History
Some historians identify a long-term trend where nation-states stop fighting and become united.[citation needed] For example, old Europe with wars culminating in World War I and World War II, compared with the European Union; warring Chinese states compared with the modern Chinese nation. Certain historians theorize that the whole world will eventually follow this pattern as well.
Dr. Frank Laubach, an American missionary to the Philippines in 1935 saw poverty, injustice and illiteracy as impediments to world peace. He developed the "Each One Teach One" literacy program which taught about 60 million people to read in their own language.
World peace is often claimed to be the inevitable result of some political ideology.[citation needed] Thus, communist thinkers such as Leon Trotsky assumed that the world revolution would lead to a communist world peace, and neoliberal thinkers such as Francis Fukuyama assumed that the rise of liberal democracy will inevitably lead to the "end of history".
The plausibility of world peace tacitly relies on the assumption of rational agents that base their decisions on future consequences, which is not self-evident. Bertrand Russell once expressed his scepticism regarding world peace:
After ages during which the earth produced harmless trilobites and butterflies, evolution progressed to the point at which it has generated Neros, Genghis Khans, and Hitlers. This, however, I believe is a passing nightmare; in time the earth will become again incapable of supporting life, and peace will return.1
The utopian ideal of conflict-free interaction between all humans (or even all sentient beings) is seen by some as highly improbable, due to the wide range of behaviour and personal circumstances that exist.[citation needed] Some people, acting in some manner, in some circumstances, are likely to get into a conflict over one thing or another. Indeed, the case can be made that if we did not conflict in any way with others, we would either be totally independent from them (rendering the issue moot) or we would have none of the individuality that makes us human.[citation needed]
Most interpretations of the concept are not so extreme, however. For one thing, there are many kinds of conflicts. If we only include armed conflicts, world peace may simply entail the resolution of all minor conflicts through nonviolent means (and possibly, the strong guarantee that this will always remain so—whatever is required for that). If, on the other hand, we interpret world peace as the total absence of things like trade conflicts or border disputes, achieving it becomes quite a bit more difficult.
The democratic peace theory
Proponents of the controversial democratic peace theory claim that strong empirical evidence exists that democracies never or rarely wage war against each other. One possible exception to this is Britain's reluctant declaration of war against Finland in December 1941 due to pressure from Stalin; however, this formal declaration was not followed by any battle. An increasing number of nations have become democratic since the industrial revolution. A world peace may thus become possible if this trend continues and if the democratic peace theory is correct.
Cobdenism
Proponents of Cobdenism claim that by removing tariffs and creating international free trade, wars would become impossible, because free trade prevents a nation from becoming self-sufficient, which is a requirement for long wars. For example, if one country produces firearms and another produces ammunition, the two could not fight each other, since the former would be unable to procure ammunition and the latter would be unable to obtain weapons. Critics argue that free trade does not prevent a nation from establishing some sort of emergency plan to become temporarily self-sufficient in case of war.
Mutual Assured Destruction or MAD
It has been noted that the number of deaths due to wars between nations as a fraction of world population has declined dramatically since the development of nuclear weapons. Proponents of the policy of mutual assured destruction during the Cold War attributed this to the increase in the lethality of war to the point where it no longer offers the possibility of a net gain for either side. This is why the cold war was never likely to get hot, though close calls were many and of wide variety throughout the "war". Author Tom Clancy states MAD very simply, with eight words- "You kill our innocent civilians, we'll kill yours."
World government
There are many different kinds of world governments that have been proposed. An argument often brought up in support of world government is that such an institution could have the power to prevent wars and establish world peace. [citation needed] Critics tend to focus on the question of whether world peace under the authority of a single government is a desirable goal. [citation needed] The biggest difficulty with a world government is that for the entire world to be truly controlled by a Ruling council or ruling party, then every country, every government, every person must submit to the idea. [citation needed] Naturally, there will be those strongly opposing the entire idea. [citation needed] This means that in reality, World peace via world government would only be possible if a true War to End all Wars took place [citation needed], taking anyone opposed to the World Government idea out of the picture, and then enabling true world peace, since the war would eradicate any and all opposition to anything, meaning there would no longer be any reason to have a war, or indeed anyone willing (or left) to fight the war. This idea, however, even poses more problems, dealing with what the World Government would see as terrorists. [citation needed] Those still opposed to the idea would form a militia and Civilian Army, and acting with a similar pattern to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups against this supposed "Enemy". This would cause a likely never-ending war of Attrition, one that these "terrorists" would fight in Guerilla patterns. These groups would use the Just War, citing the world government as a great and terrible evil, one that needs to be taken down. Similar principles are what the Jihad and terrorist groups use to justify their "Holy War" against the United States within the Middle East. [citation needed] In the end, World Government is a very unlikely option for world peace, one seemingly possible, just to prove impossible. [citation needed]
Isolationism
In contrast with world government, proponents of isolationism claim that a world made by many nations can survive as long as they each establish a stronger focus on domestic affairs and not try to impose their will on other nation's. Nations like China, and Japan are perhaps the best known for establishing isolationist policies in the past. The Japanese Edo, Tokugawa, initiated the Edo Period, an isolationist period where Japan cut itself off from the world as a whole. This is a well-known isolation period and well documented in many areas.
Self-Organized Peace
World Peace as seen as a consequence of local self-determined behaviours which inhibit the institutionalisation of power and subsequent violence. The solution is not so much based on an agreed agenda, let alone investment in higher authority, whether divine or political, but rather a self-organised network of mutual supporting mechanisms whose emergent phenomenon is a sustainable politico-economic social fabric. Such a realisation can only be brought about through a shared thought experiment by all participating subjectivities, inclusive of diversity, and is similar in significant ways to the formation and maintenance of Wikipedia.
Religious view of World Peace
Baha'i Faith
With specific regard to the pursuit of world peace, Baha'u'llah prescribed a world-embracing Collective Security arrangement as necessary for the establishment of a lasting peace. The Universal House of Justice wrote about the process in The Promise of World Peace.
Buddhists
Many Buddhists believe that world peace can only be achieved if we first establish peace within our minds. The idea is that anger and other negative states of mind are the cause of wars and fighting. They believe we can live in peace and harmony only if we abandon the anger in our minds and learn to love each other.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Challenges to peace
War and violence seem to be organic, and perhaps inevitable, features of human society, although generosity and altruism are perhaps predominant. In this vein, a desire for peace can be seen as a product of the evolution of human interrelations; clearly, peace is the self-sustaining choice for humankind.
Nonetheless, peace and justice may be viewed as contradictions in practical terms. If one believes that the only way to prevent injustice and create justice is by force, then one believes that justice requires hostilities, which precludes peace. Similarly, the clash of political interests has often been identified as a justification of war. The desire for power and advantage puts groups in opposition. This opposition naturally escalates as one side, and then the other, tries to gain advantages, sometimes culminating in violence and war. This effect is also seen in religious and ethnic groups. These groups see themselves as being oppressed and violence and war have often been rationalized as justified in defense of a culture or religion.
International Creed for Peace
The International Creed for Peace, created by Chika Sylva-Olejeme and the International Peace Institute, sets forth an agenda and moral code for the advancement of peace for all humans and nations. The creed suggests that based on realisation that independence, freedom and justice is inherent to all, peace is achieved when people fulfill their duty to choose, live and respect others.
Nobel Peace Prize
The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded annually to notable peacemakers and visionaries who have overcome violence, conflict or oppression through their moral leadership, those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations". The prize has often met with controversy, as it is occasionally awarded to people who have formerly sponsored war and violence but who have, through exceptional concessions, helped achieve peace
War and violence seem to be organic, and perhaps inevitable, features of human society, although generosity and altruism are perhaps predominant. In this vein, a desire for peace can be seen as a product of the evolution of human interrelations; clearly, peace is the self-sustaining choice for humankind.
Nonetheless, peace and justice may be viewed as contradictions in practical terms. If one believes that the only way to prevent injustice and create justice is by force, then one believes that justice requires hostilities, which precludes peace. Similarly, the clash of political interests has often been identified as a justification of war. The desire for power and advantage puts groups in opposition. This opposition naturally escalates as one side, and then the other, tries to gain advantages, sometimes culminating in violence and war. This effect is also seen in religious and ethnic groups. These groups see themselves as being oppressed and violence and war have often been rationalized as justified in defense of a culture or religion.
International Creed for Peace
The International Creed for Peace, created by Chika Sylva-Olejeme and the International Peace Institute, sets forth an agenda and moral code for the advancement of peace for all humans and nations. The creed suggests that based on realisation that independence, freedom and justice is inherent to all, peace is achieved when people fulfill their duty to choose, live and respect others.
Nobel Peace Prize
The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded annually to notable peacemakers and visionaries who have overcome violence, conflict or oppression through their moral leadership, those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations". The prize has often met with controversy, as it is occasionally awarded to people who have formerly sponsored war and violence but who have, through exceptional concessions, helped achieve peace
Peace in Different Languages
Historical examples and counter examples:
Allied propaganda billed the Great War in Europe as the "war to end all wars." Although the Allies won the war, the resulting "peace" Treaty of Versailles only set the stage for the even bloodier World War II. Before the Allied victory, the Bolsheviks promised the Russian people "peace, land, and bread." Although Vladimir Lenin ended the disastrous war against the Central Powers, the ensuing civil war resulted in a loss of over a million people. These failures illustrate the problems of using war in an effort to attain peace.
Proponents of the democratic peace theory argue that strong empirical evidence exists that democracies never or rarely make war against each other. An increasing number of nations have become democratic since the industrial revolution, and thus, they claim world peace may become possible if this trend continues. However, critics have disputed this, for example arguing that this could be explained by a number of other factors related to the wealth, power, and stability of nations that tend to become democracies, ranging from increased reliance on global trade to Mutually Assured Destruction.
Since 1945 the world has only seen 26 days without war.[6]
Although history is rife with conflict, some peoples, regions and nations have enjoyed periods of peace that have lasted generations. The following are some examples:
Sweden (1814–present). Sweden is the present-day nation state with the longest history of continuous peace. Since its 1814 invasion of Norway, the Swedish kingdom has not engaged in war.
Switzerland (1848–present). A hard stance on neutrality has given Switzerland fame as a country for its long-lasting peace.
Costa Rica (1949–present). Following a 44-day civil war in 1944, in 1949, Costa Rica abolished its army. Since then, its history has been peaceful, especially relative to those of neighboring Central American states. This has earned the country the nickname, "Switzerland of the Americas."
Pennsylvania (1682–1754). The colony of Pennsylvania enjoyed 72 years of peace, maintaining no army or militia and fighting no wars. Under the proprietorship of William Penn (1644–1718), a member of the Religious Society of Friends, the colony earned a reputation for religious and personal freedom, as well as for respectful dealings with Native Americans. Although somewhat a utopian experiment, the colony was not a utopia, marred with slavery, indentureship and class conflict. In addition, William Penn's heirs dealt less fairly with the Native Americans, especially in the Walking Purchase of 1737. Nevertheless, the colonial experience of Pennsylvania bears study as an example of a peaceful society.
Amish (1693–present). A sect of Anabaptists or Mennonites of predominantly Swiss/German descent, the Amish practice a peaceful lifestyle that includes religious devotion, resistance to technological advancement, and nonresistance. They rarely defend themselves physically or even in court; in war time, they take conscientious objector status. Today over 150,000 Amish live in close-knit communities in 47 states in the United States, as well as Canada and Belize.
Allied propaganda billed the Great War in Europe as the "war to end all wars." Although the Allies won the war, the resulting "peace" Treaty of Versailles only set the stage for the even bloodier World War II. Before the Allied victory, the Bolsheviks promised the Russian people "peace, land, and bread." Although Vladimir Lenin ended the disastrous war against the Central Powers, the ensuing civil war resulted in a loss of over a million people. These failures illustrate the problems of using war in an effort to attain peace.
Proponents of the democratic peace theory argue that strong empirical evidence exists that democracies never or rarely make war against each other. An increasing number of nations have become democratic since the industrial revolution, and thus, they claim world peace may become possible if this trend continues. However, critics have disputed this, for example arguing that this could be explained by a number of other factors related to the wealth, power, and stability of nations that tend to become democracies, ranging from increased reliance on global trade to Mutually Assured Destruction.
Since 1945 the world has only seen 26 days without war.[6]
Although history is rife with conflict, some peoples, regions and nations have enjoyed periods of peace that have lasted generations. The following are some examples:
Sweden (1814–present). Sweden is the present-day nation state with the longest history of continuous peace. Since its 1814 invasion of Norway, the Swedish kingdom has not engaged in war.
Switzerland (1848–present). A hard stance on neutrality has given Switzerland fame as a country for its long-lasting peace.
Costa Rica (1949–present). Following a 44-day civil war in 1944, in 1949, Costa Rica abolished its army. Since then, its history has been peaceful, especially relative to those of neighboring Central American states. This has earned the country the nickname, "Switzerland of the Americas."
Pennsylvania (1682–1754). The colony of Pennsylvania enjoyed 72 years of peace, maintaining no army or militia and fighting no wars. Under the proprietorship of William Penn (1644–1718), a member of the Religious Society of Friends, the colony earned a reputation for religious and personal freedom, as well as for respectful dealings with Native Americans. Although somewhat a utopian experiment, the colony was not a utopia, marred with slavery, indentureship and class conflict. In addition, William Penn's heirs dealt less fairly with the Native Americans, especially in the Walking Purchase of 1737. Nevertheless, the colonial experience of Pennsylvania bears study as an example of a peaceful society.
Amish (1693–present). A sect of Anabaptists or Mennonites of predominantly Swiss/German descent, the Amish practice a peaceful lifestyle that includes religious devotion, resistance to technological advancement, and nonresistance. They rarely defend themselves physically or even in court; in war time, they take conscientious objector status. Today over 150,000 Amish live in close-knit communities in 47 states in the United States, as well as Canada and Belize.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Understandings of Peace
Peace as the absence of violence
The traditional political definition of peace and the very word itself originated among the ancient Romans who defined peace, pax, as absentia belli, the absence of war.
Today, peace is often understood as the absence of war between two or more state-organized armies. Nonetheless, the concept of peace also applies to the state of people within their respective geopolitical entities, as civil war, state-sponsored genocide, terrorism, and other violence are all threats to peace on an intranational level. Since World War II, wars among states have become less common, while violent internal conflicts have become a more central concern. Present day Sudan, for example, is the site of widespread suffering and violence, despite its not being engaged in war with another sovereign state. Peace, in this context, is understood as the absence of violence among groups, whether part of a state apparatus or not.
This conception of peace as a mere absence of overt violence, however, is still challenged by some as incomplete. Influential peace researcher Johan Galtung has described this former conception of peace as "negative peace",[1] suggesting that underlying points of conflict must themselves be resolved in order for true peace to exist.
Peace as the presence of justice
Mahatma Gandhi suggested that if an oppressive society lacks violence, the society is nonetheless not peaceful, because of the injustice of the oppression. Gandhi articulated a vision of peace in which justice is an inherent and necessary aspect; that peace requires not only the absence of violence but also the presence of justice. Galtung described this peace, peace with justice, as "positive peace," because hostility and further violence could no longer flourish in this environment.
During the 1950s and 60s, when Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement carried out various non-violent activities aimed at ending segregation and racial persecution in America, they understood peace as more than just the absence of violence. They observed that while there was not open combat between blacks and whites, there was an unjust system in place in which the government deprived African Americans of equal rights. While some opponents criticized the activists for "disturbing the peace", Martin Luther King observed that "True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice."
Galtung coined the term structural violence to refer to such situations, which although not violent on the surface, harbor systematic oppression and injustice.
Peace as Salaam
Orthodox Muslims--as submitters to the will of only one eternal being--Allah; believe that mankind is born in a state of Islam--peaceful, full of love, and unadulterated; but unfortunately it is his/her polluted Environment (along with the Shaytan and Jinns), which lead mankind astray from the straight path of Islam. This is why Muslims are required to do Dawah to promote Islam's peaceful message of Social Justice to spread peace throughout the Earth through the truth revealed in the Holy Quran; and complemented by the Hadith.
Peace and development
One concept or idea that often complements peace studies is development. In much development discourse, it is assumed that economic, cultural, and political development will take "underdeveloped" nations and peoples out of poverty, thus helping bring about a more peaceful world. As such, many international development agencies carry out projects funded by the governments of industrialized countries such as the United States, Japan, and Norway, designed to "modernize" poor countries.
The traditional political definition of peace and the very word itself originated among the ancient Romans who defined peace, pax, as absentia belli, the absence of war.
Today, peace is often understood as the absence of war between two or more state-organized armies. Nonetheless, the concept of peace also applies to the state of people within their respective geopolitical entities, as civil war, state-sponsored genocide, terrorism, and other violence are all threats to peace on an intranational level. Since World War II, wars among states have become less common, while violent internal conflicts have become a more central concern. Present day Sudan, for example, is the site of widespread suffering and violence, despite its not being engaged in war with another sovereign state. Peace, in this context, is understood as the absence of violence among groups, whether part of a state apparatus or not.
This conception of peace as a mere absence of overt violence, however, is still challenged by some as incomplete. Influential peace researcher Johan Galtung has described this former conception of peace as "negative peace",[1] suggesting that underlying points of conflict must themselves be resolved in order for true peace to exist.
Peace as the presence of justice
Mahatma Gandhi suggested that if an oppressive society lacks violence, the society is nonetheless not peaceful, because of the injustice of the oppression. Gandhi articulated a vision of peace in which justice is an inherent and necessary aspect; that peace requires not only the absence of violence but also the presence of justice. Galtung described this peace, peace with justice, as "positive peace," because hostility and further violence could no longer flourish in this environment.
During the 1950s and 60s, when Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement carried out various non-violent activities aimed at ending segregation and racial persecution in America, they understood peace as more than just the absence of violence. They observed that while there was not open combat between blacks and whites, there was an unjust system in place in which the government deprived African Americans of equal rights. While some opponents criticized the activists for "disturbing the peace", Martin Luther King observed that "True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice."
Galtung coined the term structural violence to refer to such situations, which although not violent on the surface, harbor systematic oppression and injustice.
Peace as Salaam
Orthodox Muslims--as submitters to the will of only one eternal being--Allah; believe that mankind is born in a state of Islam--peaceful, full of love, and unadulterated; but unfortunately it is his/her polluted Environment (along with the Shaytan and Jinns), which lead mankind astray from the straight path of Islam. This is why Muslims are required to do Dawah to promote Islam's peaceful message of Social Justice to spread peace throughout the Earth through the truth revealed in the Holy Quran; and complemented by the Hadith.
Peace and development
One concept or idea that often complements peace studies is development. In much development discourse, it is assumed that economic, cultural, and political development will take "underdeveloped" nations and peoples out of poverty, thus helping bring about a more peaceful world. As such, many international development agencies carry out projects funded by the governments of industrialized countries such as the United States, Japan, and Norway, designed to "modernize" poor countries.
PEACE
Peace is a state of harmony, the absence of hostility. This term is applied to describe a cessation of or lapse in violent international conflict; in this international context, peace is the opposite of war. Peace can also describe a relationship between any parties characterized by respect, justice, and goodwill.
More generally, peace can pertain to an individual relative to her or his environment, as peaceful can describe calm, serenity, and silence. This latter understanding of peace can also pertain to an individual's sense of himself or herself, as to be "at peace" with one's self would indicate the same serenity, calm, and equilibrium within oneself.
More generally, peace can pertain to an individual relative to her or his environment, as peaceful can describe calm, serenity, and silence. This latter understanding of peace can also pertain to an individual's sense of himself or herself, as to be "at peace" with one's self would indicate the same serenity, calm, and equilibrium within oneself.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)