decit in processes of socialization during the rst years of life.
This decit is reected, by cultural inheritance, in the way children with an initial
decit act when they become adult (abused child syndrome, violence towards
women and the weak, etc.).
Subsequently, depending both on geographical zones and on differing
circumstances, lack of culture (which includes many of the so-called cultivated,
that is, those who have studied, attended university, etc.), obvious external
differences caused by genetic realities, such as the colour of the skin and hair,
6. The other way to know ourselves, by slow, arduous and persistent introspection, is
a long process to which few can dedicate themselves.
7. The struggles, until a point of near death, both in science and the humanities and
arts, are daily examples. The two world wars are painful examples of this.
sources of violence
sex, height, language, produce violence and racism follows. There is a reason
for this: taxonomically, we have linear categories: gender, species, race. It is a
law of nature that everybody feeds off other species, including vegetarians.
Racism is therefore a natural consequence which prevails, owing to lack of
culture.
An idea akin to this is found in what constitutes the essence of Sartres
existentialism: to refer to the others as objects. And the more they are
biologically different from us, the more we think of them as objects: the soldier
object; the woman object; the negro object or, for the negro, the white
object, etc. When we consider other human beings as objects, violence is
caused, for reasons which are obvious.
CULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY
On the other hand, when we have become slaves of the massive means of
communication (direct: trains, ships, aeroplanes, automobiles; or indirect: radio
and television), we lose the possibility which formed us palaeoanthropologically
and made us ready for physical adventure. Suddenly, great ships, great trains,
great automobiles, great planes. To go today from Mexico to China does not
represent more than having the money for the ticket. Yet, suddenly the true
physical adventure which we lived over hundreds of thousands of years is over.
We live today in a world in direct need of adventure. We live by projection of
what we see on television happening to Robert Redford or to Peter OToole,
usually in distant lands; unusual adventures, while we only live subway-work-
sleep, subway-work-sleep.
From the taste for television, the taste for exciting and massive rock
concerts, drugs, indiscriminate sex, all of which spring from a yearning for real
communication, such as when we go to great stadiums to live, by empathy and
projection, the adventure of the match. Thus, to outlandish dress with knee-length
boots, greatcoats and cowboy hats in the middle of the city, in Chelsea, in
Montmartre, as if we were to hunt lions in Africa. And all we can do is have a
Coca-Cola in a nearby bar, etc.
Yes, physical adventure is over and we search everywhere for the way to
recover it. We look for it as we looked unsuccessfully for violence in biology.
98 Santiago Genovs
Nothing else exists but a ctitious, controlled, domestically prepared physical

adventure. There are many authors who have demonstrated each of these points.
We have corroborated this in three experiments with rafts, with a total of 212
days isolation at sea for twenty-six human beings.
Yes, the rst great leap was the interaction of biology and pebbles, and the
second the Agricultural Revolution; the third is the other adventure, already
dawning: the Adventure of Thought, through knowledge, science, humanism
and technology, integrated and in constant feedback. We are, even though it does
not seem so, at the beginning of this huge adventure: that of culture, which
possesses ights beyond those already imagined by the limited physical adventure,
circumscribed within our planet up to now, or to some of the closer planets for
a selected few in the future.
The adventure of creation through thought, of investigation and
experimentation, does not have limits, though it seems limited by violence, wars,
inhuman and anti-ethical mortality, attributed wrongly to destiny and biological
fatality. This is not so! As Lon Felipe8 would say:
Tell me no more tales
for I come from afar
and I know all the tales
tell me no more tales
that I do not want to be lulled with tales

that I do not want to,
that I do not want to
that I do not want my mouth and eyes to be sealed with tales,
that I do not want to
that I do not want to be buried with tales . . .
To obtain the true adventure of thought, it is necessary to tell the tale we have
8. Spanish poet. Born in 1884 in Tabara (Province of Zamora). Died in Mexico in

1968.
sources of violence
told, from knowledge, from science. Let us tell it to friends and people around
us so that instead of throwing deadly stones at one another, we use them to build
energy, a new world. By opening space to man, the process of evolution has, for
the rst time, become self-conscious. This nally gave us the possibility of having
evolution directed by man, when the absurd prevails. The absurd was to think
that we had to kill each other because of biological fatalism. We have told
ourselves that this is not so. But the tales are over.
Since the beginning of the century, it has been demonstrated that intraspecic
survival is fundamentally due to processes of co-operation and not of intraspecic
struggle. Otherwise, from the Australopithecids till now, we would not be here.
Owing to lack of culture, this has still not been acknowledged, except by certain
limited human groups.
CONCLUSION
The present UNESCO study constitutes a step forward since the 1986 Seville
Statement on Violence. Just as UNESCO arrived at successive statements on the
broadened and improved concepts of race as new scientic knowledge appeared,
let us hope, in the same way, that this will be the rst step to obtain a Second
Statement on Violence. Such a statement should determine the cultural and social
processes which are at the root of the present constant state of violence and which
threaten to end the solitary raft on which we live, planet Earth, beyond most
valuable biological aspects and processes which, in a natural and general form,
determine our behaviour: birds y; sh swim, which our species cannot do
biologically. Or the discoveries of genetics and molecular biology which
increasingly help us every day to know, or even prevent, situations which harm
health. But:
What is broken is not
the water the glass holds.
What is broken is the glass
and the water spills on to the oor
We therefore now denitely need an extensive and profound Second Statement

on Violence concerning sociocultural environments; this is a difficult task for a
bioethical culture, but it is possible.
100 Santiago Genovs
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALLAND, A. 1967. Evolution of Human Behavior. Garden City, N.Y., American Museum
Science Books.
ARDREY, R. 1970. The Social Contract. New York, Atheneum.
DASTAGUE, J. 1982. Les maladies de nos anctres. La Recherche, No. 13, pp. 9808.
E IBL-E IBESFELDT, I. 1970. Ethology: The Science of Behaviour. New York, Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
FROMM, E. 1973. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. New York, Holt, Rinehart &
Winston. 478 pp.
GENOVS, S. 1976. El experimento acali. Ciencia y dessarrollo (CONACYT), Vol. II,
No. 8, pp. 47.
. 1982. A propsito de Darwin: una crtica sin sentido. Informacin cientca y
tecnolgica, Vol. 4, No. 63, pp. 2021.
. 1984a. Igualdad y desigualdad en el tiempo: antropologa. Ciencia y desarrollo,
No. 55, pp. 917.
. 1984b. De profundia: gentica y ambiente. Informacin cientca y tecnolgica
(CONACYT), Vol. 6, No. 9, pp. 1213.
. 1985. Human Evolution and Human Behavior. Rethinking Some Particular
Paleanthropological Point about Evolution, with Special Reference to Human
Behavior. Proceedings of 3rd European and 1st Panhellenic Anthropological
Congress, Athens. Anthropos, Vol. 10, pp. 195204.
. 1994. Violence Revisited. UNESCO, Paris. 232 pp.
HINDE, R. A.; GROEBEL, J. (eds.). 1988. The Problem of Aggression. In: Aggression
and War Their Biological and Social Bases, pp. 39. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
LORENZ, K. 1966. On Aggression. New York, Harcourt, Brace & World.
. 1970. Studies in Animal and Human Behavior, Vol. 1. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard
University Press. 366 pp.
LORENZ, K.; LEYHAUSEN, P. 1973. Motivation of Human and Animal Behavior: An Ecological
View. New York, D. Van Nostrand.
MEAD, M. 1940. Warfare: Only an Invention Not a Biological Necessity. Asia,
No. 40, pp. 4025.
MESSMACHER, M.; GENOVS, S.; NOLASCO, M. 1986. Dinmica Maya. Mexico City,
FCE.
sources of violence
MONTAGU, M. F. A. 1976. The Nature of Human Aggression. New York, Oxford Ross.
MORRIS, D. 1969. The Human Zoo. Toronto, Clark, Irwin & Co. 256 pp.
MOYER, K. E. 1976. The Psychobiology of Aggression. New York, Harper & Row.
ORTEGA, A. 1982. La agresividad, el instinto de la muerte. Mexico City, Universidad
Autnoma del Estado de Mxico.
ROE, A. G.; SIMPSON, G. (eds.). 1958. Behavior and Evolution. New Haven, Conn.,
Yale University Press.
SAINT B LANQUAT, H. de. 1989. Linvention de la guerre. Sciences et avenir, No. 506,
pp. 8186.
SCOTT, J. P. 1990. Ethology and Aggression. Para conocer al hombre, pp. 93114.
Mexico City, Universidad Autnoma de Mxico.
STORR, A. 1992. Human Aggression. London, Penguin.
WILSON, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard
University Press.
103
Creating global/local cultures

of peace
L i n d a G r o f f * a n d Pa u l S m o k e r * *
INTRODUCTION
During recent years, the term a culture of peace has become increasingly
popular, thanks to UNESCOs initiative, but there is at present no clear consensus
as to how the term should be interpreted. Should it be the culture of peace, or
should it be a culture of peace, or should we think in a more pluralistic fashion
about cultures of peace, thus incorporating part of UNESCOs operational
denition that a culture of peace cannot be imported or imposed from outside,
but must develop from the culture of the people concerned? There are many
different ways to dene the concept cultures of peace, and we shall consider
some of them in this article, but whichever denition is used, it is important to
recognize that culture has both micro or local aspects, as well as macro or global
aspects, for example Western or Eastern, and that there are many different
cultural traditions which need to be included in any cultures of peace concept.
This also raises the issue of peace within cultures and peace between cultures.
There are too many historical examples of a nation or group co-operating and
organizing internally in order to undertake violence or wage war on an external
group; indeed, inner cohesion and collaboration is often a necessary condition
for such actions. From a systems point of view, every cultures of peace concept
* Professor of Political Science and Future Studies, California State University, Carson,
California, USA.
** Professor, Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio, USA.
104 Linda Groff
and Paul Smoker
needs to apply within and between cultures, to be a property of both the local
parts and the global whole. UNESCO recognizes this fact in its operational
denition of a culture of peace, when it stresses that local programmes are
embedded in a national and perhaps subregional context, as well as the global
context of the United Nations and its Specialized Agencies.
The problem of deciding what we mean by the term culture(s) of peace is
further complicated by the various interpretations of the two key elements
culture and peace, as noted below. After looking at different denitions of
culture, and the evolution of six different perspectives on peace, largely within
Western peace research, this paper will then discuss six perspectives on a culture
of peace and six perspectives on non-violence as they relate to peace in each of
these six areas.
CULTURE: DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS
There are a number of different denitions of culture, a few of which will be

explored here. First, it must be noted that there are both narrow and broad
denitions of culture. Narrow denitions focus on the arts, including literature,
poetry, music, theatre, painting, dance, etc. Broader denitions, which are used
in anthropology and intercultural communication elds, include all our socially
learned behaviour. Thus one anthropological denition of culture is that it is
learned, shared, patterned behaviour, as reected in technology/tools, social
organizations (including economic, political, social, religious, educational, family,
and other organizations) and ideas/beliefs. The key point is that culture is not
something one is born with but something that is learned after one is born; it is
also passed down from one generation to the next. Culture is also shared by a
group of people together, and all the different aspects of ones culture must
somehow t together into an overall pattern.
Another denition of culture is what gives meaning to life. A third denition
of culture looks at deeper, hidden levels of meaning, in addition to surface-level,
more apparent meanings. Here culture is dened as common symbols, rituals
and hero gures (visible), shared by a group of people, based on a set of values
and underlying assumptions about reality (hidden). This denition is illustrated
in Figure 1.
Creating global/local 105
cultures of peace
Symbols
Rituals
Heroes
Shared values Values Shared values
Underlying assumptions
including
Relationship with others
Relationship with nature
Relationship with God
FIG. 1. Culture: visible and hidden dimensions.
E V O L U T I O N O F T H E P E A C E C O N C E P T, E S P E C I A L L Y
I N W E S T E R N P E A C E R E S E A R C H : S I X S TA G E S
The term peace, like culture, has a wide range of interpretations. This section
outlines six broad categories of peace-thinking which have emerged historically
within Western peace research, especially over the past fty years (since the end
of the Second World War). These six categories roughly correspond to the
evolution of peace-thinking in Western peace research. This does not mean that
all scholars once thought one way and now think another, nor that the majority
of peace researchers now adopt the sixth type of peace-thinking, the holistic
inner/outer peace paradigm. Rather it argues that overall there has been a trend
in peace research away from the traditional idea that peace is simply the absence
of war towards a more holistic view, as seen in Figure 2.
These stages in the evolution of the peace concept include the following.
1 . Pe a c e a s a b s e n c e o f w a r
Figure 2 summarizes six perspectives on peace in terms of the levels of analysis
and theoretical focus which each includes. The rst perspective, peace as the
absence of war, is applied to violent conict between and within states: war and
civil war. This view of peace is still widely held among the population in general
and politicians. In certain situations, it can be argued that this is still a legitimate
106 Linda Groff
and Paul Smoker
ce r
r c es e p ea -oute
fwa f o r a l a c i a - e r
eo
f ur e Ga inn
nc e o truct nce nist p tic listic ce
s e l a nc s l e m i l i s a
Ab Ba No vio Fe Ho Ho pe
Environmental
Global
pe ac e
International
Between states
Oute r
PEACE
Within states
Community
Family
and individual
Inner peace
F IG. 2. Six concepts in the evolution of peace.
objective, at least until the killing stops and it is possible to ask for more out of
life than avoiding death in war. Furthermore, all six denitions of peace discussed
here require absence of war as a necessary precondition for peace.
2 . Pe a c e a s t h e b a l a n c e o f f o r c e s
in the international system
Quincy Wright (1941) modied this idea of absence of war to suggest that peace
was a dynamic balance involving political, social, cultural and technological
factors, and that war occurred when this balance broke down. Wright argued
that this balance of forces occurred in the international system, dened in terms
of the overall pattern of relationships between states and international
governmental organizations (IGOs), as well as between and within states. Wright
also discussed the role of domestic public opinion within a state, which involves
cultures of peace
the community level of analysis. His model assumed that any signicant change
in one of the factors involved in the peace balance would require corresponding
changes in other factors to restore the balance. For example, Robert Oppenheimer,
the much misunderstood father of the atomic bomb, adopted Wrights view
when he insisted on continuing to develop the bomb so that a global political
institution, the United Nations, would have to be created to help control the new
global military technology.
3 . Pe a c e a s n e g a t i v e p e a c e ( n o w a r ) a n d p o s i t i v e
peace (no structural violence)
Galtung (1969) further modied Wrights view, using the categories negative
peace and positive peace which Wright had rst put forward some twenty-
eight years earlier. Galtung developed a third position and argued that negative
peace was the absence of war and that positive peace was the absence of
structural violence, a concept dened in terms of the numbers of avoidable
deaths caused simply by the way social, economic and other structures were
organized. Thus if people starve to death when there is food to feed them
somewhere in the world, or die from sickness when there is medicine to cure
them, then structural violence exists, since alternative structures could, in theory,
prevent such deaths. Peace under this rubric involves both positive and negative
peace being present. Galtungs model (in addition to the community, within states,
between states, and international levels of analysis) includes the global level of
analysis, such as the global economy which is inuenced by non-state actors, for
example non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and multinational corporations
(MNCs).
4 . Fe m i n i s t p e a c e : m a c r o a n d m i c r o l e v e l s o f p e a c e
During the 1970s and 1980s, a fourth perspective was ushered in by feminist
peace researchers, who extended both negative peace and positive peace to
include violence and structural violence down to the individual level (Brock-Utne,
1989). The new denition of peace then included not only the abolition of macro-
level organized violence, such as war, but also doing away with micro-level
unorganized violence, such as rape in war or in the home. In addition, the concept
of structural violence was similarly expanded to include personal, micro- and
108 Linda Groff
and Paul Smoker
macro-level structures which harm or discriminate against particular individuals

or groups. This feminist peace model came to include all types of violence, broadly
dened, against people, from the individual to the global level, arguing that this
is a necessary condition for a peaceful planet.
5. Holistic Gaia-peace:1 peace with the environment

The 1990s have seen the emergence of two types of holistic peace-thinking
(Dreher, 1991; Macy, 1991; Smoker, 1991). Here, as with the feminist model,
peace between people applies across all levels of analysis, from the family and
individual level to the global level. In addition, the Gaia-peace theory places a
very high value on the relationship of humans to bio-environmental systems, the
environmental level of analysis. Peace with the environment is seen as central
for this type of holistic peace theory, where human beings are seen as one of
many species inhabiting the earth, and the fate of the planet is seen as the most
important goal. This type of holistic peace-thinking does not have a spiritual
dimension, peace being dened in terms of all forms of physical violence against
people and the environment.
6. Holistic inner and outer peace

This sixth view of peace sees inner, esoteric (spiritual) aspects of peace as essential.
Spiritually based peace theory stresses the centrality of inner peace, believing
that all aspects of outer peace, from the individual to the environmental levels,
must be based on inner peace. In addition to the relationships of human beings
with each other and the world, including the environment, a spiritual dimension
is added to Gaia-peace theory. This dimension is expressed in different ways by
peace researchers, depending on their cultural context. As in Fritjof Capras The
Tao of Physics, where new paradigms in physics resonate with world-views found
in Eastern mysticism, this new paradigm in peace research resonates with much
1. In Greek mythology, Gaia symbolized the Earth conceived as the primordial element
from which sprang the divine races. . . . Earth, the power and inexhaustible reserve
of fecundity, gradually became known as the Universal Mother and the mother of
the gods (Pierre Grimal, The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, trans. A. R. Maxwell-
Hyslop, Oxford, Blackwell, 1986).
cultures of peace
thinking in world spiritual and religious traditions. Peace has truly become
indivisible.
Summary on evolution of the peace concept:

from single to multifactored definitions;
from single to multiple (macro and micro) levels;
from negative to positive conceptions; and
from outer peace only to both inner and outer peace
The above discussion illustrates a number of important changes in the peace

concept in Western peace research during the last fty years. The idea that peace
can be dened in terms of a single factor, absence of war, has been replaced in
subsequent peace theories by multifactored theories which include a number of
other requirements, such as no structural violence and peace with the
environment. While the absence of war remains a necessary condition for all
peace denitions, it is no longer sufficient in most formulations of peace. At the
same time, there has been a shift from including just the state level of analysis
in absence of war denitions, to peace theories which include (for outer peace)
multiple levels of analysis from the individual to the environmental. Multi-factor,
multi-level concepts of peace are, as a consequence, considerably more complex
than simple, absence of war theories.
Two other important issues in the evolution of the Western peace concept
concern the various interpretations of positive peace (which, after Galtung, was
expressed in terms of absence of structural violence) and non-violence (the verbal
construction of which suggests an absence of violence framework, that is non-
violence, somewhat parallel to the peace as absence of war perspective). In this
section of the paper, we would like to consider the evolution from negative to
positive views of peace, including the evolution of the positive peace concept
itself.
Schmidt, in his critical Marxist analysis, Politics and Peace Research (1968),
argued that value-positive concepts of peace were doomed to failure within peace
research, because it would not be possible for peace researchers to achieve a
consensus on what constituted a positive view of peace. He put forward the view
that peace researchers could only agree on what they were against, for example
war, starvation and poverty. Schmidts article was arguably the main stimulus to
110 Linda Groff
and Paul Smoker
Galtungs 1969 rejoinder, in which he redened Quincy Wrights concept positive

peace to mean the absence of structural violence, that is the harmful social,
political and economic structures which are responsible for avoidable human
deaths through preventable starvation or treatable illness. Galtungs positive
peace concept, the absence of structural violence, like his negative peace concept,
the absence of war, did not include an inner or spiritual dimension. Peace of
both sorts took place in the outer world and positive peace was a function of
human social structures.
Feminist theory, the fourth perspective dened above, broadened the positive
peace concept to include micro-structures, such as the family, as well as Galtungs
macro-structures, but, for the most part, it still emphasized the elimination of the
undesirable, such as war and wife-beating. At the same time, however, there was
an increasing emphasis on value-positive thinking (stressing desirable alternatives,
such as visualizing alternative futures as a part of the process of moving towards
those futures the work on imaging positive futures by Elise Boulding in the
peace research community being an excellent example).
An earlier paper (Smoker, 1981) discussed the extent to which peace research,
as reected in the pages of a dening journal, such as the Journal of Peace Research,
had focused almost entirely on negative concerns, such as how to avoid or control
war, aggression, physical violence and structural violence. Since that article,
which was part of a special issue of the Journal of Peace Research on peace, the
situation has not changed signicantly.
This has not been true in futures studies, where a focus not only on trends
(negative and positive) but also on creating desirable, alternative futures has
contributed towards the development of both negative and positive
conceptualizations. There is a sizeable group of people within the Western futures
community, but by no means all futurists, whose visioning of positive alternative
futures is also based, at least in part, on a spiritual, holistic, perspective. The
works of Barbara Marx Hubbard, Marilyn Ferguson and Jean Houston, an
outstanding group of women futurists, are particularly notable examples.
The emergence of holistic peace paradigms in peace research, whether
spiritual and/or environmental, has included an increasing emphasis on positive
conceptions of peace. In part, this is because of our realization that, whatever
our nationality, culture or religious tradition, we are all interconnected and
cultures of peace
interdependent. Viewed from space, planet Earth is a blue-green sphere; we cannot

see national boundaries, but we can see the land and the water, ice-caps, deserts
and forests. The Earth is clearly a whole complex system, a living being perhaps.
We, as individuals and groups, are but a part of the planet, as the planet itself
is a part of the solar system, galaxy and universe. The new thinking, it can be
argued, represents a return to wholeness, not in the sense of uniformity, but in
the sense of complexity dynamically balanced in interaction, the whole as
integrated synergy. This mind-set enables an appreciation of the interdependence
of species in the global ecosystem, of particular cultural meanings in the context
of the total global cultural system, and of particular faiths in the rich diversity
of global religions. The whole is more than the sum of the parts, and the greater
the variety of the parts, the richer the expression of the global whole.
Whereas peace as absence of war typies the conceptual framework for
most popular peace-thinking, there are other aspects to peace. The answer to
the question If you think about peace, how would you dene it? might, in the
majority of cases, very well be absence of war or absence of violence. But the
answer to the question When you are at peace, what does it feel like? will almost
certainly describe some form of inner peace experience involving being at one
with, or being peaceful or calm. This is because the actual experiences of peace
which most, if not all, of us have as human beings in Western or Eastern culture
are related to inner peace. Inner peace also involves an inner knowing or intuitive
dimension, beyond the feeling dimension where one suddenly understands
patterns and relationships between things which were not understood before.
This type of classical experience is the basis for creativity, and tapping this source
would also do much to enrich peace researchers visions of a positive future world
at peace.
Holistic peace paradigms which include spiritual and/or environmental
concerns resonate with our positive peace experiences and, as a result, are better
able to add value-positive images to their intellectual frameworks. Positive peace
can therefore be seen as an evolving concept, a concept which does not yet exist
in the initial peace as absence of war denition but a concept that subsequently
takes on different meanings as the peace concept expands.
112 Linda Groff
and Paul Smoker
CULTURES OF PEACE : SIX PERSPECTIVES

(BASED ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE PEACE CONCEPT)
The term a culture of peace has recently become an important focus for
UNESCO, both in academic terms, as witnessed by the 1993 and 1994 Barcelona
conferences on Contribution by Religions to the Culture of Peace and, in
practical terms, as evidenced by the launching of UNESCO eld projects in the
developing countries around this concept. An important theoretical question
concerns the possible meanings of the term cultures of peace, particularly since
the previous sections of this paper illustrated the broad range of interpretations
given to the words culture and peace. Therefore this section is best seen as a
contribution to a preliminary discussion of cultures of peace concepts, a discussion
which is likely to continue for some time.
Earlier in this paper, we noted that culture can be dened as learned, shared,
patterned behaviour, as reected in technology and tools, social organizations,
including economics, politics, religion, media, education and the family, as well
as ideas. From this point of view, socialization is the process through which culture
is learned, including our religious beliefs and practices. The agents of socialization
include language, politics, economics, religion, education, family and the media.
Culture here provides the medium through which we interpret the world, the
context of meanings small and large which makes coherence possible. A
culture of peace, therefore, would be a culture which makes peace possible and,
as we have seen in the previous section, what is meant by a culture of peace will
almost certainly vary according to the concept of peace used.
1. Culture of peace as absence of war
If peace is just the absence of war between and within states, then a culture of
peace would be a culture that made war between or within states increasingly
unlikely, until eventually inter-state and intra-state war would cease. Such a
culture of peace has long been established in certain parts of the world and
between certain states, for example, between Canada and the United States, the
United Kingdom and France, and Australia and New Zealand. It has been
argued elsewhere that there has been a worldwide trend towards such a culture
of peace for some centuries (Smoker, 1984). The steadily decreasing frequency
cultures of peace
of inter-state warfare in Europe, for example, has taken place over a period of
some hundreds of years, so that there is now this sort of culture of peace between
all members of the European Community. Similarly, worldwide, there has been
a clear trend away from inter-state warfare being the dominant mode, as was the
case before 1938; through intra-state armed conict with foreign military
intervention being the dominant mode, for example the Viet Nam or Afghanistan
wars, as was the case up to the middle 1980s; to the present situation, in which
intra-state armed conict, usually between nations (as distinct from states) or
culturally distinct ethnic groups, without armed foreign military intervention, is
the dominant form of violent conict, for example, in former Yugoslavia,
Myanmar and Rwanda.
So while at one level, that is, between states, much progress towards a culture
of peace (as absence of war) has been made, the same is not true within states,
particularly where culturally distinct nations or ethnic groups are concerned. A
consideration of a culture of peace as the balance of forces in the international
system is necessary to explore this problem.
2. A culture of peace as the balance of forces

The establishment of a balance of forces for peace has been explained by various
theorists in terms of increased economic, social and political interdependencies
between states in the international system, making violent conict between them
less likely. Thus the idea of a war between France and Germany is now
unthinkable to either side, despite the fact that just fty years ago these two states
provided a battleeld for the bloodiest war in human history. The same is
probably not true for India and Pakistan, Argentina and Chile, or the Democratic
Peoples Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea, although integration
theorists would and do argue that the danger of war between any of these states
has in most cases lessened and will certainly diminish in the future with increased
economic, social and political interdependencies. This functional integration
argument, which is closely related to the balance of forces point of view, suggests
that if peace is seen as a balance of forces in the international system which enables
change to be dealt with non-violently at the state level, then the globalization
process, in line with the integrationist arguments detailed above, should strengthen
114 Linda Groff
and Paul Smoker
a culture of peace. This is particularly true for the period since the Second World
War, following the establishment of the United Nations and the dramatic
expansion in international governmental organizations (IGOs), international
non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and multinational (MNCs) and
transnational corporations (TNCs). During this period, a balance of forces
culture of peace has grown substantially, as indicated by the dramatic fall in cross-
border wars between states. A culture of peace in this sense refers to the structures,
norms and customs which have grown up in the international system, and within
states, and which are increasingly accepted as appropriate, if not yet required,
conditions to be an accepted member of the community of states.
Theorists such as Kenneth Boulding have argued that the development of
zones of peace, in the sense of peace as absence of war, has in part resulted from
the movement for peace. For Boulding, the movement for peace is an indirect
consequence of increased economic and social interdependencies between two
states in the international system, while the peace movement is represented by
individuals and groups who actively campaign against war, nuclear weapons and
other undesirable features of the international system. Zones of peace are areas
in which war between, or within, states has become increasingly unlikely, because
of the multiple interdependencies between both states and nations within the
zone.
3. A culture of peace for negative peace (no war)

and positive peace (no structural violence)
If we turn to a culture of peace in the Galtungian framework, and we focus on
the issue of structural violence, then the world picture is less positive, but by no
means entirely negative. At the non-governmental level, large numbers of
international citizens groups have emerged which struggle to create the economic,
social and political context to overcome the harshest manifestations of structural
violence, namely poverty, starvation and preventable disease. In addition, many
governments contribute to humanitarian missions worldwide as a matter of duty,
accepting some measure of shared responsibility for the human tragedies which
appear daily on our television screens. While it can, with some legitimacy, be
argued that the global economic and political structures of the world continue
to contribute substantially to global structural violence through the activities of
cultures of peace
multinational and transnational corporations and the inevitable consequences of

the current international economic system, it has to be recognized that a number
of multi-million-dollar private enterprises, and thousands of similar smaller
groups, work to overcome structural violence using economic, social and political
approaches. While this interpretation of a culture of peace has not yet succeeded
in changing values or economic, political and social structures sufficiently to create
a world in which structural violence becomes progressively less likely, there is
strong evidence to suggest the emergence of a culture of peace of this sort. The
actions of citizens and governments in humanitarian aid, while often inadequate,
are nevertheless an established part of international relations: they are the norm,
rather than the exception.
4. A culture of peace for feminist peace

on macro and micro levels
If the concept of a culture of peace is interpreted in the feminist framework, then
the cultural conditions necessary for peace do not exist in any country. Physical
and structural violence at the micro level, in the community and family, on the
streets and in the schools, is widespread, and the cultural, social, political and
economic changes required to create a feminist culture of peace represent a major
challenge to every national society, as well as in most, if not all, institutions,
including many religious ones. While the three previously discussed models of
peace have stressed peace at macro levels of analysis, the feminist models are
rmly rooted in personal experience, and are based upon how peace feels to
individuals. The evolution of the peace concept towards holistic peace, which
includes both inner and outer aspects, required this shift which, it can be argued,
represented the biggest single contribution of feminist peace theory. Whereas the
three previous models tended to conceptualize peace using abstract, general
concepts applied towards the more global level, the feminist models turned these
conceptions upside down and clearly dened peace from the personal, experiential
level. Feminist notions of structure stress circular complex patterns as opposed
to the complex, hierarchical notions associated with Galtungian denitions of
structural violence. In this regard, the feminist theories also represent a shift
towards value-positive perceptions of peace which stress holistic, non-hierarchical
interaction between human beings.
116 Linda Groff
and Paul Smoker
A feminist culture of peace, based on personal analyses, requires fundamental

changes in societal values, in the North as well as the South, if the conditions
conducive to the creation of peace, in the feminist sense, are to be achieved. The
AIDS issue highlights the centrality of culture in overcoming micro level structural
violence. Likewise, issues such as domestic violence and child abuse, which have
been highlighted by feminist scholars, will require similar fundamental changes
in cultural values. While much feminist scholarship has stressed micro-violence,
such as wife-beating, there has also been a focus on macro-structural questions,
such as the pervasive effects of patriarchal structures. As a consequence, feminist
conceptions of a culture of peace will also require wide societal changes in
personal cultural values.
5. A culture of peace for holistic Gaia-peace:

peace with the environment
A holistic Gaia-peace interpretation of a culture of peace presents an even broader
set of concerns which must be brought into play. Whereas the environment, until
fairly recently in Western civilization, was seen as a resource to exploit, separate
from human beings, it is now seen as connected to us. The extension of outer
peace to include peace with the environment represents an important and
necessary evolution of the peace concept, whether the environment is seen as
just a tightly integrated biochemical system or as the Goddess Gaia, a living being,
a whole system integrated both in functional and meaningful terms. The shift
in values towards a concern for peace with the environment has not yet led to
widespread, radical changes in cultural values, but perhaps that process has begun.
In a period of less than twenty years, there has been a shift towards
environmentalism in most societies on the planet, green peace has become more
than the name of an important environmental pressure group, and there is now
widespread verbal recognition of the need to live in harmony with the
environment, a need that for some may be purely functional but which for many,
if not most, is based on a vision of planet Earth as sacred.
cultures of peace
6. A culture of peace for holistic inner

and outer peace
For Western peace research, this represents a shift from secular towards spiritual
peace paradigms, a realization that inner peace and outer peace, spiritual and
material, are interconnected and interdependent. It is here that the contributions
of the worlds religious and spiritual traditions can help us better understand
holistic peace. For example, the idea that the collective external world of outer
peace is in some way a representation or image of the collective inner world of
spiritual peace may be of particular importance in the creation of a holistic, inner
and outer global culture of peace. The variety and diversity of humanitys
religious life, as celebrated in the ecumenical tradition, would then provide a
dynamic link between the inner and outer worlds, so that inner/outer peace would
be manifest in all aspects of a culture of peace, including macro- and micro-social
and economic institutions, local and global values, art, literature, music,
technology, meditation and prayer. The resulting culture of peace would display
a Gaia-like global pattern, where the interacting local cultures are manifestations
of an inner unity and outer diversity principle spread throughout the whole
system. Denitions of reality would be fundamentally different under such a
paradigm. Whereas reality in Western peace theory has previously been dened
in terms of aspects of the material world, leading to a concentration on economic,
military and political questions, reality under a holistic peace paradigm includes
both material and spiritual components. A holistic culture of peace (balancing
inner and outer, feminine and masculine, material and spiritual in a both/and
framework) will lead to a completely different outcome to peace theories which
concentrate on changing the outer world but do not balance such concerns with
a parallel and interdependent exploration of the inner world.
Conclusions on the cultures of peace
The previous sections describe various interpretations of the culture of peace
concept, ranging from a narrow view which stresses the creation of cultural
conditions to make war between states impossible, to a broad view which requires
the transformation of every culture to a state that makes holistic inner/outer peace
achievable. If we use this framework, then there are, in practical terms, at least
three strategies which can be followed to create global cultures of peace.
118 Linda Groff
and Paul Smoker
The rst strategy would emphasize the importance of the international

system in creating global cultures of peace. In the short term, the existing trends
towards an international society in which war between states is no longer seen
as acceptable can be strengthened, which, in the longer term, would make it
possible to work for local cultural conditions to support broader denitions of
peace, such as feminist ideas that include eliminating micro-level physical and
structural violence against individuals as well as against nations and states. The
second strategy would stress the bottom-up approach to creating global cultures
of peace, arguing that we should, as individuals, work in the short term in our
own cultural communities and contexts to transform our own local cultures into
cultures of peace and, in this way, in the long term, build a global culture of
peace. The third strategy would combine both global and local initiatives, working
with international, national and local organizations and groups to create
appropriate cultural conditions for peace. At the global level, peace might be
more appropriately dened, at least to begin with, in terms of eliminating large-
scale physical and structural violence. At the local level, peace might initially be
dened more in terms of eliminating individual or small-scale physical and
structural violence, as well as in terms of creating inner and outer aspects of
peace.
NON-VIOLENCE : SIX PERSPECTIVES

(BASED ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE PEACE CONCEPT)
The concept non-violence, like the concept peace, has various meanings in
different cultural and political contexts. In this section, we would like to describe
briey six different interpretations of non-violence, using the peace theories
framework developed above.
1 . No n - v i o l e n c e a s a n y a c t i o n t o p re ve n t wa r
During the period of the Cold War, the theory of nuclear deterrence adopted
by the United States and the former Soviet Union required each side to develop
and maintain substantial military forces, including nuclear weapons arsenals
capable of destroying the world several times over. Strategists on both sides argued
that the nuclear deterrent kept the peace in Europe and prevented a nuclear or
cultures of peace
conventional war between the then two military superpowers. Peace can be
dened as a state of non-war, as we have discussed above, and actions which
maintain such a peace can similarly be dened as non-violent, even when they
involve threatening to use military force. So nuclear deterrence is an example of
non-violent action under this view of peace. The United States Strategic Air
Command, which helped implement nuclear deterrence through its state of
constant readiness to launch a massive nuclear attack against the Soviet Union,
adopted this view of non-violent action, as illustrated in its motto: Peace is our
profession. The lm Dr Strangelove was a spoof of this interpretation of peace.
None the less, many actors, both military and political in both countries and
among their allies, given the dynamics of the Cold War, sincerely believed that
nuclear weapons were a necessary deterrent to war.
2 . No n - v i o l e n c e a s a c t i o n s t o m a i n t a i n t h e b a l a n c e
For Quincy Wrights balance of forces perspective, in which public opinion at
the within states level is also seen as important, the idea of non-violence as war
without weapons (Boserup and Mack, 1975), based on Gene Sharps functional
interpretation of non-violence (Sharp, 1973), becomes appropriate for maintaining
and adjusting the balance of forces. Sharps model of fragile power, as opposed
to the monolith model of power assumed in nuclear deterrence, argues that power
is fragile because the balance of social forces which maintains it can be changed
by concerted, group non-violent action. Wright similarly assumed that peace
involved a dynamic balance between various social, economic, political and
technological forces, although he placed more emphasis on the international-
system level of analysis, and Sharp focused more on the community level of
analysis.
3. Structural non-violence
Galtungs structural view added the idea that certain structures, both in the
international system and in the community, can be either violent or non-violent,
and that changing such structures was a fundamental task for peace research.
Non-violence under this rubric expands beyond Sharps original conception, as
he himself did in his study of social power and political freedom (1980), to include
120 Linda Groff
and Paul Smoker
not only group actions but also the social, economic and political structures within
which they occur. For example, the international system, which prior to Galtungs
theory had been viewed by most peace researchers as a positive contribution to
peace, was the focus of intense criticism from peace researchers after the theory
was published in 1969. Previously it had been seen as evidence of increased co-
operation between states but, after 1969, it was redened as an oppressive,
violent, macro-structure which caused the deaths of millions of people each year
through the starvation and inequalities it caused. For example, even though there
is enough food in the world to feed everyone, millions die from starvation every
year because of the structure of the international economic system. A non-violent
international (or domestic) economic system would ensure that no one would
starve as long as there was enough food in the world (or country) to feed them.
4 . Fe m i n i s t n o n - v i o l e n c e o n m a c r o a n d m i c r o l e v e l s
The feminist perspective further extended the concept of non-violence, in keeping
with its extension of the concept of peace, to include non-violent relationships
and structures on all levels of human society, both macro and micro. Feminist
non-violence is not limited to the behaviour of states or the structure of the
international system; it includes non-violent behaviour in the community and
the home, and non-violent political, economic and social structures at all levels
of society. The feminist critique of patriarchy provides a good illustration of the
extension of the idea of non-violence to include all levels and institutions of society.
Patriarchy is seen as a pervasive violent structure which acts against women in
all of societys major institutions, including marriage, business institutions,
churches, community organizations and even peace movements. Feminist non-
violence also involves peaceful behaviour between individuals, as well as between
states.
5. Holistic Gaia-peace and non-violence

The Gaia-peace view of non-violence is a natural extension of the original feminist
position. Indeed, many feminists (following Rachel Carsons lead) have expanded
their original ideas into eco-feminism, where a peaceful relationship with the
environment is seen as paramount, embodying, as it does, the central feminist
principle of power with rather than power over. This view of non-violence
cultures of peace
includes non-violent actions at every level, non-violent structures at every level,

and non-violent processes and relationships between all living beings. Non-
violence of this sort is clearly visible in the West, where environmentalism,
vegetarianism and animal welfare issues are becoming increasingly popular.
6. Holistic inner and outer peace and non-violence

Holistic denitions of non-violence have of course been present in Western
literature for a considerable time, within Eastern traditions in general, and with
Gandhi in particular having made the greatest contribution to our understanding
of this spiritually based type of non-violence. The distinction between non-
violent action as a technique of struggle versus non-violence as a philosophy and
way of life has provided the basis for discussing non-violence in the West, thanks
to the work of Gene Sharp in the West and Mahatma Gandhi in the East, and
their respective perspectives. Whereas Sharp has stressed the functionality of non-
violent action and its value as a technique for waging conicts, a technique he
believes to be superior in pragmatic terms to violence, the Gandhian non-
violence-as-a-way-of-life school has always adopted a deeper view of non-violence,
based on a centuries-old Eastern tradition which stresses an inner, spiritual peace
component.
GANDHIS SPIRITUALLY BASED NON-VIOLENCE:

NON-VIOLENCE AS A PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE A LINK
BETWEEN INNER AND OUTER FORMS OF PEACE
One of Mahatma Gandhis most important statements was that the means are
as important as the ends. This is a central part of using non-violence as part of
a whole philosophy of life, rather than as just a temporary tactic. There have
been various practitioners of non-violence as a philosophy of life before Gandhi,
including Leo Tolstoy in Russia and Henry David Thoreau in the United States
as well as, after him, Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez in the United States.
What distinguishes all of these people, besides the fact that they each inuenced
those who came after them in the use of non-violence, is that their use of non-
violence as a philosophy of life was grounded in deep spiritual principles and
practices. In short, they all tried to live a life based on these spiritual principles,
122 Linda Groff
and Paul Smoker
including the idea that how we live our lives every day is as important as the
ends or goals that we seek via these means. In a non-violent struggle, one
therefore has the goal of not dehumanizing ones opponent and also trying not
to let ones opponent dehumanize oneself, since this dehumanization is part of
the process which people go through before justifying the use of violence against
other human beings in the world.
Gandhi never took action in the world until he had rst meditated and asked
for inner guidance on what to do. When Gandhis movement also became
violent, he called off further action until people could be adequately trained in
non-violence. Gandhi did not see non-violence as passive, but rather as an active
struggle against unjust laws or policies. Gandhi also believed that one should
not oppose all laws, only the unjust ones. Gandhi had ve stages in his non-
violent struggle, as noted below, and believed that one must exhaust all
possibilities of each stage before going on to the next stage.
Gandhis five stages in a non-violent struggle

Stage 1: Utilization of all regular constitutional machinery. In this rst stage, the existing
legal constitutional machinery is used to try and deal with the conict within
the system and achieve a satisfactory resolution.
Stage 2: Agitation. If stage 1 was fruitless, a stage of agitation is undertaken to
heighten the awareness and educate the people as to what the conict is all
about. In a totalitarian society, the network of communication which is
established to implement this phase is built outside the normal channels and
is thus more difficult, since it must be undertaken in secret.
Stage 3: Ultimatum. This stage involves the presentation to the Establishment of
a document listing the peoples needs and stating that continued opposition
would produce some sort of direct action. If, however, this document fails
to produce a favourable response, then members of the movement begin
their preparation for direct action.
Stage 4: Self-purication. This stage is used by those preparing for non-violent action
to develop ahimsa (the spirit of harmlessness), which is seen as a prerequisite
to action which is untainted with self-interest. During this time members
question their inner strength, noting if they have enough self-respect to
command the respect of the opposition. The ability of each member to avoid
cultures of peace
the pitfall of reducing the opponent to an enemy, thereby dehumanizing

him/her and allowing violence to occur as a result, is of the greatest
importance.
Stage 5: Direct action. In this fth stage, after exhausting all regular constitutional
machinery, heightening the awareness of the population at large about the
issue, and undertaking intensive soul-searching and inner preparedness,
non-violent action is undertaken. This action can take many forms, including
economic boycotts, sit-down strikes, non-payment of taxes, mass resignations
from public office, and deliberate and organized disobedience to certain laws
which are considered unjust. Gandhi, relying heavily on his opponents lack
of preparation, felt that some combination of these methods, coupled with
sympathy from within the ranks of the authority being challenged, could
open channels for discussion. On the other hand, if resistance continued,
the end result could be the complete collapse of the governments power,
shifting power to the Satyagrahis, who could then constitute a new
government.
Relevance of Gandhi today

Having explored Gandhis philosophy and practice of non-violence above, as he
used it against the British rst in South Africa and then in India, an interesting
question is: what relevance do Gandhis ideas have for today? The rst obvious
answer is that, with the destructive potential of nuclear weapons today, we can
no longer afford to solve conicts via violence and weapons of mass destruction,
if we want a future for ourselves, our children and the Earth. Gandhi was the
rst person to take ideas of non-violence and apply them in a mass movement
for social and political change, which showed that a party to a conict can win
via non-violent means against a much stronger party, if the former can appeal
to the moral conscience of their opponent and of the world, and convince them
that they have a just cause which deserves to be listened to and addressed in a
constructive manner. Certainly the world can use such an approach today. Being
willing to listen to inner spiritual guidance, and then undergoing purication (to
be sure ones motives are pure) before embarking on political action in the world,
are other characteristics of spiritually based non-violence, which distinguish it
from both temporary uses of non-violence for functional purposes and from
124 Linda Groff
and Paul Smoker
violent efforts at social-political change. Such spiritually based non-violence

carries greater moral authority and inuence because it is not undertaken for
personal power or egotistical reasons, and because it does not dehumanize ones
opponent, which is a necessary step before people can justify killing other human
beings. All of these values, if adopted by the worlds different peoples, cultures
and religions today, would do much to create a more peaceful world in the twenty-
rst century. It is also signicant that religious leaders of many of the worlds
religions would agree today that, when violent actions are undertaken in the
name of religion, the party concerned is not being true to the spirit or the letter
of that religion. Certainly religious cults today or fundamentalist religious factions
which advocate and engage in violence against others with different perspectives
than their own are not true to the spirit of the original founders of their professed
religions.
S U M M A R Y: D E V E L O P I N G I N D I C A T O R S O F P O S I T I V E ,
MULTICULTURAL VISIONS OF PEACE
Concerning each of the areas of peace, it is interesting that, from the examples
cited above, Eastern cultures have made especially strong contributions in the
last two, more holistic areas of peace (environmental and inner spiritual), while
Western cultures have made especially strong contributions in the previous four
areas, focusing more on changes in the external world, including social justice,
human rights and womens issues. There are also a number of Western activists
in the environmental area. In the anti-war/peace area, there is especially strong
citizens support for peace in both Japan and Germany in the form of opposing
the sending of national troops abroad, owing to the consequences of such actions
in the past. It would appear that there are important things that we can all learn
from each other as we come from different cultures and countries about the many
dimensions of creating a peaceful world. Let us hope we can move towards some
kind of a global consensus on these issues over time.
Once some kind of global consensus is developed which transcends different
cultures but yet is based on input from the best ideas and traditions from various
cultures around the world, the next step could be to try and develop indicators
to measure movement in a positive direction in each of the six different areas of
cultures of peace
peace discussed here. Then some kind of international United Nations or private
body could monitor events and activities around the world for progress in each
area. These positive developments could then be highlighted by the worlds media
and by the UN to give publicity to what is working in a positive sense in the
world; this could serve as possible models for others to emulate or learn from.
International recognition and awards or prizes could also be offered to groups
and people making the most progress in developing new ways to create the
foundations and conditions for peace in a positive sense in each of the six areas.
In this regard, even behavioural, social learning theory notes that people are more
likely to change their behaviour, especially over the long run, if they are rewarded
for positive behaviour than if they are just punished for negative behaviour. A
more permanent modication of behaviour in a positive direction requires that
people be recognized and positively rewarded when they do things which
contribute positively to world peace. Beyond this external recognition for positive
behaviour which contributes to peace, it is of course also desirable and ultimately
necessary that people develop internalized peaceful values to which they are
willing to commit their lives.
There is no time in this paper to articulate adequate indicators for creating
positive conditions for peace in each of the six areas outlined above. Real
multicultural dialogue must continue until some kind of global consensus emerges
which includes the best ideas from different cultures around the world on how
we can best create peace in each of the six areas. This paper suggests only a few
multicultural visions of peace in each area of peace; many more good ideas await
inclusion in this global, multicultural dialogue. The authors of this paper would
welcome further suggestions in each of the above areas.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPLEBY, R. S. 1994. Religious Fundamentalisms and Global Conict. New York, Foreign
Policy Association.
BADINER, A. H. 1990. Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology.
Berkeley, Calif., Parallax Press.
BOSERUP, A.; MACK, A. 1975. War Without Weapons: Non Violence in National Defense.
New York, Schocken.
126 Linda Groff
and Paul Smoker
BOULDING, E. 1992. The Underside of History: A View of Women through Time, Vols. 1
and 2. Rev. ed. Newbury Park, Calif., Sage Publications.
BOULDING, K. 1990. Foreword to: Norman Myers (ed.), The Gaia Atlas of Future Worlds.
New York, Anchor Books/Doubleday.
B ROCK-UTNE, B. 1989. Feminist Perspectives on Peace and Peace Education. Oxford,
Pergamon Press.
CAPRA, F. 1982. The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. New York,
Bantam.
. 1991. The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and
Eastern Mysticism. 3rd updated ed. Boston, Mass., Shambhala.
CLARK, P. B. (ed.). 1993. The Worlds Religions: Understanding the Living Faiths.
Pleasantville, N.Y., Readers Digest.
DREHER, D. 1991. The Tao of Inner Peace. HarperCollins Pubs., Inc.
EASWARAN, E. 1978. Gandhi the Man. 2nd ed. Petaluma, Calif., Nilgiri Press.
E LIADE, M. (ed.). 1986. Encyclopedia of Religion. New York, Macmillan.
F ISHER, L. 1954. Gandhi: His Life and Message for the World. New York, New American
Library.
GALTUNG, J. 1969. Violence, Peace and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, No. 3.
GAWAIN, S. 1993. The Path of Transformation: How Healing Ourselves Can Change the World.
Mill Valley, Calif., Nataraj Publishing.
G ROFF, L. 1991. Global Unity and Diversity: Creating Tolerance for Cultural,
Religious, and National Diversity in an Interdependent World. (Paper for Third
International Conference on Building Understanding and Respect between
People of Diverse Religions or Beliefs, New Delhi, India, January.)
. 1992. Intercultural Communication, Negotiation, and Conict Management:
Insights on the United States/Japanese Relationship. (Paper for the International
Studies Association Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, 31 March4 April.)
. 1993. On the Values of Cultural and Ecological Diversity and their Importance
to an Effectively Functioning World, Including the UN and UNESCO. (Paper
and testimony, US Commission on Improving the Effectiveness of the United
Nations, Los Angeles, Calif., February.)
H UNTER, D.; MALLICK, K. 1990. Non-Violence: A Reader in the Ethics of Action. 2nd ed.
Lanham, Md., University Press of America.
H UNTINGTON, S. 1993. The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, Summer, pp. 2149.
cultures of peace
KUNG, H.; KUSCHEL, K.-J. (eds.). A Global Ethic: The Declaration of the Parliament of the
Worlds Religions. New York, Continuum Publishing Co.
LARSON, J.; M ICHELS-CYRUS, M. 1987. Seeds of Peace: A Catalogue of Quotations.
Philadelphia, Pa., New Society Publishers.
LOVELOCK, J. E. 1991. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. 5th ed. Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
MACY, J. 1991. World as Lover, World as Self. Berkeley, Calif., Parallax Press.
M ENDLOVITZ, S. H. 1975. On the Creation of a Just World Order. New York, The Free
Press (Macmillan).
MOYNIHAN, D. P. 1994. Pandaemonium: Ethnicity in International Politics. New York,
Oxford University Press.
N ICHOLSON, S. (ed.). 1989. The Goddess Re-Awakening: The Feminine Principle Today.
Wheaten, Ill., Theosophical Publishing House.
Non-violence. 1992. Gandhi Marg, Vol. 14, No. 1. (Special Issue.)
OGORMAN, A. (ed.). 1990. The Universe Bends toward Justice: A Reader on Christian Non-
Violence in the US. Philadelphia/Santa Cruz, New Society Publishers.
PAIGE, G. D.; SATHA-ANAND C.; G ILLIATT S. (eds.). 1993. Islam and Non-Violence.
Honolulu, Center for Global Non-Violence Planning Project, Matsunaga Institute
for Peace, University of Hawaii.
PANIKKAR, R. 1989. Epistula de pace. Response to: Philosophia pacis. Homenaje a Raimon
Panikkar. Madrid, Simbolo Editorial.
POLAK, F. 1973. The Image of the Future. New York, Elsevier. (Translated and abridged
edition by Elise Boulding.)
RICHARDSON, L. F. 1960. Statistics of Deadly Quarrels. Chicago, Ill., Quadrangle Books.
RUETHER, R. R. 1992. Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing. San
Francisco, Calif., Harper.
SCHMIDT, H. 1968. Politics and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 5, No. 3.
SCHUON, F. 1984. The Transcendent Unity of Religions. Wheaton, Ill., Theosophical
Publishing House.
S HARP, G. 1973. The Politics of Non-Violent Action. Boston, Mass., Porter Sargent.
. 1980. Social Power and Political Freedom. Boston, Mass., Porter Sargent.
S IBLEY, M. Q. (ed.). 1963. The Quiet Battle: Writings on the Theory and Practice of Non-
Violent Resistance. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday & Co.
S MITH, H. 1976. Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the Worlds Religions. San Francisco,
Calif., Harper.
128 Linda Groff
and Paul Smoker
S MITH, H. 1991. The Worlds Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions. San Francisco, Calif.,
Harper. (Completely revised and updated edition of The Religions of Man.)
S MOKER, P. 1965. A Preliminary Empirical Study of an International Integrative
Subsystem. International Associations, No. 11, pp. 63846.
. 1969. Social Research for Social Anticipation. American Behavorial Scientist, Vol. XII,
No. 6, pp. 713.
. 1981. Small Peace. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 14957.
. 1984. Exploding Nuclear Myths: Evidence from Conict Research. Coexistence,
Vol. 21, pp. 93106.
. 1991. Towards a New Denition of Global Security. Ritsumeikan Review.
S MOKER, P.; GROFF, L. 1995. Spirituality, Religion, and Peace: Exploring the Foundations
for Inner-Outer Peace in the 21st Century. (Conference Proceedings, Second UNESCO
Conference on Contributions of Religions to a Culture of Peace, Barcelona,
December 1994.)
World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts. 1991. New York, Paragon House.
(A Project of the International Religious Foundation. Quotations from sacred
scriptures of different religions around the world organized by different topics.)
What Does Science Tell Us About God? 1992. Time Magazine, Vol. 140, No. 26, 28
December, pp. 3844.
WRIGHT, Q. 1941. A Study of War. Chicago, Ill., University of Chicago Press.
129
To w a r d s a p l a n e t a r y c o d e o f e t h i c s :
ethical foundations
of a culture of peace
Hans Kng*
Most commentators of our time agree that, in the wake of the unexpected events
of 1989, the world political situation as a whole has become more unstable, more
uncertain. No one thought it possible that the world historical scene would
change so rapidly: the collapse of the Soviet system, the reunication of Germany,
the democratization of the former Eastern Bloc states, the Gulf War, the civil
war in former Yugoslavia. No one can as yet say denitively where all these
developments are leading. But one thing seems certain: the collapse of Marxist
socialism in 1989 and the break-up of the antagonistic military blocks afford a
third opportunity for a new world order, following those which were missed after
the First World War in 1918 and the Second World War in 1945.
MISSED OPPORTUNITIES FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER:

191819451989
Opportunity 1: 1918
After the First World War, the League of Nations was founded on the instigation
of the then American President Wilson (1920). This was based on the vision of
the nations nally arriving at a shared, peaceful and just conduct of world affairs.
But Europe and the world missed this rst opportunity: above all with Fascism
and National Socialism, but also with communism and Japanese militarism, and
* Professor and Director of the Institute of Ecumenical Research, University of

Tbingen, Germany.
130 Hans Kng
following them with the Second World War, the Holocaust, the Gulag Archipelago
and Hiroshima. Instead of a world order, there was world chaos.
Opportunity 2: 1945
At that time, there was another opportunity for such a new world order, and the
United Nations which was now founded was to help towards this. But this new
attempt, too, proved divided and it was above all the Stalinist Soviet Union which
prevented a better order in Eastern Europe and elsewhere and dug its own grave
by internal totalitarianism and external hegemonism. Instead of a world order,
there was a division of the world. Now, to an unbridled capitalism with negative
results, above all in Latin America and Africa, there was added a socialism which,
from the Elbe to Vladivostok, led to an unprecedented enslaving of human beings
and exploitation of nature until it could go on no longer.
Opportunity 3: 1989
Now we have the third opportunity of what I would call a post-modern world
order. Politically, it presupposes the democratic state and, economically, a market
economy with both a social and ecological orientation (not to be confused with
capitalism, which is neither social nor ecological), at least as it is affirmed in
principle from Washington via Brussels to Moscow, even if it is far from being
developed. However, such a world order will not come into being without a new
relationship between the nations. And who could have guessed that once again
within Europe a war of unimaginable cruelty would be waged? Other regions,
too, are far from being pacied. Is there a new world disorder instead of a new
world order?
If we look at todays world, there is no getting round the terrifying fact that
at present approximately thirty armed conicts are going on. The UN is already
overtaxed with thirteen peace-keeping missions under way. At present the UN
numbers 184 Member States (as compared with fty-one in 1945). The unofficial
estimate is that, if Africa were also to be divided up by ethnic boundaries, the
number of sovereign states could approach 450. If smaller and smaller ethnic
and religious units want to win the status of a sovereign state, not only Africa
but also Europe from Spain to Russia will be thrown into disorder by the
splintering. The future will then be more insecure than ever. There will no longer
To w a r d s a p l a n e t a r y c o d e 131
of ethics: ethical
foundations of a culture
of peace
be any question of stability if the units get smaller and smaller, the perspectives
narrower and narrower, the pressures towards national demarcation more and
more fanatical. Yugoslavia is a warning. What has also been happening in
Germany between Rostock, Solingen and Constance is a cruel warning of the
need to rethink and to arrive at better rules for society in this one world and
one humankind. But how?
NO NEW WORLD ORDER WITHOUT A WORLD ETHIC
First of all, a negative statement: a new, better world order will not be introduced
on the basis of:
solely diplomatic offensives, which all too often are addressed only to
governments and not to peoples, and which also are unable to guarantee
the peace and stability of a region;
simply humanitarian help, which cannot replace political action;
primarily military interventions, the consequences of which tend to be more
negative than positive;
solely international law, as long as this rests on the unlimited sovereignty
of states and is focused more on the rights of states than on the rights of
peoples and individuals, that is human rights.
Then a positive statement: a new world order will ultimately be brought in only
on the basis of:
more common visions, ideals, values, aims and criteria;
a strong sense of global responsibility on the part of peoples and their leaders;
a new binding and uniting ethic for all humankind, including states and
those in power in them, which embraces cultures and religions. No new
world order can be envisaged and created without a new world ethic.
Someone may object: given the war in Yugoslavia, where Orthodox Serbs,
Catholic Croats and Muslim Bosnians have been engaging in a cruel and bloody
slaughter; given the situation in the Middle East; given the tensions between
Christian Armenians and Muslim Azerbaijanis; between Hindus, Muslims and
Sikhs in India; between Buddhist Singhalese and Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka;
and not least given the unresolved conict in Northern Ireland between Catholics
and Protestants, is it not crazy, in order to safeguard the future of this earth, to
132 Hans Kng
call for a world ethic to which the religions are to make a decisive contribution?
My counter-question would be: when could such a demand be more urgent than
today? In any event, world ethic is not a fairweather slogan, a luxury which
might arouse academic interest or give one a good prole as a ceremonial speaker.
It arises out of the bitter experiences of the past, the bloody crises of yesterday,
in which religions have often played a fatal role. Crisis means not only danger
but also opportunity.
NOT A SINGLE WORLD CULTURE OR WORLD RELIGION
World politics, the world economy and the world nancial system play an
essential part in determining our national and regional destiny. Even in
Switzerland, people are slowly beginning to see that there are no longer any
national or regional islands of stability. Despite the marked splintering of national
and regional interests, there is already such a strong political, economic and
nancial world network that economists are speaking of a world society and
sociologists of a world civilization (in the technical, economic and social sense):
a world society and world civilization as a coherent world of interaction in which
all are involved, either directly or indirectly.
But this world society and technological world civilization, which are coming
into being, in no way mean merely a single world culture (in the spiritual
artisticformative sense) or even a world religion. Rather, world society and world
civilization include a multiplicity of cultures and religions, some of which even
have new emphases. To hope for a single world religion is an illusion; to be
afraid of it is nonsense. The multiplicity of religions, confessions and
denominations, of religious sects, groups and movements in todays world is still
perplexing. They form a complex phenomenon, geographically, historically and
culturally, which cannot and must not be put in a single category.
However, if we do not want to reduce this overcomplexity which has grown
up through the centuries and want to adopt an approach which is not only
regional or national but world-historical and worldwide, and in this sense
planetary; if, given the present complexity which is particularly to be found in
matters of religion, we are seeking a new orientation also and particularly in
matters of religion; then in view of what Wilfrid Cantwell Smith has called the
of ethics: ethical
of peace
one religious history of humankind, we shall do best to keep to the great

religious river systems of the high religions which still exist today and which
have also inundated the nature religions of Africa, America and Oceania. If we
look at the world today, seeing our globe as it were from a satellite, in the cultural
landscape of this earth we can at present distinguish three great religious river
systems with their areas of entry, transcending individuals, nations and cultures,
all of which have their own genesis and morphology:
The religions of Semitic origin: these have a prophetic character, always begin
from a contrast between God and human beings, and are predominantly
marked by religious confrontation: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The religions of Indian origin: they basically tend towards union, and are
characterized more by spiritual values: the early Indian religion of the
Upanishads, Buddhism and Hinduism.
The religions of the Chinese tradition: these are stamped by wisdom and
are fundamentally characterized by harmony: Confucianism and Taoism.
Older, stronger and more constant than many dynasties and empires, these great
religious systems have modelled the cultural landscape of this globe over the
millennia. In an incessant rhythm of change, sporadically new mountain chains
and high plateaux have thrust themselves up on the different continents, but the
great rivers, older, stronger and more constant, have kept making ever-new cuts
in the rising landscape. Similarly, in our cultural landscape, ever-new social
systems, states and ruling houses have arisen, but the great old rivers of the
religions have been able despite all the rises and falls to maintain themselves
with a few adaptations and deviations and have shaped the features of the cultural
landscape in a new way. Simply because of that, because of the far-reaching
ways in which cultures have been shaped by religions, it would make no sense
to speak of a single world culture or world religion or even to attempt to.
And yet, there are features which the religions have in common. Just as the
natural river systems of this earth and the landscapes shaped by them are
extremely different and the rivers and streams of the different continents all have
similar proles and patterns of ow, obey similar laws, cut clefts in the hills, wind
in the plains and inexorably seek a way to the sea, so too it is with the religious
river systems of this earth. Although they are extremely different, in many
respects they display similar proles, regularities and effects. Confusingly different
134 Hans Kng
though religions all are, they are all messages of salvation which respond to similar
basic human questions, to the eternal questions of love and sorrow, guilt and
atonement, life and death. Where does the world and its order come from? Why
are we born and why must we die? What determines the destiny of the individual
and of humankind? What is the basis of moral awareness and of the presence
of ethical norms? And over and above their interpretation of the world, all also
offer similar ways of salvation: ways out of the distress, suffering and guilt of
being, pointers towards meaningful and responsible action in this life, towards a
permanent, lasting eternal salvation, redemption from all suffering, from guilt
and death.
Now all this means that even those who reject the religions (and, in my
book Does God Exist?, I have subjected all the arguments of the modern criticism
of religion to a thorough examination) will have to take them seriously as a
fundamental social and existential reality; they all have to do with meaning and
meaninglessness in life, with human freedom and slavery, with justice and the
oppression of peoples, with war and peace in history and the present.
TA K I N G T H E R E L I G I O U S D I M E N S I O N S E R I O U S LY
There is no doubt about it: any religion is ambivalent as a human phenomenon

as ambivalent as art or music, which also have been and are massively misused.
Sociologically, religions too are systems of power concerned for stabilization and
the extension of power. They have a high potential for conict but they also
have an often overlooked potential for peace. Religion can stir things up certainly,
but it can also calm them down. Religion can motivate, foment and prolong wars,
but it can also prevent wars and curtail them.
The foundations for the peace between France, Germany and Italy were
laid by convinced Christians (and Catholics): Charles de Gaulle, Konrad
Adenauer, Robert Schumann, Alcide de Gasperi. Peace between Germany and
Poland was prepared for by a memorandum drafted by the Protestant Church
(the Evangelical Church of Germany). Peaceful revolutions in Poland, the German
Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia, and also in South Africa and the
Philippines, have shown that religion can also serve to bring about peace.
Clearly, the purely strategic, economic and political aspects of such crises
of ethics: ethical
of peace
must not be allowed to overshadow their social, moral and religious aspects. Here
is just one example, from what used to be Yugoslavia. Anyone who is not blind
to history will have noticed that the modern state frontiers in Eastern Europe
seem pale in comparison with the age-old frontiers which were once drawn by
religions and faiths: between Armenia and Azerbaijan, between Georgia and
Russia, the Ukraine and Russia, and similarly also between the different peoples
in Yugoslavia. It is possible to understand the complexity of the problems in
Yugoslavia only if one knows that, for a thousand years, basically since the
division between Western and Eastern Rome, two different religions have been
meeting in the middle of Yugoslavia; the Eastern Byzantine paradigm with Serbia
and the Roman Catholic paradigm with Croatia. Catholic Croats could get on
better with Muslims than with Orthodox fellow Christians. In addition, there
are the problems of the 500-year occupation of Serbian territory by the Turks
(since the defeat at Kosovo Polje in 1389) which, among the Serbs, produced the
ideology of a lasting suffering and endurance which very often does not (or does
not any longer) correspond to reality.
Now the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians (the only indigenous Muslims in
Europe) are all southern Slavs. For centuries Serbs have lived among Croats,
originally recruited against the Turks, as ethnic cousins. So today the three
groups are highly mixed in the state territory of what once was Yugoslavia, most
of all in Bosnia. Thus it was wrong after 1989 rst of all to defend a single uniform
Yugoslav state (Phase 1 of the EC and US policy), but also wrong then to go to
the opposite extreme and split the whole of Yugoslavia into national states
(Phase 2, especially German and then also EC and US policy). A confederation
(with cantons or whatever) would have been the right course to take from the
beginning and not just now, when it is too late.
Will there ever be peace in such a region if the religious dimension of the
conict is not taken seriously? In the present conict my sympathies were rst
of all with Croatia (not because it was Catholic but because it had been attacked)
and then, above all, with the Muslims. Nevertheless may I, as a Catholic
theologian, keep silent about the fact that the Catholic Croatian Ustasha state
under the Nazi protectorate killed tens of thousands (some say hundreds of
thousands) of Serbs without a single protest at the time from Archbishop Stepinac
of Zagreb or Pope Pius XII, both of whom were very well informed?
136 Hans Kng
Over forty years both churches could have found time to sort out the
situation, concede guilt, ask for forgiveness and prepare for a political peace. The
World Council of Churches, often more concerned with the world than with
churches, certainly meant well when, in the middle of the civil war, it brought
together bishops from both sides, though their ecumenical discourses ended in
unecumenical accusations. Indeed, whether one speaks today with a Serb or a
Croat, each talks about the crimes of the other side and says nothing about the
crimes of his own side just like the Germans and French of old. Will Serbs
and Croats need yet another war of revenge before they become aware that such
thought and policy, dominated by revenge, will never lead to peace but always
only to new destruction? If a cease-re should nally be achieved, will there still
be no bishops or theologians who can begin to talk to one another with
understanding? Self-critical recollection is unavoidable.
A basic question is: must these religions inevitably be engaged in conict
and strife? Peace (shalom, salam, eirene, pax) is a main feature of their programmes.
Their rst task at this time must be to make peace among themselves, in order,
with all the means which the media offer,
to remove misunderstandings;
to work through traumatic memories;
to dissolve stereotyped images of enemies;
to come to terms with the conicts of guilt, socially and as individuals;
to break down hatred and destructiveness;
to reect on what they have in common. Are the members of the different
religions aware of the ethos they have in common despite their great
dogmatic differences? Not at all.
THE NEED FOR A MINIMAL CONSENSUS ON ETHICS
First of all, understanding among the religions does not require believers to line
up against unbelievers. The Roman campaign for re-Catholicization, especially
in Eastern Europe, euphemistically called re-evangelization, only leads to a re-
opening of the old war graves: we do not need another division of society and
political parties into clerical and anticlerical (as for, example, in Poland). The
of ethics: ethical
of peace
project of a world ethic, a global ethic, calls rather for an alliance of believers
and non-believers over a new common basic ethic.
Secondly, religions without doubt have a special function and responsibility
when it comes to binding criteria and personal basic convictions. What unites
all the great religions needs to be worked out carefully and in detail on the basis
of the sources a signicant and enjoyable task for the scholars of the different
religions which is still at its beginnings but has aroused much interest amazingly
quickly and produced some initial results.
At a more fundamental level one can ask: what can religions contribute to
the furthering of an ethic, despite their very different systems of dogmas and
symbols, which distinguishes them from philosophy, political pragmatism,
international organizations, philanthropic concerns of all kinds? Granted, in the
past religions have always made absolute their traditions, xed mysterious dogmas
and ritual prescriptions and set themselves apart from any others. Yet where they
want to, they can present fundamental maxims of elementary humanity with a
quite different authority and power of conviction from that of politicians, lawyers
and philosophers.
A SUPREME NORM OF CONSCIENCE

AND A LEADING FIGURE
Granted, religions were and always are tempted to lose themselves in an innite
jungle of commandments and prescriptions, canons and paragraphs. Yet where
they want to, they can demonstrate, with quite different authority from any
philosophy, that the application of their norms does not apply to individual cases
but is categorical. Religions can give men and women a supreme norm of
conscience, that categorical imperative that is still important for todays society,
which imposes an obligation at a quite different depth and on quite different
foundations. For all the great religions call for the observance of something like
a Golden Rule, which is not just a hypothetical and conditional norm but one
that is a categorical, apodeictic and unconditional norm, one that is quite prac-
ticable in highly complex situations where individuals or groups must often act.
This Golden Rule is already attested in Confucius (c. 551489 B.C.): What
you yourself do not want, do not do to another person; and also in Judaism (in
138 Hans Kng
a negative formulation): Do not do to others what you would not want them
to do to you (Rabbi Hillel, 60 B.C.A.D. 10); and nally also in the Sermon on
the Mount (in a positive formulation): Whatever you want people to do to you,
do also to them.
This Golden Rule could be a safeguard against a crude ethics of success
which is not an ethic at all; it does not need to be understood as a pure
dispositional ethic which does not perceive realities, but could become the centre
of an ethics of responsibility (the term used by Max Weber and Hans Jonas)
which always reects on the consequences of what we do and allow.
The reference to Confucius and Jesus of Nazareth also already indicates
something else: unlike philosophies, religions do not just offer abstract models
of life. They can refer to specic individuals who have already gone that way:
what Karl Jaspers calls normative people. So the normative leading gures in
the world religions are of the utmost signicance: Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth,
Confucius, Lao-tse or Muhammad. It makes a crucial difference whether one
ponticates to people about a new form of life in the abstract or whether one
can introduce them to such a form of life by means of a compelling concrete
model: as followers of Buddha, Jesus Christ, Confucius, Lao-tse or the Prophet
Muhammad. For a Christian, Jesus Christ is and remains the way, the truth and
the life. Similarly the way, the truth and the life for believing Jews is the Torah,
for Muslims the Koran and for other religions someone or something else.
T H E P R O C E S S O F F O R M I N G A N AWA R E N E S S
OF A WORLD ETHIC
But is the working out of such an ethic realistic? Is it perhaps just the undertaking
of a few Western intellectuals who once again want to export their project? No,
the call for a world ethic is not a matter of the exporting of a model, an articial
globalization or the idea of universality as opposed to the idea of regionality.
Here we have neither a radical universalism, which takes no note of the actual
plurality in our world, nor a radical relativism, which does not contribute towards
the common life of different groups, but rather to what Wolfgang Huber calls a
relative universality, which, despite all cultural and religious differences,
recognizes some principles which transcend culture and religion. Indeed, to be
of ethics: ethical
of peace
more precise, it is a matter of becoming aware of what culture and religions

already have in common: the formation of an awareness and hence a change of
awareness in the sphere of ethics of the kind that has come about in, say, ecology
or disarmament.
But is there even the slightest sign that anything is actually happening? At
the centenary celebration of the Parliament of the Worlds Religions in Chicago
at the beginning of September 1993, a Declaration towards a Global Ethic1 was
presented which I had the honour and the toil of drafting. It was accepted by
the vast majority of the delegates and, in the end, ceremonially promulgated.
For the rst time in the history of world religions, this Parliament undertook to
formulate a basic consensus over binding values, irrevocable criteria and basic
personal attitudes. Granted, such a declaration will not change the world
overnight, but it will encourage all those who are already committed to it and
put to shame those who tend rather ironically to ridicule, to dismiss or, from
confessional egoism, declare impossible anything that religions may have in
common.
The signicance of the Declaration towards a Global Ethic can be illustrated
at one point in particular in the context of Islam. For the four irrevocable
directives which are elucidated in this declaration include a commitment to a
culture of non-violence and respect for life. There was serious discussion of this
point during the Parliament. For specically, in view of the desperate situation
of the Muslims in Bosnia, too little emphasis seemed to be placed here on the
right to self-defence (which is also affirmed by the United Nations Charter).
However, on closer reading, these fears proved to be ungrounded. For the
Declaration deliberately took a middle way which was capable of achieving a
consensus between a Realpolitik of the use of violence to resolve conicts and an
unrealistic unconditional pacism which, when confronted with devastation,
expulsion, violence, death, or mass murder, unconditionally renounces the use
of violence. The right to self-defence to which the Muslims attach importance is
1. There is a commentary on the Declaration in Hans Kng and Karl-Josef Kuschel

(eds.), A Global Ethic. The Declaration of the Parliament of the Worlds Religions, London/New
York, SCM Press/Continuum, 1993. Editions in other languages are available or are
under preparation.
140 Hans Kng
thus clearly affirmed both for the individual and the collective. But, within the
framework of a culture of non-violence, it applies only in extremis, when non-
violent resistance is meaningless. In the face of brutality, barbarism and genocide,
self-defence has to be allowed. No further holocaust of any people whatsoever
can simply be accepted pacically. On the other hand, no simple formula of
legitimization can be offered for military intervention of any kind; no just wars
in the service of all too evident economic, political and military interests are to
be justied in this way.
T O WA R D S A C U LT U R E O F N O N - V I O L E N C E
This is what the Global Ethic Declaration says about non-violence:
Numberless women and men of all regions and religions strive to lead lives not
determined by egoism but by commitment to their fellow humans and to the world
around them. Nevertheless, all over the world we nd endless hatred, envy, jealousy
and violence, not only between individuals but also between social and ethnic groups,
between classes, races, nations, and religions. The use of violence, drug trafficking
and organized crime, often equipped with new technical possibilities, has reached
global proportions. Many places are still ruled by terror from above, dictators
oppress their own people, and institutional violence is widespread. Even in some
countries where laws exist to protect individual freedoms, prisoners are tortured, men
and women are mutilated, hostages are killed.
1. In the great ancient religious and ethical traditions of humankind we nd

the directive: You shall not kill! Or, in positive terms: Have respect for life!
Let us reect anew on the consequences of this ancient directive: all people
have a right to life, safety and the free development of personality in so far
as they do not injure the rights of others. No one has the right physically
or psychologically to torture, injure, much less kill, any other human being.
And no people, no state, no race, no religion has the right to hate, to
discriminate against, to cleanse, to exile, much less to liquidate a foreign
minority which is different in behaviour or holds different beliefs.
2. Of course, wherever there are humans there will be conicts. Such conicts,
however, should be resolved without violence within a framework of justice.
of ethics: ethical
of peace
This is true for states as well as for individuals. Persons who hold political
power must work within this framework of a just order and commit
themselves to the most non-violent, peaceful solutions possible. And they
should work for this within an international order of peace which itself
has need of protection and defence against perpetrators of violence.
Armament is a mistaken path; disarmament is the commandment of the
times. Let no one be deceived; there is no survival for humanity without
global peace!
3. Young people must learn at home and in school that violence must not be
a means of settling differences with others. Only thus can a culture of non-
violence be created.
4. A human person is innitely precious and must be unconditionally protected.
But likewise the lives of animals and plants which inhabit this planet with
us deserve protection, preservation and care. Limitless exploitation of the
natural foundations of life, ruthless destruction of the biosphere and
militarization of the cosmos are all outrages. As human beings we have a
special responsibility especially with a view to future generations for
Earth and the cosmos, for the air, water and soil. We are all intertwined
together in this cosmos and we are all dependent on each other. Each one
of us depends on the welfare of all. Therefore the dominance of humanity
over nature and the cosmos must not be encouraged. Instead, we must
cultivate living in harmony with nature and the cosmos.
5. To be authentically human in the spirit of our great religious and ethical
traditions means that in public as well as in private life we must be concerned
for others and ready to help. We must never be ruthless and brutal. Every
people, every race, every religion must show tolerance and respect indeed
high appreciation for every other. Minorities need protection and support,
whether they be racial, ethnic or religious.
Undoubtedly the new world order will only be a better order if, as a result thereof,
we have a pluralistic world society characterized by partnership, which encourages
peace and is nature-friendly and ecumenical. That is why even now many people
are committing themselves on the basis of their religious or human convictions
to a common world ethic and are calling on all people of goodwill to contribute
to a change of awareness in matters of ethics.
142 Hans Kng
T O WA R D A P L A N E TA R Y C O D E O F E T H I C S
With the Chicago Declaration, religions demonstrated that it is in principle

possible to formulate a planetary code of ethics. Nevertheless, it certainly makes
a difference whether a Parliament of Religions or an international community,
through UNESCO or the United Nations, formulates such a consensus.
It is therefore worth discussing how different a planetary code of ethics of
UNESCO or the United Nations has to be in terms of style and content. Already
in the Chicago Declaration it is emphasized: The principles expressed in this
Global Ethic can be affirmed by all persons with ethical convictions, whether
religiously grounded or not. In other words: all that is said about the vision of
peoples living peacefully together and the responsibility for the care of Earth
is said for all ethically committed human beings, whether they are religious or
not.
It is also important to note that the Chicago Declaration recalls the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. The Chicago
Declaration stipulates: What it (the Universal Declaration) formally proclaimed
on the level of rights we wish to conrm and deepen here from the perspective
of an ethic: the full realization of the intrinsic dignity of the human person, the
inalienable freedom and equality in principle of all humans, and the necessary
solidarity and interdependence of all humans with each other.
On the basis of their own document, the leaders of religions will certainly
welcome the possibility of the world organizations trying to formulate a planetary
code of ethics. The fundamental demand of this declaration, every human being
must be treated humanely, should be taken over in this code of ethics and also,
if possible, the Golden Rule, which is found and has persisted in many religious
and ethical traditions of humankind for thousands of years: What you do not
wish done to yourself, do not do to others! Above all, the four irrevocable
directives could serve as a structure for this new document:
1. Commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life.
2. Commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order.
3. Commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness.
4. Commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and
women.
of ethics: ethical
of peace
I would therefore like to propose that a body of the United Nations or UNESCO
establish a consultative committee to elaborate a rst draft of such a planetary
code of ethics. The matter is urgent. There is no time to lose.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
KNG, H. 1991. Global Responsibility. In Search of a New World Ethic. London/New York,
SCM Press/Continuum.
. 1992. Judaism. London/New York, SCM Press/Crossroad.
. 1995. Christianity. Essence and History. London/New York, SCM Press/Continuum.
. Islam. In preparation.
145
Understanding and dialogue

between religions to promote the
spirit of peace
Flix Marti*
T H E O B S TA C L E S
I am using the term religions to refer to a very varied set of experiences which
cannot be reduced to a single model. From outside, they can be seen to share
certain characteristics which make them similar, but there are also highly original
elements in each religious tradition which make it difficult to express such an
abundance of human experiences with a single concept. Religions can probably
only be properly understood from within. For this reason, the various sociologies
of religion are valuable but insufficient approximations. Any attempt at
understanding religions must respect and take an interest in the irreducible
aspects of the religious experience. It is not possible to understand religions if
we approach them with the intention only of discovering their ideological,
political, psychological, philosophical, economical nature or any other aspect
which would reduce religion to one of these dimensions of human and social
reality. Contemporary culture now looks on the religious phenomenon with
greater humility than a few decades ago and calmly questions itself as to the type
of knowledge religions have to offer, the degree to which they can play a part
in peoples freedom and responsibilities and the way in which each tradition
explores the secrets of the cosmos, the frontiers of life and death, the wonders
of human creativity.
* Director, Centre UNESCO de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.

146 Flix Marti
Religions in other ages lived in separate territories. There were divisions as

a result of their implantation in different geographical spaces. Above all, there
was a separation caused by the fact that the cultures within which religions express
themselves were until very recently highly impermeable spaces. This lack of
communication has changed radically in recent decades. Now religious offers are
not made from a monopolistic standpoint; it is becoming easier and easier to
decide for ourselves what religion we want to believe in or practise. It is also
now usual for believers of any religion to see the usefulness of contributions
from other religions rather than limiting themselves to receiving the spiritual
traditions of their own religion. At the same time, in societies which are
increasingly proclaiming religious freedom as a positive criterion for survival,
people also exercise the freedom not to believe that is, the search for vital
orientations and ethical criteria which do not originate in religion. All these facts
outline the importance of dialogue between religions. Dialogue allows a clearer
picture of what each religious tradition has to offer in relation to the others and
also helps discover points in common or shared responsibilities.
Historically, religions have not always contributed to tolerance and peace.
One could list many examples of intolerance and warmongering in most religions.
One of the reasons why religions turn to violence is connected with the claim
of owning an exclusive truth or one that is superior to the others. From this
point of view, human groups who do not belong to the community of believers
supposedly in possession of the truth may be treated as inferior. Believers who
see themselves as superior think they can legitimately force others to submit to
the truth even if it means using violence. Religions often offer their followers a
doctrinal, moral and pragmatic package that is so complete it becomes a closed
universe totally indisposed to dialogue. When a believer has a closed mind, he
experiences a comforting psychological security, but the problem is that his faith
can take the form of submission to a doctrine which has become an ideology.
In ideologies, the coherence of the system is more important than openness to
the truth. Ideologies can lead to fanaticism. Religions, unlike ideologies, are like
a pilgrimage towards the truth.
The temptation of violence often has another origin. Religions let themselves
be used by power structures and then nd themselves obliged to legitimize the
violence exercised by power. This is something that goes back a long way and
Understanding and 147
dialogue between
religions to promote
the spirit of peace
seems difficult to change. Political authorities want to use religion to achieve their
objectives. They know that religion conditions the conscience of citizens and they
attempt an alliance which will eliminate criticism and stimulate conformity. For
their own part, religious leaders have often felt that their orientations would be
more effective if they had the help of the established powers, and have jeopardized
the freedom of religious communities in exchange for power. There is then a
confusion between political authority and religious leadership. In this way
religious communities can easily come to share the violent methods so
characteristic of political life and can be called on to sanctify war. The right
solution to the problem of the confusion between power and religion poses serious
difficulties. In those religions which profess an all-powerful God, it is easy to
imagine social structures in which religious leaders wield effective political power.
Reducing religious life to the sphere of the individuals feelings does not solve
the problem either. Religion can take on a public dimension, but a public presence
for religions has to be found that is coherent with their theologies but avoids
confusions harmful both to social life and to the true nature of religions.
Religion is a decisive element in the formation of the images, symbols and
values at the heart of individuals and social groups. Religion has an enormous
ability to mobilize individual and collective energy. No other cultural reference
has the roots or the strength that characterize the religious experience. For this
reason, perverting religion can be very dangerous. Religious fervour has often
taken the form of fanaticism and extremism. Furthermore, the more religions
ask their faithful to attune to realities that are beyond their own control, the
easier it is for individuals and religious groups to adopt extravagant and violent
conduct. Religions aspire to overcoming the limits to reason and to established
social conventions. Religions suggest ways of overcoming the illusions of
anthropocentrism. However, sometimes these invitations degenerate into alienated
and psychologically unhealthy ways of life. Violence, supposedly sanctied by
religion, is one example of the misuse of religion.
Some religions have elaborated doctrines on justied violence. They criticize
violence in general but accept it in a particular set of circumstances. These are
doctrines inspired in socially accepted evaluations rather than in the original
contributions of religious theologies. Human justice has regulated violence in
societies and has xed criteria and limits to it. It is only able to denounce
148 Flix Marti
immoderate or uncontrolled violence. Some religions stay close to the regulated

acceptance of violence which is characteristic of human societies. They even
present an image of God or of the principle of reality which includes a selective
form of violence. They believe that precisely God alone exercises violence with
justice, but the acceptance of violence becomes an insoluble problem when we
try to set limits to justied violence. How can we know what violence God wants
or accepts? Who interprets the justication of violence in each specic case?
Everything is clearer when religion shuns all expression of violence and rejects
violent means even for the noblest ends.
JUSTICE AND PEACE
Peace is a consequence of justice. In situations where people or groups are

oppressed, it is normal that there be violence and wars. Human history shows
a series of violent situations because injustices have constantly taken place. The
change following the advent of modernity is that injustice is no longer considered
to be a consequence of fate, so much as the result of decisions by humans and
of structures that can be modied. Freedom and oppression, prosperity and
poverty, are social constructs, and violence therefore arises not only as an
expression of protest but as a way of breaking down unjust structures. In our
age, the desire for justice is now universal. Before, there were above all local
claims which aimed at a higher degree of freedom or fraternity within
geographically well-dened societies. Today what is really shocking is the injustice
that condemns many peoples to live in conditions inferior to those of others and
with a very limited level of freedom. Justice must become global. There will have
to be changes in the political and economic structures that ensure prosperity for
a minority of nations and maintain the underdevelopment of the majority.
Justice has a close relationship with the exercise of power. For centuries the
predominant concepts of power attributed to it a role which had little to do with
an effective search for justice. Democracy is a recent invention and its implantation
has taken place initially in countries of Western culture. However, the aspiration
to democratic life can be seen in all cultures, and a link will have to be found
between each specic culture and those democratic practices compatible with its
essential values. Everyone today believes that power should serve justice and
dialogue between
the spirit of peace
that democratic participation is what can direct any power towards the
implantation of justice. Democratic practices are beginning to make headway in
the eld of conventional political life, but there are still many power structures
which have not introduced democratic control systems to ensure their orientation
in favour of justice. I am thinking in particular of the international nancial forces
which no one controls and in the power of the media, governed only by the rules
of the market both within states and on an international scale. Any attempt to
imagine an economy that is not blind to justice is rejected by the representatives
of liberal dogma. Any attempt to imagine the media at the service of justice is
accused of jeopardizing freedom of information.
Nevertheless, it is possible to imagine, in any society, a future in which the
aspiration for justice is no longer a Utopia but a normal criterion of governability.
This development is possible if two complementary criteria are agreed on. For
one, mechanisms must be created for recognizing the degree of sovereignty all
human groups need to govern themselves according to their own values and
priorities. Until now the state has been the only entity to govern itself. But state
borders are too articial and do not show enough respect for the diversity of
human communities which should be political subjects in the international
concert. In this sense, states represent outdated structures that are too inexible
to allow democratic participation beyond the mere recognition of an exclusively
individual version of human rights. Secondly, justice will not be made to advance
unless truly international organs of government are established. Until now the
United Nations has merely acted as a forum for agreements between states. Its
freedom to exert its international authority has been conditioned. The time has
come to create a world authority that is democratic and effective.
If political and economic injustices centred the attention of analysts during
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, we are now beginning a period in which
we shall have to analyse injustices of a cultural nature. The scientic and
technological culture developed by the Western countries has looked upon itself
as superior and has believed itself authorized to marginalize or destroy all other
cultures. Today there is a growing awareness of the limits to science and
technology as forms of culture. Scientists and technicians themselves say the same.
Intellectuals, sages and artists of dominated or endangered cultures suffer. It is
in the interest of all of us today to establish a cultural coexistence which respects
150 Flix Marti
all traditions equally. Obviously all cultures are limited and all have to evolve,
taking into account new information, new situations and the dialogue between
various traditions. What cannot be accepted is that the self-criticism expected of
some cultures cannot be exercised in the dominant cultures. It is also inadmissible
that cultures or languages should be rated according to the quantitative criteria
that belong to the world of economics or politics. Establishing criteria and rules
to defend the equal dignity of all cultures is something we must do urgently if
we want to work for peace in the world. Disrespect for cultures and cultural
oppression are causes of violence and wars.
In other ages, prestige went to imperialist ideologies. At any rate, the
beneciaries of imperialist practices had managed to convince everyone of the
value of their political formulas. Empires aimed to consolidate their power by
imposing criteria of uniformity within their territories. The attempt to eliminate
diversity is one of the practices that has caused the most pain and violence in
human history. Even today, political repression is exercised in many places to
eliminate individuals and groups who represent human diversity. People want
to resolve complexity through measures that destroy complexity. In some places,
it is ethnic diversity people are afraid of; in others, religious diversity, national
diversity, or diversity of ideological or political orientations. We are more and
more aware that human diversity is something to treasure and that the beauty
of social life is the constructive organization of diversity. Obviously, it is more
difficult to respect diversity than to govern uniform societies, but it is far more
interesting to live in pluralist societies than in uniform ones. The shift from the
prestige of imperialist systems to the recognition of the value of complex societies
offers a rare opportunity for peace.
One of the consequences of the one-sidedness of technological culture is the
aggressiveness we have developed towards the environment. The old forms of
communion with nature and of respect for Mother Earth have been replaced by
a purely utilitarian treatment. Human societies have not only believed themselves
independent of the world of nature, they have abused natures resources to limits
that have upset fundamental aspects of the balance on Planet Earth. We are now
beginning to think that the meaning of justice cannot be reduced to a distribution
of resources and opportunities to human individuals and groups, but that it must
extend throughout the system of relations which connect human life with life in
dialogue between
the spirit of peace
general and with the whole of the planet. This is a very considerable change in
outlook. We need new wisdom to help us make a judicious use of natures
resources, to create an alternative industrial system that is sustainable and to
substantially modify consumer habits which cannot be shared by all the
inhabitants of the planet. At the moment, we are still prisoners of unfair ways
of life, because 20 per cent of the worlds population consumes 80 per cent of
its resources, and the way we exploit the available resources is beyond all measure.
The aims of religion cannot be reduced to achieving justice. Religion tries
to make accessible the mysteries at the heart of reality. It offers paths for liberation
that do not coincide with visible justice, but this does not mean that it is indifferent
to justice. All religions contain clear invitations to practise justice. They express
it in various languages: love, compassion, willingness, generosity. Not only do
they propose the practice of justice, but they are able to activate powerful energies
to make their faithful brave to the point of heroism in the struggle in favour of
justice. For these reasons, followers of various religious traditions have become
outstanding examples in the ght for human dignity, human rights and liberation
processes. In todays world, it does not seem easy to bring about the great changes
necessary to establish universal justice, with the characteristics laid out above,
unless religions help with their own determined and disinterested contributions.
In technologically advanced societies, only religion can make an appeal for the
change in life which will lead us towards a model of sustainable development.
In poor societies, religion alone feeds the hope of the most desperate.
RELIGIONS AND PEACE
Some writers have intimately tied religion and peace to the extent of saying that
they are practically identical experiences. When there is a pacication of hearts
and of societies, then there is progress towards a religious experience. When
there is genuine religious maturity, the result will be non-violence and peace. In
this sense, the best contribution which religions can make to peace is to be true
to themselves and reject adulterated versions of their own tradition. It is in the
heart of human beings that the basic options on violence and peace are decided.
The religious experience is an option against violence and in favour of peace.
In todays world, religions must clearly state that violence cannot be legitimated
152 Flix Marti
by appeals to them and that, on the contrary, religions are factors of personal
and social pacication. This clarication can only come about when religions
overcome sectarian temptations, that is, when they are at the service of the spiritual
message which characterizes them and not at the service of institutional interests.
All religions, at some time or another, fall prey to sectarian orientations.
Sectarianism contains the explanation for the violence often exercised by religions.
Sects use any means available to them to achieve their ends. They act like coldly
calculating businesses that are no longer at the service either of their members
or of the general public. Religions must not be confused with sects. Religions
are an invitation to spiritual life and are incompatible with the instrumentalization
of people and with violence.
It is not enough for religions to be themselves if they want to contribute
effectively to peace in the world. They must also make an effort at dialogue to
provide a solid foundation for social and political peace: religious peace. Peace
between religions does not just mean passive tolerance between communities of
believers or between communities of believers and the agnostic or atheist trends
which also exist in our societies; it means a common search for proposals of
spirituality. I have already pointed out that each religious tradition has an
originality that makes it impossible to equate it with the others. They do not
make the same proposals and their differences cannot be put down simply to
the use of different languages. What we can hope for is that they recognize the
similarities between their doctrines and, above all, the spiritual itineraries they
propose. There are startling similarities to be observed between the mystics of
all religions. It seems by all means that we are beginning a period in which
religions must take an interest in dialogue and collaboration. Individual believers
and communities of believers from different religions have for some time been
working together for progress in justice. But this is not enough. It must also be
possible to maintain dialogue on doctrines, spiritual experiences and the ways
in which believers want to be present in todays world. Dialogue between religions
is still very undeveloped. There should be more spaces and occasions for it to
take place as something normal. The more institutionally structured religions
will have to overcome the inertia specic to their way of functioning. The religions
that have lived in greater isolation or in more closed societies must respond to
contemporary cultural realities which, for better or for worse, affect everyone.
dialogue between
the spirit of peace
Religions in dialogue will contribute to peace. Religions which have no wish for
dialogue will obstruct peace.
Increasingly, religions live in societies in which the citizens have intellectual,
moral and aesthetic points of reference that are not monopolized by religion.
Believers themselves share, willingly or unwillingly, symbols, values and ideas
which come to all cultures from different sources of inspiration. Religion is only
one of these sources, even if the principal one. Religions have always maintained
a dialogue with the cultures with which they have coexisted. In fact, religious
and spiritual messages are expressed in languages provided by the different
cultures. The synthesis is sometimes so strong that it is difficult to distinguish
between religion and culture and it is difficult to imagine what religion would
be like if it were expressed in a different culture or what would become of specic
cultures if they did away with the religion which drives them. It would be true
to say that, in general, culture and religion do not coincide. Religions are
particularly concerned with the sacred, with the mysterious unity of reality or
with the relations between human beings and what is invisible and inexpressible.
Religions reach areas that are inaccessible to culture when culture does not
include religion. Culture, on the other hand, refers to many other experiences
of human life and gives rise to philosophies, ethics and aesthetics with little relation
to the messages of religion. Religions make contributions to cultures but they
are not the only sources. Some religious traditions are more unitary and some
are more dualistic. In all of them, we can discover more distinctly cultural
elements alongside genuinely spiritual ones. For these reasons, it is healthy that
religions should maintain a dialogue with their cultural context and also with
more distant cultures. The great spiritual messages can be recreated in any
cultural context and need have no fear of any serious cultural novelty that is
open to dialogue. If religions do not remain adamant in the face of new cultural
situations, peace will be easier.
One of the most valuable contributions by religions to peace in the world
would be for communities of believers to practise experiences of peace within
their communities. It is important, for example, that legitimate diversity of
believers in the doctrinal eld not be repressed, that religious leaders should
exercise authority on the basis of agreement on their spiritual maturity and that
conicts within religious groups should be resolved with real feeling for
154 Flix Marti
individuals. Very often, the structures of the more institutionalized religions are
too much like political structures. There is not enough respect for diversity,
religious leaders take on their responsibilities without the participation of their
community, and an articial order is imposed by repressive measures similar to
those used by totalitarian powers. Communities of believers should keep their
distance from the models and practices societies have used in their political life.
Religion must be clearly seen as groups of people practising a spiritual experience
and, therefore, as something remote from the passions of power, of social prestige
and of visible success. In this respect, individuals and communities with prophetic
characteristics, even if they seem unconventional, can inspire justice and peace.
Order is a legitimate concern of political leaders, but it must not be a priority
for religions. Peace needs people and groups who practise love, forgiveness and
reconciliation.
Some specically religious values appear as decisive contributions on the
horizon of problems of violence and peace. The wisdom of non-violence from
which conduct develops to deactivate the spiral of violence, the welcome for the
foreigner, the invitation to forgive offence, and the relativization of desire are all
enormously important contributions in the search for peace. Religions have
breathed life into these ideals and many people practise them discreetly but
effectively. They are not exclusive to religious people but it is obvious that the
religious foundation of these ideals means they can be lived with special strength.
In addition, religions propose them to all, because the great religious traditions
are open to all citizens and not just to selected circles. In this respect, I must
mention the foundation that religions have to offer to human dignity and the
dignity of all creatures. Human rights could not be formulated without a basis
in the recognition of human dignity. It seems a paradox that religions, which
differ from mere humanism in that they are gifts that come from outside the
human individual, offer a foundation for human dignity. In fact, the difficulty
would be to accept that our dignity is decided only by self-evaluation or by social
agreement. Self-evaluation entails the risk of overvaluation or undervaluation.
Agreements are too fragile. Religions can give wider meanings to human rights
values and the rights of peoples. At the same time, they can help to reformulate
in new ways assertions which are still too closely tied to Western culture.
One of the great challenges of our age is the threat of scepticism and
dialogue between
the spirit of peace
nihilism. When all principles are relative to the point of not believing in anything
or anyone, when there is no value to give a meaning to life, the chances of
accepting violence are very high. There are people who do not believe in the
possibility of keeping away from violence. They feel trapped by violence and
contribute resignedly to its established forms. This conformity is mainly expressed
in two ways. Sometimes there is a selsh acceptance of violence which is
accompanied by justications of a cynical type. Sometimes, violence is lived as
an experience rather like a game, without any pretence at theory. At any rate,
nihilism is different from the vacuum experienced by mystics of all religious
traditions. For mystics, the night is like an expectation, or the rst taste of
plenitude. Nihilists lose themselves in disorientation. They live in it and sometimes
take advantage of it without excluding violence. Religions do a great service to
the extent that they are universes of faith and spaces for values. It is true that
sometimes religious faith and values have been associated with violence, but the
total absence of faith and values is even easier to associate with violence. In our
own age, nihilism is often present under a gentle guise. An inordinate passion
for distraction, sport or consumption is one manifestation of nihilism. Religion
teaches us to lead a life reconciled to reality, without running away from it, without
the need to look for articial paradises to give life a meaning. Religions show us
the way to overcome radical mistrust in ourselves and others. Faith and values,
that is, trust, generate peace.
S PA C E S F O R P E A C E
Religions know that any reform intended to organize society along fairer lines
can fail if it does not take into account human fragility, or individual or group
selshness, the possibility of corruption threatening any political structure.
Throughout human history, many reforms have been attempted which aspired
to establishing peace based on justice. Their success so far has been very limited.
Fairer structures are not enough. It is also necessary for each human being to
develop a sense of fraternity and the experience of peace. The inner peace of
each individual and the peace of society are interrelated and complementary.
Human beings can reach peace under a wide range of conditions. Their most
intimate freedom is never held to ransom by the political, economic and social
156 Flix Marti
conditions of the world around them. Religions teach ways to maintain dignity,
calm and peace in situations of oppression, poverty, ideological control, suffering
or collective alienation. Religions are bearers of a special wisdom which saves
us from destruction by the forces of evil outside or inside each individual. Inner
peace is an innocence which survives the experience of evil. Through working
for peace within each individual, religions have done a service of great value to
peace in the world. Religions do not have a monopoly, but they are extremely
rich in this eld.
Peace should be one of the characteristics of family life. Today, there are
many different family models. The basic element of the family is the special love
between two or more people. Love can be present in many family models. The
greatness of human love is considered by religions as a gift from God or an
experience related to the fullness of life. For this reason, religions have praised
the family and have often granted it a specically religious status. The family is
a space lled with wonders. One feels the joy of giving; one creates a universe
of shared values; the corporal relationship becomes spiritual and the spiritual
communion is expressed in corporal gestures; sexuality, affection and liberty
become one; the passage of time is experienced as maturation. The family is a
special place in which to live in peace. Relations between members of the family
should be characterized by non-violence, by the festive acceptance of diversity,
by harmony between generations, sexes, qualities and defects, joys and sadness,
successes and failures. The old model of the patriarchal and authoritarian family
is evolving towards fraternal and open ways of life. Religions should come out
in favour of a family peace centred on meaningful love. They should also be
sympathetic towards processes which allow sexuality to be seen positively, which
eliminate the subordination of women and which place reproductive conduct in
the sphere of freedom. A family at peace is a valuable contribution to peace in
the world.
The spirit of peace must not be restricted to personal life and family life.
We all belong to larger communities taking into account our dimensions: we are
citizens of an urban or rural community; we are members of a company or of
a professional structure; we are members of cultural, sports, charitable or other
associations. In each of the communities, we can act in favour of peace or
contribute to violence. It is not just a question of maintaining good relations with
dialogue between
the spirit of peace
the people we live with in our neighbourhood, at work or in the organizations

of which we are members, but of helping to direct all the structures we take part
in towards peace. The options of a city, a company or an association are not
neutral. They either favour or complicate coexistence. Today, most of the
decisions taken by public and private institutions have nancial motivations. The
search for nancial prot does not guarantee a service to peace. We must
denounce the abusive presence of nancial interests in public life. Religions can
oppose the idolatry of money and can maintain hope for the creation of structures
of all sorts at the service of people. The service of religions must not be the
construction of parallel structures controlled by religious authorities, but the
stimulation of all social structures to place them at the service of human
communities. The spirit of peace must give life to cities, businesses and
associations. The spirit of peace must guide our conduct as citizens, as consumers,
as professionals. The spirit of peace must not be excluded from any sphere of
human activity.
States wield enormous responsibility in the eld of justice and peace. The
number of democratic states is relatively small and it is also a fact that all forms
of democracy are limited. Non-democratic states exercise uncontrolled violence
within their territories and in relation to other states. The roads to democracy
are roads to peace. Democratic states exercise very restricted and relatively
controllable violence. It is good that mechanisms for participation should be
improved and that residual violence should be deactivated. One of the problems
which generates most violence today is the lack of correspondence between state
structures and national realities. States accuse nationalist movements of being the
cause of violence and war. The truth is that the most obvious cause is the reluc-
tance of many states to recognize the sovereignty of nations. One need only look
at the practical difficulties which go with the right to self-determination. The
spirit of peace should mean that the interests of states take second place to the
right of peoples to self-government. At the same time, states must make a move
to cede a part of their functions to international organizations and rethink the
traditional structures of defence and security characterizing them. Religions will
help spread the spirit of peace if they help to stimulate the awareness of national
communities and relativize state structures; if they help to criticize the residual
violence still practised by democratic states and are sympathetic towards pacist
158 Flix Marti
movements, conscientious objectors and towards other alternative proposals to

militaristic philosophies and conventional concepts of security; if they help make
the peaceful transition from authoritarian regimes to democratic life.
One of the basic conditions for peace is the universal spread of solidarity.
There are many people and groups prepared to practise solidarity within certain
geographical limits. They only defend solidarity within the boundary of their
own territory, country or culture. Sometimes they identify the space of their own
religion as a space delimiting the exercise of solidarity. However, the most
courageous of any of religions messages is the extension of its invitations to all
human beings. The great religious traditions, although they were born in specic
cultural spaces, are universal. They are pillars, reminders and promoters of
universal fraternity. Their universality must be seen not only as the freedom to
offer their wisdom to any human being in any territory, but as the proclamation
of the unity of the whole of the human family, of the need for universal justice
without exclusions, and of the responsibility of each individual and each group
towards all others. The cracks which divide the world today could probably be
mended if religions insisted on the universal dimensions of human life. In some
societies, only religion can propose a change of lifestyle to reduce inordinate
consumption and make universal solidarity viable.
MEANS AND METHODS
The spirit of peace is a very ancient philosophy and, at the same time, a very
new one. The aspiration is old. The possibility of eliminating much violence and
war is very recent. For this reason, it can be considered a truly revolutionary
change in ideas and attitudes. Education is of vital importance in explaining that
peace, as religion tells us, is at once a mysterious gift and a means to edify
freedom. It is mysterious in the sense that peace is related to the deepest
dimensions of human experience which religions call the spiritual or sacred
sphere. It is also something constructed out of human responsibility. All
individuals and all groups must be educated in the spirit of tolerance, of openness
and peace. Everyone should be initiated in the ideas, the desires and the
techniques and myths of peace. Education for peace must be one of the priorities
of any educational system. Today there are a series of educational methodologies
dialogue between
the spirit of peace
at the service of education for peace. In the framework of UNESCO, we can

mention the Associated Schools Project and the Linguapax programme. Religions
devote a large part of their energy to education. Therefore a concerted effort by
all the religious traditions in the eld of education would give impressive results.
Alongside educational work, I must stress the importance of non-
governmental organizations. Some countries have excellent associative traditions.
Other countries, especially those which suffered under long-term totalitarian
political regimes, still have a weak civil society, but there is growing recognition
everywhere of the importance of non-prot organizations as a driving force for
peace. First of all, I must mention the peace movements themselves. Some are
confessional and others are non-confessional. They are associations working in
favour of disarmament or promoting mediation in conicts, or speaking out
against expressions of violence. Many followers of the great religious traditions
belong to these peace associations. Even the religious authorities often make public
declarations in favour of peace and against violence and are not afraid to mention
specic problems such as the scandal of the arms trade. Other associations have
complementary objectives. I could mention three types of non-governmental
organizations which act on the causes of war and violence. These are associations
for individual and collective human rights, associations for co-operation between
rich countries and economically poor countries, and associations for the protection
of the environment. If religions ask their followers to help bring to life the
movements in favour of peace, human rights, co-operation or the environment,
the strength of these non-governmental organizations can be increased.
The instruments with the strongest inuence on public opinion are the mass
media, which have an almost magical power inasmuch as they shape reality. They
bring to life myths, interpretations, feelings and passions, and cause other myths,
ideas and values to disappear. Religions have a difficult relationship with the
media. They often prefer their message to be transmitted more condentially
through the techniques of initiation. They know that sensationalism is a path
fraught with pitfalls. They understandably avoid trivialization, confusion or the
cult of immediate sensuality. Furthermore, when religious propaganda becomes
marketing, it resembles mental manipulation more than an offer of spiritual life.
The message of peace is not so difficult to express through the media. It calls,
above all, for the gradual replacement of ideas and myths which favour violence
160 Flix Marti
by concepts and myths placing a value on peace. The media can serve racism,
discrimination, aggression and intolerance, or they can combat prejudice, praise
diversity and pluralism, improve coexistence and build peace. The concern of
believers as regards the media should not be so much to ensure that their
religious tradition has access to them, as to work towards communications which
are media-orientated in favour of non-violence and peace, in favour of freedom
and pluralism, in favour of truth and justice.
In all human societies, artists have a very special role to play. They extend
human experience beyond conventional words and the usual actions. They
practise a creativity which, through its beauty, brings us pleasure in our
relationship with ourselves, with others and with the world. They suggest myths
and symbols to explore the meaning of life. With their generosity, they free us
from imprisonment in our own interest. They invite us to develop the pleasurable
rather than purely functional dimensions of the individual and collective human
existence. In a world such as ours, which is so lacking in Utopias, they invite us
to spread our wings, sometimes expressing our unease with others imagining a
more harmonious world. Religions have always valued art and have used the
boldness of art to express the ineffable. Religion has inspired artists, and artists
have represented certain religious experiences. Religions are favourable to beauty
in the same way that they are favourable to truth and goodness. The interest of
religions in art should be better expressed, not only because the arts can be paths
towards religion, but because the arts contribute to human dignity to the extent
that they arouse creativity, the most profound sensibility and the noblest
inspirations. The spirit of peace must nd the right aesthetic forms through which
to communicate. Logical discourse is not enough. It needs forms, symbols,
images which will take root in the most secret interior of each individual and
each community. Those religions that encourage aesthetic creativity have a
contribution to make.
Since peace is a combination of fragile equilibria, the structures that guarantee
peace must be strengthened. In the political eld, we need a reform of the United
Nations Organization to make it into a structure more capable of ensuring peace.
Its present design is outdated and undemocratic and its powers are too limited.
We must also try and complement the policy of territorial representation, in which
all nations must be present with fair and proportioned criteria, with a second
dialogue between
the spirit of peace
policy to allow the effective participation of non-governmental organizations. The

structures of peace do not belong exclusively to the sphere of politics. There
must also be strong organizations to look after specic issues in relation to peace.
We could mention, for example, the world of scientists, of writers or of the young.
If we think of the world of religion, more organizations should be set up along
the lines of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the World Council of Churches,
the Peace Council or the World Conference on Religion and Peace, which was
founded in Kyoto, Japan, in 1970 and has a fascinating history of inter-religious
dialogue in favour of peace. Along similar lines, I must mention the meeting of
the Council for a Parliament of the Worlds Religions which took place in 1993
in Chicago in commemoration of the meeting held in 1893. These structures are
still few and weak. Let us hope they can grow and be consolidated.
All these thoughts point out the common responsibilities of religions towards
peace. Religions must make new efforts to promote the spirit of peace and it
would be meaningless for each tradition to act individually. It is time for dialogue
and co-operation.
163
Gandhi on the moral life

and plurality of religions
Mrinal Miri*
In this paper, I shall talk primarily about Gandhis views about what he
considered to be the proper relationship between different religions or rather
between communities owing allegiance to different religions but, before
doing so, I would like (1) briey to indicate, at the risk of being banal, our
own post-Gandhian predicament, which lends an aura of enchantment to the
contemplation of Gandhi; and (2) to show how a Gandhian way of looking
at things might contain the beginnings of a general answer to our
predicament.
Let me begin with the idea of humanism. This idea is peculiar to Western
modernity and informs much of our contemporary talk about human rights.
Humanism is not an easy idea to present, but perhaps one can say the following:
in pre-modern civilizations, where man certainly occupied an important place in
the order of things, the highest object of mans moral and spiritual attention was
something other than man himself; it might have been the spiritual reality
permeating the world, or the cosmic order, or God and so on. For humanism,
on the other hand, man himself in his purely manly existence, in his utter
ordinariness, is the only proper object of mans moral attention. What then is
man in his ordinariness? Man is a biological creature with a certain life-span and
with special needs and desires; he can wield reason and language, has emotions
of different kinds; he is liable to suffer pain and is capable of enjoying pleasure;
* Director, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla, India.

164 Mrinal Miri
he also has freedom and autonomy, which he does not owe to anything else in
the world. For humanism, mans moral endeavour must exist in the pursuit of
the welfare of man understood in this sense.
The values which are associated with the humanist moral stance are: the
value of human life as such, of mans freedom, of avoidance of pain and pursuit
of pleasure. Human rights include the right to life, the right to freedom, the right
to pursue pleasure and to avoid pain and suffering. To these one might add the
right to dignity, and nowadays also the right to ones own culture. It is interesting
that the language of rights is a central feature of our contemporary moral
discourse. I think that this is also, as I shall try to indicate shortly, a part of what
I have called our contemporary predicament.
Humanism stands in a close but extremely uneasy relationship with another
pervasive feature of modernity: modern Western epistemology, dominated by
what many would now call the ideology of natural science. The central feature
of this epistemology is its insistence on what we might call the purity of
knowledge, knowledge uncontaminated by human subjectivity and mediated by
disengaged scientic reason. Such reason reveals a world that is, as Weber said,
disenchanted, denuded of spirituality, or indeed any meaning or telos. The
disenchanted world contains man with his life of subjectivity, his desires, feelings
and emotions, his freedom to do one thing rather than another. Humanism simply
asserts that, if anything is to be valued in such a world, it can only be mans
life, the pleasures which come from the fullment of his desires and his capacity
for freedom. To this are added mans sense of dignity and his identication with
a particular culture.
The irony, however, is that while humanist values are widely acknowledged
and are to a large extent the by-product of modern epistemology, the latter cannot
provide a basis for our belief in the existence of these values: statements asserting
these values are outside the eld of our epistemic gaze. They must, therefore,
be regarded as either expressions of our subjectivity or its projections onto the
objective world. Another way is to regard belief in values humanist or other
as having served, in spite of their being erroneous, a useful purpose in mans
success in the evolutionary struggle and, therefore, dispensable when they no
longer serve this purpose. Still another related way is to regard our moral
consciousness as inherently confused and riddled with error and, therefore, best
Gandhi on the moral life 165
discarded altogether.1 There are, of course, valiant attempts to reconcile the

epistemic rejection of values with their apparent ineluctability. But such attempts,
from the nature of the case, cannot succeed.
Another source of tension is the very need to acknowledge the existence of
the disengaged self endowed with freedom and autonomy. Since the world
revealed by our rational-scientic-epistemic gaze is not a world ordered in terms
of values, is not what might be called a dharmic world, the humanist values must
be articulated in the language of rights and not in the language of ontological
commitment. Morality has to be put into effect by mans exercise of his freedom,
but freedom or autonomy also implies freedom not to exercise this freedom: a
right must also be capable of not being exercised, of being waived. By contrast,
an ontological order cannot be waived. Thus, while humanist values are widely
acknowledged, there is as it were a seed of subversion written into the humanist
agenda. The autonomy or freedom of the self, a central humanist value, renders
values articulated in terms of human rights dispensable.
M O D E R N E P I S T E M O L O G Y A N D VA L U E S
There have also been attempts at giving an account of values which give them
an ontological status in spite of the dictates of modern epistemology. Notable
among such attempts are those of Charles Taylor and Alisdair MacIntyre. Charles
Taylor argues at great length and in several places for a view which can be thus
stated:2
1. Consider, for instance, the debate beginning, in Anglo-American philosophy, with

G. E. Moore, Principia Ethica, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1903; and
continuing through philosophers like C. L. Stevenson, The Language of Ethics, New
York, Columbia University Press, 1945; R. M. Hare, Freedom and Reason, Oxford,
Oxford University Press, 1963; and, very recently, John L. Mackie, Ethics: Inventing
Right and Wrong, Harmondsworth, Penguin, l977; Simon Blackburn, Essays and the
Phenomenology of Value, in T. Honderich (ed.), Morality and Objectivity, Routledge
& Kegan Paul, 1985; John McDowell, Values and Secondary Qualities, in Honderich,
op. cit.; Barnard Williams, Ethics and Limits of Philosophy, London, Fontana, 1985.
2. See, for instance, his essays in Human Agency and Language, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1985; and Sources of the Self, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 1992.
166 Mrinal Miri
We have what may be called brute desires, and desires to have certain desires
or desires not to have certain desires. The second kind of desires may be
called second-order desires.
Choosing between brute desires requires only weak evaluation (shall I have
tea or coffee?), but having a second-order desire requires strong evaluation
(shall I succumb to the desire to be dishonest or shall I pursue the desire
not to have the desire to be dishonest?).
It is impossible to reduce strong evaluations to weak evaluations in spite
of famous attempts to do so (for example, Mill, Freud, Foucault).
Our capacity to make strong evaluations is built into the very concept of a
human being: human beings would not be what we know them to be if
they did not have this capacity.
The distinction between strong evaluation and weak evaluation requires that
we recognize a distinction of quality between our desires between a life
that is incomparably better than some other. And this is a distinction in
reality, not just an expression of our subjectivity or its projection.
Our modern humanist values also arise from our strong evaluations and
thus have an inalienable ontological status: they cannot be divorced from
the real world, modern epistemology notwithstanding.
Taylors arguments for his view are acute, penetrating and are informed by
rare historical insight. Unfortunately, this is not the place to go into them. What
I wish to say here, without arguing for it, is that the arguments lose surety
while dealing with the fact that strong evaluation necessarily allows for the
possibility of different visions of the good life: visions which may be
incompatible with one another. Thus think of the difference between a life
devoted to the service of the downtrodden, a life devoted to the welfare and
happiness of the family and the home, and a life devoted to the pursuit of
aesthetic self-expression. When each of these has the status, for a different
individual, of being incomparably better than anything else, how are moral
differences between them to be resolved? The situation becomes even more
tricky when we consider the possible moral impasse arising out of allegiance (in
the strong evaluation sense) to different cultures which, in many crucial ways,
may be incompatible with one another. Perhaps Taylor would say that, faced
with such apparent incompatibilities, one tries to achieve a ner, deeper
articulation of ones own strong evaluations in the hope that similar articulations
of rival strong evaluations would eventually come to rational terms with one
another. But this is only a hope, laudable undoubtedly, but none the less just
a hope.
MacIntyres rearguard defence of the reality of values consists in arguing
that virtues are embedded in what he calls human practices and can be stated
schematically as follows:3
A practice is a form of rule-governed human activity, e.g. chess, gardening,
academic research.
The crucial thing about a practice is that there is a good, an excellence,
which is internal to a practice and there is a good which is external to it;
for example football has a good which is internal to it, an excellence which
can be articulated only in terms of the game itself, such as that achieved by,
say, a Pele. They are unintelligible except in terms of the practice itself.
However, there is an external good to be gained by playing football: money,
fame, etc. The same is true of a practice such as academic research.
It is in the nature of a practice that pursuit of a good internal to it requires
the exercise of virtues such as honesty, justice, courage, and so on. To cheat
in football is to defeat the very purpose of the pursuit of excellence in football;
one must be capable of giving others their due: recognizing and
acknowledging excellence achieved by others and putting ones own
achievement in perspective (justice); one must be prepared to put ones limbs,
if not ones life, at risk (courage). What is true of football is true of other
practices as well.
Human life would be recognizably different if it did not have room for
practice in MacIntyres sense.
The virtues, therefore, cannot be divorced from the fabric of human life,
whatever the verdict of modern scientic epistemology.
MacIntyres attempt at nding an objective grounding for virtues is, like Taylors
attempt at showing the reality of values, brilliant, but his account also has to
take stock of the turn which human life has taken in our times. The autonomy
3. After Virtue, London, Duckworth, 1981, particularly Chapter 14.

168 Mrinal Miri
of the pursuit of internal goods is increasingly being made subservient to the

pursuit of external goods. If this process continues, and there is no indication
that it will not, then the natural end product of such a process will be that all
pursuit of internal goods will be at the service of the external goods, such as
money, fame, power. If internal goods are no longer pursued for their own sake,
then virtues will no longer be an inalienable part of the fabric of human life; for
the pursuit of external goods does not require the exercise of the virtues; what
it might still require is perhaps simulacra of the virtues, so that the illusion of a
special aura around virtuous concepts can be put to effective use in its service.
H U M A N I S T I C VA L U E S
The point I have been labouring to make is that, if we are looking for a basis
for our commitment to values, humanist values included, we shall have to look
rather beyond the epistemic resources of modernity, beyond not into what
has come to be known as post-modernity, which has certainly lent a degree of
respectability to assertions of radical epistemic diversity but beyond, as it were,
into our pre-modern epistemic past. Gandhis entire approach was pre-modern
or traditional. He, of course, sharply criticized, and indeed condemned, many
things in his own tradition; he also had deep respect for the achievements of
modern science, although he considered much of its technological by-product a
terrible catastrophe for mankind. The foundation of his thought and his practice
is the unqualied conviction that our existence is spiritually grounded, that
spirituality and moral purity must necessarily inform each other, that mans true
fullment lies in moral-spiritual self-knowledge and action that necessarily ows
from such self-knowledge. Let us take the following passages:
But he is no God who merely satises the intellect, if he ever does. God to be God
must rule the heart and transform it. He must express his self in every, the smallest,
act of his votary. This can only be done through a denite realization more real than
the ve senses can ever produce. Sense perceptions can be, often are, false and
deceptive, however real they may appear. Where there is realization outside the senses,
it is infallible. It is proved not by extraneous evidence but in the transformed conduct
and character of those who have felt the real presence of God within. Such testimony
is to be found in the experiences of an unbroken line of prophets and sages in all

countries and climes. To reject this evidence is to deny oneself. (Young India, 11 October
1928)
True religion and true morality are inseparably bound up with each other. Religion
is to morality what water is to the seed that is sown in the soil. (Ethical Religion,
Ahmedabad, Navajiban Press, 1936, p. 29)
As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing
as religion overriding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel and
incontinent and claim to have God on his side. (Young India, 24 November 1921)
Religion which takes no account of practical affairs and does not help to solve them
is no religion. (Young India, 7 May 1925)
I have come to feel that, like human beings, words have their evolution from stage
to stage in the contents they hold. For instance, the contents of the richest word
God are not the same to every one of us. They will vary with the experience of
each. (Young India, 11 August 1927)
For Gandhi, as for many others, the religious vision is inseparable from spiritual
experience and the authenticity of the latter is guaranteed by the moral
transformation that ensues. Morality, religion and mysticism are of a piece. The
crucial difference between the Gandhian vision of spiritual life and what may be
called the received version of such a life is that, for Gandhi, an active, total (that
is, with ones entire being) engagement with ordinary life being fully there,
imaginatively present to that which concerns us4 can be informed by the most
profound spirituality; spiritual pursuit does not require disengagement from
sansarik (worldly) life. To be spiritual and to be moral is to respond with utter
ahimsa (non-violence) to what requires our response.
My countrymen are my nearest neighbours. They have become so helpless, so

resourceless, so inert that I must concentrate myself on serving them. If I could
4. Janet Martin Soskice, Love and Attention, in Michael McGhee (ed.), Philosophy,
Religion and the Spiritual Life, p. 67, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992.
170 Mrinal Miri
persuade myself that I should nd Him in a Himalayan cave, I would proceed there
immediately. But I know that I cannot nd Him apart from humanity. (Harijan, 29
August 1936)
I do not believe that the spiritual law works on a eld of its own. On the contrary,
it expresses itself only through the ordinary activities of life. It thus affects the
economic, social and political elds. (Young India, 3 September 1925)
Working on the spinning wheel, looking after an injured calf, being engaged in
satyagraha for a particular political end, keeping ones own home clean and tidy
each one of these activities can be touched by a joyous spirituality, a sense of
being in touch with the real order of things.
It might be interesting in this connection to consider the curious Gandhian
notion of experiments with truth. The truth that Gandhi was concerned with
was the truth (reality as opposed to illusion) of moral life. He believed that
there is an interior route to moral truths, just as there is an exterior route to
the truths of natural science. His experiments consisted in traversing this interior
route until the possibility of the moral life was rmly established. Gandhis
experiment was aimed, among other things, at the purication of the motive,
by going down to the springs of action, to root attitudes, thence to their expression
in conduct which may result in dismantling and establishing of forms of life.5
Gandhis fasts were an instrument of this experimentation; and there were several
occasions in his life, in the early years, while in England, in South Africa and
back in India, when dismantling a form of life and establishing another took
place. The journey was far from easy. As Gandhi put it:
It may entail continuous suffering and the cultivating of endless patience. Thus, step
by step we learn to make friends with all the world; we realize the greatness of God
or truth. Our peace of mind increases in spite of suffering, we become braver and
more enterprising. We understand more clearly the difference between what is ever-
lasting and what is not. Our pride melts away, and we become humble. Our worldly
attachments diminish and so does the evil with us diminish from day to day. (Yervada
Mandir, Ahmedabad, Navajiban Press, 1932, p. 105)
5. Michael McGhee, In praise of Mindfulness, Religious Studies (Cambridge), Vol. 24,

No. 1, 1988, p. 66.
The test of the ultimate reality of values or moral truths is to be rmly established
in a form of life or stage of life in which a person comes to feel a spirit which
delights to do no evil; or, in Gandhis case, a spirit which delights to do justice
to ones adversary in practical, political, religious matters, a spirit which delights
in helping the helpless.
The use of the word experiment is also suggestive of the fact that the moral
search, the traversing of the interior route, is not just a psychological journey
but an epistemic one a journey which yields at once self-knowledge, as opposed
to self-ignorance, and knowledge of moral truths such as that true ahimsa drives
out all fear, that the power of ahimsa is incomparably superior to that of violence,
that true humility is the other side of true dignity. To achieve such self-knowledge,
such quickening of awareness, is also to attain true freedom, swaraj, a state where
ones actions ow with utter spontaneity from ones knowledge. Freedom is not
the capacity to choose at random between alternative courses of action, but to
act from an integrated moral epistemic stance.
To be able to appreciate Gandhi, therefore, one must be open to a radical
epistemic reorientation; there must be a preparedness for a dismantling or at
least a radical transformation of our epistemic stance.
I N T E R N AT I O N A L F E L L O W S H I P O F A L L R E L I G I O N S
Now to Gandhis views about the proper interrelationship between different

religions. Gandhis views are elaborated as a response to the question which he
asks himself: how ought I, as a believing Hindu, treat other religions? The
question had great practical urgency for Gandhi. India was the home of many
religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Islam, Christianity and
numerous tribal religions. While different religious communities generally lived
in harmony with each other, conicts frequently violent did arise and
threatened to destroy the very possibility of a community life which is informed
by justice and freedom. Why do such conicts arise? Frequently, of course, they
arise because of extraneous causes, such as economic, political, sociological
disparities of one kind or another; but even in a situation where such disparities
do not exist or, at least, are minimized, the possibility of conict is not ruled out,
and the reason for this, therefore, must be sought in the internal features of
172 Mrinal Miri
religions themselves. The most important of such features is that there is a claim
of superiority over all other religions built into the basic articulation of some
religions. This is potentially conict-generating in three ways:
1. When two religions claim superiority over each other, this can express itself
in conduct meant to establish such claims in conicting practical terms.
2. Even when a particular religion does not claim superiority over others, it is
natural for it not to accept a position of inferiority with regard to the others.
3. There are, of course, cases where an individual or a community owing
allegiance to a religion is dissatised with the religion and embraces another
superior one. This may, at least at the initial stage, cause great spiritual
anxiety depending on how rmly rooted the individual or the community
was in the original religion.
Gandhis answer to the question: How ought I, as a believing Hindu, treat other
religions? is: I must treat all religions with equal respect.
We must, of course, distinguish this answer from the same answer from a
relativist or a scientic-liberal outlook about religions. The relativist position is:
1. The truth of a religion and the rightness of its various practices are an internal
matter of the religion.
2. The religion cannot therefore be judged in terms of criteria which are
external to it.
3. No religion, therefore, can judge another to be either inferior or superior.
The only civilized attitude therefore is one of respectful indifference.
Whether or not this conclusion follows from relativist premises is, of course,
debatable. In any case, it is clear that, for Gandhi, equal respect for all religions
could not have been derived from relativist premises. Of course, Gandhi would
readily agree that there are many aspects of a religion which are such that
questions of propriety or impropriety, rightness or wrongness in respect of them
are internal to the religion, for example the use of music in certain rituals in
Hinduism or Christianity and its prohibition in Islam. Such aspects of a religion,
Gandhi would say, belong to the periphery rather than to the moral-spiritual
core, which, unsurprisingly for Gandhi, is the same for all religions.
Nor, of course, is equal respect to be derived from a scientic liberal
sympathy for all religions. Such a derivation may consist in taking the following
steps:
1. Truth claims made by all religions are scientically untenable.

2. All religions are profound expressions of human creativity and help man
cope with psychological and social predicaments of life; thus they all have
both aesthetic and utilitarian value.
3. All religions therefore deserve our respect.
From deserving respect to deserving equal respect will, of course, be another
and not so easy step. In any event, it is obvious that, for Gandhi, equal respect
could not be based on considerations of this kind: to denude religion of truth
(or Truth) is to take the life out of it.
As opposed to the relativist and scientic-liberal attitude, Gandhis argument
begins with the assertion that the truth of all religions is the same, although there
may be diverse paths to this truth:
If a man reaches the heart of his own religion, he has reached the heart of others
too. (Hind Swaraj, Ahmedabad, Navajiban Press, 1913, p. 25)
Religions are different roads converging to the same point. (Young India, 14 September
1926)
What does it matter that we take different roads so long as we reach the same goal?
In reality, there are as many religions as there are individuals. (Hind Swaraj,
Ahmedabad, Navajiban Press, 1913, p. 23)
Gandhis assertion is not based on a scholarly, theological understanding of the

scriptures of different religions, although scriptures of religions other than his
own had a profound effect on him. It therefore bypasses the entire theological
debate which arose in the West in the nineteenth century and continues today:
the debate inspired by the discovery that there were religions other than
Christianity (and perhaps Judaism and Islam) which had a basis in spirituality
seemingly quite profound.6 Gandhis claim is based quite unashamedly on his
6. The debate pursued in recent times, in works such as Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics,
Vol. I, Parts 1 and 2, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark, 1956; Ernst Troeltsch, The
Absoluteness of Christianity and the History of Religions, Oxford, SCM Press, 1972; Arnold
Toynbee, Christianity among the Religions of the World, Oxford, Oxford University Press,
174 Mrinal Miri
conviction that spirituality and morality are inseparable, that to have achieved
spirituality is to be established in a form of life whose motivating force is love
(ahimsa) and justice, that spirituality is what breathes life into our religion and,
therefore, that every living religion must have a spiritual-moral core:
I cannot conceive politics as divorced from religion. Indeed religion should pervade
every one of our actions. Here, religion does not mean sectarianism. It means a belief
in ordered moral government of the universe. It is not less, because it is unseen. This
religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. It does not supersede them.
It harmonizes them and gives them reality. (Harijan, 10 February 1940)
But all religions also have what may be called temporal aspects, aspects such as
doctrines and dogmas (what Gandhi called creed), rituals, modes of worship,
use of symbols, aesthetic articulation, social organization and so on. Such aspects
may differ widely from religion to religion and may sometimes even be at
variance with the moral-spiritual core of a religion. Gandhis view was that, while
such aspects of a religion are most intimately even inalienably connected
with it, they are none the less historically conditioned and are subject to change,
reinterpretation, loss of meaning. Frequently, they stand in need of renewal and
even abandonment. A look at the history of major religions will show that
Gandhi was most probably right about this.
Gandhis view about such aspects of a religion can be summed up as follows:
since they are the means whereby a particular religion nds its specic articulation,
and since frequently a mans sense of identity sense of oneness and integrity
is profoundly linked with the particular religion to which he belongs, there
could be a deep emotional bond between him and these aspects of his religion.
As Gandhi says about his being a Hindu:
1957; Friedrich Schleirmacher, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers, New York,
Harper, 1958; R. Otto, The Idea of the Holy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1958;
Paul Tillich, The Shaking of the Foundations, London, Penguin, 1962, and Dynamics of
Faith, New York, Harper, 1957; W. C. Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion, New
York, Mentor, 1964. One of the initial impulses of this debate might have been the
works of Swami Vivekananda, such as Addresses on Vedanta Philosophy, Vol. II, London,
Simkin Marshall, 1896; Bhakti Yoga, London, Kent & Co., 1896; Religion of Love, Belur,
Ramakrishna, 1927.
I can no more describe my feelings for Hinduism than for my wife. She moves me
as no other woman in the world can. Not that she has no faults. I dare say she has
many more than I see myself. But the feeling of indissoluble bond is there. Even so
I feel about Hinduism with all its faults and limitations. Nothing elates me so much
as the music of the Gita or the Ramayana of Tulsidas, the only two books of
Hinduism I may be said to know. I know the vice that is going on today in all the
great Hindu shrines. But I love them in spite of their unspeakable failings. (Young
India, 29 January 1932)
It is clear from the passage that Gandhi would say about such an aspect of a
religion that it may be inadequate in one way or another, may degenerate, may
be criticized, reformed, revised and renewed. In Gandhis words:
All faiths constitute a revelation of truth, but all are imperfect and liable to error.
Reverence for other faiths need not blind us to their faults. We must be keenly alive
to the defects of our own faiths also, yet not leave it on that account, but try to
overcome those defects. (Yervada Mandir, p. 55)
One of Gandhis great missions in life was to reform and renew many Hindu
practices which are either intrinsically unacceptable or have become degenerate.
Gandhi also believed that the authenticity and effectiveness of criticism of
such aspects of religion can be best ensured if it comes from within a religion
and springs from a love of the religion.
If all religions are capable of leading to the Truth, the aim of such criticism
cannot be to persuade the follower of the religion in question to abandon his
religion and embrace another, but to enable him to nd the way through his
own religion. Gandhi believed that there is an element of hinsa (ill-will) in the
wish that another person should give up his traditional faith and embrace another.
God has created different faiths just as he has votaries thereof. How can I, even
secretly, harbour the thought that my neighbours faith is inferior to mine and wish
that he should give up his faith and embrace mine? As a true and loyal friend, I can
only wish and pray that he may live and grow perfect in his own faith. In Gods
house, there are many mansions and they are equally holy. (Harijan, 20 April 1934)
176 Mrinal Miri
About the numerous tribal faiths in India, Gandhi said: I would like to be able
to join them in their prayers. Putting all these thoughts together, the conclusion
which we must reach, according to Gandhi, is that the ideal relationship between
religions of the world is an international fellowship of all religions. Such a
fellowship is a community of fellows, that is of equals who are bound together
in a sprit of ahimsa and inspired by the desire genuinely to understand one another:
it does not admit of criticism of the other in order to undermine him: Our prayer
for the other must be not Give him the light that Thou hast given me, but
give him all the light and truth he needs for his highest development (Sabarmati,
1928). To be established in such a fellowship is once again to authenticate the
life of the spirit, a life permeated by self-knowledge, love and justice.
To sum up: in this paper, I have tried to do the following:
1. Show that modern epistemology is unable to provide a basis for a belief in
the reality of values; that attempts at nding such a basis within the
framework of modern epistemology do not succeed.
2. Indicate that in Gandhi we have an alternative epistemology an
epistemology which can be termed the epistemology of ahimsa or love one
that accounts for the possibility of self-knowledge which is also, at the same
time, knowledge of moral truths.
3. Show that, given the Gandhian epistemic scheme, the ideal relationship
between different religions of the world is one of international fellowship.
In the end, it is important to remind oneself that Gandhi was not a scholarly
philosopher he did not articulate his philosophical insights in a systematic,
rational manner. However, as this paper may have modestly shown, such a
reconstruction is possible and it might yield surprisingly interesting results.
177
An Agenda for Peace and a culture

of peace
Na z l i M o a w a d *
INTRODUCTION
On 26 June 1945, the Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations asserted:
We the peoples of the United Nations determined to . . . practice tolerance and
live together in peace with one another as good neighbours and to unite our
strength to maintain international peace and security.
The world has and still is undergoing local, regional and international
conicts where people die and children are deprived of their families and where
resources are allocated for defence purposes and/or warfare.
Instead of peace, wars and conicts have become widespread and develop,
both in kind and in degree of fatality. People are too familiar with news and
reports on racial conicts, terrorism, ideological persecution and warfare and the
proliferation of nuclear weapons to the point of risking a nuclear war and the
mass destruction of mankind.1
For most of this century, we have been living through a culture of war. The
transition from a culture of war to a culture of peace calls for a new approach
to conict. Building a culture of peace involves changing attitudes, beliefs and
behaviours from everyday life situations to high-level negotiations between
* Professor of International Relations, Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Cairo

University; Director, Centre for Political Research and Studies, Cairo University,
Egypt.
1. Phra Debvedi, Freedom: Individual and Social, p. 2, Bangkok, Prayudh Payutto, 1990.
178 Nazli Moawad
countries so that our natural response to conict would be non-violent and

our instinctive reactions would be toward negotiations and reason, not
aggression.2
Following the end of the Cold War, the United Nations began to realize the
potential for which it was created, that is, to save succeeding generations from
the scourge of war.
In addition to providing a conceptual framework for reecting on
international peace and security in the post-Cold War world, An Agenda for Peace 3
has given rise to many concrete reforms within the United Nation system. It has
provided the foundation for a systematic process of reform in the Organization,
irrespective of the difficulties encountered in some peace-making and peace-
enforcement operations which are, fairly or not, associated with the
recommendations of the Agenda.4
PA R A D I G M S H I F T I N P E A C E S T U D I E S
There has been a clear shift in approaching peace in contemporary literature and
practice. The traditional approaches to peace assume that peace must be actively
preserved; peace is not viewed as a natural state. The varied traditional methods
for the preservation of peace all imply the moral and political acceptability of
war, for each requires preparation for it. The dominant strategy is then: do not
plan to wage deliberate war, but rather be in readiness of war, so as to dissuade
bellicose antagonists.5
The new approach to peace assumes that war is humanitys most pressing
problem, that peace is preferable to war, and that peace can and must include
not only the absence of war but also the establishment of positive life-affirming,
2. The First Consultative Meeting of the Culture of Peace Programme, UNESCO, Paris, 2729
September 1994, p. 2.
3. Boutros Boutros Ghali, An Agenda for Peace, New York, United Nations, 1992.
4. Boutros Boutros Ghali, Building Peace and Development 1994: Annual Report on the Work
of the Organization, p. 147, New York, United Nations, 1994.
5. Edward N. Luttwak, The Traditional Approaches to Peace, in W. Scott Thompson
et al. (eds.), Approaches to Peace: An Intellectual Map, p. 3, Washington, D.C., USIP,
1991.
An Agenda for Peace 179
and a culture of peace
life-enhancing values and structures.6 The strategy is then: agreements terminate

conicts; relationships implement agreements.7
The paradigm shift from negative to positive peace is currently occurring
in peace education: from a technological Weltanschauung that reduces things to
their smallest component parts in order to understand them, to a systematic
ecological world-view whose primary mode of thinking is whole-brain thought.8
Another signicant feature of this shift is the transformation from either/or
problem-solving into both/and decision-making strategies9 or, put another way,
from the traditional competitive process of conict resolution to the developing
process of conict partnership.10
This changing world-view acknowledges the importance of science and
technologies, but holds that they must be understood and applied within the
context of a global, ecological perspective.
DEVELOPMENT OF PEACE STUDIES
Peace studies are developed in response to human problems of violence and

unrest. The disaster of the First World War gave impetus to the emergence of a
scientic discipline of international relations. Peace studies emerged in response
to critical social problems in the immediate post-Second World War era, and
surged in the wake of the Viet Nam War, when there was a need to present new
perspectives on the global problematic. As such, peace studies complement
international relations.11 However, there are important distinctions between peace
6. David P. Barosh, Introduction to Peace Studies, pp. 57, Baltimore, Md., Wadsworth
Publishing Company, 1991.
7. James H. Lane, Contributions of the Emerging Field of Conict Resolution, in W.
Scott Thompson et al., op. cit., p. 302.
8. Edward T. Clark, The Search for a New Educational Paradigm, Holistic Education
Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1988, p. 19.
9. Ibid.
10. Abdul Aziz Said, Global Thinking: A Call for Reinvestment in Sacred Values, The
Acorn, March 1987.
11. Abdul Aziz Said, Developing Peace and Conict Resolution Programs, p. 1. (Paper
presented to the Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs,
15 October 1992.)
180 Nazli Moawad
studies and the more traditional security studies approach to international

relations. Peace studies build upon and move beyond the traditional concept of
national security studies.
For peace studies, hunger, poverty and exploitation are as much breeding
grounds for violence as the need for defence against military threats to national
security. Peace studies generally focus on the security of the whole international
or global system.
Scholars identify three waves in the ongoing development of peace studies.12
The rst began in the aftermath of the Second World War during the 1950s and
the early 1960s. It was initiated primarily at research institutions and a few
graduate schools, and stressed increased international understanding. The second
wave, which began in the early 1970s after the Viet Nam War and the Civil
Rights Movement in the USA, focused on global oneness, the nuclear threat
and developing undergraduate programmes in peace studies. The third wave
began in the 1980s and focused on structural violence and positive peace.
The subsequent period witnessed a massive increase in both undergraduate
and graduate programmes in peace studies. There has also been massive private
and state funding for peace research and education. Governments have sponsored
or helped support several institutions and educational initiatives. A number of
professional journals have emerged which support research in peace studies.
The 1980s also witnessed several changes in the development of peace
studies. Whereas previous development was led from within the eld, the increase
in peace studies programmes during the 1980s was supported by public concern
over the nuclear arms race and superpower relations. There was also a new
inquiry into alternative international security systems, conditions of peace and
non-violent action.
Scholars identify seven major areas of research in this era relevant to peace
studies: peace movements; cognition, war and peace; alternative security;
militarism and development; language and media; feminism and militarism; and
conict resolution.
The peace studies programmes in existence today differ greatly in their scope
12. Said, Developing Peace and Conict Resolution Programs, op. cit., pp. 34.
and focus. Because of their interdisciplinary nature, the academic foci of peace
studies programmes vary tremendously, depending upon the interests and
specialities of faculty participating in these programmes. Scholars from elds as
diverse as law, sociology, religion, biology, political science and meteorology are
currently teaching courses under the heading of peace studies. As a result,
hundreds of curricula have been developed for peace studies programmes.13
FOUR DILEMMAS OF A CULTURE OF PEACE
Growing cross-cultural contact

Predictions about future day-to-day living in various parts of the world include
greater amounts of face-to-face contact among people from very different cultural
backgrounds. The contemporary world is characterized by a growing area of
cross-cultural contact. The reason for increased face-to-face contact yields a now
familiar litany. There are various reasons for this. Technological factors include
increased travel both between and within nations and greater exposure to
various cultural groups through the mass media. Social factors include
development in civil rights and affirmative action leading to more frequent
contact among groups in education, work, public housing, social services and
health care. Economic factors include dependence on other countries for precious
commodities. Political factors include the growing awareness that, since the
world is so complex and demands so much interdependence, hegemony is no
longer a realistic alternative.
A combination of these factors is present in intergovernmental organizations
as well as in multinational corporations. In this context, some basic issues need
to be investigated in order to deal better with the chances offered and challenges
imposed by increasing cross-cultural contact. For instance, what happens to
people when they engage in various forms of cross-cultural contact? Can a
common language of solid, useful concepts be suggested which will facilitate
communication among people? Can the advantages of cross-cultural interaction
be better specied? By studying the stresses and strains of cross-cultural contact
13. Ibid., p. 6.
182 Nazli Moawad
and by analysing how people overcome their problems, a greater understanding

of aggressive and non-aggressive reactions to stress may occur.14
Po o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f d i v e r s i t y
Our world is innitely diverse, not only in climate, geography and nature, but
in human cultures as well.15 The history of human civilization is darkened by
endless wars, conict, confrontations and enmity of one country or people for
another. Prejudice against those who are considered strange or simply different
is an extremely widespread phenomenon. There is nothing simpler than to
arouse mass enmity and hatred toward the real or imagined enemy, though, even
in quieter times, mistrust and rejection of anything foreign are typical
phenomena.16
However, conict inherent in human nature can be positive, as a source of
creativity and change. Yet it becomes destructive when it is allowed to degenerate
into violence. The truth is, however, that conict is neither positive nor negative;
it is an outgrowth of the diversity which characterizes our thoughts, systems and
structures. It is as much a part of our existence as is evolution. Each of us has
inuence and power over whether or not conict becomes negative, and that
inuence and power form the way we deal with it.
Many conicts can serve as opportunities for mutual growth if we develop
and utilize positive, constructive conict-resolution skills. Indeed, conict can serve
as one of the engines of personal developments and social evolution, generating
opportunities to learn from and adapt to the diversities and differences which
are natural and healthy characteristics of our society.
Conict can bring out into the open alternative ways of thinking and
behaving. It can challenge us to manage our lives in ways which utilize our
differences for mutual growth and benet.
14. Richard W. Brislin, Cross-cultural Encounters: Face-to-face Interaction, pp. 13, New York,
Pergamon Press, 1981.
15. Vladimir S. Ageev, Similarity or Diversity?, in Vladimir S. Ageev et al. (eds.),
Breakthrough, Emerging New Thinking, p. 250, New York, Walker & Company, 1988.
16. Ibid.
Ne e d t o t ra n sfo r m t h i n k i n g o n c o n f l i c t
One of the rst steps of becoming more effective at resolving conicts is to

understand the positive potential inherent in all situations of discord. We need
to transform how we think about conicts. First, the basic perception that needs
a change is that conict is always a disruption of order, a negative experience,
an error or mistake in a relationship. However, we need to understand that conict
is actually an outgrowth of diversity which can be utilized to clarify a relationship,
to provide additional ways of thinking and options for action not previously
considered, and to open up possibilities for improving a relationship.
Second, another basic misperception of conict is that it usually involves a
struggle between absolutes, such as right and wrong, and good and evil. Some
conicts do indeed concern differences over deeply felt values but far too often
people allow themselves to attach good v. evil and right v. wrong labels to a
conict to convince themselves that their position is beyond question. People
may also go further and consider their conict partners as non-believers. Every
group may also claim that God is on our side.
Rather than jumping to the conclusion that a conict involves absolute
differences, we need to explore the possibility that a particular conict may be
over subjective preferences rather than values, and realize that there are other
aspects of the relationship on which we can build positively.
Third, a common perception in need of transformation is that conict is
always a battle between competing and incompatible self-interests or desires.
Thinking of conict in this way leads us to feel that the other party is trying to
prevent our getting what we want; we often try to prevent their getting what
they want. Both parties become more and more stubborn as they pursue their
own desires and ignore the presence of needs or goals they might actually share.
Fourth, the misperception of conict is also common. Many people view a
particular conict as dening their entire relationship with others. People may
allow one conict to become so dominant that the overall long-term relationship
is ignored. A far more effective perception of conict is that it is but one part of
a complex and useful relationship. We need to look at and benet from the
potentially positive aspects of conicts.
The aim of a culture of peace is, therefore, not to eliminate conicts but to
184 Nazli Moawad
nd ways to deal with them non-violently. It is not correct, then, to try to end
a conict either through zero-sum management or by a call to forget or ignore
the reasons for it. Rather it is much wiser to call for reconciliation through which
sources of conicts could be healed and their consequences coped with. What
is needed is amnesty not amnesia.17
Missing bioethics for peace

The human body can be harmed through the abuse of medical technology as
well as in violent actions of war. One should not underestimate the negative side-
effects of science on the human body, caused both deliberately by greedy
multinational merchants of organ transplantation and immoral treatment of the
human body.
Through scientic discoveries, man has access to knowledge about his own
vital mechanisms, and has gained power to transform the development process
of the living species. Unfortunately, the development of the inner core of man,
the mind, has not kept pace with the rapid progress of technology.18 Man has
used and is using much of this power for destructive purposes, including his
own life.
Bioethics is an emerging term which refers to a new understanding of the
relationship between man and science. It implies new thinking on change in
society, or even global equilibria, and fuels a broad public debate on the choices
for the future induced by scientic developments and on ways of guaranteeing
the informed participation of citizens.
Bioethics then derives from a dual need: rst, to ensure that the progress
resulting from this new power benets every man and woman, and mankind as
a whole, without infringement of any kind; second, to identify, rationally and
responsibly, the social and cultural implications of breakthroughs in the biological
sciences which concern health, agriculture and food as well as development and
the environment.
17. The First Consultative Meeting of the Culture of Peace Programme, op. cit., p. 7.
18. Debvedi, op. cit., p. 18.
APPROACH TO COPE WITH THE DILEMMAS

OF A CULTURE OF PEACE
The suggested approach to world peace is built upon the following set of elements:
Placing emphasis on peace education
Since the early 1960s, when T. Kuhn wrote his book The Structure of Scientic
Revolution, much has been written on the paradigm shift which is occurring in
various elds of knowledge and ways of thinking about nature, peace and society.
A paradigm shift occurs as the result of a shift in the underlying assumptions
upon which science is based.
This also affects research and the results of research. When evidence begins
to challenge commonly accepted assumptions, anomalies appear and create
conicts which can be resolved only by acknowledging a new set of assumptions.
As these new assumptions gradually gain acceptance, a dramatic shift occurs
both in the nature of scientic inquiry and in our understanding of the role of
science in society.19
This new direction of conceiving where to start in order to enhance world
peace is manifested in the concerns of the international community to initiate,
develop and support a relevant culture of peace today. For instance, education
for peace, human rights and democracy received much attention at the World
Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in June 1993. Such a new
direction had already been given by the International Congress on Education
for Human Rights and Democracy, organized by UNESCO in Montreal,
Canada, in March 1993, which was in fact a preparatory meeting to the
aforementioned World Conference. Both these meetings were a step forward
on the same road. The Montreal congress emphasized the relationship between
human rights and democracy and their relation to development, cultural diversity
and tolerance. It reaffirmed that education for human rights and democracy
is itself a human right and is a prerequisite for the full realization of social
justice, peace and sustainable development.20 The Vienna Declaration and
19. Clark, op. cit., pp. 1819.

20. Human Rights Teaching, Vol. VIII, p. 9, Paris, UNESCO, 1993.
186 Nazli Moawad
Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference recognized the

relationship between peace and human rights education. It stipulated that human
rights education, training and public information are essential for the promotion
and achievement of stable and harmonious relations among communities and
for fostering mutual understanding, tolerance and peace. The World Conference
called upon all states and institutions to include human rights, humanitarian
law, democracy and rule of law as subjects in the curricula of all learning
institutions in formal and non-formal settings. Human rights education should
include peace, democracy, development and social justice, as set forth in
international and regional human rights instruments, in order to achieve
common understanding and awareness with a view to strengthening universal
commitment to human rights.21
The World Conference also reaffirmed that states are duty-bound, as
stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to ensure that education is
aimed at strengthening respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Reaffirming the respect for diversity within unity
Global thinking about peace now assumes that every culture has its particular
values, religious practices, moral codes of behaviour, customs, laws, and so forth.
Yet among different cultures there are common traits and complexes; for example,
the need for effective organizations (social, political and economic) to promote
growth, restrict excessive competition and minimize physical violence.
Viewed from this standpoint, world security depends on harnessing the co-
operative practices of different cultures and modifying their competitive drives
in ways which curb their divisive tendencies, in order to achieve harmony
without destroying cultural diversity.22 To do this, we need to enhance the
awareness that we, despite continuing our citizenship in particular nations, are
world citizens. We are bound by our economy, technology, yearning to learn and
21. UN Document A/CONF.157/24, Part I.

22. Walter Isard, Understanding Conict and the Science of Peace, pp. 1415, Cambridge,
Blackwell Publishers, 1992.
to communicate, into a global framework which demands of us an expanded

citizenship.23
Enhancing new trends in conflict resolution

The discipline of peace-making and conict resolution has undergone three
phases: the reform phase, the reconstructive phase and the transformative phase,
currently evolving. First, the goal of the reform approach is to prevent war through
the control of the arms race. Its central thesis is that, if peoples and nations
behaved differently and gave more consideration to non-violent alternatives, war
could be prevented.
Second, the reconstructive approach reaches beyond these behavioural
objectives, seeking to reconstruct international systems, to abolish war and to
achieve total disarmament. The transformational approach seeks a larger, more
comprehensive goal, that is, the rejection of all violence, not just the arms race
and war. Its strategy is to make violence unacceptable, not only in interactions
among individuals but also interactions among nations. The changes sought are
behavioural, institutional and primarily cultural, such as in thinking and in the
formation of values.24
Third, while the rst approach is known as seeking negative peace and the
second seeks positive peace, the third acknowledges comprehensive peace. Only
this can hold a promise for the future of peace, since it mediates and interprets
the development of peace research, peace study and learning, and peace action.
From this standpoint, scholars of comprehensive peace identify the shift in the
literature on peace as follows:
From the emphasis on issues of conicts to the emphasis on identifying and
effecting change in the attitudes of the conicting parties.
From attention to states to the acknowledgement of the rights of individuals.
From highlighting demands formulated by one party against the other to
23. T. M. Thomas, Introduction: From a Warring World to a Peaceful Global Order,

in T. M. Thomas et al. (eds.), Global Images of Peace and Education, p. 8, Ann Arbor,
Mich., Prakken Publications, 1987.
24. Betty A. Reardon, Comprehensive Peace Education: Education for Global Responsibility, New
York/London, Teachers College Press of Columbia University, 1988.
188 Nazli Moawad
the emphasis on discovering and meeting the needs of the parties involved.
From the traditional process of conict resolution which was primarily
competitive, using an adversarial strategy, to the emphasis on developing
co-operative processes, searching for common grounds.25
Developing bioethics
Bioethics, in general, emphasizes the need to respect private life, family life,
community life, and economic and social life. Only through collective actions
can we maintain the harmony between man and science.
Today, the bioethics movement transcends borders, since the concerns it
expresses inevitably take on an international dimension. UNESCO took an
important initiative and set up the International Bioethics Committee in 1993.26
The major concerns of the bioethics movement include:
Enhancing a worldwide respect for the human body. Steps must be taken
to ght against the trade in organs and tissue, disguised as organ transplant
surgery. Legislators should rmly place organ trade under penal law.
Protection of persons in biochemical research. Ensuring that the scientic
criteria for clinical testing have been met and that ethical precautions have
been taken depends on two conditions: the ability to encourage and master
research, and the existence of a multidisciplinary ethics committee whose
authority is recognized.
Linking human genetics to human rights. Genetic research has advanced
and has raised issues concerning human rights. Biomedical applications are
growing rapidly and genetic diagnosis updates the idea about medical
prevention through which one can know ones genetic predisposition and
adopt behavioural patterns which could prevent the onslaught of illness.27
But, at the same time, the legitimacy of this genetic screening is very highly
debatable.
25. Said, 1987, op. cit.

26. UNESCO, Bioethics and Its Implications World-wide for Human Rights Protection.
(Background document presented to the Interparliamentary Conference, Madrid,
27 March1 April 1995.)
27. Ibid., pp. 78.
Recognizing the right to humanitarian assistance

People live in various countries but belong to the same family. They have the
right to solidarity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that
human beings . . . should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Humanitarian solidarity means mutual assistance of peoples, moral support and
active expression of sympathy with others.28
The right to humanitarian assistance may be invoked in peacetime, when
natural disasters occur. More signicantly, it may also be claimed in the course
of armed conicts. The term has crystallized in positive international law.29 One
can theoretically distinguish between the right to demand or obtain humanitarian
assistance and the right to insist on providing such assistance; both aspects of
rendering and receiving humanitarian assistance are inseparable.
One peace scholar cited legal instruments which oblige states to provide
humanitarian assistance to victims in their territory or under their control, for
example the Geneva Convention III, Article 26 et seq.30 As a general rule, it
appears that, at the present time, there is only a right to offer such assistance,
its exercise being contingent on consent by the state concerned.31
The UN Security Council can determine when a threat to peace occurs. It
is empowered to launch or approve a veritable humanitarian intervention (for
example, Operation Regaining Hope in Somalia). This is a substantial change
in the concept of humanitarian assistance.
Although the concept of the right to humanitarian assistance dates back at
least to the nineteenth century, the United Nations and its Specialized Agencies
28. Y. Kolosov, Implementation of the Right to Humanitarian Assistance at the National,

Regional and International Levels, p. 1. (Paper presented to the International
Colloquium on the Right to Humanitarian Assistance, UNESCO, Paris, 2527
January 1995.)
29. Y. Dinstein, The Legal Consequences of Infringing upon the Right to Humanitarian
Assistance, p. 1. (Paper presented to the International Colloquium on the Right to
Humanitarian Assistance, UNESCO, Paris, 2527 January 1995.)
30. D. Schindler, The Right to Humanitarian Assistance: Right and/or Obligation?
(Paper presented to the International Colloquium on the Right to Humanitarian
Assistance, UNESCO, Paris, 2527 January 1995.)
31. Dinstein, op. cit., p. 1.
190 Nazli Moawad
have contributed to the redenition of the concept. The term essentially involved
the provision by an external source of health care, food and material goods to
the victims of international or internal conicts. Now the term has undergone
change, making it necessary to improve the means of implementation of
humanitarian assistance programmes in order to obtain access to victims, protect
relief personnel and co-ordinate relief efforts.32 However, this change in the
concept of humanitarian assistance needs to be effectively legitimized, bearing
in mind the dramatic situation which relief personnel and UN peace-keeping
forces have faced in many areas of conict, such as in Somalia and Bosnia.
Relief operations must be humanitarian, impartial and non-discriminatory.
The right to assistance should not lead to political interference. It is both a legal
and a political error that there has been an unfortunate confusion of humanitarian
and political considerations; it is even more destructive to confuse humanitarian
assistance with military intervention.33
A N A G E N D A F O R P E A C E A N D I T S I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
In An Agenda for Peace, the UN Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros Ghali outlines

the challenges faced by the United Nations in the areas of preventive diplomacy,
which seeks to resolve disputes before violence breaks out; peace-making and
peace-keeping, which are required to halt conicts and preserve peace once it is
attained; and post-conict peace-building to strengthen and consolidate peace in
order to avoid a relapse into conict.
The UN Secretary-General recognizes that the sources of conict and war
are pervasive and deep. To reach them will require our utmost efforts to enhance
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, to promote sustainable
economic and social development for wider prosperity, to alleviate distress and
to curtail the existence and use of massively destructive weapons.
An Agenda for Peace contains eighty-six paragraphs and deals with the worlds
32. Adama Dieng, United Nations Action and the Right to Humanitarian Assistance,
p. 1. (Paper presented to the International Colloquium on the Right to Humanitarian
Assistance, UNESCO, Paris, 2527 January 1995.)
33. Ibid., pp. 35.
changing context as well as with the set of new denitions manifested in the
United Nations political discourse. The Agendas Weltanschauung is based on four
main concepts regarding the United Nations role in achieving world security,
peace and development:
First, preventive diplomacy is action to prevent disputes from arising between
parties, to prevent disputes from escalating into conicts and to limit the
spread of the latter when they occur.
Second, peace-making is action to bring hostile parties to agreement,
essentially through peaceful means.
Third, peace-keeping is the deployment of a United Nations presence in the
eld, hitherto with the consent of all the parties concerned, normally
involving United Nations military and/or police personnel and frequently
civilians as well. It is a process which expands the possibilities for both the
prevention of conict and the making of peace.
Fourth, peace-building is action to identify and support structures which will
tend to strengthen and consolidate peace in order to avoid a relapse into
conict.
These concepts should together establish a solid framework for an alternative
world order and international relations: for preventive diplomacy seeks to resolve
disputes before violence breaks out; peace-making and peace-keeping are required
to halt conicts and preserve peace once it is attained; if successful, they strengthen
the opportunity for post-conict peace-building, which can prevent the recurrence
of violence among nations and peoples.
UNESCOS CULTURE OF PEACE PROGRAMME
UNESCO has made many important contributions towards building the

foundations of peace through education, science, culture and communication.
The Culture of Peace Programme was established in February 1994 with three
basic responsibilities:
Co-ordination of the many activities of UNESCO which contribute to a
culture of peace.
Establishment of national culture of peace programmes, especially in
countries where conicts are heightened and/or potential.
192 Nazli Moawad
Development of a network and info-systems to link other organizations

involved in similar efforts.
At the rst consultative meeting of this programme, a work strategy was outlined
for an intensive and comprehensive effort to enhance a culture of peace. This
strategy is based on a philosophy of glasnost in understanding a culture of peace
and assessing the roots of conict. It also adopts a multilinear work plan for
building up a peaceful culture in the contemporary world. The following concep-
tions and ground rules are revealed in the new approach to a culture of peace:34
Peace means more than the absence of war and conict; it is a dynamic
concept and process. Maintaining peace is related to the degree of social
justice and harmony and the possibility for human beings to realize their
full potential and their right to dignied life.
Economic, social and human development is closely tied to the process of
building a culture of peace. Without peace, development cannot be sustained;
and without endogenous, sustainable human development, peace cannot be
sustained. It is necessary therefore to review the concept of development
based only on economic growth. Development itself can be a source of
conict when the gap between the haves and the have-nots is widened and
the cycle of rising expectations and increasing frustrations is set in motion.
Peace-building and maintenance presupposes a solid social base on which
civil society formations, especially at grassroots level, can ourish. These
formations could serve as mediators between social groups and vis--vis
the state, and help people participate effectively in development plans.
Democracy is the other side of the coin of peace and development.
Decentralization of decision-making and power-sharing are important. It
should be made clear, however, that building a culture of peace is itself a
process of strengthening democratic attitudes, behaviours and institutions.
Hence elections, for example, are not enough to ensure the path to
democracy; they are not a quick x. Without profound commitment and
long-term planning, elections are powerless to effect real change. The
dynamism of a culture of peace lies in human beings being able to realize
34. The First Consultative Meeting of the Culture of Peace Programme, op. cit., pp. 47.
their full potential, having the opportunity to participate meaningfully in

shaping their society and feeling that they are in control of their destiny.
The nature and ethics of war have changed. Local conicts are becoming
more severe and international conicts more destructive. Advanced
technologies are increasingly used irrationally and for violent purposes.
People should immediately learn to wage peace; not war.
At the macro-economic level, we should encourage building a peaceful
instead of a military industrial complex. Alternatives for the military-based
economy should be developed, and the military should become more
involved in civilian development.
Conicts need to be managed, before they are resolved and prevented. This
calls for non-violent conict management. This includes training in mediation
and negotiation techniques.
Whether we like it or not, we all are negotiators. Negotiation is a fact of life.
Everyone negotiates something everyday. Conict is a growth industry. People
differ, and they use negotiation to handle their differences. However, it is not
easy to negotiate well. People would follow either a hard or a soft negotiation
style.35 Peace requires a third way of dealing with differences, that is, principled
negotiation. One should insist that the result of a negotiation be based on fair
standards independent of the will of either side.36 Constructive conict
management employs no tricks and no posturing.
35. Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes, pp. xviixviii, New York, Penguin Books,
1981.
36. Ibid.
195
The teaching of Martin Luther King

Solomon M. Nkiwane*
Non-violent resistance is not a method for

cowards . . . Gandhi often said that if cowardice
is the only alternative to violence, it is better to
ght . . . While the non-violent resister is passive
in the sense that he is not physically aggressive
toward his opponent, his mind and emotions are
always active, constantly seeking to persuade the
opponent that he is wrong.
Dr Martin Luther King,
as quoted in The Seville Statement on Violence,
16 November 1989
INTRODUCTION
It does not matter where you turn today, the world seems to be in danger of
being overrun by violence: all kinds of violence. The most visible examples are
international conicts and internal wars. There is nothing really new here, except
that the levels of violence have increased many times. Other forms of violence
manifest themselves in many forms of violation of human rights, whether against
peoples, tribes, defenceless minorities, women, children or non-Whites. The
* Chairman, Department of Political and Administrative Studies, University of

Zimbabwe, Harare.
196 Solomon M. Nkiwane
inhumane behaviour of man to man clearly distinguishes the human race from
other creatures. Such systematic and calculated violence, and the scale of its
magnitude, is non-existent among Gods other living creatures. During the Cold
War period, the scale of violence threatened the ultimate annihilation of the
human race from the face of the earth through nuclear weapons.
The sum total of all these forms of violence in terms of the world social
and human organizational setting, if it is placed in a historical context, can be
termed a culture of violence. The world, as we have known it from the remote
past and as we have come to understand it today, seems to be one which tolerates,
if not promotes, such a culture of violence.
At the same time, much of the history of humankind has also been
characterized by the struggle to overcome or to eliminate violence in the world.
At best, however, the highest and noblest of human achievements in this area
have only been partial, temporary measures, stopping violence for the time
being. The elimination of the symptoms or the manifestations of violence, and
not of its root causes, is all that peaceful efforts have been able to succeed in
doing up till now. Thus the quest for a culture of peace in the world is the most
challenging task which has faced the human race, and will continue to face the
world today and in the future. The now legendary physics teaser in which the
immovable object is pitted against the irresistible force happens here to be a
realistic representation of the stakes involved in the contest between a culture of
violence and a culture of peace.
In this paper an attempt is made to assess the contribution made by one
individual, Martin Luther King, to the continuing efforts to establish a culture
of peace in the world. Martin Luther King was not the rst, and will not be the
last, to struggle and to sacrice his life for the establishment of a peaceful world.
However, his accomplishments in a relatively short lifetime have resulted in a
large following, necessitating a much closer look at his peace message.
AMERICAN SOCIETY AND A CULTURE OF VIOLENCE
The American society in which Martin Luther was born and grew up can be
said to have represented, or thrived on, a culture of violence. At least, that is the
view which emerges from the experiences of Martin Luther King and others like
The teaching 197
of Martin Luther King
him. To them, the American society of the post-Second World War period was
anything but peaceful. It was this culture of violence that Martin Luther King
struggled against and for which he sacriced his life. He strove for its replacement
by a culture of peace.
Violence to which a fairly large proportion of American society, especially
the poor and the Blacks, have been (and continue to be) subjected, has much to
do with the existence and stubborn maintenance of certain cultural traits, attitudes,
beliefs and values by the larger, mainstream American society. It was not only
his clear awareness of this and the evil of American society, but his vision of the
possibility of a better alternative in the future, which makes Martin Luther King
stand out among the great teachers of the twentieth century. The breadth and
depth of his teachings go beyond American society. His is a message of hope
which should encompass the entire world community. Ultimately, the American
society of Martin Luther Kings time is a microcosm of a portion of the world
community, with a similar cultural background or inclination. Thus, eliminating
violence in American society alone would not be enough, although it would have
a major impact all over the world. To that extent, concentrating on American
society for his teaching was as much as one human being could hope to do in
a lifetime.
When one talks of American society being violent, one is generally referring
to certain historical and concurrent social phenomena. One example is that the
United States, especially the South, was a slave-owning society. Until the
Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, American Blacks in the South of the United
States were not a free people but were slaves to the white population. It is
generally accepted that slavery is one of the most violent forms of human
relationship. The reason is that not only are slaves treated cruelly, like animals,
but their overall treatment is one that dehumanizes the individual. The violence
against the individual slave is directed towards his physical, psychological and
spiritual self.
Although officially slavery was abolished in the United States after the
American Civil War in 1865, the culture of slavery its values, beliefs and
attitudes have lingered on until today. Although slavery was outlawed in the
United States, Whites, again especially in the South, continued to view Blacks
as inferior beings, whom they treated as outcasts, and whom they lynched at
will, thus dehumanizing them. In short, the humanity, dignity and life of Blacks
were violated and trampled upon, despite the great platitudes expressed in the
American Constitution. It was into this culture that Martin Luther King was
born. It was in the South, in his home state of Georgia, that he rst came face
to face with racism and a culture of violence. But, despite the overwhelming odds
against him, and all his fellow Blacks, he broke doggedly through the barriers,
and worked his way up the ladder of educational success, showing intellectual
excellence.
Martin Luther Kings academic achievements were just the rst steps in his
ght to rid American society of the evil of racism. They demonstrated that,
given the opportunity, all human beings, white and black, are capable of
achievement. All people are equal, irrespective of race, colour or creed. What
is crucial is not just legal equality but natural equality. A culture of violence
related to slavery, racism and general anti-Black oppression is inhuman. Martin
Luther King worked hard to educate and to preach against such a culture in
the United States.
This culture of violence was not only conned to the South of the United
States. It was pervasive throughout America North and South and manifested
itself in many forms: inferior education for Blacks and other minorities; poor
housing in the so-called ethnic neighbourhoods; lack of economic and business
opportunities for Blacks and other minorities in urban America; the lack of
political and economic representation for Blacks and other minorities in those
sectors which really mattered; and, most concretely, the rise in criminal activities
in the so-called ghettos as the manifestation of social deprivation and dislocation
in the whole social fabric of American society. To Martin Luther King, violence
in the black community, often pitting Black against Black, was a symptom of the
sick American society as a whole. It would be simplistic if Americans thought
that violence in the black communities in the United States could only be
understood as the black mans problem, and that it would always be restricted
to that community. Ultimately, the solution to such violence will only come about
after the root causes in the overall American political and social establishment
have been tackled.
The teaching 199
MARTIN LUTHER KINGS TEACHINGS FOR PEACE
Martin Luther King was born in Atlanta, Georgia, on 15 January 1929. Thirty-
nine years later, on 4 April 1968, he was assassinated by a white, racist ex-convict
named Earl Ray. In that short span of life, Martin Luther King not only earned
personal acclamations and achievements, such as being awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize, but, in his untimely death, he bequeathed to mankind a rich legacy of
teaching which, by and large, called for the establishment of a culture of peace
in the world.
Rather than reiterate the catalogue of his achievements, we will focus on
those aspects which have a bearing on a culture of peace. However, in order to
place Martin Luther Kings thoughts in their proper context, it is necessary to
examine the historical setting and the international political environment, then
and now.
The world as we know it today yearns for peace real peace, and not a
caricature of peace. The problem of today is that many people talk about peace
and say it is essential. In the majority of cases, peace to most people is a matter
of convenience. At the end of the First World War, at the Versailles Peace
Conference, a peace treaty was signed which suited only the winning powers.
The defeated powers, especially Germany, did not consider that what was signed
was a peace treaty at all: to Germany, it was a peace trap.1
The twentieth century has witnessed the two most destructive wars in
history. The interim period between the world wars, and the post-Second World
War period, when only limited inter-state wars occurred, cannot be described as
genuine periods of peace.2 These were only temporary lulls before another
conagration, periods of preparation for another war or, at best, a mere absence
of war. The absence of violence or war is not the same thing as a condition of
peace. Even the period which one historian, S. F. Northedge, has described as
a hundred years of peace in modern times, was peaceful only in the sense that
1. Many students of international history have interpreted the Versailles Peace Treaty
at the end of the First World War as having sown the seeds of the Second World
War, in the sense that it was an imposed peace, and the terms of the treaty were
both unfair and humiliating to the defeated powers.
2. 19191939, and 1945 to the present.
the major European powers avoided conicts among each other.3 The smaller
nations, or the weaker people who were at that time involved in numerous
conicts, were not considered to pose a real threat to peace.4 In fact, some of
these localized wars were often instigated by the great powers themselves.
The Cold War period could probably be classied as a period of peace
merely because a Third World War was averted. Many conict situations erupted
continuously during the Cold War era, and the so-called bush wars or proxy
wars were accepted as normal occurrences following the Second World War.
Somehow, as long as ones nation was not involved in a conict situation, it was
thought that there was peace in the world.
At the national or societal levels, again peace has tended to be dened in
terms of the absence of outward violence. Such a peace could, for instance, come
about as a result of imposition by a dictator, a military regime, a majority over
a minority, or even a minority over a majority.5 Just because a people are in a
state of acquiescence, it does not follow that conditions for a culture of peace
exist. Just because a people are being bullied, intimidated, manipulated or
brainwashed into submission, it does not necessarily follow that conditions for
peace exist. Peace does not just happen. In fact, peace does not come about just
because some person even a good person for that matter says let there be
peace. If that were the case, the world would not have known wars after the life
of Jesus Christ.
On the contrary, peace in the world, or in any society, is a condition of
social behaviour and forbearance, which results from a conscious and unconscious
acceptance of other peoples humanity. This acceptance is necessarily based on
a system of values and beliefs out of which civilized norms and attitudes of
tolerance, respect and love for other human beings emerge. For one to attain this
level of personal behaviour and social harmony, an opportunity to be nurtured
3. This refers to the 18151914 period, sometimes termed as the Balance of Power
International System.
4. That is, the peace between the great military powers of the world.
5. Here we can refer to the situations of apartheid in South Africa, in Zimbabwe before
independence in 1980, and those which prevailed in Rwanda and Burundi before
the outbreak of the present civil wars and massacres there.
The teaching 201
in a culture of peace must necessarily exist. The educational system and the core
values of such a society must reect that.
The genius of Martin Luther King, as was the case with Mahatma Gandhi
before him, was that he did attain that level of thinking and behaviour for
promoting a culture of peace in the face of the culture of violence which
surrounded him.
BREAKING THE TYRANNY OF VIOLENCE
A racist society resorts to all kinds of violence physical, psychological, economic,

social, political and even spiritual to protect itself, and what it possesses, from
the inferior races. But when the smoke clears and the ashes of violence are
gathered, what is left is a caricature of the human community.
Martin Luther King stood up for the noble values of human dignity, freedom
and equality in order to ght against racism. He used his natural talents and
intellect to break away from the tyranny of a culture of violence. His decision
to study theology and religion was an important factor. Christian religion and
theology enabled him to appreciate the power of love over hate, and the reality
of the spiritual world as opposed to materialism. With that intellectual and
spiritual strength, it is understandable that he felt pity for the white racist society
in the United States. He genuinely wanted to liberate the white community in
the South of the United States from the chains of its tyrannical racism and
violence, inasmuch as he yearned for the liberation of the non-white races from
this kind of entrapment. In fact, by the savage act of assassinating Martin Luther
King, Earl Ray actually attempted to perpetuate a culture of violence in American
society, but the seeds of a culture of peace had already been sown.
Martin Luther Kings message of peace and love was for the whole world
and not just for the United States. It crossed international borders and transcended
racial, ethnic and religious differences. His teaching was understood and well
received in Africa, where a Western variety of cultural violence had manifested
itself in the form of colonialism, apartheid, assimilation and neo-colonialism.
The message here was loud and clear: a culture of violence is not a monopoly
of the United States. A large part of the world is cursed with it. In fact, the whole
post-Second World War international system, which is sometimes referred to as
the Cold War, was more or less a combination of military, political and cultural
violence at a global level. For Martin Luther King, it was not enough to preach
against cultural violence in the United States alone. The cancer of violence was
universal. Therefore, he was equally vehement in bringing his message into the
world arena. Any analysis of his achievements which limits or restricts him to
the United States is not only incomplete but does the great man a disservice.
The whole world today is in dire need of a culture of peace, and creating such
a culture may very well be one of the major legacies to mankind left by Martin
Luther King.
NON-VIOLENCE AND NON-VIOLENT DIRECT ACTION
Following the lead of his mentor, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King
embraced the philosophy of non-violent action. He became absolutely convinced
early in his career that the non-violent response to any form of violent provocation
was not only Christian and civilized but was the only practical way of
demonstrating the power of love over hate. This is what makes a real difference
between a culture of peace and a culture of violence. While the latter is based
on confronting violence with violence, thus escalating violence indenitely, the
former tends to expose the essential evil and non-constructive nature of violence.
Non-violence evokes the most noble and courageous of human qualities, while
violence is the expression of mans lowest and most bestial instincts. The life of
Martin Luther King shows the meaning and power of non-violence for which
he was ultimately sacriced.
For his wholehearted devotion to non-violence, Martin Luther King, like
Mahatma Gandhi before him, was accused of cowardice. His own black brothers,
such as Malcolm X, ridiculed him for his non-violence, and challenged him to
demonstrate his methods and their intended results.
The idea behind non-violent direct action is to take the initiative out of the
hands of the perpetrators of violence. Non-violent direct action carries the battle
for peace and hope directly into the midst of a violent community. Because the
language which the violent society understands best, and is always geared for,
is that of violence, non-violent direct action by the opposing side tends to startle,
confuse and sometimes disarm the violence-mongers.
The teaching 203
The potency of the non-violent direct action method is that it is inclusive,

tolerant, forgiving and constructive. Martin Luther King and his supporters
demonstrated and marched directly to centres of violence, to jails and police
stations, to segregated institutions such as schools, hospitals, restaurants, etc.,
where they conducted walk-ins, sit-ins and eat-ins. There is a limit to which even
the most violence-prone person or community can continue to perpetrate violence
against unarmed people.
It is ironic that the outcome of the ultimate violent acts to stop the non-
violent direct action of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King their
assassination was the opposite to that intended. In fact, it contributed to
strengthening the cause they were ghting for. The assassination of Martin
Luther King in 1968 led to an improvement in race relations and the social and
economic conditions of African-Americans and the other non-white peoples in
the United States.
CHRISTIANITY AND A CULTURE OF PEACE
Martin Luther King was brought up as a Christian and he became a theologian

and priest. It was in these capacities that he made the most direct contribution
to a culture of peace. He was convinced that only by following the Christian
way and its principles, and, in particular, following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ,
could society put an end to the evil of violence. As a pastor, Martin Luther King
delivered sermons that reiterated the teaching of Jesus Christ about love. The
problem with most Christians in the world today is that their espousal of their
religion is restricted to one day per week, that is, Sundays or Saturdays (if they
happen to be Seventh Day Adventists). Although Martin Luther King was a pastor
responsible for a parish and conducted the traditional weekly services for his
congregations, it must be remembered that his style and orientation were
reminiscent of that of the Messiah himself in the sense that he took Christianity
to the people, rather than bringing people to Christianity.
The problem with modern-day Christians is that the way Christianity is
conducted in the world today makes it possible for this religious community to
qualify as one of the thousands of private clubs which are found in all human
societies. Everything that is contained in the New Testament about the life and
work of Jesus Christ reveals a different picture of what Christianity should be,
at least as understood from the life of its founder, Jesus Christ Himself. To that
extent, Martin Luther Kings understanding and work as a Christian was closer
to that which Jesus Christ stood for.
Martin Luther King will always be remembered for his civil rights campaigns
in the South of the United States; for his leading role in the ght to desegregate
schools, workplaces, hospitals, transportation, social services of all kinds; his
political campaigns and marches against the political establishments at local, state
and federal levels. In his sermons, he always exhorted his followers to go out
and confront evil wherever it was, and not to hide behind the comfort and
exclusiveness of church buildings. That is to say, a culture of peace will not be
created within the churches, but in the world outside.
A CULTURE OF PEACE ON A GLOBAL SCALE
The entire world has increasingly become a global village. For instance, the fear
of the spread of the Ebola virus to all corners of the earth gets medical experts
rushing to Zaire almost instantly from all over the world. The AIDS epidemic
has become a salutary lesson in the globalization of a culture of medical
consciousness. Terrorism of all kinds, including nuclear terrorism, has literally
placed all mankind in the same boat. It no longer makes any sense in this day
and age to argue glibly about some calamities of violence as being restricted to
certain societies, states or regions. The whole world is now witnessing a growing
number of international conicts. What happens anywhere has its effects
everywhere.
It was the genius of Martin Luther King which allowed him to foresee the
perils of the globalization of a culture of violence. His messages and exhortations
to the American people were equally aimed at all peoples all over the world. To
merely provide a cure for a disease in one part of the body, without taking
immediate measures to prevent it from spreading to the rest of the body, is of
no avail. Working simultaneously to rid American society of violence, with equal
concern for the global manifestation of the same problem, was the essence of
Martin Luther Kings approach.
In Africa, Martin Luther King saw that European colonialism had subjected
The teaching 205
African people to the same fate of suffering, poverty and dehumanization that
the American Blacks had also suffered. What was even more painful about the
African situation, however, was that many of these African nations had become
sovereign independent states immediately following the end of the Second World
War in 1945, and yet the suffering of the people went on unabated. Under these
circumstances, it was no longer valid continuously to point a nger at the
European colonizers. African leaders were now also to blame for the misery and
violence which gripped the African continent. According to Martin Luther King,
evil was evil, and violence was violence, whether it was promoted by Whites or
Blacks. It is a truism that all peoples and societies, irrespective of colour of skin
or level of civilization, are capable of wallowing in a culture of violence.
Martin Luther King saw remarkable parallels between apartheid in South
Africa and the American segregationist practices in the South. The only difference,
if any, was that the American Civil War and the American Constitution had
made racist practices illegal. On the contrary, in South Africa, at least from 1948,6
apartheid and all that it entailed, was legal according to the law of the land. In
South Africa, Blacks were not only considered naturally and biologically an
inferior species but the state actually legislated to ensure that this inferiority
remained a permanent feature of the South African political, economic and social
landscape. That situation was totally unacceptable to Martin Luther King who
lashed out at the South African authorities and the white supporters of the
apartheid regime within South Africa, as well as the American and other Western
governments and their peoples who sustained the apartheid regime. His harsh
words were also pointed towards the white Rhodesians after their Unilateral
Declaration of Independence (UDI) on 11 November 1965.7
6. The South African election of 1948 was won, for the rst time in the history of
South Africa, by the Afrikaaner-led Nationalist party of Dr D. F. Malan on the
platform of apartheid. As soon as this party formed the government, it immediately
implemented its campaign promise of wholesale legislation on separate development
for Blacks and Whites.
7. Ian Smith, Prime Minister of former Rhodesia, declared white Rhodesia independent
(UDI) on 11 November 1965 in deance of the British Government and the inter-
national community. That immediately led to the fteen-year war of liberation which
ended in 1979. It was immediately followed by the independence of Zimbabwe in 1980.
For Martin Luther King, it was impossible to create and maintain peace
under circumstances of racial domination and oppression, economic deprivation,
military dictatorships, tribalism and underdevelopment. All these were
manifestations of evil, whose ultimate outcome would be unending violence and
suffering for people everywhere. Thus, the liberation of the African continent
was good in so far as it unlocked the chains of African servitude to the European
world. However, when practically the whole continent of Africa is now engulfed
by internal wars, border conicts and tribal massacres, with millions of destitute
refugees and displaced persons and the maiming of thousands of women and
children by landmines planted all over their land, we cannot say that we are on
the road to a culture of peace.
Finally, Martin Luther King turned his attention to the Viet Nam War. Here
was a superpower, the United States, engaged in the exportation of violence to
a small underdeveloped country at the other end of the world. Young Americans
were used as cannon fodder in a far-off land for dubious reasons and obscure
objectives, in a war whose national interest to the United States in is even now
unclear. Martin Luther castigated the US administration for its unnecessary
involvement in Viet Nam and, in particular, for brutalizing and terrorizing the
people of that land with napalm bombs. It appears that the single most serious
sin which the people of Viet Nam had committed against America was that they
had defeated their former colonial power, France, at the battle of Dien Bien Phu
in 1956. What the world should know, however, is that the Vietnamese people
had no quarrel with the Government and people of the United States. The war
in Indo-China, including Viet Nam, was a war between the Vietnamese people
and the French. The Vietnamese people fought against the French in self-defence,
in order to liberate themselves from the yoke of French colonialism.
Why and how Americans allowed themselves to be sucked into that
Vietnamese quagmire will ever remain one of the worst intrigues in American
foreign policy ventures abroad. It took the likes of Martin Luther King vehemently
to castigate the overbearing and bullying international behaviour of the
superpowers. It was apparent to Martin Luther King that the whole post-Second
World War period, especially the Cold War era, was characterized by a sham
peace. While the superpowers did everything to avoid wars between themselves
and within their regions, they did not hesitate to promote destructive wars in
The teaching 207
the Third World, the so-called bush wars or proxy wars. There may have been
peace in America, in the Soviet Union and in the whole of the Western world,
but in the Third World there was anything but peace.
Martin Luther Kings dream of a future peaceful America, of a prosperous
Africa, and indeed of a peaceful world, still remains far from being realized. Reality
on the ground is cluttered by numerous Rwandas, Bosnias, Somalias, Oklahoma-
type bombings, etc. However, that the relentless struggle for peace must go on
was Martin Luther Kings teaching. He died trying to realize his dream to make
the world a better place to live in. All of us owe it to him to do our utmost to
make the world a better place to live in for present and future generations, and
to make the dream of a culture of peace come true.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANSBRO, J. J. 1982. Martin Luther King Jr.: The Making of a Mind. New York, Orbis
Books.
BONDURANT, J. 1971. Conquest of Violence, The Gandhian Philosophy of Conict. Berkeley,
Calif., University of California Press.
DEWOLF, L. H. 1960. A Theology of the Living Church. New York, Harper & Row.
HASKINS, J. 1977. The Life and Death of Martin Luther King Jr. New York, Lothroplee
& Sheperd.
JOHNSON, C., et al. 1968. The Wisdom of Martin Luther King in His Own Words. New
York, Lancer Books.
P UCKREIN, G. A. 1993. The Civil Rights Movement and the Legacy of Martin Luther King
Jr. New York, Smithsonian Institution.
S HARP, G. 1973. The Politics of Non-Violent Action. Boston, Porter Sargent.
UNESCO. 1991. The Seville Statement on Violence. Paris, UNESCO.
209
The role of education for a culture

of peace
Keith D. Suter*
INTRODUCTION
Peace is everyones concern but no ones business. In other words, everyone

likes the idea of peace but few people are making it the priority item of their work.
However, UNESCO is taking the lead in creating a culture of peace. A
culture of violence is so embedded in many societies that a culture of peace cannot
be created easily or quickly. Additionally, to create a new culture of peace will
require tackling many matters simultaneously. There is no one single, simple
formula that can transform a society based on a culture of violence into one
based on a culture of peace. Therefore education for a culture of peace has to
be dened very broadly. The overall aim should be to create a culture of peace
think it, talk it, work it.
T H E E N D O F T H E C O L D WA R A N D P E A C E P E R S P E C T I V E S
The Cold War is over. But peace has not broken out. Indeed, there are probably
as many conicts under way today as there were during the more intense periods
of the Cold War (194590), which was the central dening event in international
politics. Many foreign policy issues were examined in the higher political context
of the Cold War, namely that a country had to avoid alienating its Cold War
allies, while losing no opportunity to continue to put pressure on the Cold War
* President, Centre for Peace and Conict Studies, University of Sydney, Australia.
210 Keith D. Suter
opponents. During the Cold War, governments planned for war but not for peace;
thus, the rapid end of this era took them by surprise and they had few plans to
cope with the end of tensions. There was a culture of war and not a culture
of peace. Culture was identied in one study published by UNESCO: The
core of any culture consists of traditionally accepted ideas and their attached
values, in so far as these determine patterns of behaviour. Culture is societys
way of life and the content of its social relations. A culture contains the basic
values important to that society, and its ordering principles.1
The authors said later: The arms race is accompanied by the cultivation
of enemy images, by fear, and by an obsession with the use or threat of use of
violence.2 They again subsequently commented: Disarmament, development and
human rights are probably the most important issues of our time.3 But this
assessment was not reected in governmental priorities.
The culture of war meant that priority was given to preparing for war rather
than to preparing for peace. For example, in 1981, the US Commission on
Proposals for the National Academy of Peace and Conict Resolution reported
that in the US: There are approximately 200 scholars studying conict resolution,
compared with 200,000 scientists who do military research.4 Ironically, the people
who were doing the research on todays (post-Cold War) agenda included peace
researchers, with research topics such as racism, unemployment, gang violence
and drugs. Peace researchers were doing the work which is now receiving the
recognition it deserves but which, during the Cold War, did not get the funding
or encouragement needed. There was no equal opportunity for peace.
In short, when the Cold War ended, governments were not in a good position
to exploit the new opportunities provided by the end of tensions. They had
contingency for wars but no contingency plans for peace. There is a difference
between winning a war and winning the peace.
1. Asbjrn Eide et al., The Impact of the Arms Race on Education, Science and Tech-
nology, and Culture and Communication, in UNESCO Yearbook on Peace and Conict
Studies 1987, p. 77, Paris/Westport, Conn., UNESCO/Greenwood Press, Inc., 1989.
2. Ibid., p. 82.
3. Ibid., p. 103.
4. Report of the Commission on Proposals for the National Academy of Peace and Conict Resolution,
p. 36, Washington, D.C., US Government Printing Office, 1981.
The role of education 211
UNESCOS PIONEERING WORK
Governments during the Cold War did not pay enough attention to UNESCOs
pioneering work on peace. UNESCO has always had an interest in peace and
was conceived during the Second World War, when in 1942 the Allied Ministers
for Education met to discuss the creation of an international organization to co-
ordinate educational co-operation in the post-war world.
When the war ended, governments met in London in November 1945 to
nalize the arrangements for UNESCOs creation. The British Prime Minister,
Clement Attlee, in his opening speech said: Is it not, after all, in mens minds
that wars begin? The poet Archibald MacLeish, who was in the US delegation,
took up that phrase and used it in the Preamble to the UNESCO Constitution:
Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences
of peace must be constructed.
UNESCO, from the outset, has pioneered a sophisticated understanding
of peace which meant that peace was more than just the absence of ghting.
As early as 1950, UNESCO publications pointed out that textbooks tended to
describe wars and conicts in a prejudiced way by attributing blame to the enemy
and virtue to ones own country. Second, it was recognized that too much
attention to the dividing military and political aspects of conicts tends to under-
communicate uniting factors such as the history of civilization. Moreover, there
is a tendency to glorify ones own national heroes compared with heroes of other
nations.5
In 1986, an international meeting of scientists, convened in Seville by the
Spanish National Commission for UNESCO, adopted a Statement on Violence
refuting the notion that organized human violence is biologically determined.6
5. Eide, op. cit., p. 116.

6. The core of the Statement contains ve propositions. They all set out what does
not cause war: (1) War is not acquired from animals (they do not kill each other as
humans do); (2) war is not inherited from our forebears; (3) war is not necessary
to ensure a better standard of living (humans can gain more from co-operation);
(4) war is not due to the biological composition of the brain (humans need to be
trained for war); (5) war is not due to some basic instinct.
212 Keith D. Suter
Humans are not genetically programmed to be violent towards one another.

UNESCO continues to gain international acceptance of the Statement.
At the end of the Second World War, UNESCO produced a statement on
race, challenging the then fashionable notion that white people were somehow
genetically superior to black people. That statement, by receiving international
endorsement and publicity, helped reshape attitudes to race. People may still be
racist, but there are no scientic arguments to support their opinions. The
intention is to build a similar momentum in favour of the Seville Statement. People
may still say that war is inevitable because it is somehow part of human nature,
but they will not have scientic arguments to support their opinions. Educational
associations and other organizations are being invited to join the list of bodies
which have endorsed the Statement. They are also being invited to distribute
the Statement and publicize it. It is now beginning to be printed in textbooks.7
UNESCO has produced a booklet on the Seville Statement, giving both the text
and a commentary on it.8
LESSONS FROM A CULTURE OF VIOLENCE
To understand how we can create a culture of peace, it is useful to look at how

humans created a culture of violence. There are many explanations why this is
so. The purpose of this section is to identify two factors which have been present
in many conicts since 1945.
Ignorance of history
It seems that the lesson of history is that people do not learn from history. There
is a tendency for human affairs to go in cycles, as each generation is obliged to
learn afresh from its experiences. There is little cumulative learning experience.
It seems that just as a generation learns the lessons of history, it goes to the grave,
taking the lessons with it. As stated in the Final Report of the 1989 UNESCO
7. For example, David Barash, Introduction to Peace Studies, pp. 13941, Belmont, Calif.,
Wadsworth, 1991.
8. David Adams (ed.), The Seville Statement on Violence: Preparing the Ground for the Constructing
of Peace, Paris, UNESCO, 1991.
International Congress on Peace in the Minds of Men, there is a powerful inertia

which leads individuals and people to reproduce the same models of behaviour
generation after generation. . . .9
In 1980, Captain G. F. Liardet of the British Royal Navy made a detailed
survey of war aims and actual achievements between 1854 and 1973. He
compared the original reason why a country started a war with the eventual
outcome: in short, does war pay? Among his ndings were: the war aim is very
unlikely to be achieved and the lessons of previous conicts will be misread.10
Thus the chances of a government getting what it wants by starting a war are
very small but, because governments ignore history, they are unaware of this
lesson. In 1982, American writer William Greider commented upon the lack of
a sense of history among mass media commentators which permitted the
generation of periodic hysteria in the United States.11
A decade and a half later, it is clear that the fears aroused in the United
States and its allies were, in fact, an overestimation of the power of the USSR
and its allies. But in the period leading up to the end of the Cold War, there was
a considerable increase in military expenditure which hurt all the economies in
the world.
The military-industrial complex

The institutions working for a culture of violence have been better organized
than the institutions working for a culture of peace. There has been, for example,
more money to be made out of war than peace. Additionally, governments
regard war as their monopoly, but are willing to share peace education with the
private sector (such as private educational institutions with peace courses and
non-governmental organizations), as if to suggest that peace is not nearly as
important as war.
9. Final Report of the International Congress on Peace in the Minds of Men, Paris, UNESCO,
1989, p. 34.
10. G. F. Liardet, War Aims and Achievements 18541973, Seaford House Papers, p. 89,
London, 1980.
11. William Greider, Hysteria is Coming! Hysteria is Coming!, in Jim Wallis (ed.), Waging
Peace, p. 52, San Francisco, Calif., Harper & Row, 1982.
214 Keith D. Suter
In 1961 President Eisenhower, in his farewell address to Congress,

popularized the phrase the military-industrial complex. This was a warning,
not least to his incoming successor John Kennedy, who had promised in the
election campaign to expand US military expenditure, to beware of the
implications owing from the pressure to increase the size of the US defence
forces.
Prior to the Second World War, a large army was not part of the United
States heritage. In 1970, the United States political scientist Bruce Russett said
that the rst American President, George Washington (178997), neither led nor
left a standing army and:
During the rst 170 years of our history, only in actual wartime or in the year or
two immediately afterwards did our armed forces ever employ as many as one per
cent of the working-age male population. It is since the Second World War that the
nations living style has changed. We have at no point since 1941 had fewer than
1,400,000 men under arms nor as little as three per cent of working age males in
the armed forces. . . . The same pattern appears when we look at military
expenditures. Before 1939 the peacetime military budget was barely higher than one
per cent of the gross national product. The post-Second World War oor was three
per cent in 1947 and since Korea (19501953) has uctuated between 7.3 and
11.3 per cent.12
The US defence forces were then transformed in the Second World War. They
acquired extensive responsibilities and so did not reduce fully back to their pre-
war levels. President Eisenhower was a career soldier who had seen how much
the military had changed in his lifetime and was worried about the post-war
growth of the military and its industrial interests. For example, bases and factories
were spread around the United States, so that any attempt to reduce them would
result in the local people complaining to their members of Congress and Senators.
Russett also pointed out: The long-standing practice of allowing congressman
of the Presidents party to announce the award of defense contracts to their
districts, does nothing to diminish the image of military spending as contributing
12. Bruce Russett, What Price Vigilance? The Burdens of National Defence, p. 2, New Haven,
Conn., Yale University Press, 1970.
to legislators political well-being.13 The United States had created a permanent

war economy. A similar development was under way in the USSR.
As US political scientist Richard Barnet pointed out in 1977, the military
establishments in the United States and the USSR are no doubt each others
best allies. A military bureaucracy, like any other, has a professional interest in
keeping what it has, in enjoying the power and prestige of being at the frontiers
of technology, and in projecting a threat which justies bigger budgets.14
The Cold War is over. But this is not obvious from the continued high level
of military expenditure. Many countries still have a military-industrial complex,
even if there are now no clear enemies. Indeed, the complex has become even
larger. It is now a military-industrial-scientic-media-trade-union complex.
Scientists, the media and trade unions have all recognized the gain to them from
having high military expenditure (be it for employment, news stories or
advertising). Thus, the creation of a culture of peace will need to involve these
people as partners in the process, otherwise they will undermine any attempt to
create such a culture of peace.
THE TRIANGLE OF PEACE
Peace is more than the absence of war. Peace means harmony, wholeness and
well-being in all human relationships. One way of setting this out is via the
Triangle of Peace:15 disarmament, conict resolution and justice.
One side of the Triangle is the removal of existing weapon systems: hence
arms control and disarmament. Arms-control measures are designed to slow down
the arms race (such as the South Pacic Nuclear Free Zone Treaty). Disarmament
measures (which are much rarer) require governments to destroy existing weapon
systems.
But governments are not going to disarm in a security vacuum and so there
have to be alternative ways of settling disputes: hence conict resolution. Such
13. Ibid., p. 27.

14. Richard Barnet, The Giants: Russia and America, p. 106, New York, Simon & Schuster,
1977.
15 See Keith Suter, The Triangle of Peace, Perth, Trinity Peace Research Institute, 1990.
216 Keith D. Suter
techniques include diplomacy (with one government talking directly with another
government), arbitration (where governments have their disputes settled by
recourse to international law and international courts) and mediation (where a
third party tries to nd a way of settling a dispute though negotiation).
The third side of the Triangle is justice. It is necessary to look for the
underlying causes of violence. This work requires attention to such matters as
the protection of the environment and respect for human rights. There may be
some employment opportunities here for members of the military-industrial
complex in that, through a process of conversion, defence facilities can be used
for peaceful purposes, such as an army corps of engineers building bridges and
irrigation systems in developing countries.
THEMES FOR A CULTURE OF PEACE
Inclusiveness
People working for a culture must become part of the change they want to create.
In other words, people working for a culture of peace must themselves manifest
the values which they wish to create in a wider society.
For those of us who have been involved in peace research for many years,
it is very easy to assume that peace education is a self-evidently valuable activity.
But that may not be how peace is perceived in the wider community. Half a
century of the Cold War and being suspicious of other countries has taken deep
roots in all societies. What may be clear to peace researchers may not be so clear
to the ordinary person who, among other things, receives a daily diet of violence
in the mass media. Therefore, it is important that written and oral material for
a culture of peace should be presented in a way which makes sense to the ordinary
person.
Second, there is a need to be careful about the language used. The language
should be inclusive, for example, chairperson rather than chairman.
Additionally, the language should itself be peaceful, with an avoidance of
militaristic language (such as calling people warriors for peace).
Third, creating a culture of peace means bringing together a diverse range
of organizations which would include not only the more obvious education and
peace groups, but also gun-control groups and groups concerned with domestic
violence.
Fourth, peace education and peace research centres should also have diverse
roots. Those created in universities should not just be derived from the disciplines
of political science, psychology and law. Instead, other disciplines should also be
encouraged to see how they can become involved in this work. A faculty of
architecture and town planning, for example, could create such a centre whose
work would enhance the facultys efforts in its more traditional elds. Additionally,
such centres should not be regarded as the sole preserve of educational
institutions.16
Additionally, it is important to avoid the fragmentation of peace. Peace and
conicts have diverse causes and consequences, so there needs to be an all-
embracing approach. This means being careful to avoid, for example, people
studying economics looking only at the economic consequences of the arms race
or international law students being taught only the laws of war. Students should
be encouraged to look beyond the boundaries of their academic disciplines and
take a holistic view of humankind.
Finally, national defence forces need to be involved as partners in the
creation of a new culture of peace. This may, as expressed by the UN Secretary-
General,17 mean greater training for peace-keeping operations.
Inspiration
History books, monuments and museums are usually based on war rather than
peace. History books are too often about generals and battles. There is much
glorication of war and the brave deeds of men and women. The sacrices of
one generation inspire later generations to follow their example. A culture of
violence is propagated partly by inspiration.
16. For example, the Trinity Peace Research Institute, Perth, Western Australia (of which
I was the director, from 1986 to 1990), was the rst privately funded peace research
institute in Australia. It received no government assistance. It was nanced by a
parish church, which had great nancial resources and which wanted to make its
own contribution to 1986: International Year of Peace.
17. Boutros Boutros Ghali, An Agenda for Peace, 2nd ed., New York, United Nations,
1995.
218 Keith D. Suter
Peace too has its heroes. But these men and women receive far less attention
in history books, monuments and museums. Another theme in the creation of
a culture of peace is therefore the need to ensure that a culture of peace itself is
of an inspirational nature.
This problem was recognized in 1901 by William James, the Harvard
philosopher, who wrote about the need to create the moral equivalent of war.18
War is a great mobilizer: people are willing to make self-sacrices and confront
dangers in ways that they would rarely do in peacetime. War builds up personal
character and creates a national sense of purpose. James had in mind the creation
of a common campaign by countries against such general problems as disease
and famine, with young people being conscripted in new national forces to tackle
these problems rather than being trained for war.
Over ninety years later, Jamess idea is still relevant. This may be seen at
two levels. At the national level, war is still publicized and seen as a virtuous,
inspiring activity, with considerable attention to commemorating military events.
At the personal level, boredom is a great problem among young people in
developed countries. As the material standard of living has gone up, so young
people have more time on their hands, more money to spend, less parental
supervision (because both parents are often in the paid workforce to earn money
for the increased standard of living), more time to watch violent programmes
on television and there are few challenges. For example, in Sydney in April
1994, a teenager admitted to stealing thirty-seven cars in twenty-two days because
he was bored.19 War, violence and crime are exciting alternatives to boredom.
In other developing countries, there is not so much boredom as a lack of purpose
and a loss of condence in the future. A South African study of the problems of
educating young people about AIDS noted: In order to practise safe behaviour,
[street kids] have to be persuaded that their lives are worth preserving.20
Much remains to be done, then, in portraying peace itself as an inspiring
18. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature, pp. 3557,
London, Collins, 1975 [1901].
19. Boy Stole 37 Cars in 22 Days, Daily Telegraph Mirror, Sydney, 13 April 1994, p. 1.
20. Quoted in Sue Armstrong, Women Hit Hardest by HIV in Divided South Africa,
New Scientist (London), 3 July 1993, p. 10.
and exciting activity. Publicity needs to be given to positive stories of the quest
for peace. For example, Rodrigo Carazo, then President of Costa Rica, explained
at the 1990 UNESCO World Congress on Disarmament Education how his
country had decided to scrap its defence forces three decades earlier:
We, in Costa Rica, wished to undertake a unique experiment. We asked ourselves

if, in the end, it would be worth while, in terms of security or conquest, to maintain
an army, or if, instead, and owing to mans rationality, it were possible to have greater
trust in reason and the world than in weapons. The question seems naive, but the
answer has given us excellent results. Weapons do not offer security, and the most
substantial and delightful victory is that which is attained without violence. 21
The experiment is still under way but it does not get enough attention by the
international mass media. Good news is often not news wars sell newspapers,
not peace. Consequently, some ideas are given below on the need for a more
critical approach towards the mass media and how the mass media can become
partners in creating a culture of peace.
People examine the present from the perspective of the past. The British
historian Sir Michael Howard recalled in 1961 how his study of history challenged
the myths with which he had grown up:
I remember my own bitter disillusion of learning that the great English victory over
the Armada in 1588 was followed, not by a glorious peace but, after 16 years, by as
dishonourable a compromise settlement as England ever made, and by 20 years during
which we were little more than a satellite of the great Spanish Empire. After this it
came as less of a shock, on studying the Napoleonic wars from continental sources,
to learn how incidental was the part Britain played in the climactic campaigns of
1812, 1813 and 1814 which nally smashed the Napoleonic hegemony of Europe,
great though our indirect contribution to that overthrow undoubtedly was. Such
disillusion is a necessary part of growing up in and belonging to an adult society.22
21. Rodrigo Carazo, To Learn to Live Peacefully, in Marek Thee (ed.), Armaments, Arms
Control and Disarmament: A UNESCO Reader for Disarmament Education, p. 322, Paris,
UNESCO, 1981.
22. Michael Howard, The Use and Abuse of Military History, Journal of the Royal United
Services Institute (London), February 1993 [1961], p. 27.
220 Keith D. Suter
By implication, though Howard did not state this, most people never do become
adults.23 The myths of childhood remain with them throughout their lives
because, unlike Howard, they do not get the opportunity to study history at
undergraduate level. Their knowledge of history remains based on what they
learnt from school textbooks, which reproduce the views of that country. British
and German textbooks, for example, provide different descriptions on which
force was responsible for defeating Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo in June
1815.
Thus history books play an important role in creating a culture of peace.
UNESCO itself has made a ne contribution to this work by its History of
Humanity (rst published about two decades ago and now in the process of
updating)24 and its regional histories such as The General History of Africa (in eight
volumes).
In regard to monuments, an obvious task is to create more monuments
celebrating peace. The Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), one of the
worlds most important peace research institutes, is a living monument created
by Sweden in 1966 to commemorate its 150 continuous years of peace. 1986
was the International Year of Peace (IYP), and the Australian Governments
IYP Committee, of which I was a member, recommended that, as one of its
activities for the year, Australia should create a peace monument in its national
capital, Canberra, which the Governor-General unveiled on 24 October (UN
Day) 1990.
Similarly, there is a need to create more peace museums. Terence Duffy, of
the Peace and Conict Studies Programme at the University of Ulster, United
Kingdom, has commented:
23. Much the same could be said about what people retain from their science classes.
Here they are not the subject of national myth-making; they simply forget what they
are taught. A conference in the United States discussed the way that 20 per cent of
Americans still believe that the Sun orbits the Earth, and 17 per cent of the rest
believe that the Earth circles the Sun once a day. . .. See Rosie Mestel, Education:
The Final Frontier, New Scientist, 26 February 1994, p. 11.
24. S. J. De Laet et al. (eds.), History of Humanity, Vol. I: Prehistory and the Beginnings of
Civilization, Paris, UNESCO, 1994 (with the other six volumes to appear by 1997).
Peace museums are now emerging as a global trend in museum development. The
product of state, group, or individual efforts, these museums explore the relationship
between conict and the visual arts. They act as vehicles of peace education by
preserving the heritage of peace-making and peace culture and by promoting an
informed understanding of the origins of conict. Peace museums often approach
their subject by juxtaposing peace with the tragic consequences of war.25
Duffy went on to identify the four strands within the peace museum trend:
. . . distinct peace museums, which specically, use the term peace museum to
describe themselves and that are dedicated to peace themes; museums that are
devoted to particular events (such as Hiroshimas Memorial Peace Museum);
museums that celebrate peace as exemplied through international humanitarian law
(such as the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Museum); and gallery projects
that, while not currently full-blown explorations of peace issues, have the potential
to evolve as functional peace museums.26
To sum up, a culture of violence became embedded in so many societies, partly

though its inspirational nature. It is necessary for a culture of peace to be seen
as equally inspirational.
THE MASS MEDIA AND A CULTURE OF PEACE
The mass media have a crucial role to play in the development of a culture of
peace. For example, television has become a major factor in modern life. What
began sixty years ago as a small system for the conveying of news and
entertainment has itself become a major news item.
This section deals with the way in which the mass media report on wars,
the rise of info-tainment (a mixture of information and entertainment), some
ideas for improving the quality of mass media reporting, the way that there are
some signs of a community reaction against violence on television, and some
ideas on how television can be tamed.
25. Terence Duffy, Exhibiting Peace, Peace Review (San Francisco), Winter 1993, p. 488.
26. Ibid.
222 Keith D. Suter
Reporting war
Television is of little help in the search for truth. This does not mean that
television journalists set out deliberately to lie. The problem is that television is
a supercial medium; it engages the emotions rather than the intellect. The World
Association of Christian Communication, based in London, pays particular
attention to two main centres of mass media: the United Kingdom and the United
States. The World Association has set out some of the detailed shortcomings of
the media during the 199091 Gulf War.27
The truth often does come out eventually, but the interests of the mass media
and the general public have by then moved on. The Guardian newspaper in the
United Kingdom, over a year after the Gulf War ended, reported that Allied
ground forces in the Gulf War outnumbered the Iraqis by more than three-to-
one at the start of the hostilities and the Bush Administration vastly over-
estimated the Iraqi militarys ghting strength.28 This revelation was preceded
by the Pentagons admission that its so-called smart bombs and Tomahawk
cruise missiles were not nearly as successful at hitting their intended targets as
previously stated. The ground-launched Patriot missile, used against Iraqi Scud
missiles, also turned out to be less effective than advertised. Three months later,
the same newspaper reported: The US Congress yesterday released Pentagon
documents showing that as early as 1985 it had warned that Iraq was diverting
American technology imports to a nuclear weapons programme. This directly
contradicts President Bushs latest insistence that the US Government had no
knowledge of the uses to which US imports were put.29
Unfortunately, by the time that the truth does emerge, the attention of the
media consumers has often moved on. Additionally, the truth appears in only
small stories in newspapers, since television and the front pages of newspapers
are now devoted to what is the latest interesting issue. Smart bombs, for
example, retain their favourable image since that is what people remember, rather
than the later, more balanced assessments of their (limited) effectiveness.
27. World Association of Christian Communication, Recent Activities and Future Plans
19923, p. 9, London, 1993.
28. Pentagon Got its Iraqi Sums Wrong, The Guardian (London), 24 April 1992.
29. Pentagon Warned US to Shun Iraq, The Guardian (London), 3 July 1992.
Info-tainment
One problem, then, with television is the supercial nature of its reporting. It
blurs the distinction between news and entertainment. Ann Sanson of the
University of Melbourne was worried about the impact of Gulf War television
coverage on children:
We know that some children got taken in by this new action-packed soap opera
the television war and said to each other Did you watch the Gulf War last night?
as if it were just another soapie. The death and destruction seemed to become as
irrelevant and distant as in any other show. This was facilitated by the linguistic
detoxication that was used to cover the true human costs of war. . . . So we saw
the bombing of Baghdad referred to as a great reworks display, and civilian deaths
became collateral damage a term which would be incomprehensible to most
children anyway.30
Tragedies are presented in an entertaining way. The Rome-based Society for

International Development has reported on the way that the media have turned
human suffering into a circus.31 Somalia has become Showmalia. In an editorial,
the French newspaper Libration warned that the line between presenting
information and putting on a show was extremely thin: In Mogadishu . . . this
line was not only crossed; military and media alike have trampled upon it
savagely.
The world witnessed the rst military landing broadcast by satellite, and
a United States source has admitted that this was planned by the military
command and the technicians of the North American news channel Cable News
Network.
The UN Secretary-General, speaking, ironically, in a CNN televised
conference, in May 1993, set out his concerns about the medias capacity to focus
attention on one problem while ignoring another:
30. Ann Sanson, The Impact of Television on Children, Chain Reaction (Melbourne),
No. 65.
31. Media Attacked for Turning Human Suffering into a Circus, Development Hotline
(Rome), December 1992, p. 6.
224 Keith D. Suter
The [UN] Member States never take action on a problem unless the media take
up the case. When the media get involved, public opinion is aroused. When public
pressure builds up, the UN is asked to get involved. This is why we see UN
operations in Bosnia and Somalia. The world will act when the media arouse the
public. Public emotion becomes so intense that UN work is undermined. On
television, the problem may become simplied and exaggerated. Constructive
statesmanship, which takes time and must have nuance, is almost impossible. When
one crisis is in the spotlight, other equally serious situations are left in the dark.
There are problems in Afghanistan, Angola, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Myanmar
and Tajikistan. Very few people are interested. More people were killed in one day
in Luanda or in Huambo in Angola, than in months in Sarajevo. Why is the UN
deeply involved in one crisis and not in another? One of the reasons is media
attention.32
To sum up, the global media revolution has enabled us to see more about events
occurring around the world. But are we really learning more about those events?
Is the coverage based on entertaining us rather than informing us?
Improving the quality of reporting
Johan Galtung (see this volume, pp. 7592), one of the founders of peace research,
has offered some ideas on how the 199091 Gulf War could have been reported
better.33 First, tell the story from all sides. A conict has many parties and many
issues; trying to reduce the complexity down to the classical simplistic formula
of two parties and one issue may be only marginally better than presenting one
side only.
Second, get access to events, people, issues. This means getting to where
the action is, not where some of the action is reported or distorted, such as at a
press conference.
Third, do not overuse lites as sources. Avoid the incessant parade of
experts, mostly in uniform, with overheads and maps. This type of presentation
32. Media Sets UN Agenda, Says Boutros-Ghali, Unity (Canberra), June 1993.
33. Johan Galtung, Reporting on a War: The Gulf War, Social Alternatives (Brisbane),
Vol. 11, No. 1, 1992, pp. 811.
is a mixture of university lecture, combined with management seminar and

salespersonship for some new product.
Fourth, do not glorify technology. This can easily become advertising for
new weapons, done glibly with insensitivity to the victims of all these weapons.
Finally, stress and promote peace initiatives. Of course, nobody would argue
that the media should turn themselves into instruments of peace education, even
of peace propaganda. But they should also be tuned to that angle of the story.
A successful example of this nal point is the Australian Media Peace Prize.
My colleague, Sydney businesswoman and peace philanthropist Mrs Stella
Cornelius, received the endorsement of the United Nations Association of
Australia in creating, over a decade ago, that peace prize. It is not sufficient just
to criticize the media. They should be rewarded when they do well; they should
be encouraged to do better. This peace prize project is now copied in over twenty
countries around the world.
This media peace prize work could be taken much further at both at the
national and local levels. National Commissions for UNESCO could create media
peace awards, using UNESCOs culture of peace programme as the basis for
the criteria for winning. Locally based non-governmental organizations could
create their own awards for local media outlets. Service clubs, such as Rotary,
Soroptimists and the Scout Movement, could also introduce media awards for
reporting which meets the principles of those organizations. Another possibility
is that teaching bodies could also follow this example. Local schools could
encourage students to become media monitors and at some appropriate time
each year the students could vote on their own programmes and newspaper
articles which they think have done the most to create a culture of peace. The
students could also organize the prize and the prize-award ceremony. The mass
media will publicize these events because they love to report events concerning
the media.
Te l e v i s i o n a n d v i o l e n c e
Parents would not let a stranger into their homes to have unrestricted access to
their children. But this is what is happening with television, as explained by Dr
Victor Strasburger, Chief of the Division of Adolescent Medicine at the University
of New Mexicos School of Medicine:
226 Keith D. Suter
Imagine inviting a stranger into your home for two or three hours every day to
tell your children all about a perverse world where violence solves problems, and
all anyone needs [in order] to be happy is the right beer, a fast car, good looks and
lots of sex. . . . The stranger could do a lot of damage during that long daily visit,
planting misperceptions no one could ever change and causing problems no one
could solve.34
Television drama creates an appetite for violence that spills over into other
television programmes and even into other mass media. News programmes are
more dramatic, gory and fast-paced. So-called human interest television
documentaries are also excessively violent. There is a blurring between television
news and drama. There is also a blurring between violence in the news and in
sport. Australian academic Helen Yates has complained about the portrayal of
football violence.35 There is also a blurring between television crime and
newspaper crime.
There has been a considerable campaign against violence on television. For
example, Terry Rakolta of Americans for Responsible Television has claimed
that the level of violence has passed the point guaranteed by civil rights and she
has argued that television executives should exercise greater control over
programming. In one year the average 16-year-old sees 1,500 sexual acts,
16,000 murders, and 200,000 acts of violence on prime-time television. Terry
Rakolta has decided that such violence is shaping our future society and needs
to be controlled.36
All of this type of campaigning by churches and non-governmental
organizations is beginning to bear fruit. In July 1993, the American media
industry itself said that there was too much violence. In short, all the campaigning
done by non-governmental organizations against violence on television and in
the movies has started to be successful. There is a still a long way to go but there
34. Unsupervised TV Equal to Inviting a Stranger to Inuence Your Children, The

Australian, 3 April 1993.
35. Helen Yates, Women, the Media and Football Violence, Social Alternatives, Vol. 11,
No. 1, 1992, p. 17.
36. Sex and Violence on TV, TRANET Newsletter, March 1993, p. 6.
may at last be some progress made, and a foundation upon which UNESCO
can build a culture of peace.
We need to create discerning television viewers, who can peer beneath the
gloss and glitter of so much of contemporary television and demand higher
standards. Everyone can play a part in improving the quality of the mass media.
Thus, creating a culture of peace is a broadly based activity which gives everyone
the opportunity for participation and a sense of ownership of the progress
being made.
F R O M C O N F L I C T T O C O - O P E R AT I O N
A culture of peace is necessary because a culture of fear has not deterred people
from going to war. The late Bert Roling37 recalled the hope that Nobel had in
1890 that the invention of his explosive would deter people from going to war:
Perhaps my factories will put an end to war. . . . On the day when two army
corps may mutually annihilate each other in a second, probably all civilized
nations will recoil with horror and disband their troops. Humans are slow
learners. Since that prediction, there have been two world wars and the invention
of nuclear weapons and countries are still going to war.
A better way to avoid war is not so much to make war unattractive because
that is not a deterrent but to make peace as attractive as possible. Thus
countries need to see that they can gain far more from peace than from war.
This links the development of a culture of peace into other UN work on
international economic and social co-operation.
Additionally, countries which have simmering disputes, for example over
boundaries, should be encouraged to have their own bilateral arrangements, such
as developing projects for mutual gain in response to natural disasters like oods
or famines. They could also have student exchange schemes and joint research
projects. In other words, rather than attempt to deal with their disputes directly,
the disputes should be put to one side and instead there should be co-operation
on common threats. This united focus on a common problem will create a climate
37. Bert Roling, The Historical Perspective, in Thee, op. cit., p. 69.
228 Keith D. Suter
of trust so that simmering disputes can be tackled later in a more tranquil

environment.
To conclude, UNESCOs work on creating a culture of peace is a massive
undertaking. It will result in the eventual replacement of one dominant culture,
that of violence, with another. A good omen for UNESCOs work is that
community groups and even parts of the mass media are questioning the current
culture of violence and are looking for alternatives. Thus UNESCO is able to
set a lead in this work. In due course, its work on creating a culture of peace
will no doubt be seen as having been as important as its pioneering work against
racism.
229
To w a r d s a c u l t u r e o f p e a c e b a s e d
on human rights
Marek Thee*
THE CONCEPT OF A CULTURE OF PEACE
A culture of peace is a value-loaded, highly demanding concept. The amalgam

of the notion of culture with the idea of peace, with equal emphasis on both,
confers on the concept particular import and intensity. Indeed, it induces a sense
of conscientious virtue and rightfulness. Given todays international environment,
marked as it is by insecurity, conict, socio-economic turbulence and militarization,
the vision of a culture of peace presents a challenge, calling for redress and
innovation in human affairs. There is a need to infuse into society and
international relations higher standards of ethical/moral behaviour, human
understanding and empathy, all aiming at peaceful co-operation and the
improvement of the human condition.
In the context of the acute peacelessness which surrounds us and the
striving for amiable peaceful relations among nations, the achieving of a culture
of peace acquires singular urgency. Inherent in this goal is a human-oriented
* Marek Thee is Senior Research Fellow of the Norwegian Institute of Human Rights.
He was previously Senior Research Fellow of the International Peace Research
Institute, Oslo (PRIO), as well as founder and editor of the quarterly peace research
journal, Bulletin of Peace Proposals (19691988), published by PRIO.
The author would like to thank Asbjrn Eide, Donna Gomien, Tore Lindholm
and Brd-Anders Andreassen of the Norwegian Institute of Human Rights for
helpful comments on the draft; the nal version of the paper remains his own
responsibility.
230 Marek Thee
ethos of freedom, non-violence and mutual respect. A culture of peace should

be capable of mobilizing people and serving as a material force for progressive
change.
The quest for a sound culture of peace requires, then, that we repudiate
those power relation structures, national and international, which rest on the use
of violence and, as such, are pregnant with conict and war. We must aim at the
abolition of war and of power relations based on violence, and strive instead for
a peaceful settlement of conicts and an environment of mutual understanding
and common security.
A culture of peace requires an expanded conceptualization of peace, above
and beyond the negative meaning of absence of war and armed conict. It needs
to encompass the positive values of non-violence and social justice, striving to
meet basic human needs. In this perspective peace appears as the proviso for life
itself.
The concomitant of culture embodies the sum total of human civilizational
achievements in all creative elds of art and science integrated with human values,
institutions, attitudes, customs, ways of life and behaviour, joined with a civic
consciousness disposed to co-operation, and placed in the service of human
advancement.
Culture is historically and situationally conditioned. It reects a
multidirectional process, nationally and internationally, with components liable
to produce divergent results, both constructive and destructive. Each culture tends
to develop its own ethical norms. By a culture of peace, we envisage the
blossoming of all that is good in the human being, all that cares for human life
and upholds the ethos of human fullment. Of paramount importance within
these values are the ethical dimension and a sense of moral judgement.
At the opposite pole, we nd a sombre culture, sociopolitically inltrated by
violence, by a Realpolitik-militaristic and hegemonic way of thinking which treats
peace in an expedient, instrumental way, with war, in the Clausewitzian mode,
envisaged as a continuation of politics by other means. This orientation gives
rise to a state of mind which professes the virtue of armaments, ghting and
soldiering, as well as all sorts of military deterrence strategies (preparation for
war), as a prudent implementation of security postures, with no cognition that
throughout history arms races have in fact generated conict and war.
To w a r d s a c u l t u r e 231
of peace based
on human rights
There exists, then, in international relations today a tension between an

enlightened and altruistic culture of peace on the one hand, and on the other, a
peaceless culture which begets human estrangement, hatred and enmity among
peoples and nations: a destructive penchant to pathologies of domination,
militarism, ethnocentrism and xenophobia.
The result is a morality gap which is utterly harmful and calls for the
activation of defences of peace in the minds of men, as envisaged in the
UNESCO Constitution. A persistent educational effort is required to bring
about change, to make a culture of peace work for global humane transformation.
For such a commitment, human rights may serve as a norm-setting guide, a
pointer for the progression of a global culture of peace providing a framework
for a new, just and peaceful world order.
A CULTURE OF PEACE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
No international charter or political-philosophical tenets can mirror the spirit of

a culture of peace and serve its purpose better than the juridical foundation of
human rights. Particularly relevant here are three dimensions of human rights:
1. Instruments, such as conventions, declarations, UN General Assembly
resolutions, principles, guidelines, rules and recommendations dening civil
and political freedoms, setting norms of civilized human behaviour; asserting
generic standards of non-discrimination and making it illegal to practise
degrading treatment on fellow human beings or to discriminate on grounds
of race, colour, ethnicity, sex, language, religion, political opinion or social
origin. Essentially, these provisions boil down to the civil freedom tenets of
democracy with their general outlines inscribed in human rights instruments.
2. The socio-economic provisions enumerated in human rights instruments
concerned with welfare and freedom from want, which are a precondition
for the full enjoyment of a life in dignity and for the harmonious and non-
violent development of society, nationally and internationally.
3. Solidarity rights concerned with freedom from want and from fear. On the
one hand, they proclaim the right to development aimed at overcoming acute
socio-economic global disparities between developed and developing nations,
with the human being as the central subject of development. On the other
232 Marek Thee
hand is the crucial assertion of the basic human right to peace, calling for
demilitarization of international relations, and striving for a world free from
the scourge of war and caring for human security.
All of these human rights are closely interrelated, indivisible and interdependent.
As a whole, human rights offer a comprehensive legal framework for the
establishment of a cultural climate favourable to the creation of a stable peace,
the democratization of national and international relations and human well-
being. Essentially, human rights are about human dignity, integrity and
emancipation, and a conscientious and desirable future in freedom, justice and
peace.
Rooted in the enlightenment and modernization of recent centuries, human
rights emerged after the Second World War as a result of revulsion against the
barbarity of war. Their basis was the tenet that, as stated in the Preamble to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recognition of the inherent dignity and
of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.1
Violations of human rights are still frequent in all corners of the globe. Also,
many provisions inscribed in human rights instruments lack tangible substantial
formulation and are often vague and diffuse. This is particularly true of economic,
social and cultural rights. A basic deciency of most of the instruments is the
1. The United Nations Charter of Human Rights comprises the International Bill of
Human Rights encompassing the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1966
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, complemented
later by a number of United Nations Conventions, Declarations and
Recommendations. They cover the right to self-determination; the prevention of
racial discrimination; the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious
and linguistic minorities; the rights of women; the rights of the child; human rights
in the administration of justice; the right to freedom of information, to social welfare;
and humanitarian law, etc. These international human rights instruments are
complemented by regional instruments of the Council of Europe, the Organization
of American States, the Organization of African Unity and the Organization of
Security and Co-operation in Europe. For texts of human rights instruments, see
Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments, New York, United Nations,
1993.
of peace based
on human rights
lack of mechanisms providing for complaints by victims of violations of their

rights and for appropriate redress. In addition, many human rights provisions
are not inscribed in state legislation. Full institutionalization of human rights would
seem to be a protracted process. Vague political commitments need to be
transformed into legal obligations. Thus, as much as human rights are visionary
and norm-setting, they still remain in the domain of aspiration. Much effort is
required to make them truly universally respected and to establish a statutorily
binding culture of peace.
A CULTURE OF PEACE AND ITS INTERFACE

WITH DEMOCRACY
There is a close affinity between human rights and democracy. Indeed, respect
for and observance of human rights lie at the core of a democratic system. They
are the litmus tests of democracy. Likewise, genuine democracy must strive to
enact and implement the provisions inscribed in human rights instruments. This
refers to civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, with particular
emphasis on the rule of law and regard for the four basic freedoms: freedom of
speech and belief as well as freedom from want and fear.
Adherence to the above rights, in theory and practice, forms the legal
infrastructure of a culture of peace. Historical experience tells us that stable
democracies, as opposed to non-democratic systems, have been the least inclined
to go to war against each other.
Freedom of speech is central for a peaceful democratic course and the
fruition of a culture of peace. Article 19(1) of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights emphasizes that everyone shall have the right to hold
opinions without interference, including the right to freedom of expression
(Article 19(2)). This is then qualied in Article 20: (1) Any propaganda for war
shall be prohibited by law. (2) Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred
that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be
prohibited by law.
It is the general climate of a democratic society which promotes the values
of a culture of peace, internally and externally. Democracy means popular
sovereignty, with the government accountable to the people through regular
234 Marek Thee
elections. As laid down in Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights: The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government;
this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by
universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent
free voting procedures. This assumes majority rule whether the electoral system
is based on majoritarian plurality or proportional representation. On the other
hand, the stress on individual freedom and on protection of minorities rules out
arbitrary and authoritarian majority governance. It presupposes consent and
willingness to tolerance and compromise.
Concerning individual rights, Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights stipulates that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security
of person. Consequently, All persons are equal before the law and are entitled
without any discrimination to the equal protection of law. . . . (Article 26 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). Furthermore,
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and
obligations and of any criminal charge against him (Article 10 of the Universal
Declaration).
The gist of these provisions is the paramountcy of the rule of law, as
indicated by the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights.2 This means that
the law is above politics and that the administration has strictly to abide by existing
laws with an inbuilt system of checks and balances based on impartial and
independent courts. A precondition for such a system is a clear division of power
between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
However, comprehensive democracy is more than freedom of thought and
conscience, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, or all the
other civil and political rights dominated by the primacy of the rule of law. Human
rights are equally concerned with the material socio-economic conditions of
humanity as a crucial composite part of loving and peaceful behaviour. Thus,
the Universal Declaration also provides for social security (Article 22), the right
to work (Article 23), the right to rest and leisure (Article 24), the right to an
2. See pp. 27, 34 and 67 of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, World Conference
on Human Rights, June 1993, New York, UN Department of Public Information, 1993.
of peace based
on human rights
adequate standard of living and well-being (Article 25), the right to education
(Article 26), the right to participate freely in the cultural life of the community
(Article 27) and the right to a social and international order in which all freedoms
set forth in the Universal Declaration can be fully realized (Article 28).
Today, these socio-economic conditions of human rights remain aspirational
and promotional. For lack of resources and follow-up, they are rarely fully
adhered to, even in democratic societies. All the same, they remain objectives
which are vital for a life in dignity based on freedom from want. Concern about
satisfaction of basic human needs is also a prerequisite for effectively shaping a
culture of peace.
The founders of human rights were well aware of the difficulties in early
and universal implementation of their provisions. They foresaw therefore
contingencies which could allow derogation from certain human rights
obligations, with the qualication of meeting the just requirements of morality,
public order and the general welfare in a democratic society (Article 29(2) of
the Universal Declaration). Thus, as indicated by Torkel Opsahl, the universality
of human rights yields to national standards.3
Thus, in perusing human rights instruments we may, on the one hand, feel
comfortable in many instances about their moral and constitutional legal force
but, on the other, we may also be aware of the rather visionary aspect of other
provisions, far from being practised in todays international society. Both the
binding legal provisions and those still awaiting material embodiment serve
intrinsically as a beacon for democratic transformation and for the achievement
of a human-rights-based culture of peace.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND POSITIVE PEACE
Seen from the perspective of the vision of a culture of peace, prominent in human
rights thought are elements of a positive peace theory focused on social
development, social justice and human advancement. The positive conception
3. Torkel Opsahl, Articles 29 and 30: The Other Side of the Coin, in Asbjrn Eide
et al. (ed.), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A Commentary, p. 460, Oslo,
Scandinavian University Press, 1992.
236 Marek Thee
of peace perceives an organic linkage between intranational and international

violence, and seeks to eliminate the seeds of peacelessness and tension pregnant
with conict. Central in this respect is the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights.
In human rights theory, civil and political rights on the one hand, and
economic, social and cultural rights on the other, are equally important: they are
indivisible, closely interrelated and interdependent. The International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an integral part of human rights law,
dealing specically with the promotion of welfare in society. Following the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this Covenant recognizes the right of
everyone to work (Article 6), the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and
favourable conditions of work (Article 7), the right to form and join trade unions,
including the right to strike (Article 8), the right of everyone to social security,
including social insurance (Article 9), the right to the widest possible protection
and assistance to the family, with special protection for mothers and children
(Article 10), the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself
and his family, including adequate food, clothing, housing, and the continuous
improving of living conditions (Article 11), the right of everyone to the enjoyment
of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (Article 12), the
right of everyone to education (Articles 13 and 14) and, nally, the right of
everyone to take part in cultural life and enjoy the benets of scientic progress
(Article 15).
Although the above rights are laid down in terms of individual freedoms,
they pertain to the collectivity of the human family. In this sense, almost all human
rights which denote the individual as the ultimate bearer of the rights actually
hold good for the society as a whole.
A specic feature of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights is its idealistic and imaginative wording, without concrete
modalities of implementation. The term right is generally interpreted not as
an immediate material obligation of the state but rather as creating
opportunities for making use of these rights: a diffused hope. As opposed to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights does not provide for
procedures for legal complaints against the violation of its provisions and for
of peace based
on human rights
appropriate remedies.4 The wording of the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is weak and ambivalent. It reects a
penchant for negative rather than positive peace. Too often the obligations
of this Covenant are largely ignored.5
Human rights advocates are concerned with infusing greater vigour and
intelligibility into the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights provisions, and with empowering the victims of their violation. This
problem has two aspects: on the one hand, many countries, especially developing
nations, lack resources to set up a welfare system as foreseen by the Covenant;
on the other hand, conservative forces, even in developed democratic states,
resist the full implementation of the provisions of the Covenant for ideological
reasons. Although, by June 1994, the Covenant had been ratied by 117 states,
neither China nor the United States6 have ratied it. It remains a reality that
the Covenant is one of the least honoured instruments in the eld of human
rights.
The difficulties in implementing the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights were evident when it was formulated. Thus Article 2
provides that:
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and
through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical,
to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively
the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate
means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.
Emphasis here is on the expressions to the maximum of its available resources

and to take steps individually and through international assistance and
4. See Philip Alston, No Right to Complain about Being Poor: The Need for an
Optional Protocol to the Economic Rights Covenant, in Asbjrn Eide and Jan
Helgesen (eds.), The Future of Human Rights Protection in a Changing World, Essays in Honour
of Torkel Opsahl, pp. 79100, Oslo, Norwegian University Press, 1991.
5. See Rolf Knnemann, A Coherent Approach to Human Rights, Human Rights
Quarterly, Vol. 17, 1995, pp. 32342.
6. See United Nations, Human Rights: International Instruments, Chart of Ratications as of
30 June 1994, New York/Geneva, United Nations, 1994.
238 Marek Thee
co-operation. This wording acquires special meaning in a world where more than
a quarter of the population does not get enough food, and nearly one billion go
hungry and suffer from absolute poverty.7 Individual steps in these circumstances,
especially in developing countries, can only be very modest, while resources from
international assistance and co-operation are far from meeting even the most
minimal needs.
In this context, the concerned voices of human rights lawyers can be heard
saying that, in the meantime, until a start can be made in the effective realization
of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, particular
attention should be given to measures to improve the standard of living of the
poor and the disadvantaged groups.8 Others have suggested country-specic
minimum threshold approaches to narrow the problem of distributive justice
to socially guaranteed minimum levels of goods and benets such as food, shelter
and education.9
The state of affairs regarding the implementation of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights indicates the essential
limitations and inadequacy of human rights legislation in covering rights related
to the positive conception of peace. It also points to the daunting tasks to be
accomplished and the distances to be covered in the human rights domain, if we
are to arrive at a genuine, humane culture of peace. Human welfare, as posited
by the Covenant, is clearly an essential component of such a culture.
7. See Human Development Report 1994, New York/Oxford, United Nations Development
Programme, 1994.
8. See The Limburg Principles on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights. (UN Economic and Social Council Document, E/CN.4/
1987/17 of 8 January 1987.)
9. See Brd-Anders Andreassen, Compliance with Economic and Social Human Rights:
Realistic Evaluations and Monitoring in the Light of Immediate Obligations, in
Asbjrn Eide and Bernt Hagtvet (eds.), Human Rights in Perspective: A Global Assessment,
pp. 25267, Oxford, Blackwell, 1992.
of peace based
on human rights
THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT
Akin to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is

the 1986 UN General Assembly Declaration on the Right to Development. This
declaration par excellence addresses the predicaments of developing countries and
species remedies needed to overcome them. It denotes a solidarity right,
essentially foreseeing strategies for implementing positive peace, applied
internationally with particular consideration of the plight of peoples in developing
countries. It marks a plea for sustainable development.
In its Preamble, the Declaration envisages development as a comprehensive
economic, social, cultural and political process, which aims at the constant
improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on
the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and
in the fair distribution of benets resulting therefrom.
The Preamble further recalls the right of peoples to self-determination, by
virtue of which they have the right freely to determine their political status and
to pursue their economic, social and cultural development. This is a reminder
that the right to self-determination has both external and internal aspects, meaning
also the right democratically to shape in freedom their internal economic-political
system.
There is emphasis on the interrelationship between development and peace
among nations. The Preamble notes: International peace and security are essential
elements for the realization of the right to development. Hence the need for
disarmament, meaning general and complete disarmament under effective
international control (Article 6), with resources released through disarmament
measures to be devoted to the economic and social development and well-being
of all peoples and, in particular, those of the developing countries (Preamble).
A denite goal is the establishment of a new international economic order, based
on sovereign equality, interdependence, mutual interest and co-operation among
all States (Article 3(3)).
Here we may recall efforts to make the disarmament/development linkage
work, in accordance with the above provisions of the right to development. Sadly,
the rst initiative in this domain was wrecked.
In 1982 a Group of Governmental Experts appointed by the UN Secretary-
240 Marek Thee
General, in its report entitled The Relationship between Disarmament and Development,
concluded that an effective relationship between disarmament and development
can and must be established,10 recommending that further considerations be
given to establishing an international disarmament fund for development
(IDFD).11 The 1982 UN General Assembly then mandated the United Nations
Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) to elaborate modalities for the
operation of an IDFD. In its detailed report to the UN General Assembly in
1984, UNIDIR took a most positive stand, concluding that the establishment
of a disarmament fund for development is desirable as a means of giving tangible
expression to the recognized link between disarmament and development and
starting the process of transferring to development the resources that are allocated
to armaments.12 However, in the climate of the Cold War and North-South
stratication, the 1987 UN International Conference on the Relationship between
Disarmament and Development dropped the idea of an IDFD from its agenda.
Finally the whole project was aborted.13
Of even greater importance were the efforts of concerned scholars, like those
participating in the Pugwash Conferences, to bring about the redeployment of
substantial parts of research and development (R&D) resources from military to
civilian purposes. Available data estimated that, by early 1990, out of 5.7 million
persons engaged globally in R&D, some 1.5 million were working for military
R&D, including at least 1 million scientists and engineers with full academic
degrees.14 Obviously, the redeployment of thousands of the best qualied scientists
and engineers from armaments to serve human needs could mean a decisive
10. United Nations Centre for Disarmament, The Relationship between Disarmament and
Development, p. 154, para. 391, United Nations, New York, 1982.
11. Ibid., p. 169, para. 426(7).
12. Establishment of an International Disarmament Fund for Development, p. 32, para. 47(a),
Geneva, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, 1984.
13. See Marek Thee, The Quest for the Reallocation of Resources from Disarmament
to Development: In Pursuit of Tangible Peace Dividends, The Journal of East and West
Studies, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1993, pp. 4552.
14. See Marek Thee, Science and Technology: Between Civilian and Military Research and
Development. Armaments and Development at Variance, United Nations, New York, 1990.
(United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, Research Paper No. 7.)
of peace based
on human rights
contribution to solving many urgent problems of development. It could act to

increase productivity in industry and agriculture, to advance health care and
biosciences, to improve the quality of the environment, to generate alternative
sources of energy, to reduce the developmental disparities between rich and poor
countries. It could perceptibly and substantially improve human development.
Unfortunately, as pointed out in the following section on the exercise of the right
to peace, no visible progress has been made in this domain.
Repeatedly, the Declaration on the Right to Development stresses the
requirement of international economic assistance for developing countries.
Article 4(2) states: Sustained action is required to promote more rapid
development of developing countries. As a complement to the efforts of
developing countries, effective international co-operation is essential in providing
these countries with appropriate means and facilities to foster the comprehensive
development.
International aid must go hand in hand with efforts on the national level,
adhering to principles of social justice and non-discrimination. As indicated in
Article 8:
States should undertake, at the national level, all necessary measures for the realization
of the right to development and shall ensure, inter alia, equality of opportunity for
all in their access to basic resources, education, health services, food, housing,
employment and the fair distribution of income. Effective measures should be
undertaken to ensure that women have an active role in the development process.
Appropriate economic and social reforms should be carried out with a view to
eradicating all social injustices.
Beyond the call for overcoming the socio-economic global divide, the right to
development, as a solidarity right, also has normative importance in human rights
theory. It pertains to the conceptualization and comprehension of human rights
themselves. Basically, as reected in the wording of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and other human rights instruments inspired by the Western
world-view, human rights are perceived as individually centred, pertaining
inherently to the freedoms and dignity of the individual. Yet the right to
development, while stressing that the human person is the central subject of the
development process (Preamble) also has, following the perception of Third
242 Marek Thee
World countries, a clear collective tone. It stresses the need for the constant
improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all peoples. The
beneciaries of this right are meant to be all nations of the world, particularly
the developing countries. Also the call for disarmament, with resources thereby
released devoted to the economic and social development of all peoples, has
national and international resonance.
Problems of the right to development, with demands for equitable
international economic relations and the immediate alleviation of extreme poverty
in developing countries, were prominent in the June 1993 World Conference on
Human Rights.15 The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted
by the Conference, attaches particular importance to implementation of the right
to development. It calls on the thematic Working Group on the right to
development appointed by the UN Commission on Human Rights to promptly
formulate for early consideration by the United Nations General Assembly,
comprehensive and effective measures to eliminate obstacles to the implementation
and realization of the Declaration on the Right to Development and
recommending ways and means towards the realization of the right to
development by all States.16
Although the Declaration on the Right to Development has no legally
binding force, its message concerning moral solidarity is compelling. It underlines
the awareness of dangers to the whole world community inherent in the global
socio-economic divide. It embodies the urge for freedom from fear, and reects
in an exemplary way the role of human rights as a promotional force for peace
and for a culture of peace.
THE RIGHT TO PEACE
The right to peace was proclaimed by the 1984 UN General Assembly

Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace. This is perhaps one of the briefest
human rights instruments, but nevertheless one of the most notable, as it pertains
15. See World Conference on Human Rights: The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,
June 1993, pp. 2571, New York, UN Department of Public Information, 1993.
16. Ibid., Part II, p. 72.
of peace based
on human rights
to the crux of freedom from fear and of human survival in an overarmed world.
It is a solidarity right, voicing alarm on the dangers to humanity caused by
armament, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, perennial armed conicts
and constant preparation for large-scale war.
In its Preamble the Declaration expresses the will and the aspiration of all
peoples to eradicate war from the life of mankind and, above all, to avert a world-
wide nuclear catastrophe. Further, that in the nuclear age the establishment of
a lasting peace on Earth represents the primary condition for the preservation
of human civilization and the survival of mankind.
In Article 1 the Declaration solemnly proclaims that the peoples of our planet
have a sacred right to peace; and further emphasizes that ensuring the exercise
of the right of peoples to peace demands that the policies of the states be directed
towards the elimination of the threat of war, particularly nuclear war, the
renunciation of the use of force in international relations and the settlement of
international disputes by peaceful means on the basis of the Charter of the United
Nations (Article 3).
Intimately linked with the right to peace is the inherent right to life, as
inscribed in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Commenting on the right to life, the Human Rights Committee mandated to
critically consider the observation of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights noted:
It is a right which should not be interpreted narrowly. . . . The Committee observes

that war and other acts of mass violence continue to be a scourge of humanity and
take the lives of thousands of innocent human beings every year. . . . The Committee
considers that States have the supreme duty to prevent wars, acts of genocide and
other acts of mass violation causing arbitrary loss of life. Every effort they make to
avert the danger of war, especially thermo-nuclear war, and to strengthen international
peace and security would constitute the most important condition and guarantee of
the right to life.17
17. Manfred Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary, p. 851,
Strasbourg, N. P. Engel, 1993.
244 Marek Thee
These reect supreme concern about the fate of mankind. Bearing in mind this
declaration, the Human Rights Committee draws particular attention to the peril
of the stockpiling and development of nuclear weapons which could lead to
nuclear catastrophe.
We all need to be reminded of this sword of Damocles hanging over
mankind. With the end of the Cold War, our general awareness of the global
vulnerability regarding nuclear weapons has diminished. Yet the doomsday legacy
of the nuclear arms race, the stockpiling of nuclear weapons, their proliferation
and further modernization, are still with us.
Here we should note the efforts to arrive at a comprehensive nuclear test
ban (CTB), specically meaning the cessation of underground nuclear testing.
A CTB would be a step in the right direction and would create some barriers
to further nuclear weapon development and modernization, including the increase
in the number of new nuclear-weapon states. Yet, with nuclear weapon technology
now reaching out beyond underground testing, it would not mean a standstill
in nuclear modernization or global denuclearization.
As the major nuclear-weapon states have repeatedly stressed, they do not
intend to relinquish their nuclear stockpiles, accepting to eliminate only those
surplus obsolete classes agreed under the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks
(SALT).18 Thus, in the military mind, nuclear weapons are still perceived as useful
and required for defence-offence purposes, under the name of legitimate nuclear
deterrence.19
As long as the major powers see nuclear weapons as necessary and useful
for defence and war, weaker states will strive to follow suit and acquire nuclear
capability as a shield against stronger neighbours or pressures from great
18. As of the end of 1994 it has been estimated that the USA and Russia have each an
active arsenal of 7,000 to 9,500 nuclear weapons. See R. Jeffrey Smith, U.S. and
Russia to Trade Nuclear Arms Secrets, International Herald Tribune, 23 December 1994,
p. 3.
19. One example of the nuclear deterrence mentality and the continued reliance on
nuclear weapons by the major powers is the prolongation in 1994 until the year
2004 of the USUnited Kingdom agreement on Co-operation on the Uses of
Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes, Trust and Verify, No. 52, November
1994, p. 1.
of peace based
on human rights
powers. Nuclear proliferation remains a compelling raison dtre for a militarized

world.20
Moreover, a CTB would not be able to halt nuclear development and
modernization, as technologies are developing which enable one to bypass
underground testing and to continue nuclear military advances through
laboratory testing.21
New nuclear testing technology is in line with the general trend in nuclear
weapon modernization to replace the unwieldy nuclear Behemoth of the Cold
War by new generations of compact, highly accurate and deliverable mini- and
micro-nuclear arms which cause lesser collateral damage but are more exible,
together with a trend towards conventional use even in local low-intensity
engagements.
Here we should also note that the nuclear danger is only the most
conspicuous element of current armaments. Despite the end of the Cold War,
the production and trade in conventional weapons has not ceased. Cutthroat
competition has developed between the major powers and weapon producers to
deliver these arms to almost all corners of the world.
As never before, solidarity rights, the right to peace, as linked with the right
to development calling for general and complete disarmament (GCD), have
acquired an importance which is critical to ensuring a transition from a war system
to a peace system, from military to political solutions in human affairs. It promises
authentic freedom from fear.
Denuclearization, the implementation of GCD and demilitarization of
international relations remain the supreme goals in the quest to exercise the
solidarity right to peace.22 Embracing the whole of mankind, they call into
20. The case of Iraq is a striking example of the possibility of evading control and trying
in secrecy to develop nuclear arms.
21. A comparison can be made with the circumstances which led to the Partial Test Ban
Treaty (PTBT) in 1963. Under the pressure of public opinion, which protested against
pollution injurious to health caused by nuclear testing in the atmosphere, the PTBT
prohibited such tests. But the major powers consented to the PTBT only after
mastering the technology of underground nuclear testing. Testing simply moved
underground, becoming even more intense.
22. See Robert S. McNamara, A Long-Range Policy for Nuclear Forces of the Nuclear
246 Marek Thee
play the whole array of human rights and are essential to a functional human
rights regime.23 This is synonymous with a civilized, law-based culture of
peace.24
CULTURE OF PEACE: DIVERSITY AND UNIVERSALITY
In the above, we focused on the exercise of solidarity rights, the right to

development and the right to peace. In the post-Cold War era, their realization
becomes crucial to a civilized, tolerant and just new world order based on respect
for human rights and organically linked to a global culture of peace.
Globalization of a culture of peace thus presumes the universality of the
human rights canons. As outlined in the Preamble to the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, human rights norms have been proclaimed as the common
standard of achievements for all peoples and for all nations. The Universal
Declaration further mandates that every individual and every organ of society
shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights
and freedoms . . . to secure their universal and effective recognition and
observance.
While accepting in good faith the universality of human rights as a point
of departure, we must also remain attentive to the diversity of civilizational/cultural
world-views and behaviours regional, ethnic, national and religious within
the family of peoples and nations. The heterogeneity in beliefs and conduct can
be understood, beginning with simple temperamental bearing to more complex
conceptions of rights and duties towards family, society and the realms of work
and labour. This world of ideas and mental images is rooted in dissimilarities of
life experience, languages, traditions and habits. The political deployment of
Powers, Pugwash Newsletter, October 1994/January 1995, pp. 13843, with the call
to move back to a non-nuclear world.
23. See Marek Thee, Demilitarizing International Relations and the Quest for a Human
Rights Regime, Proceedings of the Forty-Second Pugwash Conferences on Science and World
Affairs, Vol. II, Singapore/New Jersey/London/Hong Kong, pp. 5728, World
Scientic, 1994.
24. See Marek Thee, Arms Reduction and Global Reconstruction: A Blueprint for the
Year 2000, Journal of East and West Studies, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, pp. 1238.
of peace based
on human rights
cultural differences has too often led to conict and war. Cultural diversity is a
historical reality of our world.
The universalization and transnationalization of human rights, intertwined
with a culture of peace, makes it imperative to recognize and appreciate cultural
plurality. This should be seen as a source of spiritual and civilizational enrichment
with a unity of purpose, brought about by mutual understanding and a will to
achieve the good of all peoples and nations. In the process, greater convergence
towards a culture of peace may unfold.
This process will be enriched by the adoption of new ideas and ways of
thinking, and stimulated by the globalization of the economy, the
interdependence of new civilizational adventures, the ongoing worldwide
technological revolution, the explosion of informatics and the thrust of high-
speed intercontinental transport. Historically, there is a close linkage between
changes in economic and existential conditions of life and superstructural,
spiritual, intellectual and emotional values. However, we must be alert lest new
technological demons prevail over humane aspirations. We must heed carefully
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights command to pay prime attention
to teaching and education for human rights, thereby promoting a global culture
of peace.
National and international peace becomes in this endeavour a unifying
force. It corresponds to the ethical and moral creeds and commands of almost
all world religions and humane values. It also meets the essentials of the solidarity
rights which perceive lasting peace on Earth, in the words of the Declaration on
the Rights of Peoples to Peace, as the primary condition for the preservation of
civilization and a primary international prerequisite for the material well-being,
development and progress of mankind. Genuine peace is thus a benecial force
for human development and positive societal transformation.
To all this, one may rightly object that a global culture of peace seems
Utopian, a tall order indeed. In the end, the decisive factor may well be the
commitment and perseverance of the peoples and nations on our Earth to make
the dream come true.
248 Marek Thee
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Documents and studies

BROWNLIE, I. (ed.). 1992. Basic Documents on Human Rights. 3rd ed. London, Clarendon
Press.
C ENTRE FOR H UMAN R IGHTS, G ENEVA. 1993. Human Rights: A Compilation of
International Instruments, Vol. 1 (12): Universal Instruments. New York, United
Nations.
COUNCIL OF E UROPE. 1992. Human Rights in International Law. Strasbourg, Council
of Europe Press.
U NITED NATIONS. Reports from the preparatory regional meetings in Tunis, San Jos
(Costa Rica) and Bangkok, prior to the 1933 World Conference on Human
Rights. (A/Conf/PC/57 of 24 November 1992; A/Conf/PC/58 of 11 February
1993; and A/Conf/PC/59 of 7 April 1993.)
U NITED NATIONS DEPARTMENT OF P UBLIC I NFORMATION. 1993. World Conference on
Human Rights: The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, June 1993. New York,
United Nations.
2. Books and papers

ALGER, C.; STOHL, M. (eds.). 1988. A Just Peace through Transformation: Cultural, Economic
and Political Foundations for Change. Boulder, Colo., Westview.
ALSTON, P. (ed.). 1992. The United Nations and Human Rights: A Critical Appraisal.
London, Clarendon.
BERTING, J., et al. (eds.). 1990. Human Rights in a Pluralist World. London, Meckler.
BOULDING, K. E. 1978. Stable Peace. Austin, University of Texas Press.
BRANDT, W. 1987. Arms and Hunger. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
BRUNDTLAND, G. H. 1993. Peace, Democracy, Environment and Development. In:
G. Lundestad and O. A. Westad (eds.), Beyond the Cold War: New Dimensions in
International Relations. Stockholm, Scandinavian University Press, pp. 18994.
CLAPHAM, A. 1991. Human Rights and the European Community: A Critical Overview.
Baden-Baden, Nomos.
CLAUDE, R. P.; WESTON, B., H. (eds.). 1992. Human Rights in the World Community:
Issues and Action. Philadelphia, Pa., University of Pennsylvania Press.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND THE I NTERNATIONAL I NSTITUTE OF H UMAN RIGHTS. 1990.
Universality of Human Rights in a Pluralistic World. Strasbourg, N. P. Engel.
of peace based
on human rights
COUSINS, N. 1987. The Pathology of Power. New York, Norton.

DUMAS, L. J.; THEE, M. (eds.). 1989. Making Peace Possible: The Promise of Economic
Conversion. Oxford, Pergamon.
E IDE, A., et al. (eds.). 1992. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Commentary.
Stockholm, Scandinavian University Press.
E IDE, A.; HAGTVET, B. (eds.). 1992. Human Rights in Perspective: A Global Assessment.
London, Blackwell.
E IDE, A.; HELGESEN, J. (eds.). 1991. The Future of Human Rights Protection in a Changing
World. Oslo, Norwegian University Press. (Essays in Honour of Torkel Opsahl.)
E IDE, A.; KRAUSE, C.; ROSAS, A. (eds.). 1995. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff.
E IDE, A.; THEE, M. (eds.). 1983. Frontiers of Human Rights Education. Oslo, Norwegian
University Press.
FALH, R. A.; MENDLOWITZ, S. H. (eds.). 1966. The Strategy of World Order, Disarmament
and Economic Development. New York, World Law Fund.
FISHER, G. (ed.). 1985. Armement dveloppement droits de lhomme dsarmement. Paris,
Facult de Droit de lUniversit Ren Descartes.
GALTUNG, J. 1969. Violence, Peace and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, Vol.
6, No. 3, pp. 16791.
GLEDITSCH, N. P.; NJLSTAD, O. (eds.). 1990. Arms Races: Technological and Political
Dynamics. London, Sage.
GOMIEN, D. (ed.). 1993. Broadening the Frontiers of Human Rights. Essays in Honour of
Asbjrn Eide. Stockholm, Scandinavian University Press.
I NTERNATIONAL I NSTITUTE OF P HILOSOPHY, PARIS. 1986. Philosophical Foundations of
Human Rights. Paris, UNESCO.
KRIPPENDORF, E. (ed.). 1968. Friedensforschung. Cologne, Kiepenheuer & Witsch.
KUTUKDJIAN, G. B.; PAPISCA, A. (eds.). 1991. Rights of Peoples. Padua, CEDAM.
LERNER, N. 1991. Group Rights and Discrimination in International Law. Dordrecht,
Martinus Nijhoff.
MAHONEY, K. E.; MAHONEY, P. (eds.). 1993. Human Rights in the Twenty-rst Century:
A Global Challenge. Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff.
MALLMANN, C. A.; NUDLER, O. (eds.). 1986. Human Development in Its Social Context.
London, Hodder & Stoughton, United Nations University.
M ELMAN, S. 1988. The Demilitarized Society: Disarmament and Conversion. Montreal,
Harvest House.
250 Marek Thee
ROTBLAT, J. (ed.). 1994. Feasibility of a Nuclear-weapon-free World. Proceedings of the

Forty-second Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, Vol. 1, pp. 34959.
London, World Scientic.
SAKAMOTO, Y. (ed.). 1987. Strategic Doctrines and Their Alternatives. New York/London,
Breach Science Publications.
STOCKHOLM I NITIATIVE ON G LOBAL S ECURITY AND GOVERNANCE. 1991. Common
Responsibility in the 1990s. Stockholm, Prime Ministers Office.
S UBRAHMANYAM, K. 1993. Nuclear Proliferation and Non-proliferation. In:
G. Lundestad and O. A. Westad (eds.), Beyond the Cold War: New Dimensions in
International Relations, pp. 5770. Stockholm, Scandinavian University Press.
THEE, M. 1981. The Establishment of an International Disarmament Fund for
Development: A Feasibility Study. Bulletin of Peace Proposals, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.
53100.
. (ed.). 1981. Armaments, Arms Control and Disarmament: A UNESCO Reader for
Disarmament Education. Paris, UNESCO.
. 1986. Military Technology, Military Strategy and the Arms Race. London, Croom Helm
in association with the United Nations University, Tokyo, the International Peace
Research Institute, Oslo, and St Martins Press, New York.
. (ed.). 1987. Preparation of Societies for Life in Peace. Tokyo/Oslo, United Nations
University/Norwegian University Press.
. 1991. Whatever Happened to the Peace Dividend? The Post-Cold War Armaments Momentum.
Nottingham, Spokesman for European Labour Forum.
. 1993. The Philosophical-Existential Issues of the Human Rights Project:
Challenges for the 21st Century. In: B.-A. Andreassen and T. Swinehart (eds.),
Human Rights in Developing Countries, Yearbook 1993, pp. 119. Oslo, Nordic Human
Rights Publications.
TOMASEVSKI, K. 1989. Development Aid and Human Rights. London, Pinter.
Towards a Nuclear Weapon Free and Non-Violent World. 1990. (Foreword by P. V. Narasimha
Rao.) Delhi, Vikas Publications. 2 vols.
VYRINEN, R. (ed.). 1987. The Quest for Peace: Transcending Collective Violence and War
among Societies, Cultures and States. London, Sage/International Social Science
Council. (In collaboration with C. Schmidt.)
WESTON, B. H. (ed.). 1984. Toward Nuclear Disarmament and Global Security: A Search
for Alternatives. Boulder, Colo., Westview.
YORK, H. F. 1987. Making Weapons Talking Peace. New York, Basic Books.
251
UNESCO and a culture of peace:

promoting a global movement
U N E S C O s C u l t u r e o f Pe a c e P r o g r a m m e
INTRODUCTION
As we enter the twenty-rst century, humanity faces unprecedented threats to its

very existence. We rst became aware of this through the nuclear confrontation
and, today, we realize that this threat to our security is even broader, including
the degradation of the earths environment and its linkage to poverty,
overpopulation, massive migrations, intolerance and the unequal distribution of
resources in the world.
In the face of this challenge, people are responding by joining together in
mobilizations of unprecedented size. We are familiar with them as global
movements for disarmament, equitable and sustainable development, the
environment, and the rights of women and indigenous peoples. They have been
recognized by world conferences convened by the United Nations in Rio, Cairo,
Vienna, Copenhagen and Beijing. A common theme runs through these
movements that all people are interdependent and that the right to a peaceful
and fruitful existence, not only of all people, including future generations, but
of all life on our planet, must be respected.
This is the historical context in which UNESCO launched its Culture of
Peace Programme (CPP) in February 1994. After a little more than two years,
we nd that the theme of a culture of peace is being taken up by organizations
around the world, as it becomes a global movement which links together all other
movements for a peaceful future.
First, we will briey consider UNESCOs Culture of Peace Programme.
252 UNESCOs Culture
of Peace Programme
This programme has been given the highest priority in UNESCOs strategy for
the coming years. Its role is that of a catalyst, serving as an inspiration and initiator
of key programmes and a centre for the exchange of information and ideas both
within and beyond UNESCO.
Second, we will look at UNESCO and its related institutions. The
Organization was founded in 1946 to build peace in the minds of men and women
and was given responsibility in the United Nations family for education, science,
culture and communication, the essential tools with which a culture of peace
may be created. UNESCO works with partners at all levels throughout the world.
Third, we will consider the national culture of peace programmes in which
UNESCO co-operates with the government and civil society in El Salvador,
Mozambique and Burundi to put the theoretical concepts of a culture of peace
into practice on a national scale.
In conclusion, we will consider the emergence of a global movement and
vision of a culture of peace which unites the people working in the various social
movements for peace and justice. Through its information and networking system
the UNESCO Culture of Peace Programme invites everyone to join in
contributing to this movement and providing the elements for its conception.
THE EVOLVING CONCEPT OF A CULTURE OF PEACE
The concept of a culture of peace is founded on the recognition of the values of

peace and non-violence and the fundamental rights and freedoms of every person,
as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
A culture of peace is not the absence of conict. Given a world of rich
diversity, conict will continue to be part of life itself. Instead of fearing conict
we must learn to appreciate its non-violent aspects: courage, heroism, creativity,
the redress of injustice.
A culture of peace is both a process and a vision for the future. It transforms
and ultimately replaces a culture of war which has pervaded civilization since
the beginning of history. Therefore a culture of peace is necessarily linked to a
broad movement which replaces both war and its culture.
A culture of war has also served another function, a function in the minds
of men, uniting people in solidarity against an enemy and inspiring acts of courage
UNESCO and a culture 253
of peace: promoting
a global movement
and heroism. A century ago the philosopher and psychologist William James
argued that war would not be abolished until a substitute could be found for
the psychological needs it fulls, such as solidarity, audacity, comradeship, loyalty,
courage, those qualities traditionally associated with the warrior. In his treatise,
The Moral Equivalent of War, he argued for international sporting events such as
the modern Olympics as a possible substitute.
It is UNESCO, charged with building the intellectual and moral solidarity
of mankind, which plays the key role in intellectual leadership and the promotion
of global solidarity for a culture of peace within the United Nations system. It
is responsible for the modalities appropriate to this task: education, the media,
cultural institutions, social sciences.
Power, in a culture of peace, grows not from the barrel of a gun but from
participation, dialogue and co-operation. And in such a culture, its youth, both
men and women, are not prepared to be military warriors but to be active
participants in a world in which the differences among people are seen as a
challenge for peace and a cause for celebration. Training in non-violence is a key
to a culture of peace. Although a culture of peace is characterized by non-
violence, it is not a passive but an active non-violence, as described by Mahatma
Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. As they learned and
taught, active non-violence requires great courage and strength to harness anger
into struggle against injustice.
As women have been excluded from the power associated with a culture of
war, their full participation and empowerment is essential to the development of
a culture of peace. Women have a special stake in peace, because it was the
monopolization of warfare by men from the beginning of history which reinforced
their exclusion from the inner circles of power. Hence it is to be expected that
women will play an ever-increasing role in the struggle for a culture of peace.
The elucidation of the concept of a culture of peace is one of the key tasks
of UNESCOs Culture of Peace Programme. This development evolves as a
result of practice and consultation, including a continuous dialogue within
UNESCO and with its various partners. Of particular importance are the
experiences of National Culture of Peace Programmes, those initiated both by
UNESCO and by national governments themselves.
A number of forums have been organized by the UNESCO Culture of
254 UNESCOs Culture
of Peace Programme
Peace Programme for the elaboration of an operational concept of a culture of

peace. These have included the Roundtable of Eminent Persons on An Agenda
for Peace: A Challenge for UNESCO in Paris in July 1993, the First International
Forum on a Culture of Peace in February 1994 in El Salvador, and the First
Consultative Meeting of the Culture of Peace Programme in Paris in September
1994. A Second International Forum was held in November 1995 in the
Philippines, where an expert group meeting on womens contribution to a culture
of peace had also been hosted in April 1995. The results of these forums have
contributed greatly to the evolving concept of a culture of peace.
UNESCOS CULTURE OF PEACE PROGRAMME
UNESCO has engaged in activities to promote a culture of peace from its

beginning, when it was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War to
construct the defences of peace in the minds of men and women.
As early as the fth session of its General Conference, it was noted that all
UNESCOs work in every eld is directed to securing improved international
understanding. However, with the end of the Cold War and the renewed capacity
of the UN Security Council to make decisions by consensus, it became evident
that a new approach was needed which would review institutions and functions
long serving a culture of war and to transform them into instruments for peace.
1989: Meeting in Yamoussoukro, Cte dIvoire, in July, the International
Congress on Peace in the Minds of Men called for UNESCO to help construct
a new vision of peace by developing a peace culture.
1992: An operational programme for promotion of a culture of peace was
presented to the 140th session of UNESCOs Executive Board (document 140
EX/28). Placed in the framework of An Agenda for Peace, which had recently been
published by United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, it
proposed local activities of reconciliation and co-operation in countries where
peace-keeping operations had been implemented or could be anticipated.
1993: At the twenty-seventh session of UNESCOs General Conference,
Member States enthusiastically supported the proposal for an Action Programme
to Promote a Culture of Peace, emphasizing the need for concrete action as well
as theory. They stressed the linkage between a culture of peace and a culture of
of peace: promoting
a global movement
democracy and human rights. As a result, provisions for the Culture of Peace
Programme were included in UNESCOs Programme and Budget for 199495.
1994: On 1 February the Director-General established a unit for a Culture
of Peace Programme under his direct authority. In establishing this, he allocated
to it a number of functions in addition to the elucidation of the concept, as
described above. These functions include:
provision of an integrated approach to activities in the various units and
eld offices of UNESCO which contribute to the promotion of a culture
of peace;
development of national and subregional programmes of a culture of peace;
coordination of these activities with those of the United Nations system and
of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations.
In order to provide an integrated approach to UNESCOs activities for a culture
of peace, an intersectoral committee was established in April 1994, chaired by
the Director-General and comprising high-level sectoral representatives. In
addition, consultations concerning joint activities are held regularly between the
staff of the Culture of Peace Programme and other units at Headquarters and
in the eld. Some of these activities are initiated by the Culture of Peace
Programme.
National programmes of a culture of peace are under way in El Salvador,
Mozambique and Burundi. These will be described in the following section along
with a number of other related national initiatives.
Finally, in order to co-ordinate these activities with those of other institutions,
the Culture of Peace Programme is developing an information and networking
system to link up the many organizations promoting a culture of peace. The
hope is that this movement will take on a life of its own and become a self-
sustaining irreversible transformation process from a culture of war to a culture
of peace. This is why the programme emphasizes education, training and
deployment of individual peace promoters and the transformation and
development of institutions and organizations to promote a culture of peace.
256 UNESCOs Culture
of Peace Programme
UNESCOS SECTORAL ACTIVITIES PROMOTING

A CULTURE OF PEACE
The Culture of Peace Programme aims at stimulating and co-ordinating the many
activities in UNESCOs different sectors which are making signicant
contributions to a culture of peace. The programme works closely with them,
making recommendations to avoid obvious overlap, signalling gaps which could
be covered, and helping to develop new initiatives which can play a catalytic role
in the development of a culture of peace.
The number of UNESCO activities promoting a culture of peace is very
large; therefore, rather than trying to list all of them here, only a few are given
as illustrations from each sector of the Organization.
In its work in the Education Sector, UNESCO works directly with the
educational systems of its Member States through the International Conference
on Education (ICE) and through the International Institute for Educational
Planning (IIEP). In its role as the lead agency for the global programme of
Education for All, UNESCO promotes the goal of universal basic education which
is of good quality and relevant to the tasks of our time.
At the 44th session of the ICE, held in Geneva in October 1994, over 800
people, including some 100 ministers and deputy ministers of education, devoted
their energies to improving education for international understanding, including
a culture of peace. In the Declaration on Education for Peace, Human Rights
and Democracy subsequently adopted by the ICE, ministers agreed to base
education on principles and methods that contribute to the development of the
personality of pupils, students and adults who are respectful of their fellow
human beings and determined to promote peace, human rights and democracy
and pledged to take steps to ensure that educational institutions become ideal
places to practice tolerance.
Teachers play a key role in creating a culture of peace because of their direct
involvement with the training of the next generation, as well as their contacts
with parents and the surrounding community. Curricula will be updated to
ensure an approach to ethnic, racial and cultural differences among peoples which
emphasize their unique contributions to the enrichment of a common heritage.
History will be taught in a way that gives as much emphasis to non-violent social
change as to military conquests. Human rights teaching will lead to the
of peace: promoting
a global movement
development of a sense of loyalty to the family, the community, the cultural group,
the nation and the planet.
A pillar of UNESCOs educational activities aimed at promoting a culture
of peace is the Associated Schools Project (ASP), which promotes the teaching
of peace, justice, solidarity and international co-operation, through links with some
3,200 schools, at pre-primary, primary and secondary level, in over 120 countries.
In celebrating in 1995 the ftieth Anniversary of the United Nations and of
UNESCO, as well as the United Nations Year for Tolerance, UNESCO has
organized a series of subregional childrens culture of peace festivals, sponsored
jointly by the Culture of Peace Programme and the ASP. At the festivals, children
from different countries between the ages of 11 and 13 gather for activities,
discussion and drafting of an appeal to world leaders. It is expected that the
festivals will launch an educational process which will allow the children to
undertake specic actions to promote a culture of peace in their environment.
To directly address the rising problem of violence in major urban centres,
a new project is being launched within the framework of the ASP and the
Culture of Peace Programme. The Interregional Project of Schools to Promote
Community Conict Management in Violence-Prone Urban Areas will link up
a network of schools located in cities plagued by violence, by which programmes
are developed to train students, teachers and other staff, parents and the
surrounding community in methods of mediation and non-violent conict
resolution. In these schools, training in mediation and conict-management will
be an integral part of the curriculum and of the activities of the surrounding
communities.
For the coming years, UNESCOs Communication and Informatics Sector
has dened a new strategy aimed at strengthening freedom of expression and
the press, by achieving more balanced dissemination of information and increasing
the communication capacities of developing countries. Only pluralistic and
independent media providing access to all can ensure the free ow of ideas needed
for the development of a global culture of peace. In pursuing this goal, UNESCO
maintains close relations with professional press and journalists organizations,
and provides technical advisers to assist Member States in preparing media
legislation and to propose structures for editorially independent public service
broadcasting.
258 UNESCOs Culture
of Peace Programme
Specic projects in a number of countries, including Rwanda and Burundi,

contribute directly to a culture of peace. In former Yugoslavia, UNESCO has
supported independent media who bridge the ethnic divisions encouraged by
other partisan media and which have contributed to a culture of violence in recent
years. For example, newsprint and equipment were own into Sarajevo to keep
alive the independent newspaper Oslobodenje, which came to symbolize the multi-
ethnic harmony of that city surrounded by intolerance and war. Also with the
help of UNESCO, NTV 99, the only independent television station in Sarajevo,
began broadcasting in early 1995, providing daily information and education
programmes reecting the multi-ethnic character of the city.
In the future, UNESCO will place a new emphasis on the educational and
cultural dimensions of the media and on the problem of violence on the screen
and its impact, especially on the young. With the 125th anniversary of the birth
of Mahatma Gandhi as a tting backdrop, an international roundtable on non-
violence, tolerance and television was organized jointly in New Delhi in April
1994 by UNESCOs International Programme for the Development of
Communication and the Indian Government. In emphasizing self-regulation, the
round table singled out the guidelines used by the BBC for its television
programming. These guidelines recognize that the need to provide programmes
which reect the diversity of life and which unavoidably include violence, must
be kept in proportion along with the humour, celebration, warmth and kindliness
which will also be depicted. In the future one may hope that media guidelines
emphasize non-violent solutions to conict.
UNESCOs Sector of Social and Human Sciences, recognizing that a
scientic approach to a culture of peace requires a process of research,
development and evaluation of appropriate methodologies, as well as the
dissemination of relevant ndings, supports the collaboration of social scientists
from around the world. For example, the International Peace Research Association
(IPRA) was founded with support from UNESCO and has always maintained
close ties to the Organization.
Of particular importance for a culture of peace are a series of scientic studies
and declarations which address the various myths of race and violence which
have led some to believe that inequality and war are natural states of humanity
and therefore inevitable.
of peace: promoting
a global movement
Beginning in 1950, UNESCO supported a process in which scientists

addressed the pseudo-scientic theories of the inequality of humanity and races
which had been used to justify the doctrines leading to the Second World War.
They asserted the fundamental unity of humanity and declared that we all
belong to the same species. Scientists emphasized that the concept of race reects
a social image bound up with the physical appearance of individuals rather than
a scientic fact based on specic biological data.
The Seville Statement on Violence was drafted for the United Nations
International Year of Peace (1986) by an international team of scientists. They
concluded that biology does not condemn humanity to war, and that humanity
can be freed from the bondage of biological pessimism and empowered with the
condence to undertake the transformative tasks needed in this International Year
of Peace and in the years to come. UNESCO has publicized and disseminated
the Statement as part of its programme of education for peace, human rights and
democracy.
UNESCO also has a long tradition in adopting international instruments
aimed at upholding human rights and the preparation and dissemination of
teaching materials to make their provisions known to the widest possible audience.
The International Congress on Education for Human Rights and Democracy,
held in Montreal in March 1993, adopted a World Plan of Action based on the
body of international human rights and humanitarian law and conceiving of
human rights in their broadest sense to include learning about tolerance and
acceptance of others, solidarity, participatory citizenship and the importance of
building mutual respect and understanding.
Among the many recent initiatives for a culture of peace within the social
sciences, one should mention the meetings on the contribution of religions to a
culture of peace, organized with the UNESCO Catalunya Centre in Barcelona.
At the 1994 meeting participants from all major religious traditions issued the
Declaration on the Role of Religion in the Promotion of a Culture of Peace,
calling upon all religious and cultural traditions to unite their efforts to spread
the message of peace.
Since the foundation of the Organization, UNESCOs Culture Sector has
worked to develop dialogue between cultures as an essential element of building
a culture of peace. To cite one example, UNESCOs Silk Roads Project epitomizes
260 UNESCOs Culture
of Peace Programme
the recognition of the important role that cultural tourism can play in increasing
understanding between peoples. Since the project began in 1990, four
international expeditions the Desert Route, the Steppe Route, the Maritime
Route and the Nomads Route have been undertaken and a fth, retracing the
Buddhist Route through Nepal, India, Pakistan and Central Asia to China, is
now being prepared. Activities such as research programmes, exhibitions,
publications and the setting up of research centres and institutions (for example,
the International Institute for Central Asian Studies in Samarkand) have been
stimulated by the expeditions.
The Silk Roads Project has inspired a number of related projects. One of
them, the Slave Route, launched in the framework of the International Year of
Tolerance, seeks to ensure that the slave trade is the subject of an international,
multidisciplinary study, leading to a climate conducive to a revival of co-
operation. Another, the Roads of Faith, focuses on Jerusalems eternal mission . . .
to promote peace and understanding among people (in the words of the
resolution that created it). By concentrating on the roads of pilgrimage leading
to the Holy City which have been travelled over the centuries, the project hopes
to promote knowledge about the citys unique role in the world and its essential
contribution to human dignity, so that a future more in keeping with the nature
of Jerusalem can be realized.
Through its Field Offices, UNESCO is able to promote a culture of peace
at national and local levels in every corner of the globe. The UNESCO Office
in Costa Rica, with the help of other offices in the region, has played a key role
in the initiation of national culture of peace programmes in Central America.
Their management is being handled by new Field Offices in El Salvador and
Mozambique. To cite a few examples, the UNESCO Liaison Office in New York
provides a constant source of dialogue between the programme and the various
institutions of the United Nations system. In Asia, the Beijing Office has organized
meetings on a culture of peace to which diplomats in that city were invited and
which addressed issues such as How a culture of peace programme can be
implemented in a multiracial, multicultural, multi-language country.
In Africa, the Regional Office for Education (BREDA) has organized, in
conjunction with the National Commission for UNESCO of Cte dIvoire, an
interregional colloquium on Present-day Conicts and the Culture of Peace. In
of peace: promoting
a global movement
the Caribbean, the UNESCO Office in Kingston, Jamaica, has undertaken a

series of symposia in the framework of a culture of peace to address the rising
problems of alienation, crime and violence.
N AT I O N A L C U LT U R E O F P E A C E P R O G R A M M E S
From its inception, the Culture of Peace Programme was called upon by the
Executive Board and the Director-General to be an action programme. Therefore,
in addition to its co-ordinating and information/networking functions, it has
helped to initiate several national culture of peace programmes which put the
concept of a culture of peace into daily practice on a national scale.
National culture of peace programmes provide a setting in which all sides
of a conict sit around the same table, to design and implement human
development projects from which all the people in the country and the region
can benet. These programmes are based on building trust between all parties,
often requiring reconciliation following conict. This approach reects the basic
nding in social psychology that the most effective method of resolving conict
between two groups is to promote their co-operation toward a goal of mutual
benet.
Workers in the various development projects are trained to facilitate the
process of participation, dialogue and co-operation using both traditional and
universal principles and methods of conict-management. In this way, they come
to function as peace promoters, assuring that all sides of the conict continue
to participate and benet from the development process.
Since a basic premise of the programme is that a culture of peace cannot be
imposed, the training of peace promoters is based upon the study and use of
traditional practices of conict management. At the same time, training also
stresses universal values such as those of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and other related United Nations standard-setting instruments.
Recognizing that the work of the peace promoters is both difficult and
essential to the success of a national programme, a network and support system
is provided for peace-promoters which ensures the regular exchange of
information, periodic updates of training curricula and mutual encouragement.
The evaluation of culture of peace projects is also a participatory process.
262 UNESCOs Culture
of Peace Programme
Whereas traditional methods of evaluation for development projects have

emphasized the product of a project exclusively, a culture of peace ensures that
evaluation also considers the process by which it was planned and implemented.
The Culture of Peace Programme is working with donor countries to
develop an expanded methodology of project evaluation by which the analysis
of the results achieved is combined with a qualitative and quantitative analysis
of the participation of the various parties in planning and implementation of the
project concerned. This analysis places a priority on teaching people from all
sides of a conict to work together in achieving goals which would be impossible
working alone or in competition with each other.
In the rst year of the Culture of Peace Programme, national programmes
were launched in three countries: El Salvador in 1993 (that is prior to the formal
establishment of CPP), Mozambique and Burundi. El Salvador and Mozambique
were chosen because they were each engaged in a United-Nations-sponsored peace
process, which included a formal peace accord and an extensive UN peace-
keeping mission. Burundi was chosen because of the danger that it would undergo
another period of extreme violence similar to that which had recently devastated
its neighbour, Rwanda. Thus, from the beginning, UNESCO national culture
of peace programmes have been closely linked to the full process of United
Nations actions for peace
The pioneer national programme was launched in El Salvador in 1993. The
people of El Salvador, at that time, were carrying out a process of national
reconciliation based on the agreements in the 1992 Chapultepec Peace Accords.
The accords had ended a bitter civil war between the government and the
guerrilla movements united in the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front
(FMLN). UNESCOs initiatives were in the framework of a broad and extensive
post-conict peace-building programme of the United Nations, which had helped
to broker the Peace Accords and which also included an extensive military peace-
keeping operation.
From its beginning, UNESCOs culture of peace programme in El Salvador
has been a process of consensus-building for co-operation in human development.
The process was formalized in a Memorandum of Understanding following the
Forum for Education and Culture of Peace held in San Salvador in April 1993.
The forum was sponsored by the El Salvador Ministry of Education and
of peace: promoting
a global movement
UNESCO, with the presence of the Director-General of UNESCO and broad

participation of organizations from civil society, including representatives from
the FMLN. Following the forum, UNESCO helped to mediate in a process
wherein the former enemies worked together in the design of the programme
and the planning and implementation of a series of human development projects
for the benet of all Salvadorian society. Each project was conceived through a
participatory process and, once an expression of interest was obtained from donor
countries, the detailed project document was elaborated in workshops involving
all parties. A total of twenty-three projects have been proposed; by early 1995
seven had been elaborated as detailed project documents through joint
governmental/non-governmental sessions. These include support to Salvadorian
indigenous communities, programmes for disabled children and children affected
by the armed conict, support to Salvadorian youth, and literacy for a culture
of peace, as well as a general information project for the programme.
One of the rst projects to be implemented provides for national womens
radio programmes and corresponds to the strategic guidelines which emphasize
a national, co-ordinated approach and which gives priority to those who suffered
most from the previous conict. Women were especially affected, not only by
violence but also by the economic crisis which followed. Mothers often lack
adequate social support as regards legal resources, education, health, nutrition
and other basic needs.
Radio, with its largely female audience, has been found to be an effective
means of reaching the poorest women, very often illiterate, who are most in need
of orientation, information and support. The project, with daily half-hour
broadcasts, provides information about the services and activities available to
women, seeking to increase their awareness of their basic rights and enable them
to improve their lives. It should also serve to break down gender stereotypes
which have been perpetuated in the past through the media.
A series of institutional structures have been created in order to ensure the
participation process by which the radio project has been developed. The
UNESCO CPP representative plays an essential role in the functioning as well
as the establishment of each institution.
Bearing in mind that the aim of a culture of peace is to reconcile people and
consolidate peace, the radio project must maintain a constant process of
264 UNESCOs Culture
of Peace Programme
participation, dialogue and consensus. This naturally takes considerable time and
many meetings to resolve the various conicts which arise among the project
actors in the course of their work. Although progress on many aspects of the
project is necessarily slow, the decisions, once they are made, are owned and
hence supported by all of the participants.
During the course of the work on the radio project, the role of the UNESCO
representative has developed from that of an arbitrator (between conicting
groups) to that of mediator and, nally, to that of facilitator, making possible the
joint accomplishment of the common goal.
The progression arbitration to mediation to facilitation illustrates
concretely what might be called a culture of peace process. In its long-term
development the CPP in El Salvador plans to train peace-promoters, including
actors in the various projects, who are able to play the role of arbitrator/mediator/
facilitator, involving all parties to conicts in the planning and implementation
process.
In response to the Rome Peace Accords of October 1992, the people of
Mozambique responded spontaneously to build a culture of peace. The Peace
Accords put an end to more than twenty-ve years of armed struggle, rst for
liberation from the Portuguese colonial power and, second, in an armed conict
supported by foreign powers. The United Nations assisted in the demobilization
of the two conicting armies, the preparation of the national elections of October
1994 and the administration of humanitarian aid.
Within the context of these events, UNESCOs Culture of Peace Programme
is designed to support the grassroots initiatives for peace of the Mozambican
people, in a multi-stage process beginning with support for Mozambican non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) working in this area. The programme was
organized in its initial phase by the Mozambican National Commission for
UNESCO. This phase was surveyed by a steering committee representing a
broad range of interests ranging from government ministries to independent
NGOs at times in opposition to the government.
In the rst stage of the programme in 1994, a number of NGOs received
support for projects of national and community mobilization and the gathering
and dissemination of materials concerning the Mozambican experience with
peace-making.
of peace: promoting
a global movement
The second phase of the programme was designed in 1995. In this phase,
eight projects have been identied for implementation on a national scale, aimed
at elected and community leaders, demobilized soldiers, schoolchildren, rural
women, culture and sports, the media and the development of science as a
contribution to rural sustainable development.
The training of peace-promoters is based on traditional Mozambican peace-
making practices as well as on universal principles of conict management. For
example, use is made of the tradition of the milando, which is a variant of the
palaver found in many traditional African cultures. Among the Makua people
of Mozambique the milando is a kind of judicial process in the form of a public
debate presided over by the chief and involving the parties in conict and their
families and neighbours. The milando employs a patient question-and-answer
procedure which proceeds through the telling of traditional stories and proverbs
by the two parties. Indirectly, in this manner, they approach the causes of the
conict, weaving around it a web of traditional wisdom, to the point that the
resolution of the conict becomes self-evident.
The rst project to be implemented in the second phase of the Mozambique
programme provides for the newly-elected Mozambican parliament the
Assembly of the Republic to reect on democracy, human rights and peace-
building. This project is of special signicance because the FRELIMO
government has had an uneasy relationship with the opposition RENAMO
party, which received 45 per cent of the vote in the October 1994 elections. A
group of twelve parliamentarians, representing a cross-section of all the parties
and all provinces, travelled to South Africa and Malawi to meet with
parliamentarians there and to closely examine the ways they have found to co-
operate in the creation of social legislation. The study visit and ensuing process
is being recorded and publicized broadly by the media as a form of popular
education in peace and democracy.
In December 1994, a national culture of peace programme was launched
in Burundi, with the opening of a House of a Culture of Peace, staffed by a
multi-ethnic team. A House of a Culture of Peace, such as the one in Burundi,
is the symbolic expression of the national desire for peace and, at the same time,
the material structure with the means and institutional power to put it into
practice.
266 UNESCOs Culture
of Peace Programme
The rst event in the Burundi programme, after the opening of the House
of a Culture of Peace, was a national forum involving 160 leading political,
religious and academic gures of the country from both ethnic groups and all
strata of society. In addition to the Prime Minister, the forum was presided over
by the Ministers of Secondary and Higher Education, Primary Education and
Alphabetization, and Culture, Youth and Sports. The forum made a series of
recommendations in education and communication, upon which further
development of the programme is being based.
The training of peace promoters in Burundi is patterned after the tradition
of bashingantahe, men known for their integrity in their daily life who were
formerly chosen by the community to mediate conicts and to guarantee moral
values. This tradition has to be revived. Because they represented a counterforce
to colonialism, they were suppressed by colonial administrations and by the
governments which succeeded them after independence.
The House of the Culture of Peace in Bujumbura, in the few months since
it was opened, has already become a centre for many individuals and groups
who wish to join in working for peace. Despite the violence which presently
afflicts the city, work continues on seminars for a culture of peace with journalists,
government administrators, educators and representatives from other agencies,
from the United Nations system, as well as governmental and non-governmental
organizations.
The search for funding for national programmes has proved to be the most
difficult part of the process. Faced with limited funds and increased demands for
development assistance, major donors complain of donor fatigue. The Culture
of Peace Programme nds itself in competition for the attention and priority of
donors.
However, if ex-combatants are to lay aside their mistrust and commit
themselves to building a new society, we have an obligation to support this
process. If not, there is a risk of disillusionment and a return to violence, and
we may lose the opportunity to set out on a new path to peace, with benets for
every country in the world, in industrialized and developing countries alike. If
we are to achieve peace, we must pay the price. A culture of peace will not be
achieved until the present emphasis on military peace-keeping is matched by a
commitment at least as great to non-violent peace-building.
of peace: promoting
a global movement
Where can these funds be found? Despite the end of the Cold War, the
majority of funds, within countries and worldwide, is still directed towards
military solutions. The resources devoted by nations to the military are the
equivalent of the total income of half of the worlds population. While the United
Nations devotes 80 per cent of its resources to peace-keeping and emergency
assistance, it provides relatively little to conict prevention and peace-building.
For these reasons, the success of national culture of peace programmes ultimately
depends upon a global reallocation of priorities in which international
organizations and their Member States place a much greater emphasis on peace-
building and a culture of peace.
O T H E R N AT I O N A L P R O G R A M M E S A N D I N I T I AT I V E S
The UNESCO Culture of Peace Programme has provided support to other

national initiatives which unite parties to long-standing conict in a process of
reconciliation and peace-building. These include national culture of peace
programmes in Nicaragua, Honduras and the Philippines, a national forum of
reconciliation in the Congo, and forums for a culture of peace in Sudan and with
Somali intellectuals. In all of these cases the basic principles remain similar to
those listed above for national culture of peace programmes.
THE EMERGING MOVEMENT AND VISION

OF A CULTURE OF PEACE
The United Nations and its Specialized Agencies, and especially UNESCO, are
taking the lead in the building of a culture of peace. An Agenda for Development,
presented by the Secretary-General to the General Assembly in May 1994, begins
from the standpoint that peace and development are inseparable; at the same
time that Development is the most secure basis for peace, peace is seen as the
foundation for development.
Pulling up the roots of conict goes beyond immediate post-conict requirements

and the repair of war-torn societies. The underlying conditions that led to conict
must be addressed. As the causes of conict are varied, so must be the means of
addressing them. Peace-building means fostering a culture of peace.
268 UNESCOs Culture
of Peace Programme
Increasingly, regional and other intergovernmental organizations are also shifting

their priorities to conict resolution, long-term peace-building and the building
of democratic institutions, all of which are essential for a culture of peace.
In addition to the national initiatives linked directly to UNESCOs Culture
of Peace Programme that have been mentioned here, there are many similar
initiatives by other countries.
Nevertheless, the most extensive work for a culture of peace is perhaps being
accomplished by non-governmental organizations throughout the world. Every
day the Culture of Peace Programme is contacted by individuals and organizations
taking actions to promote a culture of peace and seeking to link up with others
from around the world with similar goals and experiences. In many cases the
UNESCO programme is requested to provide advice and support to these
efforts, which gives the programme a multiplier effect throughout the world. The
extent of spontaneous activities for a culture of peace by non-governmental
organizations conrms the expectation that a culture of peace is becoming a global
movement in which every person has an important role to play.
In order to facilitate and inform this global movement, the Culture of Peace
Programme is developing an information and networking system. Data about
the activities of various organizations are entered into a computerized system
and will be used in periodic publications, including a newsletter which is expected
to be sent out two or three times a year. The programme also disseminates
information on its own activities, including a brochure and occasional publications
and reports.
The information and networking task is seen as essential because, in the
nal analysis, the task of constructing a culture of peace is accomplished by the
work of thousands of individuals, operating on their own or through some
institutional structure, and acting on the basis of their own consciousness. For
this consciousness to develop, information, vision and a sense of purpose and
optimism are crucial. A vision is beginning to emerge from the combined efforts
of all those working together in this common task. It is a vision which can give
purpose to the coming generation, which has both a responsibility and an
opportunity greater than any that has gone before the transition from a culture
of war to a culture of peace.
269
Annex I. Declaration on the Role

of Religion in the Promotion
of a Culture of Peace
We, participants in the meeting The Contribution by Religions to the Culture

of Peace, organized by UNESCO and the Centre UNESCO de Catalunya,
which took place in Barcelona from 12 to 18 December 1994,
Deeply concerned with the present situation of the world, such as increasing armed
conicts and violence, poverty, social injustice and structures of oppression,
Recognizing that religion is important in human life,
Declare:
OUR WORLD
1. We live in a world in which isolation is no longer possible. We live in a time

of unprecedented mobility of peoples and intermingling of cultures. We are all
interdependent and share an inescapable responsibility for the well-being of the
entire world.
2. We face a crisis which could bring about the suicide of the human species
or bring us a new awakening and a new hope. We believe that peace is possible.
We know that religion is not the sole remedy for all the ills of humanity, but it
has an indispensable role to play in this most critical time.
3. We are aware of the worlds cultural and religious diversity. Each culture
represents a universe in itself and yet it is not closed. Culture gives religions their
language, and religions offer ultimate meaning to each culture. Unless we
recognize pluralism and respect diversity, no peace is possible. We strive for the
harmony which is at the very core of peace.
270 ANNEXES
4. We understand that culture is a way of seeing the world and living in it.
It also means the cultivation of those values and forms of life which reect the
world-views of each culture. Therefore neither the meaning of peace nor of
religion can be reduced to a single and rigid concept, just as the range of human
experience cannot be conveyed by a single language.
5. For some cultures, religion is a way of life, permeating every human
activity. For others its represents the highest aspirations of human existence. In
still others, religions are institutions that claim to carry a message of salvation.
6. Religions have contributed to the peace of the world, but they have also
led to division, hatred and war. Religious people have too often betrayed the
high ideals they themselves have preached. We feel obliged to call for sincere
acts of repentance and mutual forgiveness, both personally and collectively, to
one another, to humanity in general, and to Earth and all living beings.
PEACE
7. Peace implies that love, compassion, human dignity and justice are fully
preserved.
8. Peace entails that we understand that we are all interdependent and
related to one another. We are all individually and collectively responsible for
the common good, including the well-being of future generations.
9. Peace demands that we respect Earth and all forms of life, especially
human life. Our ethical awareness requires setting limits to technology. We
should direct our efforts towards eliminating consumerism and improving the
quality of life.
10. Peace is a journey a never-ending process.
COMMITMENT
11. We must be at peace with ourselves; we strive to achieve inner peace through
personal reection and spiritual growth, and to cultivate a spirituality which
manifests itself in action.
12. We commit ourselves to support and strengthen the home and family
as the nursery of peace.
Annex I. Declaration 271
on the Role of Religion
in the Promotion
of a Culture of Peace
I N H O M E S A N D FA M I L I E S , C O M M U N I T I E S , N AT I O N S
AND THE WORLD:
13. We commit ourselves to resolve or transform conicts without using violence,

and to prevent them through education and the pursuit of justice.
14. We commit ourselves to work towards a reduction in the scandalous
economic differences between human groups and other forms of violence and
threats to peace, such as waste of resources, extreme poverty, racism, all types
of terrorism, lack of caring, corruption and crime.
15. We commit ourselves to overcome all forms of discrimination,
colonialism, exploitation and domination and to promote institutions based on
shared responsibility and participation. Human rights, including religious freedom
and the rights of minorities, must be respected.
16. We commit ourselves to assure a truly humane education for all. We
emphasize education for peace, freedom and human rights, and religious
education to promote openness and tolerance.
17. We commit ourselves to a civil society which respects environmental and
social justice. This process begins locally and continues to national and
transnational levels.
18. We commit ourselves to work towards a world without weapons and to
dismantle the industry of war.
RELIGIOUS RESPONSIBILITY
19. Our communities of faith have a responsibility to encourage conduct imbued

with wisdom, compassion, sharing, charity, solidarity and love, inspiring one and
all to choose the path of freedom and responsibility. Religions must be a source
of helpful energy.
20. We will remain mindful that our religions must not identify themselves
with political, economic or social powers, so as to remain free to work for justice
and peace. We will not forget that confessional political regimes may do serious
harm to religious values as well as to society. We should distinguish fanaticism
from religious zeal.
21. We will favour peace by countering the tendencies of individuals and
272 ANNEXES
communities to assume or even to teach that they are inherently superior to

others. We recognize and praise the non-violent peacemakers. We disown killing
in the name of religion.
22. We will promote dialogue and harmony between and within religions,
recognizing and respecting the search for truth and wisdom that is outside our
religion. We will establish dialogue with all, striving for a sincere fellowship on
our earthly pilgrimage.
APPEAL
23. Grounded in our faith, we will build a culture of peace based on non-
violence, tolerance, dialogue, mutual understanding and justice. We call upon
the institutions of our civil society, the United Nations System, governments,
governmental and non-governmental organizations, corporations and the mass
media, to strengthen their commitment to peace and to listen to the cries of the
victims and the dispossessed. We call upon the different religious and cultural
traditions to join hands together in this effort, and to co-operate with us in
spreading the message of peace.
273
Annex II. Advisory Board

f o r U N E S C O s s e r i e s
on Peace and Conflict Issues
Francisco BARAHONA
Rector a.i.
University for Peace
Apartado 138
Ciudad Coln
Costa Rica
Mohamed B ENNOUNA
Director-General
Institut du Monde Arabe
1, rue des Fosss St Bernard
75005 Paris
France
Hans Gnter BRAUCH

Chairman, AFES-PRESS
Alte Bergsteige 47
74821 Mosbach
Germany
Kevin P. CLEMENTS
Director
Institute for Conict Analysis and Resolution
Georges Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
United States
274 ANNEXES
Ren-Jean DUPUY
6, rue Le Goff
75005 Paris
France
Vasu GOUNDEN
Director
African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes
c/o University of Durban Westville
Private Bag X54001
Durban 4000
South Africa
Heitor GURGULINO DE SOUZA

Rector
The United Nations University
53-70, Jingumae, 5-chome
Shibuya-ku
Tokyo-170
Japan
Guido LENZI
Director
Western European Union
Institute for Security Studies
43, avenue du Prsident Wilson
75775 Paris Cedex 16
France
Flix MARTI
Director
Centre UNESCO de Catalunya
Mallorca, 285
08037 Barcelona
Spain
Annex II. Advisory Board 275
for UNESCOs series on
Peace and Conflict Issues
Sanaa W. OSSEIRAN
Vice-President
International Peace Research Association (IPRA)
Farah Bldg, Makhoul Street
Ras-Beirut
Beirut
Lebanon
Adam Daniel ROTFELD

Director
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
Frsunda
S-171 53 Solna
Sweden
Kumar RUPESINGHE
Secretary-General
International Alert
1, Glyn Street
London
United Kingdom
Yoshikazu SAKAMOTO
International Peace Research Institute Meigaku (PRIME)
1518 Kamikurata
Totsukaku-Yokohama 244
Japan
Dan SMITH
Director
International Peace Research Institute (PRIO)
Fuglenauggata, 11
N-0260 Oslo 2
Norway
276 ANNEXES
Juan SOMAVIA
Ambassador
Permanent Mission of Chile to the United Nations
305 East 47th Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
United States
Janusz SYMONIDES
Director
Division of Human Rights, Democracy and Peace
UNESCO
Paris
France
Anatoly TORKOUNOV
Rector
Moscow State Institute of International Relations of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of the Russian Federation
76, Vernadskovo Avenue
117854 Moscow
Russian Federation
Lev VORONKOV
Director
International Institute for Peace
Mllwaldplatz 5
A-1040 Vienna
Austria
Secretary:
Kishore SINGH
Division of Human Rights, Democracy and Peace
UNESCO
Paris
France

Cultura de Paz Unesco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cultura de Paz Unesco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cultura de Paz Unesco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FROM A C U LT U R E

Peace and Conict Issues after the Cold War

Published in 1996 by the United Nations Educational,

Constructing a culture of peace: challenges and

Peace behaviours in various societies

Normative instruments for a culture of peace

Cultural peace: some characteristics

Social and cultural sources of violence

Creating global/local cultures of peace

Towards a planetary code of ethics: ethical foundations

Understanding and dialogue between religions to promote

An Agenda for Peace and a culture of peace

The teaching of Martin Luther King for a culture of peace

The role of education for a culture of peace

Towards a culture of peace based on human rights

UNESCO and a culture of peace: promoting a global movement

I. Declaration on the Role of Religion in the Promotion

II. Advisory Board for UNESCOs series on Peace

Constructing a culture of peace:

A CULTURE OF PEACE: A NECESSITY FOR OUR TIME

* Director of UNESCOs Division of Human Rights, Democracy and Peace.

against non-nationals, refugees and asylum-seekers, and immigrant workers is a

UNESCO International Congress on Peace in the Minds of Men, held in

conducted. Such pilot projects were established in El Salvador, Mozambique and

THE MAIN CONCEPTUAL ELEMENTS OF A CULTURE

2. A detailed presentation is given in this volume by the UNESCO Culture of Peace

3. See, in this volume, Cultural Peace: Some Characteristics (p. 75).

adopted in 1986 by a meeting of a group of well-known scientists organized

In general there are two understandings of peace: the negative, narrow

6. During the twenty-eighth session of the General Conference on 31 October 1995,

of societies which unavoidably generate enemy images, suspicions and threats.

An analysis of the concept of a culture of peace shows that it cannot be achieved

of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) undertake to adopt immediate and

irrevocable directives are useful, necessitating fourfold commitments: to a culture

This formulation was repeated in Article 4 of the Convention against

censorship but refers rather to deontology, to professional organizations of

Cultural pluralism and intercultural dialogue

cultures as an essential element of peace-building strategy. By encouraging

Intergovernmental and non-governmental

18. See note 1 on page 11.

assumed the participation of many institutions and societies, with UNESCO

The intellectual community

Religions have a great potential for contributing to a culture of peace. As observed

22 . See, in this volume, Understanding and Dialogue between Religions to Promote

As stated by Federico Mayor, prevention of conict and building of peace is a

Peace behaviours in various

HUMANS AS NURTURERS, OR HUMANS

* Member of Conict Resolution Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder,

with others and of conveying our accessibility to contact.3 A smile serves as a

F IG. 1. The conict-management continuum.

3. Hass, op. cit., p. 123.

of a new style of diplomatic initiatives which was important in the evolution of

The historical record on war/ghting, even if it greatly exaggerates the actual

7. The 10,000 societies is a term sometimes used by anthropologists to refer to the

are known to be peaceful is that this approach offers behavioural specicity. It

17. Bonta, op. cit., note 8.

does occur, it is blamed on outsiders. While locally inclusive in their peace-

The Anabaptist historic peace church communities

Celebrations are the play-life of a society, as well as occasions for

Normative instruments for a culture