- Useful
Links on the Internet
- A Few Statistics
Documents :
1. Summaries of the Debate per Theme 
| 
2. Contributions by the School of Peace to Each Theme of the Debate
|
3. Weekly Summaries
|
4. Weekly Summaries: Abstracts
|
In this document:
Communication Is the First Step in the Art of
Coexistence
We were left wondering about
the roots of violence
|
|
Summary of the Pax Forum Debates
|
Communication Is the First Step in the
Art of Coexistence
The “Building Peace” Forum was initiated in December
2001. Given the psychological impact of the terrorist attacks on
September 11th of that year and their aftermath, it seemed logical
for its organizers to begin the discussion around an event that
was directly related to peace and war. An introductory phase enabled
many participants to introduce themselves before tackling the formal
discussion that was to follow. The conversation on the September
events allowed many participants to speak openly about something
that many of us took to heart and that had left a great majority
of us in shock. In a sense, this debate had a therapeutic dimension
to it, as it allowed emotions to be expressed on a topic –
peace – which, we all too often forget, cannot be confined
to the narrow frontiers of pure rationality.
We were left wondering about the roots of violence
The reactions to the September events were almost unanimous in
their condemnation of the attacks. One participant did admit to
feeling some satisfaction when seeing that the “empire”
had been hit and several voices were heard that judged U.S. policies
themselves as generating some form of retaliation. Another participant,
who had been an eyewitness to the attacks, gave a gripping first-hand
account of that fateful day, reminding all of us that the consequences
of such acts affect innocent individuals and not just responsible
governments.
While everyone agreed that the killing of innocent people is a terrible
thing, there were some who felt that one should not condemn terrorism
outright. For one thing, many countries, including the U.S., enact
policies that could qualify as policies of terror. Secondly, weak
countries often do not have any other recourse against overwhelming
power than means otherwise considered to be illegitimate. In essence,
then, the discussion pointed from the start to an inescapable truth,
namely, that the problem of peace and war is often more complex
than meets the eye. Already, certain themes were raised that would
be present throughout the discussion. One of these was the problem
of inequality, including the gap between the North and the South,
a problem that many saw as being at the root of violence. Another
theme that would be debated in more detail was the inefficiency
of governments to deal with the problem of violence and war. Generally,
the issue of the root causes of violence was considered to be a
fundamental one. 
Humankind and the Biosphere
After this introductory session, we moved on to one of the four
formal themes of the forum. From a practical standpoint, each theme
was discussed during a three-week period, each followed by a one-week
«coffee break,» which allowed for less formal interaction
among participants. Generally, the third week of each debate proved
the most active. The first theme dealt with “Humankind, the
Biosphere, and Peace.” The general question put to the forum
was the following: What does the way in which we humans relate to
our biosphere have to do with building lasting peace? The three-week
discussion logically took two lines, which ultimately joined one
another. The first issue dealt with humankind’s relationship
with the biosphere. The second issue tried to establish the link
between that first topic and the building of a lasting peace. Regarding humankind and the biosphere, it was generally agreed
that we need to focus on this problem in a serious manner. For various
reasons, energy seemed to be the running theme of the discussion.
The way in which the world has so far consistently wasted fossil
fuels that are nonrenewable illustrates humanity’s unhealthy
relationship to the biosphere. The main culprit of this myopic vision
has been caused in great part by the short-term gains sought by
governments and companies big and small, in terms of both political
and financial rewards. While we can pinpoint ignorance as a cause
of this global disaster when we talk about the early stages of the
industrial revolution, this is no longer the case today. Indeed,
there are many environment-friendly energy sources—solar energy,
wind, and water among them—which are well-known by energy
experts but are still dramatically underutilized. Because large
companies, including oil companies, are reluctant to look to other
energy sources, and because the nature of governments, including
in democracies, make them adverse to changing current policies,
there has to be another engine for change.
Energy, for one, is a source of conflict
It is a well-known fact that the competition for natural resources,
including energy and water, is a source of conflict, sometimes even
violent conflict. In this perspective, the appetite of industrialized
nations can often provoke conflicts in the developing world, as
we have witnessed for example in Africa. Since the demand for natural
resources is ever greater while supplies are dwindling, we may have
reason for pessimism in the future. Will we only learn our lessons
after some cataclysmic conflict? Or will we be able to control this
fight for resources?
In the midst of this dire reality, many entertain hope; indeed,
for some, there is no doubt that things will evolve for the better:
through greater awareness, through global consciousness in environmental
matters, sustainable development may indeed become a source for
peace. If, as some suggest, we are on the brink of a revolution
of consciousness, this might indicate that humanity may be about
to take a great evolutionary leap forward. Since each of us longs
in the end for universal peace, our collective consciousness might
constitute our great hope for the future of humanity and the biosphere.
Even if sustainable development were fully embraced as a goal by
the entire world, however, it might not eliminate the root causes
of war. Still, it might achieve a greater degree of fairness in
allowing access to basic resources for a decent life, which is an
important end in itself and might reduce certain frictions that
can translate into conflict.
Socio-economy of Solidarity
From the biosphere, we then moved on to the issue of economics
and society, more specifically, we asked the following question:
What is a “socio-economy of solidarity” and what does
it have to do with building peace? Before giving an answer, participants
felt that we first needed to identify the problem. Hence, several
issues were raised. For instance: Would establishing a socio-economy
of solidarity promote peace? Are there really alternatives to the
prevailing economic model? Is peace dependent on reducing inequalities
at every level and on a more equitable economic system? What are
the different things an ordinary person can do to foster a socio-economy
of solidarity? Is terrorism directly related to poverty? Do women
have a particular role to play in local development?
From these fundamental questions, there also emerged three main
definitions for a socio-economy of solidarity. Some saw that such
an economy is no longer separated from society and culture, and
thus acts as a support structure for peace and sustainability. Others
looked to socioeconomic solidarity as an alternative to “liberal”
and “neo-liberal” economic conceptions, in other words,
an alternative to a system of free-market trade, which causes poverty
and consequently extinguishes the cultivation of peaceful societies.
Finally, some saw the idea of a socio-economy of solidarity as something
that provides an alternative to corrupt governments and an alternative
to the promotion of inequality at the state level.
Finding a balance between contradictory economic needs and differing
cultural values
Most participants agreed that the clearest route to achieving socioeconomic
solidarity and global economic impartiality, is the coexistence
of fair justice and fair trade. The ingredients for a recipe such
as this calls for participation, that of transnational organizations,
state governments, nongovernmental organizations and, most certainly,
civil society, individual citizens, and consumers. On the shoulders
of the large organizations fall the responsibilities of creating
the structure of fair-trade practices and facilitating its implementation.
This framework would necessarily be established by creating a balance
between effective economic policy and ethical trade practices. The
supporting structure to this balance would be an incorporated equilibrium
between contradictory economic needs and differing cultural value
systems. Fair-trade practices would include accurate pricing and
the availability of information on the reasons behind the prices
established, thus enabling responsible, ethical consumerism.
Because the problem is a global one, it can be expected that effectuating
change will require the involvement of various international bodies
that possess the ability to act as catalysts. The use of transnational
actors, such as the World Trade Organization, to implement and enforce
an international legal system that adheres to the goals of fair
trade and fair justice would be imperative to the success of such
a striving endeavor. The role of nongovernmental organizations to
ensure fair play, accurate representation, and impartial international
investment would be an equally vital inclusion.
Governance
The third debate dealt with the issue of governance, a fairly recent
concept, the definition of which does not have everyone’s
agreement, some preferring to use the generic notion of “government.”
Thus the general question we put to the forum was the following:
What is governance, what is our role in it, and how, exactly, does
it relate to building peace? We defined governance as a broad concept
that takes into account and tries to explain the mutations of the
international system, interdependence, the complex nature of the
relations between the local and the global, and the multiplication
of state and non-state actors. For the purpose of this discussion,
we understood governance as a political and social regulation system
that does not rely on governments alone.
The issue of government responsibility pervaded the whole debate
on peace. After all, governments, in large part, hold the means
and the power to use violence, and often have the resources to avoid
it. Two main questions were raised regarding governments: legitimacy
and capability. In effect, do governments have the legitimacy to
make war and peace, and do they have the know-how? There seemed
to be a general consensus that a legitimate government is, in essence,
democratic.
Of course, this brings up the question: What is, in effect, a democratic
government? Generally, it is one with high participation of both
individuals and civil society. Essentially, in order for democracy
to rid us of bad governance, today’s form of democracy needs
to be improved and reinforced where it has taken root; at the same
time, it must gain new territories in order to fight half-democratic
governments, wholly undemocratic governments, and non-state actors
that garner power, but do not function democratically, including
multinational corporations, some of which increasingly perform in
a world where economic power is gaining ground relative to political
power.
How to make everyone’s interests prevail simultaneously
Then comes the issue of know-how. It seems clear to the naked eye
that governments are, in large part, ineffectual when it comes to
resolving conflicts. Although greater participation in decision
making by citizens might bring about much needed common sense, this
might not be enough. Indeed, as with young children, decision makers
must also be educated in the art of making peace and resolving conflicts.
Today, in addition to the problem of bad governance, we must also
deal with the issue of the ill-equipped structure of governance
to meet the needs brought upon by globalization, i.e. the rigidity
of national frontiers.
The construction of global economic and cultural communities has
outpaced the construction of a global political community. To date,
it seems that the global political community has developed around
the core principle of strength, giving way to inequalities. We are
lacking global democracy, but how can we generate one? Some suggested
the idea of setting up a World Parliament, while others preferred
to work with what already exists with the United Nations Organization.
Many agree that such changes can be brought about most effectively
via pressure from the global civil society, and possibly the organization
of a large summit on global governance. The concept of active subsidiarity
seemed to be an attractive alternative to traditional systems of
governance. Active subsidiarity takes into account different scales
of governance -, local, national, global – simultaneously,
in order for everyone’s interests to be taken into account
without contradicting each other.
Culture, Values, Art, and Education
The final debate on culture, values, art, education, and peace
concluded the formal discussion. The question raised was: Art, Values,
Culture, Education, and Peace Building: Are All These Related? How?
The vital role of education to the peace process echoed throughout
this last discussion, as it had from the beginning of our forum.
Many consider proper education as the key to the future of humankind,
and our participants did not leave us wondering what constitutes
the definition of “a proper education.” It should teach
responsibility and critical thought; it should permit humankind
to evolve and progress. In short, education should promote the values
of a democratic society. Education for peace starts with children.
Before school, it is families who have the primary role in instilling
values of peace to small children. But schools also have to change
in basic ways if we are to educate children so that they are for
rather than against one another, so that they develop the ability
to resolve their conflicts constructively rather than destructively
and are prepared to live in a peaceful world.
Imagination, flexibility of mind, and openness constitute some of
the qualities that need to be developed in individuals and which
might enhance the creation of a real culture of peace. In essence,
then, students should have the experience of working together cooperatively
in a way that enables them to develop the attitudes, knowledge,
and skills that foster effective interpersonal, intergroup, and
international cooperation. They should learn how to turn conflicts
into mutual problems to be resolved cooperatively. This would enable
them to cooperate with others in resolving constructively the inevitable
conflicts that will occur among and within nations, ethnic groups,
communities, and families. Then, and only then perhaps, will these
students develop into responsible adults capable of resolving conflict
in a cogent, constructive, and imaginative fashion.
Culture plays a great role in our understanding of war and peace,
and art defines our culture in many ways. Art interprets our thoughts
and our experiences, collectively representing our world. Consequently,
art is political. We know about art as an instrument of propaganda
for war. However, art can also promote peace by serving as a vessel
in pursuit of the truth. Other elements of culture play a role.
Science, for instance, has enabled us to know our environment and,
hence, to act to improve it. While it is true that many scientific
discoveries have been made through the process of building weapons,
the application of scientific findings have also modified our global
environment both economically and socially, the Internet being only
one example on a long list.
To be actively involved, daily, everywhere ...
A world that propagates a global culture of peace and tolerance
of diversity is, in effect, one that generates a “universal
culture.” Since, by default, a universal culture follows a
set of “universal values,” it is ever more important
to define, apply and assimilate these values. Where one speaks about
universal values, one must speak about what it means to be a citizen
of the world. To be a citizen of the world means quite simply to
be actively involved, daily and everywhere where one can act for
the edification of the world, of a world where each and everyone
knows and feels individually and socially responsible for others
and contributes to the well-being of all in the unity that gathers
and the diversity that enriches us.
It is undeniable that the establishment of a global culture of peace
must foster greater cross-cultural contacts while developing ties
between nations and peoples at many levels. This objective rejoins
the idea of creating a global civil society that transcends national
frontiers and enhances democratic values around the world.
Thus ended the formal discussion of the forum. To wrap up the discussion,
the last month of the debate was devoted to an overall evaluation
of the forum, by participants and organizers alike, an evaluation
that allowed all of us to share our overall sentiments about the
discussion and more generally about peace and ways to attain it.
Final Words
Two questions were posed to initiate this last conversation and
allow people to reflect on the last few months : How do you feel
about the September 11 events and their aftermath now? Has this
forum made any difference to you? There were many responses. Some
were very personal and even emotional. Several participants told
us about the way in which the forum may have changed their lives
a bit, perhaps by encouraging them to participate in other initiatives
on peace, perhaps by pushing them to put together projects at the
local level. The diversity of opinions and views was considered
unanimously to have been a big bonus. Some participants looked to
the future to envision what the next stage might be, in fact asking
and responding to another fundamental question: What now? Generally,
a majority of the contributors had a positive feeling about the
forum.
Nevertheless, there were also a few participants who were more critical,
arguing that the whole discussion lacked direction and that we may
have tried to do too many things without accomplishing a lot. As
if to respond to this criticism, several people proposed to launch
some new initiatives, for instance the establishment of a free online
access to a conflict-management and resolution-skills resource center,
which would provide advice to people or groups facing conflict.
Peace education is at the top of the agenda
Others asked that this forum be used to launch other projects or
to start petitions. There was a call to demand an Earth Charter
at the upcoming Earth Summit. Someone suggested that we focus on
certain themes debated during the forum, such as the prevention
of conflict in Africa, going so far as to propose the creation of
a permanent council on the prevention of conflict in the 21st century.
All these ideas, and more, illustrate the fact that there is a need
to get organized at the grassroots level, the only manner really
to fill the wide gaps left open by inefficient and narrow-minded
governments.
Generally, the need to improve the peace education of future generations
seemed to be at the top of everyone’s agenda, a feeling that
illustrated what has to be the most important theme of the forum:
education. All these ideas, and others, give us hope that the forum
is perhaps but the start of various new projects that may help build
a solid basis for a universal culture of peace. Since the opening of the discussion, many ideas were brought to
the fore, many questions were raised and many problems remained
unresolved. Without bringing a definitive answer to the complex
problem of peace, this forum showed that the will to find answers
runs strong and that practical solutions do exist. As we are all
too aware, in this day and age, good communication is fundamental
if we want to build our future together and make it free of conflict.
|
