The Taiping Peace Initiative

Taiping 2nd Peace Lecture

Doing Peace Globally and Locally
by Dato' Dr. Ronald McCoy
on the Occasion of UN Day, 22th September 2003

Introduction

Humankind has always had a great desire for peace, but has failed to find the path to a durable peace. The search for peace still goes on, but peace remains as elusive and as remote as ever, despite every effort to end the cycle of violence and deadly conflict, which is particularly pronounced today. We have already made a bad start to the twenty-first century, chalking up two wars in two years.

We have not learnt the lessons of the twentieth century, which will stand out as a century of paradoxes and inequalities. Scientific advances in agriculture have increased food production in most countries, and yet malnutrition and famine have claimed millions of lives. Economic development has enriched people and encouraged excessive consumption, mostly in the developed world, but the gap between the rich and poor is widening and hunger and deprivation remain undiminished in the Third World. Human rights, including the right to life, have been universally recognised and embodied in a remarkable array of international human rights and humanitarian laws, but human rights have been violated on a massive scale and caused humanitarian crises. Advances in medical science have made it possible to save lives in ways undreamed of before, and yet millions of people die prematurely from preventable diseases and pharmaceutical companies are unable to provide affordable life-saving drugs for the poor who need them. Science and technology have enabled people to lead more comfortable lives, and yet they have invented and continues to invent weapons of mass destruction that threaten the survival of civilisation itself.

Our dysfunctional world is in a precarious state. It suffers from a systemic disorder in governance which manifests itself in many ways:

War, insecurity and militarism that give rise to high levels of military expenditure and the development, production and transfer of armaments, including small arms, light weapons, and nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.
Hunger and abject poverty which persistently afflict 20 per cent of the global population, mainly in the so-called Third World, while world expenditure on the military amounts to US$ 800 billion every year.
Degradation of the environment and destruction of biodiversity at such a rate and on such a scale, that the natural processes of organic regeneration are under threat.
Human oppression by some governments, who deny their people the most fundamental human rights, and the inability of increasing numbers of people to fully develop their human potential.

Civil society

Each of these crises represents a failure in local and global governance and emphasises the need to find lasting solutions to future threats to human security and indeed human survival in the long term. Despite extensive conferences and recommendations made in the three main United Nations reports of the Brandt, Palme and Brundtland Commissions in the 1980s, the natural life-support systems of our planet are collapsing, the militarisation of geopolitics is increasing, and levels of violence are rising, which leave the world seriously ill and in need of intensive care.

The optimist will reassure you that the world has muddled through similar problems for centuries and that science and technology can be relied on to come up with a scientific or technological fix.

The pessimist or realist will claim that we cannot avoid wars or refrain from degrading the environment, poisoning ourselves with pollutants or consuming the limited resources for the needs of future generations, because it is human nature that makes us warlike, selfish and greedy creatures.

In between the two groups of optimists and pessimists, you will find those who believe that it is possible to find human solutions for human problems and that we must actively strive to bring about change. These are the dedicated bands of social activists who feel a responsibility for the legacy that we will bequeath to future generations. To believe in that possibility, we will need to confront the contradictions, sometimes our own contradictions, and find sustainable and peaceful ways to manage the world.

For instance, you cannot prevent violence and war without first addressing the root causes of conflict, such as political, economic and social inequalities, the armaments industry, ethnic and religious differences, and aggressive narrow national interests. You cannot eradicate poverty without dismantling the economic and social structures that cause and sustain poverty. You cannot preserve human rights without public education and a legal framework to ensure that violators of those rights are held accountable. You cannot save the environment without enforcing ecologically sustainable policies.

Given the state of the world today, it is clear that global governance, based on nation states alone is unable to respond adequately to global challenges. There is a growing recognition by governments and the United Nations that civil society has an important complementary role to play, locally and globally. Thousands of NGOs flourish in democratic countries where a political space has been created for them to function as the world’s conscience and monitor. But even in democratic countries, there is scope for further enlargement of the political space to encourage greater development and growth of civil society.

A new global civil society is emerging and demanding new approaches – citizen-based, bottom-up, alternative strategies for conflict prevention through preventive diplomacy and international structures for early warning systems. A new diplomacy is being fashioned, so that citizen advocates, progressive governments and international organisations may work together to create a culture of peace and build national and supranational institutions as guarantors of peace and justice in the world, based on human rights and the rule of law. The crucial challenge will be in finding an acceptable mechanism for enforcing international law and placing limits on national sovereignty.

Such initiatives have flourished since the end of the Cold War. Campaigns have been launched to ban and eradicate landmines, abolish biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, reduce the trade in small arms and light weapons, protect the rights of children and women, alleviate Third World debt, and establish an independent, permanent International Criminal Court.

It is time to create the conditions for the realisation of the unfulfilled primary aim of the United Nations, founded in 1945 to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. Cynics, sceptics and realists will say that it is impossible to abolish war, that violence and war are inherent in human nature, although there is no scientific evidence to show that war and violence have a direct genetic or neurophysiological basis. And yet, human sacrifice to appease the gods, slavery, colonialism and apartheid have been abolished and interstate wars no longer plague continental Europe, providing a foundation for hope. The decline of tyranny and the growth of representative and responsive government in general, the strengthening of human rights and humanitarian laws, and the promotion of social justice and economic well-being, though imperfect and incomplete, are achievements we can build on in the twenty-first century.

Soon after his historic meeting with President Reagan in Washington and the signing of the breakthrough treaty to abolish intermediate-range nuclear weapons, President Gorbachev made these comments in Moscow in an address to the International Forum for a Nuclear-Free World:

When disarmament is discussed, a common thesis is that man is violent by nature and that war is a manifestation of human instinct. Is war the perpetual concomitant of human existence then? If we accept this view, we shall have to reconcile ourselves with continuous development and accumulation of ever more sophisticated weapons of mass destruction. Such thinking is unacceptable. It is reminiscent of times when ever more sophisticated weapons were invented and used to conquer other peoples and enslave and pillage them. That past is no model for the future.

The Seville Statement on Violence

In 1986, twenty leading biological and social scientists met in Seville, Spain, and produced the Seville Statement on Violence, which challenges the biological determinism and pessimism that is frequently used to explain or even to justify war and violence.

The initial idea of the project was inspired by the successful use of the five UNESCO Statements on Race (1950, 1951, 1964, 1967, 1968) which formulated the scientific consensus that there are no superior or inferior races and which provided a strong scientific foundation to the political work of the United Nations and other political bodies in their struggle against racism and its most unacceptable manifestation in the apartheid system in South Africa. It was felt that a similar Statement on Violence could play an important role in the struggle against war and violence.

The Seville Statement on Violence states its position in five propositions:

It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors,
It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behaviour is genetically programmed into our human nature.
It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behaviour more than for other kinds of behaviour
It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a ‘violent brain.’
It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by ‘instinct’ or any single motivation.

The Seville Statement concludes:

We conclude that biology does not condemn humanity to war, and that humanity can be freed from the bondage of biological pessimism and empowered with confidence to undertake the transformative tasks needed in this International Year of Peace and in the years to come. Although these tasks are mainly institutional and collective, they also rest upon the consciousness of individual participants for whom pessimism and optimism are crucial factors. Just as ‘wars begin in the minds of men,’ peace also begins in our minds. The same species who invented war is capable of inventing peace. The responsibility lies with each of us.

Attempts to disseminate the Statement on Violence to the mass media and attract the support of scientific and academic organisations specifically concerned with the issue of peace appear to have met with little success. However, professional scientific organisations not involved in the issue of peace have been more supportive. The message of the Seville Statement has begun to penetrate into educational systems where a number of textbooks are planning to include the Statement.

It is likely that resistance to the Statement in the mass media and related social institutions arises out of belief in the myth that war is part of human nature, reinforced by the campaign of psychological propaganda that has been waged in the media to justify political policies of militarism, which are linked to corporate profits in the armaments industry.

Researchers have shown that students who believe that war is intrinsic to human nature are less likely to think that they personally can do anything to prevent nuclear war and are less likely to participate in activities for peace. These findings have important implications for peace education worldwide or any campaign to dispel the widespread myth that war is instinctive, intrinsic to human nature, and unavoidable.

This myth is not supported by most scholars and scientists who instead agree that there is nothing in our understanding of biology that would support the idea of a “war instinct” or any “biological inevitability” of warfare.

The Hague Agenda for Peace

Eight thousand people from more than one hundred countries filled the halls of the Congress Centre in The Hague, the Netherlands, from 11-15 May 1999, to participate in the Hague Appeal for Peace Conference, organised by more than 700 non-governmental organisations, to adopt an agenda to prevent war, delegitimise armed conflict and create a culture of peace.

The date was chosen to mark the centenary of the First Hague International Peace Conference, which was convened by 26 governments in May 1899 to discuss “rules of war” and focus on peace-building and conflict prevention. Although the growth of institutions and values that protect civilians, regulate conflict, and ensure human security can be traced to the 1899 Peace Conference in The Hague, it was not enough to protect civilians from being brutalised by the wars of the 20th century and other forms of human suffering that accounted for higher casualties among civilians than combatants, as warring nations abandoned the Geneva Conventions and the laws of armed conflict.

The Hague Appeal for Peace Conference was an affirmation that conventional approaches to peace, including the work of the United Nations, have been unable to “maintain international peace and security.” This was clearly shown in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and again most recently in the Iraq crisis, when the authority and legitimacy of the United Nations was damaged by the unilateralist policies of the Bush administration.

The Hague Appeal for Peace Conference was a process centred on identifying an agenda for peace and international justice in the 21st century, which it hoped would save millions of lives from the ravages of war. The agenda was derived from the plenaries and workshops at the conference, based on four broad strands:

To identify the root causes of war and develop a culture of peace.
To strengthen international humanitarian and human rights laws and institutions.
To advance the prevention, peaceful resolution and transformation of violent conflict.
To develop and link disarmament efforts, including the abolition of nuclear weapons.

The Hague Appeal for Peace was motivated by the following themes:

” Traditional Failure: The failure to prevent war and build peace through traditional approaches as was evidenced by the growing brutality and callous disregard for: civilian life in war and the apparent impunity for ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Traditional diplomacy is often characterised by big-power bullying tactics and economic sanctions that cause suffering to the poor, while fire-brigade peacekeeping is recognised to be highly inferior to early warning and preventive diplomacy.

Human Security: There is a need to redefine security in terms of human and ecological needs instead of state sovereignty and national borders. In doing so, it is necessary to prioritise the diversion of resources from armaments to sustainable development and the construction of an inclusive, new social order that would ensure equal participation of marginalised groups, including women and indigenous people.
Soft Power: Choosing the path of’ ‘soft power’ – negotiation, coalition-building and peaceful resolution of conflict – while rejecting the ‘hard power’ dictates of the major powers, the military establishment and economic conglomerates.
Human Rights for All: The violation of human rights is one of the causes of war. The universality and indivisibility of human rights needs to be affirmed by removing the artificial distinction between the two sets of human rights – economic, social and cultural rights on the one hand and political and civil rights on the other. Human rights treaties need stronger mechanisms for their enforcement and for redressing the victims of human rights violations.
Replacing the Law of Force with the Force of Law: The rule of law is often contemptuously ignored in conflicts by the those who apply the law of force. This has to be remedied by the enforcement of international law through universal adherence to the International Court of Justice and other institutions, such as the International Criminal Court.
Peace-Making Initiatives: Too often, peace initiatives are proposed as a last resort, with negotiations restricted to the warmongers, politicians and military leaders, whereas there is a legitimate role for civil society to convene peace initiatives before crises get out of control, turning early warning from a slogan to a reality.
Democratic International Decision-Making: The United Nations and other multilateral institutions have the capacity to be a universal force for peace and stability, but their authority and legitimacy are often severely undermined by the unilateral actions of some major powers. The UN Security Council in particular needs to be reformed and restructured to make the UN a more democratic and effective force for peace and justice.

Global movement for a culture of peace

Initiated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and all the Nobel Peace Laureates, the UN General Assembly in September 1999 called for the first time for a global movement for a Culture of Peace. The movement was launched in 2000 during the UN International Year for the Culture of Peace and continued during the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World from 2000 to 2010.

Culture is about how we live our lives – how we think, speak and behave. When we do all these with positive values, we live a culture of peace which brings benefit to the whole community.

values, attitudes and modes of behaviour that promote the peaceful resolution of conflict and the quest for mutual understanding. Peace is a way of being, doing and living in society, that can be taught, developed and improved upon. Peace is living in harmony amidst diversity and adopting a common platform of positive values. Peace requires a dynamic, participatory process where dialogue is encouraged and conflicts are resolved peacefully, in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation.

The culture of peace, envisaged by the UN, is broader and deeper than traditional concepts of peace. It is conceived as an alternative to the culture of war and violence, and is based on respect for human rights, democracy and tolerance, the promotion of development, peace education, the free flow of information, disarmament, and the wider participation of women.

This culture of peace therefore provides an alternative to the exploitation, authoritarianism, enemy images, military education, secrecy, male domination and war preparations, such as armies and weapons systems that are necessary for the culture of war and violence. It undercuts the very foundation on which war systems have always been built and it provides the basis for a common, universal vision for a peaceful future.

A popular version of the UN resolution has been developed as the Manifesto 2000, which commits each individual to work for a culture of peace in his or her daily life, in schools, family, work-place and community, through a commitment to:

Respect the life and dignity of each human being without discrimination or prejudice.

Reject violence and practise active non-violence by rejecting, in all its forms, physical, sexual, psychological, economical and social violence, particularly violence towards the most deprived and vulnerable, such as the poor and children.

Share with others your time and material resources in a spirit of generosity to put an end to exclusion, injustice and political and economic oppression.

Listen to understand by defending the freedom of expression and cultural diversity, giving preference always to dialogue and listening without engaging in fanaticism, defamation and rejection of others.

Preserve the planet by promoting responsible consumer behaviour and development practices that respect all forms of life and preserve the balance of nature on the planet.

Rediscover solidarity by developing the community with the full participation of women and respect for democratic principles, in order to create together new forms of solidarity.

By extending the culture of peace initiative into a UN decade from 2001-2010, the UN General Assembly has provided a framework for further development of the global movement. However, the initiative has met with obstacles. Although the rich nations eventually signed on when it was put on the agenda, the European Union insisted that all reference to the culture of war must be removed, presumably because it was being discussed during the height of the NATO bombing of Kosovo. When it was suggested that the document should include a provision for a “human right to peace,” the US delegate stated that the US was opposed to any reference to a human right to peace “because that would make it more difficult to start a war.”

Culture of war

That spontaneous remark by an American government official highlights the culture of war which pervades the ruling elite in Washington. The Bush administration and its inner circle of policy and decision makers comprise a relatively small but influential group of neoconservative Americans who have assumed power in the United States.

It is important for all who advocate the non-violent settlement of conflict and peace to understand and know about the foreign and military policy of the world’s only superpower, because its impact on the geopolitical environment and international affairs is momentous and will have a negative effect on any peace initiatives that do not serve American interests.

The Bush administration’s response to terrorism has been an all-out “war on terrorism,” that casts aside the rule of international law and any treaty that may impede its ultimate goal of world domination or hegemony. It threatens unilateral militarism, endless war, and new nuclear policies that envisage the development of new, “usable” nuclear weapons that could trigger a second nuclear arms race, nuclear war, nuclear terrorism, and eventually the weaponisation of outer space. By capitalising on domestic fears of terrorism, the Bush administration is preparing the ground and conditioning the American public to the use of nuclear weapons, whenever the strategy of counter-terrorism demands it.

In this globalisation of militarism and culture of war, waging peace is going to become more and more difficult. So, one of the priorities in “doing peace” would be to develop a programme of education and information that would change American public opinion, which at present is still supportive of the Bush doctrine.

It should be the fervent hope of the majority of the world, who opposed the invasion of Iraq, that with the next presidential elections in the United States there will be regime change – peaceful regime change.

Dato’ Dr. Ronald McCoy*

Dato’ Dr. Ronald McCoy is the President, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War which received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. He is also Fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London; Member of the Canberra Commision on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons; Founder Member and EXCO Member of Transparency International Malaysia; Past President of the Malaysian Medical Association and Vice President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

Dato’ completed his Bachelor os Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery from the University of Malaya and has served as Consultant Obstetricians and Gynaecologists during his stint at Assunta Hospital, Petaling Jaya and Pantai Medical Centre from 1965-1996.

He has presented and published several papers oon nuclear disarmament, medical ethics and health reforms at various national and international fora, which include ‘A Disarmament Agenda for the 21st Century’; ‘Action Priorities for the Physicians in Global Conflict’ and Weapons of Mass Destruction: a Credible Disarmament Programme for the Asia Pacific’.

His previous affiliations include being Member of the Board of Trustees National Art Gallery and Aliran.