Practical Peaceniks

New Bloggers Wanted

2009-08-24T09:50:00.004-04:00

It's been just a wee bit quiet here for the past few months. Turns out some of our original crew got pulled hither and yon into new projects, and our little blogging experiment fell subject to, well, life.

A few of our friends have decided to focus more on other projects, but we all still think this is a worthwhile project, and that's where you come in.

Here's what we need: A dedicated peace-type with both feet planted firmly on the ground. Someone committed to making the world a better place, but who realizes that lots of dancing, singing, and hand holding won't fix things on its own. Someone confident in their own voice, willing to be a fierce advocate for a more peaceful, just world, and with brilliant ideas on how to get there. You don't have to be some revered sage of the field, just have the knowledge and background to add to the peace conversation.

Here's what you would do: We ask that each contributor write one 500-700 word post per month, and agree to a self-determined schedule (we use a shared Google calendar for this purpose). In addition, we need someone to do a The Week in Peace digest of news in the peace/conflict resolution/human rights world that may not have gotten a lot of attention, but is worth noting. If you want to help out just periodically, then the Peaceniks Forum is a great place to launch a conversation.

Here's how you apply: Hit the email button at the top of the page and drop us a note that includes a brief bio, a writing sample (or link thereto), and a rundown of what topics you might like to cover. If you want to know more about the blog, then visit the About page (which will of course be refreshed once we've got a new group assembled). We're excited about getting some new voices involved!

We really hope to hear from you (especially regularly on this here website), and please do pass this onto your friends. :) Thanks all!

Progress for Peace?

2009-02-01T18:06:00.005-05:00

Looking back at the first month of 2009, I’m feeling pretty good about the progress that has been made on several fronts towards peace. Sure, all of a sudden it’s en vogue to be hopeful thanks to Obama, but I’ve long considered myself an optimist. However as a practical peacenik, its also my job to look at the situation on the ground and the real prospects for peace, not just to hope it will be so.

2009 started off pretty rough with the escalation of conflict in the West Bank. And things are still very tenuous in the region. But despite the lack of a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, I believe the engagement of the Obama administration from day one through their envoy George Mitchell is incredibly important. I don’t think that the US can fix the situation, nor that its our place to do so. The situation is far too complex for the US to believe it can swoop in and broker peace in the Mideast. But even Obama’s rhetoric is an important sign that the US is committed to being engaged in the peace process in pragmatic way. According to yesterday’s editorial in the Washington Post, “Obama has already recognized that closing an Israeli-Palestinian deal on a two-state settlement is not a realistic aim for now; instead, he has spoken of providing "a space where trust can be built." Even the ability to understand and speak about the nuances of the situation is an important sea change.

In the Great Lakes region of Africa, Rwanda finally arrested General Laurent Nkunda, Tutsi soldier who has been central to the atrocities in Eastern DRC. This weekend at a pre-African Union Summit conference, national leaders from the Great Lakes region hailed the arrest of General Nkunda. And described his arrest as a positive contribution to regional peace. Leaders also indicated that Lord's Resistance Army chief Joseph Kony is the next target. The improvement of relations between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo is critical to bringing peace to Eastern DRC and addressing the devastating impact of the conflict on people in that region.

Provincial elections were held in Iraq on Saturday and, according to the New York Times, “something has changed and that whatever happens next, Iraq will not return to the way it was.” The hope is that these elections will provide “a more peaceful approach to settling disagreements among factions about the shape of the country.” While I am skeptical about elections in a country still at war, the fact that these elections seem to have caused insurgents on both sides to quell the violence and participate in the elections is a very good sign. At a time when President Obama is looking to draw down US troops, a move that I agree with, peaceful and legitimate elections were critical.

What else has happened this month that has promoted or postponed peace?... We’d love your input

You be the Judge

2009-01-20T01:37:00.004-05:00

This is the 1st of a series on judgment, perception, and media.

Whether we like to admit it or not, we all judge even without the presence of all the facts surrounding the person, event, or situation. An (immediate) judgment causes an individual to react in two ways: accusation or exculpation (seeking goodness). We judge based on our perception of others such as in situations when we go to work, waiting in the grocery line, or deciding on who is the better candidate. We judged Republican vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. Today, we judge President-elect Barack Obama.

Lately I have been watching my own judgments and wondering how my biases influence my attitude. Where did this inclination develop from – childhood, college, media? How does that affect the supposedly educated decisions I make on a daily basis? Does my judgment limit my decisions?

It is an exciting moment to witness the inauguration of the first black President, Barack Obama. I can see how he has truly inspired many individuals to want to “change” their actions and attitudes to become a better American, particularly today as we celebrate the life of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. This year, Rev. King’s message is so much more alive. However, I am noticing that there are still many people who are missing Rev. King’s message as it ties in significantly in today’s U.S. Presidential Inauguration. Simply put, Rev. King’s message emphasized a non-violent approach for global equality.

The Iraq War has shattered our world power image. The U.S. has to decide whether we should remain a world power (by overshadowing our global partnerships) or become a world player (by engaging the global community). President-elect Obama understands the importance of the latter through various avenues such as consensus building with both friends and foes. However on a local level, I am witnessing how certain acquaintances, colleagues, and media opinions are judging this initiative. Comments with overarching themes from having little faith with a black man’s contribution to society to his eagerness to create a socialist America astound me. Why do they have this perception? What is their judgment based on? Did they not see the need for global partnerships or the active engagement of President-elect Obama’s initiatives so far? However, after reflecting on these judgments, I wonder if fear plays a huge hand in response to change.

Fear of the unknown practically paralyzes ones ability to actively listen to various viewpoints. Fear limits are ability to listen and to take the time to ponder. Do these limitations reflect the lack personal inexperience/interaction (with a minority community) [or the lack of understanding of economic theories of social organization (‘socialism is not communism’)]? Do they not take the time to think about their judgments? Is life so “fast-track”, that we do not take the time to ponder? So I wonder, how will we judge Obama as a black man, Obama as our President, or will we simply take the time to look at his decisions? Will we consider the circumstances or be quick to react? You be the judge.

Required Reading Alert

2009-01-17T13:12:00.003-05:00

As those of us in the United States prepare for a long weekend that marks a national day of service, the commemoration of a fallen civil rights leader, and the inauguration of a new president, I encourage you to take five minutes to read this piece, no matter what country you hail from. The author was killed, very much in the way he described, just a few days before it was published.

Hat tip: wronging rights.

Choose Your Own Peacebuilding Adventure

2009-01-10T14:35:00.003-05:00

Over on the Peace and Collaborative Development Network, Craig Zelizer posted 10 Actions for Peace in 2009. In general, I think his list is a bit... academic. Nonetheless, his item number 10 was, basically, create your own, so here goes.

Assuming we're talking about positive peace, with its implicit reduction/absence of structural violence, and bearing in mind that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," we can start to think of promoting peace in much more activist terms. Regardless of where we are in the world, most of us can probably walk down the street or drive down the road and see signs of injustice right around us. Those could include the shoddy state of schools in poor areas, veterans panhandling on the street, prisons full of men of color, referenda held on the rights of particular groups, watching the news and seeing civilians being killed by advanced armies, or companies where white men take the offices while women and people of color fill the cubicles and the production lines. So what, then, can we do?

Though this blog and my own interests remained focused largely on international issues of peace and justice, we should be mindful not to ignore the injustices we encounter in our own backyards. As Martin Luther King pointed out throughout his career, we cannot have peace locally, nationally, or globally, when unjust structures and systems are holding somebody -- anybody -- down. If we sit and think about it for a moment, that makes the absence of peace in this world seem massive, and it is, but rather than be daunted by that, we must instead rise to the challenge it presents.

In my day job, we discuss and promote the international exchange of students and scholars, and I believe strongly that promoting the international exchange of ideas is important to promoting international peace and understanding. Yet at the same time, discussing national policies and their international impacts seems a bit stratospheric. It's sometimes hard to feel connected to the effects of your work when you're merely a ripple in an ocean. Thus over the summer I started to get involved in activist work to ensure that the DC government complies with and enforces its own human rights law, which is one of the most progressive in the nation. My particular efforts, with many friends and seasoned activists young and old, have been around ensuring that the law is respected as it applies to transgender inmates in the DC jail. This issue is leaps and bounds away from my day job, but it's important. It's an "injustice anywhere" kind of issue, and it matters to world peace, even if you can't immediately see the connection (and I assure you, it's hard to make the mental jump).

Over the holiday, I read Lisa Schirch's Little Book of Strategic Peacebuilding (an even shorter introduction to her concepts can be found here), which was a helpful reminder of how big building peace really is. In the book, she describes the concept of justpeace, which assumes that peace cannot exist without justice, and that if justice is pursued through violent means, it undermines peace. She goes on to describe how maximize resources and foster collaboration to ensure a successful peacebuilding process.

I've often thought of building peace as being similar to building a house. You draw a plan, prepare the land, lay the foundation and work up from there. It's not a small undertaking, and it can't be done singlehandedly, but each of us can find a way to help a friend build a house, just as we can each find a way to build peace in the world. The size of the task is sometimes incomprehensible, but collectively, we have the means to finish the job.

It Begins Now

2008-11-04T23:40:00.002-05:00

Tonight I went to watch election results with some friends, but started to walk back home as we were nearing time for California and the rest of the West Coast to be called. I knew when all was said and done when seemingly in unison, whole apartment buildings started screaming. Fireworks started going off. There was literally singing on the streets. Cab drivers were going up the street honking their horns, pedestrians were cheering each other on. It was a beautiful sight.

Eight years of misrule were repudiated tonight right here in the streets of DC. As I walked the mile or so from Woodley Park to Adams Morgan where I live, the wave of joy continued to overtake me and all those around me. As I neared the busy intersection of 18th and Columbia, I could literally hear a roar of excitement. People were walking down the streets singing the "Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I'm Yours!"

This night is historic on so many fronts that I don't even know where to begin, and don't think I will. President-elect Obama (!!!!) hasn't gone on stage yet, but we've already heard an exceptionally gracious concession speech from Senator McCain, and I truly wish we had heard more of that John McCain during the campaign than we did.

Yet the hard work now lies ahead of us, in spite of the hard work of the past two years. Electing Barack Obama as President of the United States is the first step towards correcting this country's course, not the last. We'll need to fight to hold this president accountable, just like all the others.

But for now, we celebrate. This is our time, and this is our future. If nothing else, we've already seen tremendous progress based solely on the fact that some 100 million Americans are believed to have voted in this election. That's a damn site better than we've had before, and that's a tremendously good sign. Now let's keep up the momentum, and push ourselves to greatness.

I've been repeating this all week, and perhaps it's trite, but hard work like this is how we grant ourselves peace.

Kids Vote

2008-11-04T12:23:00.004-05:00

I voted first thing this morning. All told it took about an hour and felt sooo good. Ah democracy. Don't fail us now.

Then I went back to middle school. No, really. I'm spending the day with some 8th graders at a Middle School in Minneapolis talking about global citizenship. I'm making the connection between the right and responsibility to vote and the responsibility to understand issues beyond our borders and take action to resolve global issues or respond to injustices.

At the beginning of class, the students get to vote and the comments I've been hearing have varied. Some highlights include, "do I have to?" (teacher's answer: no - its your right as a citizen to abstain from voting), "what are these other categories?" (of course, people know about the presidential race, and maybe the senate races, but not much beyond that), "it's stupid just to vote based on race" (there was an interesting discussion/argument about this in the largely African American class) and "all these people are running for president?" (this girl was appalled that she hadn't heard of them...which I can understand. The teacher said it was their fault that they hadn't gotten their name out there more...which is a pretty oversimplified explanation, but it wasn't really the time to go into party politics). Anyway, it's been an interesting morning. (Oh and in case you're wondering...it's lunchtime:)

And just to make the connection between peace and this election, I just want to point out how lucky we are that we don't have to fear a military coup, rebellion or violent uprisings at the end of the day. Sure some people may not be happy with the result. But even 8 years ago when we didn't have a clear winner there was no mass violence. We don't hear about everything, and I'm sure there have been some instances of intimidation, but when you compare our election to so many others, I think we should all feel pretty lucky that our election is so peaceful. Even if it is long as hell.

Secret Ballot

2008-11-04T09:58:00.003-05:00

Often when someone asks me who I voted for I say, "None of your business." I truly believe in the secret ballot yet with this election I find myself asking people who they are voting for and am regretting it later. I regret it because I find myself judging them.

Once the nominees were narrowed down to Obama and McCain my parents were hassled by both me and my brother to vote for one or the other. I was putting the Obama pressure on while my brother was canvassing for McCain. My mother felt most of the pressure since she was more undecided than my father and yesterday when I asked who she voted for she refused to answer, yet I continued to prod with psychological games. I blatantly disrespected her right to choose. Even now I am assuming she voted for McCain because she won't tell me.

To think she voted for McCain angers me for no good rational reason. My mother isn't the only person in my life who I have reason to believe voted for McCain and it all because I've asked that damn question, "Who did you vote for?" So, to save myself some anger and to practice a little patience I am vowing not to ask anyone else this question!

In the the end this will probably make me a more peaceful person. :)

This Election Shall be Live Blogged

2008-11-04T08:00:00.001-05:00

It's 8am Tuesday and I just got back from voting! I arrived at my polling place at 6:50am, and the line was already wrapped around the block. By 7, when the doors opened, there were probably a hundred or so more people behind me. Of course, all this calls for photos!

Where I started in line.

Where the line ended when the polls opened 10 minutes later (you can't see it!).

Made it around the first corner.

Made it around the second corner. Still a long way to go.

A good sign along the way (that's my neighborhood, y'all).

So close you can smell the democracy.

At the door!

All in all, for a line that absurdly long, the wait wasn't bad at all, and I even had time to come back home for a snack. Once again, if you haven't voted yet, today is your last chance. Go vote, and grant us peace.

Dona Nobis Pacem: Go Vote

2008-11-03T23:14:00.004-05:00

Folks, the time is now. Tomorrow morning the polls will open for a truly momentous election. If you're an American citizen, you've registered to vote, and you haven't voted yet (in places where early voting is allowed), we implore you to get out tomorrow. Lines are expected to be long, and the weather may not be entirely cooperative, so dress warmly and dryly and bring a little reading material, or, better yet, chat up your fellow voters. Regardless of how you intend to vote in a given race or on a particular issue, the democratic process brings disparate people together every couple of years and asks for their opinion on the critical issues of the day. Take advantage of this unique form of fellowship to get to know a few new people. Challenge each other's assumptions and celebrate your commonalities.

I, for one, believe strongly that participatory forms of government are essential foundations for peace. This country isn't quite peaceful yet, and hasn't been for centuries, but we're further along than a lot of places. In the past year, we've seen tense elections in places like Bolivia, Paraguay, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Russia and even Canada. In some of those places, people died for their votes. In others, their votes were canceled out by corrupt authorities. In still others, people felt a real sense of liberation after all was said and done.

Tomorrow and later in the week we'll start to analyze how this election impacts issues of peace and social justice around this world. If I can swing it, we'll even get to hear from someone on the ground at the winning candidate's victory celebration.

But for now, your charge is simple: Go to your polling place, stand in line, and cast your ballot. And vote on everything, not just the next president. In my own neighborhood, the race for our representative on the school board could mean a lot for how justice expands through the local population. All these issues matter; that's why they're on the ballot. Go out and vote your conscience, and thereby grant us peace.

--
EDIT: Persons in some corners are expressing concerns about voter suppression. If you experience trouble at the polls (e.g. your registration or ballot are challenged) and you think you need help, call 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683) and they'll provide assistance, including on-site legal aid, if necessary.

Peaceniks Forum: The Election that Changes Everything that Ever Was

2008-11-02T18:04:00.004-05:00

Perhaps that's a bit of an overstatement, but that seems to be the way most Americans are acting right now. So let's have a bit of discussion. What matters to you this time around? Why is this election so important? If you're one of our growing contingent of international visitors, what outcomes do you want to see from the U.S. election? Will anything good come of it for you?

Here at Practical Peaceniks, we've already weighed in on how we think McCain or Obama will promote peace in the world (or not). We've also touched on how some of the rhetoric surrounding the campaign has caused people like us who are dedicated to peace and social justice to cringe/want to spit venom. As virtually anyone has noticed by now, the campaign has only gotten more heated, especially as one side pulls ahead while the other seems to be spiraling downward. Is this a positive trend? Further, is a campaign process that has taken nearly two years and cost two billion dollars really good for this country, or any country?

For my own sake, I want to see a government for the people that brings an end to the degradation of civil liberties and demonstrates a renewed emphasis on expanding civil rights to all individuals in the United States (I use that construction intentionally). I want a government of the people that takes to heart the advice of Nobel Laureate, former Secretary of State, and fellow Tennesseean Cordell Hull, who said in 1945, "There is no greater responsibility resting upon peoples and governments everywhere than to make sure that enduring peace will this time -- at long last -- be established and maintained." Finally, I want to see a government by the people, that does not engage in unjust wars (with victims at home and abroad) and refuses to compromise our core values by torturing and illegally detaining individuals suspected of acting against us.

This election is important to me because I feel strongly that the country has been on a downward spiral. It's not just a matter of U.S. standing or influence in the world -- I don't really care about that. It's that within our own borders, we are a society that has lost the ability to value anything other than ourselves and our material wants. Too many Americans lack healthcare. Our schools need support, investment, and love. Our economy needs to be reconstructed so that injustices meted out by the privileged few don't get perpetuated when those same privileged few get bailed out while their victims get nothing. And looking abroad, this is a nation of remarkable power, and we should truly scrutinize whether we are using that power -- hard, soft, or whatever you want to call it -- in a responsible, compassionate way that still somehow manages to further our interests and keep us safe.

As for the electoral process, I tend to agree that it was wrong for Obama to break his promise to accept public financing in the general election. However, in so doing, he may well have uncovered a new approach to public financing. Having over 3 million donors and an average donation of just $85 may indicate that public interest in financing campaigns is growing, and we just need to rethink how the current public finance process works. The time this whole soiree has taken, though, is ludicrous. I've frankly stopped paying attention to the news for much of the past month simply because I was tired of it all. When the campaign process drags on for so long, we lose sight of issues and instead start deconstructing every syllable that comes out of someone's mouth. The 24-hour news cycle only exacerbates this problem. And only having two major candidates hurts too, I think. Maybe the Barr, McKinney and Nader campaigns have something to offer the country. If they do, we certainly haven't had a chance to hear about it. If they don't, we haven't even heard that either.

Consider this the opening salvo (definitely not a peaceful term) of your Practical Peaceniks election coverage this week. As always, we welcome your thoughts, and encourage you to join the conversation.

Peace Deals and Bombings in Somalia

2008-10-31T11:27:00.006-04:00

In case it doesn't make headlines in the current media market, which is still saturated with talk of Obama, McCain and the Economy, I thought all our readers might be interested to know what's been going on in Somalia this week. On Sunday, warring parties in Somalia signed a Peace Deal. According to the UN, "The Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and the opposition Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia (ARS) signed two accords today in neighbouring Djibouti after three days of talks backed by the UN and the wider international community."

Just four days later, a series of suicide attacks hit two towns in Somalia and killed at least 22 people. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attacks, but many blamed a militant Islamist group called the Shabab. This setback in Somali peace highlights a serious problem when peace talks are conducted at the exclusion of spoilers. Not that I'm suggesting all terrorist groups in Somalia (or elsewhere for that matter) should be legitimized by being included in peace talks. But the result is all too often the same -- excluded groups overshadow the progress made at talks by perpetuating more violence. Indeed, in its report on the peace talks on October 27th, the New York Times highlighted the progress the talks had made with several militant groups, but also noted, "the most fearsome wing of Somalia’s Islamist insurgency, the Shabab, has shunned the peace talks and vowed to fight on." And fight on they have. Now nearly all the news stories on Somalia have returned to focus on the violence with very little mention of the progress that was made just days before.

Somalia has been entrenched in an intractable conflict for seventeen years. For a discussion of the situation and prospects for peace in Somalia, read a Q&A by Reuters.

The Trickle-Down of the Financial Crisis

2008-10-21T14:23:00.011-04:00

Over the last several weeks, we have been hearing news about the financial crisis. First it was just in the United States and now it has circulated the globe with other markets going down. It is a scary time for the rich since a big part of their assets are in those investments that have now dried up, but it is also raising concern for global aid and how organizations' programs for the poor will be affected. With everyone penny-pinching, will aid to these organizations dry up, too? David Roodman of the Center for Global Development states "The contagions of freeze-up and slowdown will spread through many channels: trade, investment, migration, and more." After each previous financial crisis in a donor country since 1970, the country's aid has declined.

Sheila Sisulu, from the UN World Food Program, stated that "the voice for the hungry and poor has to be heard simultaneously alongside the crisis of the developed world, concerned about their stock portfolios." Kofi Annan predicted that because of the financial crisis, politicians will ignore poverty and that the aid pledges were and illusion. World Bank president, Robert Zoellick said that the financial crisis risks the efforts in place to help poor nations, and that high food and energy prices will push even more into poverty. Antonio Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, emphasized that "A hungry man is an angry man." As the number of impoverished grows, Guterres predicts more conflict.

Nowhere else can the affect on peace be seen more clear than by looking at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In a blog from March 24, 2008 on www.bitterlemons.org, several Palestinians and Israelis wrote on this and made compelling arguments. One Israeli stated that the economic crisis will not change a thing since the conflict is political and not economic; and therefore, a better or worse economy does little for prospects for peace. A Palestinian, on the other hand, described a very different scenario, especially since Palestine is dependent on foreign aid; which comes in the form of the US dollar. Nonprofits earn their income in dollars, including universities, hospitals and countless aid organizations, and so nonprofit sector will be hit extremely hard by the financial crisis. Another Israeli thought the peace process would be weakened because attention will be diverted away from the Middle East peace process to the financial crisis alone.

Organizations that have been working in many countries all over the world depend on the charitable giving of international citizens, as well as by governments and large corporations. If this dries up, we could see a mass exit of aid organizations in places where important work is being done that is necessary for sustainable peace and development. The Middle East peace process is but one example of a situation that could go from bad to worse if aid agencies are no longer able to fund their efforts.

Nobel Peace Prize Announced

2008-10-13T13:10:00.007-04:00

This past week, the Nobel committee has been busy doling out its annual prizes in chemistry, literature, physics, medicine, economics and, of course, peace. I can’t help but feel like this prize perhaps more than any other, lends legitimacy to peace as a serious and respected discipline. Unlike the other prizes, however, the peace prize is generally awarded to individuals or organizations for their ongoing work or overall contributions to peace rather than a single past achievement.

In recent years, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to former President Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Mohammed Yunus, and former Vice President Al Gore, among others.

This year’s prize went to former President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari, for his work as a widely respected international mediator in places such as Namibia, Kosovo, Indonesia and Northern Ireland, among others. Some of his most important accomplishments include helping to bring independence to Namibia and a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Aceh province of Indonesia. See the New York Times article on his nomination for more.

According to Time, by awarding this year’s prize to President Ahtisaari, “the Norwegian prize committee is returning to its original mandate of honoring those who help in the resolution of conventional armed conflicts.”

While I agree that it is important to recognize the largely “behind the scenes” peacemaking through mediation, I also believe that awarding the prize to figures like Al Gore and Mohammed Yunus was an important step in broadening our understanding of peacemaking. By awarding the prize to environmental and economic peacemakers, the committee recognized the less traditional components of peace. Building peace is not just about addressing ongoing conflicts and bringing them to an end, it is also about recognizing the root causes of conflict and attempting to draw attention to them and prevent them before they cause more widespread conflict.

By drawing attention to global climate change, Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were contributing to peace through enhanced understanding of a significant threat to environmental stability. Through this prize, the committee recognized that significant environmental change has enormous potential to cause widespread conflict though massive population movements, depletion of resources, and competition for remaining scarce resources.

Similarly, by awarding the prize to Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank, the Nobel committee recognized that providing microcredit loans to the world’s poor is an enormously important way to address global poverty and reduce the economic causes of conflict.

So, while I applaud the Nobel committee for this years choice because it draws attention to the highly important role of conflict mediation, I disagree that the committee should stick to these “traditional” forms of peacemaking in future prizes. As a practical peacenik, I think it is invaluable to draw attention to less traditional forms of peacemaking and, perhaps even more importantly, to advancements that have the potential to prevent future conflict rather than focusing just on conflict resolution.

Pressure Cooker Palin

2008-10-07T12:57:00.006-04:00

I am extremely concerned about the recent rallies Gov. Palin has been holding. The blatant bile and hate coming from the crowd and being fomented by Palin herself is absolutely despicable. Running negative campaigns is one thing but to tap into emotionally charged rhetoric knowing that it will raise the crowd's blood pressure is another.

She twists truth to incite hate. Telling crowds Obama pals around with terrorists is ridiculous. When Ayers was a terrorist Obama was 8 years old. Ayers is currently a professor a the University of Illinois.

I personally don't want a person anywhere near the White House that has the ability to stir such hateful feelings. Extremist speakers are pressure cookers that heat up negative emotions and unless controlled will explode and do more harm to society than good. Think of all the extremist speakers you can and tell me how many of them have actually made their societies better?

Global Affairs Monitor

2008-09-18T16:36:00.004-04:00

Hi readers...I'm assuming that most people who visit this blog are interested in global affairs in one way or another. So wanted to introduce you to resource offered by World Savvy that might be of interest to you. This Spring we launched the Global Affairs Monitor, an online current affairs service which examines one global issue/region in depth per month. Each edition provides a synopsis of the issue or region, incorporating perspectives from more than 100 sources -- periodicals, websites, video, news, radio, and books. We also provide a Classroom Companion and Global Affairs Salon Guide to facilitate discussion in schools and living rooms throughout the community. All documents are archived, and updates are provided for each edition so that subscribers can follow future developments.

The Global Affairs Monitor is designed for teachers, but is a valuable service for the curious global citizen and educator in all of us, and should inspire conversation with peers, colleagues, families and friends. This is a tool to digest world news in a 24-news cycle, when staying informed and accessing multiple viewpoints can be challenging.

As an individual or school subscriber, you'll have access to nine editions online (August -November, January-June), the Global Affairs Salon Guide and Classroom Companion, and archived editions from previous months. Subscription rates are as follows:

Individuals/annual: $75 per year

Schools: $750/year (for up to 100 licenses)

You can preview the first two editions for free at http://monitor.worldsavvy.org/, examining Sudan and the Crisis in Darfur (May) and China: the Promise and Challenge of an Emerging Superpower (June), and subscribe for your annual membership today.

I hope you don't mind the plug, but I thought readers of this blog would find it quite relevant and interesting. Enjoy!

Live from PJSA - Day 3

2008-09-14T02:52:00.003-04:00

Today was the final -- and perhaps most productive -- day of the conference. The morning plenary wasn't terribly interesting, but I then went into a sizeable (for this event) workshop on building peace studies curricula in community colleges. It was incredibly fascinating learning about different approaches, the terrific array of opportunities that are in some ways unique to the community college population, and the trials and tribulations of getting courses and programs approved. Of course, I also enjoyed being able to shed some light on the internationalization of this kind of work. I followed up the workshop with a meeting by the higher education outreach person at a major peace organization, and we had a great time brainstorming ideas.

At lunch time, we were quite lucky that the Portland farmers market was being held right outside the conference building, so I had a tasty, fresh, mostly organic lunch, and then stocked up on food for the plane ride tomorrow. There not being much on the conference program of interest for a few hours, I took a long walk through town, which helped me get a slightly better feel for the place.

I wrapped up the day at a small session on creating social change agents through study abroad programs, which is exactly the kind of information I came here to get. There were just a few of us, but the programming the presenters described sounded exceptional, and is probably a good model for making international student exchange about something more than just going someplace where you can enjoy tasty new food and fine art.

All in all, the conference has been what I had hoped it would be. There are clearly some organizational issues that need to be worked out, but since this is still a slightly new event hosted by a pretty small association, that is to be expected. On the whole, it was quite worthwhile.

We now return to our regularly scheduled peaceniks programming, already in progress.

Live from PJSA - Day 2

2008-09-13T01:56:00.002-04:00

The morning began with an incredible plenary session on "colorizing and localizing" the peace movement. The two speakers made a point of stressing an issue I've grappled with for some time, namely the peace movement's complete failure to deal with issues of race. The [predominately white] movement even refuses to admit to its own racism. Of course, this makes building a truly broad and inclusive peace movement impossible. One of the two also pointed out that the peace movement needs a strategy for moving forward. He noted that while the vast majority of the American public is now opposed to the continuation of the Iraq war, the movement has offered no viable way to end it, other than saying "end it." If so many agree on that, why can't the peace (and perhaps separately, the conflict resolution) community offer some suggestions for next steps?

After that fun, there was a fascinating session on using English as a second language classes as a means to teach peace studies, which fits in very neatly with the day job (and is why I'm here). Another plenary followed, which was rather run of the mill until the inimitable Betty Reardon started going over her latest theorizing around issues of patriarchy and the war system. One of many money quotes: "I saw a magazine cover last week that said 'Sarah Palin: the new face of feminism.' If that's the case, I'm post-feminist." This was followed up with a smaller breakout with Reardon and a colleague of hers on patriarchy and peace pedagogy, which was great, but sadly didn't have enough time. A final afternoon session proved... well....

On the whole, I've made some good contacts and have been able to talk to a few people about my work project. The event is pretty small -- maybe 300 or so participants -- but there are some good connections to be made. I even ran into the director of the peace and conflict studies program at my alma mater, where I was too indecisive to major in peace and conflict studies.

Finally, a few critiques:

The program needs to list session abstracts.
The 50-minute sessions are too short.
They're trying to cram a bit too much into a day.
They need some dedicated networking space, and perhaps some meet and mingle events.

Tomorrow is another full day, with a few meetings to have, and a few more sidebar conversations to seek out.

Live from PJSA - Day 1

2008-09-12T01:25:00.003-04:00

There isn't a whole lot to report today. I got here a bit too late to catch much, though I did see a bit of the "take back 9/11" rally that was being held. After dinner with a colleague (much needed as my east coast body had yet to have a proper meal), I'd missed the opening plenary event, and don't much feel like peace music tonight, so it's bed time.

A checklist, just so we feel at home:

Old hippies dancing with funny hip motions: check.
Drums: check.
Curious fashion: check.
Leaflets for all manner of causes: check.

Basically, your standard order peace event so far. But it seems fun. Tomorrow is a full day, and I'm trying to get a few meetings set up. Hopefully there will be some decent networking space, but I'm not quite sure.

Bedtime for now.

Peaceniks on the Road

2008-09-09T08:12:00.000-04:00

Howdy friends! Stay tuned later this week for an exciting adventure in conference liveblogging. I'll be at the annual meeting of the Peace and Justice Studies Association (PJSA) this Thursday, Friday and Saturday, and will be providing daily updates here on Practical Peaceniks. I'm going for work, so most of the things I'll be attending will be skewed toward building peace studies (etc.) in post-seconary education, but I'll try to point out other, less targeted highlights along the way. Do let me know if there is anyone I should say hi to.

McCain/Palin Prospects for Peace...a report from the frontlines of the RNC

2008-09-01T21:23:00.008-04:00

Today, this practical peacenik joined the protesting peaceniks (some also practical, but many also somewhat crazy) at the RNC in St. Paul. I felt it was my duty as the Minnesota-based peacenik to report from the scene. And, let’s be honest, while we’re trying to open the discussion about prospects for peace under an Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin administration, I’m not pretending to be fair and balanced. I’m a homegrown, Wellstone democrat. I was raised to support progressive politics and I’m proud to say that my Dad accompanied me to the protest (his last protest was sometime around ’72). So you can probably guess which side I am supporting. Still, I have been doing some research about McCain’s foreign policy and I think I can also offer some concrete points for discussion about the prospects for peace under his administration.

There is no question that McCain is a hawk. But when I started writing this entry, I was not convinced that if McCain had won the 2000 election instead of Bush that we would be at war in Iraq. I thought that his experience in war would make him more cautious with the use of force than Bush. I also thought that his experience as a prisoner of war might make him more respectful of human rights and international law. But after doing some more research, I think I was wrong. McCain has been a strong proponent of the war in Iraq even before it began . He has also surrounded himself with neconservatives who lobbied hard for the war as his closest foreign policy advisors. With these advisors at his side, we are unlikely to see anything but continued disregard for international law, declining human security, and more warmongering.

McCain’s senior foreign policy and national security advisor, Randy Scheunemann was head of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI), a post-9/11 advocacy outfit that pushed for war in Iraq. McCain also served on the committee. On national security issues, McCain also receives advice from realists like, Henry Kissinger and Richard Armitage; however, according to a recent article in Newsweek, leading neoconservatives like Scheunemann, William Kristol and Robert Kagan are gaining increasing influence in the campaign. This is a frightening trend. Apparently, McCain supports the argument in Kagan’s recent book that a “fundamental global divide is emerging between liberal democracies and autocratic governments—namely Russia and China.” Coming at foreign policy with this type of absolutist, good vs. evil view of the world makes the promotion of peace in the sense of human security and cooperation impossible.

Still, McCain believes he is working towards “an enduring peace built on freedom.” As far as I can tell, what this means is that we will have peace on our terms because America is the greatest country in the world and if anyone has a problem with that, we will bomb them into submission. Ok, that may not be entirely fair. In fact, his statements on foreign policy, while hawkish, do demonstrate an understanding of international affairs that far outweighs that of his predecessor. However they also demonstrate his continued cold-war mentality. In a recent article on the Huffington Post, Phil Trounstine compares McCain’s unwillingness to “surrender” in Iraq to Nixon’s “Peace with Honor” in Vietnam. Meaning no peace without honor. And no honor without victory. As a former soldier and POW, he does not believe in abandoning a war effort once it has begun. There is no question in his mind that we must win at any cost – even if thousands more US troops and innocent Iraqis die in the process. He has even blamed the anti-war movement for weakening the war effort and endangering our soldiers. There are a lot of things that are dangerous about McCain’s obsession with winning in Iraq. Apart from the obvious humanitarian concerns, I fear he and the other supporters of this war do not understand that defeating terrorism and winning in Iraq are two very different things. Where does it end?

Lining our protest line of over 10,000 people today were a handful of pro-war republicans with signs that said “Victory over terrorism, Let our soldiers win.” What these people do not understand is that winning in Iraq may be important for our American pride, but it is not going to defeat “terrorism.” Instead, continuing the war is actually fueling the Islamic extremists and creating more terrorists. This effort cannot be confined to the borders of one country.

So what are prospects for policies that will promote peace under McCain? (I should note, I haven't mentioned Palin because as far as I can tell, her only foreign policy credentials are that Alaska is close to Russia You've got to be F-ing kidding me). If you listen to the anti-war protesters, they’re pretty certain that McCain won’t be any better than Bush on foreign policy. Pre-emptive wars, unilateral strikes and a complete disregard for human rights and international law are not on my list of ways to promote peace. What are your thoughts?

Peaceniks Forum: How will an Obama/Biden Administration Promote Peace in the World?

2008-08-25T22:44:00.004-04:00

Note: This is the first of a two-part series centered around the major political party conventions taking place in the United States. This week the Democrats are up. Next week we'll pose the same question for the McCain ticket. We also are aware that we generally lean to the left here, but hope to give fair treatment to both campaigns.

With the Democratic Convention well underway, and Saturday's selection of Joe Biden as Barack Obama's running mate, we here at Practical Peaceniks thought it would be worthwhile to take a look at how an Obama/Biden administration will promote peace in the world. However, rather that just give you our opinion, we thought we would open the floor to our (growing number of) readers. Please feel free to have your say in the comments, and a few of our contributors might pitch in with more in-depth thoughts as the week progresses.

A few general comments to start us off:

Obama's foreign policy could probably best be summed up as pragmatic global engagement. As others have noted, the selection of Joe Biden for vice president reinforces that theme. This is a foreign policy that doesn't seem to fit neatly within traditional international relations constructs. Rather, the presidential responsibility to keep America safe is seen as one and the same with actively partnering with the rest of the world politically, economically, and socially. Ideological maxims are largely cast off in favor of doing what works, and Obama's foreign policy team reflects those aims. Also of note is that Obama doesn't buy into the old mantra that in order for Democrats to convince people they aren't weak in national security, they have to espouse an especially tough foreign policy. This is a refreshing turn of events worth noting.

Now, what are your thoughts?

Peaceniks in Print

2008-08-25T10:45:00.003-04:00

In today's Christian Science Monitor you'll find a letter to the editor from our very own Diana about the Russo-Georgia War.

Check it out!

Problems with Power-Sharing in Zimbabwe

2008-08-23T12:18:00.003-04:00

This past weekend, inter-party talks were supposed to resume between Zimbabwe’s main political parties, the ZANU PF and the MDC. The talks were set to be held on the sidelines of the SADC summit in South Africa, where leaders from the region were to discuss the political impasse in Zimbabwe. As you may remember, President Robert Mugabe (ZANU PF) extended his 28-year rule of Zimbabwe in a June 27 presidential runoff vote in which he was the sole candidate. Tsvangirai of MDC, who won the first ballot in March, withdrew after alleging his supporters were being targeted in a state-sponsored campaign of violence. The leaders have now held three days of face-to-face talks in Harare aimed at resolving the dispute over the elections. They have signed 13 agreements before Morgan Tsvangirai pulled out earlier this week. Several issues remain, most importantly how power will (or will not) be shared among the leaders.

As I’ve been reading through the articles, opinions, and issue briefs about the situation in Zimbabwe, I cannot help but question why Mugabe continues to refuse to cede power despite significant international, regional and national pressure. Of course, this question arises out of my westernized view of politics, power and democracy. But we see this all too often in Africa (and I suppose to be fair, in many other parts of the world) – leaders refusing to give up power, rigging elections, etc. And for what? In the U.S., leaving the Presidency often awards even more opportunities for money and fame than being President can. Of course, you don’t have the same level of power or luxury of living in the White House and being the most powerful person in the world. But you have even more freedom in some ways, and certainly can make more money on book deals, speaking engagements and the like. Apparently this isn’t the case in Africa but I can’t help but wonder if it would help . Maybe if there were more perks for former leaders they wouldn’t be so reluctant to give up power when it is obvious their time is up.

Instead, we try to arrange these elaborate power-sharing agreements which seem to be destined to fail. Can you imagine someone telling Gore and Bush that they had to share power in 2000? No one would have bought into that kind of an arrangement. I can understand the attraction of this kind of deal to international mediators who don’t see another option but violence in a country. But it surprises me that they are unable to find some sort of a package that would make Mugabe more willing to step down.

In college, I studied African Politics and one of the key issues that arose time and again is the idea of patrimonialism or ‘personal rule’. As Alex Thompson writes, “the vast majority of African leaders in the period since independence have achieved office either by being in the vanguard of their country’s nationalist movement or by leading military coups. As such, many regarded themselves as the ‘father’ of their nation and such self-perception encouraged these leaders to act as if they were above the law.” I imagine Mugabe undoubtedly sees himself as the father of Zimbabwe. He was a critical player in the movement to end minority white rule in Zimbabwe in the 70s and was seen as a hero when the war in Zimbabwe ended in ‘79. Mugabe became Prime Minister of Zimbabwe in 1980 as a result of the first election in which a majority of blacks in Zimbabwe participated. In 1987, he went on to become the first President of Zimbabwe and has held that position ever since. I won’t go into all of Mugabe’s policies, but it is hard to deny the significant impact he has had in shaping where Zimbabwe is today, for better or for worse.

So, after nearly 30 years, why does he refuse to step down? I don’t have the answer, but I think it is a critical step in the process of democratization to understand the incentives and disincentives for democratic transitions for leaders who have put their entire lives into building a country. Mugabe has committed a lot of questionable acts in his lifetime, but I do not think he is in danger of being arrested and tried for crimes if he steps down, as some leaders might fear. I can’t help but feel like there must be a better alternative for an 84 year old man than to grip a presidency with all his might until he dies in office, resented and remembered not for what he did for Zimbabwe when he was younger, but how he overstayed his welcome and caused his country’s international reputation and economy to plummet.

Speaking of the Olympics and Human Rights

2008-08-13T13:50:00.005-04:00

Andrea made the point earlier this week that perhaps by allowing the Olympics to take place in a less than "free and democratic" country, we may well help promote the respect for human rights and the rule of law by casting such a massive spotlight on the host country. In light of recent events, it's worth pointing out that Sochi, Russia has been selected as the host of the winter Olympics in 2014.

If you click the city's name above, you'll note that Sochi is quite close to the (never on Google, contrary to speculation) Georgian region of Abkhazia, one of two main battle zones in the past week's war. Also worth mentioning is the tradition of declaring an "Olympic truce" every two years during the summer and winter games.

Take a wild guess as to two of the most egregious violators of the Olympic truce during the 2008 games. That's right, Georgia and Russia. And yet, Russia is slated to host the games in 2014, within spitting distance from Georgia.

It's one thing to use the Olympics as a way to nudge less progressive regimes into the fold of international legal norms, but it's quite another to allow the games to go forward in a country that has flagrantly violated the very basic tenets of Olympism. (Granted, one could argue that Salt Lake City shouldn't have hosted the 2002 games and that London shouldn't host the 2012 games because of the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, during those events or when those countries were selected as hosts.)

So does this mean that Sochi is scrapped and we go back to the drawing board for 2014? It probably should, especially if the IOC wants to polish up the tarnish laid upon its image as a result of the Beijing games and all the mess that has come with them. Chances are though, convenience will trump ethics, and everything will go right along as planned.