The Elders welcome Paris conference as step towards two-state solution for Israel-Palestine

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

An article by The Elders

The Elders welcome the international conference being convened in Paris on 3 June by the French Government, aimed at reviving efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

conference
French President Hollande speaks to the Paris conference. Photo from AFP/Stephane de Sakutin, Pool.
Click on photo to enlarge

The last 18 months have seen worsening violence, a hardening of political rhetoric and a diplomatic impasse. The international community must push decisively to shift the dynamics on the ground and secure lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians alike. A two-state solution that respects international law, addresses legitimate security concerns and upholds human rights remains the only way forward.

Kofi Annan, Chair of The Elders, said:

“This conference is an opportunity to revitalise international engagement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After so many decades of conflict, people deserve to live in peace and dignity. This requires an end to occupation, and self-determination for the Palestinian people. The Elders call on all those involved to work constructively and in good faith towards this goal.”

The Elders note the conflicts raging in much of the wider Middle East and argue this makes it even more important that diplomatic efforts for a two-state solution are intensified.

Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States and Honorary Elder, said:

“The world cannot afford to forget about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinians continue to be denied justice and human rights, and their leaders remain divided and disengaged from the search for lasting peace. This stokes resentment and support for extremism across the region. Equally, Israelis are ill-served by a government that promotes illegal settlements and flouts international law.”

(See right column for Final Communique)

Question related to this article:

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

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

(continued from left column)

[Editor’s note: The final communique from the summit includes an urgent call for a two-state solution, as demanded by the Elders and by the the Arab Peace Initiative.]:

“The Participants met in Paris on June 3, 2016 to reaffirm their support for a just, lasting and comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“They reaffirmed that a negotiated two-state solution is the only way to achieve an enduring peace, with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. They are alarmed that actions on the ground, in particular continued acts of violence and ongoing settlement activity, are dangerously imperiling the prospects for a two-state solution.

“The Participants underscored that the status quo is not sustainable, and stressed the importance of both sides demonstrating, with policies and actions, a genuine commitment to the two-state solution in order to rebuild trust and create the conditions for fully ending the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 and resolving all permanent status issues through direct negotiations based on resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), and also recalling relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and highlighting the importance of the implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative.

“The Participants discussed possible ways in which the international community could help advance the prospects for peace, including by providing meaningful incentives to the parties to make peace. The Participants also highlighted the potential for regional peace and security as envisioned by the Arab Peace Initiative.

“The Participants highlighted the key role of the Quartet and key regional stakeholders. They welcomed the interested countries’ offer to contribute to this effort. They also welcomed France’s offer to coordinate it, and the prospect of convening before the end of the year an international conference.”

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 . . .

Georgia: Training Report: “Education for Peace – Developing Competences for Peace Education in the Youth Field”

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY .

A report from the Global Campaign for Peace Education

The European Intercultural Forum e. V. just finalised the narrative report of their 1st training course in the frame of the Training Programme “Education for Peace – Developing Competences for Peace Education in the Youth Field” (Misaktsieli, Georgia – April 10-18, 2016)

Georgia
Click on photo to enlarge

You can find the report here and can find more information about the project on the project webpage.

Project Background

To aid communities and individuals affected by these conflicts, peace education – defined as a holistic, multidisciplinary and transformative process to develop competences in nonviolent conflict transformation, respect for human rights and active participation – is one approach of peace-building measures that aims at strengthening nonviolence and participatory means of conflict transformation to ensure human rights protection, nonviolence and participation as fundamental principles of societal life allowing young people to not only grow up in a peaceful environment without their personal development potentials being jeopardise, but also to contribute conflicts to be addressed nonviolently without making use of direct, structural and cultural violence.

Against this background, the project proposal aims to strengthen the competences of youth workers and youth educators in peace education for young people in order to empower young people to become pro-active agents of peaceful change via local community initiatives addressing societal conflicts.

Therefore, the youth workers and youth educators will participate in two e-learning modules and two training courses in Georgia on conflict transformation, peace education and training delivery. As a result the participants shall be enabled to design, implement and evaluate their own training courses and workshops on peace education for young people in their communities.

According to the Call for Participants, the project is funded by the European Union and the participating organizations are:

European Intercultural Forum e. V. (Germany)

Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly- Vanadzor (Armenia)

Academy for Peace and Development (Georgia)

Bridge to the Future (Azerbaijan)

Vinnytsia Regional Center for Information KREATIV (Ukraine)

The ASHA Foundation (United Kingdom)

Humana People to People (Latvia)

United Network of Young Peacebuilders (Netherlands)

Question for this article

A Tiny Reef in the Philippines Offered Early Proof That Marine Parks Also Help Fishers

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article from Oceana, an organization that works internationally to better manage fish stocks to save the oceans and feed the world

Protected areas on coral reefs are often established in spots that already have lots of fish and high diversity, making it tough for scientists to tell how effective no-take zones really are at boosting the populations of commercially important species. But around Sumilon Island, a speck of land in the Central Philippines that hosted the country’s first ocean sanctuary, a history of on-again, off-again protection offers some of the most clear-cut proof that fishing bans work — and that they actually help fishers too.

philippines
Click on photo to enlarge

In the 1970s, Sumilon reef “was among the best in the world,” said marine biologist Angel Alcala. Alcala, along with Garry Russ of James Cook University, was the author of a landmark study tracking commercially important fish in Sumilon for 17 years.

From 1974 to 1983, a quarter of the island’s reefs were closed to fishing. Valuable species — including large predators like snapper, emperor fish, grouper and jacks — thrived alongside whale sharks and forests of coral.

After nearly a decade of protection, the reserve was opened to fishing from 1983 to 1985. In addition to the more conventional fishing gear like gillnets and traps, fishermen used dynamite to stun fish or dropped stone blocks on corals to flush out hidden animals, a practice called “muro-ami” that reduced swaths of the reef to rubble.

The fishing ban was reinstated in 1987 and lifted again in 1992. In 1995, the reserve was permanently closed to all fishers except locals using hook-and-line.

Alcala and Russ noted that the loss of large predatory fish was immediate and rapid as soon as fishing efforts picked up after a ban was lifted. But during protected periods, losses in fish populations were matched by gains, some of them dramatic.

(Article continued in the right side of the page)

Question for this article:

If we can connect up the planet through Internet, can’t we agree to preserve the planet?

(Article continued from the left side of the page)

The density, or the number of fish in a given area, of the sixblotch hind (Cephalopholis sexmaculata), a brilliantly colored member of the grouper family, increased by 200 percent from 1990 to 1991 and by 300 percent from 1994 to 1995. By 2000, the number of blackspot snapper (Lutjanus ehrenbergii) was 820 percent greater than the annual average between 1983 and 1997.

Biomass — which measures the weight of all individuals of one species — recovered more slowly. This is because it takes several years for large predatory fish, which tend to be slow-growing and long-lived, to grow to their full adult size; these fish did not regain their average adult pre-1983 size until 1999.

In 2000, after six years of continuous protection, fish biomass and population increases showed no signs of leveling off. From its low point in 1985, biomass had gone up by nearly 30 percent.

Outside of the reserve, fishermen’s haul increased by almost 30 percent — demonstrating that the “spillover” effect of a marine reserve more than compensated for the fact that fishers were working in a smaller area than before the permanent protections went into effect.

This finding, since replicated on nearby Apo Island, showed that permanent closures of even small areas of a reef could offer big benefits to small-scale fishers.

The island — which now hosts a resort in addition to the reserve — supports a vibrant community of fish and corals. It’s important to note, though, that the reefs aren’t as diverse as they once were due to poorly regulated fishing and tourism in the past. Compared to the 1970s, Alcala explained, “many marine species, especially some unique species of corals, have disappeared.”

Despite that, the legacy of Sumilon’s marine protected area has far outstripped its borders. Other marine sanctuaries in the Philippines, including the renowned Apo Island and Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, have followed suit with no-take zones that sustain local fishing communities and healthy tourist industries.

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article)

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:

English bulletin June 1, 2016

. REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS .

Since its creation over 70 years ago, the United Nations has been the hope of mankind “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” But more and more, we are losing hope that in its present form it can succeed. This was especially evident in recent weeks when the great powers did not bother to send high-level delegations to the UN’s Humanitarian Summit despite the fact that 60 other countries sent their heads of state. While Germany was represented by its Chancellor Angela Merkel, the other great powers were essentially absent: Canada, France, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia and China.

Therefore, it is not surprising that there is a rising chorus of demands for reform of the United Nations.

The most dramatic and far-reaching demand comes from Africa. This month the Pan-African Parliament, with representives from the 54 countries of Africa, has called upon the African Union to support its demand for a new UN body, a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. The Parliament’s President explained that “It is long overdue that ‘We, the Peoples,’ as the UN Charter begins, have more say in global affairs. For this purpose, a UNPA needs to be established.” This could become a powerful voice for peace. Instead of reflecting the policies of Member States with their military budgets and military policies, the proposed Assembly would be composed of representatives of bodies directly elected by the people and without direct responsibility for military institutions.

Another call for extensive reform comes from a group including former UNESCO Director-general Federico Mayor. Their joint declaration calls for a “new UN System” with a General Assembly of 50% of States representatives and 50% of representatives of civil society, and adding to the present Security Council and Environmental Council and a Socio-Economic Council. In all cases, no veto but weighted vote.

Many calls for reform consider that the present Security Council, with veto powers by the five Permanent members, the victors of World War II, is outmoded and ineffective in dealing with today’s global problems.

There are ongoing meetings of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform, but they are complicated by rivalries among the Member States. At the most recent meeting at the beginning of May, India called for additional Permament members, including themselves, Brazil, Japan and Germany, thus including the losers as well as the winners of World War II. But immediately there were objections from India’s rival Pakistan and from Japan’s rival North Korea, as well as from another group of 13 countries led by Italy. Another proposal was put forward by Ireland for a new category of Security Council members with an 8 year term. They proposed 6 seats in this category, with 2 each from the African and Asia-Pacific group, and 1 each from WEOG (Western Europe and Others Group) and GRULAC (Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries).

At the recent Humanitarian Summit, the Arab League, which consists of 22 member states, including Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, called for limitation on the veto power of the Permanent Security Council Members, echoing a similar demand by Turkish President Erdogan. This, too, was complicated by inter-state rivalries as their remarks were directed only against the use of the veto by Russia with regard to the war in Syria.

The Elders, the group of former heads of state and international agencies that was formed several years ago around Nelson Mandela, has made a series of recommendations regarding reform of the Security Council. They call for a new category of Council members with longer terms to counter-balance the five Permanent members, a pledge to restrict the use of their veto and more involvement of the civil society,

Another proposal of the Elders is for a more independent UN Secretary-General. This proposal is echoed in conclusions of the recent United Nations High Level Thematic Debate on Peace and Security, and it is already being implemented to some extent in new procedures to choose the next Secretary-General.

But the question remains: are these proposals radical enough to enable the UN “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war?” In the view of the CPNN coordinator, we need a more radical approach; see his blog.

      

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY

unsc

Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform

WOMEN’S EQUALITY



Peace in Colombia Is Impossible Without Us, Women Declare

EDUCATION FOR PEACE


Paris: A standing orchestra !!!

HUMAN RIGHTS



Red carpet film festival asserts Gaza’s pride and talent

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY



Mali: The struggle against terrorism: Towards the creation of a global network of Ulemas

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT



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

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION



Colombia celebrates agreement to legally bind the peace accord

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION



For the first time, a Peace Plan for Cali, Colombia

USA: Over Seventy Prominent Scholars and Activists Urge Obama to meet Hibakusha, Take Further Steps on Nuclear Disarmament

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A letter published by Peace Action

To President Barack Obama, May 23, 2016

Dear Mr. President,

We were happy to learn of your plans to be the first sitting president of the United States to visit Hiroshima this week, after the G-7 economic summit in Japan. Many of us have been to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and found it a profound, life-changing experience, as did Secretary of State John Kerry on his recent visit.

letter
Click on photo to enlarge

In particular, meeting and hearing the personal stories of A-bomb survivors, Hibakusha, has made a unique impact on our work for global peace and disarmament. Learning of the suffering of the Hibakusha, but also their wisdom, their awe-inspiring sense of humanity, and steadfast advocacy of nuclear abolition so the horror they experienced can never happen again to other human beings, is a precious gift that cannot help but strengthen anyone’s resolve to dispose of the nuclear menace.

Your 2009 Prague speech calling for a world free of nuclear weapons inspired hope around the world, and the New START pact with Russia, historic nuclear agreement with Iran and securing and reducing stocks of nuclear weapons-grade material globally have been significant achievements.

Yet, with more than 15,000 nuclear weapons (93% held by the U.S. and Russia) still threatening all the peoples of the planet, much more needs to be done. We believe you can still offer crucial leadership in your remaining time in office to move more boldly toward a world without nuclear weapons.

In this light, we strongly urge you to honor your promise in Prague to work for a nuclear weapons-free world by:

Meeting with all Hibakusha who are able to attend;

Announcing the end of U.S. plans to spend $1 trillion for the new generation of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems;

Reinvigorating nuclear disarmament negotiations to go beyond New START by announcing the unilateral reduction of the deployed U.S. arsenal to 1,000 nuclear weapons or fewer;

Calling on Russia to join with the United States in convening the “good faith negotiations” required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for the complete elimination of the world’s nuclear arsenals;

Reconsidering your refusal to apologize or discuss the history surrounding the A-bombings, which even President Eisenhower, Generals MacArthur, King, Arnold, and LeMay and Admirals Leahy and Nimitz stated were not necessary to end the war.

Sincerely,

Gar Alperowitz, Professor of Political Economy, University of Maryland

Christian Appy, Professor of History at the University of Massachusetts,

Amherst, author of American Reckoning: The Vietnam War and Our National Identity

Colin Archer, Secretary-General, International Peace Bureau

Charles K. Armstrong, Professor of History, Columbia University

Medea Benjamin, Co-founder, CODE PINK, Women for Peace and Global Exchange

Phyllis Bennis, Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies

Herbert Bix, Professor of History, State University of New York, Binghamton

Norman Birnbaum, University Professor Emeritus, Georgetown University Law Center

Reiner Braun, Co-President, International Peace Bureau

Philip Brenner, Professor of International Relations and Director of the Graduate Program in US Foreign Policy and National Security, American University

Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation; National Co-convener, United for Peace and Justice

James Carroll, Author of An American Requiem

Noam Chomsky, Professor (emeritus), Massachusetts Institute of Technology

David Cortright, Director of Policy Studies, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame and former Executive Director, SANE

Frank Costigliola, Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor, niversity of Connecticut

Bruce Cumings, Professor of History, University of Chicago

Alexis Dudden, Professor of History, University of Connecticut

Carolyn Eisenberg, Professor of U.S. Diplomatic History, Hofstra University

Daniel Ellsberg, Former State and Defense Department official

John Feffer, Director, Foreign Policy In Focus, Institute for Policy Studies

Gordon Fellman, Professor of Sociology and Peace Studies, Brandeis University.
Bill Fletcher, Jr., Talk Show Host, Writer & Activist.

Norma Field, professor emerita, University of Chicago

Carolyn Forché, University Professor, Georgetown University

Max Paul Friedman, Professor of History, American University.

Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space.

(letter continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(letter continued from left column)

Lloyd Gardner, Professor of History Emeritus, Rutgers University, author Architects of Illusion and The Road to Baghdad.

Irene Gendzier Prof. Emeritus, Department of of History, Boston University

Joseph Gerson, Director, American Friends Service Committee Peace & Economic Security Program, author of With Hiroshima Eyes and Empire and the Bomb

Todd Gitlin, Professor of Sociology, Columbia University

Andrew Gordon. Professor of History, Harvard University
John Hallam, Human Survival Project, People for Nuclear Disarmament, Australia

Melvin Hardy, Heiwa Peace Committee, Washington, DC

Laura Hein, Professor of History, Northwestern University

Martin Hellman, Member, US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University

Kate Hudson, General Secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (UK)

Paul Joseph, Professor of Sociology, Tufts University

Louis Kampf, Professor of Humanities Emeritus MIT

Michael Kazin, Professor of History, Georgetown University

Asaf Kfoury, Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science, Boston University

Peter King, Honorary Associate, Government & International Relations School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of Sydney, NSW

David Krieger, President Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, is author of Beyond the Laboratory

John W. Lamperti, Professor of Mathematics Emeritus, Dartmouth College

Steven Leeper, Co-founder PEACE Institute, Former Chairman, Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation

Robert Jay Lifton, MD, Lecturer in Psychiatry Columbia University, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, The City University of New York

Elaine Tyler May, Regents Professor, University of Minnesota, Author of Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era

Kevin Martin, President, Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund

Ray McGovern, Veterans For Peace, Former Head of CIA Soviet Desk and Presidential Daily Briefer

David McReynolds, Former Chair, War Resister International

Zia Mian, Professor, Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University

Tetsuo Najita, Professor of Japanese History, Emeritus, University of Chicago, former president of Association of Asian Studies

Sophie Quinn-Judge, Retired Professor, Center for Vietnamese Philosophy, Culture and Society, Temple University

Steve Rabson, Professor Emeritus of East Asian Studies, Brown University, Veteran, United States Army

Betty Reardon, Founding Director Emeritus of the International Institute on Peace Education, Teachers College, Columbia University

Terry Rockefeller, Founding Member, September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows,

David Rothauser Filmmaker, Memory Productions, producer of “Hibakusha, Our Life to Live” and “Article 9 Comes to America

James C. Scott, Professor of Political Science and Anthropology, Yale University, ex-President of the Association of Asian Studies

Peter Dale Scott, Professor of English Emeritus, University of California, Berkleley and author of American War Machine

Mark Selden, Senior Research Associate Cornell University, editor, Asia-Pacific Journal, coauthor, The Atomic Bomb: Voices From Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Martin Sherwin, Professor of History, George Mason University, Pulitzer Prize for American Prometheus

John Steinbach, Hiroshima Nagasaki Committee

Oliver Stone, Academy Award-winning writer and director

David Swanson, director of World Beyond War

Max Tegmark, Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Founder, Future of Life Institute

Ellen Thomas, Proposition One Campaign Executive Director, Co-Chair, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (US) Disarm/End Wars Issue Committee

Michael True, Emeritus Professor, Assumption College, is co-founder of the Center for Nonviolent Solutions

David Vine, Professor, Department of Sociology, American University

Alyn Ware, Global Coordinator, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament 2009 Laureate, Right Livelihood Award

Dave Webb, Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (UK)

Jon Weiner, Professor Emeritus of History, University of California Irvine

Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History emeritus, SUNY/Albany

Col. Ann Wright, US Army Reserved (Ret.) & former US diplomat

Marilyn Young, Professor of History, New York University

Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics & Coordinator of Middle Eastern Studies, University of San Francisco

Colombia: No peace without Education for Peace

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An report from Amada Benavides (translated by CPNN)

The meeting “Education, Pedagogy and Cultures of Peace” in Bogota, Thursday May 19, developed an analysis of the cultural changes in academia, social and community sectors that are needed for peace in Colombia. Speakers included Alicia Cabezudo, specialist in Education for Democracy, Citizenship, Culture of Peace and Human Rights; Amada Benavides, President of the Schools of Peace Foundation; Manuel Rojas, an expert in management, evaluation and systematization of educational innovation and building cultures of peace in contexts of violence and risk; and Marcela Villegas, coordinator of the Education Alliance for Building Cultures of Peace-UNICEF. The moderator was Jorge Palacio, representative of IDEP, the Institute for the Development education. Participants also included teachers, academics and trainers who shared their experiences and daily reflections. Together, they reaffirmed that there will be no peace unless there is peace education to transform the culture, and this requires a renewal of pedagogy.

Benavides
Click on the photo to enlarge

From the academic standpoint, according to Alicia Cabezudo, we need a pedagogical movement that understands citizenship as a historical subject, and that deconstructs the war from the practices and experiences at the neighborhood, local and community levels. From the social standpoint, according to Manuel Rojas, cultural change towards peace depends on each of us as individuals, freeing outselves from the culture of war in language and practice; leaving aside individualism. Likewise, from the community perspective, it is necessary to collectively rebuild the social fabric, as explained by Marcela Villegas, taking into account the experiences of peace cultures that have developed locally. These are the practices recognized by the National Meeting on Education for Peace held last year, and presented by Amada Benavides.

The meeting was organized by Psicoandinos (The Chapter of Psychology Alumni from the University of the Andes), the Education Alliance for the Construction of Cultures of Peace, the Institute for Educational Research and development -IDEP-, Uniandinos for Peace and the Schools of Peace Foundation, celebrating its fifteenth anniversary, in order to ensure a role for education for the construction of cultures of peace in the political and public agenda of Colombia.

(Click here for the original version in Spanish)

Question(s) related to this article:

The historic visit of Barack Obama to Hiroshima marks a new stage in the international mobilization against nuclear weapons

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the Huffington Post by Eddie Ait, Deputy Secretary General of the Radical Left Party (PRG), Philippe Rio, Mayor of Grigny and President-AFCDRP Mayors for Peace France, and Jacqueline Belhomme, Mayor of Malakoff and vice-President of the International network (translated by CPNN)

The president of the United States, Barack Obama, is at Hiroshima today [May 27] for an historic visit: the first by a US leader almost 71 years after the order of President Truman launched the first two nuclear attacks in history on Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (9 August).

Hiroshima

For the International Mayors for Peace network, chaired by the mayors of these two martyr cities, and its French branch AFCDRP, such a visit is a positive sign which may mark a new stage in the international mobilization for achieving the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, as provided in the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Since its creation in 1982, Mayors for Peace has continued to invite world leaders to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over the years, more and more embassies have attended its commemorations. Last April, the arrival in Hiroshima of the Foreign Ministers of the G7, including three representatives of nuclear states -United States, France and United Kingdom- was already a step forward. As senior officials of States, all NPT signatories, they were willing to see with their own eyes the city that was a victim of this inhuman weapon, with indiscriminate effects.

US atomic bombs completely destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They turned the cities into immense mass graves. In Hiroshima, the chamber of commerce building, now the Dome of the atomic bomb, could hardly stand. It now shows the power of the blast. In 1945, over 200,000 people have died, victims of the explosion or radiation in the days and weeks that followed. After such horror, the survivors, the Hibakusha, have never ceased to carry a message of peace that no one should suffer as they have suffered. Their message has been relayed tirelessly by local representatives of more than 7,000 communities in 161 countries who are members of the Mayors for Peace network.

Primarily responsible for the safety of our citizens in case of conflict, we have a keen awareness of the magnitude of the nuclear threat to the world as a whole. We cannot take the risk of Hiroshima or Nagasaki being repeated, because today it would entail a suicidal escalation. For this reason, we must act on two levels: locally, by addressing the roots of conflict, drawing on the resources of the culture of peace as defined by UNESCO, and globally by working together with Hiroshima and Nagasaki to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

There are still about 16,000 nuclear weapons on the globe. These weapons threaten the very existence of the human being and his environment. This “total risk” undermines humanity, opening the way to all sorts of deadly excesses that only a culture of peace and reconciliation can solve.

All elected officials in France who are inspired by the symbolic gesture made by the American President in Hiroshima are encouraged to join our network, the French Association of Communities, Departments and REgions for Peace.

(Click here for the original version in French)

Question related to this article:

Text of President Obama’s Speech in Hiroshima, Japan

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Transcript printed by the New York Times

Seventy-one years ago, on a bright cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed. A flash of light and a wall of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself.

Obama
Video of Obama speech from Bloomberg news

Why do we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in a not-so-distant past. We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women and children, thousands of Koreans, a dozen Americans held prisoner.

Their souls speak to us. They ask us to look inward, to take stock of who we are and what we might become.

It is not the fact of war that sets Hiroshima apart. Artifacts tell us that violent conflict appeared with the very first man. Our early ancestors having learned to make blades from flint and spears from wood used these tools not just for hunting but against their own kind. On every continent, the history of civilization is filled with war, whether driven by scarcity of grain or hunger for gold, compelled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal. Empires have risen and fallen. Peoples have been subjugated and liberated. And at each juncture, innocents have suffered, a countless toll, their names forgotten by time.

The world war that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations. Their civilizations had given the world great cities and magnificent art. Their thinkers had advanced ideas of justice and harmony and truth. And yet the war grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes, an old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints.

In the span of a few years, some 60 million people would die. Men, women, children, no different than us. Shot, beaten, marched, bombed, jailed, starved, gassed to death. There are many sites around the world that chronicle this war, memorials that tell stories of courage and heroism, graves and empty camps that echo of unspeakable depravity.

Yet in the image of a mushroom cloud that rose into these skies, we are most starkly reminded of humanity’s core contradiction. How the very spark that marks us as a species, our thoughts, our imagination, our language, our toolmaking, our ability to set ourselves apart from nature and bend it to our will — those very things also give us the capacity for unmatched destruction.

How often does material advancement or social innovation blind us to this truth? How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause.

Every great religion promises a pathway to love and peace and righteousness, and yet no religion has been spared from believers who have claimed their faith as a license to kill.

Nations arise telling a story that binds people together in sacrifice and cooperation, allowing for remarkable feats. But those same stories have so often been used to oppress and dehumanize those who are different.

Science allows us to communicate across the seas and fly above the clouds, to cure disease and understand the cosmos, but those same discoveries can be turned into ever more efficient killing machines.

The wars of the modern age teach us this truth. Hiroshima teaches this truth. Technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us. The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution as well.

That is why we come to this place. We stand here in the middle of this city and force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell. We force ourselves to feel the dread of children confused by what they see. We listen to a silent cry. We remember all the innocents killed across the arc of that terrible war and the wars that came before and the wars that would follow.

(Transcript continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Transcript continued from left column)

Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering. But we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.

Some day, the voices of the hibakusha will no longer be with us to bear witness. But the memory of the morning of Aug. 6, 1945, must never fade. That memory allows us to fight complacency. It fuels our moral imagination. It allows us to change.

And since that fateful day, we have made choices that give us hope. The United States and Japan have forged not only an alliance but a friendship that has won far more for our people than we could ever claim through war. The nations of Europe built a union that replaced battlefields with bonds of commerce and democracy. Oppressed people and nations won liberation. An international community established institutions and treaties that work to avoid war and aspire to restrict and roll back and ultimately eliminate the existence of nuclear weapons.

Still, every act of aggression between nations, every act of terror and corruption and cruelty and oppression that we see around the world shows our work is never done. We may not be able to eliminate man’s capacity to do evil, so nations and the alliances that we form must possess the means to defend ourselves. But among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them.

We may not realize this goal in my lifetime, but persistent effort can roll back the possibility of catastrophe. We can chart a course that leads to the destruction of these stockpiles. We can stop the spread to new nations and secure deadly materials from fanatics.

And yet that is not enough. For we see around the world today how even the crudest rifles and barrel bombs can serve up violence on a terrible scale. We must change our mind-set about war itself. To prevent conflict through diplomacy and strive to end conflicts after they’ve begun. To see our growing interdependence as a cause for peaceful cooperation and not violent competition. To define our nations not by our capacity to destroy but by what we build. And perhaps, above all, we must reimagine our connection to one another as members of one human race.

For this, too, is what makes our species unique. We’re not bound by genetic code to repeat the mistakes of the past. We can learn. We can choose. We can tell our children a different story, one that describes a common humanity, one that makes war less likely and cruelty less easily accepted.

We see these stories in the hibakusha. The woman who forgave a pilot who flew the plane that dropped the atomic bomb because she recognized that what she really hated was war itself. The man who sought out families of Americans killed here because he believed their loss was equal to his own.

My own nation’s story began with simple words: All men are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Realizing that ideal has never been easy, even within our own borders, even among our own citizens. But staying true to that story is worth the effort. It is an ideal to be strived for, an ideal that extends across continents and across oceans. The irreducible worth of every person, the insistence that every life is precious, the radical and necessary notion that we are part of a single human family — that is the story that we all must tell.

That is why we come to Hiroshima. So that we might think of people we love. The first smile from our children in the morning. The gentle touch from a spouse over the kitchen table. The comforting embrace of a parent. We can think of those things and know that those same precious moments took place here, 71 years ago.

Those who died, they are like us. Ordinary people understand this, I think. They do not want more war. They would rather that the wonders of science be focused on improving life and not eliminating it. When the choices made by nations, when the choices made by leaders, reflect this simple wisdom, then the lesson of Hiroshima is done.

The world was forever changed here, but today the children of this city will go through their day in peace. What a precious thing that is. It is worth protecting, and then extending to every child. That is a future we can choose, a future in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of atomic warfare but as the start of our own moral awakening.