Japanese organization Nihon Hidankyo waws today awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Credit: Niklas Elmehed/Nobel Prize
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 11 2024 (IPS) – The United Nations Secretary General António Guterres congratulated grassroots Japanese organization Nihon Hidankyo on being awarded the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize.
“The atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, also known as the hibakusha, are selfless, soul-bearing witnesses of the horrific human cost of nuclear weapons,” he said in a statement.
“While their numbers grow smaller each year, the relentless work and resilience of the hibakusha are the backbone of the global nuclear disarmament movement.”
The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the 2024 Peace Prize for “its efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and for demonstrating through witness testimony that nuclear weapons must never be used again.”
The committee said the global movement arose in response to the atom bomb attacks of August 1945.
“The testimony of the Hibakusha—the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—is unique in this larger context. These historical witnesses have helped to generate and consolidate widespread opposition to nuclear weapons around the world by drawing on personal stories, creating educational campaigns based on their own experience, and issuing urgent warnings against the spread and use of nuclear weapons. The Hibakusha help us to describe the indescribable, to think the unthinkable, and to somehow grasp the incomprehensible pain and suffering caused by nuclear weapons.”
It singled out Nihon Hidankyo, who reportedly cried following the announcement and other representatives of the Hibakusha to have contributed greatly to the establishment of the “nuclear taboo.”
The Norwegian Nobel Committee acknowledged one encouraging fact: “No nuclear weapon has been used in war in nearly 80 years.”
The award comes as the world prepares to mark 80 years since two American atomic bombs killed an estimated 120 000 inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A comparable number died of burn and radiation injuries in the months and years that followed.
“Today’s nuclear weapons have far greater destructive power. They can kill millions and would impact the climate catastrophically. A nuclear war could destroy our civilization,” the committee said.
“The fates of those who survived the infernos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were long concealed and neglected. In 1956, local Hibakusha associations along with victims of nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific formed the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations. This name was shortened in Japanese to Nihon Hidankyo. It would become the largest and most influential Hibakusha organisation in Japan.”
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 fulfills Alfred Nobel’s desire to recognize efforts of the greatest benefit to humankind.
Guterres said he would “never forget my many meetings with them over the years. Their haunting living testimony reminds the world that the nuclear threat is not confined to history books. Nuclear weapons remain a clear and present danger to humanity, once again appearing in the daily rhetoric of international relations.”
He said the only way to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons is to eliminate them altogether. IPS UN Bureau Report
Damage caused after shelling in Mariupol, in southeastern Ukraine.Credit: UNICEF/Evegeniy Maloletka
MOSCOW, Oct 11 2024 (IPS) – Russia is pursuing, during these contemporary times, a new form of economic architecture, non-hegemonic policies and simultaneously portraying its first-class military power in the world. Russia’s development paradigm is distinctively different and largely oriented towards Global South.
While Russia stands against Western hegemony and dominance, and against NATO, Israel maintains a complex relationship between the United States characterized by deep-rooted historical ties.
But a closer examination also glaringly shows Russia and Israel have in common a depopulation agenda, Russia is demilitarizing its neighbour Ukraine, both were closely-knitted republics in the Soviet times, while Israel aims at settling on Palestine territory.
Russia referred to its war with Ukraine as a ‘special military operation’ which it began on 24th February 2022 soon after Federation Council and the State Duma approved (both houses of legislators). It has since been reviewing ‘peace initiatives’ offered by China, South Africa and many others. Brazil and India are currently pushing for a peace summit. In the case of Israel, it has completely brushed aside the ‘two-state’ resolution by the United Nations.
The United States has extended a combination of different kinds of support to Israel since its recognition after its establishment in 1948. The general perception is that throughout the 20th century, particularly during the Cold War, the United States viewed Israel as a crucial ally against common enemies such as Nazism and communism.
Furthermore, it has provided significant military aid to Israel, approximately $3.8 billion annually. Based upon these and without doubts, Israel therefore represents United States strategic interests in the region.
With the escalation of Israel war in the region, Russia has started talking about peace initiatives, in contrast to its accepting peace initiatives in the case of Ukraine. Russia has voiced concerns over potential Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Russia and Iran have excellent relations.
Earlier, a number of foreign media outlets reported that Israel might attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in retaliation for its earlier massive missile strike. Meanwhile, the United States has indicated that it did not support this idea.
With the conflict continuing and showing signs of disastrous consequences including in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, Russia gave a more realistic warning in early October, especially to its citizens in Israel. Latest Israeli airstrikes attack on the vicinity of Russia’s Khmeimim base in Syria necessitated Kremlin to order its estimated 1.5 million citizens to immediately leave Israel.
It further warned its people to get out before it’s too late. Something big was coming. Russia also evacuated citizens from Lebanon. The perception was that Russia was first neutral and played the double games with Israel as a means to protect its citizens, and also has little moral to advocate for peace between Israel and Palestine.
Palestine-Israeli conflict, which began in October 2023, has received global condemnations. At first, Russia has been extra-cautious talking about the Palestine-Israeli situation because of two main factors. The first is connected to its own military bombardment of Ukraine, distinctive similar to Ukraine.
South Africa has not raised genocide allegations in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, though. As the developments at the Gaza Strip show, it has taken on the genocide case triggered by a disproportionate military response or the high number of Palestinian casualties.
Then, the second point is Russia has an excellent relationship with Israel that it found it extremely difficult to publicly condemned Israel’s atrocities on Palestine. Russia and Israel have been strengthening their bilateral relations.
Both have stressed the importance of continuing active work in all areas of bilateral cooperation and the development of economic and trade, scientific, and cultural spheres, despite the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, and specifically between Palestine and Israel. Russia, at the initial stages suggested adopting measures to undertake a broad dialogue in ensuring territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Putin, as far back, on October 2023, expressed Russia’s sincere condolences to the families and friends of the Israeli victims. In addition, he warned about further escalation of violence and to avert a humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip. In particular, he informed the Israeli side of the key points of the telephone conversation with the leaders of Palestine, Egypt, Iran and Syria.
Besides warning, Russia’s principled commitment to continue its work to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and achieve a peaceful settlement through political and diplomatic means was reaffirmed.
It was only quite recently, in December last year, that Russian President Vladimir Putin has reiterated Russia’s principled position in rejecting and condemning terrorist in all of its manifestations, the Kremlin press service said after his phone calls with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“The conversation focused on the situation in the zone of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and, in particular, on the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. Vladimir Putin reiterated the principled position of rejecting and condemning terrorism in all of its manifestations. Along with that, it is extremely important to ensure that efforts against terrorist threats do not entail such severe consequences for the civilian population,” it said.
The situation in the zone of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was among the central topics during Putin’s talks with the Saudi Crown Prince and the Presidents of the United Arab Emirates, Iran, and Egypt earlier in December 2023. Israel declared a total blockade of the Gaza Strip and launched bombardments of the enclave and some areas in Lebanon and Syria, as well as a ground operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Late January, the Israel Defense Forces has stormed a number of cities in the West Bank in sharp escalated battles with Palestinian resistance, according several media reports including Al Jazeera. Israel has declared a complete siege of the Gaza Strip. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Egypt and Jordan have also submitted settlement proposals for the Gaza Strip.
The Middle East is becoming a new arena of geopolitical confrontation. And Russian experts on the Middle-East issues have been up and offering their views since the conflicted October 7, the beginning of the conflict. The experts maintained that Russia has been actively building up its relations with countries across the Middle East in the context of resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Middle East expert Andrey Ontikov told Izvestia newspaper that if the Europeans and Americans truly wanted to promote the idea of a two-state solution, they could put some pressure on Israel’s leadership.
“While a part of the elite is committed to the idea of establishing an independent Palestinian state, others believe that the [window of] time for this has been lost. Much will depend on the outcome of the war,” he said, adding that resolving the Palestinian issue politically would depend on both the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves, Dmitry Mariyasis, leading researcher with the Department of Israel Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Oriental Studies.
According to experts interviewed by Russia’s Izvestia newspaper, Moscow’s goal here is to find partner support in its confrontation with the West, including in Ukraine. Finding ways to reduce tensions not only between the Jewish state and radical Palestinian movement Hamas, but also in the region as a whole became a key topic of discussion at a special meeting of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
On 28th December 2023, Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov praised Netanyahu for not criticizing Russia in public statements regarding the ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine. Lavrov said that Russia’s goals of “demilitarization” and “denazification” in Ukraine were similar to Israel’s stated goals of defeating Hamas and extremism in Gaza.
Excerpts from the briefing held on 12th January 2024, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova expressed absolute regret over the massive civilian casualties in the current escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. “Russia proceeds from the unacceptability of targeted violence against civilians and the deliberate destruction of medical facilities and other civilian infrastructure.”
“Our country calls for strict compliance with international law, an immediate ceasefire in accordance with the decisions of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly,” argued Zakharova, while she closed her eyes on the consequences of the Russia-Ukraine conflict which began 24th February 2022.
In a nutshell, Russia has appreciable multifaceted relations with Israel these several years, just as it has with South Africa. But what seems to be important for the Kremlin is readiness to provide possible assistance to alleviate the suffering of civilians and de-escalate the conflict.
In the Kremlin, President Vladimir Putin’s comments on Palestine-Israeli was in addition to reaffirm its principled position on the essence to avoid such grave consequences for the civilian population while countering terrorist threats. In short, there would not be any attempt, not even the least sign in the near future, to sever decades-old relations between Israel and Russia.
Kester Kenn Klomegah focuses on current geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development-related questions in Africa with external countries. Most of his well-resourced articles are reprinted in several reputable foreign media.
President Masoud Pezeshkian of Iran addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s 79th session in September 2024. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe
WASHINGTON DC/OXFORD, Oct 9 2024 (IPS) – How will Israel respond to Iran’s recent ballistic missiles barrage? “Strategic patience” is the best course. Israel has its hands full with Hamas and Hezbollah. Now is not the time to escalate a new major war with Iran, which could have nuclear implications.
Israeli intelligence is still chafing from its failure to preempt Hamas’ attack on October 7, which killed 1,200 Israelis. In the year since Hamas attacked, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) launched operations that killed 41,000 Palestinians.
Its response has been brutal yet ineffective. Israel failed to capture the Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar or gain the release of more than 100 Israeli hostages. A humanitarian catastrophe led to the starvation and displacement of more than 2 million people.
The IDF since taken a big step to redeem its tarnished reputation by deterring Iran’s missiles strikes. The “iron dome” repelled 190 ballistic missiles fired by Iran last week. Israel repelled another attack on April 13 involving 300 missile and attack drones, which caused little damage.
Iran was embarrassed by the sequence of events, which went far beyond its failed missile attacks. I know from Javad Zarif, Iran’s former foreign minister, that Persian pride is important to Iranians. Iran faced many setbacks in the past year. President Ibrahim Raisi died in a fiery helicopter crash.
Masoud Pezeshkian, who supports engagement with the United States, gained a plurality of the popular vote and became Iran’s president. The outcome was a rebuke to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime.
No event affected Iran more than the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. Nasrallah was a friend of and served as Iran’s most steadfast proxy for more than 30 years. Nasrallah was killed in an air strike in Beirut by 2,000 pound-bunker buster bombs that devastated the Southern Beirut neighborhood of Dahiyeh.
The air strike was another indignity following Israel’s sabotage of Hezbollah pagers and walkie-talkies that killed scores of Hezbollah commanders and disabled its communications system.
Hezbollah’s mythical reputation for battlefield prowess was shattered. Hezbollah was the most significant of Iran’s proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Nasrallah fought ISIS, defended Bashar al-Assad in Syria’s civil war, and did the regime’s dirty work around the world.
Fearing his own assassination, Khamenei was removed to a secure location. He emerged in time for Friday prayers to defend Iran’s missile strikes on Israel as “correct, logical, and lawful” and to condemn Israel’s “astonishing crimes”.
Nasrallah’s death was a big blow to the Iranian regime. Iran was further humiliated by the assassination of Ismail Haniya, a senior Hamas figure staying in an official guest house while attending Raisi’s funeral in Tehran.
Netanyahu warned that no place in the Middle East is safe from Israel’s security services. He was right. In addition, economic sanctions have taken their toll on Iranians. Sanctions relief is a distant dream as the US and G7 allies tighten the screws on Iran’s economy.
Israel-Iran relations are at a fork in the road. President Joe Biden has urged Netanyahu to consider “alternatives” to attacking Iranian nuclear sites or destroying Iran’s oil infrastructure. There is an alternative conflict escalation.
Netanyahu and Khamenei should consider a new approach now that the shadow war is out in the open. Diplomacy would require assurances from Israel that it won’t launch a first strike against Iran. In turn, Iran must guarantee that its nuclear program won’t be weaponized.
Discreet discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency would advance safeguards, including spot inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites and the reactivation of electronic surveillance. For sure, Israel will continue operations in Gaza. Israel will hunt Sinwar until he is eliminated. It cannot countenance another October 7.
In Lebanon, Israel has succeeded in killing Nasrallah and eliminating half of Hezbollah’s 150,000 missiles. Its ground operation in Southern Lebanon cannot be open-ended. Having a failed state on Israel’s northern border would result in continued instability and risk.
Regional progress would be impossible with a new front between Israel and Iran. Strategic patience means that Israel would bide its time until there is an opportunity for diplomatic progress. Diplomacy and de-escalation are preferable to war without end.
David L. Phillips is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Security Studies Program and a Visiting Research Scholar at Oxford University.
The panel for the session on “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World without Nuclear Weapons.” Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS
PARIS, Sep 27 2024 (IPS) – In any discussion of world peace and the future of humanity, the issue of nuclear arms must be addressed, and now.
That was the message from a range of delegates at the “Imaginer la Paix / Imagine Peace” conference, held in Paris September 22 to 24, and organized by the Sant’Egidio Community, a Christian organization founded in Rome in 1968 and now based in 70 countries.
Describing its tenets as “Prayer, service to the Poor and work for Peace,” the community has hosted 38 international, multi-faith peace meetings, bringing together activists from around the world. This is the first time the conference has been held in Paris, with hundreds traveling to France, itself a nuclear-weapon state.
Occurring against the backdrop of brutal, on-going conflicts in different regions and a new race by some countries to “upgrade” their arsenal, the gathering had a sense of urgency, with growing fears that nuclear weapons might be used by warlords. Participants highlighted current and past atrocities and called upon world leaders to learn from the past.
“After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have been blessed with many who have said ‘no’—’no’ a million times, creating movements and treaties, (and) awareness… that the only reasonable insight to learn from the conception and use of nuclear weapons is to say ‘no’,” said Andrea Bartoli, president of the Sant’Egidio Foundation for Peace and Dialogue, based in New York.
Participating in a conference forum Monday titled “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World Without Nuclear Weapons,” Bartoli and other speakers drew stark pictures of what living in a world with nuclear weapons entails, and they highlighted developments since World War II.
“After the two bombs were used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, humans built more than 70,000 nuclear weapons and performed more than 2,000 tests. Still today we have more than 12,500, each of them with power greatly superior to the two used in August 1945,” Bartoli said.
Despite awareness of the catastrophic potential of these weapons and despite a UN treaty prohibiting their use, some governments argue that possessing nuclear arms is a deterrent—an argument that is deceptive, according to the forum speakers.
Anna Ikeda, program coordinator for disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International. Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS
Jean-Marie Collin, director of ICAN (the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a movement launched in the early 2000s in Australia and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017), said that leaders who cite deterrence “accept the possibility of violating” international human rights.
“Nuclear weapons are designed to destroy cities and kill and maim entire populations, which means that all presidents and heads of government who implement a defense policy based on nuclear deterrence and who are therefore responsible for giving this order, are aware of this,” Collin told the forum.
ICAN campaigned for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that was adopted at the United Nations in 2017, entering into force in 2021. The adoption came nearly five decades after the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970.
The terms of the NPT consider five countries to be nuclear weapons states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China. Four other countries also possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.
According to a 2024 ICAN report, these nine states jointly spent €85 billion (USD 94,6 billion) on their atomic weapon arsenals last year, an expenditure ICAN has called “obscene” and “unacceptable.” France, whose president Emmanuel Macron spoke about peace in broad, general terms at the opening of the conference, spent around €5,3 billion (about USD 5,9 billion) in 2023 on its nuclear weapons, said the report.
The policy of “deterrence” and “reciprocity,” which essentially means “we’ll get rid of our weapons if you get rid of yours,” has been slammed by ICAN and fellow disarmament activists.
“With the constant flow of information, we often tend to lose sight of the reality of figures,” Collin said at the peace conference. “I hope this one will hold your attention: it is estimated that more than 38,000 children were killed in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Children!”
All those killed—an estimated 210,000 people by the end of 1945—died in horrific ways, as survivors and others have testified. Delegates said that this knowledge should be the real “deterrent.”
At the forum, Anna Ikeda, program coordinator for disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International, a global Buddhist movement, described testimony from a Hiroshima a-bomb survivor, Reiko Yamada, as one she would never forget.
“She (Yamada) stated, ‘A good friend of mine in the neighbourhood was waiting for her mother to return home with her four brothers and sisters. Later, she told me that on the second day after the bombing, a moving black lump crawled into the house. They first thought it was a black dog, but they soon realized it was their mother; she collapsed and died when she finally got to her children. They cremated her body in the yard,” Ikeda told the audience with emotion.
“Who deserves to die such a death? Nobody!” she continued. “Yet our world continues to spend billions of dollars to upkeep our nuclear arsenals, and our leaders at times imply readiness to use them. It is utterly unacceptable.”
Ikeda said that survivors, known as the “hibakusha” in Japan, have a fundamental answer to why nuclear weapons must be abolished—it is that “no one else should ever suffer what we did.”
Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.
UNDP’s peacebuilding work in Afghanistan coordinates efforts, from international to local, and ensures community members, particularly disadvantaged groups, have a meaningful role in shaping their future. Credit: UNDP Afghanistan
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 26 2024 (IPS) – As global peace hits its lowest point since the Second World War, the International Day of Peace on September 21 offered a critical moment to reflect on and strengthen our peacebuilding efforts.
This year’s theme, ‘Cultivating a Culture of Peace’, is a powerful reminder that for peace to be possible, everyone must play a part.
This sentiment is at the heart of the UNDP’s conflict prevention and peacebuilding work, which we call an ‘area-based approach’. Under this model, we ensure that all those who are working towards peace within a community are working together, and towards a common goal.
The work is tailored to the specific needs and conditions of each particular community, and is locally-led. Peace has its greatest chance when communities come together to address the underlying causes of tension or conflict.
Conflict is on the rise
Today’s conflicts are driven by complex factors including shifting global power dynamics, weak governance, rising inequalities, and a range of interconnected threats such as climate change, crime, and terrorism.
The toll of armed conflicts is staggering. By the end of 2023, conflict-related deaths had surged dramatically. Over 117 million people have been forcibly displaced. Violence has cost the global economy an astonishing US$19.1 trillion. Two billion people, one quarter of the world’s population, live in conflict zones.
If we don’t invest sufficiently in peace, we can’t hope to reverse these trends. Yet, international resources are increasingly focused on immediate humanitarian relief rather than at the root causes of conflict.
The OECD estimates humanitarian aid in fragile contexts has reached a historic high of 27.7 percent of the Development Assistance Committee’s official development assistance, while peace building funding has fallen to a 15-year low of 10.8 percent.
In response, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s vision for building a more peaceful world, the New Agenda for Peace, calls for greater international cooperation and a decisive shift towards prioritizing conflict prevention.
To effectively address the root causes of violence It emphasizes the importance of national ownership, people-centred strategies, and peace financing. One way of meeting the promise of the New Agenda for Peace is to employ an area-based approach.
Area-based responses keep local communitiess at the centre of the peacebuilding process. Credit: UNDP Syria
What is an area-based approach?
It delivers tailored recovery and development based on context and conflict analysis. It works with local authorities, community groups, and local businesses to analyze and plan locally tailored solutions. In places such as Syria it ensures that responses are locally rooted, and keeps communities at the centre of the process.
Local communities, including vulnerable and excluded groups, define the priorities of area-based approaches. This inclusive engagement creates a shared sense of purpose, which is the foundation for building peace.
In Mozambique this has helped address localized conflict and foster resilience, including ensuring meaningful local participation in navigating entrenched social and political barriers.
In southern Iraq, UNDP is using an area-based approach to harmonize crisis response coordination, basic service delivery, livelihood opportunities, and protection for at-risk groups. It addresses the many facets of recovery and resilience simultaneously, helping build a foundation for lasting peace.
Area-based approaches also provide a coordination framework for international organizations to assess local needs, and design cost-effective responses.
UNDP’s work in Afghanistan coordinates efforts, from international to local, increasing effectiveness and value for money while also supporting local ownership. This ensures that community members, particularly disadvantaged groups, have a meaningful role in shaping their future.
Leveraging over 30 years of experience, UNDP has found area-based approaches to be highly effective in addressing some of the key barriers to peace, such as poverty, inequality, and weak governance.
However, these approaches are not a panacea.
There are challenges in ensuring meaningful participation. Among them are coordinating diverse stakeholders, sustaining long-term impact, managing varying expectations, and overcoming capacity constraints. To be effective peacebuilding programmes must be integrated into broader frameworks, such as national prevention strategies, efforts to mitigate strategic risks, and international cooperation.
Despite their challenges, area-based approaches have great potential for preventing conflict, fostering peace and building community resilience. We’re already seeing the dividends in Mozambique, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond.
By focusing on people-centred solutions, fostering national ownership and addressing the root causes of conflict, area-based approaches play a critical role in cultivating a culture of peace from the ground up.
Naysan Adlparvar is Core Government Functions and Research Advisor, UNDP; Giacomo Negrotto is Local Governance Specialist, UNDP; Adela Pozder-Cengic is Core Government Functions Specialist, UNDP
NEW YORK, Sep 13 2024 (IPS) – This opinion piece is being published exactly on the date when twenty-five years ago today the UN took its most forward-looking stride in ensuring a peaceful planet for all of us since the signing of the Charter of the United Nations in 1945.
The UN Charter arose out of the ashes of the Second World War and the UN Declaration and the Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace emerged in the aftermath of the long-drawn Cold War.
On this very day, the United Nations adopted by consensus and without reservation a monumental document on the Culture of Peace that transcends boundaries, cultures, societies, and nations.
Arduous journey
It was an honour for me to Chair the nine-month long open-ended negotiations that led to the agreement on that historic norm-setting document which is considered as one of the most significant legacies of the United Nations that would endure generations.
I introduced the agreed text of that document (A/RES/53/243) on behalf of all Member States for adoption by the Assembly with its President Didier Opertti of Uruguay chairing the meeting. Through this landmark adoption, the General Assembly laid down humanity’s charter for the new approaching millennium.
Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
This document explains, outlines, and defines everything that the international community has agreed on as the focus of the culture of peace. I would always treasure and cherish the opportunity to lead the process in its adoption and in its subsequent advocacy.
For me this has been a realization of my personal commitment to peace and my humble contribution to humanity. For more than two and a half decades, my focus has been on advancing the culture of peace and I have continued to devote considerable time, energy, and effort to do that.
It has been a long, arduous journey – a journey ridden curiously with both obstacles and indifference. Since July 1997, when I took the initiative to write to our much-loved and highly respected Secretary-General Kofi Annan to create a separate item of agenda of the General Assembly, the path and progress of the culture of peace at UN have been uneven to say the least. For being a part of this journey, I pay tribute to Bangladeshi diplomats who have been true co-travellers.
My life’s experience has taught me to value peace and equality as the essential components of our existence. They unleash the positive forces of good that are so needed for human progress. It is essential to remember that the culture of peace requires a change of our hearts, change of our mindset.
The objective of the culture of peace is the empowerment of people. We should not isolate peace as something separate. It is important to realize that the absence of peace takes away the opportunities that we need to better ourselves, to prepare ourselves, to empower ourselves to face the challenges of our lives, individually and collectively.
Transformation is the essence
The essence of the culture of peace is its message of self-transformation and its message of inclusiveness, of global solidarity, of the oneness of humanity. These elements—individual and global, individual to global—constitute the way forward for the culture of peace.
‘Transformation’ is of the most essential relevance here. The Programme of Action identifies eight specific areas which encourage actions at all levels – the individual, the family, the community, the national, the regional and, of course, the global levels.
Though the Declaration and Programme of Action is an agreement among nations, governments, civil society, media, and individuals are all identified in this document as key actors.
The culture of peace begins with each one of us – unless we are ready to integrate peace and non-violence as part of our daily existence, we cannot expect our communities, our nations, our planet to be peaceful. We should be prepared and confident in resolving the challenges of our lives in a non-aggressive manner. In today’s world, more so, the humanity’s creed should be based on inner oneness and outer diversity.
Enhancing Member States engagement
To accord an enhanced profile to the concept of the culture of peace, since 2012, successive UN General Assembly Presidents convened an annual UN High Level Forum on The Culture of Peace to provide an inclusive, participatory platform for UN Member States, civil society, media, private sector and other interested parties to exchange ideas on the implementation of the Declaration and Programme of Action.
Since 2012, when the first UN High Level Forum was convened by the President of the 66th Session of the General Assembly Ambassador Nassir Al-Nasser, the UNGA mandated this annual Forum as “an opportunity for renewing the commitments to strengthen further the global movement for the culture of peace.”
At the global level, the Global Movement for The Culture of Peace (GMCoP), a coalition of civil society organizations, have been spearheading advocacy initiatives effectively since 2011 as well as in organizing the annual High-Level Forums on The Culture of Peace convened by the President of UN General Assembly.
Peace and Culture of Peace
Many treat peace and culture of peace synonymously. When we speak of peace, we expect others namely politicians, diplomats, or other practitioners to take the initiative while when we speak of the culture of peace, we know that initial action begins with each one of us.
SDGs and the Culture of Peace
The UN General Assembly decided on the culture of peace before the Millennium Development Goals. SDGs came 15 years later. Many would recall that Goal 16 – the so-called peace goal – was almost dropped when the developing countries wanted to include a reference to the culture of peace.
A compromise excluded it so that the negotiated Goal 16 could be agreed without it. Bangladesh brought the reference to the culture of peace in Goal 4 in its target 4.7 which identified culture of peace and non-violence as well as global citizenship in educational context.
All eight areas of action in the culture of peace programme are reflected in various SDGs. I can however say with pride that the Culture of Peace would outlast the SDGs and make more deep-rooted and longer-lasting contribution to a sustainable and peaceful planet of ours when the UN observes the 30th anniversary of The Culture of Peace.
Let me end by outlining the three integrated mainstream for the coming years bolstering the global movement for the culture of peace.
Education for global citizenship
Number one: education. All educational institutions need to offer opportunities that prepare the students not only to live fulfilling lives but also to be responsible and productive citizens of the world. This should more appropriately be called “education for global citizenship”. If our minds could be likened to a computer, then education provides the software with which to “reboot” our priorities and actions for transition from force to reason, from conflict to dialogue.
Equality of women’s participation
Number two: women. As I always say emphatically – “Without peace, development cannot be realized, without development, peace is not achievable, but without women, neither peace nor development is possible.”
Youth and children
And number three: youth and children. It is essential to recognize the empowerment of young people as a major element in building the culture of peace. Young people of today should embrace the culture of peace in a way that can not only shape their lives but can also shape the future of the world.
For this, I believe that early childhood affords a window of opportunity for us to sow the seeds of transition to the culture of peace from an early life.
Way forward
As former Secretary-General of the United Nations and Nobel Peace laureate Kofi Annan had profoundly said, “Over the years we have come to realize that it is not enough to send peacekeeping forces to separate warring parties. It is not enough to engage in peace-building efforts after societies have been ravaged by conflict. It is not enough to conduct preventive diplomacy. All of this is essential work, but we want enduring results. We need, in short, the culture of peace.”
How do we build and promote the culture of peace? To turn the culture of peace into a global, universal movement, the most crucial element that is needed is for every one of us to be a true believer in peace and non-violence. A lot can be achieved in promoting the culture of peace through individual resolve and action.
By immersing ourselves in a culture that supports and promotes peace, individual efforts will–over time–combine and unite, and peace, security and sustainability will emerge. This is the only way we shall achieve a just and sustainable peace in the world.
The culture of peace is not a quick fix. It is a movement, not a revolution.
The seed of peace exists in all of us. It must be nurtured, cared for and promoted by us all to flourish. Peace cannot be imposed from outside – it must be realized from within.
Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, is Former Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the UN; President of the UN Security Council (2000 and 2001); Senior Special Adviser to UN General Assembly President (2011-2012) and Former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN.
