One World, Many Peaces

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.

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.

More Autonomy for More Disarmament says Separatist Group After Three Deadly Decades

You wouldn't use a chainsaw to change a light bulb or a hammer to ice a cake, so why would anyone use anything other than political means (like violence and war, for instance) to achieve political ends?

For close to three decades now, Kurdish rebels have been fighting on behalf of their ethnic group against Turkish and Iraqi oppression, both cultural and economic, with little success. If anything, the more violent their action became, the more oppressive the state's response. But based on what it's leader said this week, it seems like that dangerous equation could change. Or at least a new window of opportunity for peace has been opened.

The leader of a Kurdish rebel group, Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK, designated a terrorist organisation by Turkey, as well as the EU and US) engaged in a guerrilla war with Turkey has told the BBC it is willing to disarm in return for greater political and cultural rights for Turkey's Kurds. PKK leader Murat Karayilan said he would order his fighters to lay down their weapons under UN supervision in exchange for greater autonomy for the Kurdish region there, which actually reverses the deadly equation above and replaces it with the formula: more autonomy for more disarmament.

"If the Kurdish issue is resolved in a democratic way through dialogue we will lay down our weapons, yes. We will not carry arms," Karayilan said to the BBC. You would think that Turkish officials would welcome the opportunity to turn an armed and violent group into a peaceful political constituency, but their response showed a close-mindedness at least as dangerous as the PKK's previously, especially given that some 40,000 people have died in armed conflict since it began in 1984. "Not in the habit of commenting on statements made by terrorists," said a senior official.

It would seem, then, that Turkey wants the chainsaw and hammer, regardless of the double standard it would create now that disarmament talks with longtime rival Greece are underway, as previously reported on One World, Many Peaces. This may be because the PKK's disarmament offer came with a threat, but still political not military in essence: "If the Turkish government refuses to accept that, we will have to announce independence," as distinct from the autonomy for disarmament equation that constitutes the biggest peace breakthrough in the situation, ever.

The cultural and economic autonomy the PKK is proposing in exchange for disarmament would reap greater rewards for them and Turkey than either continued conflict or independence. It's time to turn on the light bulb and ice the cake with the proper means, political not violent.

Anti-War Activists: Stop Panicking, Start Thinking Critically and Acting Strategically

"Panicked thinking was shared by many of us then, and it led to the kind of disastrous short-term actions that began to characterize the antiwar movement." So writes the legendary anti-Vietnam War, pro-women's liberation activist Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz in her monumental memoir, Outlaw Woman: A Memoir of the War Years, 1960-1975. Unfortunately, not much has changed in the few decades since her, her entourage and their supporters worldwide nonetheless made considerable headway in turning the tide of public opinion. Unfortunately, they and we have failed today even if we need not to in the future

The Afghanistan War is now the United State's longest military engagement, ever. The war in Iraq is rapidly approaching second place after it, too. The burst of anti-war energy that soon fizzled first in 2001 with the Afghan, then the so-called "Summer of Peace" with Iraq in 2003, has never been regained. This is not a eulogy, it's a reproach and recommendation to those who led and participated in those protests globally, thinking they would make a difference in doing so, then went back to their complacent daily lives and let the two wars continue, costing hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

What is "panicking" in an anti-war context and why should it be stopped? Exactly what and why Dunbar-Ortiz claimed it is:  disastrous short-term actions. What's so disastrous about panicking? Aside from that it has achieved absolutely nothing in regards to ending the wars, it has also alienated a lot of the people who would have otherwise worked to end it, while giving those who do it a false sense of accomplishment in the self-centered, self-satisfaction of acting like an angry teenager, or worse yet a two year old in their "terrible phase." As such, it needs to be stopped, but stopping without doing anything different would be like not stopping at all.

We propose two alternatives. First, thinking critically. Not in the sense of armchair philosophizing, but deeply scrutinizing the following, among other things: Why we want the wars to end; why others might want them to end too and why they should join us; it means learning from the long history of peace and anti-war activism dating back centuries, rather than reinventing the wheel; what has worked in the past and can be repeated effectively today; what has not worked in the past and should not be repeated today; how to take advantage of resources like social media that were not previously available;  how to build bridges (not burn them) with related organizations. These last two bring us to the second alternative.

Start acting strategically. If there's an opposite to panicking, this is it. Anti-war strategizing includes planning in the short, medium and long terms; it takes the shape of coordinating the human, economic and technological resources that are already in place, not competing; it means setting egos aside to make the causes succeed;  it requires reaching out to opponents and potential partners to come up and implement solutions that make sense. Anti-war panicking is a deadly disease; critical thinking and acting strategically are its cures and, with them, an end to the war epidemic.

China + Taiwan = China + Hong Kong

It is quickly becoming clear that China is going after Taiwan like a corporate takeover, predator after prey, dog in heat, you pick the analogy. And it has a well established precedent of re-integration in Hong Kong, which has since spurred economic development on the mainland in a way Chinese leaders can only be wet dreaming of with Taiwan. Here's the story of the secret love affair that is being consummated economically and politically as you read this, and why the U.S. is the loser lover.

Like all love affairs, the relationship was rekindled earlier last year after a bitter fight, meaning an atrocious civil war, lasting some fifty years over nothing so important, ideological-economic systems. Taiwan was on the side of pro-U.S. democracy and capitalism, where Hong Kong was on the side of post-imperial (British) democracy and, yes, capitalism. China, it goes without saying, was on the side of communism, but now in a form so perverted (or improved?) that Mao would turn over in his grave, though I believe Marx may have approved. As they say, Marx wouldn't be a Marxist today.

The make-up first took the form of a historic opening dialogue between senior officials in July of 2009, which mainstream media largely ignored, let along its historic significance. Only the people directly involved probably know the diplomatic tact and the preparation it took for that meeting to come to fruition. After reporting this on One World, Many Peaces, the next major event we reported on took place a few months ago, with an actual Hong Kong official playing go-between (or mariage counselor) with China and Taiwan. He was, by all accounts except a few protestors, successful.

How do we know this? Because just a weeks ago, China and Taiwan signed a historic two-way trade deal. The governments say the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, signed in the Chinese city of Chongqing, will give Taiwanese companies tariff benefits in China that are similar to those received by Southeast Asian countries under a separate trade pact with China. All that was heard about in mainstream western media was the street protestors, who really cares that this is as significant as Japan's turn towards China and away from the U.S., too.

The coup de grace for the Chinese and the fatal flaw for the U.S. is the primacy the former places on economics and the latter on politics. China is winning hands down on this point not only in Asia, but in Afghanistan and Africa too. So unless Americans want to tout democracy and starve in the near future, they better figure out what China's mutated Marxism is all and start doing it too.

Global Peace Index 2010 Points to a Less Peaceful World This Year

By Liz Ford

The world has become less peaceful over the last year, despite a drop in the number of armed conflicts, according to this year’s Global Peace Index (GPI).

Figures published today show homicide rates and violent crime had increased around the world, particularly in Latin America, where levels of peacefulness showed the biggest slip over the past 12 months.

The GPI has been published annually for the last four years by the Institute for Economics and Peace, a global thinktank that researches the relationship between economics, business and peace. The rankings, compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, are calculated using 23 indicators, such as violent crime, political stability and military expenditure, correlated against a number of social development indicators such as corruption, freedom of the press, respect for human rights and school enrolment rates.

Figures show that Africa has become the most improved region of the world for peacefulness over the last four years. The continent has experienced fewer conflicts, less military spending and improved cross-border relations. However, sub-Saharan Africa still remains one of the planet’s least peaceful areas, with nine states featuring in the bottom 20 countries listed.

The Middle East has also shown improvements in its levels of peacefulness since 2006, largely through decreasing military spending and improved relations between states.
However, South Asia has become the most volatile area over the last four years, mainly due to increased involvement in conflicts and human rights abuses. This year, Pakistan was ranked 145 out of the 149 states listed and India ranked 129, evidence, says Steve Killelea, founder of the GPI, of the impact of the war on terror.

Levels of peace

For the second year running, New Zealand is rated the most peaceful country in the world, with Iceland climbing back up to second place, after dropping from the top slot in 2008 to fourth place last year. Japan ranked third. Fifteen of the top 20 countries are western or central European states and all Scandinavian countries are listed in the top 10, suggesting that small, stable, democratic countries are the most peaceful. The UK was ranked 31, one of the few countries to improve positions, while the US dropped two places to 85, largely due to its military expenditure, high prison population and increasing rates of violent crime and homicide.

For the fourth year running, Iraq was found to be the least peaceful country, followed by Somalia, Afghanistan and Sudan. Russia ranked 143.

This year, five extra countries were added to the index – Armenia, Gambia, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Swaziland, which ranked 113, 63, 99, 53 and 73 respectively.

In a sense, the GPI make a case for peace – putting a monetary value on peace in terms of business growth and economic development. The index authors estimate that the total economic impact of an end to violence could have been US$28.2tr between 2006 and 2009. A 25% reduction in global violence would add an annual $1.85tr to the global economy. Killelea said these amounts could pay off Greece’s debts, meet the yearly requirements needed to hit the Millennium Development Goals and pay for the EU’s carbon reduction programme, and still leave change.

Aid thoughts

The rankings could provide useful backing to donor governments rethinking their aid strategies. The UK government is currently reviewing the countries to which it gives aid and has set up a National Security Council to pull together plans for development and defence. In a speech last week, the international development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, spoke of the importance of building “peaceful and stable societies abroad”, with particular reference to Afghanistan.

“It’s highly appropriate to look at the index and review how we go about giving aid. In the past, a lot of it was giving on a political whim, to prop up some government,” said Killelea. “You need the right resources and approaches to build a well functioning government and make sure resources are spread around the people.” A government would also save “hundreds of billions of dollars” in military expenditure.

Africa, he added, had experienced significant economic growth over the last decade, which had resulted in improved GDP across the continent, a drop in armed conflict and improvements in child mortality and education rates. But Killelea the continent still had a long way to go. “We don’t want to lose sight that Africa is the most violent region in the world”, he said.

The highest ranked country in Africa is Botswana, at 33. Uganda ranked 100 this year, an improvement on last year. However, Killelea noted that while the country had clearly improved in a number of areas, particularly in terms of economic growth, political instability, a worsening respect for human rights and an increasing number of deaths from organised crime remained major problems.

Photo Credit: syvwlh

A Tale of Two Neo-Colonialisms: China and the U.S. in Africa

There's a new "Scramble for Africa" taking place as you read this, one that rivals that which gripped and stripped the people and resources of the continent in the hands of Europeans in the late nineteenth century. But now, it's being waged in unprecedented twenty-first century ways that build upon those of the late twentieth, with two main players not a handful as before: China and the U.S.

Taking a closer look at what's been happening since the waves of supposed decolonization of the 1950s-1970s makes it clear that there are two very different kinds of neo-colonialism making inroads now, and they're not shaping up to be what you may expect from the two superpowers, the one old, the other even older.

This U.S. neo-colonialism actually being in the early 1800s, shortly after Americans through off the British yoke they tried to impose their own by supporting the nascent Liberia. The pattern has repeated itself innumerable times since: remain sovereign in name, while we supply you with capital, ideology and military support. During the Cold War, programs like the Peace Corps put a palatable veneer on what was then called neoliberalism in the next few decades, code name for the exportation of capitalism and democracy, whether the receiving country likes it or not.

The results have been mixed at best, and totally off target at worse, causing some of the worst humanitarian crises in human history while the upper classes of the oil-rich countries benefit and the lower classes continue to suffer, as they always have. Meanwhile purportedly global financial institutions, actually the U.S. and its allies in disguise, like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) lend African countries sums and at rates they cannot possibly repay just as they "give" them foreign aid that gets sucked dry by men with guns supplied by the U.S. off before it reaches its most desperate targets.

As U.S. neo-colonialism began, China was doing its best not to be colonized by the West, only to be so by the Japanese in the early and mid twentieth century, often considered worse than Nazi occupation. By the time the Communist takeover was complete in the 1950s, China had such serious internal problems that looking outside its borders was practically impossible, let alone doing something. That situation changed when the toil and trouble of the billion or so Chinese made their country a manufacturing, and now middle class consumer, global powerhouse.

Ironically, for the past two decades, China has been anything but communist or neoliberal in its neo-colonialism, instead preferring to make huge direct investments in the infrastructure and resources of dozens of African countries without the pretenses and airs of democracy and military security (at least so far for the latter) Americans like to put on in doing exactly the same thing.

Together, American and Chinese neo-colonialism in Africa are likely to dominate Africa for the foreseeable future, or until such time as they come into conflict with one another. When they do, it will not be a battle of ideology that takes place, but a battle of the businesses and organizations that each country has and will put in place on the continent. That is, unless the pitiable African Union shapes itself up to be the continental leadership it can be and itself throw off all yokes, once and for all.

Or, better yet, keep the yokes that work as current events, make them their own and then disappear, and discard those that don't, at which point we will be in a future created by U.S. and Chinese neo-colonialism in Africa which cannot yet be predicted.

India and Pakistan Open Breakthrough Peace Talks

Something unimaginable just a couple of months ago is quickly becoming actuality: the leaders of India and Pakistan have opened direct talks to resolve their many outstanding issues, several of which have triggered wars in the past. Top on the list of items in the breakthrough preliminary discussions are addressing the growing terrorist threat within and between the two countries, and the rise of China as their mutual neighboring superpower to the East. Only a few weeks ago, another armed conflict seemed likely between the three countries over their respective interests in the Kashmir region.

Meeting in Bhutan for the first time in close to a year, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart, Yousuf Raza Gilani, to work out ways to restore trust and confidence in the two states' troubled and storied relationship, "thus paving the way for a substantive dialogue on all issues of mutual concern", Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao told reporters. Since the deadly Mumbai attacks in 2008, India has purposefully distanced itself from Pakistan, a move which now seems to its leaders as being counterproductive when it comes to fighting terrorism.

The last time the two premiers sat down together was at the Non-Aligned Movement's summit in Egypt last July, and both parties seemed genuinely relieved and encouraged by the overtures, although it is too soon to tell what (if anything) will result. Bonding over the wounds of terrorist attacks and an imposing common neighbor may not be the ideal conditions for reconciliation, but they certainly are proving pragmatic, especially as both countries have nuclear arsenals of questionable security.  "I don't think either side was expecting such a positive turn in dialogue," Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Quresh told reporters. "It was a step in the right direction and it was in the right spirit."

When India seceded from the British Empire in 1947, the subcontinent was further partitioned by its leaders and an all-to-willing exiting empire into Pakistan as a Muslim country. Gandhi, who struggled for Indian autonomy, and then independence when these efforts were thwarted, considered the partition the greatest regret of his life. For years earlier, he had tried to reconcile Hindu and Muslims in the region through marches, fasts and town-hall style meeting, but to no avail. Given that the premiers of the two countries agreed to meet in person again soon, this current event is one that Gandhi may not have wanted, but would have welcomed as creating a more peaceful future for Asia and the world.