|
140 EX/28 - page 3 Timetable (October 1992-December 1993) |
||||
|
|
||||
| Stage 1 |
Consultations with the United Nations Secretary-General, and with United Nations Security officials. |
|||
|
|
||||
| Stage 2 |
Feasibility assessment and elaboration of Stage 2 by a committee of eminent persons. They might be asked to issue a formal declaration to initiate the project publicly. |
|||
|
|
||||
| Stage 3 |
Establishment of agreement with the Executive Board of UNESCO and the United Nations Security Council. |
|||
|
|
||||
| Stage 4 |
Approval by legislative organs of UNESCO (General Conference) and the United Nations (General Assembly). |
|||
|
|
||||
| III. |
Culture of Peace Programme: Some questions and answers |
|||
|
|
||||
| Q: |
Why concentrate so much on the few places where the blue berets are being deployed or may be needed in the future. Why not instead a global programme of peace culture? |
|||
|
|
||||
| A: |
It is true that Member States are looking to UNESCO to take the lead for a culture of peace, now that the cold war has ended and old ideological conflicts are being superseded by nationalism and ethnic violence. A global programme is needed, but the task is so enormous that it must be approached in several stages. The first stage must be very concrete and must produce measurable results.
Therefore, this proposal would concentrate on those few places where: (1) The nation-state, which is an obstacle to peace because of its long association with the culture of war, has broken down and been replaced temporarily by United Nations intervention and a multilateral peace accord; and (2) the people, who must be the principal actor in the development of any peace culture, are most hungry for that culture because of the pain they suffered from recent violence.
Based on the results of the few initial experiences, the programme would then be improved and extended to more places. By that time, the centre would have experienced staff coming from the countries of the peace-building activity. they would be able to apply the lessons learned in that activity to a more global arena. |
|||
|
|
||||
| Q: |
It is clear that peace culture is the mandate of UNESCO, but why complicate matters by involving the Security Council?
Wouldn't that threaten the independence of UNESCO? |
|||
|
|
||||
| A: |
The new proposal should not threaten or change in any way the ongoing programmes of UNESCO which are very important, even though their results are largely 'invisible'. But the ongoing programmes are not enough. The world needs a dramatic new initiative for peace culture with large-scale funding and political power. Such funding and power are available only with the co-operation of the major industrial nations; for that purpose, the United Nations Security Council is the ideal forum: |
|||
|
|
||||
| (1) |
in principle, the Security Council works under the principles of the United Nations Charter and the oversight of the General Assembly; |
|||
|
|
||||
| (2) |
there is already the precedent for expenditure of billions of dollars. |
|||
|
|
||||