A.N.
Samarin
Culture of Peace and
Social Conflicts
|
|
Soon after the end of the Cold War against a background of
the initiated disintegration of the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and
complete disappearance of a number of states coalitions, within UNESCO and on
the initiative of its Director-General Federico Mayor there is being worked
out and later on is being developed the Culture of Peace Programme.[1] |
During this meeting there
was approved the Declaration made in Seville (1986) by 20 prominent scientists,
which underlay a culture of peace, thus being a scientific proof that any war
is based on cultural, not biological causes. The same species that has invented
war can invent peace as well, - rightly assumed the authors of the Declaration.
The Declaration of the Congress in Yamoussoukro called for the creation of a
“new vision of a culture of peace based on the universal values: life, freedom,
law, solidarity, access expansion, human rights and equality between men and
women".[2] Officially the Culture of Peace
became the Programme of UNESCO activities in 1992.
With
the loss of former existing “balance of forces” in the bipolar world the
conflict processes on the international as well as the nation-state level have
not disappeared but even began to aggravate resulting in a series of civil and
local wars in places where they seemed to have been long forgotten. Moreover,
disintegration of once great states and alliances with not long ago powerful
armies became the breeding ground and incentive for separatist terrorism and,
at the same time, for expansionism. The former limiting factor in the form of
fear balance disappeared and there was found no adequately effective
replacement. The signs of impending large battles turned up here and there. The
rushing globalization which replaced the Cold War, destroyed, on the one hand,
the former barriers, and, on the other hand, brought about new threats.
International relations monocentric management with unlimited powers of a
“world policeman” was fraught with the greatest dangers including the danger to
the idea of a culture of peace. As the most recent international practice has
shown, constellation of facts favourable for the peace ideology remained for a
short time, and the subsequent onrush of the “culture of war” was on the
contrary most severe and sweeping.
F.
Mayor and his colleagues tried by mobilisation of ideological and cultural
means to neutralize or to temper the growing wave of armed conflicts. Their
original principle was simple and had already been once stated in the Charter
of UNESCO. All wars begin in people’s minds. And there exactly must be found
foundations for peace. The strong historic tradition, which considers wars an
acceptable means to settle disputes, must be opposed by a non-violent
ideological and psychological and value alternative. Since a whole complex of
cultural aims fixed by institutions still serves the preparation to wars, it is
necessary to transform society from this “culture of war” to its opposite which
thus was called the culture of peace.[3].
The authors of the Programme realized that
wars have not only intellectual or value premises, but their powerful
socio-economic stimulants as well. Therefore the Culture of Peace calls not
only for intellectual and moral transformation of people, but also for the
reduction of economic differentiation levels, other social security measures,
all this demands efforts and work not only from states, but also from
individuals and social groups concerned. “It was an attempt to prevent
conflicts by eliminating their root causes, in order to solve problems by
dialogue and mutual coordination…” - recalled later one of the leading
developers of the Programme the objectives of the joint work on it.[4]
The
formation of the global ethics with planetary perception is an essential aspect
of this ideological and enlightenment research work. The UN and UNESCO
documents on a culture of peace state that mankind needs a new global ethics.
The lessons of the past indicate that without moral guidelines the science and
politics may become a source of terrible human tragedies, - says about it Hance
Kung, the president-founder of the organization “Global Ethics”.[5]
Experts
in the Preamble found one of the vital premises to the UNESCO Charter (adopted
in 1945). It states: “Peace based solely on political and economic management
of states will not be the peace that might ensure unanimous, long-term and
sincere support of the people all over the world… The peace must therefore
be based, if we do not want to fail, on intellectual and moral solidarity of
mankind”.[6]
Further
research has shown that there is no stable peace without respect for human and
peoples’ dignity; there is no stable peace without freedom and democracy; there
is no stable peace without justice and sustainable development. According to
the Programme the main goal of a culture of peace is: to encourage the current
and future generations to actively participate in creation of a more humane,
fair, free and flourishing world without wars and violence. As it is aimed at
instilling the idea of peace protection in people’s mind, for it is mainly
addressed to the youth and their education in the direction of peace creation,
tolerance and non-violence.[7]
A
great importance in the formation of the Culture of Peace ideological potential
acquired the world humanistic heritage (including tendencies of non-violent change
of the world by L. Tolstoy, M. Gandhi, M. Luther King), and contemporary
researches of conflicts, search for means of their settlement. “A culture of peace, - remarked
UNESCO Director-General F.Mayor, - is an alliance of scientific austerity and
our determination to discover new ways for democracy, freedom and tolerance all
over the world”.
The
alternative to the past on the value level is to promote space for
socio-cultural and economic development of individuals, social groups and
peoples, to extend their constructive cooperation, to boost total productivity.
Under this context the consolidation of a culture of peace is understood as
creation of peaceful, non-violent behavioural patterns aimed at organizing
cooperation, harmonic interaction on individual and group level. The detailed
interpretation of such patterns was strongly influenced by democratic ideas and
ideals.
So, according to the Programme, people’s
cultural and moral growth is impossible without the freedom to inform and stay
informed. Free flow and receipt of information is a condition of an authentic
image of reality free from narrowness and extreme ideology. In many cases it
prevents military manipulation of minds. The information on cultural diversity
of the world and instilment of respect for national and civilization
peculiarities are most crucial. One of the top objectives of the mass media and
education institutions is to transfer true information about the world, its
problems and ways to solve them.
It
is also necessary to pay attention to the fruitful change of scientific
paradigms in the research of conflicts, which contributed to the development of
a culture of peace. Among the initiators of this change are J.Galtung, J.
Berton, L. Kozer. In former theories of conflicts the point was to aggravate
conflicts (and to show the final victory of one of the confronting parties),
but the current knowledge of conflicts (conflictology), now a more nature,
profound and independent branch of science, underlines the role of integrative
processes, puts in the forefront the ideal of constructive and non-violent
settlement of disputes between the parties. In the same direction develops the
Russian conception of conflicts (À. V. Dmitriev, Å.
I. Stepanov, E. R. Taghirov, L. I. Nikovskaya and others). Its development, in
its turn, is incited by the values that have appeared within the Culture of
Peace.
It
views the world in two possible versions; the world in minimum “negative” sense
is connected with absence of war as an international armed conflict. But there
is a broader vision of the world, which includes elimination of any structural
violence, within the national community as well. Implementation of a culture of
peace implies a rise from the end of wars to the universal elimination of the
widespread structural violence. It requires a humanistic recognition of rights
and dignities of any person and maximum renunciation of violence, suppression
and oppression as legitimate means of human interaction. Fight on violence deep
rooted in the system is the most difficult task on the way to the ideal of
non-violence.
In
Russia structural violence goes hand in hand with liberal and reformative
ideology and practice, and its destructive consequences will certainly surpass
human victims of the communist era. Reformation in Russia from the position of
liberal fundamentalism, as was earnestly brought out by a Nobel laureate,
J.Stiglitz (Joseph E. Stiglitz), can lead only to economic collapse, and,
consequently, to a great number of victims. Proponents of this ideology in this
country consider it quite acceptable to rapidly “compress population” up to 60
million people, which means that over 80 million of our fellow citizens would
die out. Liberalism of the kind is absolutely contrary to the values of
democracy and tolerance. Intolerant elites that ignore vital interests of the
majority are the main obstacle to a culture of peace, and not only in Russia.
A
means to avert wars and violence might be mass involvement and participation of
individuals in democratic declaration of will and in decision making which
cannot be an exclusive privilege of elites, especially those that advocate
destructive values. Segregation and discrimination of any social and ethnic
groups (all the more, their genocide) may become a hotbed of not only tension,
but severe armed conflicts as well. It is therefore necessary to provide a
fairly equal access to the welfare and social opportunities, and in connection
with this the realization of human solidarity must be formed. If such
solidarity does not become widespread, the world will enter the era of most
cruel militarism. The signs of a possible unfavourable turning point are
already emerging, for it has become evident that basic natural resources are
scarce and exhaustible, all this extremely exacerbates the fight to get them.
Unfortunately, the high ideal of the early 90s soon clashed with the reality. It turned out that too many social institutes and individuals in the head of them are oriented on opposite goals and practice.
The
years that have passed since the declaration of the Culture of Peace as a
programme of the most impressive and powerful international organizations were
disappointing. These organizations have lost their prestige as well as real
abilities to control and guide the world events. The culture of war pushed aside in the politics and mass media
the noble ideals of peacemaking. As the peacemakers themselves unanimously
write, the already scanty financing of their activity was cut down. And some,
the most ardent supporters of the world expansion even suggested giving up
peace programs and leaving a cult of non-violence and tolerance only as a gift
to the conquered peoples. They do not hide the aim of this gift – to
anaesthetize the minds of the most active and resistive forces. Globalization
weakens nation states, many of which are on the brink of collapse. They loose
their ability to secure socially their population, and this triggers the growth
of xenophobia, social tension which cannot but result in new conflicts. We are
afraid that there again will be a great number of victims in the course of new
wars before the ideas of the Culture of Peace are reconsidered and implemented
in the right way.
The
roots of the decay of the peacemaking ideas of the Culture of Peace Programme
lie in dominant mechanisms of unscrupulous competition on the part of the world
monopolies and “oligopolies” sustained by force. In such a situation respect
for the rights of individuals and peoples is out of the question. In the
competition like this, when unilateral use of force is allowed, people will not
take seriously the ideas of tolerance and non-violence that in such
circumstances are reduced to hypocritical rhetoric, which covers up predatory
actions. This incongruity between good intentions and reality is more striking
in Russia. We wouldn’t like these intentions cover up contrary actions.
In
this situation a unilateral acceptance of a culture of peace by peoples,
victims of external expansion, without any reservations would sooner resemble a
unilateral moral disarmament. In other words, morally it may be compared with
the “spirit of Munich” of 1939, which, as is known, was a sheer encouragement
of Nazi aggression. A culture of peace can be effective only when world leaders
and countries possessing the most powerful military forces back it up. It will
be firmly established as something real only when it becomes their voluntary
self-restriction in the use of arms, otherwise it will be reduced to an
abundant dose of futile public hypocrisy.
It is clear that we cannot wait when these countries or leaders deign to accept the idea of non-violence, but we must put as much pressure on them as possible by all means available and establish no confrontational methods to settle conflicts. Sooner or later the high ideals of Tolstoy, Gandhi, M. Luther King will triumph.
