Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: conflict

  • Message for 100-Day Countdown to the International Day of Peace

    Ban Ki-moonToday, we start the 100-day countdown to the observance of the International Day of Peace, when we call on combatants around the world to put down their weapons and try to find peaceful solutions to their conflicts.


    The International Day of Peace, marked every year on 21 September, gives us all a chance to reflect on the unconscionable toll – moral, physical, material – wrought by war.  Those costs are borne not only by us today, but by future generations as well.


    That is why this year’s theme is “Sustainable Peace for a Sustainable Future.” It highlights the fact that we cannot possibly think about building a sustainable future if there is no sustainable peace.  Armed conflicts attack the very pillars of sustainable development, robbing people of the opportunity to develop, to create jobs, to safeguard the environment, to fight poverty, to reduce the risk from disasters, to advance social equity and to ensure that everyone has enough to eat.


    One week from today, as the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development opens in Rio de Janeiro, the world will have an opportunity to fight back.  With tens of thousands of politicians, policy-makers, social activists, business leaders and others mobilized for action, Rio+20 can help us to create a global roadmap for a sustainable future, the future we want.


    We want a future where natural resources are protected and valued rather than used to finance wars, where children can be educated at school and not recruited into armies, where economic and social inequalities are resolved through dialogue instead of violence.


    If we are to build such a future, we must all play our individual part.  I urge everyone, between now and 21 September, to think about how they can contribute.  Let us work together to ensure that the Road from Rio leads us to sustainable development, sustainable peace… and a secure future for all.  

  • The United Nations and Security in a Nuclear Weapons-Free World

    The following is the text of a speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the East-West Institute on October 24, 2008

    Mr. John Edwin Mroz, President and CEO of the East-West Institute,

    Mr. George Russell, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the East-West Institute.

    Dr. Kissinger,

    Dr. ElBaradei,

    Mr. Duarte,

    It is a great pleasure to welcome you all to the United Nations. I salute the East-West Institute and its partner non-governmental groups for organizing this event on weapons of mass destruction and disarmament.

    This is one of the gravest challenges facing international peace and security. So I thank the East-West Institute for its timely and important new global initiative to build consensus. Under the leadership of George Russell and Martti Ahtisaari, the East-West Institute is challenging each of us to rethink our international security priorities in order to get things moving again. You know, as we do, that we need specific actions, not just words. As your slogan so aptly puts it, you are a “think and do tank”.

    One of my priorities as Secretary-General is to promote global goods and remedies to challenges that do not respect borders. A world free of nuclear weapons would be a global public good of the highest order, and will be the focus of my remarks today. I will speak mainly about nuclear weapons because of their unique dangers and the lack of any treaty outlawing them. But we must also work for a world free of all weapons of mass destruction.

    Some of my interest in this subject stems from my own personal experience. As I come from [the Republic of Korea, my country has suffered the ravages of conventional war and faced threats from nuclear weapons and other WMD. But of course, such threats are not unique to my country.

    Today, there is support throughout the world for the view that nuclear weapons should never again be used because of their indiscriminate effects, their impact on the environment and their profound implications for regional and global security. Some call this the nuclear “taboo”.

    Yet nuclear disarmament has remained only an aspiration, rather than a reality. This forces us to ask whether a taboo merely on the use of such weapons is sufficient.

    States make the key decisions in this field. But the United Nations has important roles to play. We provide a central forum where states can agree on norms to serve their common interests. We analyze, educate and advocate in the pursuit of agreed goals.

    Moreover, we have pursued general and complete disarmament for so long that it has become part of the Organization’s very identity. Disarmament and the regulation of armaments are found in the Charter. The very first resolution adopted by the General Assembly, in London in 1946, called for eliminating “weapons adaptable to mass destruction”. These goals have been supported by every Secretary-General. They have been the subject of hundreds of General Assembly resolutions, and have been endorsed repeatedly by all our Member States.

    And for good reason. Nuclear weapons produce horrific, indiscriminate effects. Even when not used, they pose great risks. Accidents could happen any time. The manufacture of nuclear weapons can harm public health and the environment. And of course, terrorists could acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear material.

    Most states have chosen to forgo the nuclear option, and have complied with their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet some states view possession of such weapons as a status symbol. And some states view nuclear weapons as offering the ultimate deterrent of nuclear attack, which largely accounts for the estimated 26,000 that still exist.

    Unfortunately, the doctrine of nuclear deterrence has proven to be contagious. This has made non-proliferation more difficult, which in turn raises new risks that nuclear weapons will be used.

    The world remains concerned about nuclear activities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and in Iran. There is widespread support for efforts to address these concerns by peaceful means through dialogue.

    There are also concerns that a “nuclear renaissance” could soon take place, with nuclear energy being seen as a clean, emission-free alternative at a time of intensifying efforts to combat climate change. The main worry is that this will lead to the production and use of more nuclear materials that must be protected against proliferation and terrorist threats.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    The obstacles to disarmament are formidable. But the costs and risks of its alternatives never get the attention they deserve. But consider the tremendous opportunity cost of huge military budgets. Consider the vast resources that are consumed by the endless pursuit of military superiority.

    According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global military expenditures last year exceeded $1.3 trillion. Ten years ago, the Brookings Institution published a study that estimated the total costs of nuclear weapons in just one country?the United States?to be over $5.8 trillion, including future cleanup costs. By any definition, this has been a huge investment of financial and technical resources that could have had many other productive uses.

    Concerns over such costs and the inherent dangers of nuclear weapons have led to a global outpouring of ideas to breathe new life into the cause of nuclear disarmament. We have seen the WMD Commission led by Hans Blix, the New Agenda Coalition and Norway’s seven-nation initiative. Australia and Japan have just launched the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. Civil society groups and nuclear-weapon states have also made proposals.

    There is also the Hoover plan. I am pleased to note the presence here today of some of that effort’s authors. Dr. Kissinger, Mr. Kampelman: allow me to thank you for your commitment and for the great wisdom you have brought to this effort.

    Such initiatives deserve greater support. As the world faces crises in the economic and environmental arenas, there is growing awareness of the fragility of our planet and the need for global solutions to global challenges. This changing consciousness can also help us revitalize the international disarmament agenda.

    In that spirit, I hereby offer a five-point proposal.

    First, I urge all NPT parties, in particular the nuclear-weapon-states, to fulfil their obligation under the treaty to undertake negotiations on effective measures leading to nuclear disarmament.

    They could pursue this goal by agreement on a framework of separate, mutually reinforcing instruments. Or they could consider negotiating a nuclear-weapons convention, backed by a strong system of verification, as has long been proposed at the United Nations. Upon the request of Costa Rica and Malaysia, I have circulated to all UN member states a draft of such a convention, which offers a good point of departure.

    The nuclear powers should actively engage with other states on this issue at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, the world’s single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. The world would also welcome a resumption of bilateral negotiations between the United States and Russian Federation aimed at deep and verifiable reductions of their respective arsenals.

    Governments should also invest more in verification research and development. The United Kingdom’s proposal to host a conference of nuclear-weapon states on verification is a concrete step in the right direction.

    Second, the Security Council’s permanent members should commence discussions, perhaps within its Military Staff Committee, on security issues in the nuclear disarmament process. They could unambiguously assure non-nuclear-weapon states that they will not be the subject of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The Council could also convene a summit on nuclear disarmament. Non-NPT states should freeze their own nuclear-weapon capabilities and make their own disarmament commitments.

    My third initiative relates to the “rule of law.” Unilateral moratoria on nuclear tests and the production of fissile materials can go only so far. We need new efforts to bring the CTBT into force, and for the Conference on Disarmament to begin negotiations on a fissile material treaty immediately, without preconditions. I support the entry into force of the Central Asian and African nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties. I encourage the nuclear-weapon states to ratify all the protocols to the nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties. I strongly support efforts to establish such a zone in the Middle East. And I urge all NPT parties to conclude their safeguards agreements with the IAEA, and to voluntarily adopt the strengthened safeguards under the Additional Protocol. We should never forget that the nuclear fuel cycle is more than an issue involving energy or non-proliferation; its fate will also shape prospects for disarmament.

    My fourth proposal concerns accountability and transparency. The nuclear-weapon states often circulate descriptions of what they are doing to pursue these goals, yet these accounts seldom reach the public. I invite the nuclear-weapon states to send such material to the UN Secretariat, and to encourage its wider dissemination. The nuclear powers could also expand the amount of information they publish about the size of their arsenals, stocks of fissile material and specific disarmament achievements. The lack of an authoritative estimate of the total number of nuclear weapons testifies to the need for greater transparency.

    Fifth and finally, a number of complementary measures are needed. These include the elimination of other types of WMD; new efforts against WMD terrorism; limits on the production and trade in conventional arms; and new weapons bans, including of missiles and space weapons. The General Assembly could also take up the recommendation of the Blix Commission for a “World Summit on disarmament, non-proliferation and terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction”.

    Some doubt that the problem of WMD terrorism can ever be solved. But if there is real, verified progress in disarmament, the ability to eliminate this threat will grow exponentially. It will be much easier to encourage governments to tighten relevant controls if a basic, global taboo exists on the very possession of certain types of weapons. As we progressively eliminate the world’s deadliest weapons and their components, we will make it harder to execute WMD terrorist attacks. And if our efforts also manage to address the social, economic, cultural, and political conditions that aggravate terrorist threats, so much the better.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    At the United Nations in 1961, President Kennedy said, “Let us call a truce to terror?. Let us invoke the blessings of peace. And as we build an international capacity to keep peace, let us join in dismantling the national capacity to wage war.”

    The keys to world peace have been in our collective hands all along. They are found in the UN Charter and in our own endless capacity for political will. The proposals I have offered today seek a fresh start not just on disarmament, but to strengthen our system of international peace and security.

    We must all be grateful for the contributions that many of the participants at this meeting have already made in this great cause. When disarmament advances, the world advances. That is why it has such strong support at the United Nations. And that is why you can count on my full support in the vital work that lies ahead.

    Thank you very much for your support.

    Ban Ki-moon is Secretary-General of the United Nations.

  • Time to Give Thanks

    For many of us in Northern Ireland, and our friends around the World, the TV pictures on Monday 26th March, 2007, of Dr. Ian Paisley, and Gerry Adams, sitting at the same table, and agreeing to share power, starting May 8th, was wonderful, and, I believe, was indeed a time to give thanks. The event was historic and will have given hope to not only many people here in Northern Ireland, but people living in violent conflict situations, such as the Middle East, Iraq, etc., that peace is possible, even in the most complex, dangerous and dark situations. The message sent out from the Stormont Meeting on 26th March, was that even those who have widely different cultural, religious, and political viewpoints, can with compromise and courage, through patient all inclusive dialogue and negotiation, begin to solve their problems and work together. Both Dr. Paisley and Gerry Adams, showed leadership and courage, and gave an example of how we, the people of Northern Ireland, can move forward together and build a shared future. I personally wish all the Parties involved, and everyone who has helped bring this process about, every good wish for the future.

    The way ahead will not be easy. Transforming the old politics of division, dissent and destruction, into the politics of reconstruction and reconciliation, will take all our energies but it can be done together. We have been practicing for some years now to learn to embrace the diversity and otherness we encounter here, and practicing too how to heal the ancient divisions and misunderstandings of the past. We have been practicing how to give and accept forgiveness, of ourselves, and of each other, and we have been practicing how to begin to live nonviolence, in our lives, and in solving our problems. These have been hard things for us to learn, and we have only just begun to transform ourselves and our communities through love and action, into a nonkilling, nonviolent society. We have a long way to go, but this is a time to give thanks, for the long way that we have come. This is not only a political journey it is also a spiritual journey. We have the framework in the Good Friday Agreement, and on May 8th a devolved Assembly, power sharing executive, and new First Minister, Dr. Paisley and Deputy Minister, Martin McGuinness, so the institutions are in place to build equality, human rights and justice for all. But what is also needed is that we build trust between not only the politicians, but also all the people. To do this we need to bring the values of love, forgiveness, compassion and reconciliation. It will not be easy, especially for many who have lost loved ones, but what a great testimony to those we have lost, will be the joy of building a future where no one else will suffer the pain of death through violence.

    To build in Northern Ireland a nonkilling, nonviolent, integrated, society is the task now facing us all. To move beyond tribalism, and nationalism, to a larger identity deeply linked to the wider human family and the environment, is indeed a great journey. We cannot leave this only to our politicians, but we as citizens can each take up this challenge to change.

    Many people from other counties in conflict will come to see how the Peace Process works. So perhaps the new Assembly would consider setting up a Ministry of Peace and Nonviolence, so that we can share the lessons of conflict resolution with others in more dangerous situations, and thereby return some of the help we have been given in our long journey to peace.

    I am full of hope for the future as I believe, in time we can be transformed into individuals and communities of love and forgiveness, which will be an example and give hope in a world crying out for peace.

     

    Mairead Corrigan Maguire is a Nobel Peace Laureate and member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Advisory Council. www.peacepeople.com

  • A New Chance for Peace?

    I am concerned that public discussion of my book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” has been diverted from the book’s basic proposals: that peace talks be resumed after six years of delay and that the tragic persecution of Palestinians be ended. Although most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts and suggestions about these two issues, an apparently concerted campaign has been focused on the book’s title, combined with allegations that I am anti-Israel. This is not good for any of us who are committed to Israel’s status as a peaceful nation living in harmony with its neighbors.

    It is encouraging that President Bush has announced that peace in the Holy Land will be a high priority for his administration during the next two years. On her current trip to the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called for an early U.S.-Israeli-Palestinian meeting. She has recommended the 2002 offer of the 23 Arab nations as a foundation for peace: full recognition of Israel based on a return to its internationally recognized borders. This offer is compatible with official U.S. policy, previous agreements approved by Israeli governments in 1978 and 1993, and the “road map” for peace developed by the “quartet” (the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations).

    The clear fact is that Israel will never find peace until it is willing to withdraw from its neighboring occupied territories and permit the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights. With land swaps, this “green line” can be modified through negotiations to let a substantial number of Israeli settlers remain in their subsidized homes east of the internationally recognized border. The premise of exchanging Arab territory for peace has been acceptable for several decades to a majority of Israelis but not to a minority of the more conservative leaders, who are unfortunately supported by most of the vocal American Jewish community.

    These same premises, of course, will have to be accepted by any government that represents the Palestinians. A March 2006 poll by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah found 73 percent approval among citizens in the occupied territories, and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has expressed support for talks between President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and pledged to end Hamas’s rejectionist position if a negotiated agreement is approved by the Palestinian people.

    Abbas is wise in repeating to Secretary Rice that he rejects any “interim” boundaries for the Palestinian state. The step-by-step road-map formula promulgated almost three years ago for reaching a final agreement has proved to be a non-starter — and an excuse for not making any progress. I know from experience that it is often more difficult to negotiate an interim agreement, with all its future uncertainties, than to address the panoply of crucial issues that will have to be resolved to reach the goal of peace.

    Given these recent developments and with the Democratic Party poised to play a more important role in governing, this is a good time to clarify our party’s overall policy in the broader Middle East. Numerous options are available as Congress attempts to correlate its suggestions with White House policy, and there is little doubt that the basic proposals of the Iraq Study Group provide a good foundation on which Democrats might reach something of a consensus (recognizing that individual lawmakers could still make their own proposals on details). This party policy would provide a reasonable answer to the allegation that Democrats have no alternatives of their own to address the Iraq quagmire.

    A key factor in an Iraq policy would be strong demands on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government to cooperate in ending sectarian violence, prodded by a clear notice of plans for troop withdrawals. A commitment to regional cooperation, including opportunities for Iran and Syria to participate, would be beneficial in assuring doubtful Iraqis that America will no longer be the dominant outside power shaping their military, political and economic future.

    Although Israel’s prime minister has criticized these facets of the Iraq Study Group’s report, the most difficult recommendation for many Democrats could be the call for substantive peace talks on the Palestinian issue. The situation in the occupied territories will be a crucial factor, and it would be helpful for both the House and Senate to send a responsible delegation to the West Bank and Gaza to observe the situation personally, to meet with key leaders and to ascertain the prospects if peace talks can be launched.

    I am convinced that, with bipartisan support, this is a good opportunity for progress.

    Published by The Washington Post.

     

    Jimmy Carter was the 39th US President and is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. His most recent book is Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.

  • Journeying With Active Nonviolence

    Dear Friends,

    I am very happy to be here and would like to thank the Irish School of Ecumenics and Kevin Cassidy, Peace People, for inviting me to give this talk. Also to thank Chairperson, Dr. Johnston McMaster, and respondees, Baroness May Blood, and Rob Fairmichael of INNATE.

    In a Society such as ours, coming as we do out of over 35 years of violent ethnic/political conflict, I believe, the question must be asked ‘Is it possible to move beyond violence in Ireland? Build communities of Nonkilling, Nonviolence, and live nonviolently together? From my own experience, I believe, the answer is YES.

    However, in our situation and where violence and division is endemic, it is so easy to be apathetic. You hear remarks so often “This place will never change”. And not just here but in other places where I have been, the almost constant violence in the lives of the people, have led many to give up hope.

    But, we should never give up hope. If we continue in this negative frame of mind, to accept violence, it will seriously threaten our quality of life, our economic recovery, and our security. The bad news is that all violence, be it bullying, homicide, violent crime, terrorism, violent revolution, armed struggles, suicide bombs, hunger strikes to the death, nuclear weapons, war, tragically take human lives, cause much suffering, and adds to a culture of violence. And all violence, State and Nonstate, is a form of injustice. The good news is that we are not born violent, most humans never kill, and the World Health Organization says Human Violence is a “preventable disease”. So happily we can be cured! Prevention starts with peace in our own hearts and minds. Prevention also starts by us, choosing to change to a more positive, self-acceptance and loving mindset, having confidence in ourselves and others, and continuing the hard work of tackling the root causes of our own violence, and others.

    Nowadays we hear a lot of talk about security. The greatest power on earth, the United States, decided that the way to achieve security was through shock and awe, destruction of countries, and the multiple deaths of people including her own young men and women transformed into soldiers. Such violent actions endorse a culture of violence, rather than a culture of dialogue with its citizens and perceived enemies. In Northern Ireland, we have been through all of that. And we know that it doesn’t work. Violence does not prevent violence. The failure of militarism, and Para militarism, in Northern Ireland is now mirrored in Iraq. Should it not be obvious that we are now at a point of human history where we must abolish the culture of violence and embrace a culture of nonviolence for the sake of our children and the children of the world? Embrace the idea of a nonkilling society. But is such a quantum leap of thinking possible? Nothing is possible unless we can imagine it. So what is meant by such a society?

    Prof. Paige in his book ‘Nonkilling Global Political Science’ (1) says: “a nonkilling society can be defined as a human community from the smallest to the largest in which (l) there is no killing of humans and no threats to kill, (2) there are no weapons for killing humans and no ideological justifications for killing – in computer terms, no “hardware” and no “software” for killing, and (3) there are no social conditions that depend, for maintenance or change, upon the threat or use of killing force”. I would add that it is not enough to decide not to kill, but we need to learn to live nonviolently in our lives and families. Nonviolence is a decision to protect and celebrate life, to love oneself, others, and ones enemies, and to bring wisdom, compassion, forgiveness and reconciliation into our relationships. It is a way of living in harmony with each other, the environment, and all of creation.

    To move towards such a culture, we need first to move away from dependence upon threat and use of killing force for security, and by that I mean armies and all imitations of armies. Second, we must stop using our economic resources for the unholy alliance of arms dealers and warmongers but use them instead to deal with the root cause of violence, i.e. poverty and injustice. If we provide education, health care, environmental protection, if we uphold human rights and the dignity of the human being, we will soon realize that a just society is its own security. Thirdly, we must deal with the social and psychological problems which we have inherited after 35 years of violent conflict, and a history of prejudice, sectarianism and discrimination.

    We have moved a long way already from the violent mindset. Happily too we have learned that we have a choice between, fight and flight, and that is the way of active nonviolence. As a pacifist I believe that violence is never justified, and there are always alternatives to force and threat of force. We must challenge the society that tells us there is no such alternative. In all areas of our lives we should adopt nonviolence, in our lifestyles, our education, our commerce, our defense, our governance. Also the Political Scientists, and academics, could help this cultural change by teaching Nonviolence as a serious Political Science.

    That is an ideal that has seldom been explored. But it’s not an impossible ideal. History is littered with examples of nonviolent resistance, many of successful. For example, Norway’s teachers at great cost to them prevented the Nazification of Norway’s educational system by simply refusing to implement it. Gandhi and Martin Luther King successfully used nonviolence for human rights issues; Jesus successfully used it in founding Christianity. St. Francis, a Mystic/Ecologist/Environmentalist, is a model to us of how we need to apply a holistic approach to living nonviolently, especially in a world where climate change is one of the greatest challenges to humanity’s future!

    We must make choices. Martin Luther King once said “The choice is between Nonviolence and Non-existence”. Again at this point in our Northern Irish history we face this choice as a society when we must not be complacent about our Peace Process but busy and involved in securing and building up the ground we have gained in justice and peace, fully conscious that in a political vacuum when all people cannot participate in just democratic politics, there is a danger that anger and frustration builds and violence is let loose again.

    Fear I believe that one of the barriers to progress is our fear. We can be glad that all Parties in Northern Ireland are agreeing that nonviolence is the way forward, and as the guns begin to fall silent (and hopefully loyalist paramilitary guns will soon too fall silent) we are given space to study our changing identities, and politics. However it is a sobering thought, and worth remembering, that there was no Army, no active Irish Republic Army, no loyalist paramilitaries, on the streets in Northern Ireland in l969, yet we had such a deep ethnic fear amongst a divided community that when the genie of violence was released, what became known as ‘the troubles’ became unstoppable for over 35 years. That fear, (and in some cases deep sectarian hatred) remains and it is this which we must recognize and work to remove if there is to be real change. As humans we each carry fear inside us. It’s alright to be afraid, but we must have the courage to face our fears and do what is right. People are afraid of many things. Fear of death, fear of embarrassment, fear of ethnic annialiation. Understanding and acknowledging this often irrational fear is the first step to dealing with it. In Northern Ireland where we have two main identities, and thankfully many others as we welcome new emigrant groups, we must learn to mellow our identities and put our common humanity above these diverse traditions and divisions. If we put too much into our identities, i.e. defining ourselves as against the other, ‘I’m Irish, Catholic, Nationalist, NOT British, Protestant, Unionist, and if we perceive this identity to be threatened in any way we can become violent. I believe, it’s time in Northern Ireland, we begun more to think of ourselves firstly, as part of the human family and remembered above all our common humanity.

    In l998 the UN declared this to be the Decade of a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence for the Children of the World (2001-201O). Introducing nonviolence across the curriculum will help build a new culture. The media, who seem mesmerized by violence, have an important role to play. I was struck by how quickly the change took place from an accepting culture of smoking to the culture of nonsmoking. The Government and media agreed that smoking was bad for our health, and helped change the culture. We can all agree Violence is bad for our health, and the media can play its role by helping to stop the glorification and promotion of violence in our culture, i.e., through mass media, war games, etc., all means of desensitizing our children to what is cruel and inhumane. Those of us, who have lived the troubles, have a particular responsibility not to ever allow violence, war, and armed struggles, to be romanticed, glorified, or culturally accepted as ways of solving our problems.

    All Faith traditions can play a role in building this new culture, as each has their own prophets of nonviolence. All faiths can agree to teach the Golden Rule of ‘Do unto others as you would have them do to you’ I myself came into pacifism and nonviolence in the early l970. Facing State violence, I asked myself “as a Christian can I ever use violence”? I studied and rejected the ‘Just war’ theory and went to the cross where I believe Jesus’ message of love your enemies, do not kill is most clearly shown. I also agree with the American theologian, the late Fr. John L. McKenzie, who said: “You cannot read the gospels and not know that Jesus was totally nonviolent.” I believe too that Jesus with a machine gun does not come off as an authentic figure. But until the Christian Church begins to seriously live and teach the nonviolent message of Jesus, to abolish the Just War theory, to denounce nuclear bombs and war, it behooves those of us who are Christian (and those who follow other spiritual paths or none) to seek truth in our own life, and live out of that with as much integrity as possible, respecting others right to their truth, their faith, and their way of life.

    Reconciliation and Integration of Our society: In a polarized Society such as ours, we need to increase cross-community efforts and develop new ways of integration. Much work is being done, such as community, inter-church, interfaith, integrated education, – especially integrated schools – sports, cultural events, etc., We can each choose to be part of integrating our community and building friendships and trust or we can remain in the old mindsets and pass onto our children the distrustful concepts of ‘one of the other kind’ or ‘one of your own’. In Northern Ireland, we can move away from seeing each other in terms of flags and religions, and rather see each other, as flawed human beings, needing each other, and needing to love and be loved, as we each struggle to cope with the joy and the suffering of life’s journey.

    Forgiveness is the key to peace. Many people have suffered violence. We have all suffered and bear the scars of violence. This leaves us with yet another choice. We can get stuck in recrimination and blame, and feed the seeds of our own anger and hatred, or we can choose to forgive and move on with our lives, determined to be happy and live each moment fully alive and celebrating this beautiful gift of life. If we get stuck in the past it can destroy our creativity and imagination, necessary to make a difference. Which do we want to choose? However, some people have said to me they find it hard to forgive. They feel too traumatized and they want to see justice done. This is very understandable. The process of forgiveness takes time, and it needs the support of family, friends, and often trained people to help people deal with the trauma and suffering involved. I commend the great efforts of many people helping in this area of suffering, and hope resources will continue to be provided to help the healing process of many people affected by the troubles.

    Trust: A legacy of the Northern Irish conflict is our evident lack of trust. When the Good Friday Agreement was signed, for many it was not signed with ‘grace’ and there was not a conscious choice to trust others, nor a willingness to power sharing, nor a real commitment to work for the implementation of equal rights and full recognition of all national identities. I believe this lack of trust is still deep and is one of the causes of our political stalemate. Yet, we the people must make choices. I am asking now that we really start to trust one another. Although we have come a long way since the Good Friday agreement, we have yet to achieve our power sharing executive and working Assembly. I believe the civil community needs to unite its voice in insisting our Political Leaders sit down in a shared executive, and Assembly. Direct rule is not an option, and indeed is insulting and humiliating to the people of Northern Ireland as it questions our maturity and ability as civilized adults to run our own affairs and our own Parliament. One of the ideas we might consider is the establishment of a Ministry of Peace in our own Northern Irish Parliament, and also in the Dail. Also by devolving power and resources to local communities empowering them to fulfill their rights and responsibilities as Citizens, will ensure that we, the Northern Irish people, can build a vibrant, nonviolent democracy right across the whole community, thus breaking down the divisive green and orange politics we have tragically inherited, and at the moment are dangerously trapped within.

    I have great hope for the future. I believe in the goodness and kindness, of the people of Ireland, both North and South. This was evidenced throughout the troubles with the many thousands of people, who every time there was serious violence, and it looked like we could go over the edge into civil war, they marched to say ‘no to violence’ ‘yes to peace’. It must always be remembered the tremendous role the civil community played, particularly in Northern Ireland, in building the peace. Many of those people are still there, and it is in them, and their children, that I rest my hope for a better future in our country.

    As World Citizens too, I think we can join with millions of our brothers and sisters, working where they are, for nonviolent transformation. This will mean building a demilitarized Ireland and Britain (with no armies) building neutral and nonaligned countries in Europe and around the world, developing unarmed Policing and nonmilitary forms of defense. It will also mean changing Patriarchal and Hierarchical systems which are unjust and under which women suffer from oppressive structures and institutions. It will not be easy, but is necessary and it is possible together to build a new world civilization with a compassionate and just heart.

    Peace and happiness to you all,

  • We Are Not Powerless

    My father, Judge Blase Bonpane of the Superior Court, died here in Santa Barbara in 1977. He arrived in the United States in 1898, probably without papers, and that is one reason why some people were called WOPS (without papers). Dad went to law school at Ohio Northern University in Ada, Ohio. On January 16, 1914, dad gave the winning oration at the Dr. Albert Edwin Smith Annual Oratorical Contest. The prize money of $50.00 covered his room and board for almost six months.

    The title of my father’s oration was, “The Call of Our Age.” World War I had begun in Europe. There was no League of Nations; there was no United Nations, but the second Hague Conference had been held in the spring of 1907, giving the global hope of making war illegal. World War I crushed that hope. Here are some of dad’s words that cold and snowy evening in Ada, Ohio.

    Public opinion has enacted a law against murder; so should international public opinion demand a law against war, which is merely organized murder. Shall we execute a man for taking a single life, and glorify nations for slaughtering its thousands? To curb crime, to protect justice, police powers are instituted in all realms. Why not go beyond the transitory interest of a nation and establish an international police power? Let the representatives of the world powers meet in one body! Let a world code be compiled! God made humanity one. But man is now divided against himself…through common interest, through common needs, the world must move towards the unity of all its peoples. Let internationalism be our watchword, our aim, our duty. Let us hear the call of our age! Then the “Golden ‘Cestus of Peace” shall clothe all with celestial beauty; and serene, resplendent, on the summit of human achievement shall stand the miraculous spectacle, the congress of nations, with a common purpose of agreeing, not upon military plans, not to foster cruelty and incite other people to carnage, not to bow before the god of battles, but to announce the simple doctrine of peace and brotherhood—our only hope, our only reliance against which all powers of the earth shall not prevail.

    That was January 16, 1914. Dad’s entire oration is found in my book, Common Sense for the Twenty-First Century. On that same date, January 16th, exactly 77 years later, I had just returned from Iraq, my wife Theresa, my son Blase Martin and I were handcuffed and on our bellies on the marble floor of the Los Angeles Federal Building because we blocked the doors of that edifice with scores of other protesters in a massive act of national civil disobedience. Later that day, from holding cells deep in the bowels of the Federal Building, we heard that the bombing of Iraq had begun. Eighty-eight thousand tons of bombs, very dumb bombs, represented the beginning of a war initiated by George Herbert Walker Bush, continued by Bill Clinton and still raging out of control with the current incumbent in the White House. Anyone igniting a one-pound bomb against innocents should be called a terrorist. Just what name do we have for an opening salvo of 88,000 tons of bombs on a civilian population?

    So here we are, nearly a century after my dad’s oration, living in a run-away war system. We are living in the midst of the greatest crisis in history. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights have been placed on hold. There is a plan in place to attack Iran. Actually there are many possible futures. The best of those futures depends on our response to the current crisis.

    The greatest myth in our culture is that we are powerless. I hear that myth frequently, “we are so powerless!” But we are not powerless; we are powerful and every worthwhile change in our society has come from the base, not from the top down. What makes us feel so powerless? Mass commercial media has a large role in this. Television creates a sense of passivity—life going by as a river over which we have no control. But we can transcend that passivity.

    As we hear of wars and rumors of wars we are inclined to ask: what can I do? I certainly will not attempt to tell you what to do, but I can tell you some things that are being done and some things that need to be done. Here in Santa Barbara, as well as in Santa Monica and many other locations, we have the amazing statement of Arlington West on the beach. Markers representing the troops who have died are placed on the beach every Sunday. Respect is shown for the Iraqi dead as well, but the Veterans cannot put up 650,000 markers every Sunday, so they express their respect for the Iraqi dead in a poster (that figure is only the dead from 2003; millions have died since 1991).

    The Veterans are a vanguard of the peace movement. A parade of military people are coming forward and following their conscience. They are refusing to serve. Some have exposed the rampant practice of torture, which now, to our shame, has been codified.

    Let’s not have any parlor games about saving the whole world by torturing someone into telling us where they hid their nuclear bomb. Torture is nothing else but a classic form of terrorism designed to get people to agree with the torturer and to frighten other members of the society into compliance. But justice does not permit exceptionalism. Our hypocrisy rattles the heavens as we chip away at others doing nuclear research, while we have planet-busting nukes ready to fire in all directions.

    No exceptionalism in regard to weapons of mass destruction. No exceptionalism regarding torture. Our dogs and cats are protected. If we should torture one of them the way we torture our “suspected terrorists,” we would be guilty of a felony.

    What is to be done? We need you to volunteer with these Veterans of Arlington West on your beach every Sunday. We need you to support them financially as well. I also want to mention a nuclear vanguard. Sister Ardeth Platte, Sister Carol Gilbert and Sister Jackie Hudson symbolically disarmed weapons of mass destruction by pouring their blood on a nuclear silo in Colorado. Forty-one months in prison for Ardeth Platte, 33 months in prison for Carol Gilbert and 30 months in prison for Jackie Marie Hudson. The vast majority of us may not imitate such acts of heroism by the nuns. But we can be in solidarity with them and so many others like them who are standing up in the face of evil. We can tell their story; the commercial media is certainly not telling it. The commercial media has new and meaningless stories to tell us about the rich and the famous.

    What can we do? Imagination and creativity are required. We can ask the corporate sector to come out against our wars as many did during Vietnam. We can tell our political servants that they do not have a future in politics unless they demand an immediate end to the rape of Iraq. Surely the Congress must become more than a group of clappers who stand around and applaud the president as he fosters organized murder and mayhem.

    Ours is a spiritual quest. The struggle to end nuclearism and war forever is doable. We have the technology and legal structure to outlaw and destroy every nuclear weapon on the planet. We can have a functional peace system, and we have the basis for such a system in the universal declaration of human rights.

    We must demand that our media cover the acts of peacemaking rather than attempting to marginalize or demonize them. Let us live each day as if it were our last; let us do now what we want to be said in our eulogy. If we are retired, let’s get back to work for peace and justice.

    Please bear in mind that we who believe that an international peace system is possible are the realists of our time. On the contrary, it is the militarists, as the title of Bob Woodward’s new book states, who are in a state of denial. These people are not realists. They are living in a fantasy land of unreality. The military of the world at peace is the biggest threat to the global environment. And should militarism and nuclearism prevail, there is no future for life on this planet. So it really makes no difference how much some may love war. They can’t have war and also have the planet.

    We are now in the fifteenth year of the Iraq disaster. We will never be able to count the dead or the myriad of ruined lives of Iraqis and of our young and trusting troops. We have yet to do protests that are proportional to the Holocausts we have created in Korea, Vietnam, Central America, Iraq and Afghanistan. None of our peace actions have been proportional to the evils committed in our name. Actually, war is the most prominent expression of conventional wisdom, and conventional wisdom is a waste of time.

    There is another wisdom which I would call the wisdom of the ages. This is the wisdom that says, happy are you who work for peace, you shall be called the children of god. This is the wisdom of the ages:

    Happy are you who hunger and thirst for justice, you shall be satisfied. Indeed this is the answer to what we can do. Junk the conventional wisdom which surrounds us and live with the wisdom of the ages.

    We must use new and sacred instruments of change in place of the clubs, guns, bombs and nukes of the past—the general strike, the boycott, mass mobilizations, non-cooperation with the war-making machine. These are non-violent instruments of change. And taxation without representation is still tyranny. There is not one thing to do; there are many things to do. As Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero said, “Everyone can do something.”

    Yes, electoral politics is a legitimate place for our peacemaking efforts and so are the plethora of non-governmental organizations such as the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and the Office of the Americas. We must make use of peacemaking efforts in education and recall the mandate of Einstein that we concentrate on creativity and imagination. I fail to see creativity in standardized tests and I certainly don’t want to see any standardized students.

    War is made sacred by the very manner in which young students study our revolution and the endless wars that followed. As we change our way of thinking, we will continue to study the past, but we must make it clear that to repeat the past is to be unfaithful to the past. To be faithful to the past, we must foster change in our static educational practices. The only question to ask after students study a war is, “now tell us how that war could have been avoided.”

    We have become isolated by our militaristic nationalism, but at this time the nation state as the terminus of sovereignty is as outdated as the city states of old. We live on a small planet that is in extreme danger. Various religions have developed by way of anthropology and geography. Corrupt politicians have used and continue to use religion as a cloak for malice. But the ideals in religion are known as the fruits and gifts of the spirit. These are the qualities that will unite the planet as one family. Sectarian, dogmatic and fundamentalist approaches are counterproductive.

    I am a Roman Catholic and served in Guatemala as a Maryknoll priest, but I would have more in common with an atheist working for peace than I would have with a fellow Catholic who happens to be a war monger. The name of our religion or non-religion is really not very meaningful. We are known by the fruits of our labors. Let us join together with like-minded people to create an international community of justice and peace.

     

    Blase Bonpane was the recipient of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2006 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award

  • Curb This Deadly Trade

    As the UN general assembly opens this week, it has its best opportunity in years to make a life-saving difference to people all over the world. An opportunity to stop human rights abuses, limit the threat of terrorism, and reduce suffering for millions. The opportunity is a draft resolution for an international arms trade treaty that would place tough controls on sales.

    The treaty would make it illegal to sell weapons to human rights abusers; make it harder for weapons to end up in the hands of criminals and terrorists; and help regulate a trade that is spiralling out of control – $900bn spent on defence versus only $60bn on aid. Every day over 1,000 people lose their lives through armed violence.

    We have seen the appalling consequences recently in the Middle East: the Israeli army flattening civilian targets with precision-guided 1,000lb “bunker-buster” bombs and forcing almost a million people to flee their homes; Hizbullah rockets fired into civilian areas in northern Israel, killing people and forcing others to leave. Both are war crimes, and largely perpetrated with weapons imported from other countries.

    Israel’s military hardware, including its deadly cluster bombs, is overwhelmingly American-made. And hi-tech British components were used in the Apache helicopters that have fired rockets at cars on crowded streets, and the F-16s that devastated southern Lebanon. For its part, Hizbullah doesn’t manufacture the Katyushas or Khaibar-1 missiles it fired indiscriminately into Israel.

    Six-year-old Abbas Yusef Shibli picked up a cluster munition while playing with friends because it looked “like a perfume bottle”. When it exploded in his hand, he suffered a ruptured colon, a ruptured gall bladder, and a perforated lung.

    Nicaragua, my birthplace, is still awash with weapons, the legacy of a bloody conflict – fuelled by the US arming the Contras – in which more than 40,000 civilians were killed. Nicaragua is now one of the poorest nations in the western hemisphere.

    For decades, the US provided millions of dollars in military aid to oppressive governments in Latin America; many of those countries now have high levels of armed violence. As a human rights campaigner, I have advocated on behalf of countless victims of conflict, from Latin America to the Balkans to the Middle East. I can attest to the devastating effect on the civilian population, particularly on women and children.

    Some nations still try to block the treaty’s progress – though their arguments are flawed. The resolution from Britain, Finland, Japan, Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica and Kenya, would not undermine states’ sovereignty or ability to lawfully defend themselves with force. It would not hamper law enforcement to provide security for their citizens. Arms importers and exporters would simply have a clear set of rules to abide by, rather than the current hotch-potch of uneven and conflicting regulation.

    The treaty would promote real security. It would help to stop armed groups that pay no heed to international law equipping themselves. An Amnesty International report last year detailed shipments of more than 240 tonnes of weapons from eastern Europe to governments in Africa’s war-torn Great Lakes region, and on to militias involved in massacres, mutilation and mass rape.

    More than 50 countries have voiced support for an arms trade treaty, but to make it happen we need a majority of the 192 member states. Today Britain hosts a meeting of diplomats to discuss tougher arms controls. For once the international community can act pre-emptively to prevent carnage, not be forced to mop up afterwards. It is an opportunity that the UN must seize.

    Bianca Jagger is goodwill ambassador for the Council of Europe

  • Seeing Our Way Out of Iraq

    During the past two weeks more than 30 American servicemen died in Iraq, and this month is shaping up to be the deadliest month of the entire war. The casualties add to a dismal reckoning that now exceeds 2,000 Coalition dead and 15-20,000 wounded. The unofficial count, by knowledgeable people who say the Government is not telling it like it is, amounts to more than twice that number of American dead and wounded, and more than ten times those numbers of Iraqi dead and wounded, who are not included in any official tally. That is to say nothing of the thousands on both sides who already are or will become psychological basket cases from this experience.

    The statistics for Gulf War I, tabulated by the Veterans Administration in 2002, suggest that, while initial casualties were light, the casualties of that War ultimately exceeded 30%. Gulf War II is and has been a far more hairy experience. Fighting has been heavier and much more prolonged. Many tons more of depleted uranium weapons have been use, along with other toxic devices. Thus, a long term casualty rate for American forces of 40-50% appears realistic.

    Has the engagement been worth it? Should we stick around to see how it finally turns out? In the end, will we be able to say that the outcome was worth 60-70,000 damaged, distorted or destroyed American lives, to say nothing of the effects on their families and communities?

    Available facts today are against a positive answer to that question. Based on everything we have learned from real experience with the invasion and occupation–from the Downing Street Memo and following publications and admissions–neither the Bush team nor the British leadership either could or chose to see clearly into Iraq on the first day.

    Are they able to see the way out? The view at this moment suggests they cannot.

    Start with the global security situation. The most blatant indications of failure to see that situation is the thought, expressed by Tony Blair on the day of July 7 London bombings, and echoed by George W. Bush, that we are under attack because of our way of life. That is true only in the grimmest form of the observation: What we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, tolerating in Palestine, and perpetrating in Guantanamo and numerous other prison locations looks like our way of life, and that way of life is deeply resented and opposed by millions of people. We are fortunate only that so few of them choose to react violently. The attackers are not trying to wreck our home life. They want us to stop destroying theirs.

    Will the situation improve quickly? So long as there is a shooting war going in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so long as the human rights and dignity of thousands of men and women are abused by the United States as they now are, the prospects of peace are virtually nil. And the chance that some of the people who are now angry enough to try to kill some of us will cease and desist is zero. Having created a new generation of terrorists, we will experience more terrorism.

    We won’t necessarily know who some of those people are until it is too late, but the disturbing truth may be that there is now no turning back for some of them, no matter what we do. We will pay, and no war on terrorism can prevent that from happening, somewhere, somehow, sometime.

    Can we do something about it? There are many things that would help. For example, several members of Congress, including John McCain and other Republicans, are pushing legislation to restore American observance of international law and our own military regulations on the treatment of prisoners. Ominously, the regulations are said to be in the process of being rewritten in the Pentagon. Provisions to restore US observance of international law and our own well-established practices have been added to a major spending bill that Bush has threatened to veto if they remain in the bill. Supporters of the President on this say basically that he is above the law, anybody’s law. That announces to the world that the failures reported at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere were not due to a few bad apples, but were brought on by the highest levels of American policy, and US leadership remains unreconstructed on this issue.

    Is presidential prerogative really at issue here? There is nothing in the Constitution or the United States Code that says the President is above the law. As the Chief Executive of the United States, one of the leading responsibilities of the President is to see that the law of the land is carried out. His oath of office says he faithfully will do that. In effect, the President’s position on observing established US laws and treaties on torture says he willfully abdicates his responsibility as President of the United States in order to be the nation’s chief advocate of cruel and unusual punishment for people who have not even been brought to trial. The President’s attitude on this and that of his supporters makes a moral and legal travesty of the American presidency. It simply cannot be a prerogative of the President to ignore established laws.

    How does that bear on getting us out of Iraq? One of the hardest things about making peace is persuading the protagonists that the time for battle is over. People do remember that they were mauled, their homes and towns destroyed, their family members confined, tortured, and denied human rights. The longer that goes on, the more vivid is the recall. And if some die, others tend to remember for them. The peace, if it comes, is always troubled by such recollections, and the people who recall are seldom ever able to go after the real perpetrators. Thus, they go for softer targets. Communities, families, individual victims pay for the failures of leadership. The resultant instability makes it appear to leaders who are otherwise disposed anyway that they have no choice but to “stay the course” to “maintain the peace.” They refuse to concede that they may be the reason peace does not prevail. That illusion sustains enduring occupation, which feeds enduring conflict.

    Bush reiterated that position this week. Faced by a growing, but only morally armed group of Cindy Sheehan supporters outside his gate at Crawford, Texas, and surrounded by his war cabinet, Bush called the growing mayhem in Iraq “a grim reminder of the brutal enemies we face in the war on terror.” And he pleaded with an increasingly skeptical America to support his “stay the course” strategy.

    But what is the Iraq reality? Both President Bush and Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair keep pushing their basic theme that there is no connection between chaos in Iraq and attacks or risks of terrorist attacks in the west. We went into Iraq allegedly to liberate a people who would be grateful for the freedom from Saddam Hussein. From the beginning, our people on the ground found that few Iraqis approved of the invasion. That disapproval gradually morphed into an insurgency in and around Baghdad that now covers the bulk of northwestern Iraq and breaks out sporadically in both the south (Shi’a territory) and the north (mainly Kurdish territory). A certain number of outsiders also disapproved and went to Iraq to fight with the insurgents, perhaps in some instances to make their own mayhem.

    The effort to liberate Iraq bogged down. More Iraqis joined the fray, by some reports, creating not one but several insurgencies. The US set out to train Iraqi forces to take over the task of defeating the insurgencies and maintaining public order. The US lead in this effort, however, never diminished because the Iraqis did not seem capable or, for that matter, willing to fight their own people, unless the situation turned to outright communal violence. Now the US has more than a mythical tar baby to deal with. Because the US remains in the lead, the Iraqis being trained, as well as officials who are running the interim government and drafting a new constitution, are widely if not uniformly tainted by the US connection. The insurgents attack them as well as the Coalition–mainly the American–forces. US efforts are then strengthened to train more Iraqis to take over, and in the meantime, American forces are stuck there, under siege.

    A US promised democracy has become Iraqi against Iraqi. The US is training Iraqi forces to defeat Iraqis who do not want the American or other Coalition forces there. What this does is deepen and reinforce divisions among Iraqis that, in the Iraqi ethnic triad, were already simmering, and in some locations appear to be coming to a boil. In effect, people the US injured, tortured, killed or insulted by occupation increase in number every day, and the objectors, including the living victims and the relatives of the dead, take out their anger and frustration on Americans and Iraqis who are visibly affiliated with Americans. The Bush team is now saying the US can see itself withdrawing—at least partially—from Iraq when and if the Iraqis are able to contain the insurgency that is fueled by the US presence. That is a classic oxymoron.

    The chances that such an outcome will occur while the US remains in Iraq are nil. It is hard to see your way out of a situation if you will not face the real nature of the situation. Bush and Blair have thoroughly confused the issues in their own minds, and they are increasingly at odds with the people of their countries. But the tragedy of it is that training Iraqis to kill or punish, i.e., imprison other Iraqis, or Afghans to kill or confine other Afghans is merely setting these societies against themselves.

    The situation needs to be turned as quickly as possible into one in which the US is not fighting the Iraqis, and neither are Iraqis. Expecting the Iraqis to bludgeon themselves into a democratic society is preposterous. The present conflict can only be resolved by turning the whole matter over to a UN peacekeeping force that does not contain any Americans, and that does not continue to set the Iraqi people against each other.

    The writer is a retired Senior Foreign Service Officer and former Chairman of the Department of International Studies of the National War College. He is a regular columnist on rense.com. He will welcome comments at wecanstopit@charter.net

  • Dragon’s Teeth

    A headless man is running down the street

    He is carrying his head in his hands

    A woman runs after him

    She has his heart in her hands

    The bombs keep falling sowing hate

    And they keep running down the streets

    Not the same two people but thousands of others & brothers

    All running from the bombs that keep falling sowing pure hate

    And for every bomb that’s dropped up spring a thousand Bin Ladens a thousand new terrorists

    Like dragon’s teeth sown

    From which armed warriors sprang up

    Crying for blood

    As the smart bombs sowing hate

    Keep falling and falling and falling

  • The Three Lessons of Srebrenica

    Today, 50,000 people are expected to crowd into the Bosnian village of Srebrenica, for a 10th anniversary that’s no celebration. July 11 is a day of mourning for Bosnians as they commemorate the worst atrocity in Europe since the Holocaust. On that day, the Serb militia separated more than 7,000 unarmed Muslim men and boys from their families, brutally murdered them, and threw their bodies into mass graves. ”Never again,” we had said. We were wrong. And we’ll be wrong again unless we learn three key lessons.

    First, the Srebrenica massacre demonstrates that genocidal aggression requires well-reasoned military intervention. Americans assured the Dutch that, if they would commit peacekeepers as a tripwire around the UN-designated ”safe haven,” the United States would lead forces to come in with air support to stop a Serb onslaught. Instead, we let ourselves be held back by a ”dual key” arrangement, whereby NATO would not take action without the UN’s affirmation.

    Secretary General Kofi Annan has since called the UN refusal to accept military intervention an appalling failure. We stood by, wringing our hands, as thousands were brutally executed in a massacre that might have been prevented by decisive action. Instead, we now have gruesome testimony for war crimes trials — a dishonorable substitute.

    After Srebrenica, when the United States finally led NATO going in with air power followed by troops, we did it mostly right. Local and international observers agree that demobilization and reintegration of Bosnian combatants has been a success, and no American soldiers were lost to hostile action. The tragedy is that we waited so long to call the Serbs’ bluff and that our force commanders initially refused to pursue the war criminals. Meanwhile, half of all Bosnians had lost their homes. In a country the size of Maryland, more than 150,000 were killed — that’s 50 World Trade Centers in three years.

    Even with security guaranteed by foreign troops, it has taken years for the international community to help survivors return to the hardest-hit areas, given a destroyed economy and all-too-strong presence of indicted war criminals still on the loose. In short, we should have intervened sooner.

    Second, many outsiders believe wrongly that ethnic hatred made the war inevitable. It’s easy for the international community to use the notion of centuries-old ethnic or religious divisions as an excuse for inaction. But it was President Slobodan Milosevic’s political power grab that led to the breakup of Yugoslavia. While there were enclaves of one group or another, in Bosnian cities up to 40 percent of marriages crossed ethnic lines.

    Before the war, holy days were often celebrated with friends of other faiths, although without differences of language or skin tone, many long-time neighbors and friends didn’t even know each other’s heritage. This was not a religious war. Instead, greedy politicians whipped up the animosity and fear that fueled the war through a barrage of propaganda invoking 14th century grievances. But in the minds of most Bosnians, lasting peace was, and is, possible.

    Third, we must expand our restricted approach to peace-building to include a broader range of stakeholders, including women. As US ambassador in Austria during the war, I hosted negotiations and organized conferences, trying to promote peace in Bosnia. Almost every Balkan or international policy-maker was a man, even though Yugoslavia had the highest proportion of women PhDs in Europe. Would women have made a difference, if they’d had a place at the table? Over the years I’ve met with women on all sides of the conflict. One, an engineer named Alenka Savic, represented hundreds of others I interviewed when she said: ”This was not our war.”

    During the conflict, most US military officials and diplomats were unaware that some 40 women’s organizations were operating under the radar. Unsupported by outsiders, they were unable to prevent or stop the war, but they’ve been an invaluable resource during reconstruction.

    I’ve worked with women from 40 conflict areas and found that they’re consistently underutilized. Which is to say that their untapped potential is vast. For sustainable peace, military leaders and other policy-makers must integrate them into reconnaissance, negotiations, disarmament, and governance. Today, as we remember the men and boys who died in Srebrenica, let’s also remember women who could be strategic partners to our efforts in Colombia, Afghanistan, or Liberia.

    Srebrenica reminds us that understanding when and how to intervene in a conflict requires challenging stereotypes and assumptions. We must gather as much information from the field as we can muster, making use of all the resources available to us, including the women who could be valuable strategic partners.

    With a new model of inclusive security, we honor the dead and show that we really mean it when we say ”Never again.”

    Swanee Hunt is director of the Women and Public Policy Program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and author of ”This Was Not Our War: Bosnian Women Reclaiming the Peace,” winner of the 2005 PEN/New England Award for nonfiction.