UN Regeneration
- Wanganui
Culture
of Peace Sculpture
- World
Civil Society Forum 2002
WCSF Workshop on Governance -
Civil Society Forum for UN
In March 2003 the United Nations Association of New Zealand arranged and conducted a Forum, The United Nations - Our Hope for the Future, with the keynote address given by Professor Ramesh Thakur, Vice-Rector of the UN University, entitled The Paradox of Wanting Peace, Waging War. The Forum was held in the conference rooms of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Wellington, and was attended by over 120 people including representatives of government departments and non-government organizations, students, diplomats, members of the Institute of International Affairs and of UNANZ.
Ramesh Thakur’s paper developed the theme of the incidence of war being as pervasive as the wish for peace is universal. In the 20th century the paradox was well illustrated - "..we tried to emplace increasing normative, legislative, and operative fetters on the right of states to go to war, yet the century turned out the most murderous in human history; the 21st century has opened with a new kind of war, namely mass terror across boundaries". He discussed the findings of the International Commission, of which he was a member, on the right to intervene militarily in a sovereign country on humanitarian grounds: the Commission concluded that state and international agencies had a continuing responsibility to protect people in cases where there was gross infringement of human rights.
The speaker personally considered that the United Nations would be stronger than ever after the present war in Iraq, because its agencies for humanitarian assistance would be in enormous demand to cope with the disaster to the Iraqi people, and because the United States would continue to be strongly criticized by a great section of the world’s peoples for having invaded a sovereign state, and for having rejected a multilateral approach to the issue, which was still seen to be the best way of dealing with potential conflict.
Other speakers at the Forum were: diplomats who spoke of their own countries’ respective positions in the Security Council or of former experiences at the Council; representatives of departments of the Foreign Ministry which dealt with UN work; a Quaker who went to Iraq last year and gave a moving account of the terrible condition in which he found many of the sick children, and the privations suffered by the Iraqi people; and a civil society panel who covered various aspects of peoples’ involvement with the UN as separate from that of governments, also, ways to promote a real culture of peace; and a philosophic discussion on the reality of matter - "Matter, Life and Thought are three zones which are at once perceptible to our experience" "There is a close analogy between quantum processes and our own inner experiences and thought processes".
Presentation by Dame Laurie Salas
in a Panel Discussion at the UNANZ Forum
When we talk about the United Nations of the future - and we trust its credibility is still intact in spite of the Iraq crisis; I know most people here today will be sure on that point - I think it is very important for the concept of some specific peoples’ representation at the General Assembly to be kept at the forefront of any discussion on reform of the UN.
The idea of "we the peoples" being represented directly has been around, in various forms, for a long time, in fact since Ernest Bevin postulated an elected assembly of people to complement that of governments back in 1945.
The argument that governments do represent the views of people may be true of New Zealand and in enlightened democratic states - indeed some Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands usually include civil society people or their members of parliament in their delegations to the UN. But it is not always the case even with the democracies, and certainly not in countries whose governments are not elected on a one-person-one-vote basis. Who can doubt that there was a strong voice from both the US and the UK civil societies, and in many other countries not specifically involved, opposing their respective governments positions in the build-up to the war in Iraq? - and since the war started the outcry from thousands of people across the world, and certainly in the UK and US, has been phenomenal, and I’m sure quite staggering , and embarrassing to say the least to the Administration in Washington.
Dr. Robert Muller, a former Assistant Secretary-General of the UN, in a recent remarkable address referred to this point when he said: "Never before in the history of the world has there been a global, visible, public, open dialogue and conversation about the very legitimacy of war". He went on to say later: "There are now two superpowers: the United States and the merging, surging voice of the people of the world".
In our own country examples of differences of viewpoints, objectives, and solutions to problems between the official government stance and that of civil society as represented by NGOs are found in the final statements and actions following the major UN summits of the 90s, also in the respective reports of the CEDAW Monitoring Committee: there were significant differences and emphases between the approaches of officialdom and the grassroots - the latter often being more robust and idealistic.
Government ministers and ministries might well offer the criticism to NGOs that the latter do not have to have regard to providing the wherewithal - money, resources - to implement worthy goals, nor do they have to weigh up options pro bono publico, nor assign priorities in meeting peoples’ objectives. My answer to those criticisms would be that it’s up to the people to convince government officials that they must take the high moral ground in decisions on priorities, and consider possible reallocation of resources for traditional recipients of funding, such as some sections of the defence industry, or the administration wings of the health department.
In my view priority should be given to the Millennium Development Goals, which Gita Brooke has referred to in her paper. There was, somewhat surprisingly, a high level of conformity between the goals as expressed by the governments and those of the Millennium Forum, the Declaration and Agenda for action produced by the large gathering of civil society people when they met in May 2000, several months before the historic meeting and agreement of the heads of state at the Millennium Summit. It is up to civil society to monitor government’s performance in working towards the achievement of those goals - which include to eradicate poverty, achieve universal primary education, develop a global partnership for development, by 2015.
So what I believe is needed in the UN of the future is a more profound, and practical, working relationship between the assembly of governments - as the UN is now - and civil society. As Kofi Annan said: If the UN’s global agenda is to be properly addressed a partnership with civil society of not an option, it is a necessity".
Before I develop the peoples’ assembly theme I want to tell you what I believe to be the primary goal for any body of civil society representatives at the UN - and that is: to convince the General Assembly and in particular the Security Council Permanent 5 countries, by sound argument and persuasion, that the time has come for a major reconstuction of the UN system, so that key decision-making will be vested in the General Assembly, not in the Security Council.
Recently there have been several appeals to governments to invoke a "Uniting for Peace" type resolution, that could be put to the 191 members of the GA when the SC has reached an impasse. This resolution 377 was promoted first by the US in 1950, and again at the time of the Suez crisis to shame Britain and France to withdraw troops after both countries had attacked and occupied sections of the Suez Canal after it had been nationalized. The resolution has been used a number of times since, and would be a much more democratic way of proceeding than relying on the 15- member Security Council where moral and financial pressure can be exerted on the non-permanent member states, by the P5.
If the UN is to survive the present apparent setback in not having been able to keep the peace, this strong peoples’ voice must be steered into an effective instrument which will work in partnership with governments, but with an agenda that perhaps more truly reflects the dynamism of a vibrant civil society. It is quite anomalous in my view that the 5 strongest nuclear-weapon states - who were perceived to be the victors in the Second World War - should have the ultimate responsibility of deciding issues of world security. Even if their function has been temporarily usurped by their strongest member, that potential responsibility will remain if and when the UN regains its ascendancy as the world’s deliberating body, and the nations of the world return to rationality and respect for international law.
Because any amendment of the UN Charter which could herald a radical change in the relative powers of the Security Council and the General Assembly can only come about with the consent of the P5, it would seem that it will be up to civil society, when it develops the critical mass, to develop its organisation so effectively that it can convince those five countries to share their decision-making powers with many other countries, in consultation with the representatives of civil society.
To this end I want to conclude by commending to any individuals or organisation here the proposals offered at a large symposium held last year in Geneva, the World Civil Society Forum, by the UK group UNGA - Link. They are basically about a cooperative approach to world governance, and are:
When this ghastly war is over it will be up to the people of the world, and that means us, to capitalize on the momentum of the past few months, make their voices heard and their resolution acted upon, and ensure that from now on succeeding generations are indeed saved from the scourge of war.
Towards a Culture of Peace
Panel presentation by Gita Brooke, on behalf of
Operation Peace Through Unity, at the UNANZ Forum
The October 1999 UN General Assembly Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace calls on everyone - all of us - to become actively involved in the all-important enterprise of bringing about a culture which has peace at its heart. A decade, from 2001 to 2010, has been given us to transform the tumultuous era of conflict and confrontation into one of cooperative and constructive human relationships. And of course, such relationships depend not only on a willingness in principle, but also the will to follow principle by action.
The evidence of our willingness in principle, both on government and people level, has been clearly documented, from the birth of the United Nations onwards. The Charter itself carries the dream of war-exhausted nations, yearning for a world of peace and good neighbourliness. Since then documents and declarations, statements and resolutions have been piling up within the walls of this international institution, all agreed upon, and all in one way or another outlining how such a global neighbourhood could come about. The very first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 recognises that we are all " endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood".
In the1978 Final Document on Disarmament UN member states agreed that humanity was faced with the threat of self-destruction, due to "the massive and competitive accumulation of the most destructive weapons ever produced", and that such an arms race, with its enormous consumption of human and material resources, was not strengthening but indeed weakening international security. The document’s 112 paragraphs programme of action outlines how to go about the task of disarming.
Through the UN system humanity has made promises and pledges to protect its children and young ones from harm and see to it that all their physical, psychological and spiritual needs are met and given priority above all else. And each UN international conference brought more and more people, not just governments, together around special issues that concern us human beings, our societies, and the planetary environment to which we belong and are responsible for. Out of each of these conferences came declarations and plans of action.
At the threshold into the 21st century two important documents were agreed upon: one by all UN member states, the so-called "UN Millennium Declaration", and one by non-governmental organizations and civil society representatives from throughout the world, the "We the Peoples Millennium Forum Declaration and Agenda of Action". Perhaps these two documents could be seen as encapsulating our collective willingness - in principle - to create a better global neighbourhood.
Describing the United Nations as the indispensable common house of the entire human family the Millennium Declaration stresses that the UN’s capacity to inspire has increased in today’s interdependent and interconnected world. The Declaration also states that human beings should respect each other’s culture, language and beliefs, and that "differences within and between societies should be neither feared nor repressed, but cherished as a precious asset of humanity".
A culture of peace, says the Declaration, and dialogue among all civilizations, should be "actively promoted". These sentiments and commitments are echoed in the "We the Peoples" Forum document, which emphasizes the commitment of us peoples to cooperate with our governments to bring it all about. And before us, we have about eight more years of a decade earmarked for initiating a culture of peace and non-violence for the children of the world.
Maybe culture is the one word that could synthesize our mutual efforts and strivings to make this world a better and kinder place. Maybe it could help us connect with that source of energy we have in common, so that all the well-documented goodwill might come alive and become real will to good. Culture, in my understanding, is a word that takes us to a place where quality - not quantity - is emphasized. Culture makes us look for the beautiful, the magnificent, the best within each other, inspiring and encouraging us to express it in every way we can. In this way life in all its forms is revered - as well as the Giver of that life.
A world famous Russian painter, scientist, archeologist and great thinker from the beginning of the 20th century, Nicholas Roerich, worked tirelessly for what he called peace through culture. In 1935 the historical "Roerich Pact", was signed in Washington in the presence of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s, by USA and all the Pan-American member states.
This pact asks that all educational, artistic and scientific institutions will forever be protected in times of upheaval and warfare, as well as in times of peace, and its symbol - the Banner of Peace - would fly over all such centres safeguarding and promoting the spirit, the beauty and the knowledge of humanity. The symbol on this banner - three spheres surrounded by a circle - is an ancient one, interpreted in many ways and used by cultures throughout the ages and throughout the world. Roerich therefore saw it as the perfect symbol for a future culture in which all cultures are respected, celebrated and united.
While the Roerich Pact may be seen as an appeal to governments more than us people, the Manifesto 2000 pledge, formulated and signed by all then living Peace Prize Laureates, was perhaps more directly aimed at raising public awareness on the need for the commitment of us all to live by values indispensable for creating good neighbourhoods.
Based on the foundation of this pledge all our many campaigns, projects, resolutions and strivings towards building a better, fairer and more enlightened world can be united, and this unity be made visible through the banner of peace, which carries a symbol belonging to us all.
Peace Through Unity would therefore like to propose that institutions concerned with education on all levels, places of worship and of cultural significance, local government and government ministries etc. be informed of the Roerich initiative, the Banner of Peace and the Manifesto 2000; and that these institutions be encouraged to sign the following simple statement of commitment and display the banner of peace as a symbol of unity of purpose:
I/we hereby resolve to promote actively, consistently, and in every way possible the creation of a culture of peace, built upon the foundation of right human relations and the basic oneness of all life.
In accordance with Manifesto 2000, I/we make the solemn pledge to: respect all life; reject violence; share with others; listen to understand; preserve the planet; and rediscover solidarity."
We have laboured long and hard under a culture which has been alienating us from each other and taught us the skills of war. Yet, our willingness in principle to create a fairer, more tolerant and peaceful world is well documented. Plans and tools for action are in place. It is high time we put heart and soul into bringing about a culture, based on the fundamental truth of the oneness of all living beings - and for the love of humanity.
So be it.
[A report of the Forum Proceedings is being prepared and will be available at a small cost from the UNANZ office, Box 12 324 Wellington.]