|
September/October 2002
Moving from a Culture of War to a Culture
of Peace
by David Adams
On that dark day, September 11, the violence of
the culture of war in the hands of men trained by the CIA in the
far reaches of Central Asia converged on New York City, home of
Wall Street, and Washington, home of the Pentagon. "Blowback," they
called it. Not that such violence is new in the world, but this
time it struck at the center of empire, with main-line television
on hand to broadcast. And since that day, the forces of the culture
of war, on all sides, calling for vengeance, have moved toward a
reign of terror and repression throughout the world.
Martin Luther King wrote in Strength to Love:
"Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness
multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.... The
chain reaction of evil—hate begetting hate, wars producing
more wars—must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark
abyss of annihilation."
| Over
the course of history, humans have developed a culture that
permits and encourages war and violence: a culture of war. And
the same species that invented war is capable of inventing peace. |
Does this mean that there is no way out? Does
it mean that our species is inherently, genetically violent? That
war is in our human nature?
No. War is an invention. This is the conclusion
of the Seville Statement on Violence (http://www.unesco.org/human_rights/hrfv.htm)
drafted by leading scientists from around the world during the UN
International Year for Peace in 1986. After examining the arguments
based on evolution, genetics, animal behavior, brain research, and
social psychology, these scientists drew the conclusion that biology
does not predestine us to war and violence. In fact, our biological
legacy of aggression is the basis of our capacity for righteous
indignation against injustice, which is much more essential for
peace activism and peace education than it is for modern warfare.
If war is not in our genes, where does it come
from and why has it been so persistent throughout history? The answer
lies in our culture. Over the course of history, humans have developed
a culture that permits and encourages war and violence: a culture
of war. And the same species that invented war is capable of inventing
peace.
ﾒThe transformation
of society from a culture of war to a culture of peace is perhaps
more radical and far-reaching than any previous change in human
history. Every aspect of social relations, having been shaped for
millennia by the dominant culture of war, is open to change—from
the relations among nations to those between women and men. Everyone,
from the centers of power to the most remote villages, may be engaged
and transformed in the process." This vision, from a 1995 book on
the UNESCO culture of peace program, seems more needed with each
passing day.
The Culture of War
We need to understand the necessities of the
culture of war. It requires:
- an enemy
- armaments and soldiers
- a society in which people follow orders
- a belief that power can be maintained through
violence
- control of information (secrecy, propaganda)
If any one of these is missing, there can be no
war. No enemy, no war. No army and armaments, no war. No control
of information, no war. And if people don't follow orders and if
they don't believe that power can be maintained through violence,
no war.
We can add to these necessities three other
important aspects of the culture of war as it has developed
throughout human history:
- profitability, whether through plunder, colonies,
economic domination, or the profits of the military-industrial
complex.
- male domination
- education for war
The profitability of war has ensured that there
have always been powerful interests to maintain, and, if necessary,
reestablish the culture of war. Male domination has been associated
with the culture of war since its inception. And education, from
its origins in the initiation rituals of prehistory to the history
books of today, has been heavily influenced by the culture of war.
The Culture of Peace
UNESCO was founded in 1946 to build peace in the
minds of men. Its Constitution states that "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."
I had the privilege and challenge of examining
alternatives to the culture of war while putting together UNESCO’s
culture of peace program in 1992-1993. In the course of developing
the International Year for the Culture of Peace, for which I was
Director in collaboration with Enzo Fazzino, I worked with groups
throughout the world to analyze the culture of war and to consider
the requirements of a culture of peace. The responses were remarkably
universal.
By 1999, UNESCO had proposed and the United Nations
General Assembly had adopted a Declaration and Programme of Action
on a Culture of Peace with eight programmatic areas:
|
instead of enemy images
|
understanding, tolerance and solidarity
|
|
instead of armaments and armies
|
disarmament, general and complete
|
|
instead of authoritarian governance
|
democratic participation
|
|
instead of secrecy and propaganda
|
free flow of information and knowledge
|
|
instead of violence (structural and physical)
|
respect for all human rights
|
|
instead of male domination
|
equality between women and men
|
|
instead of education for war
|
education for a culture of peace
|
|
instead of exploitation of the weak and
of the environment
|
sustainable economic and social development
|
Today, we need to go beyond the UN definition
and program and consider a question that is too hot for diplomats
to handle: is the function of war and the culture of war primarily
external defense, or do these exist for the sake of maintaining
internal power?
From the historical beginnings of the state 5,000
years ago, war has had two faces: one turned outward for defense
and conquest; the other turned inward to prevent revolt against
the authority of the state. Thus the early city-states of Mesopotamia
were engaged in military conquest abroad and maintenance of a hierarchical
social structure at home that included semi-free laborers, slaves,
and prisoners of war. Greece and Rome were built on slavery, the
slaves captured in war and kept in check by internal military force.
And the Crusades abroad of the Middle Ages were accompanied by the
Inquisition at home.
Although the fact is not often discussed, today's
"democratic states" have not escaped from this dynamic. It is a
continuing theme in American history. While we do not have records,
we know that during the whole period of slavery there was a great
deal of military activity, often local, against slave rebellions
and escapes, as well as against Native Americans. For the past 120
years more complete records exist. They indicate approximately eighteen
interventions, and the involvement of about 12,000 troops per year,
against organized labor, urban rebellions, and so forth. During
periods of external war, the internal wars are usually intensified
and accompanied by large-scale spying, deportations, and witch hunts.
It would appear that we have once again entered such a period.
The modern democratic state is embarrassed to
admit to making war on its own citizens, and so it tends to carry
these operations out in secrecy. A note in the International Herald
Tribune of May 14, 1997, reported that the cost of classification
of secrets by the US government was over $5 billion dollars a year—and
that does not include CIA secrets, because the cost of CIA secrets
is secret. Although precise data are not available, the US government
seems to be increasing secrecy in the name of its "War on Terrorism."
How much is being used for an internal culture of war?
The continuing growth of this nation’s internal
war culture underlines the importance of working consciously for
a culture of peace, and especially for its key aspects of democracy
and the free flow of information, without which democracy cannot
properly function.
It also underlines a danger for religion-for when
religion is linked to the state, it cannot escape being implicated
in the state's culture of war.
Global Movement for a Culture of Peace
The UN General Assembly, as part of its 1999 Declaration
and Programme of Action, called for a global movement for a culture
of peace. It launched its program with the International Year for
a Culture of Peace in 2000, followed by the International Decade
for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the
World from 2001-2010. During the UN International Year for a Culture
of Peace, more than one percent of the population of the world—over
seventy-five million people—signed Manifesto 2000, pledging
to practice a culture of peace in their family, school, and community
(See the UNESCO Decade website for details). Fellowship readers
know of Decade work through this magazine’s regular column.
Conferences with a peace culture focus are developing around the
world.
This global movement brings together activists
who would not have seemed to be allied in the past. Those who promote
one area of a culture of peace are coming to appreciate complementary
undertakings in the other seven areas.
Nonviolence. Because of the nature of a
culture of peace, nonviolence must be basic to the tactics and strategy
of the global movement. Increasingly, the importance of nonviolence
as it has been developed by Gandhi and King and their disciples
is recognized by social activists around the world, including a
new-found appreciation of nonviolence by those who consider themselves
revolutionaries. While working for the UN in Africa and Latin America
I got to know revolutionaries who have come to question the traditional
model of armed revolution (for example that followed by Kabila in
the Congo) because it requires secrecy and hierarchical structures
that are antithetical to the kind of society they seek to build.
Democracy and transparency, while impossible for an armed struggle,
are essential to the process of building movements of nonviolent
resistance. Communist parties are going through a similar soul-searching,
considering seriously a nonviolent strategy with democracy and transparency
as a way towards socialism. This may accelerate if the internal
culture of war is unmasked with its usual linkage to the repression
of trade unions and labor movements.
Sustainable economic and social development.
Throughout the world, many people engaged in development are finding
that they need to abandon the old models based on exploitation and
capitalist globalization and seek new models that are not so destructive.
Together with the millions of people who are taking action to protect
the environment, they are important allies in the global movement
for a culture of peace.
Democratic participation. There is a crisis
in traditional models of democracy. Voter abstention increases with
each national election in the North; while national elections in
general are viewed with increasing skepticism in the South. Though
many of us have been taken by surprise, one might have foreseen
this broad reaction to the increasing secrecy of the nation-state,
which masks incompetence and corruption as well as the internal
culture of war. At the same time, however, other models of democracy
are emerging. For example, with the continuing urbanization of the
world's population, municipal governance becomes increasingly important,
and the cities become a testing ground where the culture of peace
can take root.
Equality of women. Just as war is
not in our genes, neither is male domination. Because male domination
has been causally linked to the culture of war since its inception
in prehistoric times, there is a special two-way relationship between
the global movement for a culture of peace and movements for women's
equality. Women will not attain equality until the culture of war
is transformed into a culture of peace. And we will not achieve
a culture of peace without the power and effectiveness of mobilized
women throughout the world.
Free flow of information and knowledge.
The advent of the information age bodes well for the success
of the global movement for a culture of peace. While the culture
of war hides behind secrecy and control of information, the global
movement for a culture of peace thrives on the sharing of information
and networking. Secrecy may prove to be the Achilles heel of the
culture of war. As secrecy continues to be increased, I foresee
dozens, then hundreds of Daniel Ellsbergs who abandon the culture
of war and expose its secrets (incompetence, corruption, and internal
war) on the Internet to the point that the people will no longer
tolerate it.
We are in a very special moment. We have the privilege
to participate in the most radical and far-reaching change in human
history—the transformation from a culture of war to a culture
of peace. With hindsight, September 11, 2001 may be seen as one
of the landmarks along the way.
David Adams retired in 2001 from UNESCO where
he served as Director of the Unit for the International Year for
the Culture of Peace (International Decade for a Culture of Peace
and Non-Violence for the Children of the World from 2001-2010: http://www.unesco.org/cp).
He is a specialist on the brain mechanisms of aggressive behavior,
the evolution of war, and the psychology of peace activists.
©2002 Fellowship of Reconciliation
|
