During the Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence, numerous seminars and workshops have been organized in different parts of the world on the theme. Schools and universities have also played their part. Since the Decade is dedicated to the children of the world, some of the activities have concentrated upon their interests and aspirations.

The International Year for the Rapprochement of Cultures (IYRC) seeks “to demonstrate the benefits of cultural diversity by acknowledging the importance of the constant transfers and exchanges between cultures and the ties forged between them since the dawn of humanity.”[ii] Towards this end, the IYRC has identified four major themes that constitute in essence its new strategy. They are i) “promoting reciprocal knowledge of cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity; ii) building a framework for commonly shared values; iii) strengthening quality education and the building of intercultural competences; iv) fostering dialogue for sustainable development.” [iii]

UNESCO and some member states of the UN have already, or, are in the process of   implementing specific activities in the name of the IYRC.  Fairs and festivals, exhibitions and conferences have been held. In some of these, emphasis was given to the adoption of  an integrated vision of the cultural heritage of a community.  At the same time, the importance of inter-cultural dialogue, which includes inter-religious dialogue, continues to be highlighted.  The IYRC has also witnessed attempts to change negative perceptions of the culture or religion of the other through the Internet. Even traditional knowledge and indigenous knowledge systems, which have contributed to sustainable development, have received some attention.

Impact

What has been the impact of the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence and the IYRC, especially upon Asia and its people?  It is irrefutably true that only small coteries are aware of the Decade and the IYRC and what they stand for. The vast majority of people in Asia and the rest of the world would not have heard of these noble ideas. It was perhaps only the Year of the Culture of Peace and Manifesto 2000 in particular which preceded the Decade that went beyond a miniscule fraction of the population. 24.8 million Indians for instance signed the Manifesto.[iv] Nonetheless, for most Indians the year 2000 or the Decade or the IYRC mean very little.

Why is this so? Some of the answers seem obvious. To start with, an idea or a concept such as the Decade of Peace or the Year of the Rapprochement of Cultures does not embody that intrinsic element that would attract millions of people to it. It is not an international football tournament like the World Cup, which because of what it represents— a sport, personalities, skills, competition—- draws a mammoth response from people everywhere.  Nor is a UN initiated declaration on behalf of a universal value such as peace akin to say a national campaign to eradicate polio which because it has immediate relevance to the well-being of the individual and his family elicits support from the masses with minimum effort. What this means is that one should not expect the Decade or the IYRC to capture the popular imagination the way in which certain other events and activities do.

But even if we viewed the Decade and the IYRC within their own modest perimeters, public knowledge and endorsement of these efforts has been somewhat disappointing. This is partly because the media in Asia— newspapers, radio, television — have given scant attention to the Decade and the IYRC. Cyber-media have also not focused on these UN-UNESCO endeavours. Once in a long, long while an article may appear in a newspaper about the Decade or a news item on the IYRC may be featured in a radio programme. From the editor’s standpoint, these are not newsworthy projects deserving of wide publicity. In the Malaysian context, I cannot think of a single media outlet that has accorded prominence to either the Decade or the IYRC. And yet eight months of 2010 have passed by, and very soon both the Decade and the IYRC will come to an end.

Governments in the Asian continent have also not been as supportive as they should be of these endeavours. Even in societies where cultural- cum-religious issues dominate politics, leaders in government and the opposition seldom make any reference to the Decade or to the IYRC.  It is not part of their consciousness just as it is not on the radar screen of society’s intelligentsia.  Once again, Malaysia is a case in point.

There may be many reasons that explain why the media and governments in Asia have been less than lukewarm towards UNESCO’s Culture of Peace and Rapprochement of Cultures. It is quite conceivable that they feel that there are far more urgent and critical concerns that have to be addressed. They may even see a ‘Culture of Peace’ as a long-term ideal that has no immediate relevance. Indeed, it is possible that segments of the media and government may be inclined to dismiss ‘Rapprochement of Cultures’ as a difficult venture that is not worth pursuing.

A Decade of Violence

If scepticism about peace and rapprochement is widespread in society it may be because there has been a great deal of violence and bloodshed in the last 10 years or so— in the very decade that has been proclaimed as ‘The International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World.’  An overview of the wars and conflicts during this period, 2001 to 2010, would testify to this. It is this violence and conflict that has undermined the quest for a decade of peace and a year of rapprochement.

Beginning with Southeast Asia, there has been sporadic violence in southern Philippines for most of the decade under review as segments of the Moro people continue their long struggle for autonomy and identity vis-a-vis Manila. Various parts of Indonesia— such as Bali in October 2002— have also witnessed acts of violence perpetrated by religious extremists. In Thailand, since 2004, there appears to be a resurgence of violence associated with Malay-Muslim separatist groups in the southern part of the country, and Thai-Buddhist military and para-military forces, while Bangkok has had to confront violence of a different sort arising from partisan politics. The military junta in Myanmar has shown no hesitation in resorting to violent suppression of legitimate dissent. [v]

When we turn to Northeast Asia, we see in China, occasional eruptions of political violence linked to expressions of ethnic-cum-religious identity consciousness. This happened in Tibet in March 2008 and again in Xinjiang in July 2009, where Han-Uighur riots claimed 140 lives. The tensions between North Korea and South Korea, aggravated by the military presence of the United States in the region, have also resulted in violence as evinced in the sinking of a South Korean warship in March 2010 that led to the death of 46 sailors.

Compared to Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia, violence in South Asia has been more endemic. For 26 long years, from 1983 to 2009, Sri Lanka was in the throes of a civil war which pitted the Sinhalese majority against the Tamil minority. It was a war that killed tens of thousands of people. India has also known a lot of communal violence. It is estimated that about 2000 people died in Hindu-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002. Terrorism perpetrated by Hindu and Muslim groups alike is yet another source of violence in contemporary Indian society. Then there is India’s decades old conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir— a conflict that has taken a huge toll on innocent lives. Pakistan itself has had no respite from violence.  Sectarian violence has reared its ugly head over and over again in that blighted land.  Every now and then there are reports of Sunni Muslims massacring Shia Muslims and Shias murdering Sunnis. Along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan, violence manifests itself in another form. Hundreds of Pakistani civilians have become victims of unmanned American drones targeting Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters, who are trying to tighten their grip upon the border region as they combat the US- helmed NATO occupation of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan brings us to Central Asia. Afghanistan itself is a cauldron of violence.  Since Occupation, beginning October 2001, thousands of Afghans — some Al-Qaeda and

Taliban operatives, many others innocent men, women and children —- have been killed. It is not just the occupiers who have been doing the killing; the Taliban and their allies, in the name of resisting foreign aggression and occupation, have also targeted civilians. Other states in Central Asia are also not immune from violence and conflict. In Kyrgyzstan , simmering ethnic tensions between the Kyrgyz majority and the  Uzbek minority, were  manipulated by politicians and  led to an outbreak of violence in June 2010.

The final region in Asia under review — West Asia—presents yet another tragic picture of war, violence and turmoil. Two years after the launch of the Decade for the Culture of  Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, the US and a handful of its allies invaded  and occupied Iraq in March 2003.[vi] According to various reports, more than a million Iraqis have died as a result of the Occupation. Though a portion of US troops have been withdrawn,—- 50,000 will remain as  “assist and advice” brigades— the violence continues unabated.[vii] Peace remains as elusive as ever.  Peace is perhaps even more elusive in Palestine which has been a victim of violence for more than six decades. In January 2009, the defenceless citizens of Gaza in Palestine were subjected to a massive assault by the Israeli armed forces which left 1300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead.  The root of the Palestinian catastrophe – it is worth reiterating— is the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and the dispossession of the Palestinian people.[viii] Large parts of the Golan Heights in Syria and the Sheba Farm in Lebanon also remain under Israeli occupation, generating tensions in the entire region.

A Litany of Ironies

From the five regions we have reflected upon—- Southeast Asia, Northeast Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, and West Asia—it is obvious that in the decade of peace and rapprochement, there has been a great deal of violence and conflict. What is less obvious is that the violence and wars have subverted not just peace and rapprochement but also the goal that the Decade is dedicated to — the goal of peace and non-violence for the children of the world. In a number of conflict zones, children have been killed mercilessly. If we tallied the figures for children massacred in Sri Lanka, Gujarat, Kashmir, Iraq and Palestine in particular, it would certainly come up to thousands! What an irony that thousands of children should die at the hands of the perpetrators of violence in a Decade of peace dedicated to them!  Is this our gift to them — the innocent and the vulnerable in our midst— in this Decade and in this year of the Rapprochement of Cultures?  Is the Decade a bane for the children of the world?

There are other ironies that may have escaped many of us. The first year of the Decade — 2001— was also the year when a group of Muslim extremists destroyed the Twin Towers in New York and part of the Pentagon in Washington D.C in the infamous September 11^th , or 9-11, episode.[ix] Almost three thousand people were killed in those airplane attacks. An act of barbaric violence in a year dedicated to a culture of peace. In retaliation the US launched its ‘war on terror’ and chose as its first target, Afghanistan, which hosts Osama bin Laden, the leader of  Al-Qaeda, the group that allegedly planned 9-11. The war on terror has lasted an entire decade dedicated to a culture of peace which is yet another irony. That irony is compounded by yet another coincidence of sorts. The US launched its war on terror in 2001, the year that the United Nations had designated as the Year of the Dialogue of Civilisations.  Again, how ironical that the war on terror which more than anything else has widened the chasm between civilizations, specifically the West and the Muslim world, should have started in the very year that the Dialogue of Civilisations was proclaimed![x] And now at the end of a decade in which violence overwhelmed peace, and distrust between civilisations trumped dialogue, we solemnly declare 2010 as the international year for the rapprochement of cultures.

Causes

Being aware of the litany of ironies that signifies the Decade and the IYRC is one thing. It is even more crucial to understand in some depth the underlying causes of the conflicts and wars that have burdened and bloodied the decade.  It is only when we understand the causes that we will be able to formulate effective and feasible solutions. Causes of, and solutions to, conflicts should be part of peace education programmes.

It is an understatement that the causes of conflicts that threaten peace are often complex and varied. The contexts in which they occur have to be taken into consideration.  Generalising the causes could sometimes lead to oversimplification, and even distortion. With these caveats in mind, let us attempt to draw out some of the underlying causes of the conflicts we alluded to in the five regions of Asia.

Occupation, and the dispossession that accompanies it, persuades the dispossessed to resist, which in turn leads to conflict. It may also lead to a situation in which a people’s  identity is challenged, and the victims seek to restore their honour and dignity.[xi] Occupation may also be linked to the drive by the powerful to assert their hegemony. The quest for hegemony may be motivated by a desire to usurp the economic resources of the conquered. There are times when conflicts arise from inter-state antagonism and ideological friction. Partisan politics and political manipulation for electoral support appears to be yet another cause for conflict and violent hatred. Socio-economic disparities and marginalisation have also engendered hatred and violence within segments of society.  By the same token, harsh and brutal state suppression of legitimate dissent can cause tensions and bloody conflagrations. Religious bigotry and extremism and sectarian rivalries are also inextricably intertwined with many a conflict. The oppressed and fanatics for different reasons may also resort to terrorism which is yet another factor that explains turmoil and violence in some parts of Asia.

Beyond causes, there are human attitudes that feed into violence and war, and are inimical to peace and harmony. Aggressiveness and belligerency are examples of such attitudes. So are the desire to dominate and control and the obsession with power, wealth and prestige. Greed and selfishness are also attitudes that contribute towards disparities and divisions in society which are not conducive to social solidarity and social cohesion. And, in the context of the IYRC’s emphasis upon cultural diversity, ethnic exclusiveness, racial bigotry and religious fanaticism are formidable barriers to understanding and empathy among diverse communities.

But the perennial— and critical — question is this: how does one, at the collective level, curb and control these negative attitudes and tendencies in the human being?

Peace Education.

Peace education as concept and practice is concerned about these negative attitudes. The curriculum of certain peace education courses seeks to check aggressiveness, the obsession with power, greed and bigotry by providing concrete examples of how destructive these traits are, and through individual and group introspection and reflection.

While these methodologies should continue to be employed, peace education courses in Asia should seriously explore linking positive and negative attitudes, the virtues and vices that are part and parcel of the human personality with sacred knowledge, with belief in God, in a Transcendental Reality, in a Divine Presence. What this means is that virtues such as justice and peace would be seen as rooted in the Divine while vices such as an obsession with power and wealth or a tendency towards bigotry and chauvinism would be viewed as a transgression of divinely sanctioned values and principles.[xii] By acknowledging the divine root of what is good we not only strengthen the spiritual-moral fabric of society but also connect with the worldview of the majority of the people of Asia and indeed of the world.  Peace as a divine value thus becomes meaningful for the masses. At the same time, by integrating the Transcendent or God and God Consciousness into peace education, we are, in a sense, making it a little easier to check negative traits since a profound relationship with the Divine often helps to transform human character for the better. [xiii]

God Consciousness apart, peace education should go beyond guiding principles like dignity and liberty and address the real and the concrete. It should examine actual situations of conflict, analyse the causes and offer solutions. Of course, some peace and conflict resolution programmes run by universities in Asia do this.  Much more can be done.

In analysing real and concrete situations, peace educators should take into account the prevailing structures of power and how they impact upon the quest for peace.  We have shown for instance how political suppression and glaring economic injustices can generate violence. Exposing truths of this sort through peace education programmes may in certain situations demand courage and conviction.

Even more important, peace educators should be willing to give due emphasis to global hegemony as one of the greatest threats to peace in Asia and the world. The evidence, as  we have seen, is overwhelming.  And yet, in many current peace education courses there is a tendency to gloss over the question of global hegemony.  It is as if we are afraid to deal with it because it involves the interests of a military superpower and its allies. Or, is it because many of us are still intellectually and psychologically subservient to the US and the West that we are not prepared to adopt a critical perspective on global hegemony? Or, is it because hegemony has become so normal and natural that we do not see it as a problem any more?[xiv] Whatever the reason, if we are serious and sincere about peace education, the prevailing mindset will have to change.

Finally, peace education, with all the changes that have been proposed here, should be directed at society at large. For far too long, peace education has been confined to universities, research institutes, think tanks, and some NGOs concerned about issues of peace. Because peace is so important for the very survival of the human family it is imperative that each and every member of the human family becomes aware of what peace entails, what undermines peace, what the consequences are when peace is threatened, and how the individual can help to advance the cause of peace. What this implies is that peace education should be part of the education of all of us— from the kindergarten through school, right up to the university. Its contents should be disseminated through cultural and religious institutions, professional bodies, business entities, trade unions,  NGOs, and most of all, the media.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if UNESCO made the popularisation, the massification  of  education for peace its mission for the next decade?

Endnotes