5-7 pages paper due Mar 1st, 2019 12:00pm CST

CHAPTER4

Bui lding "Positive Peace"

I t is important to be against war. But it is not enough. We also need to be in favor o f something- something positive and affirm ing: na mely, peace. Peace studies is u nique not only because it is multid iscip linary a nd forth- rightly proclaims its adherence to "values" but also because it identifies positive visions of peace as being greater tha n tl1e a bsence of war.

The "pos itive peace" toward whim peace studies strives may be, if anyth ing, even more challengi ng than the prevention o f war. It is a variatio n on what has been called the "dog-car problem." Imagine a dog that has spent years barking and run ning after cars. Then, o ne day, it catmes one. What does it do with it? What would devotees of peace do w ith the world if they had the opportunity?

This is not a useless exercise because before any future ca n be esta blished, it must first be imagined. And moreover, unl ike our hypothetical car-m asing dog, the estab lishment of positive peace is not an ali-or-noth ing p heno meno n. The movement toward positive peace is likely to be halting and fragme ntary, w ith substantial success along certain dimen- s ions and likely failures along others. O n bala nce, the project is formidable, nothing less than a funda mental effort to retl1ink the relatio nship of h uman beings to earn otl1er and to their shared planet. If war and its causes are difficult to define- and this is assu red ly the case- positive peace is even more elus ive. (It ca n even be da ngerous, because d isagree- ments over what constitutes a desirable "peace" ca n lead to war.)

Earlier, we briefly considered "j ust war" doctrine. The co nditio ns for a "just peace" are no less stren uo us or importa nt. The releva nt issues include-but are not limited to- aspirations for h uman rights, economic fa irness and opportunity, democratization, and environmenta l well-being and sustainabili ty. Nonetheless, there is no agreement as to what, specifically, is des ired or how much e mphasis to place on earn goal.

The pursuit of positive peace nonethe less leads to certain agreed princip les, one of which is a minimization of vio lence, not o nly the overt vio lence of war, but also what has been called "structural violence," a co ndition that is typically built into many social and cultural institutions. A s lavehold ing society may be at peace in that it is not literally at

1 61

162 Build ing ·rositive Peace•

war, but it is also rife w ith structural vio lence. Structu ral violence has the effect of deny- ing people importa nt rights s uch as economic opportunity, socia l a nd politica l equality, a sense of fulfillme nt and se lf-worth, and access to a healthy natural environment. When people starve to d eath, or even go hungry, a kind of vio lence is taking place. Simi larly, when huma n beings s uffe r from diseases that are preventable, when they are denied a decent education, hous ing, an opportunity to play, to grow, to work, to raise a family, to express themselves freely, to orga nize peacefully, or to participate in their own governance, a kind o f vio lence is occurri ng, even if bullets or clubs are not being used. Society visits violence on human rights a nd d ignity when it forci bly stunts the optimum development of ead1 h uman being, whether because of race, religion, sex, sexual p reference, age, ide- ology, and so on. In short, structural vio lence is a nother way of id entifying oppression, and positive peace would be a s ituation in wh ich structural vio lence and oppression are minim ized .

In ad ditio n, social inj ustice is important not o nly in its co ntrib ution to structural vio- lence but also as a ma jor contributo r to war, o fte n in unexpected ways. For ma ny citizens of the United States and Europe, as well as privileged people worldwid e, current lifestyles are fun damentally acceptable. Hence, peace for them has co me to mean the continuatio n of things as they are, w ith the ad ditio nal hope that overt violence w ill be prevented. Fo r others- perhaps the majority on our planet- change of one sort or another is desired. And for a small m inority, peace is so mething to fight fori A Centra l America n peasant was q uoted in the New York Times as saying, • 1 am for peace, b ut not peace with h unger. •

There is a lo ng traditio n suggesting that in justice is a primary cause o f war. The French ph ilosopher Den is Diderot, for exa mple, was co nvinced that a world o f justice a nd plenty would mean a world free of tyranny a nd war. Hence, in his eighteenth-centu ry treatise, the Encyclopedia, Diderot sought to establish peace by d isseminating all the world's techni- cal informatio n, fro m beekeeping to iron forg ing. And, of course, similar efforts continue today, altho ugh few advocates of economic and social development cla im that the prob- lem of violence can be solved simp ly by spread ing knowledge or even by keep ing every- one's belly full.

The troubling relatio nship o f huma n beings to their natural enviro nment must also be rewo rked, perhaps in funda mental ways. A world at peace must be one in wh ich environmental, h uman rights, a nd economic issues all cohere to foster maximum well- being; ecological harmo ny cannot realistica([y be separated fro m q uestions of h uma n rights or econo mic justice (or, for that matter, fro m the issues of democratization and demilitarizatio n).

In relation to the envi ronment, politica l or econo mic ideo logy do not appear to be signi ficant. Environmental degradation is, to be sure, intimately con nected to poverty: wealthy states often export their most odious environmental ab uses, and impoverished states are often forced by their poverty to accept the s ituation . Moreover, w ith in a ny given state, wealthy peop le are able to purchase certain amenities, whereas the poor fin d them- selves living in degraded, and often downright dangerous, su rroundings. But in general, left-leaning govern ments have not shown themselves to be more environmentally sensi- tive than their right-leaning counterparts. In avowedly Socialist or Co mmunist societies,

Tire Land Ethic

for example, "productio n goals" typically rep laced the capitalist pursuit o f "profit" as the "bonom line• to which enviro nmental val ues were all too freq uently sacrificed.

An important sh ift in h uma n co nscious ness-inti mate ly related to the agenda of peace studies- is the realization that "nationa l security" must be defined in ways that go far beyond military strength and that as our planet beco mes increas ingly interconnected politica lly, economica lly, and socially, and also as o u r global environment is increasi ngly endangered, the healtl1, well-being, and security of every individual become inseparable from tl1e health, well-being, and security off tl1e earth itself.

Aldo Leopold

THE LAN D ETHIC

An ecological perspective dema nds that we recognize the rea lity of connected ness, which, as the poet Fra ncis Thompso n p ut it, "all th ings . . . near a nd far, hiddenly to each o ther, connected are, that thou canst not stir a flower without the troubling o f a star. • Th is is true not only for biology; b ut also for social, political, a nd econom ic systems. Thus, not only do wars ru in the environment, but also environmental destruction - a nd its threat-ca n lead to wars. Millions of refugees regularly flee e nvi ronmenta l disasters such as drought, floods, fam ine, a nd disease. These refugees, who constitute a huma nitaria n d isaster in themselves, can also ra ise international tensions.

The destruction of ra in forests, for exa mple, not only is a deeply troubling environ- mental issue w ith worldwide impl ications, but also arises from particular eco nomic sys- tems (notably a free-market free-for-all), with no small dose of racis m (deva luing the rights of indigenous peop les). The poverty resu lti ng from deforestation and displacement leads to land degradation a nd the growing problem of desertification as h ungry, desperate peop le dear and cu ltivate regions that should be left untouched. This in turn leads to yet more poverty and social unrest. Intensive farming of highly erod ible la nd permanently destroys so il; large-scale intrusions into wildlife habitat (wh ich contri bute to species extinctio n) are in large part responses to land h unger in rural, developing countries, where a small minority o f wealthy people own most of the arable land, thereby pushing others to environmenta lly abusive behavior. Worldwide, tl1e burn ing of fossil fuels produces green- house gases; the resulting global cl imate warm ing may increase food insecurity by reduc- ing agricultural productivity. All of these factors- plus many otl1ers- are intertwined in complex ways w ith the expo nential growth of the h uman population.

There is an enorm ous and growing literature on specific solutions to environmen- ta l problems, such as mass tra nsportation; improved energy efficiency a nd cogeneration;

163

A SAND COUNlY AlMANAC 2ND EDITION by Leopo ld (2 001) 5000w fro m Chp. "The Land Ethic" pp. 201- 226 c 1949, 1977 by Oxfo rd University Press, Inc. By permission of Oxford University Press, USA.

164 Bu ild ing ·Positive Peace•

"soft" energy paths such as so lar, wind, a nd tidal power; organic agriculture; e nhanced recycl ing; eating "lowe r o n the food cha in"; and an enlightened population po licy that encourages fa mi ly planning, especially by emp owering women.

The word "eco logy" derives fro m the Gree!k oikos, meaning ho use. It refers to the inter- relatio ns between living things a nd their envi ronment, with the latter includi ng other living things (pla nts, an ima ls, microorganisms) as well as inan imate objects and processes s ucl1 as cl imate, rock, wate r, and air. Desp ite dreams of space travel and the colonizatio n of other planets, the fact rema ins that h uman bei ngs have only one home, and good planets are hard to fi nd.

In the fi nal a nalys is, a world at peace m ust be one in wh ich all living things expe rience themselves as be ing "at ho me." In recent times, some of the crucial relationships among the world's species, and betwee n those species and their enviro nments, have become increasingly te nuous, wh ich in turn has begun to th reaten the quality o f life and even its continuation. At risk is nothing less tha n the integrity of various life-support systems: the air we b reath e, the water we d rink, the foo d we eat, as well as the diverse fa bric of life that provides e motio na l and sp iritual s ustena nce.

The fo llowing selection- w ritten by o ne ofth e great figu res in ecology a nd the fo unde r of "wild life ma nagement" - attempts to look broadly at the problem and to suggest the beginning of a solution : notably, a cod e of e nvironmental ethics.

W he n god like Odysseus returned from the wars in Troy, h e hanged all on o ne rope a dozen slave-girls of h is household whom h e suspected of misbehavior during his a bsence.

Th is hanging involved no questio n of propriety. The g irls were property. The d isposal of property was then, as now, a matter o f exped ience, not o f righ t a nd wrong.

Concepts o f right and wro ng were n o t lacking fro m Odysseus' Greece: w itness the fideli ty o f his w ife through the long years before at last h is b lack- prowed galleys dove the wi ne-dark seas for home. The ethica l structure of that day covered w ives, but had no t yet been extended to hu man chattels. Du ring the three thousand years w hich have since elapsed, ethica l criteria have been extended to many fields of conduct, w ith correspond ing shri nkages in those judged by exped iency only.

T HE ETH ICAL SEQUENC E

Th is extension o f ethics, so fa r studied only b y philosophers, is actua lly a process in ecologica l

evolution. Its sequences may be described in eco- logical as well as in p hi losoph ical terms. An ethic, ecologica lly, is a limitatio n o n freedom o f action in the struggle for existence. An ethic, p hilosoph ically, is a differen tiatio n of social from a ntisocial condu ct. These are two defini tions o f o ne thi ng. The th ing h as its origi n in the tendency of interdependent in d i- viduals o r groups to evolve mod es o f cooperatio n. The ecologis t ca lls these symbioses. Politics a nd eco nomics a re a dva nced symbioses in which the origi nal free-for-a ll competitio n has been replaced, in part by cooperative mechan isms w ith an ethical content.

The complexity of coopera tive mecha nisms h as increased with popu lation d ensity, and with the effi- ciency o f tools. It was simp ler, fo r example, to define the anti-social uses of s ticks and ston es in the days of the mastodons tha n of bullets a nd billboards in the age of motors.

The firs t eth ics deal t with the relatio n betv;een ind ivid ua ls; the Mosaic Deca logue is an example. later accretions dealt w ith the relatio n between the

Tire Land Ethic 165

ind ividual and society. The Golden Rule tries to inte- grate the individual to society; democracy to inte- grate social organ ization to the individual.

There is as yet no ethic dealing with man's rela- tion to land and to the animals and plants wh ich grow upon it. land, like Odysseus' slave-girls, is still property. ' Ibe land-relation is stil l strictly economic, entailing privileges but not obligations.

The extension o f e thics to this third element in human environment is, if I read the evidence cor- rectly, an evolutionary possibility and an ecological necessity. It is the thi rd step in a sequence. The first two have a lready been taken. Individual th inkers since the days of Ezekiel and Isaiah have asserted that the despoliation o f land is not only inexpedient but wrong. Society, however, has not yet affirmed their belief. I regard the present conservation move- ment as the embryo of such an affirm a tion.

An ethic may be regarded as a mode of guidance for meeting ecological situations so new or intricate, or involving such deferred reactions, that the path of social exped iency is not discernible to the aver- age individual. Animal instincts are modes of gu id- ance for the individual in meeting such situations. Ethics are possibly a kind of community instinct in-the-making.

T HE COMMUNITY CONCEPT

All e thics so fa r evolved rest upon a sing le p remise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in that community, but his ethics prompt him also to cooperate (perhaps in order that there may be a place to compete for) .

The land eth ic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, o r collectively: the land.

This sounds simple: do we not already sing our love fo r and obligation to the land of the free and the home of the brave7 Yes, but just what and whom do we love? Certainly not the soil. which we are sending helter-skelter downriver. Certain ly not the waters, which we assume have no function except to turn turbines, float barges, and carry off sewage. Cer- ta inly not the p lants, o f which we exterminate whole communities without batting an eye. Certain ly not

the animals, of which we have already extirpated many of the largest and most beautiful species. A land ethic of course cannot prevent the a lteration, management, and use o f these "resources, • but it does affirm their right to continued existence, and, at least in spots, their continued existence in a natu- ra l state.

In short. a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiem from conqueror of the land-commun ity to p lain member and ci tizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the com- munity as such.

In human history, we h ave learned ( I hope) that the conqueror role is eventually self-defeating. Why? Because it is implicit in such a role that the conqueror knows, ex cat/1edra, just what makes the community clock tick, and just what and who is va luable, and what and who is worth less, in com- munity life. It always turns out that he knows nei- ther, and this is w hy his conquests eventually defeat themselves.

In the biotic community, a parallel situation exists. Abraham knew exactly what the land was for: it was to d rip milk and honey into Abraham's mouth. At the present moment, the assurance with which we regard this assumption is inverse to the degree of our education .

The ord inary citizen today assumes that science knows what makes the community clock tick; the scientist is equally sure that he does not. He knows that the biotic mechanism is so complex that its workings may never be fully understood .

THE ECOLOGICAL CONSCIENCE

Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land . Despite nearly a century of propaganda, conservation still proceeds at a sna il's pace; progress s till consists largely ofletterhead p ieties and conven- tion oratory. On the back forty we still slip tvto steps backward for each forward stride.

The usual answer to this dilemma is "more con- servation education ." No one will debate this, but is it certain that only the volume of education needs step- ping up? Is something lacking in the content as welJ7

It is d ifficul t to give a fair summary of its con- tent in brief form , but, as I understand it, the content

166 Build ing ·rositive Peace•

is substantially this: obey the law, vote right, join some o rganizations, and practice what conservation is profi table on your own land; th e government will do th e rest.

Is not this formula too easy to accomplish anyth ing worthwhile? It defines no righ t or wrong, assigns no obligation, calls fo r no sacrifice, implies no change in the current p hilosophy of values. In respect of land-use, it urges only enligh tened self- interest. Just how far will such education take us?

No imponant change in eth ics was ever accom- plished without an internal change in ou r intellec- tua l emphasis, loyal ties, affections, and convictions. The proof that conservation has not yet touched these fo undations of conduct lies in the fact that philosophy and religion have not yet heard of it In our attempt to make conservation easy, we have made it trivial.

SUBSTilUTES FOR A lAND ETHIC

When the logic o f h istory hungers for bread and we hand out a stone, we are at pains to explain how much the s tone resemb les bread. I now describe some of the stones wh ich serve in lieu of a land e thic.

One basic weakness in a conservation system based w ho lly on economic motives is that most members of the land community have no econom ic value. Wildfl owers and songbi rds a re examples. Of the 22,000 higher p lants and an ima ls native to W isconsin, it is doubtful w h ether more than 5 percent can be sold, fed, eaten, o r o th erwise put to economic use. Yet these creatures are members of the biotic community, and if (as I believe) its sta- bility depends on its integrity, they are enti tled to continuance.

When one of these non-economic categories is threatened, and if we happen to love it, we invent s ubterfuges to give it econom ic importance. At the beginning of the century songbirds were supposed to be disappearing. Ornithologists jumped to the rescue wi th some d istinctly shaky evidence to the effect that insects wou ld eat us up if birds failed to control them. The evidence had to be economic in order to be valid.

It is painful to read these circum locutions today. We h ave no land ethic yet, but we have a t least drawn

nearer the poin t of admitting that bi rds s h ou ld con- tinue as a matter o f biotic right, regardless of the p resence or absence of econom ic advantage to us.

A para llel situation exists in respect of preda- tory mammals, raptorial b irds, and fish-eating birds. Time was when b io logists somewhat over- worked the evidence tha t these creatures preserve th e hea lth of game by kill ing weaklings, o r th at th ey con trol rodents for the farmer, or that they p rey on ly on "worth less" species. Here again, the evidence had to be economic in order to be valid . It is on ly in recent years that we h ear the more h onest argumen t th a t p redators a re members o f the com- munity, and that no specia l interest has the right to exterminate them for the sake of a benefit, real o r fancied, to itself. .. .

lack o f economic va lue is sometimes a charac- ter not on ly of species or groups, but o f enti re biotic commun ities: marshes, bogs, dunes, and •deserts" are examples. O ur formula in s uch cases is to rel- egate th ei r conservation to government as refuges, monuments, o r parks. The difficu lty is that these commun ities a re usually interspersed with more va luable private lands; the governmen t cannot pos- sibly own o r control such scattered parcels. The net effect is that we have relegated some of them to ulti- mate extinction over la rge areas .. ..

Industrial landowners and users, especially lumbermen and stockmen, are inclined to wa il long and lo udly about th e extension of government own- ersh ip and regulation to land, but (with notable exceptions) they s how little disposition to develop th e only visible alternative: the voluntary practice o f conservation on their own lands.

When the private landowner is asked to per- form some unprofi table act for the good of the community, he today assents on ly with outstretched palm. If the act costs h im cash this is fa ir and proper, but wh en it costs only forethought, open- mindedness, o r time, the issue is at least debatable. The overwhelming growth of land-use subsid ies in recent years must be ascribed, in la rge part, to the government's own agencies for conservation edu- cation: the land bureaus, the agricul tural colleges, and the extension services. As far as I can detect, no eth ical obligation towa rd land is ta ugh t in these institutions.

11re Lllnd Ethic 167

To sum up: a system of conservation basro solely on economic self-interest is hopelessly lopsided. It tends to ignore, and thus eventually to eliminate, many elements in the land community that lack commercial value, but that are (as far as we know) essential to its healthy functioning. It assumes, falsely, I think, that the economic parts of the biotic clock will function w ithou t the uneconomic parts. It tends to relegate to government many functions eventually too large, too complex, or too widely dis- persed to be performed by government.

An ethical obligation on the part of the private owner is the o nly visible remedy for these situatio ns.

THE lAND PYRAMID

An ethic to supplement and guide the economic relation to land presupposes the existence of some ment al image ofland as a biotic mechanism. We ca n be ethical only in relation to something we ca n see, feel , understand, love, or otherwise have fa ith in.

'l11e image common ly employed in conserva- tio n education is "the balance of nature. • For rea- sons too lengthy to detail here. this figure of speech fails to describe accurately what little we know about the land mechanism. A much truer image is the o ne employed in ecology: the biotic pyramid. I shall first sketch the pyramid as a symbol of land, and later develop some of its implications in terms of land-use.

Plants absorb energy from the sun. This energy Oows through a ci rcuit called the bio ta, which may be represented by a pyramid consisting of layers. 'lne botto m layer is the soil . A plant layer rests o n the soi l, an insect layer on the p lants, a bird and rodent layer on the insects, and so on up through various anima l groups to the apex layer, which consists of the larger carnivores.

The species of a layer are alike not in where they came from, o r in what they look like, but rather in what they eat. Each successive layer depends on those below it for food and often for other ser- vices, and each in tum furnishes food and services to those above. Proceeding upward, each successive layer decreases in numerical abundance. 1nus, for every carnivore there are hundreds of his prey, thou- sands o f their prey, millio ns of insects, uncoun table

plants. The pyramidal form of the system reflects this numerical progression from apex to base. Man shares an intermediate layer with the bears, raccoons, and squirrels which eat both meat and vegetables.

The lines of dependency for food and other services are called food chains. Thus soil-oak-deer- Indian is a chain that has now been largely converted to so il-corn-cow-farmer. Each species, including ourselves, is a link in many chains. The deer eats a hundred p lants other than oak, and the cow a hun- dred plants other than com. Both, then, are links in a hundred chains. The pyramid is a tangle of chains so complex as to seem disorderly, yet the stability of the system proves it to be a highly organized struc- ture. Its functioning depends on the cooperation and competition of its diverse parts.

In the beginning. the pyramid oflife was low and squat; the food chains short and simple. Evolution has added layer after layer, link after link. Man is one of thousa nds of accretions to the height and complex- ity of the pyramid . Science has given us many doubts, but it has given us at least one certainty: the trend of evolution is to elaborate and diversify the biota.

Land, then, is not merely soil; it is a fountain of energy Howing through a circui t of soils, plants, and animals. r-ood chai ns are the living channels which conduct energy upward; death and decay return it to the soil. The circuit is not dosed; some energy is dissipated in decay, some is added by absorption from the a ir, som e is stored in soils, peats, and long-lived forests; but it is a sustained circuit, like a slowly augmented revolving fund of life. There is always a net loss by down hill wash, but th is is normally s ma ll and offset by th e decay of rocks. It is de posited in the ocean and, in the course of geological time, ra ised to form new lands and new pyramids.

The velocity and character of the upward How of energy depend o n the complex structure of the plant and animal community, much as the upward How of sap in a tree depends on its complex cellular organi- zation. Without this complexity, normal circulation would presumably not occu r. Structure means the characteristic numbers, as well as the characteristic kinds and function s, of th e co mponent species. This interdependence between the complex structure of

168 Build ing ·rositive Peace•

the land and its smooth function ing as an energy unit is one of its basic attributes.

When a change occurs in one part of the cir- cu it, many other parts must adjust themselves to it Change does not necessarily obstruct o r divert the flow of energy; evolution is a long series of self- induced changes, the net result o f which has been to elaborate the fl ow mechanism and to lengthen the circui t. Evolutionary changes, however, are usua lly slow and local. Man's invention of tools h as enabled h im to make changes of unprecedented vio lence, rapidity, and scope.

One change is in the composition of fl oras and faunas. The la rger p redators are lopped off the apex of th e pyramid; food chains, fo r the fi rst time in h istory, become shorter rather than longer. Domesticated species from other lands a re substi- tuted for wild ones, and wild ones are moved to new habi ta ts. In th is worldwide pooling o f faunas and fl oras, some species get ou t o f bounds as pests and diseases, others are extinguished. Such effects are seldom intended o r fo reseen; they represent u npredicted and often untraceable readjustments in the structure. Agricultural science is largely a race between the emergence of new pests and the emer- gence o f new techniques fo r thei r control.

Anoth er change tou ches the fl ow of energy through p lan ts and an imals and its return to the soil. Fertil ity is the ability of soil to receive, store, and release energy. Agriculture, by overdrafts on the soil, or by too radical a substi tution of domestic for native species in the s u perstructure, may derange the channels o f flow o r dep lete storage. Soils depleted of their s torage, o r o f the organ ic matter which anchors it, wash away faster than they form. This is erosion.

Waters, like soil, a re part o f the energy circu it Industry, by polluting waters or obstructing them with dams, may exclu de the plants and an imals nec- essary to keep energy in circulation.

Transportation brings about another basic change: the p lants or an imals grown in one region are now consumed and returned to the soil in another. Transportation taps the energy s to red in rocks, and in the air, and uses it elsewhere; thus we fert ilize th e garden with nitrogen gleaned by the guano b irds from the fishes of seas on the other side

of the Equator. Thus the fo rmerly localized and self- conta ined circui ts a re pooled on a worldwide sca le.

The process of altering the pyram id for human occupation releases s tored energy, and this often gives rise, during the p ioneering period, to a decep- tive exuberance of p lant and an imal life, both w ild and tame. These releases of biotic capita l tend to becloud or postpone the pena lties o f violence.

This thu mbnail sketch o f land as an energy cir- cui t conveys three basic ideas:

1. That land is not merely soi l. 2. That the native plants and animals kept the

energy circuit open; others may or may not. 3 . That man-made changes a re of a different o rder

than evolutionary changes, and have effects more comprehensive than is intended o r foreseen.

These ideas, collectively, ra ise two basic issues: Can th e land adjust itself to the new order? Can th e desi red a lterations be accomplished with less violence?.

The combined evidence o f history and ecol- ogy seems to support one general deduction: the less violent the man-made changes, the greater the probability of successful readjustment in the pyra- mid. Violence, in turn, varies w ith human popula- tion density; a dense population requires a more violent conversion. In this respect, North America has a better chance for permanence than Europe, if s he can contrive to limit her density.

This deduction runs counter to our current p h ilosophy, which assumes that because a sma ll increase in density enriched h uman life, that an indefinite increase will enrich it indefinitely. Ecol- ogy knows of no density relationsh ip that holds for indefinitely wide limi ts. All gains from density a re subject to a law of d iminish ing returns.

Whatever may be the equation for men and land, it is improbable that we as yet know all its terms. Recent d iscoveries in mineral and vi tamin nutrition reveal u nsuspected dependencies in the up-circui t: incred ibly minute quantities of certain substances determine the value o f soils to p lants, o f p lan ts to an imals. Wh at o f the down-circuit? What of th e vanish ing species, the preservation o f which we now regard as an esthetic luxury? They helped

Tire Land Ethic 169

b u ild the soil; in what unsuspected ways may they be essential to its maintenance? (It has been pro- posed J . .. that we use pra irie fl owers to refloccula te the wasting soils of the dust bowl; who knows for what purpose cranes and condors, o tters and griz- zlies may some day be used?

lAND H EALTH AND TH E A - B CLEAVAGE

A land ethic, then, reflects the existence of an eco- logica l conscience, and this in tu rn reflects a co nvic- tion of ind ividual responsib il ity fo r the health of the land. Hea lth is the capacity of th e land for self- renewa l. Conservation is our effort to understand and p reserve this capacity.

Conservationists a re notorious for their d is- sensions. Superficially these seem to add up to mere confusion, but a more carefu l scrutiny reveals a sing le p lane of cleavage common to many spe- cialized fie lds. In each field one group (A) regards the land as soil, and its function as commodity- produ ction; another group (B) regards the land as a biota, and its function as someth ing broader. How much broader is admittedly in a state of dou b t and confusion.

In my own fie ld, fo restry, Group A is quite con- tent to grow trees like cabbages, w ith cellu lose as the basic fo rest commod ity. It feels no inh ibition aga inst violence; its ideology is agronomic. Group B, on the other hand, sees fo restry as fundamentally different from agronomy because it employs natural species, and manages a natural environment rather than creating an artificial one. Group B prefers natu- ral reproduction on princip le. It worries on biotic as well as economic grounds abou t th e loss of species like chestnu t, and the th reatened loss o f th e whi te pines. It worries abou t a whole series of secondary forest funct ions: wildlife, recreation, watersheds, w ilderness areas. To my mind, Group B feels the stir- rings of an ecological conscience.

In the wildlife fi e ld, a para llel cleavage exists. For Group A the basic commodi ties a re sport and meat; the yardsticks o f production a re ciphers of ta ke in p heasan ts and trou t. Artificial propagation is acceptable as a permanen t as well as a tempo- rary recourse-if its unit costs permit. Group B,

on th e other hand, worries about a whole series of biotic side-issues. What is the cost in predato rs of producing a game crop? Shou ld we have further recou rse to exotics7 How can management resto re th e shrinking species, like pra irie grouse, already h opeless as shootable game? How can manage- ment restore the threa tened rarities, like trumpeter swan and whoop ing crane? Can management prin- ciples be extended to wi ldflowers7 Here again it is clear to me that we have the same A- B cleavage as in fo restry . .

The ecologica l fu ndamenta ls of agricu lture are just as poorly known to th e public as in other fields of land-use. For example, few edu ca ted peop le rea lize th a t the marvelous advances in techn iq ue made d u ring recent decades are improvements in the pump, rather than th e wel l. Acre for acre, th ey have barely sufficed to o ffset the sinking level of fert ili ty.

In a ll of these cleavages, we see repeated the same basic paradoxes: man the conqueror versus man the biotic citizen; science the sharpener of h is sword versus science the search light on his u niverse; land the slave and servant versus land the collective o rganism. Robinson's in junction to Tristram may well be applied, at th is ju ncture, to Homo sapiens as a species in geologica l time:

Whether you will or not You are a King, Tris tram, for you a re one Of the time-tested few that leave the world, When they are gone, not the same place it was. Mark wha t you leave.

THE OUTLOOK

It is inconceivable to me that an eth ical relation to land can exist without love, respect, and admiration for land, and a high rega rd for its va lu e. By va lue, I of course mean something far broader than mere economic value; I mean value in the ph ilosophical sense.

Perhaps th e most serious obstacle impeding th e evolution of a land ethic is the fact that our edu- cational and economic system is headed away from , ra ther th an toward, an in tense consciousness o f

170 Building "Positive Peace•

land. Your true modern is separated from the land by many middlemen, and by innumerable physical gadgets. He has no vital relation to it; to him it is the space between cities on w hich crops g row. Turn him loose for a day on the land, and if the spot does not happen to be a golf links or a "scenic" area, he is bored stiff. If crops could be raised by hydropon- ics instead of farm ing, it wou ld suit him very well . Syn thetic substitutes for wood, leather, wool, and other natura l land products suit him better than the originals. In short, land is someth ing he has "outgrown."

Almost equally serious as an obstacle to a land ethic is the attitude of the fa rmer for whom the land is still an adversary, or a taskmaster that keeps h im in slavery. Theoretically, the mechanization of fa rm- ing ought to cut the farmer's chains, but whether it really does is debatable.

One of the requisites for an ecological compre- hension of land is an understanding of ecology, and this is by no means co-extensive with "education"; in fact, much h igher education seems deliberately to avoid ecologica l concepts. An understanding of ecology does not necessarily origina te in courses bearing eco logical labels; it is quite as likely to be labeled geography, botany. agronomy. h is tory, or econom ics. This is as it should be, but whatever the label, ecologica l train ing is scarce.

The case for a land ethic would appear hope- less but for the minority w hich is in obvious revolt aga inst these "modem" trends.

The "key-log" which must be moved to release the evolu tionary process for an ethic is simply th is: quit thinking about decent land-use as solely an economic problem. Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and esthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stab ility, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

It of course goes w ithout saying that economic feas ibility limits the tether of wh at can or cannot be done for land. It always has and it a lways will. The fallacy the econom ic determinists have tied around our collective neck, and which we now need to cast off, is the belief that econom ics dete rmines all land-use. This is simply not true. An innumerable h ost of actions and attitudes, comprising perhaps the bulk of all land relations, is determined by the land-user's tastes and predi lections, rather than by h is purse. The bulk o f all land relations hinges on investments of t ime, forethought, skill, and faith rather than on investments of cash. As a land-user thinketh, so is he.

I have purposely presented the land ethic as a product of social evolution because nothing so important as an ethic is ever "written." Only the most superficial studen t of h istory supposes that Moses "wrote" the Decalogue; it evolved in the minds of a thinking community, and Moses wrote a tentative summary o f it for a "seminar. • I say tenta- tive because evolution never stops.

The evolution o f a land ethic is an intellectual as well as emotiona l process. Conservation is paved with good intentions which prove to be futile, or even dangerous, because they are devoid of critical understanding either of the land, or of economic land-use. I think it is a truism that as the ethical frontier advances from the individual to the com- munity, its intellectual content increases.

The mechanism of operation is the same for any ethic: social approbation for right actions: social disapproval for wrong actions.

By and large, our present problem is one o f attitudes and implements. We are remodeling the Alhambra w ith a s team shovel, and we are proud o f our yardage. We shall hardly relinquish the s h ovel, which after a ll has many good points, but we a re in need of gentler and more objective criteria for its successful use.

Speecll to Tire United Natiom, 2015

Pope Francis

SPEECH TO THE UNITED NATIONS, 2015

To be sure, global warm ing is not the o nly environmental issue that must be co nfronted by advocates of positive peace: the world faces a dra matic and potentia lly catastrophic reduction in biodivers ity, the variety and a bunda nce of livi ng species. Econom ic exploi- tation of nature is beco ming increasingly unsustainable, especially given the incontro- vertible fact that ma ny resources are fi nite and not renewable. Energy in particular poses thorny proble ms, especially insofar as use patterns remain tethered to fossil fu els. Popula- tion pressure seems unrelenting a nd, paradoxically, is most concentrated in third world countries that are least capable o f absorbing its socia l and econom ic impact, not to men- tion the enviro nmental costs. And the a fo remen tioned is but a s mall samp le, beyond the general perspective advocated by AI do Leopold.

Loomi ng above these issues, however, is the increasingly evid ent fact that because of the prod uction of greenhouse gases (nota bly but not limited to carbon dioxide), h uma n beings are dramatically and perhaps irreversi bly changing the climate of pla net Earth, making it hotter along w ith other comp lex a nd cha llenging cl imate changes. Christia n- ity has been accused of colluding in many e nvi ron mental problems, notably by scripture interp reted as giving people the impressio n that they have been •given" the earth and its creatures to use and abuse as they wish. There has also, however, been a religio us cou n- termovement that emphas izes the human responsib ility to be responsible stewards of the environment. Notable here is the voice of Pope Francis, whose speech to the United Nations in 2015 marks a milestone in this respect.

171

Mr President, Lad ies and Gentlemen, ... Th is is th e fifth time that a pope h as visited

the United Nations. I follow in the foo ts teps of my predecessors Paul VI, in 1965, John Pau ll!, in 1979 and 1995, and my most recent p redecessor, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, in 2008. Al l of them expressed th eir great esteem for th e o rganization, which th ey considered th e appropriate jurid ical and political response to th is p resent moment o f h istory, marked by ou r technical ability to overcome d is- tances and frontiers and, apparently, to overcome a ll natural lim its to the exercise o f power. An essential response, inasmuch as technologica l power, in the

hands of nationalis tic o r falsely un iversalist ideolo- gies, is capable o f perpetrating tremendous atroci- ties. I can on ly re iterate the appreciation expressed by my predecessors, in reaffi rming th e importance which th e Catholic Ch u rch attaches to th is insti tu- tion and the hope wh ich she p laces in its activities.

o libreria Editrice Vaticana. Used by permission.

The Un ited Nations is p resently celebrating its 70 th ann iversary. The h istory of th is organized commun ity of states is one of important common achievements over a period o f u n us ually fas t-paced changes. Without claiming to be exhaustive, we can men tion the cod ification and development o f inter- national law, the establish ment of international

172 Building ·rositive Peace•

norms regarding human rights, advances in human- itarian law, the resolution of numerous confl icts, operations of peace-keeping and reconciliation, and any number of other accomplishments in every area of international activity and endeavou r. All these achievements are lights which help to dispel the darkness of the disorder caused by unrestrained ambitions and collective fo rms o f selfishness. Cer- ta inly, many grave problems rema in to be resolved, yet it is clear that, without all those in terventions on the internationa l level, mankind would not have been ab le to survive the unchecked use of its own possibil ities. Every one o f these political, juridical and technica l advances is a path towards attaining the idea l of human fra ternity and a means for its greater realization.

For this reason I pay homage to all those men and women whose loyalty and self-sacrifice have benefitted human ity as a whole in these past 70 years. In particular, I would recall today those wh o gave their lives for peace and reconciliation among peoples, from Dag Hammarskjold to the many United Nations officials a t every level who have been killed in the course of humanitarian missions, and missions of peace and reconci liation.

Beyond these ach ievements, the experience of the past 70 years has made it clear that reform and adapta tion to the times is always necessary in the pursui t of the ultimate goal of granting all countries, without exception, a share in, and a genuine and equitable influence on, decision-making processes. The need for greater equ ity is especially true in the case o f those bodies with effective executive capa- bility, such as the Security Council, the financial agencies and the groups o r mechanisms specifically created to deal with econom ic crises. This will help limit every kind of abuse or usury, especia lly where developing countries are concerned. The interna- tional financial agencies should care fo r the sustain- ab le development of countries and should ensure that they a re not subjected to oppressive lend ing systems which, far from promoting progress, subject people to mechanisms which generate greater pov- erty, exclusion and dependence.

The work of the United Nations, according to the principles set forth in the preamble and the first articles of its founding charter, can be seen as

the development and promotion of the rule of law, based on the realization that justice is an essential condition for ach ieving the idea l of universal frater- nity. In this context, it is h elpful to recall that the limitation o f power is an idea implicit in the con- cept oflaw itself. To g ive to each h is own, to cite the classic defin ition of justice, means that no human individual or group can consider itself absolute, per- mitted to bypass the dign ity and the rights o f o ther individuals or their social groupings. The effective distribution of power (political, economic, defense- related, technological, etc) among a plurality o f subjects, and the creation o f a jurid ical system for regulating claims and interests, are one concrete way of limiting power. Yet today's world presents us with many false rights and-at the same time-broad sectors w hich are vulnerable, victims of power badly exercised: for example, the natural environment and the vast ranks of the excluded. These sectors a re closely interconnected and made increasingly fragile by dominant political and economic relationships. That is why their rights must be forcefully affirm ed, by working to protect the environment and by put- ting an end to exclusion .

First, it must be stated that a true "right o f the environment" does exist, for two reasons. First, because we human beings are part of the environ- ment. We live in communion with it, since the envi- ronment itself enta ils ethical which human activity must acknowledge and respect. Man, fo r all h is remarkable gifts, which "are signs of a unique- ness which transcends the spheres of physics and biology" (Laudato Si', 81 ), is at the same t ime a part of these spheres. He possesses a body s h aped by physical, chemica l and b io logical elements, and can only survive and develop if the ecological environ- ment is favourab le. Any harm done to the environ- ment, therefore, is harm done to humanity. Second, because every creature, particularly a living creature, has an intrinsic value, in its existence, its life, its beauty and its interdependence with o ther creatures. We Christians, together with the o ther monothe- istic religions, believe that the universe is the fruit of a loving decision by the Creator, who permits man respectfully to use creation for the good of his fellow men and for the glory of the Creator; he is not authorized to abuse it, much less to destroy it.

Speecll to Tire United Natiom, 2015 173

In all religions, the environment is a fundamental good (cf ibid.) .

The misuse and destruction of the environ- ment are a lso accompanied by a relentless process of exclusion. In effect, a selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity leads both to the misuse of available natural resources and to the exclu- sion of the weak and disadvantaged, either because they are d ifferen tly abled (handicapped), or because they lack adequate information and technical exper- tise, or are incapable o f decisive politica l action. Eco- nomic and social exclusion is a complete denial of human fraternity and a grave offense aga inst human rights and the environmen t. The poorest are those who suffer most from such offenses, for three seri- ous reasons: they are cast off by society, forced to live off what is discarded and suffer unjustly from the abuse o f the environment. They are part o f today's widespread and qu ietly growing "culture o f waste."

The dramatic reality of this whole situation of exclusion and inequality, w ith its evident effects, has led me, in union with the entire Christian people and many o thers, to take s tock of my grave responsi- bility in this regard and to speak out, together w ith all those who are seeking urgently-needed and effec- tive solutions. The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Susta inable Development at the World Summit, which opens today, is an important sign of hope. I am similarly confident that the Paris conference on climatic change will secure fundamental and effec- tive agreements.

Solemn comm itments, however, are not enough, even though they are a necessary step toward solutions. The classic definition of justice which I mentioned earl ier contains as one of its essentia l elements a constant and perpetual will: Justitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius sum cuique tribuend i. Our world demands of all govern- ment leaders a will which is effective, practical and constant, concrete steps and immediate measures for preserving and improving the natura l environ- ment and thus putting an end as quickly as possible to the phenomenon of socia l and economic exclu- sion, with its baneful consequences: human traffick- ing, the marketing o f human organs and tissues, the sexua l exp loitation of boys and girls, slave labour, including prostitution, the drug and weapons trade,

te rrorism and internationa l o rganized crime. Such is the magni tude of these situations and their toll in innocent lives, that we must avoid every tempta- tion to fall into a declarationist nominalism which would assuage our consciences. 'We need to ensure that our institutions are truly effective in the struggle against all these scourges.

The number and complexity of the problems require that we possess technical instruments o f verification. But this involves two risks. We can rest content wi th the bureaucratic exercise of drawing up long lists o f good proposals-goa ls, objectives and s tatistical indicators-or we can think that a single theoretica l and aprioris tic solution will provide an answer to all the challenges. It must never be forgot- ten that political and econom ic activity is on ly effec- tive when it is understood as a prudential activity, guided by a perennial concept of justice and con- s tantly conscious of the fuct that, above and beyond our p lans and programmes, we are dealing w ith real men and women w ho live, struggle and suffer, and are often forced to live in great poverty, deprived o f all rights.

To enable these real men and women to escape from extreme poverty, we must a llow them to be d ig- nified agents of their own destiny. Integral human development and the full exercise o f human d ig- nity cannot be imposed. They must be built up and allowed to unfold for each individual, for every family, in communion with others, and in a right relationsh ip with all those areas in which human social life develops-friends, communities, towns and cities, schools, businesses and unions, prov- inces, nations, e tc. This presupposes and requi res the righ t to education-also for girls (excluded in certain p laces )-wh ich is ensured first and foremost by respecting and reinforcing the primary right o f the family to educate its children, as well as the right of churches and social groups to support and assist families in the education of their child ren. Educa- tion conceived in this way is the basis for the imple- men tation of the 2030 Agenda and for reclaiming the environment.

The preamble and the first article of the Char- te r of the United Nations set forth the foundations of the international juridical framework: peace, the pacific solution o f disputes and the development

174 Building "Positive Peace•

of friend ly relations between th e nations. Strongly opposed to such statements, and in practice denying them, is the constant tendency to th e proliferation of arms, especially weapons o f mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons. An eth ics and a law based on th e threat of mutual destruction- and possibly the destruction of all mankind-are self-contrad ic- tory and an affront to the entire framework of the United Nations, wh ich would end up as "nations united by fear and distrust." There is urgent need to work for a world free of nuclear weapons, in full application of the non-proliferation treaty, in letter and spirit, w ith the goal of a complete proh ibition of th ese weapons.

The recent agreement reached on the nuclear question in a sensitive region of Asia and the Middle East is proof of the potential o f political good w il l and oflaw, exercised w ith sincerity, patience and con- stancy. I express my hope that this agreement will be lasting and efficacious, and bring forth the desi red fruits with the cooperation of all the parties involved.

In this sense, hard evidence is not lacking of the negative effects of military and political interven- tions which are not coordinated between members of th e internationa l community. For this reason, while regretting to have to do so, I must renew my repeated appeals in regard to th e pa inful situation of the enti re Middle East, North Africa and other Afri- can countries, where Ch ristians, together with other cultura l o r ethnic groups, and even members o f the majority relig ion who have no desire to be caugh t up in hatred and fo lly, have been forced to witness the destruction of their p laces of worsh ip, their cul- tura l and religious heritage, their houses and prop- erty, and have faced the a lternative either of fl eeing or of paying for their ad hesion to good and to peace by thei r own lives, or by enslavement.

These realities should serve as a grave summons to an exam ination of conscience on the part of th ose charged with the conduct o f international affairs. Not only in cases of relig ious o r cultural persecu- tion, but in every situation of conflict, as in Ukra ine, Syria, Iraq, Libya, South Sudan and the Great Lakes region, real human beings take precedence over par- tisan interests, however legitimate the latter may be. In wars and confl icts there are ind ividual persons, our brothers and sisters, men and women, young

and old, boys and gi rls who weep, suffer and die. Human beings who are easily discarded when our only response is to draw up lis ts of problems, s trate- gies and disagreements.

As I wrote in my letter to the secretary general of the United Nations on 9 August 2014, "the most basic understanding of human dignity compels the international community, particularly through the norms and mechanisms o f international law, to do all that it can to stop and to p revent further system- atic violence against ethnic and religious minorities" and to protect innocent peoples.

Along th e same lines I wou ld mention anoth er kind of conflict which is not a lways so open, yet is silently ki lling millions of people. Another kind o f war experienced by many of ou r societies as a result of the narcotics trade. A wa r which is taken for granted and poorly fought. Drug trafficking is by its very nature accompan ied by trafficking in persons, money laundering, the a rms trade, child exploita- tion and other forms of corruption. A corruption which has penetrated to different levels of social, polit ical, military, artistic and religio us life, and, in many cases, has g iven rise to a parallel structure which threatens the cred ibility of our insti tut ions.

I began this speech recall ing the visits of my pre- decessors. I would hope tha t my words wi ll be taken above all as a continuation of the final words of the address of Pope Paul VI; although spoken a lmost exactly fifty years ago, they remain ever timely. "The hour has come when a pause, a moment of recollec- tion, reflection, even of prayer, is absolutely needed so that we may think back over ou r common origin, our history, our common destiny. The appea l to the moral conscience of man has never been as neces- sary as it is today . .. For th e danger comes neither from progress nor from science; if these are used well, th ey can h elp to solve a great number of the serious problems besetting mankind (Add ress to th e United Nations organization, 4 October 1965). Among o ther things, human gen ius, well applied, wil l s urely help to meet th e grave challenges of eco- logical deterioration and o f exclusion. As Pau l VI said: "The real danger comes from man, who h as at his d isposal ever more powerful instruments that are as well fitted to bring abou t ruin as they are to achieve lofty conquests" (ibid.) .

How to judge Globalism 175

The common home of all men and women must continue to rise on the foundations of a right understanding of universal fraternity and respect for the sacredness of every human life, of every man and every woman, the poor, the elderly, chil- dren, the infirm, the unborn, the unemployed, the abandoned, those considered disposable because they are only considered as part of a statistic. This common home of all men and women must also be bui lt on the understanding of a certain sacredness of created nature.

Such understanding and respect call for a higher degree of wisdom, one which accepts transcendence, rejects the creation of an all-powerful eli te, and recog- nizes that the full meaning of individual and collec- tive life is found in selfless service to others and in the sage and respectfu l use of creation for the common good . To repeat the words of Paul VI, "the edifice of modern civilization has to be built on spiritual prin- ciples, for they are the only ones capable not only of supporting it, but of shedding light on it" (ibid.).

El Gaucho Martin Fierro, a classic of literature in my native land, says: "Brothers should stand by each other, because this is the first law; keep a true bond between you always, at every time-because if you fight among yourselves, you' ll be devoured by those outside. "

The contemporary world, so apparently con- nected, is experiencing a growing and steady social

fragmentation, which places at risk "the foundations of social life" and consequently leads to "ba ttles over conflicting interests" (Laudato Si', 229).

The present time invites us to give priority to actions which generate new processes in society, so as to bear frui t in significant and positive histori- cal events ( cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 223 ). We cannot permit ourselves to postpone "certain agendas" for the future. lne future demands of us critical and global decisions in the face of world-wide confli cts which increase the number of the excluded and those in need.

The praiseworthy international juridical frame- work of the United Nations organization and of all its activities, like any other human endeavour, can be improved, yet it remains necessary; at the same time it can be the pledge of a secure and happy future for future generations. And so it wil l, if the representatives of the states can set aside partisan and ideological interests, and sincerely strive to serve the common good. I pray to Almighty God that this will be the case, and I assure you of my support and my prayers, and the support and prayers of all the faithful of the Catholic Church, that this institution, all its member states, and each of its officials, will always render an effective service to mankind, a ser- vice respectful of diversity and capable of bringing out, for sake of the common good, the best in each people and in every individuaL

Amartya Sen

HOW TO JUDGE GLOBALISM

Poverty persists as an underlying cause as well as effect of structural violence. It also lurks behind much of th e world's overt violence and is, in any event, a constant rebuke to any conception of human dignity and positive peace. Alth ough the world as a who le is, in a sense, wealthy, great disparities exist, and in some places, those disparities have been increasing. Many factors contribute to this, including (but not limited to) population pressure, environmental degradation, governmental corruption, traditions of helplessness

Used with the permission of 71Je American Prospect, "Ho w to Judge Globalism," Amartya Sen, 71Je American Prospect, 2002. www.prospect.org. All rights reserved.

176 Building ·rositive Peace•

and hopelessness, and exp loitation by loca l socioeconom ic systems as well as by fore ign countries and multinational corporations.

The struggle against world poverty and economic injustice is intimately connected w ith efforts toward positive peace and has been undertaken not only by nongovernmental organizations but also by increasing numbers of prominent economists. Among them, one of the most effective and influential is the Indian-born Nobel Prize-winn ing Harvard economist Amartya Sen, whose critique of globalism appears here.

0'27- -------------

G lobalization is often seen as global Westerniza-tion. On th is point, there is substantial agree- ment among many proponents and opponents. Those who take an upbea t view of g lobalization see it as a marvelous contribution of Western civiliza- tion to the world . There is a nicely stylized h istory in wh ich the great developments happened in Europe: First came the Renaissance, then the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, and these led to a massive increase in living standards in the West And now the great achievements of the West are spread- ing to the world. In this view, globalization is not only good, it is also a gift from the West to the world. The champions o f this reading of history tend to feel upset not just because this great benefaction is seen as a curse but also because it is undervalued and cas- tigated by an ungrateful world.

From the opposite perspective, Western dominance-sometimes seen as a continuation of Western imperialism-is the devil of the piece. In this view, contemporary capitalism, d riven and led by greedy and grabby Western countries in Europe and North America, has estab lished rules of trade and business relations that do not serve the interests of the poorer people in the world. The celebration of various non-Western identities-defined by reli- gion (as in Islamic fundamentalism), region (as in the championing of Asian values), or culture (as in the glorification of Confucian ethics )-can add fuel to the fire of confrontation with the West

Is g lobalization really a new Western curse7 It is, in fact, neither new nor necessarily Western; and it is not a curse. Over thousands of years, g loba liza- tion has contributed to the progress of the world through travel, trade, m igration, spread of cultural

influences, and dissemination of knowledge and understanding (including that of science and tech- nology). These global interrelations have often been very productive in the advancement of different countries. They have not necessarily taken the form of increased Western influ ence. Indeed, the active agents of globalization have often been located far from the West.

To illustrate, consider the world a t the begin- ning of the last millennium rather than a t its end. Around 1000 A.D., g lobal reach of science, technol- ogy, and mathematics was changing the nature o f the o ld world, but the dissemination then was, to a great extent, in the opposite direction of what we see today. The h igh technology in the world of 1000 A.D. included paper, the printing press, the cross- bow, gunpowder, the iron-chain suspension bridge, the kite, the magnetic compass, the wheelbarrow, and the rotary fan. A millennium ago, these items were used extensively in China-and were practi- cally unknown elsewhere. Globalization spread them across the world, including Europe.

A sim ilar movement occurred in the Eastern influence on Western math ematics. The decimal system emerged and became well developed in India between the second and sixth cen turies; it was used by Arab mathematicians soon thereafter. These math ematical innovations reached Europe mainly in the last quarter of the tenth century and began having an impact in the early years of the last mil- lennium, playing an important part in the scientific revolution that helped to transform Europe. The agents of globalization a re neither European nor exclusively Western, nor are they necessarily linked to Western dominance. Indeed, Europe wou ld h ave

liow Ill judge Globalism 177

been a lot poorer- economicaHy, culturally, and scientifically-had it resisted the globalization of mathematics, science. and technology at that time. And today, the same principle applies, though in the reverse direction (from West to East}. To reject the globalization of science and technology because it represents Western infl uence and im perialism would not o nly amo unt to overlooking global contributions-drawn from many difTerent parts of the world- that lie solidly behind so-called Western science and technology. but would also be quite a daft practical decision, given the extent to which the whole world can benefit from the process.

A GLOBAL H ERITAGE

In resisting the diagnosis of globalization as a phe- nomenon o f quintessentiaHy Western origin, we have 10 be suspicious not on ly of the anti-Wes1ern rhe1oric but also of the pro-Western chauvinism in many con1emporary writi ngs. Certainly, th e Renais- sa nce, 1he Enlightenment, and the Industrial luti o n were great ach ievements-and they occurred mainly in Europe and, later, in America. Yet many of these developments drew on the experience of the rest of 1he world, rather than being confined within the boundaries of a discrete Western civiliza1ion .

Our global civilization is a world heri1age-not just a collection of disparate local cultures. When a modem mathematician in Boston invokes an algo- rithm 10 solve a difficult computational problem, she may no t be aware that she is helping 10 com- memorate the Arab m athematician Mohammad Ib n Musa-al-Khwarizmi, who flourished in the first half of the ninth century. (The word algorithm is derived from the name ai- Khv.'<lrizmi.) There is a chain of intellectual relations that link Western mathemat- ics and science to a colleaion of distinctly non- Weslem practitioners, of whom al-Khwarizmi was one. ('!be term algebra is derived from the title of his famous book Al-Jabr wa-al-Muqabilah.} Indeed, al-Khwarizmi is one of many non-Western con- tributors whose works influenced the European Renaissance and, later, the Enlightenmem and the lndus!fial Revolution. The West must get full credit for the remarkab le achievements that occurred in Europe and Europea nized America, but the idea of

an immaculate Western conception is an imagina- tive fantasy.

Not only is the progress of global science and technology not an exclusively West-led phenom- enon, but there were major global developments in which the West was no1 even involved. The print- ing of the world's first book was a marvelo usly glo- balized event. "Th e technology of printing was, of course. en tirely an acl1ievement of the Ch inese But the content came from elsewhere. ' lbe first printed book was an Indian Sanskrit treatise, translated into Chinese by a half: rurk. The book, Vajracchedika Prajnaparamilasutra (sometimes referred to as "The Diamond Sutra"), is an old treatise o n Buddhism; it was translated into Chinese from Sanskrit in the fifth century by Kumarajiva, a half-Indian and half-Turkish scholar who lived in a part of eastern Turkistan called Kucl1a but later migrated to China. It was printed four centuries later, in 868 A.D. Al l th is involving China, Tu rkey, and India is global iza- tio n, all right, bu t the Wes1 is not even in sight.

GLOBAL INTERDEPEN D ENCES AND MOVEMENTS

The misdiagnosis that globalization of ideas and practices has to be resisted because it entails dreaded Westernization has played quite a regressive pan in the colonial and postcolonial world. This assump- tion incites parochial 1endencies and undermines the possibility of objectivily in science and knowl- edge It is not only counterproductive in itself; given the globa l interactions thro ughout history, it can also cause no n-Western societies to shoot themselves in the foot- even in their precious cultural foo t.

Consider the resistance in India to the use of Western ideas and concepts in science and mathe- matics. In the nineteenth century, this debate fitted into a broader controversy about \.Vestem education versus indigenous Indian education. The "Westem- izers; such as the redoubtable 'lbomas Babington Macaulay, saw no merit wha1soever in Indian tradi- tion. "I have never found one among them [advo- cates of Indian tradition[ who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native litera!Ure o f Ind ia and Arabia,· he declared. Partly in retaliation, the advocates of

178 Build ing ·Positive Peace•

native education resisted Western imports a lto- gether. Both sides, however, accepted too readily the foundational dichotomy between two disparate civilizations.

European mathematics, w ith its use of such concepts as sine, was viewed as a purely "Western • import into India. In fact, the fifth -century Indian mathematician Aryabhata had discussed the con- cept o f sine in h is classic work on astronomy and mathematics in 499 A.D., calling it by its Sanskrit name, jya-ardha (literally, "h a lf-chord"). Th is word, first s hortened to jya in Sanskrit, eventually became the Arabic jiba and, later, jaib, which means •a cove or a bay." In h is h istory of mathematics, Howard Eves exp la ins that around 1150 A.D., Ghera rdo of Cremona, in h is transla tions from the Arab ic, ren- dered jaib as the Latin sinus, the correspond ing word for a cove or a bay. And this is the source of the modem word sine. The concept had traveled fu ll circle- from India, and then back.

To see globalization as merely Western impe- rialism of ideas and beliefs (as the rhetoric often s uggests) would be a serious and costly error, in the same way that any European resis tance to Eastern influence wou ld have been at the beginning of the last millennium. Of course, there a re issues related to g lobalization that do connect with imperialism (the h istory of conquests, colon ia lism, and alien ru le remains relevant today in many ways), and a postcolonia l understanding o f the world has its merits. But it wou ld be a great mistake to see glo- ba lization primarily as a feature of imperialism. It is much bigger-much greater- than that.

The issue of th e distribution of economic gains and losses from globalization remains an entirely separate question, and it must be addressed as a further-and extremely relevant-issue. There is extensive evidence that the global economy has brought prosperity to many different areas of the g lobe. Pervasive poverty dominated the world a few centuries ago; there were only a few rare pockets of affl uence. In overcom ing that penury, extensive eco- nomic in te rrelations and modern technology have been and rema in influential. What has happened in Europe, America, Japan, and East Asia has important messages fo r all other regions, and we cannot go very fa r into understanding the nature of globalization

today without first acknowledging the positive fruits of globa l economic contacts.

Indeed, we cannot reverse the economic pre- dicament of the poor across th e world by withhold- ing from them the great advantages of contemporary techno logy, the well-established efficiency of inter- national trade a nd exchange, and the social as well as economic merits of living in an open society. Rather, th e main issue is how to make good use o f th e remarkable benefits of economic intercou rse and technologica l progress in a way that pays ade- quate attention to th e interests of the deprived and th e underdog. That is, I wou ld argue, the construc- tive question that emerges from the so-called anti- globalization movements.

ARE T HE POOR GETfiNG POORER?

The p rincipal challenge relates to inequality-inter- national as well as intranational . The troubling inequalities include disparities in affluence and also gross asymmetries in political, socia l, and economic opportun ities and power.

A crucial question concerns the sharing of the potentia l gains from globalization-between rich and poor countries and among d ifferent groups within a country. It is not sufficien t to understand that the poor of th e world need globalization as much as the rich do; it is also importan t to make sure that th ey actually get what th ey need. Th is may require extensive institutional reform, even as glo- balization is defended.

There is a lso a need fo r more clarity in formu- lating the distributional questions. For example, it is often a rgued that th e rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Bu t th is is by no means un iform ly so, even though there are cases in wh ich th is has hap- pened. Much depends on the region or th e group chosen and what indicators of econom ic prosperity are used. But the attempt to base the castigation o f economic globalization on this rather thin ice pro- duces a peculiarly fragi le critique.

On the o ther side, the apologis ts of global- ization point to their belief that the poor who participate in trade a nd exchange a re mostly get- ting richer. Ergo-th e argument runs- globaliza- tion is not unfair to the poor: they too benefit If the

J-low to judge Globalism 179

central relevance of this question is accepted, then the whole debate turns on determining which side is correct in this empirical dispute. But is this the right battleground in the first place? I would argue that it is not.

GLOBAL JUSTIC E AND THE BARGAINING PROBLEM

Even if the poor were to get just a little richer, this would not necessarily imply that the poor were get- ting a fair share of the potentially vast benefits of global economic interrelations. It is not adequate to ask whether international inequality is getting mar- ginally larger or smaller. In order to rebel against the appalling poveny and tl1e staggering inequali- ties that characterize the contemporary world-or to protest against the unfair sharing of benefits of global cooperation- it is not necessary to show that the massive inequality or distributional unfairness is also getting marginally larger. "!his is a separate issue altogether.

When there are gains from cooperation, there can be many possible arrangements. As the game theorist and mathematician John Nash discussed more than half a century ago (in • Jbe Bargaining Problem, • published in Eco11ometrica in 1950, which was cited, among other writings, by the Royal Swed- ish Academy of Sciences when Nash was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics), the central issue in general is not whether a panicular arrangement is better for everyone than no cooperation at all would be, but whether that is a fair division of the ben- efits. One cannot rebut the criticism that a distribu- tional arrangement is unfair simply by noting that all the panies are better off than they would be in the absence of cooperation; the real exercise is the choice between these alternatives.

AN ANALOGY WITH T H E FAMI LY

By analogy, to argue that a particularly unequal and sexist family arrangement is unfair, o ne does not have to show that women wou ld have done comparatively better had there been no fami lies at all, but only that the sharing of the benefits is seriously unequal in that particu lar arrangement. Before the issue of ge nder justice became an expl icitly recogn ized concern (as

it has in recent decades), there were attempts to dis- miss the issue of unfair arrangements within the family by suggesting that women did not need to live in families if they found the arrangements so unjust. It was also argued that since women as well as men benefit from living in families, the existing arrangements could not be unfair. But even when it is accepted that both men and women may typically gain from living in a family, the question of distri- butional fairness remains. Many different family arrangements- when compared with the absence of any family system-would satisfy the condition of being beneficial to both men and women. 1he real issue concerns how fairly benefits associated with tllese respective arrangements are distributed.

Likewise, one cannot rebut the charge that the global system is unfair by showing that even the poor gai n som ething from global contacts and are no t necessarily made poorer. That answer may or may not be wrong. but the q uestion cenai nly is. "!be critical issue is not whether the poor are getti ng marginally poorer o r richer. Nor is it whether they are better off than they would be had they exc:luded themselves from globa lized interactions.

Again, the real issue is the distribution of glo· balization's benefits. Indeed, this is why many of the antiglobalization protesters, who seek a better deal fo r the underdogs of the world economy, are not- contrary to their own rhetoric and to the views attributed to tllem by others-really ·antiglobaliza· tion. · It is also why there is no real contradiction in the fact that the so-called antiglobalization protests have become among the most globalized events in the contemporary world.

ALTERING GWBAL ARRANGEMENTS

However, can those less-well-off groups get a better deal from globalized economic and social relations \vithout dispensing \vith the market economy itself? They certain ly can. ·1be use of the market economy is consistent witll many different ownership pat· terns, resou rce availabi lities, social opportunities, and rules of operation (such as patent laws and antitrust regulations). And depending on these co n· d itio ns, the market econo my would generate dif. ferent prices, terms of trade, income distribution,

180 Build ing ·rositive Peace•

and, more generally, diverse overall outcomes. The arrangements for socia l security and o th er public interventions can make further modifications to the outcomes of the market processes, and together they can yield varying levels of inequa lity and poverty.

The centra l question is not whether to use the market economy. That s ha llow question is easy to answer, because it is hard to achieve economic pros- perity without making extensive use of the oppor- tunities of exchange and specialization that market relations offer. Even though the operation of a given market economy can be significantly defective, there is no way of dispensing with the institution o f mar- kets in genera l as a powerful engine of economic progress.

But th is recognition does not end the d is- cussion about globalized market relations. The market economy does not work by itself in g lobal relations-indeed, it cannot operate a lone even w ithin a given country. It is not on ly the case that a market-inclusive system can generate very d is tinct results depending on various enabling conditions (such as how p hysical resources are d is tributed, how human resou rces are developed, what rules o f busi- ness relations p revai l, wha t socia l-security arrange- ments a re in place, and so on). These enabling cond itions themselves depend critica lly on eco- nomic, social, and politica l institutions that operate nationally and globally.

The crucial role of th e markets does not make the other institutions insignificant, even in te rms of the resu lts that the market economy can produce. As has been amply establis h ed in emp irical s tud ies, market outcomes a re massively influenced by public policies in education, epidemiology, land reform, microcredit facilities, appropriate legal protections, et cetera; and in each of these fields, th ere is work to be done through public action that can radically a lter th e ou tcome of loca l and global economic relations.

INSTITUTI ONS AND INEQ UALilY

Globalization has much to offer; but even as we defend it, we must a lso, without any contradic- tion, see the legitimacy o f many questions tha t the antiglobalization protesters ask. There may be a

m isdiagnosis abou t where the main problems lie (they do not lie in globalization, as such), but the e th ical and human concerns that yield th ese ques- tions call for serious reassessments of the adequacy of th e national and globa l insti tutional a rrange- men ts that characterize the contemporary world and s hape g lobalized economic and socia l relations.

Global capitalism is much more concerned with expand ing the domain of market relations than w ith, say, establishing democracy, expanding elementary education, o r enhancing the socia l opportunities o f society's underdogs. Since globalization o f markets is, on its own, a very inadequate approach to world prosperity, there is a need to go beyond the priori- ties that find expression in the chosen focus of global capita lism. As George Soros has pointed out, inter- national b usiness concerns often have a strong p ref- erence for working in o rderly and h igh ly o rganized a u tocracies rather than in activis t and less-regimented democracies, and this can be a regressive influ ence on equitable development. Further, multinational firms can exert their influence on th e priorities of public expenditure in less secure third-world countries by giving p reference to the safety and convenience o f the managerial classes and of privileged workers over the removal of w idespread illiteracy, medical deprivation, and other adversities of the poor. These possibilities do not, of course, impose any insurmountable barrier to development, but it is importan t to make sure that the surmountable barriers a re actually surmounted.

OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIO NS

The injustices that characterize the world a re closely related to various omissions that need to be addressed, particularly in institutional a rrange- ments. I have tried to identify some o f the main problems in my book Developmellt as Freedom (Knopf, 1999). Globa l policies have a role here in help ing the development o f national institutions (for example, through defending democracy and supporting schooling and hea lth facilities), but th ere is a lso a need to re-examine the adequacy o f global institutional a rrangemen ts themselves. The distribution of the benefits in the globa l economy depends, among other th ings, on a variety of global institutional a rrangements, including those for fa ir

How to judge Globalism 181

trade, medical in itiatives, educational exchanges, facilities fo r technological d issemination, ecological and environmenta l restra ints, and fa ir treatment of accumulated debts that were often incurred by irre- sponsible military rulers of the past.

In addition to the momentous omissions that need to be rectified, th ere are a lso serious problems of commission that must be addressed for even ele- mentary g loba l ethics. These include not only inef- ficient and inequitable trade restrictions that repress exports from poor countries, but also patent laws that inhibit the use of lifesaving drugs- for d iseases like AIDS- and that give inadequ ate incentive for medica l research aimed a t developing nonrepeating medicines (such as vaccines). These issues have been much discussed on their own, b u t we must also note how they fit into a genera l pattern of unh elpful arrangements that underm ine wh at globalization could offer.

Anoth er- somewhat less discussed-global "commission " tha t causes intense misery as well as lasting deprivation re lates to the involvement of the world powers in g lobalized a rms trade. This is a field in which a new globa l initiative is u rgently go ing beyond th e need-th e very important need- to cu rb terrorism, on wh ich the focus is so heavily concentrated right now. Local wars and military conflicts, which h ave very destructive consequences (not least on the economic prospects of poor coun- tries), draw not only on regional tensions but a lso on g lobal trade in a rms and weapons. The world estab lishment is firmly entrenched in this b usiness: the Permanent Members o f the Security Counci l of the Uni ted Na tions were together responsib le fo r 81 percent of world arms expons from 1996 through 2000. Indeed, the world leaders who express deep frustration at the • irresponsibil ity" of antig lobaliza- tion protesters lead the countries that make the most money in this terrib le trade. The G-8 countries sold 87 percent of th e to ta l supply of arms exported in the entire world. The U.S. share a lone h as just gone u p to a lmost 50 percent of the tota l sales in the world. Furthermore, as much as 68 percent of the American arms exports went to developing countries.

The arms are used with bloody results- and w ith devastating effects on the economy, the polity,

and the society. In some ways, this is a continuation o f the unhelpful role o f world powers in th e genesis and flowe ring of po litical militarism in Africa from the 1960s to th e 1980s, when the Cold War was fough t over Africa. During these decades, when mili- tary overlords- Mobuto Sese Seko o r jonas Savimbi o r wh oever-bus ted social a nd political a rrange- men ts (and, ultimately, econom ic o rder as well) in Africa, they cou ld rely on s upport either from the United States and its a ll ies or from the Soviet Union, depending on their military a lliances. The world powers bear an awesome responsib il ity for helping in th e s ubversion o f democracy in Africa and for all the far-reaching negative consequences of that sub- version. ' Ibe pursu it of arms "pushing• g ives them a continuing role in the escala tion of military confli cts today- in Africa and elsewhere. ' Ibe U.S. refusal to agree to a joint crackdown even on illicit sa les o f small a rms (as proposed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan) illustrates the difficu lties involved .

FAIR SHARING O F G LOBAL OPPORTUNIT IES

To conclude, the confounding of g lobalization with Westernization is not only ahistorical, it a lso dis- tracts attention from the many potential benefits o f g lobal integration . Globalization is a h istorical process that has offered an abundance of opportu- nities and rewards in the past and continues to do so today. ' Ibe very existence o f potentially large benefits makes the q uestion of fairness in sharing the ben- efi ts o f g lobalization so critically important.

The central issue o f contention is not g lobal- ization itself, nor is it th e use o f the marke t as an institutio n, but the inequ ity in th e overa ll balance o f institutional arrangements wh ich produces very unequal sharing o f the benefi ts of g lobalization. The question is not just whether the poor, too, gain someth ing from globalization, but wheth er they get a fai r share and a fai r opportunity. ' Ibere is an u rgent need for reforming insti tutional arrangements-in addition to national ones-in o rder to overcome both the errors o f om ission and those of commis- sion that tend to give the poor across the world such limited opportunities. Globalization deserves a rea- soned defense, b u t it a lso needs reform.

182 Build ing ·rositive Peace•

David P. Baras h

HUMAN !RIGHTS

·we trave l together," noted Adlai E. Stevenson (the governor o f Ill inois, Democratic Party presidential ca ndidate, and UN am bassador), #passengers o n a little spacesh ip, dependent on its vulnerable reserves of air and so il; all co mmitted for our sa fety to its security and peace; preserved from annihi lation only by the care, the work a nd the love we give our fragile craft, and, I may say, each other."

Like Mark Twa in's celebrated remark about tl1e weather, o ne can say that many people talk a bout h uman righ ts but relatively few do anythi ng about it. Yet, too many huma n beings are denied so me of the most basic hu ma n rights: nearly o ne-half of the world's people are denied democratic freedoms a nd political participation; about one-third face severe restrictions on their right to own property; more than one-half of Asians a nd sub- Saharan Africans do not have access to safe water; jails worldwide are fi lled w ith politi- cal prisoners, many of them held without trial and victimized by torture; ch ild labor is w idespread; women are o ften deprived of the eco nomic, social, and political rights that men take for gra nted; many workers are not only non union ized b ut prohibited even from form ing u nions; the righ t of conscientio us objection to mi litary service is not recogn ized in most countries; censorship is w idespread; and billions of people are illiterate, duo ni- cally sick, without adequate shelter, and h ungry. Even s lavery- wh ich, in the 21st century seems a hideous anachronism-not on ly persists but also, by some accounts, has been increasing. Human rights advocates have lots o f work to do.

A BRIEF H ISlD RY OF HUMAN RIG HTS being could not claim entitlemen t to very much, if anyth ing, simply because he o r she existed. It is tempti ng to claim that huma n righ ts are as o ld

as the huma n species, bu t the truth is qui te different Even if human rights are ina lienable and fu ndamen- tal, the conception o f human rights as such- and respect for them- is relatively new. Rights and privi- leges have traditionally been considered a social benefit, to be bestowed or revoked by the la rger u nit (band, tribe, monarch, village, city, state) at wil l. In nearly all societies, fo r nearly all of human history, collective values have been derived from the social order, not the ind ividual . Hence, a single human

Some representatives o f trad itional cultu res support the concept of ind ividual huma n rights as wide-ra nging a nd u niversa lly derived. Confucius, for example, a rgued that "withi n the four seas all men are brothers," and Buddhists believe in "compas- sion fo r every sentien t being." But, in fact, human rights as currently understood are largely a Western trad ition, deriving especially from the works o f the English p hilosophers joh n locke and Joh n Stuart Mill. locke maintai ned that a fu ndamental huma n

Mo dified and updated fro m Introduction lo Peace Srudies, by Dav;d P. Barash. Copyright 1991, Bel mont, Ca: Wadsworth. Used by permissio n.

Hunum Rights 183

right was the right to property, primarily the right to the security of o ne's own body; civil and politi- cal rights flo wed, in his view, from this. Thus, there is some truth to the criticism that Westerners advo- cating human rights may occasionally be gu ilty of moral arroga nce, seeking to export thei r own rather culture-bound ideas, especially th eir emphasis on civil/ politica l freedom.

In addition, Western political thought coexists w ith respect for-and, occasionally, virtual worsh ip of- the s tate. Accord ing to such influentia l German politica l theoris ts as Hegel and Herder, rights are en larged and even created for ind ividuals only through the actions of the state. An d fo r orthodox Marxists, va lue derives on ly from th e socia l order: there is no meaning to ind ividual rights, according to doctrina ire Marxist analysis, prio r to them being granted by society. Al though such nominally com- munist states as the former Soviet Union were sup- posedly desig ned to maximize the benefits of every person, the "rights" of each indiv idual may come to naught if they run counter to th e p resumed greater good of society as a whole: ind ividuals can expect to receive benefits from a commun ity only insofar as they participate in it a nd further its goals. And, even today- w ith commu n ism largely a memory and ever-i ncreasing agreement on the meaning and desirability of human rights-there continues to be substantial d isagreement as to priorities.

Human Rights i n Modem Times There was little worldwide co ncern w ith human rights until after World War II. Despite the Enligh t- enment, modern capita lism' s emphasis o n ind i- vidual property rights, a nd Western democracy's emph asis on ind ividual political rights, state sover- eignty has long taken p recedence over human rights. When the modern state system was established in the mid-1 7 th cen tury, major European governments agreed- ostensibly in th e interest of world peace- not to concern themselves very much with how other governments treated their citizens. With in its own boundaries, each s tate was supreme and could do pretty much as it wished.

Gradually, however, human rights law devel- oped, initia lly out of concern with protecting

persons during armed conflict. The Geneva Con- vention of 1864, for example, sought to establish s tandards fo r treatment of wounded sold iers and o f prisoners. (It is ironic that war-one of the most inhumane o f human situations- shou ld have led to the first o rganized recognition o f shared humanitar- ian va lues.)

The Internationa l Committee o f the Red Cross is a nongovernmental organization long concerned with internationa l human rights; it was organized by a g roup o f Swiss citizens who h ad attended the 1864 Geneva Convention. The Red Cross remains active today, as does its Islamic equivalent, the Red Crescen t, seeking especially to ensure fa ir treatment o f people during armed confl ict. It has also partici- pated in several modifications and revisions of the Geneva Convention, notably in 1977.

Following World War I, th ere was widespread recogni tion that one cause o f that confl ict was the denial o f nationa l rights to ethn ic minorities within such large politica l en tities as the Aus tro-H ungarian Empire. Hence, human rights received explici t atten- tion from the league of Nations, wh ich stressed that minorities must be respected by larger federa l governments. labor rights- to organize, to obtain decent working conditions and wages, restrictions on child labor-were th e focus o f the International labou r O rganization, wh ich later became part o f the United Na tions and also won a Nobel Peace Prize. Opposition to slavery catalyzed numerous early human rights organizations, such as the Anti- Slavery League Many people do not realize that in some countries slavery was on ly fo rmally abolished during the 1950s, and slavery is still practiced today, notably in Mau ritania, where a trad ition exists o f farm laborers being indentured to o ther, local farm families, and a lso in Haiti, wh ere under the resre avec ( "s tay with") system, young g irls ostensibly receive food, lodging, and education in return fo r provid ing baby-sitting and other domestic services for wealthy urban h ouseh o lds- but in actuality these girls become enmeshed in years-long enslavemen t. Paki- s tan is another notorious haven fo r de fac to slavery, in wh ich debtors find themselves fo rced to labor, for example, in brick factories, with essentially no hope o f paying off their debts or ga ining their freedom. It

184 Building •Posi tive Peace"

is estimated that nearly a million Uzbeks are simi- larly forced to labor in cotton fields. The Global Slavery Index lists an extensive and shameful catalog of such abuses, including domestics in Persian Gulf states, and trafficked women forced into prostitu- tion in much of the world. Even in the United States labor trafficking still persists, by which seasonal workers, often from Mexico or Central America. who pick fruit or work on ranches in southern states, are not compensated for their work.

Organized worldwide concern for human rights did not really coalesce until after World War II, per- haps in part as a reaction to the devastating denials of rights that occurred during that conflict. In the aftermath of the Nazi l-lolocaust, the consciences of some Western leaders were finally activated-partly out of regret for those who had suffered and partly out of enlightened self- interest. ' rhe German Martin Niemi.iller put it memorably: •First they came for the Jews and I d id not spea k out-because I was not a Jew. 'lhen they came for the communists and I did not speak out-because I was not a commu- n ist. Then they ca me for the trade unionists and I did not speak out-because I was not a trade union- ist. 'rhen they came for me-and there was no one left to speak out for me. •• (In fact. Pastor Niemi.iller himself became a victim of the Nazis.)

Liberalism

In traditional liberal political thought, human rights exiSt not only because of their contribution to human dignity but also because human beings naturally possess such rights. · 111e object of any obligation in the realm of human affairs,· according to philosopher Simone Weil, "is always the human being as such. 'lbere exists an obligation toward every human being for the sole reason that he or she is a human being. without any other condition requiring to be fulfilled . • Or, in Thomas Jefferson's phrase, people have certain "inalienable rights, • which may not be denied.

States with long traditions of social equity, including New Zea land and the Scand inavian nations, are also co nstructed along liberal lines but with a dose of socio -economic egalitarianism. Thus,

although the classical liberalism of the U.S. stresses civil and political rights with "freedom • of socioeco- nomic competition, institutions embedding legal egalitarianism and social welfare (present to some degree in Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland and Sweden, and, to a lesser extent, in Canada, New Zea- land, and the Netherlands), place greater emphasis on citizens' rights to free or affordable health care and education as welL

Conservatism Traditional Anglo-American conservatism has liule to say today with respect to human rights, because conservatism is in part a philosophy of u11equa/ rights and privi leges. But the unspoken tenets of conservatism are nonetheless influential in practice. C lassical Western conservatism can be said to have o riginated with Plato, who argued in T/1e Repub· lie that people are unequal and that the best form of government is therefore not democracy but ru le by ph ilosopher-kings. More than two m il lenn ia later, this belief in unequal rights underpins many right-wing governments, from the •classica l conser- vatism" of the military jun tas that ruled Brazil and Greece to the various U.S.-sponsored Central Ameri- can governments through most of the late 20th cen- tury (Guatemala, Honduras, El Sa lvador, Panama). to the neofascist dictatorships in Chile. Paraguay, Indonesia, and the Philippines, in which rights were reserved only for the most powerfuL

Collectivism

Finally, the third branch of human rights philoso- phy might be called "collectivist, • and can in turn be subdivided into two streams, Marxist and national- ist. For Karl Mane. individuals were not fully inde- pendent actors; rather, they were largely controlled by economic forces engaged in a relentless class struggle. In the Marxist view, the liberal emphasis on ind ividual rights is therefore a misplaced bourgeois luxury, ideological form without social substance. Instead, rights are conferred by society and belong exclusively to the pro letariat or working class. Such an approach leads automatically to an embrace of socioeconomic rights and economic equ ity, with a downplaying of civil/political rights. 'l11us, in

Hunum Riglrts 185

Marxist-oriented societies, freedom of speech and opin ion are permitted insofar as they do not con- flict with the s tated goals of group advancement and welfare. The state is ideally the embod iment of the working class.

The second version of collectivist human rights has a leftis t flavo r bu t is not, strictly speaking, Marx- ist. It derives instead from national liberation move- ments, and it p laces special emphasis o n the right to nationa l self-determination and economic develop- ment, from which a ll o th er rights are then derived. Believers in the human righ t of national self- determination downplay the individual, although they remain committed to equal rights generally. Emphasis instead is on the rights of a national grouping. Th is approach lay behind the Universal Declaration o f the Righ ts of Peop les, w h ich grew out of an infl uential 197 6 meeting of high ly regarded, nongovernmental spokespeople from the develop- ing world. Its concern w ith •people's clearly distinguishes this approach from the Western focus on "ind ividual rights. •

Choosing the Approp riate Philosophy Not surprisingly, there is debate over wh ich human rights model is most appropriate fo r any given coun- try. The 1:\vo majo r contending Western systems of the past- capita lism based on classical free market liber- alism principles and Sovie t-style Marxism based on a collectivist philosophy- historically have produced deep structures of oppression. Thus, although Marx himself explicitly claimed that the state will eventually disappear, state structures dominated by •Marxist• or "Communist• politica l parties showed no tendency to do so; in fact, they became notably oppressive, until, as in the case of the Soviet Union, they simply crumbled- which is very d ifferent from Marx's origi- nal conception, under wh ich the idea l workers' state would wither away by mutual consent on ly after its goa ls had been achieved. Even more than liberal capitalist s ta tes, Marxist-identified governments have tended to be super-s ta tes, abusi ng power via ossified bureaucratic structures that were generally insensitive to personal civil and political liberties.

By contrast, the supposed ly • minimal s tates• envisioned by some Western political ph ilosophers

and established especially in Europe and North America have been p rimarily concerned with balanc- ing the various political powers of government with popular sovereignty and corporate influence. Social and economic "righ ts" are here generally treated as secondary, as cap italist/ democra tic societies rely on market mechanisms and an ethos o f individual competition. Only begrudgingly have many capi- talist/ democratic states recognized a social respon- sibility toward their populace, a lthough ostensibly middle-of-the-road a nd even relatively conservative s tates in much of Europe (e.g., Germany a nd France) promote programs of social welfare- such as gov- ernment sponsored ch ild-care and mandated paren- tal leave with pay- as a "human right." To many Americans, this appears qui te • left-wing."

On balance, capitalist democracies pay insuffi- cient attention to socioeconomic rights, wh ile state socialis t governments ta ke inadequate account o f civil/ politica l o nes. Economic development is gener- ally more rapid under capitalism, and the economic s tagnation of most state-socialist cou ntries contrib- uted mighti ly to their dramatic political decline. At the same time, relatively little benefit from economic development actually reaches the poorest citizens o f most capitalist states. The rapid transition to a primi- tive kind of capi ta lism on the part of Russia and some of its former satel lite states has been accompanied, in most cases, by great wealth for a small minority of successfu l entrepreneurs and financiers, as well as for more than a few outright crooks and beneficia- ries o f rampant cronyism, as s ta te assets were sold off at extremely low p rices. Simultaneously, living conditions fo r the majority may have actually wors- ened. In some cases, political freedoms expanded dramatically across the board, along w ith economic opportunities, wh ile many people formerly living under Sovie t-style commun ism and now experienc- ing Western-style •freedom" have a lso experienced deterioration in thei r socioeconomic rights.

IN DIVI DUAL LIB ER1Y AND S O C IOECO NOMIC RIGHTS

Individua l liberty is not un id imensional . It involves many th ings- notably, bod ily freedom from tor- tu re, unjust imprisonment, and execution; the

186 Build ing "Positive Peace•

intellectual freedom to speak, write, and worsh ip, as well various political freedoms, including th e righ t to peaceful assembly, freedom of association, and the right to vote by secret ballot. Similarly, "socio- economic rights• include th e right to compensated work, decent housing, educa tion, medical care, and adequa te food . To some extent, the U.S. and most other econom ically advanced capi talist s tates asso- ciate human rights with the first category, whereas state-socia list and many impoverished, Th ird World, undeveloped, "underdeveloped; or • developing• states, a long w ith the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the UN General Assem- bly in 1948), have g iven equal or g reater weight to the second .

Those wh o a re wea lthy and privi leged charac- teristically favor maximum individu al freedom- especially freedom o f economic competi tion- and a minimal role fo r governmen t, w h ich at least in the U.S. often leads in turn to opposition to the "wel- fa re state. • Those lacking in wea lth and power, by contrast, are typically more in need of protections ensured by society. Hence, there is a tendency among some Western governmen ts to describe socioeco- nomic rights as not really •human rights" a t all b u t rather as goa ls or aspirations for society.

A global consensus has been developing that incorporates not only the trad itional Anglo-Ameri- can concern with politica l liberty but also an add i- tional defense of socioeconomic rights, as well as other va lues that are d ifficult to p igeonh o le. In some cases, alternative visions of human rights are differ- ent indeed: th e •right to life" (of a fetus) versus a woman's "righ t to choose" (whether to have an abor- tion, or to use birth control) . Many other asserted rights a re not qu ite as controversia l- states' rights, consumer rights-but to claim that something is a •human righ t" is to cla im someth ing particu larly fundamental and weigh ty. It should not be done ligh tly b u t might well include the right to security from mass destruction and to a safe natural envi- ronment. One simp le categorization para llels the famo us French motto "liberty, equality, fra ternity• : (1) politica l and intellectua l rights, (2) economic and social rights, and (3) the right to peace and to a safe and fu lfi lling environment. Of th ese, th e second and thi rd ( •equality; especially socio-economic:

and "fratern ity") are the most unsettled-and, for some, unsettling-of a ll.

Many people, especially in developing coun- tries, attribu te great importance to socioeconomic rights. In the words of Leopold Senghor, fo rmer p resident of Senega l, "Human rights begin with breakfast. • Without such an awareness, it is all too easy for relatively well-offWesterners to sneer at the poor "rights• records of other cou ntries, oblivious to their own shortcom ings in the eyes o f others, and thus to miss the in timate connection between politi- cal and socioeconomic rights.

If structural violence is such that people d ie from malnutrition and poverty, are poorly educated, and lack medical care o r if such a society impris- ons and tortures its political opponents, then either way, it is an abuser o f human rights. In addi tion, if Westerners were to recognize th e valid ity of socio- economic rights, such governments as Cuba under Castro- w h ich to many in the West were fai lures because of their lack of representative government, widespread censorsh ip, and other civil- political inadequacies-could a t th e same time be acknowl- edged as admirable in other domains, such as p ublic hea lth and literacy. This is not to claim that success in some d imensions of human rights cancels ou t- rages in another; rather, it helps permit a more bal- anced perception of systems that might o th erwise seem un idimensionally evil and whose h igh level o f local domestic acceptance is otherwise d ifficul t for Americans to understand.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND OTHERS

There are abou t 300 million indigenous people worldwide, representing national majorities in Guatema la and Bolivia, fo r example, and notable minorities in Brazil, Australia, Russia, and the U.S., among other countries. Regardless of their num- bers, indigenous people are generally in dire stra its, sometimes- as in Guatemala and Brazil-having suffered genocide even in recent times. For example, a UN investigation concluded in 1999 tha t th ree forme r Guatemalan p residents had been involved in genocide, state te rrorism, and torture as pan o f a bruta l coun te rinsurgency campa ign condu cted by th e Guatemalan military during the 1970s and

Hunum Rights 187

1980s; th is resu lted in the deaths o f mo re tha n 200,000, most o f them Maya n India ns.

In other cases, ind igenous people are severely maltrea ted a ndf o r they en joy dramatically fewer opportu n ities a nd p rivileges tha n thei r no nnative counterparts:

Australian aborigines are on a per capita basis th e most imprisoned people on Earth, with an incarceration rate 16 ti mes that of the Caucasian population.

Even aside from being the targets of government- inspired atrocities, th e life expectancy of Mayan Indians in Guatemala is II years shorter than that of the nonind igenous population.

The average per capita income of Na tive Ameri- cans is half that of the rest of the U.S. population; life spans a re much shorter, incarceration and unemployment ra tes much higher, along with drug abuse and especially alcoholism .

Large d ams have devastated the homelands of indigenous peoples in Canada, China, Brazil, Norway, th e Philippines, and Ind ia, depriving th em of an arguably crucial human right: to live in their ancestral homelands. And th ere are many add itional cases.

Other groups ca n also be identified as havi ng particular hu man righ ts clai ms and vul nerabilities: mentally ill persons, ch ildren, homeless persons, racia l and sexu al mino rities, hand icapped persons, convicts, u nskilled workers, migran t laborers, refu- gees, politica l d issidents, the elderly, and so o n. Ide- a lly, hu man rights, such as civil freedo ms, economic opportu n ity, protectio n fro m mass destructio n, a n d the right to a safe a nd clean e nviron ment, will be equa lly s hared by a ll people. In practice, these rights must often be defended most vig ilantly for those groups that have been the most victim ized.

WOMEN'S RIG HTS

'vVo men comprise somewhat mo re than SO% of the world 's popu lation, yet for centuries women have suffered fro m patria rchal social s tructures that deva lue thei r personhood a nd deny many of their basic h u man rights. Th is includes a diverse array

o f abuses, s uch as foot bind ing in p recom munist Ch ina; the forced seclusion and isolatio n of women in certain contemporary Hi ndu a nd Muslim soci- e ties; sexual m ut ilation, as cu rrently practiced on m illions of young women in numerous African soci- e ties; po lygyny; restricted o r no nexistent choice as to marriage; s ubs ta n tial d iscrimi nation regarding edu- cational opportunities, especia lly in some co nserva- tive Islam ic cou ntries, a nd - even in such ostensibly libera ted societies as that of the U.S. a nd the UK- restricted economic a nd professio na l opportun ities along w ith underrepresentatio n in politica l life. Whatever the sources of well -being in the world, women as a group consistently en joy fewer of them; th is in clu d es inta ngibles, such as opportunity a nd the expectation of a fu lfill ing and freely chosen life, as well as such physical assets as property.

European concern with women's rights d ates from the Enlighte n ment. These rights were set o ut clearly, fo r exa mple, in Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vi ndication of the Righ ts o f Wo man, p ub lis h ed in Engla nd in 1792. This powerful book emphasized the importance o f provid ing education for wo men equaling that available to men. (Even in the 21st century, h owever, illi teracy rates remain consistently high er for wome n than fo r men, especia lly in devel- op ing cou ntries.) Du ring the late 19th a nd early 20th centuries, crusaders fo r women's rights were especially con cerned a bo ut o btai n ing "suffrage, • the right to vote and to ho ld political office.

Women's Righ t in the West By the m id-20th centu ry, someth ing o f a shift occurred, with growing awareness in Western lib- era l ci rcles of the degree to wh ich women were also oppressed in the domestic sphere. Especially in flu- e n tial were these milestone books: The Sea md Sex, by Simone de Beauvoi r, wh ich ra ised conscious- ness b y po inti ng o ut the exten t to wh ich men were tradi tiona lly considered the "s ubj ects" o f modern life wh ereas wome n were merely "others" a nd sec- o ndary "objects"; The Fem i11ine Mystique, by Betty Friedan, wh ich identified the deaden ing domestic- ity to which women were often relegated; a n d The Female Eunuch, by Germ aine Greer, which castigated the sexual passivity to which many wome n were tra- d itionally forced. Added to th is were innovations

188 Building "Positive Peace"

in birth control technology (especially the develop- ment of contraceptive pills), as well as the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, which raised public awareness about the need to reevaluate and reconfigure the role of women in the home, the workplace, and the publk sphere.

Although women's suffrage is virtually univer- sal in the Western world. women's participation in the political process or in the business and profes- sional world is nonetheless often constriaed by the traditional idea that ·a woman's place is in the home· (which is not that far removed from the Nazi motto for women: Kinder. Ruelle, Kircl1e-children, cooking. and church) . Advocates for women's rights point out that women are typica lly paid 80% of what men receive. lead ing to a demand for •equal pay for equal work. • The number of women in executive-level positions in the U.S. corporate world remains very low. The effort to expand women's social and political options involves a conti nuing effort to challenge socia l stereotypes of women as dependent, weak, passive, and hyper emotio nal, compared with most men. Although some cou ntries ( including the UK, Norway, Israel, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Brazi l, Chile. Argent ina, the Philipp ines, and Germany) have had fema le prime ministers, the U.S. Congress still has not passed a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights. Women's reproductive rights remain especially precarious, evidenced by ongoing efforts on the pan of social conservatives to restria access to birth control and abortions, and to roll back affirmative action pro- grams that benefit women as well as minorities.

In addition, a continuing debate within the Western women's rights movement revolves around the degree of change to be sought.: whether society (ranging from private domestic relationships to the sinews of public life) should be radically restruc- tured or whether change should be incremental within the basic social struaures that currently exist Such a debate is not necessarily a weakness of the women's rights movement; rather, it reflects the vigor and heterogeneity of its devotees, parallel- ing ongoing discussions with in o ther social justice movemen ts. At the same time, some feminis ts are concerned that many members of the 21st century generation of young women (and men) take fo r

granted the advances of recent decades, and are therefore less ardent in their pursuit of gender equal· ity than their elders.

Women's Rights in Develo ping Countries In most economically developing countries, the goals of the women's movement tend to be more basic: increased literacy, health care. and an end to polygyny and bride price (whereby men literally purchase a wife). Women often cannot own prop- erty and typically may not obtain a divorce without their husband's consent.

In many traditional societies, especially in Africa, millions of women are subjeaed to genital muti lation, which is often justified as a legitimate cultural practice but that causes immense suffering. as well as diminished sexual pleasure, not to mention high m ortality rates. Many Muslim countries insist o n very restrictive dress codes for women, legally sanctioned violent- often lethal- responses to sexual infidelity, and frequently the denial of educa· tiona!, social, and economic opportunities. Women are proh ibited from d riving a car in Saudi Arabia, a country in wh ich women were only granted suffrage in the year 2015 - and even then, only in loca l and relatively inconsequential eleaions. The fundamen· talistTaliban government of Afghanistan had denied even basic education to women and prohibited them from working outside their houses. Indeed, in some conservative Islamic cultures, women are not even permitted to go outside at all unless accompa· nied by a male relative.

SOME HUMAN RIG HTS C OI'ITROVERSIES

It seems unavoidable that various rights will con· flicL In a famous opinion, U.S. Supreme Court Jus· tice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded that the right to free speech did not extend to yelling. "Fire!• in a crowded theater. The "right" to a drug-free soci· ety may conflia with the "right" to privacy, just as the • right" of people in developing countries to healthy bab ies has already been found to conflict with the • right• of the mu ltinational corporations, for example, to market infa nt form ula in poor coun· tries (wh ich discourages the healthier alternative of breast feeding) .

Hunum Riglrts 189

In fundamentalist Islamic states including Saudi Arabia (and despite some tepid s teps toward liberalization), women's "rights" are often subordi- nated to the "rights" of people (especially men) to practice the religion of their choice in the way they interpret it A woman's "right" to control her own body, including an abortion if she desires, runs con- trary to the perception of many that the fetus has a "right" to life. The "right" of religious freedom can conflict with a child's "right" to necessary medi- cal care, as w hen fundamentalist Christian parents (e.g., Jehova h's Witnesses and Christian Scientists) refuse lifesaving treatme nt for their child. ' Ibe pub- lic's "right" to safe air travel appears to have trumped individual "rights" not to be searched without a war- rant. ' Ibe list goes on.

Many human rights a re essentially claims aga inst the auth ority of governments. As such, they are freedoms from: guarantees that governments will refrain from behaving badly toward their own people. These can be distinguished from freedoms to: the asserted obligations o f society to help its members achieve a better life. This is a distinction that somewhat para llels the one between negative and positive peace, between those rights asserted against governments (no war, no intrusions into personal freedom, etc.) and those expected of them (to establish positive peace, provide for basic human needs, and so on).

In most cases, the first category (negative rights) seems easier for to ach ieve. Certain states may simply lack the fi nancial resources to make real improvements in socioeconomic condi- tions, but they all can stop torturing, murdering, and actively oppressing their people. A pervasive prob- lem in this regard-and one about which oppressive governments are quite aware, although unwilling to acknowledge- is the fear that absent such oppres- sion, citizens may well demand a change in those governments. Of course, this "worry" ignores the likelihood that revolutionary demands a re ulti- mately mu ltiplied when governments, seeking to enhance control, resort to oppressive measures.

During the 1990s, Western countries did not intervene in the genocide perpetrated by Rwandan Hutus upon Tutsis; President Clinton subsequently apologized for this inaction. By contrast, NATO

and the U.S. intervened with air power to prevent Libyan strongman Gad hafi from massacring h is own people (wh o were in revolt, stimu lated by the pro-democratic Arab Spring movement). The out- come, however, has been a fractu red Libya, ruled by competing warlords, and continuing violations o f human rights. Fearfu l o f a similar scenario in Syria, the U.S. and NATO refrained from military action against President Assad when h is government used chemical weapons against rebels and cluster bombs against civilians, resulting in even greater carnage.

Although human rights constitute a diverse and sometimes confusing array of causes, includ- ing movements fo r peace, women's rights, environ- mental protection, and pena l reform all the way to national independence, they s hare a common humanizing focus, placing individuals at the center of public policy. And yet, doing so poses numerous dilemmas, not least whether concern for human rights ought to mobilize states to use force against significant human rights abuses in other countries.

THE RESPONSIBIU1Y TO PROTECT

In this regard, a new and important concept has recently arisen, known as the "responsibility to protect" (R2P). Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan raised the following question in the after- math of the international community's failure to intervene during the 1994 mass murder of an esti- mated 800, 000 people in Rwanda: "Under what cir- cumstances, if a t all, is the international community entitled- or even obliged-to intervene in a state's sovereignty, especially when that state is perpetrating genocide? " In response, the Canadian government established the International Commission on Inter- vention and State Sovereignty in 2000, to which was added the phrase "responsibi lity to protect" (which was thought better than "right" or • obligation " to intervene). The basic idea o f R2P is that under certain circumstances, other states- ideally in conjunction with the UN or some other international grouping- have a duty to protect civilians if their own sovereign s ta te ta ils to do so or is complicit in oppression. It is a radical doctrine because it asserts that a sover- eign state that engages in mass a trocities has by this behavior sacrificed some or all of its sovereignty.

190 Building "Positive Peace"

R2P became a fo rmal UN initiative in 2005, structured around the concept that sovereignty is not supreme; rather than being simply an unlim- ited right o f governments, sovereignty carries wi th it a responsibil ity toward those being governed. R2P is especially concerned with preventing-or if that fa ils, halting-four crimes: ethn ic cleansing, crimes aga inst humanity, war crimes, and genocide. It is thus rather conservative and limited, in that it does not include a governmental responsibil ity to protect people from disease, illiteracy, social injustice, or to protect the environment Instead, it focuses on the fou r most direct and egregious insults to a popu lace, wh ich are identified as mass atrocity crimes. R2P is currently an emerging globa l norm, not an estab- lished part of international law, a lthough in various forms it has been included in several international treaties. R2P is generally acknowledged to consist of three pillars:

1. Each state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocity crimes.

2. If the state is unable or unwill ing to carry out p illar # 1 on its own, the international commu- nity has a responsibility to ass ist that s ta te in doing so.

3. In the initial stages o f intervention, such coer- cive but nonviolent measures as economic sanctions a re appropriate; if these efforts fail, however, m ilitary intervention is justified.

Not surprisingly, "responsibility to protect" has been controversial, mostly because o f its challenge to traditional state sovereignty. In the UN report

rhe Responsibility to Protect, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon responded to this concern by pointing out that if a state is allowing mass atroci- ties to occur, it is committing what are w idely recog- nized under international law (and affi rmed in the Nuremberg Principles) as crimes of omission; simi- larly, if the state is directly committing these acts it is guilty of crimes of commission. Either way, it has abrogated its responsibilities as a sovereign, making corrective action from outside the state appropriate and legal.

It rema ins to be seen whether R2P w ill be abused. It is conceivable, fo r example, that in the future a state will insist upon intervening m ilitarily

in the domestic affairs of another state, claim ing a responsibility to protect some of its inhabitants, analogous to Adolf Hitler's bogus claim in 1938 that Germany was annexing the Sudetenland because German inhabitants there were being abused by the Czech government. More likely, if R2P fails in the future, it will be because of fa ilu re at the o ther end of the spectrum, with the international commu- nity proving reluctant to enforce its responsibility against powerful states when they abuse their own people. For example, there has been no consensus as to an international obligation to restrain Ch ina from abusing the people o f Tibet, or fo r Russia to treat its restive Chechen population more kindly.

R2P is also of dubious relevance when gov- ernments maintain (sometimes with good reason) that they are confronting vio lent internal rebel lion, which the state has a responsibility to suppress, not to protect! Furthermore, in an age marked by ter- rorism, governments under internal threat are espe- cia lly prone to describe thei r opponents-whether violent or nonviolent-as "terrorists" (as the Assad regime and the Russian government have branded all opposition forces in Syria), and therefore not entitled to protection . On the other hand, R2P was raised as a justification fo r NATO's support o f the anti-Gadhafi rebels in Libya, at a time when the regime seemed poised to murder thousands o f innocent noncombatant civilians, and R2P has been contemplated w ith regard to the brutal repressio n of antigovernment activities in Syria. The fact that R2P cou ld be abused is not necessarily a refutation of the fundamental idea that the prime responsibil- ity of governments s hould not be toward their own continuation and power, but rather, that they have a responsibility to protect their citizens.

REFUGEES

There have a lways been refugees, as well as m igrants, and a lthough common sense and fundamental morality argues that both groups of people warrant human rights protection, it is important to distin- guish between the two, if only because many coun- tries make such a legal distinction . Migrants choose to change their location, whether with in o r benveen countries, in o rder to improve their socio-economic

Hunum Riglrts 191

cond itio n. Refugees seek asylum, often in a new cou ntry, and are unab le o r unwilling to return to their natal la nds due to a well-founded fear of per- secution based on race, religion, nationality, politi- cal opinion, o r membership in a particular social group. Refugees are usually given h igher p rio rity, and in most cases are not returned to their home cou ntries, whereas migrants are considered to have less p ressing human righ ts' claims.

Article 14 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) affords refugees the right to seek and enjoy asylum in other cou ntries. The con- troll ing international co nvention on refugee law, however, is th e 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, a nd its follow-on 1967 Optional Protocol. These treaties established broad defin i- tio ns of refugees, and clarified the international legal principle of "no n-refou lement• (or non-return), whereby host countries a re proh ibited from forcibly returning refugees to their persecutors. However, this p rinciple does not clearly state how a refugee's status is to be evaluated. It a lso gives countries the righ t to refuse adm ittance to refugees demonstrated to be threats to the h osts. Refugees raise many issues regarding human righ ts, notably th e h igh probabil- ity that thei r very existence testifies to a denial of human righ ts in their home country- and secondly, the question of refugees' enti tlements in host coun- tries, as well as whether and under w hat conditions refugees can be fo rcibly repatriated without violat- ing their human righ ts.

Beginning in 2014, there was a tremendous increase in th e number of forcibly displaced people worldwide, exceed ing 63 million by the end of2015; this is the highest level since World War II. The recent wave of refugees has been driven by many factors, notably th e wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and Yemen, alo ng with mass v io lence and oppres- sion in Chad, Mali, Somalia, Eritrea, a nd Libya. The resulting human tragedy means tha t rough ly o ne in every 120 people on Earth is currently fleeing o ne conflict o r a nother. The international huma n itarian relief system has been overwhelmed by th e sheer numbers of refugees, who h ave acutely stra ined the resources of the "frontline" refugee-receivi ng states of Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. At th e same time, internationa l attention was riveted on th e deaths

of more than 3,000 refugees attempting to cross the Mediterranean, often in rickety a nd overloaded boats. Accord ing to the p resident of Doctors With- out Borders, in 2015 a "mass grave" was created in the Medi te rranean, "and European policies a re responsible. •

Most recent refugees have crossed into south- ern Europe from Libya to Italy, and from Tu rkey to Greece. Rescues a t sea have become h umanitarian necessities, while European governments face the d ilemma that w hereas doing nothing to assist the refugees is monstrously uneth ical, faci litati ng safe passage migh t on ly encourage greater numbers. Moreover, although the majority of Europeans h ave welcomed these new a rriva ls, fears that such an influx of eth nically and rel igiously unfam il iar people will threaten the trad itional make-up of recipient states. This, in turn, has injected new energy into various right-wing, nationa listic, a nd xenophobic po litical movements, and many European countries, notably Germany, a re reth inking their welcome to refugees.

In early 2016, fo r example, the Danish govern- ment passed legislatio n whereby refugees' money exceeding rough ly US$ 1,500 would be confiscated upon entry, ostensibly to help defray th e costs o f provid ing social services to these people, but likely intended p rimarily to deter refugees from seeking asylum in the first place. Australia- la rge, rela tively under-populated, a nd consisting almost entirely of immigra n ts (since most of the aborigi nal popu- lation was kil led off) - would seem a good bet to welcome refugees. However, since Australia n legal doctrine calls for the detention of any refugee who arrives w ithout a valid visa, potential imm igrants (virtually all com ing from Southeast Asia) are typi- cally then s h ipped to squalid displacement camps on the tiny island o f Nauru. To most human rights advocates, th is Draconian policy is inexcusable. Sup- porters claim, however, that instead o f being callous, the Australian system is actually humane, si nce it deters most asylum-seekers from attempting a life- threatening ocean crossing.

Although the "refugee crisis" has evoked images of d isplaced persons floodi ng into Europe, there are, unfortunately, many other refugees, in equally desperate si tuations. To take jus t one example, the Roh ingya a re indigenous Islamic inhabitants o f

192 Building "Positive Peace•

Burma (aka Myanmar), who have been victimized in this largely Buddhist country. They have been deprived o f citizenship, of the right to higher edu- cation, and of free movement within Burma. Many are subjected to near-slavery. As a result, more than 14 0,000 Rohingya have become refugees, fleeing to Bangladesh and Thailand, where they live in squalid conditions, while many others have resorted to dan- gerous boat travel, often paying traffi ckers w ho then abandon them on the open ocean .

Although many countries, especially those in northern Europe w ith low birth rates, would benefit socially and economically from an influx of young and energetic refugees, many of whom are well educated and h ighly motivated, the ·refugee crisis" threatens to become a situation in which claims for human rights confl ict with more parochial and pro- tectionist motivations.

LG BTRIG HTS

When it comes to LGBT rights (lesbian, gay, bisex- ual, and transgender), the situation is remarkably bifurcated: unprecedented improvement in some countries, backsliding in others. On the one hand, there is increased visib ility and acceptance o f LGBT people, especially in the Western Hemisphere and Europe, high ligh ted by widespread legalization of same sex marriage. Thus homosexual marriage is now perm itted in all European countries (except for the Turkish-controlled part of Cyprus), as well as in a growing number of Latin American countries. Many states in the U.S. have also lega lized gay mar- riage, and the Supreme Court has ruled that laws proh ibiting gay marriage are unconstitutional. This increased tolerance-unanticipated even by ardent gay rights activists as recently as the turn of the 21st century-was reflected and perhaps Pope Francis' comment that "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?• (The Catholic Church, as well as most fundamental- ist religious traditions, have long considered homo- sexuality a serious sin.)

On the downside, Russia has moved in the opposite d irection, aligning itself against what Presi- dent Putin considers Western "moral degeneracy. • In Russia, gay rights activists, as well as ou t-of-the-closet

homosexuals are being persecuted by anti-gay laws and thugs, leading to calls for an international boy- cott of Russian goods and vacation sites.

It is ludicrously claimed that homosexual- ity doesn't exist in Iran (where it is punishable by death). Homosexuality, let alone gay marriage, is illegal in 38 M rican countries, where gay persons a re regularly beaten and even murdered, in some cases by enraged mobs while police s tand by. In sub-Saha- ran Africa and in large parts of the Islamic world, it takes great courage to be open ly gay. Homosexual- ity is criminalized in 7 5 countries, more than half of them former British colonies; homosexuality had been illegal in the UK, until it was decriminalized in 1967. The Human Dignity Trust challenges anti- gay laws worldwide, but although it and other activ- ist organizations have done a great deal to promote LGBT rights-they also have much work yet to do.

TH E LEGAL SfAlUS O F HUMAN RIG HTS

UN-Related Agreements Although the UN Charter serves as a kind o f interna- tiona l consti tution, it lacks a b inding Bi ll of Rights, specifying which human rights are to be protected. The aforementioned UN-sponsored Universal Dec- laration of Human Rights was passed unanimously by the General Assembly in 1948, enumerating such rights. The U.S. was a major contributo r to the UDHR. much o f its impetus coming from Eleanor Roosevelt, at the time the widow of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt

The UDHR consists of 30 articles, of which the first 21 a re primarily civilfpolitical, proh ibiting tor- ture and arbitrary arrest, and guaranteeing freedom of assembly, religion, speech, and emigration-even the right to vote by secret ballot. The remaining arti- cles are concerned with socioeconomic and cu ltural rights, including the right to work, to an "adequate" s tandard of living, to education, to some form o f social security, and even to vacations with pay. The UDHR is not technically binding in the sense of an international treaty; it is a recommendation on ly, with no provisions for enforcement Nonetheless, it is widely respected and has legitimated global con- cern with human rights. It has even been incorpo- rated into many national constitutions.

Humarr Riglrts 193

To some degree. the UDHR has become pan of customary international law and, accordingly, many judicial scholars argue that it has the literal force of law, although it is often violated. Numerous world- wide legal instruments have built on the UN Char- ter and the UDHR, including an array of covenants, conventions, treaties, and declarations of diverse legal meaning but all helping funher denne the con- cept and ultimate.ly the implementation of human rights. Of these. the most important are probably the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ( 1948) and the Interna- tional Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ( 1965) .

'lbere have also been two UN human rights covenants, signed in 1966, which entered into force in 1977, when they were ratified by a sufficient number of national governments-but not by the United States. These are the International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There are also two 1977 Geneva Protocols on Armed Conflict, both conrroversial and not universally in force, in addition to various instruments concerned

with specified rights, such as those of refugees and children, as well as denunciations of apanheid and numerous mo re informal declarations.

Scholars and political decision-makers dis- pute precisely which obligations member states undertook when, in the UN Charter, they agreed to "promote universal respect for and observance• of

human rights. Nonetheless, an underlying consensus has emerged that governments may not participate in a "consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights. • Thus, whereas isolated incidents are unlikely to generate worldwide outrage, "gross violations, • if they recur, merit condemnation and, ultimately, such actions as censure, economic boycott, and pos- sibly even military intervention under RlP. Abuses of this son could include widespread torture, mass

arrests and imprisonment without trial, genocide, vicious policies of racial segregation and debase- ment, and forced relocation of entire populations. Small states engage in such activities at some risk,

not only to their reputations but of possible armed intervention; large and powerful states, by contrast, are still literally able to "get away with murder. •

HUMAN RI GHTS AND T H E NATI ON-STATE

Some halting progress has been made as national couns have begun ruling to enforce international norms with respect to human rights. For exa mple. in a celebrated legal case, Filartiga v. Pena-l raJa. a U.S. coun ruled in 1980 that politically inspired tonure and murder were so clearly prohibited by intern a- tional agreements on human rights that the U.S. had jurisd iction to prosecute a Paraguayan national for crimes occurring within Paraguay. In 1998, the British government arrested former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and nearly put him on trial for thousands of cases of torture and the "disappear- ance" of political prisoners while he had been dicta- tor of Chi le. (Pinochet narrowly avoided legal action because he was judged too old and feeble to stand trial; he was deponed to Chile, where he died before the lega l process had run its full course.)

Nonetheless, the Pinochet case constitutes an imponant precedent, one that might well be expanded to allow prosecution of the many ex- heads of state-often living in comfonable exile- who ordered or condoned murder and tonure while in office. 'Jbe ultimate significance of sud1 prosecu- tions might go beyond the satisfaction of justice, by putting current rights violators on notice that they might have to answer for crimes committed on "their watch.·

Although the Pinochet case was controversial and has caused controversy, there is nothing new about governments criticizing human rights abuses in other states, although it is novel for them to place national leaders under arrest for human rights viola- tions committed while they were heads of state.

Governments have long found it usefu l to complain loudly about the actions of foreign governments- especially those to which they are not allied-while turning a blind eye to their own misbehavior. lbe real tension between states and human rights revolves around the degree to which a state is wi lling to forgo pan of its sovereignty and pemlit its human rights practices to be the subject of international scrutiny; judgment, and influence-if not control. Another issue is the disparity between enforcement of human rights violations when the countries are relatively small (e.g., that of Chile), and

194 Building "Positive Peace•

when they are large and powerful (e.g., Russia, China, and the U.S.). For example, a U.S. Senate report released in 2014 described deta ils of the Central Intelligence Agency's use of torture during the "war on terror, • which included waterboarding ("near drowning"), as well as sexual and psychologica l abuse. Some former government officials defended such practices, while others decried them as "vio- lating our most basic principles;" to date, however, no one has been held crimina lly liable as a result of these violations of human rights. For example, nei- ther George W. Bush nor Dick Cheney-president and vice-president of the United Sta tes when that government tortured suspected terrorists-have been prosecuted o r even indicted.

Resistance to Western In tervention Although Western citizens often assume tha t people from other cultures would app laud their actions on behalf of worldwide human rights, sometimes the response is less than enthusiastic. Partly, this is because of the perceived moral arrogance wi th wh ich the p rimarily Western concept of human rights is exported to other societies. Partly, it is because people from developing countries remain acutely aware of Western imperialism and the fact that, in the past, the West's legitimate promotion of human rights has often been used as a moral pretext in connection with colonial conquest: for example, bringing an end to "barbarous" practices, such as the Indian custom o f suttee (burning a widow on her deceased husband's funeral pyre), foot bind ing, and female infanticide. In add ition, many develop- ing countries are intensely committed to the pursuit of their people's socioeconomic rights, and they believe that progress in this respect may require that governments exert some restrictions on civil and politica l rights.

Following World War 11, more than 80 former Western colonies won their political indepen- dence, liberating more than one billion people in the world's most massive transfer of political power from the "haves" to the formerly "have-nots." But national independence does not necessarily guar- an tee the rights of individuals. In some cases, qui te the opposite takes place, especially when the newly established government is shaky; threats to the

security of the nation serve as a handy excuse for denying individual rights, and many newly indepen- dent countries a re politically insecure, for a variety of reasons. There is, accord ingly, a strong tendency for such states to be run by dictatorial, often military governments, and for such governments to be espe- cia lly repressive of human rights.

The Primacy of State Sovereignty The greatest underlying conflict between human rights and the nation-state is one that is character- istic of virtually all governments. It derives from the very nature of state sovereignty, since a call for human rights is often a claim on behalf of individu- als against the state. Whether demanding that states refrain from mistreating their people (negative rights) or that they commit themselves more aggres- sively to their citizens' betterment (positive rights), claimants for human rights often push governments in directions they wou ld not otherwise choose.

International standards of human rights may represent claims aga inst s ta te power and sovereignty by restricting wha t a state can do (and, sometimes, tel li ng it what to do), even with in its own borders. This could include disapproval by the international human rights community of a country's internal policies, notwithstanding that such policies may be fully "legal" according to its own domestic laws.

For example, South Afri can apartheid laws were not internationally acknowledged as legitimate, despite the fact that they were duly passed by that country's parliament. NATO's brief but v io lent air war in Kosovo was largely a response to the wide- spread perception that the Serbian government was abusing the human rights of Kosovars, leading to international intervention despite the fact that Kosovo was legally part of Yugoslavia. NATO's air support of Ubyan rebels in 2011 was simi larly justi- fied by strongman Gadhafi's brutal treatment of h is own people. Subsequent violence and chaotic insta- bility in Libya has, however, taken the glow off this intervention .

Perhaps surprisingly, a concern for human rights may actually enhance states' sovereignty, or at least, their internal s tability. Sta tes that by and large adhere to international standards of human rights (the Western democracies, generally) normally h ave

Hunum Rights 195

a higher level o f legitimacy and security than those that routinely trample on them. The U.S., Western European, Australian, and Japanese governments are extremely un likely to be overthrown by coup or revolution-unlike other regimes that abused human rights, includ ing those formerly led by Duvalier in Haiti, Somoza in N icaragua, in Romania, and Gadhafi in Libya . It is probably not coincidental that the government of Costa Rica is simultaneously the most supportive of human rights among its Central American neighbors as well as the most consistently democratic and stable.

When governments trample on accepted norms of human rights-as by torturing suspected terrorists or incarcerating so-called enemy combatants indefi- nitely and without provid ing basic habeas corpus rights (the right to be confronted with evidence of a crime)-th ey often d iminish their international stand ing. But some states, including Russia under President Vladimir Putin, so value stability and the image o f a "strong leader" that they not only tolerate but reward abusive governments so long as they also provide a sense of national pride along with protec- tion from internal chaos.

The Role of Politics Governments are often asked to report on the s tatus of human rights within their own borders. This may be like having the fox report on the status o f the chickens. Assessments by outside experts, such as Human Rights Watch, as well as by dissidents, are generally more critical and believable than judg- ments made by officia l represen ta tives abou t their own government's behavior.

The United Nations has also played politics with human rights. Thus, the UN Commission on Human Rights has generally been wi lling to criti- cize such "pariah • states as Israel and (during its apartheid regime) South Africa, but not the major powers. On the o ther hand, such organizations as the Red Cross, the International Labour Organiza- tion, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultura l Organization (UNESCO), United Nations Chi ldren's Fund (UN ICEF), the Food and Agricul- ture Organization (FAO), the World Health Orga- nization (WHO), and the High Commissioner for Refugees have done much to improve human

rights within offending states. Private nongovern- mental organizations (NGOs), notably Amnesty International-which won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1977 - have sometimes been effective in improv- ing conditions for specific political prisoners and, on many occasions, even winning their release. But such groups h ave tended to focus on individual cases, avoiding the more troublesome genera l issue of sta te sovereignty versus human rights.

The Problem of Enforcement Faced with the sovereign power of states, it can seem that the international human rights regime is woe- fully inadequate, based as it is on legalismsorexhorta- tions, devoid o f clear-cut enforcement mechanisms. But lega l systems always have difficulty controlling powerful actors: for example, labor un ions in France and large corporations based in the U.S. Ultimately, the international human rights regime relies on vol- untary compliance, just like legal systems generally. And period ically, s ta tes have volun ta rily improved their compliance with acknowledged human rights norms, largely to achieve international legitimacy as well as to avo id ostracism.

Frustration with the rights-denying policies of states occasionally sp ills over into individual and group efforts to transcend or undermine state authority. Individuals of high moral and interna- tional standing have on occasion gathered together to fill what they see as a vacuum in the protection of human rights. So-ca lled "People's Tribunals" have periodically convened to draw attention to human rights abuses. The League for the Rights of Peoples, established in Rome in 197 6, has held numerous sessions, condemning political repression under Fer- dinand Marcos in the Philipp ines and offering retro- spectives on the Turkish genocide against Armen ians from 1915 to 1916 and on the Brazilian government's treatment of its indigenous Amazonian popu lation. It has a lso criticized Indonesia's strong-arm tactics in East ·nmor, U.S. interventions in Central America, and the Soviet Union's actions in Afghanistan. It has declared the illegitimacy o f nuclear weapons. Such actions are of uncerta in effectiveness, but they attract public attention and undercut the presumption that on ly state-centered approaches are relevant in deal- ing with violations of human rights.

196 Building "Posi tive Peace•

H U MAN RIGHTS AND TH E U .S. Many Americans think of their government as particularly- even uniquely-supportive of human righ ts. After all, the Ded aration o f Independence states: · we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inal ienable Rights, that among these are Ufe, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these rights, Govern- ments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. •

For most Americans, the right to • Life" presup- poses self-defense and protection against unwar- ranted auack and unjust government; the right to • uberty" includes freedom of speech, of public association, of religion, and establishing a govern- ment of one's own choosing; and the right to pursue Happiness includes the right to own property and to enjoy the fruits of one's labor. The U.S. Constitution was later amended to include a much-cherished Bill of Rights, which specifica lly guarantees freedom of religion, speech, the press, and peaceable assembly. Also notable is the right to petition the government fo r redress of grievances, to keep and bear arms (lit- erally, the right of state militias to do so), freedom from unwarranted search and seizure and from self- incrimination, the right to a fair and speedy trial, and protection against excessive bail.

On the other hand, the behavior of the early government of the U.S. was not a paragon of human rights: slavery was practiced in the South, and women were denied the vote. Even today, and despite the election and re-e.lection of a black presi- dent, racial discrimination has been widespread, including what appears to be excessive police vio- lence against African Americans, '!his gave rise to reconsideration of the tactics of police enforcement, as well as to the Black Lives Malter movement; the long-term consequences of these developments-if any-remain to be seen.

Many other nations see the U.S. as an opponent of human rights. In the past, this wide.ly critical ani- tude derived from a number of government policies, including military interventions in Vietnam, Cen- tral America and e.lsewhere, long-standing support for an array of oppressive right-wing dictatorships,

U.S. corporat ions' economic exploitation of many developing countri es, coddling of apartheid in South Africa, tacit support for Israeli oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories, and vigorous initiation and furtherance of the nuclear arms race. In addition, the U.S. is widely perceived to pursue a single-minded sponsorship of free-enterprise capi- talism as the sole acceptable solution to the world's ills, publicly encouraging civil and political liberties wh ile in fact so metimes looking the other way when allies abuse these liberties (as in the case of Saudi Arabia), and opposing most efforts at promulgating universal socioeconomic rights. More recently, the use of torture in its "war on terror( ism)" alienated many throughout the world and threatens to make a mockery of oven U.S. commitment to human rights, even in its limited civil/political version.

Messianic Zeal One of the more pern icious doctrines under which human rights are violated is the notion that one's ideas are so good, pure, correct, and universally applicab le that virtually anything is justified in pur- suit of them. Totalitarian states, fascist and commu- nist alike, have justified violent repression of their own popu latio n in the name of a "greater good," either the glory of the fatherland (fascist) or the dic- tatorship of the proletariat (communist). The U.S. has no t been immune to a dose of messianic ideol- ogy, beginning early in its history, when the fledg- ling country viewed itse.lf as a •sh ining city on a hill• and a self-proclaimed "light unto the nations. •

U.S. National Security Council directive no. 68, issued in 1950at thedawnoftheCold War, noted that "the integrity of our system will not be jeopardized by any measures, coven or oven, violent or nonviolent, which serve the purposes of frustrating the Kremlin's design.· This directive has never been rescinded. In effect, it gives the U.S. government license to intervene-both domestically and overseas- in ways destructive of human rights so long as such activities are aimed at "frustrating• the goals of its opponents, which, in the past, notably meant the Soviet Union ancl more recently, •international ter- rorism· and various •rogue nations." These actions included a range of interventions abroad, as well as

Hunum Riglrts 197

the toppling of democratically elected governments, attempted assassination of Fidel Castro, apparent collaboration in the murders of the Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba and Chilean President Salvador Allende, as well as bombing a presumed chemical warfare factory in Sudan- subsequently shown to be a pharmaceutical p lant.

The U.S:s expressed concern with human rights has not been immune from a Crusader-like ideol- ogy. Thus, its entry into World Wars I and ll was facili ta ted in each case by the argument that these wars were in defense of liberty and democracy. Nonetheless, U.S. fo reign policy- like that of other cou ntries-has not always been d irectly motivated by co ncern about human rights abroad. More impor- tant has usually been concern for nationa l power and profit. When democratically elected leftist gov- ernments were believed to engage in something less than their predecessors' anticommunist zeal, and/ or when such governments threatened to restrict the profi ts of U.S. compan ies abroad, the U.S. often intervened to replace them with other regimes more friendly to U.S. corporate interests, as happened in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), and Ch ile ( 197 3) . The human rights records of these new governments were fur worse than their predecessors'.

At other times, the export o f human rights seems more like outright chicanery, as in George W. Bush's announcement, during his second inaugural address in 2005, that "it is the policy of the U.S. to seek and support the growth o f democratic move- ments and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world: These words might have had g reater cred- ibility if they had not occurred in the context of an increasingly failed war in Iraq, which was then being retroactively justified as part of a purported effort to export human rights, in the form of democracy, to the Middle East. It seems likely that such policies, because they are ultimately destructive o f human rights, also feed anti-Western anger and may well contribute to terrorism more than they oppose it.

Traditional National Self-Interest Despite its avowed commi tment to human rights, U.S. foreign policy- like that of most countries- has

long been influenced by traditiona l self-serving con- cerns. Shortly before the outbreak of World Wa r ll, for example, the U.S. government refused to permit the immigration o f tens of thousands of German Jews attempting to flee lethal Nazi persecution. Motivated in part by anti-Sem itism, as well as by concern to avoid the economic and social stresses immigration m ight produce, decision-makers chose to adhere strictly to narrowly-written laws govern- ing immigration and naturalization rather than to a broader conception of human rights.

The Truman administration gave some initial support to human rights, through the UN Charter and the UDHR, but as the Cold War heated up, th ings changed, and during the second half of the 20th century, U.S. human rights policy was sub- sumed within a fore ign policy based la rgely on anticommunism and containmen t of the Soviet Union. Th is in turn produced all iances with a high number of repressive governments, which were said by the U.S. government to constitute part of the "free world, • regardless of the degree of their own human rights vio lations, so long as they professed anticommunism.

Despite a partial respite during the presidency of Ji mmy Carter, when human rights briefly became a genuine touchstone of foreign policy, the U.S. government generally downgraded human rights, a tendency epitomized by the Reagan admin istra- tion, which la rgely ignored socioeconomic rights and human rights violation by right-wing, anticom- munist m ilitary dictatorships. A false d istinction was made betv;een "authoritarian • governments (rights- denying regimes that were, for the most part, anti- communist and thus deserved support) that were deemed capable of eventually moderating their oppression, and "totalitarian• governments, com- munist regimes that were ostensibly "irredeemable."

The selectivity o f U.S. human rights policy is exemplified by the contrast between decades o f antagonism toward Cuba and accommodation with China, although both vio late civi l/ po litical rights, with China's offenses being if anything more egregious than Cuba's. Considerations of Realpo- litih appear to be paramount: Unlike Cuba, Ch ina is a major economic power and trading partner, whereas anti-Castro Cuban exiles represent a potent

198 Build ing ·Positive Peace•

fo rce with in U.S. politics, especially in the key state of Florida. The Obama Adm inistration, however, began to normalize relations w ith Cuba, s tarting in 2015, and diplomatic relations between th e U.S. in Cuba have been restored, even wh ile th e American economic b lockade on Cuba is temporari ly re tained.

The U.S. is not unique in its hypocrisy concern- ing human righ ts. China, for example, has trampled on the relig ious and political rights of Tibetans and looked the other way with respect to Sudanese geno- cide in Darfu r (Ch ina imports oil from Sudan). The presumed Kurdish right to self-de termination has been ignored by NATO countries more concerned about not alienating Turkey. In fact, when a country's "national interest" confl icts with its avowed concern fo r human rights, the latter nearly always loses.

Huma n Rights and Peace Human rights and peace a re inextricably connected. First, the denial of human rights is itself a denial of positive peace. A world in which there is no a rmed conflict b u t in wh ich fundamental human rights a re thwarted cou ld not in any meaningful sense be con- sidered peacefu l. Speaking at the United Nations, Pope John Paul II explici tly linked human rights and war: "The Universa l Declaration o f Human Rights has s truck a real blow aga inst the many deep roots of war since the spirit o f war in its basic primord ial meaning springs up . wherever the inalienable rights o f men are vio la ted . •

Not all dictatorships are aggressive. Fascist Spain stayed neutral during World War II, and nei- ther neofascist Paraguay nor neo-Stalinist Albania was an international aggressor. Sim ilarly, fo r a ll its size and power, as well as political despotism, Ch ina has rema ined largely unthreaten ing to its neighbors (although, of cou rse, Tibetans w ho wish to regain their autonomy from China feel differently). This may be changing, however, as Ch ina is increasingly assertive concerning terri torial claims against Viet- nam and the Ph ilippines in th e South Ch ina Sea. On the other hand, there is also a connection between the way a s tate treats its own popu lation and its behavior toward other states.

To some extent, the foreign policies of states reflect th eir domestic tendencies. While it existed,

th e Soviet Union largely denied political freedoms to its own people. Likewise, the relative disinterest of the U.S. in promoting econom ic justice a t home has long paralleled its opposition to any substan tive efforts at democratizing the international economic system.

The denial of human rights can a lso provoke breaches of international peace, if o ther states become involved. Humanitarian intervention may be legal; th ere is p recedent in some classical writings of international law. For example, even before the doctrine o f R2 P, Vattel' s Tile Law of Nations ( 1 7 GO) claimed that "nations have obligations to produce welfa re and happiness in other s tates. In the event of civi l war, for example, s tates must a id the party which seems to have justice on its side o r protect an unfortunate people from an un jus t tyran t. " In 1827, when Tu rkey used inhumane means to p u t down Greek asp irations for independence, Great Britain, France, and Russia intervened and much o f the world cheered. U.S. military actions aga inst Spa in in th e Cuban War of Independence from 1895 to 1898 was in tended, according to a congressiona l resolu- tion a t th e time, to put an end to "the abh orrent con- ditions w h ich have existed fo r more than three years in the island o f Cuba, have shocked the mora l sense of the people o f the U.S., and have been a disgrace to Christian civilization:

On the other h and, claims of humanitarian intervention have often been used as excuses for aggression (of wh ich the Spanish- American War may well be an example). Violations of Nicaraguan human rights, for anoth er case, were cited by the U.S. as justification for its efforts to overthrow the Sandinista governmen t, a lthough no comparable jus tifications were ever used by the U.S. to overthrow rightist regimes, including the earlier Somoza dicta- torsh ip, which had been far more abusive.

Finally, one of th e w idely recognized human rights- specified in the first article of both 1966 human rights conventions-is national self- dete rmination, abuses o f wh ich have often led to war, especially civil war. The p ursu it of human rights may, at least in the s hort term, lead more to vio lence than to peace, since h uman righ ts a re often won by s truggle and confrontation. Fur- th ermore, it is not obvious whether all claims for

Hunum Riglrts 199

national self-determination are worthy of success: For example, should there be independent states of Kurdistan, Baluchistan, Chechnya, andf or Kosovo? And what about the national aspirations of many Basques, Welsh, Scots, Quebecois, native Hawaiians, Okinawans, and Puerto Ricans? The UN Security Council has determined that in certain cases, such as anticolonial struggles, a continuing denial of human rights constitutes a threat to international peace_ ('Ibis was applied, for example, to apartheid South Africa but not to China's oppression ofTibeL)

In summary, the connection benveen human rights and peace is complex and multifaceted. It may be that the most useful connection is the claim that such a connection exists, which in tum can serve as an argument in favor of human rights, regardless of whether this actually promotes peace.

COMP ETING CONCEPTIONS O F HUMAN RI GHTS

It is clear that human rights will continue to be controversial, with different competing concep- tions, while the very notion of human rights often competes with the inclinations of states to engage in Rea lpolitik. What shou ld a state do, for example, when confronted with this choice: it desires a partic- ular strategic relationship with another state, which engages in abuses of human rights. Which should be sacrificed, national strategy or a commitment to human rights7

Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr argued that "group relations can never be as ethical as those which characterize individual relations: Similar thinking inspired some Marxist-Leninist leaders to rationalize the power politics by which their states generally function, as well as their failure to "wither away, • as Marx had originally predicted. During the Renaissance, Niccoli'> Machiavelli, in The Prince, wrote that "a man who wishes to make a profession of goodness in everything must necessarily come to grief among so many who are not good." This may have been largely an excuse, justifYing a ruler's amorality, but it also expresses a genuine political dilemma for decision-makers.

Perhaps, on the other hand, the "natural law" school is correct, and support of human rights is

simply the right thing to do-period-regardless of its practical consequences. Consider this observa- tion from German phi losopher Karl jaspers, who addressed himself to the question of "metaphysi- cal guilt, • fo llowing the Holocaust. He wrote that "There exists a solidarity among men as human beings that makes each co-responsible for every wrong and every injustice in the world, especially for crimes committed in his presence or with his knowl- edge. If I fail to do whatever I can to prevent them, I too am guilty."

There is yet another possibility, a middle ground bel:\'leen the amorality of Realpolitik and the inflex- ibility of rigid ethical norms. Some argue that power (or, at least, security) can read ily be reconciled with human rights. After all, the U.S. has discovered that brutal, oppressive regimes-Somoza's in Nicaragua, the Shah's in Iran, Marcos's in the Philippines- do not always make reliable allies, or at least, long-lasting ones. And Mikhail Gorbachev's policies of glasnost and perestroika in the Soviet Union bel:\'leen 1985 and 1991 reflected in part the fact that, in the long run, national security may be enhanced, not dimin- ished, by allowing human rights to flourish, even at the cost of traditional measures of state power.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance once offered thefollowingsimilarobservation: "We pursue our human rights objectives, not on ly because they are right, but because we have a stake in the stability that comes when people can express their hopes and find their futures freely." In short, when it comes to human rights, ideals and interests coincide.

PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS

It is difficu lt to imagine exactly what a foreign policy- for any country- would be if it were orga- nized primari ly around the promotion of global human rights. However, the following specific actions, which have already been taken at different times in support of human rights, suggest the bene- fits to be gained from a continuation and expansion of such policies, by individual countries and- whenever possible-the international community as a whole:

1. Subtle diplomacy. Quiet, persistent pressure applied to offending governments has the

200 Build ing · r ositive Peace•

advantage that the government in question need not wony about losing face if and when abuses a re corrected. There may, however, be a disadvantage beyond the possibil ity of simply being ignored- namely, that a government may daim to be employing subtle d ip lomacy wh ile actually do ing noth ing.

2. Public statemems. This involves drawing world atten tion to specific abuses and to governments that violate human rights. It may include pub- licly d issociating one's own government from the unacceptable behavior of another. Human rights compliance can be promoted by publiciz- ing violations through the publication of reports conducted by respected, impartial investigative comm issions; in a world commun ity genuinely comm itted to human rights, most governments seek to avoid the embarrassment that comes from being branded a violator of these

3. Symbolic acts. Sending support to d issiden ts, either by words, contact with oppos ition figures, o r otherwise indicating disapproval of abuses, is a way of emphasizing to both the offending gov- ernment and its people that human v iola- tions a re noticed and rejected.

4. Cultural penalties. By isolating offenders at inter- national cultural events, includ ing athletic exh i- b itions and other exchanges, such governments may be made to feel like pariahs. National pride and the universal desire to be accepted add weight to such actions.

5. Economic penalties. Applying trade embargoes, renouncing investment in the offending coun- try, and refusing development loans and other forms of foreign a id: these can hurt the economy of offending countries, thereby putting pressure (including on the more wealthy and influential citizens) to mod ify pol icies andj o r oust the gov- ernment. Both cultural and economic penalties were applied to the apartheid regime of South Africa. Even greater penalties applied to North Korea, however, have been unavailing, largely because the · hermit kingdom • is a lready iso- lated, and receives support from China.

6. Immigration. Human rights activis ts, d issi- dents, and those being deprived of their human rights can be perm itted to emigrate to receptive

countries. The U.S. has appl ied th is "right• selec- tively, fac ilitating imm igration by people flee ing leftis t-governed countries (notably Cuba), whose human rights pol icies the U.S. wished to criti- cize, wh ile making it d ifficu lt for refugees from rightist-led countries that were all ied to the U.S. and whose human rights pol icies it was incl ined to ignore o r whitewash .

7. Legal approaches. International law can be appl ied more vigorously by identifying, ind icting, and, when possible, a rresting and trying violators of human righ ts overseas, just as people involved in the international drug trade have occasionally been ind icted and, when possib le, extradited for trial. Such actions could serve as a substantial deterrent to futu re outrages.

8. Multilateral approaches. Countries can comm it themselves to the various human rights organ i- zations now active worldwide, especially the UN Comm ission on Human There are many other possibilities, such as the regular publica- tion of a UN-sponsored catalog of human rights abuses, subject to international scrutiny. Regimes with d isproportionately large mil itary spend ing tend generally to be the worst human rights abus- ers, in part, perhaps, because such states recognize their own instability and, accordingly, they invest in military power as a hedge against domestic unrest or civil war. At the same time, such spending drains funds that might otherwise be available to help secure socioeconom ic rights. Thus, the ratio of military to domestic national spending could be publicized for each state, and governments expected to expla in and justify their priorities.

9. Destabilization mtd regime chmtge. In the past, the U.S. actively sought to destab il ize the govern- men ts of certain cou ntries- e.g., Nicaragua- because of th eir alleged human rights abuses. This rema ins a n option, a lthough o f q uestion- able lega lity or morality, u nless the abuses a re sufficien tly flagran t and unless the policy is applied even-handed ly to a ll regimes, regard- less of ideology. The h uman rights abuses o f Nazi Germany and imperial Japan may have faci litated the U.S. decision to make war against them, al though these abuses actually became more serious after war was declared.

Letter From a Binningham }ail 201

The Tanzanian invasio n of Uganda in 1979, which u ltimately toppled the governmen t of ldi Am in, won w idespread support because Ami n's human rights record was particularly atrocious.

In the short run, a nation's respect for its ci ti- zens' human rights can be destabilizing, as the last Soviet admi nistration discovered, and repression can also clamp a lid o n human rights abuses. But, in the long run, political stability- either with in a state or benveen states- can best be mainta ined by the insti- tutionalization of all human rights, socioeconomic as well as political. Thus, human rights not on ly are compatible with genuine secu rity (of individuals and but also are necessary fo r it.

In the face of human cruelty, frai lty, m isunder- standing, and Realpolitih, combined with the power of states, securing human rights is extremely diffi- cul t, conjuring up the Greek myth of Sisyphus, who was condemned to spend eternity pushi ng a boulder up a h ill, only to have it roll back again. Yet, as the existentia l ph ilosopher Albert Camus pointed out in a famo us essay, Myth of Sisyphus: there may be no greater testimony to human dignity than the struggle to ach ieve such apparently • hopeless" goals. And unlike the labor of Sisyphus, the struggle fo r human rights has had some notable successes, while provid ing hope for yet more.

Martin Luther King Jr.

LETTER FROM A BIRM INGHAM JAIL

Martin Luth er King Jr. was especially concerned with racial prej udice an d th e absence of civil rights for Mrican Americans in the United States. (As time went o n, he expanded th is foc us to include the problems o f poverty and the war in Vietna m .) H is "Letter from a Birmingha m )a it: one o f the s igna l docu ments of the U.S. civil righ ts movement, was origina lly written on the margins of a local newspaper th at had pub lished a statement by several Georgia ministers d enouncing the civil rights ca m paign in which Reverend King, and m any oth ers, had been engaged. This selection could also have been placed in the next chapter on nonviolence. As a passionat e a nd in fluential call for social justice, it seems equally appropriate to a ny cons ideration o f positive peace.

®3- ------------

My Dear Fellow Clergytnen: .. . I am in Birmingham because in justice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century BC left their villages and carried their •thus sa ith the Lord• far beyond the boundaries of thei r home towns, and just as the apostle Pau l left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to

the fa r com ers of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own hometown . Like Pau l, I must constantly respond to the Macedon ian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit id ly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens

Reprinted by arrangement w ith The Heirs to the Estate o f Martin Luther King Jr., cjo Wri te rs Ho use as age nt for the p roprieto r New York. NY. o 1963 Dr. Martin Luther Ki ng Jr. o renewed 1991 Coretta Scott King.

202 Build ing "Positive Peace"

in Birmingham. Injustice anywh ere is a th reat to justice everywh ere. We are caugh t in an inescap- able network o f mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Wha tever affects one directly affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live w ith the narrow, provincial • outside agita tor" idea. Anyone who lives inside the Uni ted States can never be con- sidered an outsider anywhere w ith in bounds.

... You may well ask, "Why direct action? Why si t-ins, marches and so fo rth? Isn't negotia- tion a better path?" You are quite righ t in call ing for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very p u rpose of direct actio n. Nonviolent d irect action seeks to create s uch a crisis and fos ter s uch a tension tha t a community which has constantly refused to negoti- a te is fo rced to confront th e issue. It seeks so to d ra- matize the issue that it can no longer be ignored . My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather s h ock- ing. But I must confess that I am not afra id o f the word "tension: I have ea rnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonvio- lent tens ion wh ich is necessary for growth. Just as Socra tes fel t that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individu a ls could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to th e unfettered realm of creative analys is and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that w ill h elp men rise from the dark depths of prejud ice and racism to the majestic heights o f unders tand ing and brotherhood .

Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privi- leged groups seldom give up their p riv ileges vol- untari ly. Ind iv iduals may see th e moral light and volun tarily give up th eir un just posture; but, as Rein- hold N iebu h r has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than ind ividuals.

We know through pa infu l experience tha t free- dom is never volun ta rily g iven by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a di rect-action campa ign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suf- fered undu ly from the d isease o f segregation. For years now I h ave heard th e word "Wa it 1" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familia rity. This

"Wa it" has almost always meant "Never. • We must come to see, with one of o ur distinguished juris ts, that "justice too long delayed is jus tice denied."

We have waited fo r more than 34 0 years for o ur consti tutional and God-given rights. The nations o f Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward ga ining political independence, but we s till creep at horse-and-b uggy pace towa rd gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never fel t the sting ing darts of segregation to say, "Wa il • But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers a nd fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you h ave seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, and even ki ll your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your 20 million Negro brothers smoth- ering in an a irtight cage o f poverty in th e midst o f an affluent society; when you sudden ly find your tongue twisted and you r speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why s he can't go to the public amusement park that h as jus t been advertised on television, and see tears well- ing up in h er eyes when she is told that Fun town is closed to colo red children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to fo rm in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort h er personal- ity by developing an unconscious b itterness toward wh ite people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son w ho is asking, "Daddy, why do whi te people treat colo red people so mean?"; when you take a cross-country drive and find it nec- essary to sleep night after n igh t in the uncomfort- able comers of your a u tomobile because no motel wil l accept you; wh en you a re humiliated day in and day ou t by nagging signs reading "wh ite" and "colo red"; when your first name becomes "n igger: your middle name becomes "boy" (h owever o ld you are) and your last name becomes "Joh n," and your wife and mother a re never given th e respected t itle "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haun ted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living con- s tantly at tiptoe s tance, never qu ite knowing what to expect next, and a re plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; wh en you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" -then you will understand why we find it difficult to wa it. There

Letter From a Binningham }ail 203

comes a time when the rup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be p lunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legiti mate and unavoidable impatience.

You express a great deal of anxiety over our will- ingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 ou tlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask, • How can you advo- cate breaking some laws and obeying others?• The answer lies in the fact that there are tvto types of laws: just and unjust. I wou ld be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to d isobey unjust laws. I wou ld agree with St Augustine that •an unjust law is no law at all ."

Now, what is the d ifference between the two? How does one dete rmine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law o r the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of ha rmony w ith the moral law. To put it in the terms of St Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human persona lity is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust Al l segregation s tat- utes are unjust because segregation d is torts the soul and damages the personality. It g ives the segrega- tor a fa lse sense of superiority and the segregated a fa lse sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the ter- mino logy of the jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "l-it" relationsh ip fo r an · 1-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not on ly politi- cally, economically, and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinfuL Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an exis ten- tial expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can u rge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation o rdinances, for they are morally wrong.

let us consider a more concrete example o f just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made lega L By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is w illing to follow itself. This is sameness made legaL

let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result o f being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature o f Alabama which set up that s ta te's segregation laws was democratically elected7 Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in wh ich, even though Negroes consti tute a majority of the popu lation, not a sing le Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such cirrumstances be considered democratically structured? ...

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "lega l: and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was · mega!." It was "illegal" to a id and comfort a jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Commun ist country where certain principles dear to the Christian fa ith are suppressed, I would open ly advoca te disobeying that country's antireli- gious laws .. ..

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establish ing justice and that when they fa il in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the p resent tension in the South is a necessary phase o f the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of ten- sion. We merely bring to the surface the hidden

204 Building · Positive Peace"

tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, w here it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boi l that can never be cured so long as it is covered u p b u t must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of a ir and light, injustice must be exposed, with all th e tension its exposure cre- ates, to th e light of human conscience and the ai r of national opinion before it can be cured.

.. . Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes th rough the tireless effons of men willing to be co-workers with God, and w ith- o ut th is hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the fo rces o f social stagnation. We must use t ime creatively, in the knowledge that the time is a lways ripe to do righ t. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift o ur national policy from the q uicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dign ity.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed for- ever. The yearn ing fo r freedom eventua lly manifests itself, and that is what h as happened to the Ameri- can Negro. Something with in has reminded him of his binhrigh t of freedom, and someth ing withou t has reminded h im that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, h e has been caught up by the Zeit- geist, and wi th h is black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South Amer- ica, and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving w ith a sense o f great urgency toward the promised land of racial jus tice. If one recognizes this vita l urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one shou ld readily understand why public dem- onstrations are taking p lace. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let h im march; let h im make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let h im go on freedom rides-and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a th reat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people, "Get rid of your d is- con tent. • Rather, I h ave tried to say that this normal and hea lthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet o f nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being te rmed extremist.

Bu t though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to th ink abou t th e matter I gradually ga ined a measure of sa t- isfaction from th e label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love you r enem ies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray fo r them wh ich despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extrem ist for justice: "Let jus tice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-fl owing s tream." Was not Paul an extrem- ist fo r the Christian gospel: • 1 bear in my body the marks o f th e Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God: And John Bunyan: "I will s tay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery o f my conscience. • And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot s u rvive ha lf slave and half free. • And Thomas Jefferson: · we h o ld these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. .. . • So the q uestion is not whether we will be extremists, b u t what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists fo r hate o r fo r love? Will we be extremists for the pres- ervation of injus tice o r fo r the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Ca lvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime-the crime o f extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and good- ness, and thereby rose above h is environment. Per- haps the South, the nation, and the world are in d ire need of creative extremists.

I had hoped that th e wh ite moderate would see th is need. Perhaps I was too optim istic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can under- s tand the deep groans and passionate yearnings o f th e oppressed race, and s ti ll fewer h ave the vision to see that injustice must be rooted o ut by strong. per- sistent, and determined action. I am thankfu l, how- ever, that some of o ur whi te brothers in the South have grasped the meaning o f th is social revolution and committed themselves to it.

. .. I hope the church as a whole will meet th e challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the a id of justice, I h ave no despair abou t the future. I have no fear about

Letter From a Binningham }ail 205

the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is free- dom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up w ith America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen o f Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centu- ries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice a nd shameful humiliation-and yet out o f a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face w ill surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage o f our nation and the e ternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.

. .. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the )ames Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and w ith the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life o f the pioneer. They will be o ld, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy-two-year-old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungram- matical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My feets is tired, but my sou l is at rest: They will be the young high school and college stu- dents, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sit- ting in a t lunch counters and will ingly going to jail

for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality stand- ing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our )udaeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the found ing fathers in their formulation of the Consti tution and the Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts, and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that over- states the truth and indicates an unreasonable impa- tience, I beg you to forg ive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anyth ing less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

I hope th is letter finds you strong in the faith. I a lso hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an inte- gration ist o r a civil-righ ts leader but as a fellow cler- gyman and a Christian brother. let us all hope that the dark clouds of racia l prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched commun ities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all thei r scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace mtd Brotherhood, Marti11 Lutlter Kiltg, }r.

206 Build ing ·Positive Peace•

bell hooks

FEMINIST POLITICS: WHERE WE STAND

A popular slogan among feminists has been "Women Hold Up Half the Sky." In fact, they do more than that, insofar as they comprise somewhat more than one-half of the h uman popu lation (for a variety of reasons, men generally experience higher mortality). This makes it all the more paradoxical-often, tragic-that women are second-class citizens in most countries, incl uding even the United States, where they are underrepresented in politics, in corporate structures, and in most high-status professions and where an Equal Rights Amendmen t has yet to be passed. In other countries, things are frequently worse, with women subjected to violence in many forms. The activist, writer, and scholar bell hooks has been among the most vibrant voices on behalf of women . The following selec- tion is from the first cl1apter of one of her many influential books.

Qd)- ---------------------

Simp ly put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression . This was a definition of femin ism 1 offered in Feminist Theory: From Margilt to Center more than 10 years ago. It was my hope at the time that it would become a common definition everyone would use. 1 liked this definition because it did not imply that men were the enemy. By naming sexism as the problem it went directly to the heart of the matter. Practically, it is a definition which implies that a ll sexist th inking and action is the problem, whether those who perpetu- ate it are female o r male, ch ild or adult. It is also broad enough to include an understand ing o f sys- temic institutiona lized sexism. As a definition it is open-ended. To understand fem inism it imp lies one has to necessarily understand sexism.

As all advocates of feminist po litics know, most people do not understand sexism, or if they do, they think it is not a problem. Masses of people think that feminism is always and on ly about women seeking to be equal to men . And a huge majority of these fo lks think femin ism is anti-male. Their misunder- stand ing of feminist politics reflects the reality that most fo lks learn abou t feminism from patriarchal

mass media. The feminism they hea r about the most is portrayed by women who are primarily commit- ted to gender equality-equal pay for equal work, and sometimes women and men sharing household chores and parenting. They see that these women are usually whi te and materially p rivileged. They know from mass media that women's liberation focuses on the freedom to have abortions, to be lesbians, to cha llenge rape and domestic violence. Among these issues, masses of people agree with the idea of gender equ ity in the workplace- equal pay for equal work.

Since our society continues to be primari ly a · christian" culture, masses of people continue to believe that god h as ordained that women be sub- ordinate to men in the domestic household. Even though masses of women have entered the work- force, even though many fam ilies a re headed by women who are the sole breadwi nners, the v ision of domestic life which continues to dominate the nation's imagination is one in wh ich the logic o f male domination is intact, whether men are pres- ent in the home or not. The wrongminded notion o f fem inist movement which implied it was anti-male

Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. 2000. Published by South End Press; chapter I, pp 1- 6 .

Feminist Politics: Where We Stand 207

carried w ith it th e wrongm inded assu mption that all female space would necessa rily be an environ- ment where patriarchy and sexist thinking would be absen t_ Many women, even those involved in fem i- n is t po lit ics, chose to believe th is as wel l.

There was indeed a great deal o f anti-male sentiment among early feminist activ is ts who were respond ing to ma le domination w ith anger. It was that anger at in jus tice that was the impetus for creat- ing a women's liberation movemen t_ Early on most fem in ist activists (a majority of whom were wh ite) had thei r conscio usness raised abou t the nature of male dom ination when they were working in anti- dassist and anti-racist settings with men who were telling the world about the importance of freedom while subord inating the women in their ranks. Whether it was whi te women working on beh a lf of socialism, b lack women working on beh a lf of civil rights and b lack liberation, o r Native American women working fo r ind igenous righ ts, it was dear that men wanted to lead, and they wanted women to fo llow. Participating in these radica l freedom struggles awakened the spirit o f rebell ion and resis- tance in progressive fema les and led them towards con temporary women's liberation.

As con temporary fem in ism progressed, as women realized that males were not the on ly grou p in our society who s upported sexist th inking and behavior- that fema les cou ld be sexist as well- anti-male sentiment no longer shaped th e move- ment's consciousness. The focus s h ifted to an a ll-o u t effort to create gender justice. But women could not band together to fu rther feminism withou t con- fronting our sexist thinking. Sisterhood cou ld not be powerful as long as women were competitively a t war with one another. Utopian visions of siste rhood based solely on the awareness of the rea lity that all women were in some way victimized by male dom ination were d isrupted by d iscussions of class and race. Discussions of class differences occurred early on in con temporary fem inism, preced ing d is- cussions of race. Diana Press published revolution- ary insights abou t class divisions between women as early as the mid-'70s in their collection of essays Class mtd Feminism. These d iscussions did not trivia l- ize the femin is t insistence that "siste rhood is pow- erfu l, • they simply emphasized that we cou ld only

become sisters in struggle by confronting the ways women - through sex, class, and race- dom inated and explo ited other women, and created a po litical p latform that would address these d iffe rences.

Even though ind ividual black women were active in contemporary fem in ist movement from its inception, they were not the individuals who became the "s tars" of the movement, who attracted the attention of mass media. Often individua l b lack women active in fem inist movemen t were revolu- tionary feminists (like many whi te lesbians). They were a lready at odds with reform is t feminists who resolutely wanted to project a vision of th e move- men t as being solely abou t women gain ing equality with men in the existing system. Even before race became a talked about issue in feminist circles it was clear to b lack women (and to thei r revolution- ary all ies in struggle) that they were never go ing to have equality with in th e existing w h ite s up remacist capita list patriarchy.

From its earliest inception fem inist move- men t was polarized. Reformist th inkers chose to emphasize gender equa lity. Revolutionary thinkers d id not want simply to alter the existing system so that women wou ld h ave more rights. We wanted to transform that system, to bring an end to patriarchy and sexism . Since patriarchal mass media was not interested in the more revolutionary v ision, it never received attention in mainstream press. The v ision of "women's liberation " which captured and s till ho lds th e public imagination was th e one represen t- ing women as wanting what men had. And this was the vision that was easier to rea lize. Changes in our nation's economy, economic depression, the loss o f jobs, etc., made the climate ripe for our nation' s citi- zens to accept the notion of gender equality in the workforce.

Given the reality of racism, it made sense that wh ite men were more will ing to consider women's rights when the granting o f th ose righ ts could serve the interests of ma intaining wh ite supremacy. We can never forget that w h ite women began to assert their need for freedom after civil righ ts, just a t the po int when racial discrimination was ending and b lack people, especially black males, migh t h ave attained equality in the workforce with wh ite men. Reform ist feminist th inking focusing primarily on

208 Building ·rositive Peace•

equality with men in the workforce overshadowed the original radical foundations of contemporary feminism which called for reform as well as overa ll restructuring of society so that our nation would be fundamentally anti-sexist.

Most women, especially privileged whi te women, ceased even to consider revolutionary feminist visions, once they began to gain economic power within the existing social structure_ Ironically, revolutionary femin ist thinking was most accepted and embraced in academic circles. In those circles the production of revolutionary fem inist theory pro- gressed, but more often than not that theory was not made ava ilable to the public. It became and remains a privileged discourse available to those among us who a re highly literate, well-educated, and usually materia lly privileged . Works like Feminist Theory: From to Center that offer a Iibera tory vision of feminist transformation never receive ma instream attention. Masses of people have not heard of th is book. They h ave not rejected its message; they do not know what the message is.

While it was in the interest of mainstream whi te supremacist capita list patriarchy to suppress vision- ary femin ist th inking wh ich was not anti-male or concerned with getting women the right to be like men, reformist feminists were a lso eager to silence these forces. Reformist feminism became their route to class mobility. They could break free of male domination in the workforce and be more self- determining in their lifestyles. While sexism did not end, they could maximize their freedom w ithin the existing system. And they cou ld count on there being a lower class o f exploited subordinated women to do the d irty work they were refusing to do. By accepting and indeed colluding with the sub- ordination of working-class and poor women, they not only ally themselves wi th the existing patriarchy and its concomitant sexism, they give themselves the right to lead a double life, one where they are the

equals of men in the workforce and at h ome when they wa nt to be. If they choose lesbian ism they h ave the privilege of being equa ls with men in the work- force while using class power to create domestic lifestyles where they can choose to have little or no contact w ith men.

Lifestyle femin ism ushered in the notion that there could be as many versions of feminism as there were women. Sudden ly the politics was being slowly removed from feminism. And the assump- tion prevai led that no matter what a woman's poli- tics, be she consetvative or liberal, she too could fit fem inism into h er exis ting lifestyle. Obviously this way of thinking has made feminism more accept- able because its underlying assumption is that women can be feminists without fundamenta lly challenging and changing themselves or the culture. For example, let's take the issue of abortion. If femi - nism is a movement to end sexist oppression, and depriving females of reproductive rights is a form o f sexist oppression, then one cannot be anti-choice and be feminist. A woman can insist she would never choose to have an abortion wh ile affirm ing her support of the right of women to choose and s till be an advocate of feminist politics. She cannot be anti-abortion and an advocate o f fem inism. Con- currently there can be no such thing as •power femi - nism" if the vision of power evoked is power gained through the exploitation and oppression of others.

Feminist politics is losing momentum because fem inist movement has lost dear definitions. We have those definitions. Let's reclaim them. Let's s hare them. let's start over. Let's have T-shirts and bumper s tickers and postcards and hip-hop music, television and radio commercia ls, ads everywhere and bil lboards, and all manner o f printed material that tells the world about feminism. We can share the simp le yet powerfu l message that feminism is a movement to end sexist oppression. Let's start there. let the movement begin aga in.

Suggestiom fo1' Furtl1er Reading

STUDY QUESTIONS 1. Discuss connections among overpopulation, poverty, and envi ronmental destruction. 2. In some ways, "human rights" is like Mom and app le pie: everyone is in favor. But in

fact, the question of human rights can be enormously controversial. Explain . 3. Martin Luther King Jr. once said that "injustice anywhere is an affront to justice every-

where. • The merits of this statement are-or shou ld be-obvious. But is there any sense in which th is idea could be troublesome?

4. Agree or disagree with the notion that human rights are a Western concept, wh ich should not be applied to other societies. Take "female ci rcumcision" as an example.

5. Look into the question of whether ecologica l stability and sustainability co nflicts w ith economic growth and development.

6. It is often said that one cannot make omelets without breaki ng eggs. Propose some guidelines as to how many eggs, a nd of what sort, might legitimately be "broken" to establish positive peace.

7 . Pos itive peace is as much a matter of national security as is negative peace. Agree or disagree, tryi ng to be specific and "hard-headed" in your response.

8. Compare and contrast differences in wealth w ithin a country with differences in wealth between countries; is the solution to such d ifferences s imply a matter of" development"7

9. When peace becomes a positive goal !(as opposed to war prevention), then people feel incl ined to fight for it; hence, it is better to aim "lower." Agree or d isagree, using historical examples andfor plausible future scenarios.

10. Describe some successes in achieving positive peace. What can we learn from them? Do the same with some failures.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING Ammons, Elizabeth, and Modhumita Roy, eds. 2015 . Sharing the Earth: An ImematimJal Environ-

mental justice Reader. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Barry, Brian. 2005. Why Social justice Matters. Boston: Polity Press. Collier, Paul. 2008. Tl1e Bottom Billion: Wl1y the Poorest Cow1tries Are Failing and WIJat Co'1 Be Done

About It. New York: Oxford University Press. Donnelly, jack. 2013 . Universal Human Rights in Tl1eorym1d Practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press. Hunt; Lynn. 2008. In venting Human Rights: A History. New York: W. W. Norton. Lockwood, Bert B., eds. 2006. Women's Rights: A Human Rights Quarterly Reader Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press. Mann, Michael, and Lee R. Kump. 2015. Dire Predictions: Understm1di,1g Climate Change. 2nd ed.

New York: OK. Pojman, Louis P., and Paul Pojman. 2007. Environmemal Ethics: Readings i'1 J11eory and Application.

Belmont, CA Wadsworth . Stiglitz, joseph. 2016. J11e Great Divide: Unequal Societies m1d W/Jat We Can Do About J11em. New

York: W. W. Norton. Tietenberg. Tom. 2006. Enviromnenral Economics<md Policy. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson Addison-Wesley. Todaro, Michael P., and Stephen C. Smith. 2015. Economic Development. 12th ed. Boston: Pearson.

209