Johan Galtung Conflict Transformation Workshop
THE MEDICAL RENAISSANCE GROUP
IS HOWARD ACCOUNTABLE ?
Dear All
A very up to date scholarly
essay by Galtung is enclosed enumerating the
belligerence of US,
Michael
QUOTE
II. CONFLICT
PARTIES OUTSIDE
-
geopolitical control of Gulf region also for
- corporate economic control of oil, also for geopolitics[ii][36]
-
Judeo-Christian fundamentalism, also to protect
- to settle
old imperial accounts with
- special relation,
to be chosen by the country chosen by God
- to
"normalize
- special
relation, to be chosen by the world's No. 1.
Australia,
Spain etc., wanting
-
France,
Germany, wanting
- EU as
independent of the
- no Kurdish
autonomy as a precedent for Kurds in
- protection
for the Turkmen
Syria, Jordan,
Kuwait, Iran, wanting
- not to be
attacked by the
- good
relations with the next
- to
survive, squeezed between Wahhabism and the
11 parties, 19 goals is a simplification, but better than "the world against Saddam
Johan Galtung
Conflict
Transformation Workshop
International Conflict Resolution
Centre
Professor Galtung:
• Has
worked in more than 50 major conflict zones, including the Gulf, former
• He
is currently a consultant to several UN agencies and the founder of TRANSCEND,
a global network of 150
experts trained in conflict analysis.
• He
established the Peace
Research Institute in
In the face of global
conflict and terrorism, what can one person do?
In this workshop he will impart skills
to help you:
• Analyse
conflict situations such as the war in
• Change
your perspective on conflict; and
• Learn
to transform conflict so as to be able to make a real difference in your world.
The workshop will be held at the
It starts at
place.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Registration:
(Please fill in and send)
Johan Galtung Conflict Transformation Workshop,
Name:___________________________________________
Organization:_____________________________________
Email:__________________________________
Telephone:_________________________
Mobile:__________________________________Fax:_______________________________
Mailing
Address:_____________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Attendance No.
People Cost Total
_ Full @ $120(inc.
GST) = $
_ Student @ $70 (inc.
GST) = $
Total (inc. GST) = $
Payment
details:
_ Please find enclosed
my cheque / money order (Made payable to "The University of
Melbourne")
_ Please find enclosed
my Credit Card details
Name of Card
Holder:
____________________________
Credit Card No.:
________________________________
Type: _ Mastercard
_ VISA _ Bankcard
Expiry Date: ____/____ Signature of Card Holder: ________________________
Fax or Send
To:
Ms Tatiana Resk (Project Officer)
Tel. (03) 8344 4300
Fax 9347 6618
Email: icrc@psych.unimelb.edu.au
International Conflict
Resolution Centre
The
Human Needs, Humanitarian Intervention, Human Security – and the War
in by Johan Galtung
Keynote, Sophia University/ICU, and Regional
Studies Association, By Johan Galtung, dr hc
mult, Professor of Peace Studies Director,
TRANSCEND: A Peace and Development Network 1. Human needs and the life expectancy of
concepts and words Concepts
come and go; they do not stay around forever.
"Human security" is in, "humanitarian
intervention" is on its way out. This
applies to science, to politics in general, and to world politics and the UN
community in particular. The total
human condition has many facets and they all have a justified claim on our
attention. A human condition, like the plight of misery, stays on, but
"poverty elimination" may retire from the front stage like
"community development", "self-reliance", "new
economic world order" did, and even "women in development"
will do. Cruel, but such is the life
cycle of concepts. Why? In science there is Thomas Kuhn's[v][1] epistemological answer: because the paradigm
underlying the concept has been exhausted.
The paradigm has been squeezed for whatever it is worth, all
permutations of sub-concepts have been explored, What is left are
permutations, Kuhn's "puzzles", little new comes up. Time for a "scientific
revolution", new concepts, new paradigms. To this a sociological/political
answer can be added: the old paradigm has probably become the entry card to
power in the scientific establishment, with apprenticeship, assistantship,
and patient work in some corner of the paradigm as stations on the way. And a younger generation may have wanted
more rapid access to the top, identifying a quick bypass superior to the time
tested techniques of challenging the person on the top through superior
mastery of his own paradigm.[vi][2] And that
bypass was, and is, of course, a new paradigm, unknown to the top; a fresh
paradigm with not only new answers, but new problems.[vii][3] Thus, there is a Kuhnian
epistemology of cognitive fatigue leading to paradigm shifts. But there is also a Khaldunian[viii][4] politics of new generations--or groups in general,
like gender, classes, nations--crushing the gates, evicting the exhausted
managers of exhausted paradigms, installing themselves, basking in the glory
of the new insights and practices till their lights also gets dim and their
claim to power is reduced to flawless repetition of their favorite
deductions from old axioms, with old answers to old problems, incapable of
new answers, let alone new problems. Outside the gates the rumblings of new
concepts are already audible to those not deafened by dementia praecox.[ix][5] Thus, in the 1970s a highly
successful paradigm under the heading of basic human needs (BHN) made
its round through the members of the UN family. It came with basic human rights; not only
the Universal Declaration of 10 December 1948 but also the Social, Economic
and Cultural Covenant of 16 December 1966, yet to be ratified by the USA and
closer to such basic needs as for food, clothing, housing, health and
education. This author, as consultant
to about a dozen members of the UN family was, and still is, dedicated to
that paradigm and its efforts to establish the sine qua non, the
non-negotiable conditions not only for a being, for life, but for a human
being. Intellectually the paradigm
challenged the researcher to develop a theory of human needs,and
a method to identify them. The present author's answer was to ask people of
all kinds around the world, in a dialogue, what they cannot live without,
giving survival, wellness, freedom and identity
as answers.[x][6] And politically the paradigm
challenged politicians (in democracies we all are) to implement basic needs
for all. The basic needs paradigm has not
been exhausted, neither intellectually, nor politically. Politically it placed the human being in
the center of the State-Capital-Civil Society
triangle of modernity. The State was
often seen as a guarantor of survival, "security" in the narrow
sense, and freedom; Capital as the supplier of goods, for wellness, for those
who could afford the price demanded; and the Civil Society network of human
associations and organizations, and local authorities, for all four,
including the informal economy of non-monetized exchange and production for
own consumption. The division of labor of these three pillars of modern society became,
and still are, basic paradigm problems to explore, or hard nuts to crack. According to this model the state,
and also capital, had a strong competitor in civil society, the NGOs/NPOs, and the local authorities, LAs,
municipalities. If people knew their
basic needs and could have them satisfied locally, and/or through networks
spun by themselves in an ever expanding and deepening global civil society,
also leaning on traditional or even
more ancient wisdom, then what happens to State and Capital? Whether the state should be an actor
in markets, let alone have the ultimate power over economic transactions, was
a major 20th century controversy. The pendulum was ultimately swinging toward
private capitalist monopoly, and away from public state-capitalist/socialist
monopoly. But extremes are no good resting points. The middle, in media res, offers
better pendular rest. But the basic needs/civil society orientation was not much
interested in that ideology pendulum.
Increasingly the demands on State and Capital became less
Do-this/Do-that, and much more Don't-do-this/Don't do that. Do not stand in the way. Get out. They did not like it. Capital hit back with globalization:
borderless markets first for financial, then for the productive economies,
destroying local markets and informal economies, even patenting old wisdom; monetizing
the goods and services also for basic needs in a world with billions unable
to pay the price. And the State hit back with humanitarian
intervention and human security, making the governments and the military the indispensable sine qua
non for the sine qua non of security. They had a very good argument,
insufficiently explored by the human needs paradigm: state, government
violence against its own citizens, protected by the doctrines of state
sovereignty, and of state security. There was no need to use cases from the
past. The 1990s witnessed state violence, even of a genocidal
nature, in East Timor, Rwanda, Human needs, including the
need to survive, are felt inside human beings, hence people-oriented. But human security is also state-oriented
as only states can deliver that counter-violence. That state ultimate
violence monopoly, the ultima ratio regis has been protected by consensus. Controversies have raged over how much, and
which, means of violence should be available to the state, from the realist
maximum to the pacifist minimum positions; and over how much
control civil society must exercise over that state exercise of violence,
from the fascist 0% to the democratic 100% positions. These two dimensions may well come to
define much of the political spectrum of the 21st century. 2. Humanitarian
Intervention = Humanitarianism + Intervention There is a tradition of
humanitarianism, expressed in an article by Jon M. Ebersole
who played a key role in the "Mohonk Criteria
for humanitarian assistance in complex emergencies"[xi][7]. The five
criteria, adapted by a broadly based conference[xii][8], are [1] Humanity: Human suffering
should be addressed wherever it is found. The dignity and rights of all
victims must be respected. [2]
Impartiality. Humanitarian assistance should be provided without
discriminating as to ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political opinions,
race or religion. Relief of the suffering of individuals must be guided
solely by their needs, and priority must be given to the most urgent cases of
distress. [3]
Neutrality. Humanitarian assistance should be provided without
engaging in hostilities or taking sides in controversies of a political,
religious or ideological nature. [4]
[5]
Empowerment.
Humanitarian assistance should strive to revitalize local
institutions, enabling them to provide for the needs of the affected
community. Humanitarian assistance
should provide a solid first step on the continuum of emergency relief,
rehabilitation, reconstruction and development. This is the tradition of
humanitarianism associated with NGOs such as the Red Cross,[xiii][9] but also with states, big and small, in nature-made
and in man-made disasters. The Mohonk criteria mark a new phase, as did DMTP, the
Disaster Management Training Programme of the United Nations Development
Programme. But we sense a gendering of the issue:
the Mohonk criteria address suffering
"wherever it is found". The trigger for action is a basic human
need insulted, the need for physical well-being. According to Carol Gilligan[xiv][10] this compassion is more frequently found among
women. Men tend to be steered by other
and more abstract principles, more removed from basic needs. An example: "one prominent
American expert questioned some of the basic, time-honored
principles which form the basis of humanitarian action", formulating a
very male view:[xv][11] "Impartiality
and neutrality, when applied in cases such as The abstract principles in this text
are well known. "Serbs" enter as a general category, lumped
together with no distinction between perpetrators and innocent
victims-civilians-bystanders. From this position there is but a small step to
a distinction between worthy and unworthy victims, internally displaced
person (IDPs), refugees. General human compassion is absent. Then, the tradition of interventionism. It has a bad name, reminiscent of the punitive
expeditions by colonial powers in general, and the UK in particular, to
punish the colonized and protect the settlers, and of numerous US military
interventions (Iraq is No. 69 after the Second world war) to exercise
control. Control=stopping violence=ending suffering="humanitarian"?
But: If intervention causes more
suffering than it eliminates? If intervention=war it is against UN
charter 2(4), and must be mandated by the UN Security Council to meet internatinal law. And, from the premise of
"intervention to protect people from the violence of its own
government" it does not follow that intervention has to be
violent/military in general, and by the "In essence, US forces are
imbued with the spirit of the offensive, characterized by an indomitable will
to win and an aggressive determination to carry the battle to the enemy. The aim is to inflict on the enemy an early
and decisive defeat. This spirit,
while likely to produce battlefield success, is often at odds with instincts
of political leaders, who may prefer a more graduated force application with
diplomatic and other pressures." "Peace monitoring,
peacekeeping, disaster relief--nation assistance, counterdrug
support, antiterrorism and noncombatant evacuation
operations--while perhaps politically essential or morally desirable-often
degrade combatant force readiness to perform their prime mission-warfighting, preparing for war."[xvii][13] The
contrast is clear[xviii][14]: The
European Approach: "[Peace Operations] are operations amongst
the people.. If you're in your shirtsleeve and your weapon is down the
side of your leg and you're no looking aggressive, then you have a
calming effect...The more you seek to isolate yourself from the people, be it
in your helmet and flak jacket, be it in your large four man vehicle patrol,
the less you will be able to find the person or people who matter to you,
among those people. (General Rupert
Smith) The This opens for the question of
"what kind of military intervention". But that does not exhaust the intervention
dimension. The TRANSCEND perspective,
for instance, identifies a number of other components in an intervention:[xx][16] --operations
could be improved by calling on expertise not only in the means of violence
and the military mentality, but also in police skills, nonviolence
skills and mediation skills. Since women would tend to relate
more to people than to hardware they could perhaps constitute 50% of the
units. Moreover, the numbers
should be vastly increased. In short, a blue carpet of
peace-keepers, not only blue helmets, so dense that there is little space
left for fighting. And peacekeeping
would then also include the 3 Rs: reconstruction,
reconciliation and resolution; not waiting till the violence is
"over". If we eliminate military and police
skills we come to the nonviolent pole of the
dimension, with the So we have a right-left spectrum of
four modes of intervention: hard military (like But there is a different approach
embedded in the paradigm shift from security studies to peace studies. Security studies tend to solve problems of
violence with counter-violence or the threat thereof. Nonviolence comes
close in solving problems of illegitimate power with nonviolent
counter-power. But peace studies tend
to see violence as the consequence of untransformed conflict and
dehumanization, and solutions in terms of conflict transformation and
depolarization before violence gets started: - by
linking peace to conflict and its solution, like in "peace and conflict
studies", not only to the absence of violence; - by
insisting on nonviolent and creative approaches to
conflict solution, like in "peace by peaceful means"; - by
applying this to conflicts at all levels, micro (within and between
persons), meso (within societies), macro
(between states and nations), and mega (between regions and
civilizations); and - by being
an applied diagnosis/prognosis/therapy=peace practice science, using all
relevant knowledge from all disciplines. Peace studies would examine the
goals of the parties in terms of their legitimacy, in the sense of
compatibility with basic needs/rights for all, and try to bridge legitimate
goals. With no priority to goals of the state paying the studies.[xxiii][19] Chamberlain's "peace in our
time" is often invoked against peace movements etc. But Chamberlain in München
used Nazi-Germany against the worse danger from a Tory point of view: the
communist 3. Human Security = Human + Security Thesis: In short, time for a new
concept. The UN Commission On Human
Security (CHS), launched in June 2001, was co-chaired by the former UN High
Commissioner for Refugees Sadako Ogata and Amartya Sen, holder of the Nobel prize in economic
science[xxvi][22]. The final
report was presented to the UN Secretary-General on - The
international community urgently needs a new paradigm of security--(the
state) often fails to fulfill its security
obligations-and at times has even become a source of threats to its own
people--attention must now shift from the security of the state to the
security of the people--to human security. - (the
Report is) a response to the threats of development reversed, to the threats
of violence inflicted--that response cannot be effective if it comes
fragmented-from those dealing with rights, those with security, those with
humanitarian concerns and those with development; - Human
security complements state security, enhances human rights and strengthens
human development. - The CHS
definition: to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance
human freedoms and human fulfillment. - Human
security complements "state security" in four respects: o Its
concern is individual and community rather than the state o Menaces
include /more than/ threats to state security o The
range of actors is expanded beyond the state alone o
Achieving human security includes--empowering people - Human
security helps identify gaps in the infrastructure of protection as well as
ways to strengthen or improve it. The operational part translates such
ideas into ten points: -
Protecting people in violent conflict -
Protecting people from the proliferation of arms -
Supporting the human security of people on the move -
Establishing human security transition funds for post-conflict -
Encouraging fair trade and markets to benefit the poor -
Providing minimum living standards everywhere -
According high priority to universal access to basic health care - Develop
an efficient and equitable global system for patent rights - Empowering
all people with universal basic education -
Clarifying the need for a global human identity while respecting the freedom
of individuals to have diverse identities and affiliations Very much of what has been mentioned
is in the basic human needs tradition, like the four needs-classes presented
in section [1] above: There is a focus on survival
in terms of protection and security. There is a focus on wellness
in terms of basic health care, basic education and minimum living
standards. Trade, market and patent
rights are qualified by "fair", to "benefit the poor" and
"equitable". There is a focus on diverse identity,
including global identity. Freedom is missing from these
points, but is all over the report, very much based on one of the leading
intellectuals of our times, co-chair Amartya Sen,
and his seminal book Development as Freedom.[xxviii][24] And most importantly: "the
range of actors is expanded beyond the state alone", above all bringing
in empowered individuals all over. No doubt "human security"
is a formula giving "human" to the basic needs approach, developing
that approach further. Does it also give "security" to the state,
as indicated in [1] above? And how? The report legitimizes the word
"security" by giving it the connotation "human". What then happens is beyond the pages of
the report. We would expect the state
system with its monopoly on the violent means of security to use this
legitimation, justifying intervention inside other states in the name of
"human security". And we
would also expect some of them to use "security" in the broad sense
as a cover for other goals, in the national interest tradition. 4. The War In Let us assume, however, that the
only motive behind the US/UK war on |
Within the
simplistic logic of Hussein-in-power vs
Hussein-not-in-power, yes. But that
logic hides two important questions[xxix][25]:
A: What were the total cost-benefits of the
regime change? and,
B: Were there less costly alternative
methods of regime change?
The argument
is not against regime change, nor against regime change from the outside =
intervention. The basic assumption of humanitarian
intervention for human security logic is accepted. States are not sovereign. Humans are.
Not only states need security.
Humans do.
There is a rider, however, that one
day may become significant. One day
human security against violence by one's own government might also be
interpreted to include the economic violence of shifting acquisitive power so
much upwards in society that the bottom X% of the population is left with
insufficient means to cover basic needs, even to the point of excessive
morbidity and premature mortality.
This usually comes as structural
violence due to unintended action, sustained by acts of omission. But it could also come as acts of commission,
as direct violence, as war on the poor rather than as war on poverty, but by
economic, not by military/secret police means.
One day, later than some hope but earlier than some fear, economic
violence may be included in the definition of genocide and become a reason to
intervene to bring about regime change for human security.
The term "security" is often
used in connection with the war in
Of the 28 countries that had sent troops
to
To assess the "cost-benefits in
Iraqi human terms", since the humanitarian intervention was for their
human security, we shall use basic human needs, BHN, as a benchmark. The
possible justification of the intervention would depend on the outcome of
comparing
Benefits: BHN level with intervention-BHN
level without intervention
Costs: BHN costs of the intervention.
This comparison could then be carried
out on an annual basis after
The following is only indicative of
ways of thinking, using the four BHN classews
above. Data are very limited indeed.
[1] Survival. With security in the narrow sense of
"risk of getting killed" reduced by the intervention, it stands to
reason that Pentagon refuses to publish data about Iraqi, military or civilian,
casualties, killed or wounded. There is
talk about 10-15,000[xxxiii][29] so far, high for an intervention even in our era. The
If we expand the definition of the
"war in
[2] Well-being. Destruction of housing and infrastructure
brought about by battle, of orchards and farmland as reprisals against farmers
suspected of cooperation with the resistance, unemployment rates cited as 70%
in some regions and overcrowded hospitals are indicative of serious declines in
the supply of such basic needs satisfiers as food, clothes, shelter, health
care and education. That decline,
relative to the high level of basic needs satisfaction in the oil-rich Ba'ath welfare state, had a pre-history in the war with
Iran 1980-88, the First Iraq war and the economic sanctions and air raids
thereafter. There are some benefits from the lifting of sanctions, however.
[3] Freedom. Consider this:[xxxv][31]
On
The removal
of a public sector, however inefficient, may have on the well-being, may
benefit the top 30% but not the bottom 70%.
Contravening the
[4] Identity. Muslim Iraq was attacked by two Protestant
permanent Security Council members opposed by the other three, one
secular/Catholic, one secular/Orthodox and one Confucian. The attack started on one of the holiest
sites of shia Islam,
In the wake of the
No identity benefit, only heavy
identity costs imposed by the intervention.
General conclusion: neither security, nor human.
5. An alternative: Solving the conflicts in
and around
Let us then look at
- identify
the parties in the conflict
- identify
their goals
- divide
goals into legitimate and illegitimate, with BHN as guide
- try to
bridge the legitimate goals.
Here is an eleven parties model of the
conflict in and around Iraq, with three parties inside and eight outside, with
the understanding that parties can be subdivided, and more be added.
I. CONFLICT PARTIES INSIDE
Kurds, wanting
-
independence, or at least very high level autonomy
- and Turkmen,
wanting security, maybe autonomy from the Kurds
Sunni, wanting
- to rule
- with
secular, socialist, welfare state features (ba'athism)
Shia, wanting
- an Islamic
Republic, for
II. CONFLICT PARTIES OUTSIDE
-
geopolitical control of Gulf region also for
- corporate
economic control of oil, also for geopolitics[xl][36]
-
Judeo-Christian fundamentalism, also to protect
- to settle
old imperial accounts with
- special
relation, to be chosen by the country chosen by God
- to
"normalize
- special
relation, to be chosen by the world's No. 1.
Australia,
Spain etc., wanting
-
France,
Germany, wanting
- EU as
independent of the
- no Kurdish
autonomy as a precedent for Kurds in
- protection
for the Turkmen
Syria,
Jordan, Kuwait, Iran, wanting
- not to be
attacked by the
- good
relations with the next
- to
survive, squeezed between Wahhabism and the
11 parties, 19 goals is a simplification,
but better than "the world against Saddam Hussein". "Eliminating WMD threat" and
"Eliminating Al Qaeda bases" are pretexts
intelligence services must have known were trumped up.[xliii][39] Saddam Hussein's
autocracy was not trumped up, but was brought in too be credible as a genuine
goal. Nonetheless, there is something
genuine about democravy zand
human rights, but not as a goal given the cooperation with Hussein.
The next problem is that of
legitimacy: of the 18 goals, how many are legitimate using basic needs and
basic rights as guides?
The Kurdish and Turkmen
legitimacies flow from the right of self-determination, making the first Turkish
goal illegitimate.
Any Sunni claim to rule all of
The Shia
goal would also also require democratic legitimacy
and could not be imposed, by majority rule, against human rights.
The
The
The
The goals of
The French/German goals are legitimate
if backed by the people. The
goals of the countries bordering on
The Saudi goal reflects a
social problem to be solved in Saudi.
Behind this reasoning about legitimacy
there is a general moral injunction against satisfying own goals at the
expense of others.
We are left with the legitimate goals
of Kurds, Turkmen and the Shia, the French/German
aspirations for the EU, of all border countries to escape unmolested.
By the European Union in general, and
the leading powers France and Germany in particular, taking the initiative for
a Conference on Security and Cooperation in the Middle East, CSCME, modeled on the Helsinki Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, CSCE, 1972-75. One point on the agenda would be
Before the war this could have been
added to the French/German proposal for continued UN inspection and human
rights in
After the war the idea of a CSCME is
as relevant as ever. But economic
boycott by individuals, and the international civil society in general, may
have to be used to put pressure on the invading-occupying countries. The obvious target would be companies that
"win
"I
suggest we choose by some means two of the major corporations that are
benefiting from the destruction of
Byt why only
"two of the major", meaning also why only
To take
Australia as an example this incclude Patrick Corp. (Baghdad
Airport), SAGRIC (agriculture), Snowy Mountains Electricity Corp (electricity),
GRM International (regulatory systems), Australian Wheat Board (oil for food)
and the ANZ Bank (Iraq Trade Bank Consortium.[xlvii][43]t For Spain it
would mean Soluziona,[xlviii][44] etc.
The solution for
The solution for the Kurds might be to
stimulate similar autonomies in
And the solution for the problem of
Iraqi security might be for
Realistic? Considerably more so than the current US
exercise. With enormous basic needs
costs, with the Mohonk criteria insulted, the
Alternatives? Basic needs+soft intervention+conflict
resolution.
[lv][1]. Thomas S.
Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edition,
[lvi][2]. For a
sociological theory of epistemology, invoking isomorphism between social
structure and science (establishment) structure, and of both with theory
structure, see Johan Galtung, "Social structure
and science structure", in Methodology and Ideology, Copenhagen: Ejlers, 1977, Ch. 1, pp. 13-40.
[lvii][3]. There is also
another approach for a younger generation on its way up: attack the dominant
paradigm with no alternative paradigm in mind.
And the vulgar version of this approach: attack the established holders
of the old paradigm, with themselves in mind as alternatives. Where these approaches prevail academic life
becomes as boring as negative politicking.
[lviii][4]. For one
presentation of Ibn Khaldun's
cyclical theory of macro-historical change,
see Galtung, J and Inayatuallah,
S eds., Macrohistory and Macrohistorians,
[lix][5]. There is a
broader interpretation of this. The West
in general, white Anglo-saxons in particular and US
elites even more in particular have now been repeating their twin mantras of electionism and neo-liberalism for the better part of two
centuries. They are basking in the sun
like the feudal lords in the high castles Ibn Khaldun has in mind.
Who are knocking at the gates?
The working class, told that whoever wants access to the club have to
look like the members of the club, inside the Burg, the Bürger,
the burghers, became bourgeois.
The women are knocking, and are told those who will never look like men
have to think, talk and act even more like them. Colored people are told the same. Even African Americans can rise to the very
top as Secretary of State, as key advisor to the President in foreign affairs,
as Supreme Court Justice, if they are only sufficiently conservative. The game has to be played according to the
rules. Greens, environmentalists are
more problematic: they reject the club paradigms.
Was
9/11 2001 a khaldunian knock on the gates of the
[lx][6]. See the
author's "Meeting Basic Needs: Peace and Development", The Royal
Society Discussion Meeting on "The science of well-being - integrating
neurobiology, psychology and social science", 19-20 November 2003, to be
published in the proceedings.
Two
approaches are indicated to identify needs:
- human physiology, particularly the openings of the
body and what goes in and out, including impressions entering through eyes and
ears, being processed, exiting as expressions through the mouth, body language,
including writing (hence needs for impressions and expression); not only air,
water, food entering through nose and mouth, then being digested and excreted
(hence needs for air, water and food, and toilets; and for digestion (like the
processing above).
- by asking people, in dialogues as the author did in
about 50 countries what they cannot do without.
The
four categories of needs summarize the findings.
[lxi][7]. Human Rights Quarterly,
Vol. 4, No. 3 1995, pp. 14-24.
[lxii][8]. The meeting at
[lxiii][9]. That symbol,
however, is ambiguous, associated with assistance to civilian victims, but also
with military units assisting the perpetrators, the military themselves. To argue two different symbols in no way is
to argue that military personnel should not also be relieved of their
suffering.
[lxiv][10]. Carol
Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development(Cambridge
MA: Harvard University Press, 1982)
[lxv][11]. Human Rights Quarterly,
p. 15. Whether the view is predominantly
male or predominantly American is a moot point; the two categories obviously do
not exclude each other, but may reinforce each other.
[lxvi][12]. I am indebted
to Patrick Rechner of the Ministry of Defense in
[lxvii][13]. Colonel Lloyd
J. Matthews, "The Evolution of American Military Ideals", Military
Review, January-February 1998, pp. 56-61.
[lxviii][14]. From "A
Force for Peace and Security: US and Allied Commanders' Views of the Military's
Role in Peace Operations", Peace Through Law Education Fund, 2002.
[lxix][15]. This goes with
the famous thesis of a Pentagon planner:
"The de facto role of the
As George Bush says in Bob Woodward's Bush at War,
"We will export death and violence to the four corners of the Earth in
defense of our great nation".
[lxx][16]. See Conflict
Transformation By Peaceful Means,
[lxxi][17]. For ten important cases, see Peace By Peaceful
Means
[lxxii][18]. An alternative
terminology:
hard military = peace enforcement
soft
military = peacekeeping
soft noviolence = peace by peaceful means
hard noviolence = nonviolence
[lxxiii][19]. Governments
have been generous in financing security studies, assuming that the conclusions
will by and large be compatible with their own national interests. Peace studies were globalized
before globalization came around as a concept, taking into account the world
interest, the human interest (basic needs/rights), the nature interest - and
national interests, in plural.
Governmental funding has of course been stingy or absent, and more so the
more the government wants military options, including intervention and war.
[lxxiv][20]. The problem
with the student Otpor nonviolence is, of course, to
what extent it is a genuine, spontaneous reaction of a part of the population,
and to what extent it could be a deliberate effort by outside powers, like the
US Embassy, to use nonviolence when their military effort to dislodge the
Milosevic regime had failed. The Soros foundation
financed an invitation to Otpor activists to
[lxxv][21]. If legitimacy
for hard military intervention, also for other than humanitarian reasons, was
the basic motivation, then the competitors to that approach would have to be
eliminated. The hypothesis that there
was no intervention in Rwanda (in spite of the intelligence available)
precisely to give non-intervention a bad name, and no harder intervention in
Srebrenica (in spite of the intelligence available) to give UN peacekeeping a
bad name may sound conspiratorial. But
if a major structure, like the
[lxxvi][22]. Actually the
prize of the centenary fund of the Swedish national bank, wrongly termed
"Nobel prize" as it was not among Alfred Nobel's prizes.
[lxxvii][23]. The day the
[lxxviii][24]. Also see the
interview with Amartya Sen
in SGI Quarterly, July 2003, pp. 3-5.
He draws the attention to the "inescapable downturns" and
"unanticipated declines", in any development or political process,
that "the old idea of growth with equity does not provide an adequate
guarantee security". To this one
may of course comment that any process sets forces into motion which in turn
will trigger counter-forces that may be stronger, making some downturns perhaps
more inescapable than unanticipated, and less inescapable had they been
anticipated.
[lxxix][25]. Not to mention
the rather obvious: with Saddam Hussein gone we would expect much more
resistance, not necessarily violent, from the Kurds and the Shia
according to the "
[lxxx][26].
[lxxxi][27]. This is where
"regional studies, focusing on Iraq, more particularly on Arab culture (as
different from, for instance, Kurdish culture) and even more particularly
Bedouin culture is important in comparing cultures an other aspects of the
region. The world is no longer cut out
only for comparative studies. The
regions interact, indeed, the world is relational, not only relative. In this particular case we are talking about
the relation between
For that
type of conclusion a regional perspective focusing on Iraq/Arab world/Islam
only is misleading. At least two
regional perspectives would be needed, and a study of their relation.
[lxxxii][28]. There is, of
course, ambiguity surrounding the major recent atrocities. To the extent the Halabja
massacre in connection with the war against Iran--a war instigated by the
USA--had many Iraqi Kurds predictably fighting Baghdad, and to the extent the
massacres of Kurds and Shia in connection with the
1991 war was encouraged by the USA to revolt against the regime but not
effectively supported, the responsibility has to be shared. In no way justifying the atrocities, the
explanation includes, but also goes beyond the Saddam Hussein regime. The
Guardian (
[lxxxiii][29]. Other
estimates are as high as 30-35,000.
[lxxxiv][30]. The figures
for the Twin Tower/Pentagon atrocity tend to vary between 3,000 and 3,100.
[lxxxv][31]. Naomi Klein, The
Guardian,
[lxxxvi][32]. Thus, the idea
frequently heard in the
[lxxxvii][33]. I am indebted to Professor Hamid
Mowlana for this point.
[lxxxviii][34]. To understand
better what this disrespect for Islam might mean the theological profile of the
In
polls conducted September 2003 on the beliefs of the US people, 42% said
"the Bible as the actual word of God", 69% felt "religion plays
too small a role in most people's lives today", 92% believe in God, 85% in
Heaven, 82% in Miracles, 78% in Angels, 74% in Hell, 71% in The Devil, 34% in
UFOs, 34% in Ghosts, 29% in Astrology, 25% in Reincarnation and 24% in Witches
(Chicago Tribune in cooperation with The Yomiuri Shimbun,
January 3 2004). The profile of a premodern country, not yet seriously touched by the
Enlightenment?
[lxxxix][35]. The
geopolitics behind this is Mackinder's theory (1904)
about the strengths and weaknesses of regions of the world, concluding that the
Russian core and areas to the east contained the potential to become a world
power. In 1919 this was revised to
include
[xc][36]. See Geoffrey
Heard,
[xci][37]. We have not
listed
The
[xcii][38].
However,
the Royal House is now divided against itself, as pointed out by Michael Scott Doran, :"
"On the one hand, some Westernizers
in the ruling class look to
[xciii][39]. See, for
instance, "British officers knew on eve of war that Iraq had no WMDs", The Scotsman, 4 February 2004;
"Iraqi who gave MI6 45-minute claim says it was untrue", The
Guardian, 27 January 2004 and the very thoughtful article Kenneth Pollack,
"How did we get it so wrong", The Guardian, 04 February
2004. Had there been WMD they knew about
they would of course not have launched a massive ground attack across the
Kuwait-Iraq border. A much better
hypothesis is that they relied on the UNSCOM job and the testimony August 1995
of Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-laW
and head of
[xciv][40]. As is to be
expected in a region with centuries of experience in fighting the Ottoman empire,
40 years in fighting the British (1918-58), and a very long time perspective.
[xcv][41]. The whole idea
of the President of the USA having a "mandate" from the US people in
foreign policies when millions of people, and dozens of peoples, are affected but
have no say in the matter, e.g. no right to vote in US presidential elections,
is pathetic, and a good indicator of how much democracy education is still
needed. With all its shortcomings the UN
Security Council is an effort to correct for that. A UN Peoples' Assembly of
elected representatives for all over the world would be even better.
The
same applies to the pre-Enlightenment, pre-modern idea of a divine
mandate. For an analysis of how far Bush
is on that line see Joan Didion, "Mr. Bush &
the Divine", Thre New York Review of
Books,
[xcvi][42]. "The New
American Century" at the World Social Forum in Mumbai January 2004, www.thenation.com/doc.mthml.
[xcvii][43]. The
Australian,
[xcviii][44]. Der Spiegel, 4/2004, p. 97.
[xcix][45]. The current
[c][46]. As proposed by
Leslie Gelb, see the editorial in New York Times,
[ci][47]. For analyses
of similarities and differences, see Robert G. Kaiser, "
[cii][48]. To the extent
neo-conservative political thinking serves a guide to
-
- "tell
the truth about
- the
authoritarian rule of
[ciii][49]. Condoleeza Rice.
[civ][50]. "If it
was happening in, say,
Other articles about:
- Afghanistan
- Albania
- Australia
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Bulgaria
- Switzerland
- Germany
- European Union
- France
- Israel
- Iraq
- Iran
- Italy
- Jordan
- Japan
- Kurdistan
- Kosovo/a
- Kuwait
- Liechtenstein
- Middle East
- Netherlands
- Poland
- Palestine
- Russia
- Rwanda
- Saudi Arabia
- Spain
- Soviet Union
- El Salvador
- Syria
- East Timor
- Turkey
- Ukraine
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Viet Nam
- Yugoslavia
Programmes where this article can be found:
- Human Rights, Democratization and Self-Determination
- Global Governance
- Peace, Deep Structure and Structural Violence
Yahoo! Groups Links