homepage / contents / part 1 / part 2 / back / next

From ‘divide and conquer’ towards ‘communicate and reconcile’

A world without wars? Cynics may find the idea unrealistic, even comical. But it is central to a programme launched in February 1994 by UNESCO and since adopted by other sections of the international community. The Culture of Peace seeks to take advantage of what the specialised agency of the United Nations terms ‘a growing belief that the culture of war, which has characterised the dominant civilisations of the past, can now be replaced by a culture of peace.’

Although a cursory glance at the world map may give a different impression -ethnic tensions and conflicts in the Balkans, internecine wars in Africa, civil wars of varying intensity in Asia- UNESCO says the culture of peace concept is, in fact, taking hold. The idea underpinning it is likely to be boosted and more widely exposed in the year 2000, which has been designated by the United Nations as International Year for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence. 2001-2010 will be the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence. Further, it is hoped to collect up to 100 million signatures by September 2000 on a Manifesto for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence drawn up by Nobel Peace Laureates that puts the obligation for peace on the individual as well as on the state.

UNESCO says the world has moved towards an order in which ‘it is possible for the rule of international law and justice to replace reliance on military power.’ In other words, a culture of peace can slip neatly into the vacuum left by the end of the Cold War.

At the conference in Yamoussoukro, Côte d’Ivoire, in July 1989, where the concept was articulated, participants urged a peace culture ‘based on the universal values of respect for life, liberty, justice, solidarity, tolerance, human rights and equality between women and men.’

Three years later, the UNESCO executive Board and the body’s general conference endorsed the Culture of Peace as part of the organisation’s mandate to contribute to international peace and security. A fairly comprehensive set of objectives has since been developed.

UNESCO’s director-general Federico Mayor says peace itself is being redefined. ‘Instead of the absence of war, it is increasingly seen as a dynamic, participative, long-term process, based on universal values and everyday practice at all levels - the family, the school, the community, as well as the nation.’

That notion of peace is shared by the International Fellowship of Reconciliation (IFOR). Based in Alkmaar, the Netherlands, IFOR comprised people who have committed themselves to active non-violence as a way of life and means of achieving social, personal, economic and political transformation. IFOR secretary general Anke Kooke, and Interim Program Officer Jan Schaake, have linked the concept of A Culture of Non-violence to that of A Culture of Peace, with the latter embracing communication, democratic decision making and non-violent conflict resolution. ‘It is the basis of freedom, security and equitable relationships and it encourages individual and group action for societal and structural change,’ they state. ‘A Culture of Non-violence embraces the non-violent understanding present in all spiritual practices.’

For there to be a transformation from a Root Causes of War toward a Culture of Peace and Non-violence, conflict resolution and societal changes should no longer be realised by violent means based on the isolation and destruction of the opponent, but by non-violent means, communication and democratic decision making. Courage and heroism are not based on the ability to use violence but on having the creativity to reach one’s goal by non-violent means.

The overall transformation from a Root Causes of War towards a Culture of Peace and Non-violence is ‘the transformation from exclusiveness and egocentredness towards sharing and community spirit; from ‘divide and conquer’ towards ‘communicate and reconcile’. Just sharing not only involves other people dependent on the resources, but also future generations, animals and plants and taking the intrinsic value of natural resources into account.’

UNESCO considers itself well placed to carry the weight. The Paris-based body emerged from the shadow of war: formed just after the end of the Second World War, its constitution has echoes of the conflict. ‘Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed,’ states the section of the document frequently recited to underline the basis for the organisation’s passionate endorsement of the Culture of Peace drive.

An intersectoral committee chaired by the director-general works with various other sectors and units of the organisation and has liaison with the United Nations in New York on the programme. In various countries, UNESCO National Culture of Peace Programmes keep the flame alight. Culture of Peace is integral to other UNESCO activities, including directly complementary ones like education.

The body’s Associated Schools Project (ASP) has inaugurated an interregional pilot project called ‘No to violence’ in Brazil, Estonia, Haiti, Sri Lanka and Zaire. In 1995, Culture of Peace and ASP jointly sponsored several subregional peace festivals involving children between the ages of 11 and 13 in Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Greece, Grenada, Jordan, Thailand and Zimbabwe.

Joint approaches have been made on urban violence, attempting to link networks of schools in cities plagued by conflict. At various universities, UNESCO chairs have been established specifically devoted to the teaching of human rights and peace studies. UNESCO funds support independent media outlets in conflict-ridden nations like Rwanda, where the propaganda of Mille Collines radio station helped to foment the 1994 genocide.

Across the border, in Burundi, which has its own ethnic tensions, the organisation has helped sensitise journalists on the need for non-partisan and pluralistic information. Similarly in the republics of former Yugoslavia support given to independent media seeking to bridge ethnic divisions, have contributed to building up trust.

In various parts of the world, UNESCO field offices have been used as culture of peace dissemination points. Special projects have been undertaken in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean; in Beijing, China, the UNESCO office has organised meetings with diplomats posted in the city to examine the implementation of peace programmes in multicultural contexts.

UNESCO clubs, some 4,800 of which are in existence, in over 100 countries, are also utilised to spread the idea. The fourth World Congress of the World Federation of UNESCO Clubs held in Romania in June 1995, decided to plan future activities around the theme ‘Towards a World Charter of UNESCO Clubs for a Culture of Peace’.

El Salvador, Mozambique and Burundi have pioneered the application on a national scale of the Culture for Peace philosophy. Steps have also been taken towards setting up parallel programmes in Honduras, Nicaragua and Somalia. In El Salvador, the national Culture of Peace programmes coincided with the process of national reconciliation in 1993, based on the 1992 Chapultepec Peace Accords. Brokered by the United Nations, these agreements ended a long running armed conflict between the government and a guerrilla movement. So the UNESCO initiative was undertaken amid a broad programme to build peace after the conflict.

Following a Forum for Education and Culture of Peace held in San Salvador, in April 1993, under the co-sponsorship of UNESCO and the El Salvador Ministry of Education, the organisation helped mediate the process by which the government and civil society worked together in designing the strategic guidelines of the programme as well as its constituent projects.

In Burundi, the national programme was launched in December 1994, with the opening of a House of a Culture of Peace in the capital, Bujumbura. Staffed by a multi-ethnic team, the house provides both a symbolic expression of the national desire for peace and a material structure with the means and institutional power to put it into practice. ‘It has become a centre for many individuals and groups working for peace,’ says UNESCO. ‘Despite the violence that has afflicted the city, work has continued on peace seminars for journalists, government administrators, educators and representatives from NGOs and the United Nations.’

One aspect of the Culture of Peace programme is a battle against on-screen violence. Here self-regulation is advocated, with the guidelines used by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) considered appropriate. These require the consideration of questions such as whether the violence contained in a programme - be it fiction or non-fiction - is essential to the story. Can the violence be implied rather than shown? Are the brutal consequences of violence also apparent? Is violence being glorified?

‘Faced with such questions,’ says UNESCO, ‘it is hoped that the media will begin to pay more attention to peaceful conflict resolution than it now does to violence.’

It’s because of the momentum given the programme by such projects that director-general Mayor describes the culture of peace is ‘a movement of movements in which everyone who is working for human rights, non-violence, democracy, social justice, sustainable development, women’s equality, join together in a ‘grand alliance’ of social transformation.’

But how can violent conflict be ended?

In ‘UNESCO and a Culture of Peace: Promoting a Global Movement’, the organisation says there is no magic wand approach. The concept of creating a culture of peace will evolve and grow only through practice. ‘As a movement, it is like a great river, fed from diverse streams from every tradition, culture, language, religion and political perspective.’

For UNESCO, the essence of the culture of peace idea is that it cannot be defined as the absence of conflict. ‘In a diverse and complex world,’ says the agency, ‘conflict will always be part of life. Instead of fearing it, we must learn to appreciate and cultivate its positive non-violent aspects, which include creativity and the redress of injustice.’

What the programme’s advocates seek to do is transform violent competition into co-operation for shared goods. Thus groups engaged in conflict would work together in the development process itself.

In managing these Culture of Peace programmes, UNESCO is entering new territory: there are few historical precedents.

Funding is also a problem. Although the Cold War is over, governments still spend large amounts on the military. Resources devoted to military expenditure are equivalent to the total income of half the world’s population. As UNESCO itself acknowledges, ‘the Culture of Peace is still not high on the list of global funding priorities’. Yet, it remains an obligation to support the process that ensues once combatants have ended their mistrust and committed themselves to building a new society.

‘If we are to achieve a Culture of Peace, we must pay the price for it,’ says the organisation. ‘We cannot be successful without a global reordering of priorities in which the present emphasis on military peace-keeping is matched by a commitment at least as great to non-violent peace-building.’

The United Nations’ initial emphasis (after the end of the Cold War) on peace-keeping operations, based on keeping peace between states, is increasingly being extended with a focus on peace-building, conflict prevention and the construction of a culture of peace. For peace-building is important not only for getting countries out of conflict, but as a device to shift them onto the path of sustainable development. ‘Action for a culture of peace correspond more closely to the concept of peace-building than to peace-keeping,’ says UNESCO.

Only time will tell if what UNESCO identifies as an ‘emerging culture of peace’ will eventually bring an end to the many conflicts that continue to take lives all across the globe.

next  

Feedback please to j.verhoeven@euconflict.org