Evolution of
the Humane - Globalisation of Peace - World in
Balance (
pdf.file
) Two Articles by Johan
Galtung, Director
TRANSCEND
- A Network for
Peace and Development These
articles may be distributed and re-printed further with
reference to the source www.transcend.org Building
Peace Through Harmonious Diversity World
Culture Open, UN Meeting Room 1, NYC, 9/10
2004 Panel: Global
Governance, Peacemaking and Social Harmony By
Johan Galtung, Dr hc mult, Professor of Peace Studies
Your Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen, Friends of Peace, "Building Peace
Through Harmonious Diversity" is a marvelous title,
combining three words of honor; peace, harmony, diversity.
"Peace", in my view, is another word for equality, equity,
equal rights/dignity, symmetry, reciprocity,
diversity/symbiosis etc; "harmony" is creative cooperation,
beyond absence of violence; "diversity" celebrates our
manifold, within peace and harmony. The Millennium Question
is how to obtain all three when all over there is the
opposite: direct, structural and cultural
violence. Two discourses about
coping with violence compete for our attention: the security
discourse and the peace discourse. They address the same
concern but are almost diametrically opposed. The Security
Approach is based on four components: The approach works
when evil/strong parties are weakened through defeat or
deterrence, and/or converted to become good. The Peace Approach
is also based on four components: The approach works
through acceptable/sustainable outcomes. The security approach
presupposes superior strength (of whatever kind, Sun Tzu or
Clausewitz), which implies inequality. The peace approach
presupposes a conflict outcome acceptable to all parties and
sustainable, which implies equality. What would favor
a preference for the security approach? [2]
Construction of the Other as evil, with no legitimate
goal, driven by lust, greed or envy, somebody with whom
one would never negotiate since there is no grievance and
no basis for any solution; only for
extermination/crushing, containment or at best
conversion. [3] The
absence of "diversity with equality" as category, the
Columbus fallacy (Todorov). There is an underlying social
code of verticality, not horizontality, to be
implemented, based on ascribed categories like gender,
generation, race, class/caste, nation, state. [4] A
preference for a structure of inequality, in other words
a hard, Hobbesian, reading of the "social order". The
expression "the dangerous classes
(genders/generations/races/nations/states)" is an
updating of evil/Satan with "witch"-burning as a prelude
to the massive genocide of other races and nations during
modernity. [5]
Monopoly on the "ultima ratio regis/regnum", in other
words the concentration of the means of coercion in the
hands of the state (or community of states) defined
through that monopoly (Weber), giving legitimacy to
upholding "law and order" by force. States and
communities of states (like the EU) will work out lists
of threats. [6] "To He
Who Has a Hammer the World Looks Like a Nail", in other
words the self-propelling force of a security apparatus,
with secret services to assess capability (how strong)
and motivation (how evil), and cloak-and-dagger
operations to "nip it in the bud" through extra- judicial
execution, etc., police operations to round up the
suspects, overwhelming force to defeat and thereby
deter. And what would
favor a preference for the peace approach?
[2] "There
is that of God in everybody", meaning a legitimate goal
in every party, however violent and repulsive. The way of
identifying valid goals is by mutual inquiry, asking; in
other words dialogue, and then using that as a basis for
togetherness. [3]
Diversity as a source of mutual enrichment presupposes
curiosity, respect, dialogue, for mutual exploration and
learning. Reciprocity and symmetry have to be extended to
any other party within the limits of reasonable
legitimacy as defined by legality, human rights and basic
human needs. Diversity with inequality is mutual
impoverishment, and so is equality with uniformity.
[4] A
preference for a structure of equality. Thus, "security"
is located to the right politically and "peace" to the
left. Peace is a revolutionary ("equality") proposition.
Democracy and human rights are already great equalizers.
Reciprocity is the norm. If you want peace, then give to
others whatever they want that you also want. [5] A
culture and practice of nonviolent countervailing power,
based on a strong identity, high level of self-reliance
and much courage, to counter brainwashing, bribery and
threats. [6] A
culture and practice of conflict transformation, not only
for specialists, more like hygiene and healthy life
styles for everybody, including ability to identify valid
goals in all parties, bridge creatively the
contradictions between valid goals, and build
peace. We are dealing with
two approaches in conflict. The peace approach is better,
but the security approach is sometimes needed. The peace argument
against the security approach is strong: it serves like a
bandage over a festering wound that will reproduce the fever
and other symptoms. An untransformed conflict will reproduce
violence, sooner or later. Not going to the roots, solving
the issues leads to a spiral of violence and
counter-violence. Thus, only in an equitable Middle East
Community, like the European Community, not in an unequal
Two States formula, will Israel find security. The security argument
against the peace approach is also strong: not all parties
are driven by legitimate grievances, some are driven by
illegitimate greed. The latter have to be stopped before
they destroy us all. The day after a peaceful conflict
"transformation" the greedy will get at everybody's throat.
Thus, only within secure borders/walls will Israel find
peace. To which the peace
approach people counter, that is why we emphasize
legitimacy. There is much illegitimacy between people and
states. But there are also legitimate grievances, and the
task is to bridge them. For peace to prevail focus only on
legitimate goals. The first list of
factors determining the choice of approach is incompatible
and the second compatible with peace, harmony and diversity
as it adds up to a peace culture. But illegitimate goals
like slavery exist, so do illegitimate means like
intervention to bolster unequal social and world orders.
Hence the need to transcend, to get a both-and, with soft
strength, a peaceful security approach that does not produce
even more violence. One such formula would be:
peacekeeping by very large numbers, with defensive
weapons, but equally trained in police methods, nonviolence
and mediation, with at least 50% women, and the adequate
cultural underpinning. Only the UN combines
world authority and world culture. Go ahead, UN!
WHAT
COULD PEACE BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND AL QAEDA/IRAQ LOOK LIKE?
Pace University,
NYC, 9/11 2004 By Johan
Galtung, Dr hc mult, Professor of Peace Studies
Friends, let us start
by sharing a moment of silence, sorrow and reflection on the
avoidable loss of lives three years ago, and a few hundred
meters away here in New York City, and in Washington DC, in
Afghanistan and every day in Iraq. Thank you. The Final report of
the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the United
States, The 9/11 Commission Report, 567 pages, suffers from
two intellectual flaws so serious that the life expectancy
of the Report will be very limited; and not only because of
the numerous questions left unanswered. To wit: Nothing is said
about US acts of commission, like about 70 interventions
around the world since 1945 with 12-16 millions killed,
to be followed by recommendations about what not to do.
[2] The
Commission, works, writes and thinks only inside a
security discourse of danger from an evil/strong
party-violence- superior strength-security and never
inside a peace discourse of untransformed
conflict-violence-conflict transformation-peace.
By constructing
Other as merely evil there is no room for dialogue. Hence
the singleminded, fatal, focus on US strength.
Strength has two
meanings: victory and invulnerability. But victory may be
elusive because violence and war produce counter- violence
and war. And invulnerability may produce fascism. For a peace approach
for Washington-Iraq, here is a draft proposal for a whole
page ad in a leading US newspaper from "concerned Norwegian
citizens and organizations": Dear Candidates for
the US Presidency, Mr Bush, Mr Kerry - You make decisions
affecting the whole world, but having no right to vote in US
elections we have to address you this way. Four out of five
Norwegians oppose the USA-led war in Iraq. But many more of
us love the USA for its strength, creativity and generosity.
We ask for your strength to change a flawed and failed
policy in Iraq and initiate a process of Truth and
Reconciliation. We ask for your creativity to apologize for
an illegal war and for having misled your allies. We ask for
your generosity to compensate for the killing and damage
done, including the looting and the trauma inflicted by
torture. We hope for a Conference for Security in
Cooperation in the Middle East, modeled on the Helsinki
conference 1973-75, with Iraq, Kurdistan and
Israel-Palestine on the agenda. Mr Bush, Mr Kerry:
Do this, and the USA will be a light shining upon the
nations. Your democracy will be imitated. Terrorism will
start melting. The hands of the terrorists will be stayed.
Continue your present policy, and the USA will be more
resisted than ever. And terrorism will
blossom. Dear Mr Bush, dear
Mr Kerry: The choice is yours. A policy like that
would of course be accompanied by the reduction of the US
Iraq Embassy to reasonable proportions, the withdrawal of
John Negroponte to early retirement and a massive
people-to-people reconciliation and reconstruction, perhaps
with more US people than ever in Iraq, but with no
Pentagon-CIA ties. Many would say that
the likelihood of this is low. But so did people say before
the end of the Cold War in 1989 and of apartheid in South
Africa in 1994. Miracles happen, born in our hearts and
minds, springing forth in our words and deeds. Let us try the same
for Washington-Al Qaeda, with 9/11 three years ago to the
day, and less than a mile away. In my interpretation it was
a theological-judicial execution of two buildings, in public
space, for the sins of those buildings against Alla'h.
Totally unjustifiable. But not inexplicable. Dear Mr Bush, dear Mr
Kerry - Regardless of who wins
the coming election, let one thing be crystal clear: you
have no right whatsoever to keep the world hostage to your
inability to handle the conflict with Al Qaeda. As President Bush said
in an unguarded moment: the war on terrorism cannot be won.
True. If you launch a war don't be surprised if Other fights
back. The choice of arms, arenas and targets will be theirs,
not yours. They have not exhausted their arsenals; like
labor strikes by Muslim immigrants, worldwide boycott of US
consumer, capital and financial products, worldwide
conversion to Islam. The USA, barring nuclear strikes, may
be close to exhaustion while also taking on ever more
fascist traits. You are up against
potentially 1,3 billion Muslims, more cohesive than the same
number of Christians who divided Muslims into 56 countries.
No Muslim can rival President Bush in unifying Islam from
Casablanca to Mindanao; like no bigot can rival Prime
Minister Sharon in producing anti-zionism. Colin Powell's program
shortly after 9/11 for Al Qaeda: "we shall identify them and
crush them", has led to the exact opposite. They identify
more than ever with their cause and they multiply briskly.
And like the Arabs they have two hidden arms: [1]
they win more by accumulating honor than by military victory
[2] their time perspective is centuries, the US at
most years. The USA being
pragmatic it is important to show that the security approach
of identifying and crushing will not work. On the other
hand, there is the analysis by "Anonymous" (Michael Scheuer,
Imperial Hubris) seeing Al Qaeda as focussed and clear:
against the US support of Israel, repressive Muslim regimes,
Russian, Chinese and Indian repression of Muslims, for
withdrawal of US troops from the Arab Peninsula,
Afghanistan, Iraq and Arab countries, return of Muslim
energy sources to their peoples. So, here is a
ten point low cost alternative to eternal war:
[2]
Recognize and acknowledge Cause No. 2 of 9/11: the lack
of respect for Islam in general and wahhabism, the Saudi
state religion, in particular, with a different view of
economic life. [3]
Following from [1]: scale down military and
economic presence in Muslim countries, mindful of Article
1 of the UN Convention of Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. [4]
Following from [2]: increase the level of
knowledge of religions by having key media run programs
on Islam every Friday, Judaism and other religions every
Saturday and on Christianity every Sunday, with
respectful, searching dialogue. [5] Use the
instrument of TV and a media(tor) genius like Larry King
for dialogues on creative co-existence. [6] Try to
identify the major goals of the parties, like free trade
and elections for Washington, and respect for Islam and
political autonomy for Al Qaeda. Dialogues on Islam and
human rights, and on US market and democracy and basic
human needs. [7]
Stimulate Islam-Christianity dialogue groups all over,
high and low, with a view to bridging the gaps for
sustainable peace. [8] Drop
the term "terrorist"; what happens is atrocious post-
modern warfare targeting civilians, by states and
non-states, making peace-making/building/keeping more
necessary than ever. [9] Have
lower level secret negotiations about stopping violence
in return for withdrawal, and about reconciliation.
[10] Open
for the possibility of combining Western and Islamic
ideas of the economy, and norms of conduct in
general.
http://emanzipationhumanum.de/english/human/peace.html
For translation rights, please
contact
Jacobsen@transcend.orgTHE
SECURITY APPROACH AND THE PEACE APPROACH
Some
Cultural Factors Conditioning the Choice
[1]
An Evil Party, with strong capability and evil
intention;
[2] A Clear and Present Danger of Violence, real
or potential;
[3] Strength, to defeat or deter the evil party,
in turn producing
[4] Security, which is also the best approach to
"peace". [1] A
Conflict, which has not been resolved/transformed;
[2] A Danger of Violence to "settle the
conflict";
[3] Conflict Transformation,
empathic-creative-nonviolent, producing
[4] Peace, which is the best approach to
"security".[1] A
culture of dualism/manicheism/Armageddon, in other words
a hard, absolutist, reading of the abrahamitic religions.
The security approach is a secular version of
Good/God/Christ vs Evil/Satan/Anti-Christ, with an
Armageddon type battle as the final arbiter.
[1] A
culture of unity of human beings, in other words a soft
reading of abrahamitic and African (ubuntu) religions,
mainstream readings of hinduism/buddhism and daoism, of
women with a focus on compassion, of the secularism of
liberte, egalite, fraternite. There is no Armageddon as
final arbiter, but the ever-lasting effort of human
beings to improve, individually and collectively.
Some Points
for Presidential Candidates to Consider
[1]
The Commission focuses only on acts of omission, not on
US acts of commission. The act of commission was the
attack, which could have been avoided were it not for
what the USA had omitted to do (p. 347). This victim
perspective generates a flow of recommendations (pp.
361-428) about what has to be done.
[1]
Recognize and acknowledge Cause No. 1 of 9/11: US word
wide economic penetration and military intervention,
stimulating chains of retaliation, "blow-back" in CIA
jargon (Chalmers Johnson).
Emanzipation
Humanum,
version October 2004, Criticism, suggestions as to form and
content, dialogue, translation into other languages are all
desired
http://emanzipationhumanum.de/english/human