Early History of the Culture of Peace
Future of the Culture of Peace: The Concept Page 36

Introduction and UNESCO's Mandate
Page 1

Yamousoukro and Seville Statement
Page 2

Origins and Executive Board Adoption
Pages 3 - 4

Launching the Programme: El Salvador and Roundtable
Pages 5 - 6 - 7

1993 General Conference
Page 8

National Projects
Pages 9 - 10

Programme Unit
Page 11

Toward a Global Scope
Pages 12 - 13

Transdisciplinary Project and Human Right to Peace
Pages 14 - 15 - 16

1997: A New Approach
Page 17

UN General Assembly Resolutions
Page 18

Resolution for International Year
Page 19

Declaration and Programme of Action
Pages 20 - 21

Resolution for International Decade
Pages 22 - 23

Training Programmes
Page 24

Global Movement
Pages 25 - 26

Publicity Campaign
Pages 27 - 28

Decentralized Network
Pages 29 - 30

Manifesto 2000
Page 31

Use of Internet
Pages 32 - 33

Future of the Culture of Peace
Pages 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38

Annexes and Documentation
Page 39


(continued from previous page)

Needless to say, the transformation of the state is a monumental task, as it is resisted by the enormous vested interests of the culture of war. And unlike traditional revolutionary movements which adopted the values of the culture of war (secrecy, hierarchical structure and violence), this must be a different kind of revolution. The Global Movement for a Culture of Peace, being values-based, must be true to its fundamental values of transparency, democracy and non-violence. It must learn from the failures of previous revolutionary movements which succeeded in overthrowing one system, only to establish a new system based on the culture of war whose values it had adopted in the course of making the revolution.

When seen as a revolutionary task, the culture of peace evokes the fundamental contradiction of UNESCO in particular and the United Nations in general, since they are based on nation-states whose power derives from the culture of war. From its beginning in 1946 the UN and UNESCO were controlled by the states that had emerged victorious from World War II by virtue of having mobilized their societies for war, including economic forces, lines of authority and control of information. And some were still ruling over colonial empires that had been conquered and maintained through the culture of war. Although the liberation of colonial nations has shifted the composition of the UN and introduced a lobby for the culture of peace, the major powers are not comfortable with this. From time to time the fundamental contradiction comes into sharp focus, for example as described above in the debate on the Human Right to Peace at the General Conference 6 November 1997, or in the debate in the informals for the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace on 6 May 1999. In my opinion, the inadequate funding of UNESCO (including national culture of peace programmes) derives from this fundamental contradiction. The powerful Member States have no desire to empower agencies that call into question the historical and continuing basis of their power and wealth, the culture of war. [Note: for a somewhat more optimistic view, see the Postscript of January 2004]

The culture of peace can also provide values for everyday life. This was the purpose of the Manifesto 2000, distributed and signed during the International Year for the Culture of Peace. Shifting the level from that of the nation-state to that of the individual in everyday life was not a simple task. For example, in the process of drafting the Manifesto 2000, I argued that there should be eight points corresponding to the eight areas of the UN Programme of Action. Although I lost the argument, I succeeded in introducing the two missing areas (women's equality and democracy) into the sixth point of the Manifesto 2000 so that it read: "Contribute to the development of my community, with the full participation of women and respect for democratic principles in order to create together new forms of solidarity" (italics added).

In two other respects the Manifesto does not correspond to the UN Programme of Action. (1) Education for a culture of peace is not given a special point in the Manifesto, although one could easily argue that all of the Manifesto is education for a culture of peace. (2) The Manifesto divides sustainable development into two components: share with others and preserve the planet. Although it is true, as indicated by their combination in the UN Programme, that the fight on poverty needs to be linked with preservation of the environment, it is also useful to distinguish them, as in the Manifesto, since they have different implications in practical, everyday life.

The culture of peace concept is useful as a values base for specific initiatives, such as the Culture of Peace News Network (CPNN). In formulating its "peacekeys", CPNN has expanded the Manifesto 2000 from its six points to back to eight points, separating out as separate points the values of Participate in democracy and Work for women's equality and thus corresponding more closely to the UN Programme of Action.

Education for a Culture of Peace Not included Developing attitudes and skills for living together (content of Share with others)
Tolerance, solidarity and international understanding Rediscover solidarity and Listen to understand Rediscover solidarity
Democratic participation (included in Rediscover solidarity) Participate in democracy
Free flow of information Listen to understand Listen to understand
International peace and security (disarmament etc) Reject violence Reject violence
Human rights Respect all life Respect all life
Sustainable development Share with others Share with others (title only)
Sustainable development Preserve the planet Preserve the planet (title only)
Equality of women (included in Rediscover solidarity) Work for women's equality

previous page
home page
next page