Havva KOK USAK Center for Eurasian Studies printable version send your friend

Friday, 9 October 2009

If the world order is to move away from its present chaotic and violent condition, building cultures of peace is the remedy. The creative management of differences is at the core of peace culture. But what is culture of peace?

The United Nations General Assembly defined the culture of peace as the " (…) values, attitudes and behaviors that reflect and inspire social interaction and sharing based on the principles of freedom, justice and democracy, all human rights, tolerance and solidarity, that reject violence and endeavor to prevent conflicts by tackling their root causes to solve problems through dialogue and negotiation and that guarantee the full exercise of all rights and the means to participate fully in the development process of their society" (A/RES/52/13) (UN, 1999).[1] As a result the UNGA proclaimed the year 2000 “as the International Year for the Culture of Peace" (A /RES/52/15)” and the decade 2001-2010 “as the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World” (A /RES/53/25).

In accordance with the United Nations Declaration and Programme of Action for a Culture of Peace (A/RES/53/243), the culture of peace in practice means actions:

·         “to foster a culture of peace through education

·         to promote sustainable economic and social development

·         to promote respect for all human rights

·         to ensure equality between women and men

·         to foster democratic participation

·         to advance understanding, tolerance and solidarity

·         to support participatory communication and the free flow of information and knowledge

·         to promote international peace and security.”

As it can be seen from the above definition, the resolution clearly had much more in mind than the ‘negative peace’ reflected by an absence of war, civil disturbance, and murder. Rather, it also envisaged a ‘positive peace’ of justice, tolerance, and plenty. This intention was clearly manifested in the program of action the delegates designed to bring about a culture of peace. This program addressed eight different bases for a culture of peace. These were as follows:

(1) Education (and especially, education for the peaceful resolution of conflict)

(2) Sustainable development (viewed as involving the eradication of poverty, reduction of inequalities, and environmental sustainability)

(3) Human rights

(4) Gender equality

(5) Democratic participation

(6) Understanding, tolerance, and solidarity (among peoples, vulnerable groups, and migrants within the nation and among nations)

(7) Participatory communication and the free flow of information

(8) International peace and security (including disarmament and various positive initiatives)

In his work (2004b) de Rivera, developed an abstract model of a culture of peace. In order to systematize the idea of a culture of peace, de Rivera has taken the aspects articulated in the UNESCO documents and General Assembly resolution, added what we know from empirical research, and organized the aspects into a model of a culture of peace that reflects some sociopolitical theory.[2] He has arranged them into three interrelated clusters according to whether the desired aspect primarily involves changing societal norms, transforming sociopolitical structures, or promoting governmental policies that help establish an environment that nourishes a culture of peace. Table 1, which is developed from the model proposed by Adams and True (1997), presents these aspects of an ideal model of a culture of peace and contrasts it with an idealized culture of violence.

TABLE 1

Identifiable Models of Cultures of Peace and of Violence

Culture of Peace                                                                 Culture of Violence

Societal norms 1. Conflicts should be resolved by dialogue, negotiations, and nonviolent action. People should cooperate for common goals.	1. Conflicts settled by superior force.
2. Women’s voices are as important as those of men. Children and nurturance are valued.	2. Men dominate. Domination valued more than nurturance.
3. Societal cohesion based on unilateral tolerance, solidarity, and mutual obligations.	3. Cohesion based on images of an enemy.
State structures achieve political stability by 4. Democratic participation with a civic society enabling freedom of advocacy so that needs can be met.	4. Authoritarian hierarchical society.
5. Open communication with transparency, accountability, and pure journalism.	5. Control of information through secrecy and propaganda.
6. Assurance of human rights and inclusion of all groups.	6. Exclusion of minorities.
Environmental characteristics 7. International security.	7. Competition for armed superiority.
8. Equitable and sustainable development.	8. Exploitation of people and resources.

The model for a culture of peace presented in Table 1 establishes an ideal goal. Although this model rests on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it may be objected that both the declaration and the model reflect Western liberal ideals rather than universal values.

Given the model outlined in Table 1, we may assess the degree that different societies have achieved such a culture. The model presented in Table 1 suggests that to assess the extent to which a society is achieving a culture of peace, we must examine the degree to which the society has:

Societal Norms Promoting a Civil Society

1.       Nonviolent norms (UN action area 1: Education for peace).

2.      Valuing women and nurturance (UN action area 4: Gender equality).

3.      Societal cohesion (UN action area 6: Understanding, tolerance, and solidarity).

State Structures to Achieve Political Stability

4.      Democratic participation (UN action area 5).

5.      Open communication (UN action area 7).

6.       Human rights (UN action area 3).

Governmental Market Policies That Promote a Just Environment

7.      International security (UN action area 8).

8.     Sustainable development (UN action area 2).

However, the question remains: Are these bases set by the UN resolution necessary and sufficient bases of a culture of peace? Can they provide the grounds to assess the degree to which different nations possess a culture of peace?

References:

de Rivera, Joseph, ‘Assessing the Basis for a Culture of Peace in Contemporary Societies,’ 2004 Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 5, 2004, pp. 531–548.

Joseph, de Rivera (2004)’A Template for Assessing Cultures of Peace’, Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 10:2,125 — 146

UN Resolution, A/RES/52/13, A /RES/52/15, A /RES/53/25, A/RES/53/243, 1999