Tuesday, 15 October 2013

War and Peace

In this exclusive series of interviews, we speak to three Nobel Peace Prize Winners. Prof. Jody Williams (Chair, Nobel Women's Initiative - Founder, International Campaign to Ban Landmines, ICBL), Dr. Shirin Ebadi (Human Rights Lawyer and Educator) and President Maarti Ahtisaari (Former President of Finland and Founder of CMI - The Crisis Management Initiative). We discuss the causes of war and conflict, the impact of these phenomena on society, and look at what it will take to achieve a world at peace.

--------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, October 2013

To review the history of violence…” wrote Steven Pinker, “is to be repeatedly astounded by the cruelty and waste of it all, and at times to be overcome with anger, disgust, and immeasurable sadness. I know that behind the graphs there is a young man who feels a stab of pain and watches the life drain slowly out of him, knowing he has been robbed of decades of existence. There is a victim of torture whose contents of consciousness have been replaced by unbearable agony, leaving room only for the desire that consciousness itself should cease…. It would be terrible enough if these ordeals befell one person, or ten, or a hundred. But the numbers are not in the hundreds, or the thousands, or even the millions, but in the hundreds of millions- an order of magnitude that the mind staggers to comprehend, with deepening horror as it comes to realize just how much suffering has been inflicted by the naked ape upon its own kind.” (The Better Angels of Our Nature, 2011)

This may sound like an undue hyperbole, but the scholar Milton Leitenberg also notes that, “…187 million people were ‘killed or allowed to die by human decision’ in what he called the ‘short century’ – a period of about 75 years from 1914 to 1991 (a period spanning the beginning of World War I to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Soviet occupation of its Eastern European ‘allies’). However, the sum that he provided was low by just about 44 million people for the full twentieth century, during which approximately 231 million people died in wars and conflict…” The scale of this human loss is hard to comprehend, equivalent to the loss (over a century) of the entire population of Brazil or… to put it another way, the loss of over 2.3 million people each and every year… or an event as destructive as the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami occurring each and every month.

The economic cost of war is similarly staggering. Global annual military spending has been estimated to be over US$1.75 trillion. This corresponds to 2.5 per cent of world GDP, or approximately $249 for each person in the world, and does not even come close to including the economic impact of war itself on nations and communities. As Dwight D. Eisenhower said in 1953, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.” When we consider that the estimated costs to eliminate extreme poverty and hunger from society are around US$ 175 billion per year and US$ 30 billion per year respectively, it is easy to see how educators such as Abraham Flexner conclude that “…no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both.”

Estimates state that in the 3,500 years of recorded history, there have only been 270 years of peace. One could argue therefore, that conflict is an essential part of human nature, and that it’s absence is an anomaly… But what is the reality of conflict and war in our society, and what are the chances we will ever see a world at peace?

In this exclusive series of interviews, we speak to three Nobel Peace Prize Winners. Prof. Jody Williams (Chair, Nobel Women's Initiative - Founder, International Campaign to Ban Landmines, ICBL), Dr. Shirin Ebadi (Human Rights Lawyer and Educator) and President Maarti Ahtisaari (Former President of Finland and Founder of CMI - The Crisis Management Initiative). We discuss the causes of war and conflict, the impact of these phenomena on society, and look at what it will take to achieve a world at peace.

Prof. Jody Williams received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her work to ban landmines through the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which shared the Peace Prize with her that year. At that time, she became the 10th woman - and third American woman - in its almost 100-year history to receive the Prize. Since her protests of the Vietnam War, she has been a life-long advocate of freedom, self-determination and human and civil rights.

Since January of 2006, Jody Williams has worked toward those ends through the Nobel Women's Initiative, which she chairs. Along with sister Nobel Laureate Dr. Shirin Ebadi of Iran, she took the lead in establishing the Nobel Women’s Initiative. They were joined at that time by sister Nobel Laureates Wangari Maathai (Kenya), Rigoberta Menchú Tum (Guatemala) and Betty Williams and Mairead Maguire (Northern Ireland). The Initiative uses the prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize and the influence and access of the women Nobel Laureates themselves to support and amplify the efforts of women around the world working for sustainable peace with justice and equality.

Since 1998, Williams has also served as a Campaign Ambassador for the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Beginning in early 1992 with two non-governmental organizations and a staff of one - Jody Williams, she oversaw the Campaign's growth to over 1,300 organizations in 95 countries working to eliminate antipersonnel landmines. In an unprecedented cooperative effort with governments, UN bodies and the International Committee of the Red Cross, she served as a chief strategist and spokesperson for the ICBL as it dramatically achieved its goal of an international treaty banning antipersonnel landmines during a diplomatic conference held in Oslo in September 1997.

Williams continues to be recognized for her contributions to human rights and global security. She is the recipient of fifteen honorary degrees, among other recognitions. In 2004, Williams was named by Forbes Magazine as one of the 100 most powerful women in the world in the publication of its first such annual list.

She holds the Sam and Cele Keeper Endowed Professorship in Peace and Social Justice at the Graduate College of Social Work at the University of Houston where she has been teaching since 2003. In academic year 2012-2013, she became the inaugural Jane Addams Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Social Justice at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Dr. Shirin Ebadi, J.D., was awarded the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to promote human rights, in particular, the rights of women, children, and political prisoners in Iran. She is the first Muslim woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, and only the fifth Muslim to receive a Nobel Prize in any field.

Dr. Ebadi was one of the first female judges in Iran. She served as president of the city court of Tehran from 1975 to 1979 and was the first Iranian woman to achieve Chief Justice status. She, along with other women judges, was dismissed from that position after the Islamic Revolution in February 1979. She was made a clerk in the court she had once presided over, until she petitioned for early retirement. After obtaining her lawyer's license in 1992, Dr. Ebadi set up private practice. As a lawyer, Dr. Ebadi has taken on many controversial cases defending political dissidents and as a result has been arrested numerous times.

In addition to being an internationally-recognized advocate of human rights, she has also established many non-governmental organizations in Iran, including the Million Signatures Campaign, a campaign demanding an end to legal discrimination against women in Iranian law.

Dr. Ebadi is also a university professor and often students from outside Iran take part in her human rights training courses. She has published over 70 articles and 13 books dedicated to various aspects of human rights, some of which have been published by UNICEF. In 2004, she was named by Forbes Magazine as one of the 100 most powerful women in the world. In January 2006, along with sister Laureate Jody Williams, Dr. Ebadi took the lead in establishing the Nobel Women's Initiative.

Martti Ahtisaari is the former President of Finland, an internationally recognized mediator and peacebuilder, and recipient of the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize. He joined the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland in 1965, holding various posts in the Ministry's Bureau for Technical Cooperation from 1965 to 1972, and serving as Assistant Director from 1971 to 1972. He was Deputy Director in the Department for International Development Cooperation between 1972 and 1973, and a member of the Government Advisory Committee on Trade and Industrialization Affairs of Developing Countries from 1971 to 1973.

Prior to joining the United Nations, Ahtisaari served as Ambassador of Finland to the United Republic of Tanzania (1973-1976) and was also accredited to Zambia, Somalia and Mozambique (1975-1976). He served as a Member of the Senate of the UN Institute for Namibia between 1975 and 1976. Ahtisaari served as United Nations Commissioner for Namibia from 1977 to 1981. He was appointed Special Representative of the Secretary General for Namibia in July 1978.

Martti Ahtisaari served from 1984 to 1986 as Under-Secretary of State in charge of International Development Co-operation in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, as well as Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Namibia. He was Governor of the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and in the Inter-American Development Bank, as well as in the International Fund for Agricultural Development for Finland. During that period Ahtisaari was Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Finnish Industrialization Fund for Developing Countries. In January 1987 Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar appointed Ahtisaari as Under-Secretary General for Administration and Management. Ahtisaari retained his functions as Special Representative of the Secretary General for Namibia and led the UN operation (UNTAG) in Namibia (1989-1990). Ahtisaari’s position as Under-Secretary General ended in June 1991. In 1991, Ahtisaari served as Secretary of State in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland in Helsinki. From September 1992 to April 1993, Ahtisaari served as Chairman of the Bosnia-Herzegovina Working Group of the International Conference on the former Yugoslavia (fYR Macedonia). On July 1993, Ahtisaari served for a period of four months as Special Adviser to the International Conference on the former Yugoslavia (fYR Macedonia) and to the UN Secretary General's Special Representative for former Yugoslavia (fYR Macedonia). From March 1994 to February 2000, Ahtisaari was President of Finland. Upon leaving office, Mr. Ahtisaari founded the Crisis Management Iniatiative, where he is now the Chairman of the Board.

After his term as President Ahtisaari was Chairman of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group from 2000 to 2005. He is a Member of the Joint Advisors’ Group for the Open Society Institute and Soros Foundations Network. Ahtisaari is also Chairman of the Balkan Children and Youth Foundation and the Global Action Council of the International Youth Foundation, as well as of the International Board of the War-Torn Societies Project. Until 2003 he was also a Member of the Board of Directors of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA). Ahtisaari has been appointed the Personal Envoy of the Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE for Central Asia and UN Special Envoy to the Horn of Africa. Ahlisaari other post-presidential activities have included inspection of the IRA's arms’ dumps with fellow inspector Cyril Ramaphosa, and the drafting of a report on the human rights and political situation in Austria as a member of a group of "three wise men".

In addition, former President Ahtisaari is Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Finnish National Opera, Member of the Board of Trustees of Averett University, an Honorary Chairman of the Pro Baltica Forum, Honorary Chairman of the Advisory Committee of the Eurasia Foundation, an Honorary Chairman of the International Committee of Vyborg Library, a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Inter Press Service International Association, a Member of the Board of Naantali Music Festival, an Honorary Trustee of the American-Scandinavian Foundation, and a Member of the Steering Committee of the Northern Research Forum. He is also a Patron of the Koeppler Appeal and Member of the Board of EUSTORY. Ahtisaari has received numerous decorations. In 2002 he was appointed as an Honorary Officer in the Order of Australia. In 2004 he was awarded with the Order of the Companions of Oliver Tambo (Supreme Companion) by South Africa.

Former President Ahtisaari graduated from the University of Oulu, Finland in 1959 and received an Honorary Doctorate in 1989. He holds an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Humane Letters from Bentley College in Waltham, Massachusetts; of Political Science from Kasetsart University, Bangkok; of Social Sciences from University of Turku; of Economics and Business Administration (Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration); of the University of Palermo (Argentina); of Philosophy from the University of Helsinki; of the University of Moscow (MGIMO); of Pedagogy from Kyiv; of Technology from University of Technology, Espoo; of the University of Namibia; of Laws from Columbia University of New York; of Social Sciences from University of Jyväskylä; and from the Averett College in 2001. In 2005 Ahtisaari received an Honorary Degree Doctor of Humane Letters from the American University in Bulgaria and in 2006 he received the Honorary Degree Doctor of Political Sciences from the University of Helsinki.

Q: What is conflict and what is war?

[Prof. Jody Williams] When The Nobel Women’s Initiative decided to create the international campaign to stop rape and gender violence in conflict, we spent quite a long time debating whether to call it conflict or war. We decided that conflict was the right word, being all-inclusive. Socio-political conflict can result in violence, and may not reach the stage of war and violent armed conflict. Look at the femicides and so called drug wars’ in Latin America, they are not declared as being ‘wars’ the traditional sense, yet there is a tremendous amount of violence.

I think a better understanding of the continuum of violence would be very beneficial in trying to talk about why armed conflict breaks out, and what its roots are. When I think about violence and the continuum thereof, I think about situations ranging from the very personal to the decision to invade a country. For example; when a person decides to beat his wife- he is making a choice of violence.

It’s constantly drummed into our heads that human beings are violent by nature, and that sometimes ‘whoops!’ they get out of control and violence happens. There’s an element of truth in that- you see discussions in this sense around fight and flight. After a certain point, it’s also an issue of choice. When we state that violence is a part of our humanity, we abdicate our responsibility for recognising that choosing violence is a choice.

If we better understood the continuum of violence and the various examples of points where people choose a violent response rather than some other response, it’s possible to contemplate the very real possibility that we could live in a world without war.

Q: Why do war and conflict exist in society?

[Dr. Shirin Ebadi] War remains humanity’s most profitable trait; and we see that many economic crises have been resolved through war. Many people lose their lives simply to enable the rich to become richer.

[President Martti Ahtisaari] There are many reasons for wars and in recent years we have witnessed wars even on our own continent, not just in the developing world. However, thinking on this question I start to wonder as to why we have not seen any such conflicts in my country (Finland). We have been at peace for over 70 years. We have been living in relative unanimity for many years. People feel that institutions work for them and that civil servants work for them. There is trust between people and institutions, and many enjoy more than 80% support.

In different parts of the world we see a raw and uncontrollable desire for power, where people create wars and conflicts. We have now started getting the concept of responsibility across, which the UN General Assembly approved a few years ago and was used for the first time in Libya- albeit not terribly successfully. The principle nevertheless, was historic- that if governments mistreat their citizens... the international community has a duty to respond.

It may make sense to think of this question the other way around and debate why conflict doesn't exist in some nations; and I feel it is through the maintaining of fair and just societies. If you have enormous inequality, it easily creates conditions where violence is the only way out.

We have enough statistical evidence to show that fair and just societies have less violence.

Q: Are conflict and violence a part of human nature?

[Dr. Shirin Ebadi] Just as aggression and envy can be inherent in all human beings, the same can be said of violence and war.

It is possible through education and training, to harness these inherent sensations in human beings and prevent them. Unfortunately in the schools of today, lessons of history tend to praise war rather than condemn it. Personally I think it’s very important to change school curriculums if we want to change the status quo.

[President Martti Ahtisaari] If it was not a part of human nature, we would not have these conflicts in the first place. There are also however, practical reasons for conflict. It may be that some people have lost their land or water through climate change or land-grabbing. I don't think it makes it any more justifiable to draw arms in these situations, but it can explain why these occasions occur.

Q: Can war or conflict ever be justified?

[Prof. Jody Williams] I debate this a lot. As we sit here, a big point of contention is a potential military response to Syria’s supposed use of chemical weapons in the civil war. Can that be justified? Or has the US backed itself into a corner by stating that there is a red-line that cannot be crossed… and now that it has been crossed… are they left without a choice?

If we look at the US and its military actions in the Middle-East and North Africa; bombing Libya, drone strikes in Yemen and Somalia, invasion of Iraq, involvement in the Iran-Iraq war… and so on… it’s hard to imagine how anyone from that region- or with ties to that region- could think of the US as anything other than an outright aggressor with no moral high-ground.

I suppose the biggest example of a justified war, and one that is always waved out-there is World War II, but have any wars been justified since that time? I’m not so sure….

[Dr. Shirin Ebadi] Hitherto in my life, I have not come across an eventuality in which war can be justified because war breeds violence.

If you look at the history of the past 20 years, wherever there has been a war, it has never been followed by peace and tranquillity. For instance, look at Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan…

[President Martti Ahtisaari] War can be justified, when it is a defensive one. I am an eternally displaced person, luckily in my own country. I was two years of age when the Soviet Union attacked Finland, and we lost 11% of our land... but we were never occupied. 400,000 of us from Karjalohja where I come from, including my family and relatives, had to be resettled in the rest of Finland. That, I regard as our right. Many countries in our neighbourhood decided to do otherwise but I'm very proud that we defended ourselves.

In 1918- the first year of our independence- Finland had a civil war. We fought against each other. This may have been a reflection of our conflict with Russia, but there were also many complaints. Farmers did not have land and inequality was very high.

We got out of that and became an inclusive society where everyone had a chance to participate in the political process. In 10 years, those who lost the war were eventually in government. It was the Social Democrats who were pushing for egalitarian policies, but a long time ago- every political party accepted. The whole of society felt it was good to give every child a fair opportunity, to give them good healthcare before and after they're born, to give them a decent education wherever they live. Children do not ask to be born into poor families, so it should not matter whether they are or not, they have every right to those things.

Q: What are the key causes of conflict and war?

[Prof. Jody Williams] Different conflicts result from different elements of economics, politics and other social factors- or combinations thereof.

Race and religion are used as tools to inflame a populous to support or engage in war. I don’t think that religion in and of itself causes war. War is pretty much always about money and power.

The tools that are used to get to get the masses to engage in war can be race, religion, or anything that can make an enemy seem as ‘the other’ and seem ‘less’ than ‘we’ are; and therefore worthy of being killed in a war.

Climate change on the other hand does affect population flows and does contribute to conflict. If we look at the situation in Sudan and Darfur, part of this situation is down to the on-going desertification of the region, pushing nomadic groups further and further away from where they have been historically able to raise animals and into otherwise settled populations.

Economics are also very important. Many of the massive demonstrations throughout Europe have been about economic stagnation and collapse. There are certainly the seeds being sown there of violent conflict. Even in the US, we are faced with appalling disparities of wealth that exist here. I wonder when people will not be able to tolerate it anymore. At some point, if people cannot provide for the basic needs of themselves and their families- or feel they haven’t the potential for a hopeful future? It’s pretty easy to get them to resort to violence as a means of bringing about change.

It’s quite easy to get people motivated to engage in violence, but once you have divided a nation or peoples- it’s really hard to overcome those divisions. I see this in the US manifest as the polarisation between red and blue states, the tea-party, and congress. It comes from years of purposely dividing people. We’ve reached a pretty hideous state and god-knows where it’s going to go next.

Race is also an issue. Today is the 50th anniversary of the march on Washington and Martin Luther King’s ‘I have a dream…’ speech, and they’re expecting tens of thousands of people to come out and say that King’s work isn’t done. People feel that economic inequality and educational opportunity are the modern-day fuel of racial divide.

Q: What was the core concern you had about landmines?

[Prof. Jody Williams] When I was first asked to create a campaign, and we discussed the indiscriminate nature of landmines- that alone was enough to make one fired up.

Also there is a proportionality question. In theory, militaries are only supposed to use means and methods of warfare that give immediate (or near-term) gain; while balancing these methods against the immediate (and long-term) impact of civilians. Clearly in the use of landmines, no thought whatsoever was given to the long-term impact on civilians. When conflict ends, and the landmines don’t go home, everyone who’s killed is a civilian. To me, this was a hideously flagrant example of misuse of the so-called ‘laws of war’.

In the early days, when you tried to talk to the government about these issues? They would fall behind doctrine which sounded very pretty. You can make anything sound good, but the reality is something else. It was only when we were able to confront them with the great gaps between doctrine and reality that we were able to push them to ban the weapon.

This is the same approach we’re taking with things like cluster munitions and even (more recently) killer-robots.

Q: What are the threats to human and national security from robotic warfare?

[Prof. Jody Williams] In The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, we are talking about the next generation of legal-robots that can operate completely on their own, to the point where human-beings feed the kill-decision to a machine- giving it the deadly power to decide on its own, to kill a human being. To me, it’s completely mind-boggling.

I grew up during the ‘duck and cover’ days, practicing to roll-up into a ball under my desk in grade school (people thought it would help them withstand a direct atomic blast)- and that was terrifying. When I found out about the on-going efforts to move toward complete autonomy and further de-humanise war? I was more afraid than I have been much of my life about nuclear weapons.

Q: What are the threats to human security from drones?

[Prof. Jody Williams] I feel there is a significant moral and ethical case for stopping drones at least where they are not involved in the support of close-combat troops on the ground (as the fighter-jet is often used). Using drones in assassinations around the world shows moral and ethical confusion (if I am being polite) and depravity (if I am being honest).

I have recently been reading articles by Lt. Col. Doug Pryor, who has written extensively on the very-negative effect of US UAV use. He is an actively-serving military officer and speaks forcibly about continuing to lose whatever remaining moral high-ground we had, especially when we use them in assassinations and extrajudicial execution.

If the US didn’t have drones, what would they be doing in Yemen and Somalia? Would they be invading? Well… it’s possible they might, but drones have made it so-much easier for them to embark on campaigns of assassination. Imagine the next step therefore, where we have fully autonomous lethal weapons in the air, on the ground and at sea. It’s terrifying…

Q: What are the threats to human security from weapons of mass destruction?

[Prof. Jody Williams] There’s been a whole re-invigoration of campaigns to ban nuclear weapons. Norway has taken a lead in trying to shift the debate from just nuclear weapons as being weapons of mass destruction, to this being a humanitarian disarmament (ICANW). The US of course, was horrified when Norway decided to take the lead and has not attended one-single meeting about the humanitarian aspects of nuclear weapons.

The US dropping a nuclear bomb did not end World War II. It was Russia- who were on the verge of being able to turn their attention from Germany to Japan- and this in turn, scared the **** out of the Japanese. The Japanese were already in discussions to surrender when the US decided to test their nuclear weapons. I don’t believe the US dropped nuclear weapons to make the Japanese surrender, I believe they did it to test their weapons. If you think about it… the bomb they used Hiroshima was not the same kind they used in Nagasaki. They were testing two different types of weapon.

We have to re-insert humanity into our discussion around weapons. It’s not just about weapons being powerful and being able to do things for our military…. It’s about what these weapons are doing to our humanity.

We need new and younger campaigners, not just the entrenched civil-intelligencia who have been debating the finer points about how to incrementally get rid of them. We need to say ‘enough already! These weapons are massively indiscriminate, grossly illegal, and we have to get rid of them now!’. We need to take-over the conversation and not just leave it to old-white-men who have been debating this to death using their egos, and having massive turf-wars about who is right and wrong.

Q: Has the existence of the firearm contributed to humanity’s propensity to engage in conflict?

[Prof. Jody Williams] One of the continuous threads in human history is our on-going search for bigger and better weapons. We started by creating weapons to kill the things we have to eat, and then began killing other humanoids going after that same food. Over time, it’s been a constant progression from direct-killing where people clubbed each other to death, or used sabres… to a point now where we can kill over incredible distances- dehumanising war (not that I think war is humanised!).

The further a person is taken from the act of killing, the easier it is for them to let their machines kill.

Q: What is the start of the peace-building and reconciliation process?

[President Martti Ahtisaari] Conflict always leaves a mark, regardless of whether it was an internal exercise or whether external forces were involved. It becomes very clear in many cases that it's very very difficult to start the reconciliation process. 


There are so many examples. In my country it was winner takes tall... but inclusive policies came, and thank god we've done well. There are still however people who remember what happened in their families, and there is not always the same forgiveness we have seen in South Africa. There are also examples such as Bosnia and Herzegovina where they have three distinct histories; the Croats, the Serbs and the Bosniaks.
Even if you forgive, it still leaves bitterness because you cannot deal with the atrocities that have been committed. As a peace mediator, the best I can achieve in many cases is to achieve a change of behaviour in society; to make sure people know that what's happened in the past will never be repeated. To think that I could correct all the wrongdoing in a society- wrongdoings which are very often committed by both sides? is impossible. In Northern Ireland for example, they are largely maintaining peace, but the reconciliation process has not gone through yet. If there is a conflict, one had better be prepared that it will take a long time to correct the problems it will create.

The first step is to simplify the process as much as you can. If you think that you can solve all the past atrocities? it won't happen. You have to bid for the future. This doesn't satisfy everybody, and can sometimes make it even more complicated to find peace. People feel that everything should be agreed before they sign a ceasefire. I witnessed that type of discussion in Myanmar with The Elders Gro Harlem Brundtland and Jimmy Carter.

Very often you need peace first to start a proper dialogue on all the grievances that exist in society, and you can never solve all of them.

When I got the Nobel Peace Prize, I said that we can solve every problem and conflict in the world... I don't understand why situations as we have in Cyprus and Kashmir are still allowed to happen. I remember when I was negotiating in Kosovo, one visitor asked me why I was in a hurry as there were so many unsolved conflicts! I told him that he should never advise me or anyone else to have more frozen conflicts in the world, it's a disgrace for the international community.

Q: How do you mediate peace between entrenched groups?

[President Martti Ahtisaari] I don't think that a mediator can ever succeed if the parties don't want peace. I will give you an example from my own life. In the Aceh negotiations... we had negotiated for three years to get a cessation of hostilities agreed. It was signed, monitored and half a year later it was broken. The Tsunami then hit Indonesia, and hit Aceh particularly hard. 170,000 people died... everybody lost somebody. The international community was very generous, and I sensed that both parties realised that if peace cannot be agreed quickly; they could never utilise the money that was generously available for reconstruction. 


I finally arrived at a technique that could be agreed as there were very difficult issues to discuss. The parties agreed that nothing was agreed before everything was agreed. The parties accepted they would not go to press and announce anything until they were happy; by agreeing this, we knew they were serious about negotiation.

I very often hear people say that peace mediators should be impartial, but that's utter nonsense... if you do? you will be sitting around till the end of your days. You have to come to the negotiating table with solutions if the parties fighting are unable to find their own. You have to be an honest broker, people have to trust you- even if you sometimes have to take-up an issue that may only be of interest to one side. As a mediator, you have to make judgement calls... When you start to get both parties to co-operate, you can move forward.

You must identify what the real problems are to identify what can be done. You must talk to everybody. You can't just point the finger and say, "they are terrorists! I will never talk to them!" - an attitude which unfortunately, we see very often in the world. When I was involved in helping Namibia to become independent, we had over 8,000 UN people on the ground monitoring the election process. South Africans learned to know the SWAPO (South West Africa People's Organization) people and their negotiators, and talk to them. My South African friends say this helped to smooth the way for a more democratic South Africa, and perhaps- without this negotiation- Mandela would never have been released.

Q: What do you see as the key-components in ending conflict?

[Prof. Jody Williams] Educating people that they have other choices and ending the glorification of war.

When I grew up, we were educated about US history through the magnificence of its conquests. If you boil it down… manifest destiny was that we went from sea to shining sea, killing those heathens who tried to stop us… today that would be called genocide.

This is a hard problem to fix as all-countries build magnificent mythologies of some aspects of their history. No country is particularly keen about talking truthfully about their history. Yes… Columbus and everyone else who came to the US were very brave, but on the other-hand the consequence was the massacre of millions of people.

We have to start talking about the reality of war. People in war can be heroic, but war itself is not heroic. War is a political decision by a group of people who decide to send some other people’s children to die.

Many politicians argue that if you want peace, you have to prepare for war- but I believe that you get what you prepare for. Therefore we need to start serious education from kindergarten about conflict resolution, about people working for peace, about what peace really means… it’s not just the absence of conflict, but freedom from want, freedom from fear, and more.

If you really want to dis-incentivise people from going to war? Make sure their stomachs are full! Make sure they have a decent education! Make sure they have a decent job that gives them some sense of dignity, and which allows them to provide for their families! Make sure people have hope for a better future!

It’s not rocket science, it’s just that those in power and those who make money from war would immediately be worse-off and they don’t want that.

Q: How do human rights challenges relate to conflict and peace building?

[Dr. Shirin Ebadi] Human rights are a very comprehensive concept. The rights of women, children, refugees and many other groups are part of the overall concept of human rights.

There can never be peace if some members of a nation have their rights subverted. The majority that have come to power in a free election must respect the rights of the minorities in their nation that have come to power. For instance, when we talk about freedom of expression, we are really talking about freedom of expression for the minorities as it is obvious that the majority that are in power are free to say whatever they want.

Q: How does democracy relate to peace building?

[Dr. Shirin Ebadi] In my view what could lead to the establishment of peace in a society is democracy, albeit with a very specific definition. Democracy should not just be defined as victory in a free election, let us not forget that many dictators have come to power owing to democracy!

The majority that come to power in an election must observe the framework of democracy, and that framework consists of human rights.

Governments do not earn their legitimacy through the ballot box and the vote of the people. They gain legitimacy through the vote and by respecting the human rights of their people. If, in the world, we manage to establish democracy framed around human rights? We will reduce the threat of war significantly.

Q: Is it important to build governance and democracy quickly in post-conflict situations?

[President Martti Ahtisaari] You can't build governance quickly, it is simply not done. Research from UNU-Wider institute shows how bad the situation is in many countries when it comes to governance issues. It's a very long term process. When people come to power after there has been fighting- such as in Aceh, where there was fighting for over 30 years- you find that those who have been fighting, normally win the elections. Then... they find they want to employ their friends into government. Then... they learn they don't know much, and they start to look for professionals to assist.

The UNU-Wider academics showed that with the aim of building well-functioning societies and institutions, so much money has been spent and so few results have been achieved. For countries like North Korea, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Russia and Venezuala to achieve similar levels of bureaucratic quality and transparency (lack of corruption) as Singapore, at the average pace of improvement seen across all countries between 1985-2009 could take 350-500 years. At their own pace of improvement as has been seen? the measurements show it will never happen (by virtue of experiencing negative rates of change).

Q: What is the relationship of culture and religion to conflict and peace building?

[Dr. Shirin Ebadi] Cross-cultural understanding is a part of the series of factors contributing to human dignity that, in turn, contribute to building peace.

If I live in a society that is unable to tolerate my culture or religion, that will undermine my human dignity.

Q: Is there a difference between peace and security?

[Prof. Jody Williams] I think you get more security through sustainable peace rather than constantly resorting to violence.

I believe fully that violence-breeds-violence. Who knows what the blowback is going to be from all the US’s invasions and murders of the past decade, to say nothing of the ones that came before. I think we really have to get a better understanding that real security comes from security in daily life. When I thought about the economic collapse of 2008, what were people most concerned about? having a secure future with a secure income and so on! They were not rushing around thinking Al-Quaeda was about to whack them… they were worried about their daily lives.

If you can provide for the basic needs of a majority of people, you will have a lot more security in the world than if you have gross-inequality.

Q: What is the realistic definition of peace?

[Dr. Shirin Ebadi] Peace is a collection of the conditions and circumstances by which human beings can live in a society while maintaining human dignity.

Security by itself is not enough. For example, in a society where someone is unable to pay to the mortgage on his or her home; there is no security for that person. Therefore security is just one of a number of factors that contribute to peace.

Any factor that undermines human dignity, from poverty to despotism, threatens peace.

Q: What will it take for us to see a world free from conflict?

[Prof. Jody Williams] There are lots of individuals and organisations around the world who work on a daily basis for sustainable peace, not just the absence of war.

US Soldiers who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq are committing suicide at a rate of 22 a day… We call them our heroes and wounded warriors, applauding them at football games, yet the veteran’s administration- responsible for their wellbeing after war- is doing such a hideous job that 22 a day are killing themselves. We really need to talk about all the aspects of sending people to war- not just “Woohoo! We Won!” (or pretending we won).

Education is absolutely at the heart of this. There’s an organisation called PeaceJam that looks at the world of individual Nobel Peace Laureates and develops school curriculums around them. Students study this and at the end of a period of study, they get to spend a week with the laureate in question. It’s about looking at different roads to peace which each of us has contributed to… or not (in the cases of Obama and Kissinger).

Q: Will we see a world free from conflict?

[Prof. Jody Williams] If people really care, then this could definitely be achieved within the lives of our children or possibly our grandchildren. It is possible!

People have to stand up and say no to being cannon fodder for a few sitting in their capitals who send them to war for more power, money, resource and more.

[President Martti Ahtisaari] To answer this, I look at my part of the world. With the support of the population, inclusive policies and egalitarian policies- you can create an environment which gives opportunities for everyone and hence very little conflict.

If you look the percentage of the population in prison in countries such as the United States you see what happens when you don't have egalitarian policies and you can't move from one social class to another, and if education and opportunities are poor. In many cases you see families with multiple-generations of poor education and opportunity, and these individuals can easily become targets for criminal gangs, drug gangs and others.

One economist recently stated, "If you want to live the American dream? go to Sweden." Many argue that this is due to homogeneity of the Nordic countries but this is not true. Sweden today is a less homogeneous society than the UK.

There are also many old-attitudes present in the world that are preventing progress. We have to send a very clear message to today's Russia for example, that the Cold War is over. The West is no longer attempting to threaten them militarily, NATO doesn't even have the capacity to do that... it should be the least of Russia's worries! They could use that money to improve the rule of law, and the rest of the unilateral values in their society such as education.

We should be much more capable of co-operating to end the conflicts we have.

Q: What would be your message to the generation that follows ours in their efforts to build peace?

[Dr. Shirin Ebadi] Those seeking peace in their society must remember that what you wish for yourself, you should wish for others and that what harms you also harms others.

That would be my message for the next generation, or for any individuals who wish to create peace in their society.

Q: What would be your message to the generation after ours to build a peaceful world?

[President Martti Ahtisaari] I would urge the next generation to learn from our mistakes. What worries me sometimes is that we haven't learned very much from history. We should study why we have landed into certain situations, as it would be totally possible to avoid making the same mistakes again.

It's sad to see how much the populist movements get supported in today's Europe, it's a totally un-intellectual debate that we see that leads people to make those choices. I have learned in my life that it's important to know the facts. You have to be able to analyse a situation and understand what is really behind it. Populism has no room for this approach.

The younger generation are much brighter than mine, and I have hope for them in the future.


--------------------------------------------------

War is predominantly a cultural phenomenon….” Argues Alexander Moseley, “but to acquiesce in the belief that it is the product of something other than a man’s ideas is to acquiesce in determinism, which should be rejected. War is not something that just happens: we actively bring it about and maintain it as a cultural and political institution. But, more often than not, we engage in war because we are (consciously or not) imitating our culture’s perceived successes with wars in the past: we volitionally sustain the cultural inertia that maintains war.” He continues to expand that “…although the propensity to war resides within us biologically (for pacifism plainly does not), war is predominantly the product of our choices and beliefs. However, what is meant by ‘beliefs’ includes all particular aspects of human action that are learned, copied, or imitated, as well as considered explicitly by thought and language, argued over, and critiqued. Beliefs are resoluble into implicitly and explicitly held ideas, and imputed values as well as rationally-considered interests. Beliefs determine the values and interests we seek; they motivate as well as describe. In turn, ideas invoke a host of thoughts, conjectures, and fantasies that may or may not be consistently ordered into a governing philosophy in the mind and may or may not be reflective of reality. What is crucial to understand is that beliefs do not exist as ethereal (epiphenomenal) entities- they reside within thinking, acting, breathing, living beings, who design to exercise their minds, or not, and whose brains have evolved to participate in conceptual thinking to some degree or other. Above the murky area of our evolved biological instincts to defend or to aggress, war is an ideologically created institution. The problem is that many of its ideas may lie rooted in ancient but learned and chosen pre-rational structures. Succinctly, we believe that war is the way of the world, it is the way things are done, it resolves our disputes, it affirms our existence, it deters aggression, and so on.” (A Philosophy of War, 2003)

More than this, war has perversely become one of the elements shaping the lens of human culture. Let us not forget that we understand the very creation of our universe, solar system and planet in terms of ‘violent forces of creation’. The acclaimed journalist Chris Hedges wrote that, “War makes the world understandable, a black and white tableau of them and us. It suspends thought, especially self-critical thought. All bow before the supreme effort. We are one. Most of us willingly accept war as long as we can fold it into a belief system that paints the ensuing effort as necessary for a higher good, for human beings seek not only happiness but also meaning. And tragically war is sometimes the most powerful way in human society to achieve meaning… War exposes a side of human nature that is usually masked by the unacknowledged coercion and social constraints that glue us together. Our cultivated conventions and little lies of civility lull us into a refined and idealistic view of ourselves. But modern industrial warfare may well be leading us, with each technological advance, a step closer to our own annihilation.” (War is a Force that Gives us Meaning, 2002)

War and conflict do not exist as natural phenomena apart from us. More than being instinctual, they are choices we actively make as a species against our own kind; and largely driven by cultural, economic, political and social factors along with unbridled examples of self-interest, which not only have been created by us, but which could be largely avoided.

We create a utopian vision of peace as being something in the future. An oasis visible on the horizon of the fog of conflict, but it is perhaps our own philosophy that means we cannot comprehend peace as existing in the present. We tend to define the value of morality in terms of evils that have been perpetrated and the value of tolerance by the hatred that has been levied. These modes of thinking are remnants of a history defined by war, conflict and its glorification… a mode of human development perhaps to be called ‘adolescence’.

In almost every way however, humanity is now ready to progress from adolescence into adulthood. We have the technology, knowledge and infrastructure to genuinely create an egalitarian world, rich in opportunity and free of many of the scourges that have ravaged us for centuries.

Plato mused that “…only the dead have seen the end of war”, but it will perhaps be the greatest victory of mankind to claim that vision for the living.


Click to read full article...