Bram Ebus reports. Guerrillas gamble for peace. With tanks on the streets and rumours in newspapers, Nhau Mangirazi reports from Zimbabwe. Palestine, years after Balfour. The dangerous dignity of war. Why is bomb-dropping all it takes to appear presidential, Mark Engler asks. After re-run, Kenyan opposition vows resistance.
Mari Marcel Thekaekara writes about a group bringing peace to those affected by hate attacks in India. A word with Macer Gifford, a former currency trader who joined the Kurdish revolution. Time to stand against violence in India. Hindu-Muslim violence must stop, argues Mari Marcel Thekaekara. Keeping schools open in Yemen. The courageous efforts of Yemeni teachers, as reported by Sawsan al-Refaei. On the trail of Che Guevara, 50 years on. The revolving door: Whitehall and the arms trade.
Peace and Security
By Karlos Japan's pacifism in peril, again. The hate that divides us. In shock after hearing of the London attack and a Bangalore assault, Mari Marcel Thekaekara reflects on what could defeat hate of Taking on the sand mafia. Hired thugs won't stop S Mugilan. The South Indian activist talks to Sibi Arasu. The coming war on China. A major US military build-up — including nuclear weapons — is under way in Asia and the Pacific with the purpose of confronting Rekindling fears: right-wing violence against migrants is back in Greece.
Arrivals may have petered out this summer, but the prolonged refugee crisis appears to be ushering new waves of hostility into UN Peacekeeping: In search of a 21st century mandate. By Kevin Childs. How not to build peace: what's been missing from the UN process.
UN peacekeeping is big business, but is it achieving its aims? Afghanistan Memory Box. A victim-led exhibition of those who have suffered nearly 40 years of uninterrupted conflict, by AHRDO. Calculating the environmental benefits of peace in Colombia. The costs of the year conflict add up to ecocide. Doug Weir reports.
Universalizing environmental and human rights. Doug Weir explains why these rights are especially important during times of armed conflict. To do and die, without asking why.
We provide analysis, education, and resources to those working for peace around the world.
History shows that militarism disproportionately impacts the poor. Negative peace is generally provided by government, while positive peace is related to the vibrancy of the economy and culture. The desire for social change has many times led to revolutionary fervor and the excitement for quick destruction of the old order, with the belief that society will magically change when dictators and corrupt social institutions are destroyed.
- UN Peace Operations: Adapting to a New Global Order? | SpringerLink.
- The Focus on the Family® Guide to Talking with Your Kids about Sex: Honest Answers for Every Age.
- The Nightmare People;
- Assisted Living: Questions I Wish I Had Asked.
- The Devil in Ermine.
- Some Rain Must Fall.
- THE DOUBTING SNAKE!
But often the destruction of the social order that exists, corrupt as it may be, leads to anarchy, insecurity, poverty, refugees, and death. Last year International Journal on World Peace published several articles on the Arab Spring and the Bolshevik Revolution that showed how this recently happened in Syria and Libya, and how similar dynamics played out after the Russian revolution.
Tunisia, on the other hand, the country that inspired the Arab Spring, did not go through revolution but experienced an evolutionary process where social institutions were constructively transformed. In our March issue, Akmal Gafurov proposed that social development occurs when constructive elements in a society outweigh the destructive elements so that social change can be positive rather than negative.
In the first two articles of this issue we look at the nature of the development of consciousness that affects both the destructive and constructive forces and the development of the modern state and global society. Table of Contents. Since the origins of the nation-state system with the Peace of Westphalia in , it has been a long arduous path towards a stable and peaceful international system. The process, which began in Europe as a treaty among warring kingdoms, led to an international state system represented by the United Nations. But the idea of the nation-state is foreign to traditional societies and empires, and perhaps not appropriate for modern pluralistic societies.
The Idea of a Nation-State The original concept of the nation-state involves the idea of a king deciding the national religion or value system that applied to all residents on his territory. The idea of a religious system coterminous with a territory is not new. Egypt, Babylon, Israel, and Rome all had national gods that guided and protected their societies and who were worshiped in temples.
The relationship of church and state was often contentious, with popes and kings vying for supremacy. The Reformation, spearheaded by Martin Luther and John Calvin, led many kings and princes to adopt new denominations of Christianity they considered better. When the Peace of Westphalia was signed, every state had an official religion.
The King provided security and the religion provided the cultural value system. Then, following the American and French Revolutions, to be an American or French national, regardless of race, religion, or origin, required allegiance to a secular state agreeing to speak the national language and live peacefully with others on the territory.
In 19th century Europe, there had been a large-scale industrial revolution created with capital investment that produced massive amounts of goods. Heavy industry produced steel for railroads, ships, and other products that dramatically transformed traditional societies rooted in agriculture, family, and local communities.
This social transformation affected businesses, jobs, and lifestyles as much as the internet and smartphones have transformed society and the economy today. Many people believed that industrial production could lead to a higher standard of living for all and end problems of poverty and war.
However, industrial monopolies led to price gouging, surplus labor competing for a limited number of jobs led to unlivable wages, and taxes on profits went to political elites. These advantages are not permanent or automatic — but they do give us a window in which we can shape a new international order before others shape it for us. Fashioning a strategy for America in a post-primacy world is no easy task.
Neither unthinking retrenchment nor the muscular reassertion of old convictions will be effective prescriptions in the years ahead. We will have to rebalance American foreign policy priorities to tackle the most pressing challenges and respond to the most urgent threats. That will mean sharpening our attention on managing competition with great power rivals, and using our capacity to mobilize other players to address twenty-first-century challenges.
That ought to be infused with a bold and unapologetic vision for free people and free and fair markets, with the United States as a more attractive exemplar than it is today. Asia must continue to be our first priority. The most critical test of American statecraft is managing competition with China, cushioning it with bilateral cooperation wherever our interests coincide, and a web of regional alliances and institutions that amplify our leverage.
World Peace Council - Wikipedia
Our economies are deeply intertwined, but that is not in itself a guarantee against conflict. Both the United States and China will have to work to ensure that our inevitable disagreements do not spiral out of control. As regional apprehensions about Chinese hegemony grow, there will be increasing opportunities for us to strengthen existing relationships and forge new partnerships in the region.
This will require a serious, sustained, disciplined diplomatic effort, backed by economic and military leverage, and closely coordinated with our allies in South Korea and Japan, and other key regional players, like China. A deeper American focus on Asia makes transatlantic partnership more, not less, significant.
It implies a new strategic division of labor with our European allies, where they take on more responsibility for order on their continent, and do even more to contribute to possibilities for longer-term order in the Middle East, while the United States devotes relatively more resources and attention to Asia. Now is the moment for a renewed Atlanticism, built on shared interests and values in a world in which a rising China -- as well as a resurgent Russia and persistent problems in the Middle East -- ought to cement a common approach.
Related World Peace Order: Towards An International State
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved