Tag: international cooperation

  • Defining Appropriate Action in Syria

    The horrific use of chemical weapons in Syria is a crime against humanity and demands an international response. President Obama states that the United States must take appropriate action vs. doing nothing. This is absolutely true. The problem comes in defining appropriate action. There are at least two options, military vs. non-military, the latter with a host of options.

    Framing that action in military terms guarantees the loss of additional innocent lives. Choosing a military option further fuels the sectarian strife spreading across the Middle East.  This will encourage the growth of anti-American sentiment rife in the region. Our trillion dollar war in Iraq has demonstrated that war is not the answer. Iraq is on the verge of falling into the worst chaos since the beginning of that conflict.

    This crisis does demand action ― non-military action.  Doing nothing is cowardly and not in keeping with the credibility or morals of the United States or any other country that professes to support the rule of international law and morality. This includes Russia, Iran and China.

    An international response is demanded. After 9/11 there was a brief period and opportunity when the world came together with a sentiment that the “whole world was American.” That feeling was quickly lost as the U.S. opted for bombing nation after nation, including a unilateral “pre-emptive” war against Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. We have paid and will pay the price of that war for generations.

    Today, in a similar vein, the entire world identifies with and is sickened and horrified by the images of children and innocent victims of these cowardly gas attacks. But the military intervention being debated is not intended to end the violent conflict that has killed more than 100,000 Syrians. It won’t help the nearly two million Syrian refugees return home or get the more than 6.8 million people in need access to humanitarian aid.

    Our leaders need to show courage against the tide of war. The perpetrators of these crimes must be brought to justice. There is an international arena for these crimes against humanity to be addressed. The International Criminal Court’s mission is to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. The International Court of Justice’s mission is to prosecute Nations that have committed crimes against humanity. These are just two methods by which perpetrators of these crimes can be held accountable. The United States has the opportunity to lead the way in empowering and supporting these international institutions in performing the role that they were established to do.

    This will take courage, strength, determination, vision and true international leadership―not bombs. This is the role that the United States can and must pursue if we hope to see an end to sectarian violence in this region and the world over.  We must call upon all nations and our own elected leaders complacent with arming the various sides in these conflicts to endorse and support this international peace keeping effort. This will demonstrate their true commitment to peace, international law and humanity.

    We must follow our moral compass. The United States and other world leaders should intensify their efforts to find a peaceful, political solution to end the bloodshed, not add more violence to a tragic civil war. The president needs to hear from us and be supported for his courage and willingness to pause and hear from the nation as we pursue the best hope for the ordinary men, women, and children of Syria.

    This article was originally published by HuntingtonNews.net.

  • The United Nations: Challenges and Leadership

    To dream of vast horizons of the Soul Through dreams made whole, Unfettered, free — help me! Help me make our world anew.Langston Hughes

    The United Nations remains the only universally representative body the world has to deal with threats to international peace and security. However, the nature of the threats to international security has changed, and the United Nations, just as the national governments which make it up, have difficulty meeting these new challenges. The United Nations was born with the start of the Cold War. In the early months of 1945, it was obvious that Nazi Germany would be defeated and that the Soviet Union would be facing the three Western allies: the USA, the UK and France in that order. The war with Japan, while important militarily, never had the same intellectual impact on the drafters of the UN Charter as had the war on Germany. At the creation of the United Nations, there was a two-pronged view of security. One prong looked to disputes which can lead to aggression and which must be met by cooperative military action through the Security Council. The second prong focused upon the need for social and economic advancement of all peoples. This two-pronged approach arose from an analysis of the events leading to the Second World War: territorial disputes which led to armed aggression and a world-wide economic crisis which led to political dictatorships and nationalistic economic policies which prevented cooperative action . William Rappard, Swiss historian and participant-observer of the League of Nations wrote early in 1946 “The UN was born of and during a great war. The founders of the organization were both the initial, pacific victims of, and the final, complete victors over, the bellicose foes whose wanton aggression had obliged them to fight in self-defense. The consequence of the belligerent origin of the UN is, in my eyes, its hierarchic structure, its authoritarian spirit, and the unpacified and militant character of the most significant provisions of the Charter. In war there is and there can be no equality of nations. The powerful command and the weak obey…that is why the San Francisco Charter, drafted as it was by the belligerent allies before the end of the hostilities, much as it speaks of the sovereign equality of states violates that principle to a degree unknown in all previous annals of international law. It not only distributes influence according to importance as did the Covenant of the League of Nations by recognizing the privileged position of the permanent members of the Council. But, what is much more debatable, the Charter further creates two distinct sets of rights and duties. It, in fact, places the five great powers above the law laid down for the others, a procedure for which there is, to my knowledge, neither precedent in the law of nations, nor analogy in any liberal national constitution. Not only is the international aristocracy of the powerful recognized as such in the Charter and endowed with almost unlimited authority over the underprivileged masses, but its individual members are assured of almost unlimited impunity in case of violation of their pacific covenants. It is therefore not cynicism but only clearsightedness to note that the freedom of the underprivileged members of the UN is conditioned by the disunity of their privileged masters.” The disunity among the privileged masters — the five permanent members of the Security Council — has far exceeded what was predicted in 1946, although some analysts foresaw difficulties from the start. Stefan Possony writing in the Yale Law Journal also in 1946 noted that “While the Charter may offer protection against small dangers, it offers none against the chief danger — war between the big powers. The UN will possibly be able to prevent some wars, especially those which break out without being willed by anybody. That the UN will be able to master the great crises of history and prevent those major wars which are provoked deliberately by powerful nations is doubtful; in fact, it is highly improbable… We have seen that attempts to outlaw war must, in some way or other, be based upon the sanctity of the status quo,, at least as long as there are no effective methods of peaceful change.” Although the Soviet Union was widely considered as a “revolutionary” government, its main aim, as that of the Western states, was to maintain the status quo and the current division of power. The Cold War structured international relations, and although there were dangerous moments and an expensive arms build up, the period 1945 -1990 was one of little change and, with the exception of the 1950-1953 Korean War, few cases of cross-frontier aggression where the Security Council could act. The end of formal colonialism brought a multitude of new states into the UN. There was little change in UN structures. The aim stressed by the states of the Third World of “social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom” were part of the UN’s goals from the start. While much of the UN system is devoted to helping the developing world, there were few changes in the dominant socio-economic system during the Cold War period. As Gwynne Dyer noted “The United Nations was not founded by popular demand. It was created by governments who were terrified by where the existing system was leading them, and could not afford to ignore the grim realities of the situation by taking refuge in the comforting myths about independence and national security that pass for truth in domestic political discourse. The people who actually have the responsibility for running foreign policy in most countries, and especially in the great powers, know that the present international system is in potentially terminal trouble, and many of them have drawn the necessary conclusion.” It was the break up of the Soviet Union along with the disintegration of Yugoslavia that put an end to Cold War structures and their ideological justifications. Since the end of the Cold War, the UN has had difficulty in finding its role in the intra-state conflicts which have followed such as those in former Yugoslavia, Chechenya, and in several African states. The UN’s current difficulties are a reflection of the tests and trials of humanity moving toward a world civilization where the forces of world unity play a more dominant role than the forces of separation and of limited solidarities. Since its establishment, the crucial role of the United Nations has been to lay the foundations of such a world civilization based on world law and justice. Due to the awareness-building efforts of the UN, an ever larger number of people see their lives in a cooperative focus rather than a confrontational one. There are four closely related challenges which must be met by the UN system: The first is the globalization of the world economy. The world economy is becoming more globalized than ever, though its working is hardly understood, and it is without direction or control. Thus, there must be better policy coherence and cooperation between the United Nations, its Specialized Agencies, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, multilateral bodies, and the private sector which is the motor of globalization. The second challenge, closely related to the first, is the need for ecologically-sound development with a particular emphasis on the need to reduce the number of people living in poverty and without access to basic services: shelter, water and food, education, health, and employment. The third challenge is to deal effectively with new forms of violence, in particular intra-state conflict. Such conflicts and the resultant refugee flows are not merely a separation from the old home and community but also from the customary restraints and humane values that hold people together in settled circumstances. The fourth challenge, closely related to the third, is increased respect for the rule of law and human rights. To meet these four challenges, we need leadership. As D. Rudhyar noted “We must summon from within us the courage to meet, with open eyes and minds free of archaic allegiances, the present-day release of unparalleled and utterly transforming potentialities for planet-wide rebirth.” Enlightened leadership with clear vision and with political courage in articulating the way the world has changed and the directional flow of the next cycle is needed. Such leadership within the UN Secretariat, within national governments and within non-governmental organizations will improve the quality of the United Nations so that it will be a transformed instrument for the benefit of all the world’s people.

    René Wadlow is Representative to the UN, Geneva, Association of World Citizens.
  • Japan’s Role in Building Peace in the Nuclear Age

    Japan’s Role in Building Peace in the Nuclear Age

    It is a pleasure to be with you in this 50th anniversary year of the Ozaki Foundation. I am an admirer of this Foundation and of the life and work of Ozaki Yukio. He was a man of principle and of the people and, as such, a man of peace.

    In the latter part of his life, Ozaki Yukio wrote, “The only reason for my persevering at my advanced age was that I might live…so as to contribute what I could to the creation of a new world.” He envisioned contributing toward a world at peace, a noble vision. “I dreamed I would find a way,” he wrote, “for the peoples of the five continents to live in peace.”

    Ozaki was an early proponent of the principle of the “Common Heritage of Mankind,” one of the most important concepts of the modern era. He wrote, “The world’s land and resources should be used for the benefit of all mankind…. The greatest obstacle to attaining this global perspective is the narrow-minded ambition of nations that seek to prevail over others by the exercise of wealth and power.”

    I think that Ozaki Yukio would have agreed with Lao Tzu, who said: “Those who would take over the Earth and shape it to their will never, I notice, succeed.” In other words, imperialism is a recipe for disaster. Every empire that has ever existed has experienced at some point the pain, suffering and humiliation of defeat. This was true in the ancient world and throughout history. It was true in the 20th century, and there is no doubt that it will prove to be true in the 21st century. But today, in the Nuclear Age, the stakes are higher; the future of civilization and even human survival hang in the balance.

    For the past 25 years I have been the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, an organization that I helped to found in 1982. The Foundation has three principal goals: to abolish nuclear weapons; to strengthen international law, particularly as it pertains to the prevention of war and the elimination of nuclear arms; and to empower a new generation of peace leaders to carry on the struggle for a more peaceful world, free of the overriding nuclear weapons threat to humanity.

    One of the key formative events in my own life, placing me on the path to work for peace and a nuclear weapons-free world, was an early visit at the age of 21 to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museums. At these museums, I learned a lesson that was not part of my education in the United States. In the US, we were taught the perspective of those above the bombs. It was a story of scientific and technological triumph, a story of victors with little reference to loss of life and the suffering of the victims. At the Peace Memorial Museums in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was a human story, a tragedy of massive death and destruction. It was a story told from the perspective of those beneath the bombs, and a warning about our common future: we must eliminate these weapons before they eliminate us.

    Nuclear Weapons and the Imperative of Peace

    There are many reasons to oppose nuclear weapons. They are long-distance killing devices, instruments of annihilation that kill indiscriminately – men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; soldiers and civilians. Because they kill indiscriminately, their threat or use is both immoral and illegal. They are weapons that can destroy cities, countries and civilization. They threaten all that is human, all that is sacred, all that exists. If this were not enough, these weapons make cowards of their possessors and, because they concentrate power in the hands of the few, are anti-democratic.

    The creation of nuclear weapons has changed the world. It has made peace an imperative – an imperative brought about by the massive destructive potential of nuclear weapons. This imperative has been recognized by insightful individuals from the onset of the Nuclear Age.

    Almost immediately after learning of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the great writer and philosopher Albert Camus wrote, “Before the terrifying prospects now available to humanity, we see even more clearly that peace is the only battle worth waging.”

    More than fifty years ago, Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell and nine other prominent scientists issued the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, in which they stated: “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.” But Russell and Einstein were right. We must face this alternative, difficult as it is.

    No nation knows the painful truth about the devastation of nuclear weapons better than Japan, the only country to have suffered such devastation. Those who survived the atomic bombings, the hibakusha, are the ambassadors of the Nuclear Age. Their voices are fading as they grow older and die, but listening to their wisdom may be our best hope for ridding the world of these terrible instruments of death and destruction.

    The Hiroshima Peace Memorial Cenotaph states, “Let all souls here rest in peace; for we shall not repeat the evil.” This thought was echoed in the statement of the then President of the International Court of Justice, Mohammed Bedjaoui, when he referred to nuclear weapons as “the ultimate evil” in his 1996 Declaration that accompanied the Advisory Opinion of the Court on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

    In the end, nuclear weapons are weapons of the weak. They are a great equalizer, capable of giving a small state or a terrorist group the ability to destroy our cities and even bring a great nation to its knees. For the sake of civilization and humanity, these weapons and those who support continued reliance upon them must not be tolerated. To tolerate these weapons is to assure that eventually they will be used – by accident or design.

    Deterrence is not defense, and can fail due to miscommunication. It has come close to failing on numerous occasions, many much less well known than the Cuban Missile Crisis. Today, even though there is little to no need for deterrence among the major powers, there are still 26,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of nine countries, and 3,500 of these in the arsenals of the US and Russia remain on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired within moments of an order to do so.

    I am certain that were Ozaki Yukio alive today, he would be a leader in the global effort to abolish nuclear weapons and would be active in the Mayors for Peace, an organization of mayors throughout the world led by Mayor Akiba of Hiroshima. The Mayors for Peace currently has a 2020 Vision Campaign to ban nuclear weapons by the year 2020. It is a campaign that makes sense for mayors, given that cities remain the major targets of these weapons. One World
    We live on a single precious planet, the only one we know of in the universe that supports life. No matter where lines are drawn on the Earth as boundaries of states, we are a part of one planet and one people. We must unite in protecting the planet and preserving it for future generations.

    In addition to the ever-present threat of nuclear annihilation, we live in a world that is threatened by global warming, what Al Gore, the 2007 Nobel Peace Laureate, described as “an inconvenient truth.” But if global warming is an inconvenient truth, how much more so is nuclear war. In both cases, the present and future are jeopardized by massive devastation.

    War and structural violence – that is, violence that is built into the societal framework – are prevalent in our world. Each year, war claims countless victims, mostly innocent civilians. It is widely reported that more than 90 percent of the victims of wars today are civilians. In the Iraq war, some 4,000 American soldiers have died, but the number of Iraqis killed, mostly civilians, is reported to be over 1.2 million. That is a ratio of 1 to 300. It is more aptly characterized as a slaughter than a war. In Darfur, genocide has continued unabated for years, with the international community seemingly helpless to stop the killing.

    The structural violence in our world, like war, is a deep stain on the human record. Half the world’s people still live on less than two dollars a day, while the world spends some $1.2 trillion on arms. Of this, the United States spends nearly half, more than the combined totals of the next 32 countries.

    For just a small percentage of global military spending, every child on the planet could receive an education. For a similarly small percentage of military spending, everyone on the planet could have clean water, adequate nutrition and health care. Something is terribly wrong with our ability to organize ourselves to live justly on our planet.

    Our world is one in which human life is devalued for many, and greed is often rewarded. It is a world often not kind to children. Each hour, 500 children die in Africa; 12,000 each day. They die of starvation and preventable diseases, not because there is not enough food or medicine, but because these are not distributed to those who need them. Our world is also not very wise in preparing for the future. We are busy using up the world’s resources, particularly its fossil fuels, and in the process polluting the environment. So hungry and greedy are we for energy and other resources that we pay little attention to the needs and well-being of future generations. Our lifestyles in the richer countries are unsustainable, and they are foreclosing opportunities for future generations that will be burdened by diminishing resources and a deteriorating environment.

    We live in an interdependent world. Borders cannot make us safe. Nor can oceans. We can choose to live together in peace, or to perish together in nuclear war. We can choose to live together with sustainable lifestyles or to perish together as our technologies destroy our environment. We can choose to live together in a world with justice and dignity for all, or to perish together in a world of vast disparity, in which a small minority lives in luxury and overabundance, while the majority of humanity lives in deep poverty and often despair.

    War No Longer Makes Sense

    War no longer makes sense in the Nuclear Age. The stakes are too high. In a world with nuclear weapons, we roll the dice on the human future each time we engage in war. Nuclear weapons must be eliminated and the materials to make them placed under strict international control so that we don’t bring life on our planet to an abrupt end.

    Leaders who take their nations to war without the sanction of international law must be held to account. This is what the Allied leaders concluded after World War II, when they held the Axis leaders to account for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. No leader anywhere on the planet should be allowed to stand above international law.

    Every citizen of Earth has rights, well articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights agreements. We should all know our rights under international law, which include the rights to life, liberty, security of person, and freedom from torture. There is also a human right to peace. We must take responsibility for assuring these rights for ourselves and others across the planet.

    If someone were to observe our planet from outer space, that person might conclude that we do not appreciate the beauty and bounty of our magnificent Earth. I hope you will never take for granted this life-sustaining planet. The planet itself is a miracle, as is each of us. As miracles, how can we engage in wars, or allow our children to engage in wars, that kill other miracles?

    Japan’s Unique Capacity

    Japan is a country uniquely qualified to lead the world toward peace and a world free of nuclear weapons. Japan has great strengths, it has made great mistakes, and it has seemingly learned important lessons.

    Japan is a country with a long history and deep traditions. It is a country with an extraordinary aesthetic, which can be seen in its gardens, its architecture, its arts of tea ceremony, flower arrangement and pottery, its literature and film.

    But along with the subtle imperfect beauty of its aesthetic, Japan has had a history of feudal hierarchy and militarism. It has been an imperial power, colonizing other nations and committing serious crimes against them. It has fought in brutal wars, suffered defeat at the hands of the Allied powers in World War II, and emerged as a stronger, more peaceful and decent nation.

    One of the most remarkable things about Japan as a nation has been its unique ability to transform itself, first with the Meiji Restoration in the 19th century, then with its growth into a modern economic and military power, and finally with its astounding rebound from its military defeat in the second half of the 20th century.

    Japan turned the ashes of war and defeat into an energetic and vital economy and democratic political structure. It is the only country in the world with a “peace constitution.” Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution forbids war forever as an instrument of state power. It states:

    Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

    This is an extraordinary commitment. It is a beacon to the world, and should be viewed with pride by all Japanese citizens. Despite the attempts of some Japanese political leaders to reinterpret and evade the essential provisions of Article 9, it has thus far held up.

    Japan is the only country in the world to have had two of its cities destroyed by atomic weapons. Its people learned that human beings and atomic weapons cannot co-exist, and as a result the survivors of the atomic bombings, the hibakusha, have been ardent advocates of a nuclear weapons-free world, not wanting others to suffer the fate that they suffered. In 1971, the Japanese Diet adopted three non-nuclear principles: “Japan shall neither possess nor manufacture nuclear weapons, nor shall it permit their introduction into Japanese territory.”

    In recent years, the Japanese government has provided some leadership at the United Nations by sponsoring a resolution on “Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons,” but this seems to be more rooted in words on paper than in action. More is needed.

    Post-War Uneasiness

    Despite its success in rebuilding its economy in the post-World War II period, its unique peace constitution and its position in relation to nuclear weapons, one senses uneasiness in the current state of Japan. Tradition is under assault in modern Japan. The people, and particularly the youth, seem pulled toward Western values of materialism with their emphasis on consumer lifestyles.

    There are periodic challenges to the peace constitution and to Japan’s non-nuclear principles. These values seem to remain in conflict with Japan’s longer and deeper connections to hierarchical authority and military might. Japan seems a reluctant leader toward a nuclear weapons-free world. It has the technology and enough plutonium to rapidly become a major nuclear weapons power. Despite its constitutional limitations, Japan has developed a powerful Self-Defense Force, and is among the top few military spenders in the world.

    Japan has maintained a close relationship with the United States, and the US continues to ask more of Japan in its participation in multilateral military operations. Japan participated in a small non-combat role in the “Coalition of the Willing” in the war in Iraq, although the Japanese government is ambiguous about this participation. The US has pushed Japan to join it in the development and implementation of missile defenses in Northeast Asia. Japan also allows the US armed forces to occupy many military bases in Japan and to use Japanese ports for its Navy. Japan sits willingly under the US nuclear umbrella.

    Thoughtful Japanese citizens might well ask: Who are we? Is Japan following its own destiny? Has Japan become a vassal state of the US? Should Japan preserve Article 9 of its Constitution? Can Japan preserve Article 9 of its Constitution? There is clearly tension in Japan’s aspirations for itself and in its alliance with the US, the country that ended the war against Japan with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Japan has prospered in peace. Now it must decide whether it chooses to lead in peace, or to be a vassal to the United States, as that country – my country – seeks to spread its imperial might throughout the globe. The world stands perilously balanced at the nuclear precipice, and Japan, as the only country in the world that has experienced nuclear devastation, could be the country to lead the way back from the precipice.

    One may well ask: If Japan leads, who would follow? There is no way to answer this question until the first steps are taken. At a minimum, in attempting to provide this leadership, Japan would honor the survivors and the dead of those bombings. It would instill in its behavior a sense of national purpose – that of ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity.

    Rather than accept the militant leadership of the United States, Japan needs to provide the moral leadership of which it is uniquely capable. For its own independence and the good of the world, Japan must be firm in its commitment to its peace constitution and to its non-nuclear principles.

    As a good friend of the United States, Japan could help lead it toward ending its reliance on nuclear weapons and fulfilling its responsibilities under the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty. In the US we have a saying, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” The US has been driving drunk in its use of power in Iraq and its reliance upon nuclear weapons. Japan must be truly a friend and learn to say No to the United States:

    No to reliance on nuclear arms, including by means of the US nuclear umbrella;

    No to missile defenses;

    No to US nuclear armed ships docking at Japanese ports (the Kobe Formula has provided a good example);

    No to participation in any form in illegal wars of aggression, such as the Iraq War;

    No to extending the leases on US military bases in Japan.

    No to the US-India nuclear deal, which will undermine years of international efforts to control nuclear proliferation.

    There is also much to which Japan can say Yes.

    Yes to international cooperation for peace, not war.

    Yes to convening a Nuclear Weapons Convention, and to sustained leadership for a nuclear weapons-free world. The first meeting of states to rid the world of nuclear weapons could be held in Hiroshima, the first city to suffer nuclear devastation.

    Yes to the establishment of a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone in Northeast Asia.

    Yes to bringing all weapons-grade fissionable materials under strict international control.

    Yes to an insistence on resolving conflicts between states by peaceful means, including mandatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

    Yes to giving its full support to the International Criminal Court to hold leaders accountable for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    Yes to working to protect the oceans, the air, the Arctic and Antarctica, and outer space as the Common Heritage of Mankind for present and future generations. If Japan chooses to follow this path, it will honor its finest traditions and, drawing from its unique experiences in recent history, give leadership to forces all over the world struggling for peace.

    Individual Responsibility

    Nothing changes without individuals taking responsibility and taking action. We all need to realize that with rights come responsibilities. Change does not occur magically. It occurs because individuals engage with societal problems and take actions to create a better world. Often change occurs person to person. Each of us can be an agent for change in the world. We are each as powerful as we choose to be.

    We can each start by choosing peace and making a firm commitment to peace with justice. This means that we make peace a central issue and priority in our lives and demonstrate peace in all we do. We can live peace, educate for peace, speak out for peace, and support and vote for candidates who call for peace. In choosing peace, we also choose hope, rather than ignorance, complacency or despair. Hope gives rise to action, and action in turn gives rise to increased possibility for change and to further hope. It is a spiral in which action deepens commitment, which leads to more action.

    Like others who have chosen the path of peace – Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and the Dalai Lama – we must realize that it will not be a quick or easy journey. The path will require of you courage, compassion and commitment. The rewards may be few, except your own understanding of the necessity of the journey.

    The path to peace will require persistence. You may be tempted to leave the path, but what you do for peace you do for humanity. In the struggle for a better world and a more decent future, we are not allowed to give up – just as Ozaki Yukio never gave up during his life and as his daughter, Sohma Yukika, has never given up during her long life.

    Our efforts to create a culture of peace are a gift to humanity and the future. What better gift could we give to our fellow citizens of the planet and to future generations than our courage, compassion and commitment in the cause of peace?

    David Krieger is the President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort to abolish nuclear weapons.


  • You Scare Us: Bush Is Giving Latin America the Willies

    The United States is strong. Latin America is weak. This is the basic truth that shapes their relationship. There is no irrational animosity toward the U.S. in Latin America. There is a measure of suspicion balanced by enormous admiration for the culture of Herman Melville to Walt Whitman to William Faulkner, of Hollywood and jazz, of Eugene O’Neill to Arthur Miller. Nor is there envy of the United States. Latin America is deeply aware of its cultural values. Our personality is not assailed by gringo fashions. We absorb and adapt to the cultures of the world, including that of the U.S.

    The problem lies in foreign policy. Too often, the United States is seen as a benevolent Dr. Jekyll at home and a malevolent Mr. Hyde abroad. The wars against Mexico (1846-1848) and Spain (1898), Teddy Roosevelt’s “big stick,” Woodrow Wilson’s well-intentioned but counterproductive intervention in Mexico during its revolution, incessant and arrogant meddling in Central America. Not an easy menu to swallow. One moment shines through, however: Franklin Roosevelt’s “good neighbor” policy, his decision to win Latin American support during World War II through negotiation rather than confrontation.

    And after that war, a limpid admiration for the Roosevelt and Truman policies of international cooperation through organizations based on the rule of law. “We all have to recognize,” Harry Truman said in 1945, “[that] no matter how great our strength – we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please.” The United Nations was a creation of U.S. diplomacy. Its principles were clearly stated and universally accepted. Even when the U.S. violated them in practice during the Cold War, the principles were never renounced.

    This brings us to what Latin Americans find so shocking about the Bush administration. Instead of multilateralism, unilateralism. Instead of diplomacy and negotiation and a search for consensus and the use of force only as a last resort, the barbaric principle of preventive war.

    U.S. support for brutal dictatorships in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay in the name of anti-communism caused great suffering. The overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala and Salvador Allende in Chile. The Central American wars in the 1980s and their high body counts. These Latin American grievances were balanced by a perception that the U.S. never formally renounced the principles of international law and the hope that it would reaffirm them again.

    What is alarming about the Bush administration is its formal denunciation of the basic rules of international intercourse. With us or against us, President Bush declares starkly and simplistically. The U.S. acts according to its own interests, “not those of an illusory international community,” asserts national security advisor Condoleezza Rice.

    Is it strange that many Latin Americans should see in these statements an aggressive denial of the only leverage we have in dealing with Washington: the rule of law, the balance obtained through diplomatic negotiation?

    Not only out of self-interest, but also as participants in the global society, many Latin Americans worry that U.S. unilateralism is incompatible with the multilateralist nature of globalization. This was the warning issued by former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo at last year’s Harvard commencement. Add Chilean President Ricardo Lagos’ perception that the world community is postponing the urgent global agenda of creating an adequate social-program fund, strengthening human rights and overcoming the chasms between haves and have-nots. And top it with former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s plea to the French National Assembly: Fight vigorously against terror but also against the underlying causes of terror: hunger, ignorance, inequality and distorted perceptions of other cultures.

    Fortunately, these composite voices of Latin American statesmen found a powerful echo in North America, when former President Clinton warned that you do not defeat terror if you do not figure out how to work with an interdependent world.

    These voices, these warnings, these hopes have been disowned by the Bush administration. “With us or against us,” Bush has said. It hardly matters. Offensive as these words are to the international community, I believe that Latin America, in particular, will not forget the outright deceptions of the Bush era: the shifting rationales for an unnecessary war and a disastrous postwar occupation; the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; the targeting of one tyrant (Saddam Hussein) among many (Kim Jong II, Robert Mugabe, Moammar Kadafi); the utter lack of foresight that an occupied Iraq would rise against the foreign occupiers and try to fashion its own political future out of its complex religious, tribal and cultural realities, all of them ignored by the neoconservatives in Washington.

    But while not forgetting these mistakes and deceptions, we would put the accent on the restoration of the rule of law, the thrust of cooperation and the attention due to 3 billion human beings living in poverty, ignorance and illness. When Bush and his bellicose minions are gone, these problems will still be around. We in Latin America should try to bring them forward as the real agenda for this troubling century.

    Carlos Fuentes is the author, most recently, of “Contra Bush,” which will be translated into seven languages. Originally published in the Los Angeles Times on September 26, 2004.