MAKING WAR HISTORY

Working for the Deligitimisation of War

A Discussion Paper for the Network for Peace AGM

Conway Hall,

23 April 2005

Vijay Mehta

www.vmpeace.org

Introduction

The past century was the most lethal in human history. There were 250 wars, including two world wars and a Cold War, with more dead then in all previous wars of the past two thousands years. Over six million more have died even after the cold war ended, when things should have changed for the better. This situation must not continue into the new century.

At present there are over 30 wars across the globe. The deaths relating to war in Iraq is reaching 20,000 and the cost of the war to the United States alone is over 150 billion dollars.

Organisations who help those affected by the war throughout the World (like UNICEF, Oxfam, ICRC) estimate that 9 out of 10 deaths due to war are civilians, half of these children - that’s 9 civilians to every 1 soldier – very different from early last century when civilians accounted for 20% of war deaths.

It is an outrage that the 20th century saw more people killed in wars than all previously recorded time had. An outrage that now witnesses the vast majority of those killed in war are civilians, indeed, women and children. An outrage that poverty reduction, environmental degradation, AIDS, terrorism and WMD’s cry out to be addressed, but instead resources are wasted into war and militarism. The ever-increasing lethality of weapons in this century is such that women and children and other living things cannot afford war any more. Now is the time to turn back

All these deaths with the increased destructive power of today’s weapons, is leading us mainly to insist that we work much harder at alternatives to war. To do that we will examine the root causes of war, reasons to avoid war, deligitimisation of war, peace education and dismantling the culture of war. We can turn the situation from war-mongering to a society living for peace, rule of law and respect for human rights.   

Root causes of war

The culture of violence pervades our society, glorifying war rather than educating for peace, nonviolence, and international cooperation.

The continued military spending (USD $950 billion per annum) in our society perpetuates a culture of violence and hostilities.

Small arms and lights weapons (500 million in circulation) both start and prolong conflicts, causing millions of deaths.

Production of new mini nukes, buster bunker bombs and stockpile of existing 30,00 nuclear warheads, along with proliferation of nuclear and biological information and technology can result in terrorism, indiscriminate mass killing and destruction.

Economic globalisation has marginalised broad sections of the world’s population, further widening the gap between rich and poor.

The use of environmental resources is neither sustainable nor un-equitable. The world’s dominant consumers are overwhelmingly concentrated among the well off, but the environmental damage from it falls most severely on the poor, over consumption of the earth’s resources can result in ecological mayhem.  

Colonialism and neo-colonialism is evident in indigenous and un-represented people who are suffering from the suppression of their right to self-determination, ethnic and cultural genocide, the violation of their cultural, language and religious freedoms, and the militarisation and nuclearisation of their lives, lands and waters.

Ethnic, religious and racial intolerance, and nationalism are among the principal sources of modern armed conflict.

The costs of the gender injustice and machismo that still pervades most societies are high for men whose choices are limited by this standard, and for women who experience continual violence both in war and in peace.

Lack of protection and respect for children & youth continue to be exploited and victimized, particularly in violent conflict situations where harming children has become not only a consequence, but frequently a strategy of war.

The lack of democracy and just global governance at all levels of society are causing conflicts and replacing the rule of law with the rule of force.

It is commonly assumed that violence and warfare are inherent in human nature.

Violence in local communities paves the way for conflicts at national and international levels.

Religions have been a cause of war.

The role of media in misrepresenting the facts and flaring conflicts and hostilities.

 

Reasons to avoid war

There are many good reasons to avoid war - in this context used to include extensive conflicts involving physical violence within countries as well as those between countries, whether or not war has been officially declared.

Humanitarian grounds

Civilians, who may have little interest or involvement in the dispute, suffer when conflicts, whether between countries, or between communities within a country, escalate into physical violence and war. They suffer both directly from the violence and indirectly from the disruption to normal life, food supplies, services and physical and social infrastructure.

Economic grounds

War is expensive. The costs of developing increasingly high technology weaponry are escalating. Military spending diverts resources away from combating pollution, environmental destruction and social welfare. By contrast, conflict resolution can offer much better value for money.

Environmental grounds

War can be devastating to the environment, destroying vegetation and habitats, causing pollution and scattering debris, sometimes lethal, including landmines and depleted uranium.

Violent conflict can be prevented

Opportunities to avoid the human suffering and economic costs of war have been missed. There has been a failure to defuse potentially violent situations. On many occasions in the past, war or violent conflict could perhaps have been avoided if more effort and resources had been channeled into tackling the situation and resolving matters at an early stage. There are examples where this has been done successfully but in many others nothing has been done until too late, or what was done was under-resourced and insufficient.

Considerable expertise exists

There are many organisations and individuals with a great deal of expertise in preventing and resolving conflict in a non-violent way and in reconciliation work. Some have a strongly pacifist philosophy but most accept that a diverse range of skills, expertise and activities is needed to transform violent conflict, rebuild civil society and establish real security. The armed forces have expertise and a role in some situation

Global Public Opinion
Recent surge in global public opinion has witnessed the power of the people to resist and overcome present oppression as well as age-old prejudices of gender against gender, race against race, religion against religion, and ethnic group against ethnic group.

Desire for Decent Living
The desire for a decent living in recent years have witnessed an explosion of scientific and technical knowledge which make possible a decent life for all who inhabit this planet, the formulation of a set of universal rights which, if taken seriously, would translate that possibility into reality, and the infancy of a system of global governance which, if allowed to grow, could guide this transition.

 

Deligitimisation of war
 

War must be rejected as a legitimate instrument to resolve disputes. The global community is increasingly concerned about the escalation of use of force and about the legitimization of war. Not only was a high percentage of civil society opposed to the latest US led invasion of Iraq, but also the vast majority of member states of the UN General Assembly.

What makes this voice unique is that it reflects a larger, far more fundamental concern than the apparent illegality of this specific military intervention. The multiplicity of demonstrators across ethnic and country borders, opposition from member states, and the surge in peace activism represent a general opposition to resort to the means of war for solving interstate conflict. When the anti-war concerns of the international community were ignored, the sentiment that under no circumstances should war be legal crystallised. There was increasing concern that even if the UN Security Council had endorsed the military invasion of Iraq, the invasion still would not be legitimate.

This concern has also created a renewed interest in the efficiency of existing structures and the rationale behind specific international norms of conduct, in the need to respect Chapter VI of the UN Charter, in a greater role for the International Court of Justice and in respect for the rule of international law.

We are at a crossroads: The redefinition of ‘self-defence’ under Article 51 of the UN Charter to legitimise war in Afghanistan and subsequent unilateral assertions of a right of pre-emptive/ preventive attack have created the increased potential of escalating war. The stage is set for states to use such policies to legitimize military interventions. Pre-emptive aggression could be the future. Or, efforts of citizens and member states of the UN could, through the UN, be directed toward delegitimising the cause of suffering and destruction.

The notion that war is legitimate is sustained by the insistence of states that they must have substantial levels of military forces and weapons. The world is in especially grave peril when the development of nuclear weapons continues to be a sinister focus of military industries. An estimated $8 trillion has been spent on nuclear weapons since 1945. There are still around 30,000 nuclear weapons -- equivalent to about 300,000 Hiroshima bombs. This is despite the undertaking in 2000 by the nuclear weapons member states in the review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. And, in spite of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice handed down in July 1996 that the use or threat to use nuclear weapons is contrary to international humanitarian law. The risk of nuclear catastrophe ­ even, omnicide ­ by accident or intent, hangs over us all.  

As well, the NPT obliges all its members to pursue general and complete disarmament.  Instead, perniciously lethal weaponry continues to seriously flout the NPT and raises grave questions about violations of the Geneva Protocol and the need to expand the category of prohibited weapons.

The long-term disastrous environmental, health and social consequences of war and the preparation for war are also the result of the notion that war is legitimate. Recent studies have shown that armed forces are the single largest polluter on earth and that, often, destruction of the environment has been consciously used as a method of warfare in contravention of the convention related to the prevention of the modification of the environment in conflict.   

The costs of war cannot be addressed through reconstruction projects.  Hidden costs to civilians as well as to military personnel include the effects of destroying societal relationships, the disintegration of the social fabric, trauma, humiliation, confusion and destitution, i.e. the emotional and psychological chaos in the physical chaos instigated by warfare. The logical conclusion to be drawn is that humanity simply cannot afford militarism and war.

The Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice for the 21st Century, which emerged from a civil society conference of 10,000 people of all ages from many countries, calls for the abolition of war. (Ref A/54/98)


UN Vision of Disarmament and ending war

The seeds for delegitimising war have been planted through the UN Charter and through over 50 years growth of UN instruments. For years, member states have incurred obligations under the Charter, treaties, conventions, and covenants, made commitments under conference action plans, and created expectations through UN General Assembly resolutions that would, if implemented and enforced, give substance to the delegitimization of war, as do numerous statements by civil society.  For example:

Education for a Culture of Peace

"The Decade for a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence for the Children of the World" - Given the damage to children caused by violence and armed conflict, this is how the United Nations has designated the years 2001-2010 which open the 21st century. The UN defines a culture of peace as: "all the values, attitudes and forms of behavior that reflect respect for life, for human dignity and for all human rights, the rejection of violence in all its forms, and commitment to the principles of freedom, justice, solidarity, tolerance and understanding between people". Every country has been asked to ensure that children receive an education that enables them "to resolve any dispute peacefully and in a spirit of respect for human dignity and tolerance". These are aspirations to which governments readily pay lip service, but are they prepared for the consequences? The kind of education which might really enable young people to turn around the global culture of violence would also be very challenging to the status quo, and to the kind of values underpinning modern society. So what would a radical approach to peace education involve?

The Peace Education Network of organisations in this field has drawn up some aims of peace education:

* To understand the nature and origins of violence and its effects on both victim and perpetrator.
* To create frameworks for achieving peaceful, creative societies
* To sharpen awareness about the existence of unpeaceful relationships between people and within and between nations
* To investigate the causes of conflicts and violence embedded within perceptions, values and attitudes of individuals as well as within social and political structures of society
* To encourage the search for alternative or possible nonviolent skills
* To equip children and adults with personal conflict resolution skills. Of course peace education is not just for the young. Culture is something that is passed down and learned from one generation to the next. All of us need to acquire the information and skills which will enable us to create and pass on a culture of peace.

As the world begins a new millennium, a global yearning for peace clearly shows that the human spirit  remains undiminished in the face of  multiple conflicts and challenges steeped in all forms of violence and peacelessness.
 

Peace Education: A Holistic Paradigm  

Another long-standing expression of  educating and acting for a more peaceful  planet  is anchored in the concept of human rights. Although   it faces continual elaboration, a significant theory-practice gap and frequent challenge as to its validity, humans rights received a strong affirmation of its universality at the 1993 Vienna world conference,  While the Declaration noted the need to take into account specific social and cultural conditions, it is understood  that  cultural or social practices cannot justify human rights violations. Peace surely also means that the rights, dignities and freedoms inherent in all human beings be respected and promoted.

In sum, it is advocated here that a holistic paradigm of peace education is meaningfully built on the insights, analysis, practices and role-models that can be drawn from the diverse and increasingly convergent or at least consensus-building fields or movements of local, national and global transformation. When networks or communities of peace educators gather whether at the grassroots or in international forums, there is a healthy dialogue and openness to an ever spiraling and complex framework of peace education. A conception of the goals and purposes of peace education that is underpinned by the preferential option of “unity in diversity” may therefore by stated as follows;

 Recognising the interelatedness, interconnectedness of the concept of peace, peace education  seeks through appropriate educational processes to:

• promote a critical understanding of the root causes of conflicts, violence and peacelessness in the world  across the full  diversity of issues and problems and from macro (national, regional, international, global) to micro ( local, interpersonal, personal) levels of life;

•and simultaneously develop an  empowered commitment to values, attitudes and skills for translating that understanding into  individual and societal action to transform  selves, families, communities, institutions, nations and world from a culture of war, violence and peacelessness to a  culture of peace and active nonviolence.  

Dismantling the culture of war

 In the post-Cold War era, where a  “peace dividend” was  supposedly to be reaped from the reduction in superpower tensions and arms race, nevertheless tragic symptoms of a culture of war  abound  yielding  untold suffering, hardships, pain and death .  Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, Chechyna, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Liberia,  Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Peru , Columbia, and again  Cambodia, are but some grim reminders of the willingness and ease by which  nations and especially groups within nations resort to armed violence to settle conflicts and disputes. As the latest UN Human Development Report noted, such predominantly internally-based armed conflicts(civil wars, guerrilla wars, separatist movements, ethnic violence over government or territory) have caused the deaths of one million people in the past five years and of  some 2 million children in the past decade, and hundreds of  millions of  displaced peoples (46 million in 1995, including 16 million refugees ). Furthermore, 110 million deadly landmines remain undetonated in 68 countries.  Slowly, some societies are also painfully recovering from the ravages of  internal wars and armed conflicts settled through negotiation and political settlement , although the troubled middle east peace process illustrates the difficulties of attaining sustainable peace.

Building a culture of peace means that we begin educating our young children on personal, local, national and international issues of conflict and violence. All too often, education and dialogue is reserved for undergraduate, post-graduate and professional circles, ignoring the vast resource of youthful enthusiasm and exploration which high school-aged students can provide. The institutions of government, military, and popular media wage educational campaigns to inundate young people's lives with violent images and wasteful propaganda. If a culture of peace is what we want to provide for the future generations, then we must begin to explicitly teach peace. This may mean restructuring the academic curriculum to make learning at school more permanent rather than seasonal, and it may mean challenging our system of "accountability" where we are teaching our kids to test rather than teaching them to learn and think.

Furthermore, kids learn by example. So if we want them to learn nonviolence and healthy conflict management, we as a nation must become more vigilant in creating compassionate policies for education, healthcare, foreign countries, immigration, nuclear energy and weapons of mass destruction. Students should know where their priorities are, they should track where they spend their money. Students should also see where their governments' priorities are when they learn of the disparity between the defense budget and the education budget.

 

Conclusion

It is a time for a dose of practical optimism. Social change is always at first dismissed as impossible. The abolition of the slave trade, the creation of an old age pension, votes for women, were all in their turn described as utopian. The realistic optimist points to history. The UK is dotted with castles - once military fortresses but now tourist attractions. Some one-time enemies, for instance Germany and France, or Norway and Sweden, have so changed their political and economic relationships that war between them is simply unthinkable.
 

Consigning war to history means taking practical steps to build a culture of peace, to reject "peace" resting on threats of massive retaliation, to end the arms trade, source of so much destruction and so much debt, to create a public conviction that killing people is a barbaric way of resolving conflict.
 

For such changes to come about we need to build a global society in which the rule of law is paramount. There has been some progress in that direction. We even have a working International Criminal Court, though its jurisdiction is not accepted by the remaining superpower. In Interpol we have the start of an international police force. Changing attitudes is not easy but it does happen. The war nostalgia of the entertainment media can be redirected. The anti-poverty agencies can make practical and financial links with the peace movements. Remembrance Sunday can honour the dead in the one way that they would want to be honoured, by working towards the abolition of war itself. War must cease to be an admissible human institution. Let us reaffirm our faith in the Preamble to the UN Charter and work towards its implementation.  
 

We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

And for these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.

 

Some of the materials in the discussion paper have been taken from the following websites:

 

This discussion paper can also can downloaded from www.vmpeace.org