|
Assessing progress toward a culture of peace at the local level | A Strategy for the Global Movement for a Culture of Peace |
World Peace through the Town Hall 1) The difference between "peace" and "culture of peace" and a brief history of the culture of war 2) The role of the individual in culture of war and culture of peace 3) Why the state cannot create a culture of peace 4) The important role of civil society in creating a culture of peace --Peace and disarmament movements --International understanding, tolerance and solidarity --Movements for free flow of information --The strengths and weaknesses of civil society 5) The basic and essential role of local government in culture of peace --Transparency and the free flow of information --Education for a culture of peace 6) Assessing progress toward a culture of peace at the local level --Culture of peace measurement at the level of the state 7) Going global: networking of city culture of peace commissions |
Here is the description of the methodology that was employed in making the assessment:
Note that the work is not reduced to a simple formula, or calling in "experts" to do the job. Instead, it is open-ended, participatory and educational. The people who are concerned with the various areas of a culture of peace need to be those who are engaged in the process of assessment, and they need to be engaged in a participatory way, so that they take part in the decision-making of how, what, and when to make the assessments. In other words it is "self-assessment" rather than "outside-assessment". And the entire process should be designed to be educational, so that those who take part are constantly learning as they go forward, and constantly teaching those with whom they come into contact. In fact, this reflects the fundamental nature of culture itself which is a process that involves the entire society and in which everyone is constantly learning and teaching at the same time. nd fill in these gaps over time by enlarging the group of people interviewed. The construction of indices for a culture of peace should never be used to "prove" that one entity (country, city or civil society organization) is better than another. An especially bad example of this kind of misuse of indices is the use of testing scores to compare schools. This has become national policy in the United States and Canada with disastrous results. Schools and teachers are required to compete for funding, which leads to widespread cheating and a loss of confidence in the entire system of education. Here are some of the activists that may be interviewed for the assessment:
Culture of Peace measurement at the level of the state. Unlike work at the level of the city, the attempts to measure progress toward a culture of peace at the level of the state have been disastrous. They have not been participatory, and, because of the nature of the state, it is difficult to imagine how they could be. A first attempt was made by a Korean team in 2000 and published under the title, World Culture of Peace Index (2000). On the basis of the criteria they chose, the top countries were those of Scandinavia, while the bottom countries were those of Africa and Asia. The major powers, England, France, Germany, China, USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea, came out in the middle. A subsequent article on national indicators for a culture of peace in the Journal of Peace Research by DeRivera (2004) came out with similar rankings, although fewer countries were chosen for study. But this article went further and claimed on the basis of its failure to find a single culture of peace factor, that the culture of peace might be a "flawed concept." In my opinion, it is a kind of sophistry to analyze culture of peace as the quality of existing states, negate it by means of factor analysis, and then declare that the culture of peace concept is "simplistic." As we have argued here, a culture of peace and non-violence, understood in the sense of the original UNESCO proposal as a hypothetical alternative to the culture of war and violence, does not exist at the level of the state. We should be skeptical of any national indicators that show the nations of the north as peaceful and those of the south as less peaceful. This, too, is a kind of sophistry and hypocrisy. For example, as pointed out by Member States from the South in the 1999 UNESCO debate, notes of which are available on my website at http://www.culture-of- peace.info/annexes/commissionV/summary.html , the states that cry loudest for human rights and "free" elections are at the same time the major sellers of armaments and traditional opponents of independent media in poor countries. This kind of hypocrisy was criticized by African ambassadors, Noureini Tidjani-Serpos of Benin and Bakary Tio-Toure of Cote d'Ivoire among others, when we held meetings at UNESCO with the Member States by region in March 1998. They stated that one should not look to the South for the causes of the culture of war, and they posed three questions. From where do the weapons come? From where do the violent television programmes come? And where are the terms of trade decided that impoverish the people of the South which leads to violence?" More recently, one sees again the hypocrisy of measuring peace by state indicators, as exemplified by the new Global Peace Index (2015). How convenient that Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada come out as the most peaceful, while the countries of the South come out as less peaceful! If one needs evidence for the existence of "cultural imperialism", here it is! End of chapter
|
The History of the Culture of War What is culture and how does it evolve Warfare in prehistory and its usefulness The culture of war in prehistory Data from prehistory before the Neolithic Enemy images: culture or biology War and the culture of war at the dawn of history --Ancient Central American civilization Warfare and the origin of the State Religion and the origin of the State A summary of the culture of war at the dawn of history The internal culture of war: a taboo topic --2.External conquest and exploitation: Colonialism and Neocolonialism --3.The internal culture of war and economies based on exploitation of workers and the environment --5.The military-industrial complex --9.Identification of an "enemy" --10.Education for the culture of war --12.Religion and the culture of war --13.The arts and the culture of war |