Event sponsored by the Hon. Linda Burney MP. Minster for the State and Community Services

Paper Presentation- AFRICAN ALLIANCE FOR PEACE

22- 25 October 2010.  LA DON HOTEL ABUJA NIGERIA

BIANNCA D. PACE

LIFE is the most important of all.  It is in and through LIFE that we evolve spiritually, mentally, emotionally and physically.  It is that great LIFE, which we can also call GOD that gives us life, provides us with a planet called earth where we can grow, mature, learn and develop a deep understanding of each other through relationship, to everything from family to nature and not least to the environment.

Once we have forged that initial relationship we are then encouraged by LIFE to educate ourselves through the arts, the sciences and the humanities which then make it almost obligatory that we forge relationships with those outside of our family, outside of our tribe, outside of our religion and outside of our nation. At this point we are then able to recognise a relationship much vaster, more expansive, and more joyful; the realisation that we are ONE GLOBAL FAMILY living in ONE GLOBAL VILLAGE – THAT WE ARE ONE RACE – THE HUMAN RACE-THE ONE HUMANITY!

PEACE DOES NOT TAKE LIFE – Peace provides a platform for us to grow to evolve and reach the understanding that we are THE ONE HUMANITY.

Because of this surely common sense would tell us that the ‘Cause of Peace’ must be the most important cause of all and, …. For all of us!

You will have noticed that from 1945 until 2000 the West had an unprecedented time of relative peace and we can see what that has produced – in only 55 years more advancement in human evolution in all of our known history. Humanity has walked on the Moon and through that and the technology it required to do so, has now developed the Internet with it’s capacity to link all of us to each other in an immediate way and which allows information and news to spread with lightening speed, information and news no longer dependent on the Media which oftentimes is used as a medium of propaganda.

Because of peace we have been able to put structures and procedures in place that give us a measure of justice, stability, security and order, not the least of these the United Nations.  And let me say that the United Nations would be much more effective if it had the necessary funding to make it so.  Remembering that the UN has the same amount of funding per year as Sydney University- it is awesome to contemplate the good and beneficent work that the UN does for so many- with so little.

What if the next 55 years were guaranteed to be peaceful for all of humanity? Imagine if the greatest minds on the planet were used to benefit all of humanity without thought of profit or return.  Imagine the huge strides forward we would make and, a liberated humanity would then be able to pursue a more productive and sustainable lifestyle, a lifestyle geared to service, to unity, to peace to plenty for all humankind.

In reviewing the benefits of Peace, why then has the Cause of Peace not had the same sort of funding, professionalizing and institutionalizing as the cause of WAR has ALWAYS HAD???

WHY IS THIS NOT THE CASE?

An Australian politician Rob Oakeshott, is know as one of our politicians with a well-developed social conscience, yet when Grace, one of our volunteers said to him: Do you think that an MFP would help politicians implement more peace in society?

He replied; I think the idea is too controversial!

Grace looked at him in amazement and said… Don’t you think that things are back to front- WAR SHOULD BE CONTROVERSIAL NOT PEACE!!

Similarly at a function on the 22^nd Sep hosted by the Pakistan Consul General, I was chatting about the MFPA with the Hon Barbara Perry MP a State Labor Minister, responsible for 3 Portfolios, Planning, Health and State Government.  I then said that I would be inviting a few politicians to a meeting early next year with a view to forming an all Party Parliamentary Group to help establish MFPA’s work…. She said yes of course Biannca count me in, but we will have to use another word, we can’t use peace.

WHY CAN’T WE USE THE WORD PEACE

Because we live in a society based on a culture of war:

There’s a lot of money in war.  One nuclear bomb costs between US$3 billion and US$21billion and currently we have 30,000 PLUS nuclear warheads in the world, some experts believe that there are more. This year alone we spent US$1 trillion 670 billion on arms. Last year it was a little less we only spent US$1 trillion 450 billion! Now let’s be very generous to the war machine and halve that amount and then, forget that the cold war existed and multiply it by the 30 years – from 1980 to 2010. Do this and you will find that we come up with a staggering $21,600 trillion dollars.  THIS IS MONEY WASTED – spent on destruction rather than construction on death not life!

To put this into perspective just $6,000 trillion is the equivalent of giving $1million dollars to every one of the 6 billion people on this planet…. In other words we would all be millionaires… and that is using just $6,000 trillion… and remember I said $21,600 trillion in 30 years.  WHO BENEFITS?

WHAT SYSTEM HAS BEEN INSTITUTIONALISED TO PERPETRATE THIS CULTURE OF WAR?

The Adversarial system is what we have institutionalised.

We can’t use the word Peace because our political systems are based on an adversarial principle, and those systems are really intended to develop or deliver clear winners and losers.  The winners then bias their policies in the direction of their own supporters- so now there is a basis for competition!  i.e. What the Right want and the Left need etc.. Liberal supporters want and what Labor supporters need.

In our democratic institutions we have institutionalised a competitive and adversarial process, and there is an ethos around them of winner takes all, therefore people have the sense that most social life is a zero -sum game (Where the competitiveness and strength of one detracts and even neutralizes the efforts of others) rather than a non- zero sum game.

Down through the ages Great Teachers have come to guide humanity and if there is a theme that is constant in their teachings it is that we should care for one another.

For example the Christ said  –Love thy neighbour as thyself.

The Prophet Mohamed said- Take care of your neighbours up to the 7^th((elaborate)

The Rabbi Akiva said – Love thy neighbour

Buddhists say – Harmlessness to all beings

The Baha’i’s say love thy neighbour MORE than yourself.

But in the secular world our Political, Educational, Economic, Judicial, Scientific and Religious systems are based on a culture of war.

Political Parties win or lose office – and if you lose you’re then called the OPPOSITION, which means you must oppose & criticize every policy that the Government of the day proposes to implement. As the opposition you are obliged to demean and may even lie to score political points, which lead to a victory. One politician in Australia was interviewed on Television and when asked why he had lied about the cost of one of his policies, he excused himself by saying that he lied “ In the heat of the Battle” the battle was just a debate he was having with a politician from another party!!

TV and Radio Stations have target audiences, Manufacturers have target markets, Companies engage in hostile takeovers; execute strategies; launch campaigns; capture markets; Ignite ideas; crush the competition and we now have guerilla marketing and viral marketing.

Your lawyer and barrister fight it out in court with the other person’s lawyer and barrister.

Our health system is fighting cancer and losing the battle with AIDS

In our education system children in schools come first or last!

If you make a mistake at work you may be “underfire” and you can even get fired from your job.

And that is the language of war in a culture that honours war, if you disbelieve that check out our monuments and memorials. Most people don’t even realise it…. It’s a dog eat dog world out there dontcha know and your organisation sounds great but has it got TEETH!

Is it any wonder that humanity is confused!  Add to this those who say:

My religion is better than yours, my God more powerful, only if you follow this religion will you be saved and even religion is used as a basis for competition and even war.

And thus the Sacred Teaching that was to benefit humanity, to educate us in the art of tolerance, acceptance, love and unity -thus enabling that sacred part in each of us to flower – by following whatever religion best suited our temperament, AND of our own choice … that too has become a game of winners and losers.

Is it any wonder that Humanity has a split personality and is dysfunctional?

In fact it is so dysfunctional that we are in the middle of an all systems breakdown.

Today’s breakdown is based primarily upon our economic needs.

The obvious reasons for this:

Over-population

Trade Barriers

Inequalities of Supply and Demand

But the TRUE REASON is deep and today many recognize it.  The reason is the conflict between certain great ideals, all of them based on spiritual ideas, but all of them prostituted to ends, which lead to separativeness, hatred, party strife, civil war, widespread economic distress, terror of a third world war and fear.  We are surrounded by fear and uncertainty, grinding poverty, suspicion plus the general collapse of religion and government, which once seemed to offer refuge.

Leaders both national and religious are everywhere attempting to deal with these problems, prompted sometimes by a true love of Humanity, sometimes swayed by ambition or galvanized into violent activity by some ideal for human, racial or national betterment.

Sincerity and insincerity- hatred and love- service and exploitation- divisions and unifications- are found in every nation.

Catchwords are everywhere:

Religious unity- human freedom- problems of the left and the right party, Communism, Fascism, Liberalism and Conservatism – Creative living- population problems- sterilization-Utopias- The rights of People- Dictatorships- the arms race – secret diplomacy- isolationism and last month in the Guardian Newspaper I read that one of the neo conservatives in the UK is demanding that the right of humans to procreate should be banned.

Such are a few of the words which today are heard everywhere!

This is a good thing for it indicates that humanity is aware of its problems and the difficulties, which confront us. In every nation people are coming to the front with some solution, gathering a party to put it over and fighting for their ideal. In Australia at the last election we had the Shooters Party, Ban Parking Meters Party and even the Australian Sex Party!

Everyday we see money spent like water to support the ideas of yet another party. Campaigns held all over the world to raise the needed funds to overthrow some ancient entrenched ideal, or for the substitution of some new idea.  Men and women in both hemispheres are swept by the desire to change the old order and bring in the new era of economic comfort and peaceful living and are dedicating their lives to the defence of some principle which seems to them of great importance. Or to overthrow another principle which is of importance to their fellow man.

Attack of personalities, defamation of character the imputing of motives, and the stirring up of hatred are a recognised part of the technique of those who- with good intentions- are attempting to bring order from chaos, and to defend the RIGHT as THEY see it.

Love of their fellow men and the desire to aid may be present – yet the chaos grows, the hatreds increase, warfare spreads, and past efforts seem futile to stem the tide which seems about to sweep humanity over the brink of disaster.

Our leaders are aware of the futility and most importantly they also recognise a demand for a new way, and want to know what is basically at fault and to discover why the strenuous self-sacrificing efforts of millions of men and women have failed to stop War- solve the economic problem and release humanity.

THIS FAILURE IS DUE TO 2 THINGS:

1) Dealing with effects while the underlying causes have not been touched, even when realised by many. Yes the attempt has been made to right wrongs, to expose evils and evil personalities and to attack organisations, groups, parties, religions. This has led to what appears to be a futile expenditure of time, strength, energy and money.

2) Where are those who pour their efforts into finding & blending into one organized whole the people of goodwill, of peaceful loving intention and intelligent kindliness and goodness in the world, so that they can co- operate together in their vast masses? These constitute millions of people who hate war, because they regard all men as brothers…(and here mention the largest worldwide demonstration in world history -the 30million plus people who took to the streets to protest the Iraqi war.

In February 2003, the hottest and most humid month of the year, in Sydney over a million people marched, yet Australia went to war- the then PM dismissing the protests saying” I don’t know that you can measure public opinion just be the number of people that turn up at demonstrations” An amazingly arrogant statement given that demonstrations are people talking by walking!

WHAT CAN BE DONE

An all systems breakdown requires an all systems approach!

1) Can we harness people of goodwill, who are found in the membership of every group, which exists for world betterment?  This is an unused power that has not yet been organised as a whole. Understandably the loyalty and effort of the individual person is given to his organization. Can we, without interfering with this loyalty gather into one organised whole, all of these people without creating a new organisation or sidetracking them from the work they are already involved in.

Although people in power are preoccupied with staying in power, and are afraid to take risks – there are people that are involved in building strong, resilient social, political and economic institutions, that are self-sustaining and self-propelling, and these people see a question mark over POWER!

FOR WHAT PURPOSE IS POWER USED?

So there is a debate between the Peace Research Community and the Political Science Community- political scientists are preoccupied with the question of – How do you use Power!

Today we ask what lies beyond adversarial process and institutions, which are set up for adversarial purposes?

We know that Political and Democratic politics are adversarial with winners and losers.

Is there a politics, which is not adversarial, which is oriented to problem solving?

Is there a judicial system, which is non- adversarial and yet still delivers justice?

Is there an economic system, which cares for all including the defenceless & exploited?

To what extent are our educational and religious institutions adversarial and generate a particular kind of orientation, which is inimical to building strong resilient relationships and community and a strong sense of solidarity, all for one and one for all!

So the second wave of peace research has been focusing on “ How do you develop efficient, effective institutions that have a capacity to be competitive but which have at their heart a commitment to the building of a collaborative and co-operative relationship between combative institutions.

It’s an oxymoron to say that we need to have -competitive co-operation -and indeed one must query the need for ‘combative institutions. ‘

The adversarial system has been institutionalized to perpetrate a culture of war. To birth a culture of peace we need to substitute adversarial with co-operative and this can be done if we institutionalize co-operation.

A MINISTRY OR DEPARTMENT OF PEACE IN GOVERNMENTS:

This would be the obvious first choice.

Just as the existence of a Ministry for Defence in the governmental structure of any contemporary country today is considered obvious and indisputable.  To institutionalise peace it is obvious and indisputable to have a Ministry for Peace.

There are those who mock at the very idea because they do not believe that a Ministry for Peace is needed to stop wars because of the existence of the Ministry of Defence.  However, historical evidence proves that the establishing of that institution has not prevented wars and has not lead to the spread of peace and security in the world.

Dr Stella Cornelius AO OBE who in 1982 initiated the campaign for a Ministry for Peace has this to say and I quote” A Dept of Peace could professionalise and institutionalise the Peace Process, it would ensure that the voices of the Peacemakers were heard at the highest level of decision making.

This would be a department, which has got to be consulted PRIOR TO ANY DECISIONS BEING TAKEN REGARDING ANY CONFLICT. It would support the peace initiative of the UN and there would be an inter-relatedness of this Department to every other Department of Government, not to take away but so the voice of the peacemakers is heard in the decision of any and every department of Government.

At the time of the Balkan war Margaret Thatcher the then UK PM had tons of professional advice for violent strategies and given expert advice on how to make war- but was deprived of expert advice on how to make peace. “ End of quote.

I would add to her idea of the inter-relatedness of the Peace Department to every other Department of Government – that this inter-relatedness would be based on a spirit of co-operation between departments so that each department’s perspective would be required and taken into consideration before any final decision would be made. Only then would a truly wholistic solution be reached. Should for example a decision needed to be made which would benefit industry but cause environmental problems, but industry would provide jobs which would impact positively on the department of social services-this would be discussed from all perspectives not just the perspective of the two departments involved.

A Possible First step- A MINISTRY FOR PEACEBUILDING

Dr Keith Suter who in 1984 wrote a book titled “An Australian Campaign for a Ministry for Peace” in 2004 wrote a paper in which he proposed that national ministries for peacebuilding should first be a first step as it would provide an institutional focal point for implementing a country’s peace policies.

He saw that a Ministry for Peacebuilding would have a number of distinctive characteristics by comparison with other ministries and identified two as being of particular importance. The first – a Ministry for Peacebuilding would emphasize the importance of the nonviolent resolution of conflict in both domestic and international contexts and would provide an avenue for the expression of people’s desire for the peaceful resolution of conflict. It would be the institution with which they could identify their legitimate aspirations for a peaceful society. All people should have the inherent right to be assured that no armed force will be used until every means of achieving a nonviolent resolution has been explored. Peace must be given a chance!

Second, such a Ministry would institutionalize the peace perspective in the government. This is a principle in politics that where you stand depends on where you sit. This explains why ministers change their views when they are moved from one department to another. There are various perspectives already in government. For example there is a distinct treasury perspective in all government deliberations, how many times do we hear that this or that programme has been scrapped because treasury has not approved it or has no funding to implement it?  There is a distinct social welfare perspective, usually in favour of extending the government’s mantle over its citizens. However, there is not a distinct peace perspective. There is no cabinet minister responsible for peacebuilding activities. If a person is placed in a military department, that person will absorb a military perspective.  A Ministry for Peace building will likewise mould the outlook of its personnel.

Dr Suter also notes that the Ministry should be recognized as a senior Ministry and its Minister should be a member of the inner Cabinet. In fact if one considers the list of responsibilities that the Ministry of Peacebuilding would have, it really would need to be regarded as senior to the Ministry of Defence because the military perspective needs to be MORE than just balanced by the peace perspective.

This he says sounds controversial, but it is interesting to recall just how many now well-established ministries were controversial when they were created.

I remember when Australian didn’t have a Minister for the Environment- we didn’t need one you see, because we had a ministry for fisheries, a ministry for forests, a ministry for agriculture and a ministry for parks and wildlife. As there was no real interaction between those 4 ministries a wholistic perspective was never available nor taken into account, this is true globally hence the environmental disaster that we are now faced with. Now there is a Minister heading a Department of the Environment in most countries.

I would say that a window of opportunity exists for us to begin to seriously lobby for an MFP and that we the second wave of peace researchers, can introduce the ‘ third wave ‘which is the establishing of a culture of peace & institutionalizing peace by substituting the adversarial system with a co-operative system via the Principle of Sharing

The Global Financial Crisis has opened humanity’s eyes to the mismanagement of our planet’s wealth.  The loss of untold trillions has affected all nations and this has also impacted on people of great wealth, who go through life using money as a shock absorber. This is bringing all of us back to basics and to an appreciation of life sustaining values.  Possibly the most important being-  our interconnectedness and the need to share.

Sharing The Wealth of the World

The sharing of the world’s resources would necessitate the removal of the separative spirit, which plagues humankind.

An attempt at this was made at the end of World War II when the UN Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) initiated the concept of a culture of peace at an international congress in 1989 at Yamoussoukro, Cote d’Ivoire.

Peace is no longer seen as the absence of conflict. Peace is seen as an active continuous Endeavour. In a culture of peace dialogue and respect for human rights replace violence; inter-cultural understanding and solidarity replace enemy images and the dehumanizing of others; the free flow of information replaces secrecy; and egalitarian partnerships and full empowerment of women succeed male domination.  There is also the recognition that peace cannot be kept by force – it can only be achieved by understanding

IS IT TIME?

Without interfering with the loyalty of the members of those myriad groups that exist for world betterment, and without sidetracking them from the work they are already dedicated to –can we harness their support for a Minister for Peace and a Department of Peace in their respective Governments? This would be a first step in bringing thousands of peace, social justice, human rights and social welfare organizations together; the benefit to them would be that a MFP in their country would provide their group or organization an umbrella of support, assistance and funding if needed. Those groups would then be in a position to build peace infrastructure based on the needs of their own country and using as a template the same system that Government would be using i.e.  inter-relatedness of these groups and organizations based on a spirit of co-operation and where necessary each organization’s perspective added  and taken into consideration when a decision was required which involved two or more organizations.

Ideally this would bring a global (and thus a wholistic) perspective – yet would not detract from the diversity in unity and would allow or require the utilization of the creativity and originality of those organizations and their members. This system would enable each nation to build what was of value to their people. This system would enable all organizations and groups worldwide to interact and information share. This would not only institutionalise peace it would lead to global co-operation and the acceptance of global responsibility.

A Minister for Peace heading a Department of Peace in every government around the world is an ideal vehicle for institutionalizing a cooperative system that can deliver a culture of peace.  And thus ladies and gentlemen, we substitute a culture of war with a culture of peace- in place of a culture of death- A CULTURE OF LIFE.

And now a look at the Global Alliance how it was formed followed by some photo’s of the work that we are doing in Australia to bring an MFPA to the attention of politicians and the general public……