Uri Savor acted as the chief negotiator during the Oslo Peace Accords. In a book entitled, Peace First, Uri speaks about international diplomacy and its goals of creating a culture of peace.

I am currently reading the book, Peace First, by Uri Savir. Savir was director of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 1993 to 1996 and served as Israel’s chief negotiator for the Oslo Accords. In 1996 he founded the Peres Center for Peace, and in 2001 he established the Glocal Forum, which encourages intercity diplomacy around the world.

From the book:

Drawing on his experiences negotiating the Oslo Peace Accords as well as on trenchant examples from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Northern Ireland, and the former Yugoslavia, Savir argues that an enduring peace is built from the bottom up, not from the top down. He describes a new model based on establishing and nurturing mutually beneficial forms of cooperation beginning on the local level, city to city and organizations to organization.

In the first chapter, Savir outlines the current problems with the peace process between states which rely on obsolete elements and structural weaknesses. The peacemakers that are engaged in the international diplomatic discussions are most commonly previous warmakers who simply attempt to qualm violent outbreaks with a peace treaty which has minimally evolved beyond a “real estate” treaty.

Savir uses examples from many conflicts around the world to highlight the idea that these treaties do not take into consideration deep seated and structural issues between conflicting states. That means that the peace treaty only lasts a finite amount of time before the issue rises again and the states are once again in direct conflict.

Modern treaties fail to promote a culture of peace because they fall into old-fashioned peacemaking strategies. Specifically, these modern treaties

1. further traditional aims and dwell on the past;
2. reflect a narrow security doctrine;
3. fail to promote a culture of peace;
4. fail to establish a mechanism against increased socioeconomic gaps;
5. fail to emphasize economic cooperation;
6. lack planning for regional development and international assistance;
7. fail to promote peace socially and politically and lack implied sanctions against domestic opposition; and
8. involve past warmakers acting as peacemakers.

Of course, not all peace treaties fall into these traps. Many treaties have successfully ended a conflict which evolved into a culture of peace where nations are able to focus their energy on trade, cultural enrichment and scientific exchange.

Savir continues in the book to outline how to strengthen these peace treaties so that they can properly and sustainably promote a culture of peace.

For more information:

Amazon’s book listing

Uri Savir’s ideas at Big Think

Uri Savir on YouTube

I got an idea for a website feature after reading the book, “The Human Right to Peace” by Douglas Roche.

In this book, Roche outlines several UN Resolutions, proclamations, etc. that aim to build a Culture of Peace and get states to recognize a Human Right to Peace. Some Resolutions fail, some resolutions almost make it and some are passed. There seems to be a trend to which ones fail, which ones come close and which ones pass.

The softer the language in the resolution is, the more likely states will adopt it. And by softer, I mean, without any concrete, practical proclamations that humans have a fundamental right to peace–which obviously precludes the possibility of war. If states were to adopt the harder language of the Culture of Peace and the Human Right to Peace, then it will be significantly harder for states to go to war. The UN body, including its member states, would refer back to the declarations more often when a state is looking for approval to go to war–which would make it harder for those states to go to war.

So, the idea behind this web feature is to collect the relevant documentation to the UN’s work on the Human Right to Peace and the Culture of Peace and make some personal comments on them. Also I want to infuse some elements of graphic design to make it more visually appealing. I am hoping that this body of work will be transferrable to a video.

When I am planning these projects, I am thinking of how I can include a conversational piece to it so that it utilizes web 2.0 technology. For now, I will include a blog feature so that people can comment on it.

Stay tuned….

Imagine a neighbourhood with many houses within it. This neighbourhood represents the world, where the homes are all the sovereign nations. All of a sudden there is the risk of rampant burglary in the neighbourhood and the individual home owners feel the pressure to do something about it. So, each home buys an arsenal of weapons in order to defend their home against the burglars. For a while, each home feels secure that it has an adequate defense against these burglars.

Like the real world with its absence of an international peacekeeping force, this neighbourhood doesn’t have any police or firefighters.

There is a state of fear within the neighbourhood and people are not going outside anymore and not speaking to their neighbours. All they know is that each home has an arsenal of weapons, may or may not be building up their arsenal, and may be the burglars themselves.

The original intent of building up each home’s arsenal was to establish security against burglars. The people of the neighbourhood thought that by having weapons within their home, they would be able to defend themselves against any threat. Now, the situation is quite the opposite of what they were hoping for. There is a state of insecurity because everyone knows that each house has weapons and may or may not be the burglars.

That is like the state of the world right now. Each sovereign nation has its stockpile of weapons that it says is for defense purposes only. While this may very well be true in its intent, countries are distrustful of other countries and believe that these weapons are going to be used for attack. Or, just the proliferation of weapons gives a higher probability of independent terrorist organizations organizing a major attack.

Well, what we have here is a really crappy situation…we see it everyday in the news. What are we going to do about it?

Ernie continues by outlining the importance of a Common Security System. This Common Security System points to three elements of a more rational and effective global security system–that is, Whole Earth Security, Mutual Security, and Collective Security.

Whole Earth Security, refers to a holistic approach to security that includes our physical environment, our social and economic order and our psychological well-being. The main threat to human security, “is the way in which humans live: uncontrolled population growth, unrestrained energy consumption, pollution, economic inequalities, uncontrolled military spending, weapons of mass destruction and environmental destruction and the list goes on.” The way in which we live denies us of our spirit and imagination to create a just and safe world. We constantly hear the proclamation that people have a right to defend themselves. What about each person’s right to peace? Why are we thinking about defending ourselves before thinking about what it takes to build peace. In order to maintain Whole Earth Security we need to take into account all the factors that threaten human survival and well-being.

Mutual Security, refers to the notion that our own security is enhanced by the security of others. In today’s world, the assumption is that one’s own security is enhanced by threatening others. For example, many countries maintain a nuclear arsenal as a deterrent to other countries. That assumption stands in opposition to the notion of mutual security. It is not ultimately possible to isolate and protect oneself from a hostile environment by building up an arsenal of weapons and building a fortress around your country. The only true way to mutual security is through a just and reliable international order–which builds the security of all countries together.

Collective Security, refers to the cooperation of all countries to build and maintain an effective security system. The ideal solution to security would be the dissolution of all weapons, however, in today’s world that is hardly a practical solution. Countries alone are not the only ones capable of launching massive violent offenses. We now have the threats of terrorist organizations, rogue militaries and regimes and even groups of civilians acting in violence. Because of this, collective security aims to maintain a force of legitimate size in order to provide a police for the world with the shared responsibility of each country to maintain that force.

In today’s world, full of threats and violence, rogue and failed nation states, and terrorist organizations, we need to build a practical and effective security system that allows us to focus more on the possibilities of peace, cooperation and the healthy development of human society. Humans have an natural motivation to feel secure and because by nature, we can also be violent, there needs to be a system in place to make sure that this violent tendency does not creep up into mainstream hypermania. Once we learn that threatening can not rationally stop threatening, can we move towards a more peaceful and prosperous world.

“The failure of the process so far showed blatantly that Israel is the greatest obstacle facing the hoped for peace.”

Assad’s rational for this statements includes Israel’s occupation of the land between Golan Heights and the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. On the other side, Israel wants Syria to end its support for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

The conflict in the Middle East has a very long history and is very complex. I am not going to explain the situation, but I did want to talk about the concept of peace that is often referred to in the headlines regarding the Middle East.

A Peace Agreement is often referred to between the Arab states in the Middle East. Every country seems to be striving towards a Peace Agreement with the neighbouring countries. Usually, this Peace Agreement is actually referring to a cease-fire agreement and/or reclaiming land from another country. It is true that a cease-fire would be the obvious first step towards peaceful relations, however, these Peace Agreements never go far enough. I argue that there is no real peace when countries sign this typical Peace Agreement. By signing it, they are just setting up the precursors to continue the dialogue towards a true peaceful relationship where both countries are able to recognize the strengths and opportunities that comes with working together.

So, the next time I see Peace Agreement in the news, I want to see a written agreement that outlines practical measures to discover and share each other’s cultures, cooperative economic development proposals and a willingness to meet often to discuss continued collaboration for mutual benefit.

Sofia’s People: Canon 5dmk2 25p from Philip Bloom on Vimeo.

What does it have to do with enlightened peace?

This video is very subjective. The only clues to a theme or topic is the musical lyrics. What I see is culture within a particular city’s nightlife. Images of people looking as natural as possible–peaceful in a way. In a way, that is what enlightened peace is–just observing people without any judgments, stereotypes, representations, suggestions, criticisms.

What do you think about when you watch this video?

Prospecting: News and Tips on fund raising

Read this article entitled, “An Online Tool’s Double Purpose: Shortening Web Addresses and Directing Money to Charity.”

I am always looking for ways to funnel money from our daily commerce to social endeavors and this tool is one way to do so. The idea of this tool is ingenious, however, I caution though that this should not be the only way to give. It is just one idea out of many ways that people should give on an ongoing basis. Part of giving is not only shelling out money for a social good. It is also about understanding where the money is going and feeling good about it.