Category Archives: global

9th International Conference of Museums for Peace, Belfast, Northern Ireland

.. DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION ..

An article by Peter van den Dungen (Hon.), General Coordinator, International Network of Museums for Peace (INMP)

The 9th international conference of the International Network of Museums for Peace (INMP) will be held in Belfast, 10th – 13th April 2017. The conference is hosted by Ulster University, with the support of Visit Belfast.

museums

The conference theme, ‘Cities as Living Museums for Peace’, will highlight (among other subjects), Belfast’s social and political transformation from a divided, troubled city to one which models peace consciousness through post-conflict healing and reconciliation.

The conference invites participation from peace educators, including directors and curators of human rights and peace museums, artists, architects, journalists, policy-makers, as well as researchers, scholars, and students of such fields as education, history, museum studies, cultural memory studies, conflict resolution.

The opening day of the conference marks the 19th anniversary of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, perhaps the most important and far-reaching agreement in the Northern Ireland peace process of the 1990s. The opening reception will be held at Stormont (Parliament Building), on the same estate where the historic agreement was signed.

The conference also marks the 25th anniversary of INMP – a global network of peace museums, memorials, gardens and other peace related sites that share the aim to cultivate a global culture of peace.

The call for paper, panel and poster presentations is now open, until 1st November. For more information and an application form, go to www.museumsforpeace.org or contact conference@museumsforpeace.org

Question for this article:

International Peace Bureau World Congress 2016: “Disarm! For a Climate of Peace – Creating an Action Agenda”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Press release of The International Peace Bureau

Given the omnipresent atmosphere of political confrontation and the worldwide armament, the International Peace Bureau (IPB) organizes the World Congress on global disarmament and military spending. The event takes place from September 30th until October 2nd 2016 at the Technical University of Berlin. About 1000 guests from all over the world are expected to participate at the Congress.

IPB

The IPB World Congress is supported by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), UNI Global Union, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), by international religious organisations (of different persuasions), organisations from the environmental and development policy sector as well as by the three big political foundations in Germany: Heinrich Böll, Friedrich Ebert and Rosa Luxemburg.

You will find an overview of our supporters at: https://www.ipb2016.berlin/partners/.

What is the International Peace Bureau?

Founded in 1891/92, the International Peace Bureau (IPB, www.ipb.org) is the oldest existing international peace network. It counts more than 300 member organizations in over 70 countries and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1910. Over the course of time, 13 prominent IPB leaders were also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

The IPB devotes itself to the vision of a world without war. The main focus of its work is “Disarmament for Sustainable Development”. Within this programme, it mainly strives for the re-allocation of governments’ military spending. For 6 years, the IPB has been the coordinator of the Global Campaign on Military Spending (including the Global Days of Action on Military Spending, GDAMS. Since the 1980s, the IPB has promoted the worldwide campaign for nuclear disarmament, aiming at the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

What is the aim of the Congress?

According to official SIPRI records, the combined military budgets of the world’s governments totalled $1,7 billion in 2015. In the same year, 900 million people suffered from hunger. Every day, 10.000 children die of curable diseases. Social inequalities are increasing.

In the face of these growing social challenges and the desperately needed financial resources to mitigate and adapt to climate change, money must under no circumstances be wasted by investing in the military sector.

Global disarmament must be put on the international agenda. Therefore, the Congress wants to help build support for a peace agenda, bringing about a peaceful and fair distribution of the world’s resources.

(Article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

How can the peace movement become stronger and more effective?

(continued from left column)

The Congress will centre on questions of global transformation. How can we encourage fundamental and desperately needed changes? How can we foster cooperation and dialogue in order to reach common security goals?

Transformation to peace is among the biggest challenges of the 21st century. Thus, the Congress is set up as international peace gathering with a clear message: “no to war and confrontation”. The people’s active participation, promoting a new international democracy, is inseparably linked with the successful development of the worldwide peace process.

Humans are led to support wars, often seduced by lies and false concepts of ‘the enemy’. Nevertheless, people all over the world stand up for freedom and peace, often by organising great public events.

One big aim of the Congress is to make a major contribution to the international peace movement. A range of ideas will be discussed and a “Plan of Action for Peace” will be presented. Attempts will be made to bring together theoretical considerations and real transformation strategies. Moreover, the Congress shall be an impulse for the initiation of more peace actions all around the world.

The organisers confront the world of war with a clear vision of a world of peace.
Several prominent guests joined the Congress. Among the speakers in the plenaries, in panel discussions and working groups will be, among others, the Nobel Peace Prize laureates Tawakkol Karman from Yemen and Mikhail Gorbachev (via video), the founder of the “Right Livelihood Award” Jakob von Uexküll, the laureates of the “Right Livelihood Award” Vandana Shiva and Alyn Ware, prominent economists like James Galbraith, Noam Chomsky (via video) and Samir Amin, the Co-President of the Club of Rome Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, the secretary generals of ITUC and UNI Global Union Sharan Burrow and Philip Jennings, the former Director General of UNESCO Federico Mayor Zaragoza, the former Defence Minister of Ecuador and current Permanent Representative of her country to the United Nations in Geneva María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés, the director general of the United Nations office in Geneva Michael Møller, and the chairman of ver.di Frank Bsirske.

The Congress will be opened by the President of the Technical University of Berlin, Christian Thomsen, and by the Senator of finance in Berlin, Matthias Kollatz.

Preparatory Events: Already 6 preparatory seminars have taken place in various parts of the world: https://www.ipb2016.berlin/congress/preparatory-events/

You will find the provisional, already quite extensive, program at http://www.ipb2016.berlin/program/program-structure/.

The latest news will also be published on Facebook: www.facebook.com/IPBcongress2016.

A diverse program of cultural, informational and other side-events will accompany the Congress. Moreover, there will be an independent “Youth Gathering”.

More information will be published at www.ipb2016.berlin.

The Global Campaign for Peace Education

… EDUCATION FOR PEACE …

Excerpts from the website of The Global Campaign for Peace Education

The Global Campaign for Peace Education provides coverage of peace education from around the world, including original articles, research and stories cultivated from journals and independent and mass media sources. We especially encourage article and event submissions from our readers.

gcpe

Campaign Goals

The Global Campaign for Peace Education seeks to foster a culture of peace in communities around the world. It has two goals:

First, to build public awareness and political support for the introduction of peace education into all spheres of education, including non-formal education, in all schools throughout the world. Second, to promote the education of all teachers to teach for peace.

Campaign Statement

A culture of peace will be achieved when citizens of the world understand global problems; have the skills to resolve conflict constructively; know and live by international standards of human rights, gender and racial equality; appreciate cultural diversity; and respect the integrity of the Earth. Such learning can not be achieved without intentional, sustained and systematic education for peace.

The urgency and necessity of such education was acknowledged by the member states of UNESCO in 1974 and reaffirmed in the Integrated Framework of Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy in 1995. Yet, few educational institutions have undertaken such action. It is time to call upon ministries of education, educational institutions and policy makers to fulfill the commitments.

A campaign to facilitate the introduction of peace and human rights education into all educational institutions was called for by the Hague Appeal for Peace Civil Society Conference in May 1999. An initiative of individual educators and education NGOs committed to peace, it is conducted through a global network of education associations, and regional, national and local task forces of citizens and educators who will lobby and inform ministries of education and teacher education institutions about the UNESCO Framework and the multiplicities of methods and materials that now exist to practice peace education in all learning environments. The goal of campaign is to assure that all educational systems throughout the world will educate for a culture of peace.

(Continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Where is peace education taking place?

(Continued from left column)

Campaign Form

The Campaign is a non-formal network comprised of formal and non-formal educators and organizations, each working in their own unique ways to address the goals above.

This form allows Campaign participants to focus their energies towards meeting the goals and needs of their constituents – while at the same time promoting and making visible the growing global network of educators working for peace.

The Campaign helps to connect educators and facilitate the exchange of ideas, strategies and best practices through its website and newsletters. It is presently coordinated by the Peace Education Initiative at The University of Toledo.

TONY JENKINS: Global Coordinator
KEVIN KESTER: Book Review Editor
OLIVER RIZZI CARLSON: Editor

Original endorsers:

International Organizations

* International Association of Educating Cities
* International Association of Educators for Peace
* International Association of Educators for World Peace
* International Peace Bureau
* International Teacher
* International Youth Cooperation (The Hague)
* Living Values: An Educational Programme
* Mandate the Future/Worldview International Foundation (Colombo)
* Pan Pacific and Southeast Asia Woman’s Association
* Peace Boat
* Pax Christi International
* Peace Child International
* Peace Education Commission
* International Peace Research Association
* UNICEF
* UN High Commissioner for Refugees
* Youth for a Better World International

Click here for the list of National and Local Organizations.

The Peace Prize for city initiatives in conflict prevention, resolution or peace building

.. DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION ..

Adapted from the flyer and website of the UCLG City of Bogotá Peace Prize

Has your local government successfully worked to prevent or overcome conflict or to create dialogue? Or does it help local governments in conflict areas in their efforts to achieve or maintain peace? Then consider nominating it for the UCLG City of Bogotá Peace Prize!

prize
Click on image to enlarge

The UCLG City of Bogotá Peace Prize is a triennial award for (a coalition of) local governments that have implemented initiatives in conflict prevention, resolution or peace building, that are proven to have had a significant positive impact. The prize aims to contribute to full acknowledgement of the important but often overlooked role of local governments as peace building actors, thus creating a more effective approach to conflict resolution.

Nominations can be submitted through the website of the Peace Prize until the 30th of June 2016. The application form is online at : http://www.peaceprize.uclg.org/en/apply.

Nominated cases are assessed by a high level expert jury. The winning local government will receive a modest prize package worth €20.000, aimed at strengthening its peace projects and facilitating learning and exchange.

The first award ceremony of the UCLG City of Bogotá Peace Prize will take place at the UCLG World Congress in Bogotá, on 12-15 October 2016. Here, the local governments that will be nominated as finalists will get the opportunity to present their approaches and the jury will declare the final winner.

(Continued in right column)

Questions for this article:

How can culture of peace be developed at the municipal level?

(Continued from left column)

The members of the jury are:

Lakhdar Brahimi holds a commendable array of experiences in international relations and is now considered to be among the most prominent human rights and peace advocates in the world. His background has ensured him membership of the The Elders: a group consisting of independent global leaders working together for peace and human rights.

Dr. Tarik Kupusovic has been the Lord Mayor of Sarajevo during the second half of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the siege of Sarajevo (1994-96). As President of the country’s Association of Towns and Cities he has established close relations with many cities and mayors of the world to restore the workings of local autonomous government in his country’s devastated cities.

Dr. Aisa Kirabo Kacyira of the Republic of Rwanda is the Deputy Executive Director and Assistant Secretary-General for UN-HABITAT providing critical leadership to promote sustainable cities and human settlements globally.

Dr. Tadatoshi Akiba is the former mayor of Hiroshima and has considerable experience in communicating the dire realities of atomic bombing and has brought great improvements to municipal policies in the field of fiscal health, transparency, citizen service and youth violence.

Rafael Grasa is the President of the International Catalan Institute for Peace. In his research, Professor Grasa focuses on the resolution and transformation of conflict, non-military aspects of security and human security, decentralized governance and prevention of violent behaviour.

Wim Deetman is the former mayor of The Hague and has been instrumental in positioning the city in the international peace and security domain leading to the International Criminal Court being situated in The Hague. As a legacy for his political engagement the Wim Deetman Foundation has been established in his name providing students from developing countries the chance to pursue a master`s degree in the area of peace and justice in The Hague.

Banning Nukes: Divergence and Consensus at the UN Working Group on Nuclear Disarmament

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Excerpts from an article by by Xanthe Hall for the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

. . . So what did happen [at the May session of the Open-Ended Working Group – OWEG]? For the first time in many years a large number of states decided that they did not want consensus but confrontation on the issue of the illegitimacy of nuclear weapons. Tired with decades of patient discussions on micro-measures, principally for non-proliferation, and led by Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico and Zambia, states are now going for broke [Editor’s note: All of these countries are participants in nuclear-weapon-free zones].

oewg
ICAN protest in front of Australian embassy during the OEWG. Photo: ICAN [International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons]
Click on photo to enlarge

Despite the prospect that the nuclear-armed states are unlikely to attend, they have submitted a proposal to the OEWG to “convene a Conference in 2017, open to all States, international organizations and civil society, to negotiate a legally-binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons” (ban treaty) and “to report to the United Nations high-level international conference on nuclear disarmament to be convened no later than 2018 … on the progress made on the negotiation of such an instrument.”

On the final day of the OEWG resounding majority support for prohibition and the commencement of negotiations was repeatedly expressed. States are convinced that with this approach they can bring pressure to bear on the nuclear-armed and nuclear-dependent states to begin genuinely considering negotiating the elimination of their nuclear arsenals. . . .

The beauty of a stand-alone ban treaty is in its clarity, especially in terms of the moral imperative. It would leave no room for doubt as to the illegitimacy of nuclear weapons and would place any state that relies on nuclear weapons for their defence outside international law, if enough states were to support such a norm. Its entry into force could not be held hostage by nuclear-armed states reticence to ratify, as the CTBT has been. Given the present anger about the arrogance of the nuclear-armed states refusal to engage with the nuclear-free states which has been made explicit both through the boycott of the OEWG, but also through the ever hardening rhetoric of the nuclear umbrella states, it remains the most attractive option for states to pursue at the UN General Assembly in October. In this way, they can continue to put maximum pressure on the nuclear-armed states to take them seriously as the majority and therefore to respect their rights and security needs.

This debate has as much to do with redefining world order and democracy as it has to do with disarmament. As Mexico pointed out: there is nothing to be said against consensus when it is fair and reflects the truth. But when divergence exists and states with more power due to nuclear weapons wield a veto over the majority then there is nuclear oppression. Now the majority is rising up to liberate itself from this yoke with persuasive and well-thought out arguments for a comprehensive ban treaty. After more than twenty years of attending these often repetitive and boring diplomatic debates, I can hardly wait for the next one.

Question related to this article:

The film “Demain”, a manifesto?

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article by Bruno Maresca in the Huffington Post (translated by CPNN)

Driven by popular acclaim – more than 700,000 cinema viewers in three months against 265,000 for The Titanic Syndrome Nicolas Hulot! – the film “Demain” [i.e. Tomorrow] , by Cyril Dion and Mélanie Laurent, released at the time of COP21, received the trophy for best documentary in the 2016 Caesars.

demain

This unusual success seems to be explained by two factors. First, they feature local initiatives around the world that show that it is possible, at different levels, to engage in the fight against climate change. Second, they show that these initiatives can be done now (food, energy, local economic processes, education and direct democracy) and, as such, they inspire action by showing what is already working. The film succeeds in showing that French society wants to escape from the present atmosphere of doom and gloom.

This willingness to explore initiatives that invent alternatives to the global system of production and consumerism is in the air. It is the subject of the journalist Eric Dupin in his innovative book, “The pioneers: a voyage in France” (La Découverte, 2014). His book explores the diversity and richness of initiatives and people who “explore, in a pragmatic way, other lifestyles, such as new ways of working.” It includes those who invest in shared housing, organic farming or alternative schools, those who share a great desire to escape , with varying degrees of radicalism, from the globalization of production and consumption.

At the end of his account, Eric Dupin is ultimately pessimistic. He stresses that the diversity of initiatives does not by itself produce a coherent movement that can converge to a coordinated action and thereby produce change. Is it not the case that his “pioneers”, like those of “Demain”, privilege above all a ‘culture of exemplary individuals”? “Each person doing something at his level” seems to be their credo, which is far from the search for a collective change, which would mean developing political institutions. For this reason, the pioneers – and they are many – do not seem themselves to be a social movement.

“Demain”, meanwhile, wants to convince us that we can change the world by spreading many examples of experiences, both small and large. But can they escape from pessimism? Can their experiences outweigh the destructive and reactionary forces of the world economic and political system? Two impressive sequences illustrate the problem, one at the beginning and one at the end of the film: the apocalyptic vision of the city of Detroit, abandoned since the collapse of the auto industry, and the financial crisis in Iceland, which got to the point that the civil society overthrew the country’s political class. After viewing the film by Cyril Dion and Mélanie Laurent and reading the book of Eric Dupin, we are confronted by the question: can we arrive at a new future by change from below, by the proliferation of individual initiatives? And finally, how should we explain the great attraction of “Demain”?

(Article continued on the right column)

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

Question for this article:

What is the relation between movements for food sovereignty and the global movement for a culture of peace?

(Article continued from the left column)

On the release of his book, the journal Libération called Eric Dupin a “pilgrim of utopia”.

On the websirte of Mediapart, Jean-Louis Legalery notes that after seeing the film “Demain”, viewers gave it a standing ovation, reminding him of the reaction to the film Z by Costa Gavras in 1979. The films that aroused spectators in the 1970s were eminently political; they called for collective mobilization to radically transform institutions. With hindsight, one can say they were driven by a high load of utopia (utopia that crashed against hard reality, as in the situation of Greece today).

Question: What are the consequences of the state subsidies paid to large farms?

Perhaps what works in “Demain” is this utopian vision that gives everyone the impression he can take part in something that is already going on. Instead of staying each in his virtuous corner, inscribed in the register of eco-gestures, one is invited to engage in something new, something that breaks with the dominant system, such as “urban farms” or “local currencies” and other initiatives shown in “Demain.” If these inventions are sufficiently taken up around the world, they could subvert the global economic system.

However, we are not seeing such a significant change in scenery. Farms with over 1,000 cows are now appearing in France, as in Denmark and Poland. And even if many people are changing their practices by sharing, recycling, carpooling, etc., it is difficult to disentangle this from a change in lifestyle necessitated by the stress of the economic crisis. A widespread changeover seems still far away. In the variety of examples shown in “Demain”, Africa and Asia are not very present.

But the real challenge of the transformation of production and consumption is in Asia, which, in 2030, will contain over 66% of the global middle class (against 28% in 2009, according to the OECD ). This emerging middle class, in strong numerical growth, is adopting the consumption patterns of the Western middle class, industrial power, private cars, expansion of suburban areas for access to the house, mass tourism, etc. Like a huge pendulum, the Western middle classes, being squeezed out by rising unemployment and inequality, adhere increasingly to the “small is beautiful” approach to local agriculture, solidarity businesses, alternative transport, renewable energy, etc.

What is unquestionably positive in “Demain” is that the Western middle classes want to reclaim the management of their daily lives, in their own life space, through collective initiatives of goodwill and kindness. They are engaged in a movement of self-awareness of their real interests, their need to live and consume differently.

This “self-consciousness” is what the middle classes had lost at the turn of the 1980s. When social struggles were diluted by access to welfare and mass consumption the middle class was reduced to being just a cog in the functioning of the global economy.

So let us dream, like many of its fans, that “Demain” is the flight of the swallow that heralds a new phase in the history of the middle class. Given the collective optimism that this film has inspired, it is possible to dream . . .

Book review: A Student’s Guide to Starting a Career Working for Peace

… EDUCATION FOR PEACE …

A publication notice from Information Age Publishing

Author: David J. Smith, George Mason University

A volume in the series: Peace Education. Editor(s): Laura Finley, Barry University. Robin Cooper, Nova Southeastern University, published 2016

This book is a guide for college students exploring career options who are interested in working to promote peacebuilding and the resolution of conflict. High school students, particularly those starting to consider college and careers, can also benefited from this book.

peace jobs

A major feature of the book is 30 stories from young professionals, most recently graduated from college, who are working in the field. These profiles provide readers with insight as to strategies they might use to advance their peacebuilding careers.

The book speaks directly to the Millennial generation, recognizing that launching a career is a major focus, and that careers in the peace field have not always been easy to identify. As such, the book takes the approach that most any career can be a peacebuilding career provided one is willing to apply creativity and passion to their work.

CONTENTS
Peace Education Series Introduction, Laura Finley and Robin Cooper Preface. Acknowledgments. CHAPTER 1. What is a Peace Job? CHAPTER 2. Preparing for and Finding a Peace Job. CHAPTER 3. Peacebuilding Careers in Diplomacy. CHAPTER 4. Enforcing Peace and Justice Through Human Rights and Law. CHAPTER 5. Working in Conflict: NGO, IGO, Humanitarian, and Military Careers. CHAPTER 6. Teaching About Peace and Conflict. CHAPTER 7. Activism: Social Justice and Environmental Action. CHAPTER 8. A Healing Approach: Health, Community, and Faith-Based Strategies. CHAPTER 9. Creating Peace: The Arts, Science, Technology, and Media. CHAPTER 10. Pursuing Peacebuilding Education. APPENDIX A: 86 Peace Jobs for College Grads. APPENDIX B: Peace Jobs Glossary. APPENDIX C: Peace Jobs Career Resources. APPENDIX D: Additional Readings. About the Author.

(Thank you to Alicia Cabezudo for calling this to our attentionI)

Question for this article:

Calls for UN Security council reform at Istanbul summit

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Handan Kazanci & Ilgin Karlidag, Anadolou Agency, Turkey

World leaders in Istanbul have called for an urgent change to the United Nations Security Council, limiting the power of veto by its five permanent members, including Russia.

ArabLeague
Ahmed Ben Hali with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Click on photo to enlarge

Arab League Assistant Secretary-General Ahmed Ben Hali told the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul on Tuesday: “Reform of the UN Security Council is urgently needed. “The use of veto should be rationalized. There should be a departure from the approach of management of crisis … to depart from double standards in dealing with issues of peace and security and to prosecute those committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

The Arab League consists of 22 member states, including Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Ben Hali’s comments echoed those of summit host and Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who on Monday said the UN Security Council must “urgently” change in order to fulfill its functions.

Each of the permanent members – Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States – have the power of veto, allowing them to block draft council resolutions – even when these have broad international support.

Erdogan called for the veto by the council’s five permanent members to be limited, a move which Russia – a permanent member of the UN Security Council – is against.

In 2012, Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down. The move sparked criticism worldwide and prevented substantial UN-backed action with regards to the Syrian civil war.

Russian President Vladimir Putin declined his invitation to the Istanbul summit, the humanitarian news agency IRIN reported on May 10. In his place, Putin sent a delegation, whose head, Russian Deputy Emergencies Minister Sergey Voronov, said on Tuesday that his country opposes any limitations to the power of veto by any permanent member of the Security Council.

According to James Nixey, the head of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at London-based Chatham House, Putin’s non-attendance at the summit is not surprising. “Vladimir Putin would be rather embarrassed at a world humanitarian summit considering the criticism his regime takes for its aggressive behavior abroad and its human rights record at home,” told Anadolu Agency on Tuesday. “Russia views its veto as pure power, and there is zero chance that it would endorse any move to give up wielding such power, which it has used so effectively in the past,” he added.

Criticized internationally for its role in backing the Assad regime, Russia said in a statement obtained by IRIN that it “refuses to be bound by the results of a process it says failed to include its views”.

Question for this article:

Tens of Thousands Take Part in Global Actions Targeting World’s Most Dangerous Fossil Fuel Projects

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article from Ecowatch (abridged)

Twelve days of unprecedented worldwide action against fossil fuels concluded Sunday showing that the climate movement will not rest until all coal, oil and gas is kept in the ground. The combined global efforts of activists on six continents now pose a serious threat to the future of the fossil fuel industry, already weakened by financial and political uncertainty.

ecowatch
The UK’s largest opencast coal mine was shut down for a day.
Photo credit: Tim Wagner

Tens of thousands of activists took to the streets, occupied mines, blocked rail lines, linked arms, paddled in kayaks and held community meetings in 13 countries, pushing the boundaries of conventional protest to find new ways to demand coal, oil and gas stay in the ground. Participants risked arrest—many for the first time—to say that it’s time to Break Free from the current energy paradigm that is locking the planet into a future of catastrophic climate change. . .

Highlights include:

Thousands worldwide risked arrest during the actions, many for the first time.

$20 million worth of coal shipments were halted by activists shutting down the largest coal port in the world in Newcastle, Australia.

The UK’s largest opencast coal mine was shut down for a day.

Hundreds stood up to South Africa’s most powerful family with a march that delivered coal to their front door, despite their attempts to silence civil society by pressuring police to revoke permits for a march.

Dozens of people occupied train tracks overnight on both coasts of the United States to stop oil-filled ‘bomb trains’ from rolling through communities — including less than 100 feet from low-income public housing in Albany, New York.

3,500 people shut down one of Europe’s biggest carbon polluters in Germany, occupying a lignite mine and nearby power station for more than 48 hours, reducing the plant’s capacity by 80 percent.

10,000 marched against a proposed coal plant in Batangas, the Philippines.

3,000 sent an ear-splitting message to Indonesia’s president with a whistle demonstration against coal in Jakarta, and a few days later 12 activists climbed the cranes supplying coal for the Cirebon Coal Power Plant, and dropping banners to “Quit Coal” and for “Clean Energy, Clean Air.”

Community members blocked traffic outside the gates of Brazil’s largest thermal coal plant, in Ceará.

On land and water, indigenous communities and local activists blockaded the Kinder Morgan tar sands facility in Metro-Vancouver, unceded Coast Salish Territories.

150+ local activists marched and occupied the entrance of two fossil fuel refineries, which are the largest unaddressed source of carbon pollution in the Northwest of the U.S.

In Aliaga, Turkey 2,000 people marched to the gates of the Izmir region’s largest coal dump, and surrounded it with a giant red line, as a call to end plans for the massive expansion of coal in the country.

“The global climate justice movement is rising fast. But so are the oceans. So are global temperatures. This is a race against time. Our movement is stronger than ever, but to beat the odds, we have to grow stronger,” Naomi Klein, award winning journalist/author, said.

Question for this article:

United Nations High Level Thematic Debate on Peace and Security: Closing remarks

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article from the webpage of the the President of the United Nations General Assembly

Honourable Ministers, Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. We have come to the end of what I believe has been a truly enriching discussion on the UN’s role in maintaining global peace and security. I would like to thank all those who contributed so actively to this event including our speakers, those of you visiting from capitals, our interpreters, colleagues in DGACM, civil society representatives and of course, you, the membership.

unga

Discussions these past few days demonstrate that across the membership, there is a feeling that we are at a watershed moment in terms of both the challenges we are facing in maintaining international peace and security and the way we must tackle those challenges.

Taken together, the recommendations included in the three UN reviews and other relevant processes, provide us with a very solid basis from which to move forward.

Indeed, through this debate we have identified some of the key themes and connectors between these reviews, but what we need now is sustained political engagement and actual implementation.

Shortly after this meeting, I will therefore produce a summary of the key messages from this debate which I will share with both member states, the current Secretary-General and Secretary-General candidates.

I also intend to invite the Secretary-General to brief the membership on how the UN is jointly implementing the relevant recommendations emerging from all three reviews and to consider producing a possible roadmap to that effect.

Among the key messages and my own personal reflections are the following:

First, on the need to rebuild trust.

The UN’s inability to protect civilians in conflicts; the disturbing allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation by peace keepers; the lack of adequate tools to respond to complex conflicts, to international terrorism or to global challenges with a clear security dimension, have undermined global confidence in the UN’s role in maintaining peace and security.

On this seventieth anniversary, therefore, we need to enhance the trust on which institutional cooperation is build.

Trust between member states, large and small and between member states and the UN, that we will adhere the commitments of the UN Charter to ensure our collective security; that we will uphold our obligations under international humanitarian law; that we will rejuvenate the ability of the United Nations to confront new and evolving threats.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Questions related to this article:

Can the UN help move the world toward a culture of peace?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

Second, on prevention.

As Leymah Gbowee reminded us – if we spend peanuts on prevention and trillions on war, then we cannot expect to achieve peace.

Greater resources, analysis, research should therefore be dedicated to the UN’s diplomatic and preventive functions.

Furthermore, the search for conflict resolution whether through UN managed missions, efforts pursued with regional organizations or multi-national action authorized by the security council, must be ground in an overall political framework.

Third, on the role of women. Practically everyone agrees that women must be more involved right across the continuum of sustaining peace.

But agreement is not enough. Leadership and targeted steps to make this happen are needed now.

Similarly tools must be developed to place communities at the heart of peace operations.

Fifth, in today’s world the UN must increasingly look to build partnerships at political and operational level with regional and sub-regional organizations; with other multi-lateral partners, with civil society and with the private sector.

Sixth, we have to reduce fragmentation across the three UN pillars notably by enhancing the Peacebuilding Commission’s role and by taking the SDGs as our collective vision and guide. Greater efforts should also be made to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the UN, including at Headquarters.

Seventh, in relation to the fight against radicalism and terrorism, consideration should be given to identifying concrete ways for the UN to effectively contribute to the international efforts to counter terrorist entities when encountered in mission environments.

Eighth, large-scale displacement may be a consequence of instability or feed into new or existing tensions. Properly responding to these flows in the longer term demands that we focus on addressing the underlying root causes.

And finally, taking office on 1 January 2017, the next Secretary-General will

need to foster support from the UN Security Council and all Member States’ to advance peace, justice and security across our world. In particular, she or he will need support to implement the practical recommendations contained in the three reviews.

_________

To conclude, let us remember that the current or the future Secretary-General can only do so much.

Ultimately, the shift we need – in mind-set, in our financing and partnership mechanisms, in our systems and operations – will only happen if it is supported and driven by governments and leaders around the world

I hope that you and your leaders will rise up to this challenge.

I thank you again for your participation and continued support.