Early History of the Culture of Peace

In preparation for the 1993 General Conference of UNESCO, we had submitted a revised culture of peace programme (142 EX/13) to the Executive Board which would meet just beforehand. The new proposal, unlike its predecessor, 141 EX/16, was not academic but it was practical, based on the Blue Book of project documents that had been prepared in El Salvador.

This time the debate by the Programme Commission of the Executive Board was almost unanimously favourable. The delegate from Italy started the debate by proposing to strengthen the draft decision so that the Board would "welcome favorably" the Programme and "submit it for approval" by the General Conference. The Chairman of the Commission was Mr Ahmed Sayyad, in whose name the culture of peace had been submitted one year previously and who was expected to be elected as President of the upcoming General Conference. However, one person opposed such a draft decision. Ms Nina Sibal, sitting at the Board on behalf of the Indian delegation, objected that this was not a true "action programme" and therefore could not be submitted to the General Conference for approval. Instead, the Board should just "take note" of the document and "transmit" it to the General Conference. This position prevailed and as a result document 142 EX/13 was passed on without comment to the General Conference as document 27 C/126 of 27 October 1993.

As it turned out, there was no need for Executive Board comment because there was overwhelming support for the culture of peace by the Member States at the General Conference. Provision for the culture of peace was therefore entered into the programme and budget for 1994-1995.

The culture of peace was strongly supported in the debate that took place in Commission V of the General Conference. Many States (Japan, Norway, India, Brazil, Cote d'Ivoire, Peru, Norway, Switzerland, Sudan, France, Morocco) emphasized that the Culture of Peace Programme should be constructed on the basis of the past practices of UNESCO in its fields of competence, including culture of democracy and respect for human rights, as well as development and the eradication of poverty. It was emphasized by Sudan, Jordan, Mozambique, and China that a culture of peace cannot be imposed but is a process that evolves constantly out of particular traditions, cultures, and situations and the will of the people involved. The importance of the research agenda for a culture of peace was discussed by Japan, Jordan, Mozambique, Senegal, Spain, Netherlands, Sudan, Canada, Peru, France and Norway. Other Member states (Austria, Brazil, Switzerland, Mozambique, El Salvador, Saudi Arabia, Canada) emphasized that the Culture of Peace Programme must be one of action and practice as well as theory and research.

The pilot project in El Salvador was praised by many Member States, including Brazil, Sudan, Togo, Argentina, Kenya, Portugal, Philippines, Senegal and Switzerland. El Salvador described the project as dynamic and participatory, developing a new reality in that country. Mozambique thanked the Director-General for supporting a pilot project for the culture of peace in that country and indicated their desire to contribute actively to its development. It was stressed by the delegates from Germany and Norway that in addition to concentrating on specific pilot projects coordinated with United Nations peace-keeping operations, the programme should continue the comprehensive, long-term development of a culture of peace to prevent future conflicts. This could include the elaboration of specific indicators for a culture of peace, according to Kenya.

Several states, including Mozambique and Thailand proposed a much greater allocation of UNESCO's resources to culture of peace.

Perhaps most important of all, when he was re-elected to another 6-year term by the General Conference, Director-General Mayor used the occasion in his acceptance speech to state that "I intend to devote myself personally, in the coming years, to the culture of peace."