Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Peace as absence of war or true peace with justice? Prospects for 2004

By Stuart Rees - posted Thursday, 8 April 2004


At the level of international relations, every effort needs to be made to discourage any resort to violence, from stricter gun controls to the outlawing of any private citizen's entitlement to bear arms, from cutbacks in military expenditure to a sustained programme of nuclear disarmament. There is a widely supported international programme called Global Action to Prevent War (GAPW). Consistent with the UN Secretary General's goal of preventing conflicts, the architects of GAPW have been concerned to enhance the United Nations' resources for intervening in trouble spots in order to extinguish any smouldering controversy before violence and anarchy occurs. GAPW proposes steps to freeze the size of armed forces plus a 25 per cent cut in military spending and arms production. Phase II calls for world-wide cuts in military spending, arms production and trade. Phase III addresses the need to immobilise and store all nuclear weapons. By Phase IV it is envisaged that forces maintained by the UN and regional security organisations will guard against rearmament and trans-national violence.

Disarmament, however, does not refer only to steps to prevent war. It also refers to the process of institutions and individuals disarming themselves of any arrogant certainty that their way of living is the way, that their culture or religion has a monopoly of wisdom or righteousness. Whatever the strategies for disarmament, we shall always need to return to the philosophy and language of non violence. The properties and the skills of dialogue are at the hub of such a philosophy.

Redefining Sovereignty

The third issue that has a direct bearing on efforts to achieve peace with justice concerns assumption's about a nation's sovereignty. More recently this has been referred to as border protection and has even arisen in the Gilbertian task of excising islands and pockets of land so that for immigration purposes they cease to be part of a sovereign state. For the purpose of achieving justice for the world's vulnerable peoples, a key assumption about sovereignty is that it enables the representatives of a state to exclude people who are deemed not to be citizens or who are considered to have only fragile claims to be judged refugees. By contrast, the sovereignty that would contribute to principles of humanity and thereby to peace with justice would be concerned with policies of generosity and tolerance, of hospitality and inclusion.

Advertisement

In the conventional interpretations of sovereignty, degrees of intolerance are coupled to national pride and assumptions about various violent means to maintain such sovereignty. Yet in several respects sovereignty ceases to have meaning. If free trade was designed to reflect the free-market principles that influence the conception of such policies, national boundaries become irrelevant. The power of the corporate free traders takes over. When fears are raised about epidemics such as AIDS, SARS or Chicken Flu, the intervention of international organisations such as the WHO become imperative and override any considerations of national boundaries. The threat of disease becomes analogous to the dangers of international terrorism for which the best defence is international cooperation.

Peace with justice is a global goal that would be the best antidote to terrorism and an effective way to provide for security. To promote that goal we have to de mystify old-fashioned notions of sovereignty that are maintained by a self-justifying logic as in familiar claims: "Our way of life is the best"; "Terrorists threaten what we stand for"; "Our democracy is at stake." Beneath these claims lies another reality, which says that there are several ways of living and diverse interpretations of democracy. In addition, we need to be reminded that state terrorism is perceived in some parts of the world as being as dangerous as the behaviour of those who take the law into their own hands.

Current versions of sovereignty have also been sustained by reluctance to uphold the rule of international law or to support the United Nations, except when it suits. The United States' refusal to recognise the International Criminal Court and its pleading with the UN to re-assume responsibilities in Iraq - after it had initially snubbed the international body - are examples of this inconsistency about international institutions and the principles they are empowered to uphold. Only the sovereignty of international law, the sovereignty of the United Nations and a world-wide respect for non violence would recognise people's interdependence and produce a version of sovereignty that transcends national differences.

Reference to the sovereignty of non violence is an appropriate way to end this discussion. Such a view presupposes an emphasis on sharing resources, on the significance of altruism and on the wisdom associated with humility.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

Article edited by Jenny Ostini.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.

This is an edited extract of an address to the Australian Institute of International Affairs, on 18th March 2004 entitled "Peace in 2004: local, national and international prospects."



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Stuart Rees is Professor Emeritus of the University of Sydney and Founder of the Sydney Peace Foundation. He is the former Director of the Sydney Peace Foundation (1998-2011) and of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (1988-2008), and a Professor of Social Work (1978-2000) at the University of Sydney.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Stuart Rees
Related Links
Australian Institute of International Affairs
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy