5
82
|
Once agreement is reached, an even more difficult process begins - the search for funding.
To be successful, national culture of peace programmes must become a priority of traditional development donors. However, the major donors suffer from 'donor fatigue', saying that their funds are limited and the demands are increasing all the time. The Culture of Peace Programme finds itself in competition for dwindling resources.
When ex-combatants lay aside their mistrust and commit themselves to building a new society, we have an obligation to support this process. If not, we run the risk of disillusionment and a return to violence, and we lose the opportunity to set out on a new path to peace, with benefits for every country in the world - in the industrialized and developing countries alike.
If we are to achieve peace, we must pay the price for it. A culture of peace will not be achieved until the present emphasis on military peace-keeping is matched by a commitment at least as great to non violent peace-building.
Where can these funds come from? Despite the end of the Cold War, the majority of funds, within countries and worldwide, are still directed towards military solutions. The resources devoted by nations to the military is the equivalent of the total income of half of the world's population. While the United Nations devotes 80 per cent of its resources to peace-keeping and emergency assistance, it spends relatively little for conflict prevention and peace-building.
For these reasons, although national programmes are essential for the development of a culture of peace, by themselves they cannot succeed. Instead, their success depends upon a global reallocation of priorities in which international and national organizations put a much greater emphasis on peace-building and a culture of peace.
|
|
|
83
|