One World, Many Peaces

Win $1000 in this Peace Writing Contest (And Make A Difference, Too)

Friends of the Arc (FOTA) is a nonprofit advocacy organization that believes that the Arc, developed by the RAND Corporation (a problematic sponsor, on which more below) and Suisman Urban Design, has the potential according to them "to ensure a viable Palestinian state and a Middle East that knows sustainable peace, prosperity, and security."

FOTA has announced a $1,000 prize for the best essay by a college or graduate student, in the form of a policy brief to President Barack Obama, on the topic of the usefulness of RAND Corporation’s Arc concept for the current Middle East peace negotiations.

According to RAND's website: "Palestine’s crumbling infrastructure presents a major challenge for a new Palestinian state. Yet it also provides an opportunity to plan for sustainable development and to avoid the environmental cost and economic inefficiencies of haphazard, unregulated urban development that might otherwise result from the need to accommodate a rapidly growing population. The Arc, RAND’s concept for developing the physical infrastructure of a Palestinian state, provides such a plan." More information about the Arc is available here.

Submissions should respond to the following prompt:

With the resumption of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, many observers doubt that more purely political discussions will finally produce a comprehensive peace settlement; they suggest that some paradigm-changing idea is needed to break the deadlock. You have been asked to brief President Obama about the Arc project. Prepare a policy brief making the case that the Arc plan is just such a compelling idea, and that with U.S. support, it could help negotiators achieve a breakthrough for peace.

Submissions are due October 8, 2010, at 6 pm ET and should be no more than 1,000 words in length. Before crafting their submissions, participants should view the 30-minute Arc video and other resources at www.friendsofthearc.org. College and graduate students from any country are eligible to apply.

One World, Many Peaces deems it necessary to point out the RAND has close ties to the military, that the Arc project is being developed without the express consent of the Palestinian people, and that it is all-too remeniscent of the Soviet-style infrastructure development projects that brought so much of post-colonial Africa and Eastern Europe close to ruin. These could be topics for consideration for the peace writing contest.

We asked the contest's organizers how they resolve the paradox with the close military ties and this "peace" project, here is what they had to say:

"The RAND Corporation certainly has its origins in conducting studies and R&D (R&D is the origin of the name RAND) for the US Air Force.  These days, it remains a publicly funded think tank for conducting studies and performing R&D.  But, now its funding is much more diversified with over half of its funding going to topics such as health, education and development.  The Arc study was actually privately financed by philanthropists interested in how development strategies could spur peace, prosperity and security in the Middle East.  RAND, which brought on world renowned designer Doug Suisman through his urban design firm Suisman Urban Design, conducted the study to answer the questions posed by the sponsors – just as they do any other study.  RAND only conducted a study.  By charter, RAND cannot and does not advocate or implement.  As such, RAND is not “helping negotiators achieve a breakthrough for peace”.  But Friends of the Arc, which is a worldwide network of individuals who see the power of the Arc concept in inspiring peace, prosperity and security in the Middle East, is working to advocate the Arc as something that could help negotiators to a breakthrough for peace."

The winner will receive a $1,000 cash prize and will be featured on our website. FOTA reserves the right to post all essays on its website and to send one or more to President Obama. For all competition details, please visit www.friendsofthearc.org/essaycontest

Another Separatist Group's Peace Offering Dismissed, This Time the ETA in the Heart of Europe

Spain has rejected outright the peace offering of a longtime violent separatist group, the ETA: Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or Basque Homeland and Freedom, which has been operating in the region between France and Spain for the past forty years, causing over eight hundred deaths. This past weekend, ETA representatives offered to stop their deadly campaign and confirmed "its commitment to finding a democratic solution to the conflict" in an official group video statement. The response they got from the Spanish government was unthinkingly cold, putting peace prospects in continued jeopardy.

"I think the word [ceasefire] insufficient reflects quite well the position not (just) of the government but of all the democratic parties,"  Spanish Interior Minister Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba told Spain's state-run TVE television station on Monday in rejecting the offer. He stressed that the group was weaker than ever and his government would continue to pursue its members. What he didn't stress is that when people are weak and desperate, rare opportunities for lasting peace arise, but also last attempts to cause as much damage as possible in a hopeless cause not of their own doing.

In a video handed to the BBC and broadcast on Sunday, three hooded Eta fighters are shown sitting behind a desk with the ETA flag pinned up behind them. One reads out a statement defending Eta's campaign of violence, but towards the end says the group now wants to achieve its aims by peaceful means. True, this is an awkward way to make a peace offering, especially considering that the past two from the ETA did not stop its member's use of violence. But anyone who thinks this is not better than what has been happening for decades either wants more violence or is hopelessly stupid.

Mr Rubalcaba said the word ceasefire was now "a dead concept," claiming that his government doesn't deal with terrorists, exactly what the Turkish government said in recently rejecting the peace offerings of Kurdish separatist after three deadly decades. Other than surrender, an unlikely event given the histories involved, a ceasefire is the necessary first step towards complete disarmament for any separatist group. Rejecting a ceasefire outright, then, is also the first step in ensuring that peace is indefinitely postponed. 

A Turning Point in China-U.S. Relations, But Too Late?

Below the global mainstream media radar, an urgent meeting between Chinese and U.S. officials recently took place in Beijing. The topics discussed amongst the senior officials included the now obstinately standard currency and trade disputes on both sides, but also and more importantly the underlying military tensions and arms race between the two countries. This was, fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective, a get-to-know-you meeting, though inasmuch it can be considered a turning point in early 21st-century China-U.S. relations. But has it come too late?

"The key point of the talks is not to make significant agreements, but to improve understanding of each other's stance. If tensions can be reduced to some degree and confidence increased, that is an achievement," said Shi Yinhong, an expert on the U.S. at Renmin University in Beijing. He emphasized that U.S.-China relations are troubled, but the worst seems to be over and both sides are headed toward reconciliation. Many in the international relations field would consider this outlook overly optimistic and especially premature, given the preliminary nature of the discussions.

What's most troubling is that they are still preliminary. It has been obvious for decades that China is the rising global superpower along with India, yet relations between the two are strained, as are those with the declining superpower, the U.S. China becoming the world's second largest economy, beating Japan, was a wake up call, but only because almost everyone was sleeping. Chinese state media has criticized U.S.-South Korea military exercises in the Yellow Sea and U.S. claims about South China Sea territory, in addition to U.S. arms sales to Chinese rival Taiwan and an Obama meeting with Chinese nemesis the Dalai Lama. For it's part, China's increases in military spending dwarf that of others globally.

There can be no doubt that the peace and prosperity of the world in the 21st century depends on open communications channels and cooperation between China and the U.S., and as a step in that direction this meeting is indeed a turning point. Even if it is too early to determine their outcomes, it has come both too late and at last. "Continuing to develop a positive and comprehensive China-U.S. relationship contributes to our two countries' major interests in peace, security and development," China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said. We couldn't agree more.

Mutiny at the Highest Levels of U.S. Military: General Petraeus

Commander-in-Chief, the title and responsibilities accorded to the President, don't matter for the once again new military commander of the Afghanistan War, in a munity that is punishable by death according to U.S. military law. In two separate addresses recently, General Petraeus said that only he will decide when to withdraw from Afghanistan, flying in the face of the already too distant withdrawal start date set by the President upon election, and that he won't carry out his delegated duties of running the military operations there as a "graceful exit" from the country, even if the Secretary of Defense says otherwise.

Putting himself at striking odds with both his bosses, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and President Obama (not to mention their bosses too, us), General Petraeus apparently thinks he's calling the shots, even if the U.S. Constitution says differently. This is nothing short of a mutinous military takeover of wartime chains of command punishable by death according to the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 94. And it makes General Petraeus the number one obstacle to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a highly dangerous one at that considering the tens of thousands of troops and sophistacated weaponry he now has under his direct command.

To be precise, Article 94 of the UCMJ states that any person "with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny… shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct." If what Petraeus said and is doing accordingly don't fit this definition, nothing does or will. We are not advocating that he should be killed, but he should be removed from his post immediately and court-marshaled to the same military tribunals as Guantanamo inmates still are if the U.S. military is to maintain any semblance of legitimacy domestically or globally. And the story only starts there, with the the withdrawal from Afghanistan in the balance.

In an interview that aired last week on NBC's Meet the Press, Petraeus had the gall to say that: "Oil spot is a term in counterinsurgency literature that denotes a peaceful area, a secure area. What you're always trying to do is extend that, push that out." This is more than a doublespeak message at the highest levels of the U.S. military which everyone should be able to identify and decode for themselves by now, it is an outright duplicitous public relations campaign to dupe the American people into continued, complacent support of the war in Afghanistan.  This, despite the fact that Afghan, U.N., U.K. and even certain high-ranking U.S. officials have made it clear that the only viable solution is a political one, not military.

Now for the bad news. According to the same article in the UCMJ, if we don't do anything to stop this mutiny, we are as much to blame as Petraeus himself. Any person who "fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition." We need to stop this military takeover of our political processes before it's too late, and you can start by signing the petition to pressure the President to withdraw responsibly from Afghanistan, legally by Congress passing binding legislation to do just that.  

If the U.S. military doesn't follow it's own rules, we cannot expect it to follow any others either.

Photo credit: Hector Alejandro

Just for Fun? Peace Games and Toys for Everyone

Most of us can't remember our childhood without at least passing thought of war-related games and toys, from action figures to first-person shooter videogames, to military strategy board games  and beyond. But can you imagine what the world would be like now and can be in the future with next-generation game and toy makers taking up the cause of peace in their designs? Here are just a few fun examples for everyone:

A Force More Powerful: The Game of Nonviolent Strategy, by York Zimmerman Inc.: Remove corrupt regimes, secure the right to organize free trade unions, organize for women's rights and self determination for ethnic minorities, force an end to aggressive foreign policy, and hold free and fair elections in the groundbreaking peace videogame.

Give Peace a Chance 1000 Piece Jigsaw Puzzle, by Aquarius: An awesome 1000-piece puzzle featuring beautiful peace images forming a mosaic peace sign,  measures 20 x 27 when completed, full color with snug fitting pieces and 100% officially licensed merchandise.

PeaceMaker: Play the News. Solve the Puzzle (Mac or PC), by ImpactGames: Inspired by real events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict using real news footage and images, two games in one: play both the role of the Israeli Prime Minister or the Palestinian President.

Decorate-Yourself Peace Sign Canvas, by DM Creations: Personalize your own artwork with this paint-your-own Peace Sign on canvas, includes painting guide, 12"x12" canvas, paints and paint brushes.
 
Conflict Resolution Game Theory, by Ichiro Nishizaki and Masatoshi Sakawa: Presents important concepts in noncooperative and cooperative games, advances in game theory in fuzzy and multiobjective environments, and several game representations and solution concepts. Also demonstrates the computational methods used to find these solutions.

However, it is important to keep in mind that few if any peace games and toys makers give a portion of their profits towards actual peacebuilding efforts. This could be take as a form of peace profiteering, similar to war profiteering, just as clothing manufactures like Gap and Victoria's Secret use the peace sign without paying any royalties or licensing to any peace organization. Still, wouldn't the world be a better place if future generations grew up playing with peace games and toys instead of war ones?

The Power of Apology as a Step Towards Peace: Japan to Asia

"I'm sorry" may just be the most powerful words in the world,  not just in inter-personal relationships but also in inter-national ones. No exaggeration, apologizing is proving to be the first and a potent step towards reconciliation and peace, as the stunning recent case of Japan towards its former Asian colonies is making clear. And there's a lot we can from the unprecedented actions of the Japanese Premier for our personal and political lives.
 
Over the weekend, and for the first time, Japan's new Prime Minister Naoto Kan shunned a visit to a shrine that has outraged Asian neighbors for honoring war criminals, breaking from past governments' tradition and instead apologizing Sunday for the suffering World War II caused, according to the Associated Press. Previously, Japanese leaders made a point of visiting the shrine to commemorate Japanese imperialism of the early 20th century, and members of the opposition party continued this tradition even if the Prime Minister and his cabinet did not.

"We caused great damage and suffering to many nations during the war, especially to the people of Asia," Kan told a crowd of about 6,000 at an annual memorial service for the war dead at Budokan hall in Tokyo. "We feel a deep regret, and we offer our sincere feelings of condolence to those who suffered and their families," he said. "We renew our promise to never wage war, and we promise to do our utmost to achieve eternal world peace and to never repeat again the mistake of war," pointedly away from Yasukuni Shrine of Shinto in Tokyo, where the war commemorations were previously held.
 
In so saying, Kan opened a new chapter in Asian international relations, which his successors of any party will have a difficult time not continuing. Last week, he apologized to South Korea for Japan's 1910-45 colonial rule. Imperialist Japan committed atrocities in Asia killing millions, which some claim was as bad or worse as what the Nazis did in Europe, including forcing women to work in in slave-labor conditions and serve as prostitutes in military-run brothels.
 
In Seoul, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, speaking Sunday before a crowd packing a plaza near the former royal palace, said history should not be forgotten but urged Japan and his nation to work together for a new future. "I have taken note of Japan's effort, which represents one step forward," Lee said of Kan's apology. If only more leaders worldwide would do likewise, not to mention us in our everyday lives.

World Report on the Decade for a Culture of Peace Submitted to U.N. Secretary General

Capping the United Nations' Decade for a Culture of Peace (2001-2010) efforts to catalogue ongoing peace work globally, the World Report on the Decade for a Culture of Peace has been submitted to the U.N. Secretary General for a General Assembly debate in October. We are proud to say that One World, Many Peaces was included in the report for its pioneering peace journalism.

Over 1,000 peace organizations worldwide contributed to the final report, according to David Addams, leader of the global youth team who helped prepare it. According to Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury, who begins the report with a foreword:

"The adoption in 1999 by the United Nations General Assembly of the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace was a watershed event. Nine months of negotiations, which I had the honor to chair, led to the adoption of this historic, norm-setting document now considered one of the most significant and enduring legacies of the United Nations.

During the last ten years, the UN’s work in this area has been particularly spearheaded by the broad-based advocacy and activism of numerous non-governmental organizations throughout the globe. The International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World (2001-2010), which was proclaimed by the United Nations, is galvanizing a global movement for the culture of peace."

The movement for a "Culture of Peace" was originally spearheaded by peace activist and scholar Elise Boulding, who just recently passed away. More about Elise Boulding is available from One World, Many Peaces in an article remembering her pioneering work. The Culture of Peace Working Group of the NGO Committee on Spirituality, Values and Global Concerns, a Committee of the Conferences of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CSVGC NY) has sponsored this Report "in the name of all civil society organizations worldwide," notes Chowdhury.

But as Antony Adolf has recently showed in a major new article, "Globalizations of Cultural Criticism and the Transformative Roles of Critics," there are serious problems with trying to establish a single, dominant "culture of peace" when peace cultures always exist and are the result of plural peace traditions, and there are one billion starving people worldwide.  He argues that only the combined efforts of cultural critics and peacebuilders can bring about cultures of peace.

The World Report on the Culture of Peace members include Marcos Estrada (Brazil), Meghann Villanueva (Philippines), Cécile Barbeito (Spain), Lillian Solheim (Norway), Mayte Roitenburd (Mexico), Johanna Ospina (Colombia), Nikki Delfin (Philippines), Shreya Jani (India), Oliver Rizzi Carlson (Switzerland) and Himali Jinadasa (Sri Lanka). Support was provided by Alicia Cabezudo, the Associação Brasileira dos Organizadores de Festivais de Folclore e Artes Populares (ABrasOFFA), the United Network of Young Peacebuilders (UNOY), the Centre Unesco de Catalunya (UNESCOCAT), the Fundación Cultura de Paz, the Escola de Cultura de Pau of the Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Fundació Privada Catalunya Voluntària and Generation Peace Youth Network among others.

When Capitalist Democracy Meets Maoism in India, Peace Results

Indian Maoists, not to be confused with the original Chinese ones, are members of the Communist Party of India, whose explicit aim is to violently overthrow the government, also the largest democracy on earth with over one billion people. But in a strange and hopeful twist in Indian politics, a unique synergy between capitalist democracy and Maoism is taking place, for the first time outside of China. 

Maoists have been attacking government troops, paramilitary groups and civilians in the northern part of the country for decades in the hopes of separating along ideological lines, including their most deadly attack ever earlier this year. Just this week, however, Indian Railway Minister Mamata Banerji addressed a huge rally - supported by Maoists - at a rebel stronghold in West Bengal. Ms. Banerji and her Trinamul Congress Party, a majority Indian Congress Party ally, have always denied any links with the insurgents, according to the BBC. But maybe those ties will emerge with her peacemaking proposal.

A senior Maoist leader urged local people to attend the event in Lalgarh and thousands showed up. Her message was clear: to open negotiations between the national government and the Maoist rebels, stop the terrorism. "Terror should stop in Lalgarh and all areas around it and the counter-insurgency operations in the area should be stopped," she told flag-waving supporters. By "counter-insurgency" she meant the government and paramilitary forces who have been just as violent, if not more so, than the Maoists themselves. Nothing short of a tremendous development, to be sure.

Indian Maoists are an outgrowth of the People's War Group (PWG) which emerged in the 1980s. Extreme in their anti-globalization just as much as in their anti-caste system, they believe in the Marxist revolutionary model that Mao proposed, in which rural peasants (not just industrial workers) can lead the way. Until now, this required the use of revolutionary violence to be accomplished along Maoist ideological lines.

What this momentous event signals is a possibility that Maoists could adopt the native Gandhian practice of nonviolence and integration, rather than the foreign-derived violent separatism they have stuck to, signaling a shift in Indian politics that could have repercussions worldwide.

What Do Violent Dreams Mean? Future Brain Damage, Says Neuroscience

We've all had dreams we never want to wake up from, and nightmares we couldn't wake up fast enough from. But what about violent dreams, whether ones that satisfy our darkest desires we didn't even know existed, or make us wonder if there some secret evil inside us? New brain science research indicates that violent dreams could be a sign of brain damage to come. Here's an overview of the groundbreaking study and a few worrisome implications of what this research can lead to.

There is a mysterious sleep-state condition called "Rapid Eye Movement (REM) Sleep Behavior Disorder," or RBD for short. People with this condition, according to the doctors who published their research in the most recent issue of Neurology, show that the first signs of neurological diseases can appear decades before a person is diagnosed. They hope that recognizing these warning signs may allow  better monitoring and treatment patients before brain damage occurs. And one of those signs are violent dreams. What would Sigmund Freud say about that?

The dreams of people with RBD tend to get progressively more violent and more frequent, often involving murder scenes. The usual bodily stillness associated with sleeping disappear, and they often act out the scenes, including punching and yelling. Males are much more likely to develop RBD than females, and there is a danger for sharing beds to be injured by them.

“The consensus among all RBD researchers is that it’s not a matter of if, but when,” says sleep expert Carlos Schenck of the Minnesota Regional Sleep Disorders Center in Minneapolis, who was one of the first researchers to describe RBD. “Basically, the longer you follow these men, the more they will convert to a neurodegenerative disorder.” “In the neurodegenerative realm, we just don’t know any other clinical manifestations that can start so far in advance,” another research said. “There are so few other illnesses that can have a window of decades from one clinical manifestation to another.” Violent dreams can appear up to fifty years in advance of brain damage.

There are serious ethical implications to this study. Are people who enact these violent dreams in waking life to be excused for their crimes? Can or should this knowledge be used by police forces as well as doctors to prevent dangerous possibilities from becoming reality? What can this tell us about historical violent people, from Genghis Kahn to Hitler? But one thing this study leaves out is that if violent dreams point to brain damage, what do peaceful ones point to?

Making Better Choices: Peace, Preference Theory and Behavioral Economics

Why don't people chose peace over its commonly associated opposites, like violence and war? New breakthroughs in the field of preference theory and behavioral economics may help explain why, and so doing may help us help others who don't chose peace to do so. Yes, it's a bit complicated at first, but we promise that understanding these principles and innovatively implementing them can help bring inner peace to you, and peace worldwide. In other words, we can all make better choices with this knowledge.

 

Economic arguments have been used to support both peace and its opposites for centuries. Unfortunately, and generalizing to a fault, those who use them to support peace are often one-sided (socialist) just like those who use them to support war (capitalistic). Preference theory and behavioral economics not only provide innovative insights and common ground, but a scientific rather than ideological basis for working out our most pressing war and peace problems. 

 

First there's what's called "revealed preference theory." Pioneered by American economist Paul Samuelson, revealed preference theory is a method by which it is possible to discern consumer behavior on the basis of variable prices and incomes. A consumer with a given income will buy a mixture of products; as his or her income changes, the mixture of goods and services will also change. Assuming that the consumer will never select a combination which is more expensive than that which was previously chosen, revealed preference theory deliberately ignores measures of utility.

 

The choice of peace or not with a revealed preference theory framework works like this, and provides unique insight into President Obama's Afghanistan troop surge and war plans.  Lets say a country, ethnic group or tribe has engaged in both peacebuilding and war-making in the past, even simultaneously in certain cases. According to Samuelson, what would make them chose one or the other in the present or future is not their utility, as is commonly assumed, but the total cost of engaging in them separately and together compared to what that total would be now.

 

Seeking to get more benefits out of that total or reduce it so part of it can be re-allocated elsewhere is the point. Thus revealed preference theory goes a long way towards explaining why President Obama chose to re-deploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan instead of bringing them home. The total cost remains just about the same, both in lives and resources, and the perceived benefits of the one war gets transferred to the other, both in his mind as "decider" and in the complacency of the American public in not contesting the troop surge to the point of disabling it. By convincingly calling the connection into question and proposing compelling alternatives, according to the revealed preference theory, the behavior will change.

 

Then there's there bio-psychological principle, recently discovered, called "relative preference theory." Hans Breiter, MD, principal investigator of the Massachusetts General Hospital Phenotype Genotype Project, explains its premise thus. Relative preference theory incorporates aspects of three existing theories in reward/aversion: prospect theory, which includes the fact that people are more strongly motivated to avoid negative outcomes than to attain positive outcomes; the matching law, which describes how the rates of response to multiple stimuli are proportional to the amount of reward attributed to each stimulus; and alliesthesia, which notes that the value placed on something depends on whether it is perceived to be scarce -- for example, hungry people place greater value on food than do those who have just eaten.

 

One of the key differences between relative preference theory and these earlier theories is that it evaluates preferences relating to the intrinsic value of items to an individual, rather than relating preferences to values set by external forces -- such as how the overall economy sets the value of the dollar. The patterns observed in this study are similar at the individual and group levels -- a relationship known as "scaling." The relation to peace should be self-evident: similarly to revealed preference theory, the intrinsic value of peace and/or its opposite is not the only factor in people choosing one or the other, contextual and other people's choices are just as important and predictable. In short, war breeds war, and peace breeds peace, so anti-war and pro-peace tactics or strategies need to adjust accordingly.