What Lies at the Core of Human Conflict?

If the overarching concepts of good and evil were to be stripped away from examples of unimaginable acts of violence of the recent past such as the use of commercial airliners filled with passengers as incendiary devices to destroy the World Trade Center in New York, or the attempt by the leaders of Fascist Germany to exterminate an entire race of human beings, or the use of the atomic bomb – essentially the most awesome and powerful weapon ever devised by human beings – on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the underlying reality would remain the same.  In all these examples, large numbers of human being lost their lives under horrific and violent circumstances.

 

The haunting question is what characteristics of the human brain drive such events.  In my thinking, it would be efficacious to examine the behavior of a much simpler organism.  The social insect represents a highly successful biological machine, beautiful in its exquisite simplicity.  For the purpose of discussion, we will focus on the leaf cutter ant – a species prevalent in the tropics.  In relation to the survival of the species, the life and death of the individual leaf cutter ant is of no significance.  Each ant is designed to fulfill a particular and essential function.  The continued life of the colony is paramount to any other consideration; all behavior is directed towards this goal.  In addition, the members of colony fit into distinct groups with particular and precise roles.  These roles are exquisitely and genetically programmed and every member does not deviate from its function.  This societal architecture precludes violence within the colony.  Conflict arises only when the colony must defend itself from attack originating from outside the colony.  This particular design is so efficient and successful that the species will endure well into the future as long as planetary conditions are capable of supporting life.

 

Over the hundreds of millions of years that spanned evolutionary time, the complexity of life increased exponentially, and eventually led to the appearance of Homo sapiens.  From the enhanced interconnections of hundreds of billions of neurons within the human brain, sprang self consciousness, and existence suddenly took on meaning beyond considerations of the survival of the species.  Within the human brain, the idea of person arose and humans acquired the quality of self awareness.  Consciousness brought with it the reality of choice; as individuals we became capable of making choices between alternative paths of behavior.  In essence, we suddenly had the capacity for self-direction.  We became responsible for our own actions – an aspect of being that was entirely new for life on the planet.

 

Armed with this new capability, humans inevitably found themselves competing with one another for sustenance.  Whether or not the propensity for violence became hard-wired within the human brain as a consequence of the environment of early humans is, of course, a matter of conjecture.  In a relatively brief interval of cosmic time – some six million years since our ancestors branched off from the line that yielded the chimpanzee – humans fashioned societies, established diverse cultures, erected cities, contrived advanced technologies and killed each other at an alarming rate.

 

Collectively, we have assumed the staggering responsibility for the stewardship of the planet.  There is sufficient reason to doubt whether humans are competent enough to function effectively at this level.  Yet, the choices we can make are clear as well as their respective outcomes.  There is reason for hope and equal justification for despair.  Nonetheless, the future is ours to shape as our actions dictate.

 

Kathy Kelly

Kathy Kelly has challenged the use of  U.S military power on numerous occasions; she has sought to uplift the dignity and humanity of the victims of that power.  According to Milan Rai - a British peace advocate who was arrested in 2005 for refusing to stop reading the names of Iraqi civilians killed during the Second Gulf War - she is, "…someone who has made nonviolence into a passionate confrontation, an active living force."

Kelly grew up on the Southside of Chicago; she was the third of six children.  Her parents met in London during the Blitz – the sustained aerialbombardment of Britain by Nazi Germany during the early part of World War II between September 1940 and May 1941 .  Her Dad was a G.I. who had left the Christian brothers and was serving in London.  Her mother studied nursing and, as a student, cared for children with disabilities.  Prior to that, she was an indentured servant in Ireland and subsequently in England.  Ultimately they moved to the United States and settled in Chicago.  Her mother had three children in the space of one year. 

Kelly grew up in Chicago in the 1950s and 60s.  Her family struggled economically; she lived in relatively cramped quarters with her siblings and ended up sleeping on the living couch. It was an epic period in the nation's history – a time of social upheaval marked by the turmoil generated by involvement of the U.S. government in Vietnam and the strongly polarizing influence of the civil rights movement.  It was a time in which the evidence of racism, sexism, militarism and classicism was quite evident. 

She attended St. Paul-Kennedy high school and found inspirational teachers there.  It was a shared-time experimental school in which she went to the local public school for part of the day.  Kelly experienced firsthand the virulent effects of racism that often put Chicago in the national news.  Commenting on her own experience at school, Kelly said that it "broke the code of fatalism that was part of my upbringing."  She was particularly impressed with Martin Luther King Jr. and Daniel Berrigan, whose exceedingly controversial anti-war activities were well known at the time and whose life we have examined earlier in this book.  There was a particular comment that Berrigan made that remained with Kelly – he said that, "One of the reasons we don't have peace is that the peacemakers aren't prepared to make the same sacrifice demanded of the soldiers."  It was during this period in her life that she decided to work actively towards peace. 

During the Vietnam War, Kelly was mostly involved from an intellectual perspective – she wrote articles against the war but took no direct action.  During her graduate studies at Chicago Theological Seminary, she made the decision to get directly involved in issues of peace and social justice.  In the spring of 1977, she moved to an uptown neighborhood of Chicago to work with the Francis Assisi Catholic Worker House.  The St. Francis Assisi House of Hospitality is still extant. 

Within these houses, such as this one, Catholic Workers live simply within the community, serve the poor, and resist war and social injustice.  The Catholic Worker movement, founded by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, began in 1933,.  Its reason for being is based on the principle that every human being has dignity and is deserving of respect and support.  This movement continues to thrive with over two hundred active communities.

It was there that she met Roy Bourgeois.  He was imprisoned for six months for flinging blood on a poster of his friend, Rutilio Grande, who was assassinated by a member of a death squad in Central America.  His story moved Kelly to become involved in more direct action against injustice.  At the Catholic Worker House, she also met Karl Meyer, who she was later to marry.  He convinced her to join him in an action to protest draft registration; this led to her first arrest and the beginning of her long career of non-violent direct action against injustice.  They were married for twelve years.

Kelly ultimately received a Masters degree in religious education and taught at St. Ignatius College Preparatory School.  In 1985, she received a professional development grant that took her to Nicaragua.  There she met with Miguel D'Escoto, the Foreign Minister who was also part of the Marynoll religious order.  He organized a plan to fast for peace in, "defense of life and against contra violence.  The Contras were a group of fighters that was financed by the United States and whose goal was to subvert, undermine and eventually overthrow the democratically-elected government led by the Sandinistas, who had an active socialist political agenda.  President Ronald Reagan's administration was eventually implicated in the covert and illegal funding of the Contras, using monies obtained through the illicit sale of military hardware to the government of Iran – the so-called "Iran-Contra" scandal.  Kelly was deeply impressed and inspired by D'Escoto's commitment to peace.  As a consequence she quit her position in 1986 at St. Ignatius following her return.  In her letter of resignation she said, "I am quitting my job to devote full time to opposing contra aid."

Kelly became totally dedicated to not only speaking out about that which she felt was detrimental to the causes of peace and social justice but also acting on her beliefs.  She became involved in non-violent opposition to U.S. aid to the Contras, nuclear weapons, Israeli government policies regarding the Palestinians, militarism, sanctions against Iraq and its disastrous impact on Iraqi children, U.S. policies in Central America and the Second Gulf War.

 

In April of 2003, Kelly was instrumental in forming the Voices in the Wilderness group based in Baghdad for the purpose of providing witness to the devastation wrought by U.S. policy in Iraq.  Kelly has devoted much of her energy towards exposing the disastrous impact the First and Second Gulf Wars have had on the people of Iraq. 

Anticipating the likelihood of the Second Gulf War, Kelly took up residence in Baghdad during the first phase of the American military invasion in March 20, 2003 during so-called "Shock and Awe," - the expression coined by Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Secretary of Defense at that time.  The individual lives that she reported on are testimonials to the horror of warfare that is so often aimed at civilian populations.

As a gauge of Kelly's own feelings regarding the attack, she stated that, "Yes, we are angry, very angry, and yet we feel deep responsibility to further the nonviolent antiwar efforts that burgeon in cities and towns throughout the world.  We can direct our anger toward clear confrontation, controlling it so that we won't explode in reactionary rage, but rather draw the sympathies of people toward the plight of innocent people here who never wanted to attack the U.S., who wonder, even as the bombs terrify them, why they can't live as brothers and sisters with people in America."  This statement illustrates the difficult task of remaining non-violent and clear-headed under horrendous circumstances.

On Aril 15, 2003, Kelly reported the following, "Nurses are digging graves in front of the Al Mansour Hospital.  Plumes of smoke are rising from the campus of Baghdad University.  Other disasters loom, as the Red Cross warns that Baghdad's medical system is in complete collapse."  Kelly visited the gravely injured and dying who were flooding Iraq's understaffed and poorly equipped hospitals.

In her testimony before Judge Crocker on October 26, 2003, she attempted to explain her involvement in Iraq during the Shock and Awe campaign.  She went on to clarify the role of the Tomorrow House that she had set up in Baghdad.  These explanations fell on deaf ears; she was sentenced to spend a month in Federal prison.  She subsequently returned to Iraq in August of 2003 to serve as a witness to the horrific consequences of that war.

In April 2004, Kelly was sent to the Pekin Illinois Federal Maximum Security Prison for nine months.  She was accused of violations of law pertaining to the delivering of medicines and relief supplies to Iraq.  She was previously imprisoned in 2003, as previously mentioned, and in 1989 for a protest against the US Army's military combat training school in Fort Benning, Georgia. 

 

With equal vigor, Kelly has been active and relentless in defense of the plight of the Palestinians as well.  She has been an ardent opponent of war and social injustice wherever it may appear.  She has shown remarkable courage, persistence and a relentless tenacity in pursuing what she has felt is right in the face of grievous injustice.  On three separate occasions, she has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts.  Kathy Kelly has been and continues to be an effective voice for the powerless throughout the world.  

Joseph Rotblat and the Bomb

Joseph Rotblat is known primarily for his contributions to the understanding of nuclear physics and his work on the development of the atomic bomb as part of what was referred to as the Manhattan Project.  What is less well known about his life was his role as a proponent of peace during the dangerous cold war period following World War II.  In fact, after spending only one year on the Manhattan Project, he resigned from his position and was suspected of being a Soviet spy on account of his opposition to the project. 

Rotblat was a leading researcher on the biological effects of radiation and from the early 1950s to his death in 2005 he was an eloquent spokesman for the abolition of nuclear weapons and the promotion of peace.  He played an instrumental role in the establishment of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs and won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1995.

He was born in Warsaw, Poland on November 4, 1908 and had what he personally described as a happy childhood.  At that time, Poland was divided and Warsaw was under the control of the Tsar of Russia.  His father was a successful businessman and horse breeder.  Their prosperity was severely impacted by the First World War, for the borders were closed and horses were requisitioned by the government without compensation.  So severe was the family's economic decline that they endured extreme poverty.

Motivated by his economic plight, Rotblat became an apprenticed electrician, and began his own business installing electrical lighting when the concept of electrification was in its infancy.  Although his business proved successful, he had a penchant for science and possessed an active imagination.  In 1929, he joined the Free University of Poland.  It was an unusual environment in that the staff held socialist views.  The Free University had close ties with the Miroslaw Kerbbaum Radiological Laboratory of the Polish Scientific Society where Madam Curie served as the honorary director.  Rotblat joined the Radiological Laboratory where he met the man who would be his mentor, Ludwig Wertenstein.

Wertenstein spent two years in the prestigious Cambridge Laboratory in England where he worked with Ernest Rutherford, who discovered the atomic nucleus and James Chadwick, who discovered the neutron, a subatomic particle.  In addition to his enviable scientific credentials, Wertenstein was a linguist and a poet.  From an ethical and moral standpoint, he was a humanist.  It was the depth of Wertenstein's moral character and his belief that a scientist always owns responsibility for the products of his endeavors that strongly helped form Rotblat's own thinking.

Rotblat's early research involved the area of radiation detection, and he constructed Geiger counters for this purpose.  At the University of Warsaw, he studied inelastic collisions and discovered the presence of Cobalt 60, a radioactive isotope, as a byproduct in experiments in which he was bombarding gold with neutrons.

Neils Bohr, a leading nuclear physicist and a pioneer in the area of nuclear research, suggested that uranium 235 was the element responsible for atomic fission, and in 1939 the idea of a fission bomb was conceived.  Rotblat joined Chadwick in Liverpool, and became recognized for his abilities in the arena of nuclear physics along with his notable colleagues.

 

On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland and war was declared.  Unfortunately, Rotblat's wife, Tola, was trapped in Poland despite his attempts to rescue her.  Tola was later to die in the Majdanek concentration camp in Poland.  This infamous Nazi concentration camp was located in the outskirts of Lubin, Poland.  Over 79,000 died there during the war; the majority of those killed were Polish Jews.  Rotblat was not informed of her death until 1945; he was devastated by this news.  On account of his close proximity and personal experience with the disastrous and destructive impact of Hitler's' regime, Rotbalt felt that Hitler needed to be deterred.  In fact, he suggested the feasibility of a uranium-fueled bomb to Chadwick.  He wrestled with his conscience for although he believed that it was imperative to deter the Hitler's onslaught, he also felt strongly that it was not his job to work towards such a weapon of mass destruction.

Ultimately, Rotblat was invited to join the Manhattan Project in the U.S. and he accepted.  He moved to the Los Alamos Labs in New Mexico in 1943.  He worked in the Oak Ridge Lab specializing in uranium isotope separation – a critical step in making the bomb.  The Manhattan Project was under the direction of Robert Oppenheimer and had such notable scientists on board as Edward Teller, Richard Feynman and Enrico Fermi.  From the early stages of his involvement, Rotblat had ambivalent feelings about his role in the project.

He once attended a meeting in which General Groves, military head of the Manhattan Project, declared that the primary reason for developing the bomb was to defeat Stalin and subdue the Soviets.   This explanation troubled Rotblat, for it seemed to have no connection to Nazi Germany.  In addition, he concluded that the enormous resources required to successfully create a fission device was beyond Germany's capability.   He joined forces with Niels Bohr, who also wished to prevent an arms race with the Soviet Union, in trying to convince the allies to place the project under international supervision.  This recommendation was ignored.

By the end of 1944, Rotblat resigned from the project.  In 1985, Rotblat presented his point of view in the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists in an article entitled, Leaving the Bomb Project.  In this piece, he claimed that the notion of using his knowledge to effect mass destruction was totally abhorrent to him.  An excerpt of this paper is shown below.

________________________________________________________________________

 

"My concern about the purpose of our work gained substance from conversations with Niels Bohr. He used to come to my room at eight in the morning to listen to the IBBC news bulletin.  Like myself, he could not stand the U.S. bulletins which urged us every few seconds to purchase a certain laxative! I owned a special radio on which I could receive the BBC World Service. Sometimes Bohr stayed on and talked to me about the social and political implications of the discovery of nuclear energy and of his worry about the dire consequences of a nuclear arms race between East and West which he foresaw.  All this, and the growing evidence that the war in Europe would be over before the bomb project was completed, made my participation in it pointless. If it took the Americans such a long time, then my fear of the Germans being first was groundless.  When it became evident, toward the end of 1944, that the Germans had abandoned their bomb project, the whole purpose of my being in Los Alamos ceased to be, and I asked for permission to leave and return to Britain.  Why did other scientists not make the same decision?  Obviously, one would not expect General Groves to wind up the project as soon as Germany was defeated, but there were many scientists for whom the German factor was the main motivation. Why did they not quit when this factor ceased to be?  I was not allowed to discuss this issue with anybody after I declared my intention to leave Los Alamos, but earlier conversations, as well as much later ones, elicited several reasons.

The most frequent reason given was pure and simple scientific curiosity-the strong urge to find out whether the theoretical calculations and predictions would come true.  These scientists felt that only after the test at Alamogordo should they enter into the debate about the use of the bomb.  Others were prepared to put the matter off even longer, persuaded by the argument that many American lives would be saved if the bomb brought a rapid end to the war with Japan. Only when peace was restored would they take a hand in efforts to ensure that the bomb would not be used again.  Still others, while agreeing that the project should have been stopped when the German factor ceased to operate, were not willing to take an individual stand because they feared it would adversely affect their future career.

The groups I have just described-scientists with a social conscience-were a minority in the scientific community.  The majority was not bothered by moral scruples; they were quite content to leave it to others to decide how their work would be used. Much the same situation exists now in many countries in relation to work on military projects.  But it is the morality issue at a time of war that perplexes and worries me most.  Recently I came across a document released under the Freedom of Information Act. It is a letter, dated May 25, 1943, from Robert Oppenheimer to Enrico Fermi, on the military use of radioactive materials, specifically, the poisoning of food with radioactive strontium. The Smyth Report mentions such use as a possible German threat, but Oppenheimer apparently thought the idea worthy of consideration, and asked Fermi whether he could produce the strontium without letting too many people into the secret.  He went on: "I think we should not attempt a plan unless we can poison food sufficient to kill a half a million men."  I am sure that in peacetime these same scientists would have viewed such a plan as barbaric; they would not have contemplated it even for a moment. Yet during the war it was considered quite seriously and, I presume, abandoned only because it was technically infeasible.  After I told Chadwick that I wished to leave the project, he came back to me with very disturbing news.  When he conveyed my wish to the intelligence chief at Los Alamos, he was shown a thick dossier on me with highly incriminating evidence. It boiled down to my being a spy: I had arranged with a contact in Santa Fe to return to England, and then to be flown to and parachuted onto the part of Poland held by the Soviets, in order to give the secrets of the atom bomb.

________________________________________________________________________

 

From 1945 – 1950 Rotblat was in charge of nuclear physics in Liverpool.  He was so appalled by the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that he devoted his energy to the development of medical applications using nuclear radiation.  In collaboration with Chadwick, the radioactive isotopes of iodine and phosphorus were found to have useful application.  In addition, he collaborated with George Ansell in developing the use of radioactive iodine for the treatment of thyroid problems, a treatment protocol used to this day.  He continued this kind of work – beneficial application of his knowledge of nuclear physics – at Bartholomew's Medical College in London where he worked for twenty-six years starting in 1949.

 

On the news of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Rotblat was devastated, for he had hoped that the weapon would not work or that it would be used as a demonstration project in order to show the Japanese the awfulness of this weapon.  He strongly believed that scientists should not be involved in the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons.  In 1946, he set up the Atomic Scientists Association (ASA) to stimulate public debate around the issue of nuclear weapons.  The association had a non-political agenda geared towards educating the public on the peaceful uses of radioactivity.

Rotblat established a relationship with Bertrand Russell.  On December 23, 1954, Russell made a radio broadcast highlighting the dangers of nuclear testing; he was firm in his conviction that scientists should take the lead in informing the public.  To this end, he convinced Einstein to help draft a manifesto.  The Russell-Einstein Manifesto was signed by ten scientists including Rotblat.

Rotblat was tireless in his efforts to draw attention to the dangers of nuclear weapons and nuclear testing.  He set up the Pugwash conferences that ultimately had twenty-two participants and was international in scope.  The participants included physicists, chemists, biologists and one lawyer.  The focus of this conference was in the areas of radioactive fallout, abetting the arms race and the social responsibilities of scientists.

On December 10, 1995, Rotblat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his vigorous and extensive effort to facilitate peace and understanding in a troubled world.    A brief excerpt of his acceptance speech follows –  

 

 

"The practical release of nuclear energy was the outcome of many years of experimental and theoretical research.  It had the great potential for the common good.  But the first the general public learned about this discovery was the news of the destruction of Hiroshima by the atom bomb.  A splendid achievement of science and technology had turned malign.  Science became identified with death and destruction."

 

 

He died in 2005.  He was an extremely ethical and a profoundly thoughtful human being, who courageously lived up to his convictions and exerted a positive influence on the public understanding of the dangers of nuclear weapons and helped awaken scientists to their responsibilities to society and the people they serve.

Why Peace?

There are many armed conflicts raging all over the planet in the beginning of the twenty-first century.  The war in Iraq that has considerably diminished in intensity and the War in Afghanistan are the results of superpower (United States) intervention supposedly acting in its national interest.  Many of these are civil wars like the ongoing conflicts in Columbia, Sudan and Libya.  In the latter example, the military wing of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has become involved with an obvious stake in the outcome.  Others represent territorial conflicts like the conflict between Pakistan and India over Kashmir and the long standing conflict between the Palestinians of Arab descent and the Israeli occupation.  There is obviously a strong religious component to these clashes as well.  Other confrontations are fueled by powerful religious and ethnic differences as exemplified by Lebanon's civil war in the 1970s due in large part to the enmity between Muslims and Christians.  Of course, the horrific and tragic genocide that took place in Rwanda in ***** prompted by ethnic and socio-economic differences between tribes cannot be overlooked.  This is by no means an exhaustive list of all the various trouble spots that exist in the precarious world of humans.  Overshadowing all these calamitous events is the inexorable deterioration of the global environment that is often exacerbated by human conflict and the chaos it ordinarily engenders.

On examining the ferocity of warfare, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that the human species has not learned very much over its protracted history.  The history of Europe from the Ancient Roman and Greek civilizations to the present, as an example, is replete with carnage that is the inevitable outcome of wars. 

Within the individual human psyche there exists a constant tension between the force and power of the emotions driven by the passions embodied in territory, tribe and nation and that of reason.  The more reactive and violence-prone emotions stem in large part from the evolution of the species in an environment that was essentially hostile and in which the forces of nature that impacted human experience were not understood and the causes of calamities were attributed to the gods, malevolent spirits or an enemy. 

In the beginnings of the human kind, ignorance was prevalent and fear and suspicion dominated and shaped human behavior.  Although the advancement of science and technology has shed light upon many aspects of the human experience that were once shrouded in mystery, the inherent tendency to strike out violently against that which is feared and poorly understood remains to haunt human societies.  In addition, in the so-called developed world there is tendency on the part of a strong segment of the general population to hold science and scientific knowledge in suspicion.  What is particularly unique about humanity in the twenty-first century is the inescapable reality that the application of overwhelming force against a perceived enemy is no longer a viable solution especially considering the destructiveness of modern weaponry.

Over the thousands of years of human civilization, great empires have risen and eventually fallen.  The cycle of empire building and dissolution has generally followed the same inexorable path. The beginning stage is represented by the rise of a local community of common origin followed by a gradual accretion of power, usually by force. Success at this initial stage leads to a steady rise in military strength and technological capability that overshadows all adversaries.  As power becomes increasingly concentrated into an overweening empire, there is a tendency to overextend the sphere of control and influence.  This expansion ultimately leads to an exhaustion of resources both material and human.  Finally, the empire contracts and ultimately dissolves.  The entire process might take place over a thousand years as exemplified by the Roman Empire or a few hundred years as demonstrated by the British Empire.

In all of human history, cycles of expansion and warfare were tolerable given the low density of human populations on the planet and the relatively benign effects of the primitive weaponry on the global environment.  This model of human behavior where economic, political and social differences and rivalries are settled through violent means is no longer tenable in the modern era. 

The essentially tribal nature of human interactions has evolved over the generations into competing national sovereignties.  The idea that each nation state is a power unto itself is no longer compatible with the rapidly evolving global character of human endeavor.  There is currently too much at stake in maintaining the status quo, especially in regards to the survival of the species.  The development of technological weaponry, especially nuclear and chemical weapons, has created a situation in which warfare necessarily leads to horrific consequences both locally for the populations involved and globally due to the environmental effects as witnessed in the nuclear attacks against the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the use of anti-personnel cluster bombs in Cambodia, the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and the use of Depleted Uranium (DU)  hardened ordnance in Iraq.

The daunting issues that face humanity are no longer local but rather global in nature.   The remarkable savagery of the First and Second World Wars of the Twentieth Century awakened the idea of a world organization as a forum for international communication so as to foster dialog between nations and forestall the possibility of future wars of such magnitude.  The first experiment in a world organization as a vehicle for adjudicating international disputes was the League of Nations that was created in the aftermath of World War I.  This met with limited success and was eventually disbanded.  Subsequently the United Nations was created at the end of World War II.  The United Nations is still extant but remains hostage to the dominance of the powerful industrial nations that constitute the Security Council.

The will to empire is still very much with us.  Apparently, no significant lessons have been learned from the horrid mistakes of the past.  The undeniable need for true international cooperation as a means to effectively circumvent a catastrophic future that now seems so inevitable is still not recognized.  Many nations remain fixated on the ferocious competition for dominance and supremacy at the expense of those sovereignties that are weaker and more fragile.  This competition has usually been over the resources required to fuel and sustain national economies.  The need for additional natural resources such as land for expansion of national populations or energy and mineral resources has often been the focus of competition.  As needed resources such as oil or water become scarce, the competition will, by necessity, grow more fierce and explosive.

This particular mindset has become problematic; the species is in desperate need of a completely new paradigm.  The new model must be based, by necessity, on a spirit of cooperation, compassion, generosity and a willingness to reach meaningful compromise to avert disaster.  The chasm that currently exists between the so-called "haves" and "have-nots" both within and between sovereign states is helping to sustain the extreme level of violence that continues to plague humanity.  Fundamental issues of social and economic justice need to be uppermost on the agenda.  Such a focus would require a serious implementation of the role of social responsibility and conscience in the behavior of governments.  The idea of belonging wholly to one nation must be superseded by the idea of being a member of the world community.  This, of course, represents a momentous leap in understanding, tolerance, compassion, and, most importantly, requires an obligation to act in the best interests of all humanity.

To continue down the current path in which domestic and international behavior is dictated by a passion born of fear and ignorance is to take a journey leading into a horrific future.  This is not the only possible destiny of the human species.  There are other more benign and desirable alternatives.  There is a way out of the madness.  Humans are quite capable of using reasoned and mindful intelligence to direct and guide their behavior and plan for a future in which all of humanity can share in the benefits of collective action for the good of all people.  To do this, however, old patterns of behavior and thinking need to be discarded and replaced by a new understanding that envisions all of us as being of equal worth and recognizes that we wholly depend upon a fragile planet with limited resources.  Beneficial change demands that fear and ignorance be replaced by compassion, understanding and a determination to work for true social justice and freedom.  These goals cannot be achieved by an imposition of a particular set of values by brute force or economic coercion.  Imperialism represents a viewpoint that depends upon a world out of balance and it is an idea that is no longer tenable.  The urge towards empire is not yet dead, but is has become completely ineffectual and counterproductive.

I believe I can say with some assurance that all people desire a world for their descendents in which peace is a reality and a future in which the planet retains its natural beauty and the majesty of all of life.  To achieve this result, a great deal of work is required.  This is a completely different kind of work, since it requires profound self examination and a will towards significant change.  The question remains as to whether the species has the wherewithal to take on this challenge.  I hope for the sake of future generations that this is so.   

 

The first images of the planet taken from space clearly demonstrated that for all human beings and for all of life, for that matter, the earth is our only home.  This conception has, in my judgment, become such an integral part of human consciousness that the current and obvious threat posed by climate change, that is a direct outcome of human activity, may offer some impetus for change.  The time may be right to open more effective channels of communication between nations with the focus on the development of sustainable economies that would help insure a livable planet for future generations of not only the human species but all the magnificent creatures that constitute the living world.  Simply moving through life with self-interest as the guiding principle is not enough to forestall a major calamity that only concerted human action can avert.

There seems to be a paradoxical aspect of human nature that may help explain the penchant for aggression and violence. On the one hand, humans as members of a family, group, tribe or nation, are able to work harmoniously with cooperative effort towards goals that benefit everyone. This collective behavior operates effectively; unless, severe catastrophic conditions such as profound environmental calamities, famine, epidemics, etc disrupt this cohesiveness, or an individual is plagued with mental illness. I believe that this capacity for concerted endeavor is wired into the human brain as a result of millions of years of social and biological evolution.

Juxtaposed to this natural propensity for harmonious behavior is the equally potent fear and mistrust of those outside the community whether it is family, group, tribe or nation. Fear can trigger the body, directed by various chemical signals from the brain, to react with the classic "flight or fright" response. The urgency of such a reaction, precludes rational thought or reasoned consideration; it is a purely survival mechanism. This propensity is also wired within the fabric of the human brain.

As individuals, we are often confronted by choices that may illicit responses dictated by either of these pathways. I view this as a life long struggle between the voice of intellect and reason and that of the emotions. It is both these aspects that define us as humans; we cannot extricate them from our being - that would be a useless endeavor bound to fail.

The path that a society chooses in confronting possible collective conflict or crisis, i.e. the path of reason or that of the emotions, depends largely upon education. If the culture at large condones and encourages violence as a legitimate response to threat and punishment as the primary means to promulgate justice, then individuals within that culture will adopt these methodologies. The violence used does not necessarily have to be physical in nature; it can also be economically or culturally based. However, if the intellect and reason are the attributes that are encouraged and nurtured, then an entirely different set of outcomes are possible.

Although human civilization has tended in the past to succumb to the reactive pathway as dictated by hostility, suspicion and fear, this does not preclude alternative outcomes in the future. The utopian ideal for human societies is not outside the grasp of human history. We need, as a species, to reeducate ourselves and transform our view of self and other.

Thich Nhat Hanh

Thich Nhat Hanh was born in Central Vietnam in 1926.  He became a Buddhist monk in 1942 at the age of sixteen years.  In 1950, he co-founded the Quang Buddhist Institute.  In 1961, he studied comparative religions at Columbia University and returned to Vietnam in 1963.  At that time the Vietnam War was in its beginning prior to the major escalation of the United States involvement following the Gulf of Tonkin incident as discussed earlier.  After returning to Vietnam, Hanh joined in an effort to stop the war campaign following the fall of the Diem Regime.  He helped encourage and inspire non-violent resistance based upon Gandhian principles. 

In 1964, he founded the School of Youth for Social Service and created the La Boi Press that continues to publish books about Buddhism and mindful living.  Hanh used his influential position to call for reconciliation between the warring parties.  In 1966, he accepted an invitation to return to the United States; he was asked to participate in the Fellowship of Reconciliation and to come to Cornell University.  His advocacy of peace through non-violent means was so moving that Martin Luther King Jr. nominated Hanh for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1967.  It was, in large part, due to Hahn's eloquence and commitment to peace that King came out publicly against the war at a press conference where Hanh was present.  Thomas Merton, the well known monk and Catholic theologian, was also one of Hanh's admirers. 

Hanh went on to meet with influential US senators including J. William Fulbright and Ted Kennedy and the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara in order to argue his case.  He also met with Pope Paul IV in an effort to bring Catholics and Buddhists together to work towards peace in Vietnam.  In 1969, Hanh agreed to set up a Buddhist Peace Delegation at the Paris Peace Talks.  After the Peace Accords were finally signed in 1973, Hanh was denied re-entry into Vietnam.  Undaunted, he established a peace community in Paris called, "Sweet Potato."  There he remained for five years involved in meditation, writing, reading, etc.  He lived a quiet and solitary life there accepting visitors only occasionally. 

He went on to establish Plum Village a retreat center near the town of Bordeaux, France.  He has made repeated pilgrimages to North America to give lectures on behalf of peace.  In the words of the Dalai Lama written in the forward of Hanh's book entitled, Peace is Every Step – The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life, "Although attempting to bring about peace through the internal transformation of individuals is difficult, it is the only way.  Wherever I go, I express this, and I am encouraged that people from many different walks of life receive it well.  Peace must first be developed with the individual.  And I believe that love, compassion, and altruism are the fundamental basis for peace.  Once these qualities are developed within the individual, he or she is then able to create an atmosphere of peace and harmony.  This atmosphere can be expanded and extended from the individual to his family, from the family to the community and eventually to the whole world."  The Dalai Lama stated that Hanh offers guidance for such a journey.  This journey towards peaceful inner transformation represents, in my judgment, the core of Hanh's beliefs.

According to Hanh, peace is always present, is always possible to the individual.  It is achievable through self awareness attained by a thoughtful practice of mindfulness in our daily lives.  He advises being aware of every moment; of understanding our own personal emotions and feelings.  For example, according to Hanh, "Anger is rooted in our lack of understanding of ourselves and of the causes, deep-seated as well as immediate, that brought about the unpleasant state of affairs.  Anger is also rooted in desire, pride agitation and suspicion."  In essence the source of anger lies within the self rather than in the external object, person or event that is the focus of such an extreme emotion.

Hanh comes from a strong Buddhist tradition.  Much of Buddhist practice is centered on being aware of the present moment.  His way of teaching, therefore, focuses upon techniques to enhance that awareness.  He strongly advocates conscious breathing and mindfulness of every aspect of human activity.  An integral part of his psychology is the concept of what he refers to as, "internal formation."  According to his thinking, sensory input may leave "fetters," or "knots" depending upon the individual's particular receptivity.  These knots can be impediments to successful living, if they are not understood.  Hanh believes that self awareness would make one immediately aware of knots as they are being formed.

Hanh sees the reality of the state of human affairs in the following way: "If the Earth were your body, you would be able to feel the many areas where it is suffering.  War, political and economic oppression, famine and pollution wreak havoc in so many places.  Every day, children are becoming blind from malnutrition, their hands search hopelessly through mounds of trash for a few ounces of food.  Adults are dying slowly in prisons for trying to oppose violence.  Rivers are dying, and the air is becoming and more difficult to breath.

"Many people are aware of the world's suffering; their hearts are filled with compassion.  They know what needs to be done, and they engage in political, social, and environmental work to try to change things.  But after a period of intense involvement, they may become discouraged if they lack the strength needed to sustain a life of action.  Real strength is not in power, money, or weapons, but in deep, inner peace."

This is a central concept in Hanh's world view.  Practicing mindfulness is, to him, the way to cultivate inner peace.  Hanh proposes that mindfulness is, "the energy of attention."  It is, "the miracle that allows us to be fully alive in each moment."  In terms of his philosophy, mindfulness represents the foundation for living in the world.  In a broader context, mindfulness is defined as one of the five spiritual powers; the others being faith, diligence, concentration and insight.

 

Experiencing the Vietnam War helped awaken him to the reality that the very roots of war emanate from within – from the way we live our daily lives.  Accordingly, the way a society is organized socially, culturally and economically predisposes it to the use of violence to resolve conflict.  Resolving conflict nonviolently requires insights into the suffering endured by both sides.  To practice nonviolence is to become nonviolent.  It is only then that when confronted by a difficult situation, individuals, communities or nations will react nonviolently.

Thich Nhat Hanh has become a very influential voice in regards to peace.  He is not an activist, per se, but functions more like a wise and compassionate mentor, helping individuals understand their own internal motivations and providing them with the tools to achieve greater self awareness.  Hanh is convinced that this awareness, once achieved, will necessarily lead to peace from within and ultimately a more peaceful world.  He has made significant contributions to human affairs especially in regard to forging a better and more peaceful world.

Journal of Peace Research

Journal of Peace Research is an interdisciplinary and international bimonthly, covering scholarly work in peace research. It strives for a global perspective on peace and peacemaking, with particular focus on the causes of violence and conflict resolution. JPR is edited by Henrik Urdal in collaboration with ten associate editors.

'Journal of Peace Research not only publishes critical, cutting-edge research on peace, war, and violence. It has also taken extraordinary steps to lead the establishment of scientific standards for data replication policies in the field, resulting even in a published agreement with other journals to follow emerging best practices. Across a range of interdisciplinary areas, JPR seems to be as widely followed as it is closely read.' – Gary King, Harvard University

Johan Galtung and the Study of Peace

Johan Galtung was born on October 24, 1930 in Oslo, Norway.  He is a Norwegian mathematician and sociologist and a principal founder of the discipline of peace and conflict studies.  He earned his degree in Mathematics at the University of Oslo in 1956, and a Master of Arts Degree in Sociology a year later at the same university. In addition, Galtung received the first of seven honorary doctorates in 1975.

Both of his parents are from Norway and his father and paternal grandfather were physicians.  His mother's maiden name was Helga Homboe.  Galtung has been married twice, and has two children by his first wife Ingrid Eide, and two by his second wife Fumiko Nishimura.

 

Galtung lived through the German occupation of Norway during World War II as a young and impressionable boy.  When he was only twelve years old, he was present when the Nazi's arrested his father.  His direct experience with the horrors associated with war, convinced him to devote his professional energies to the cause of peace.  As a matter of fact, in 1951 he chose to do 18 months of social service instead of the mandatory military service.  After twelve months of such service, he insisted that the remainder of his obligation be spent working directly for peace. He was sent to prison, and spent the remaining six months in confinement.

Upon receiving his Master of Arts degree, Galtung moved to Columbia University, in New York City, where he was an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology.  Determined to work for peace, he returned to Oslo in 1959 where he founded the Peace Research Institute Oslo. Under his guidance as the Institute's Director, it grew into an independent research institute and became eligible for government funding.  In addition, the Journal of Peace Research was established as a result of his efforts.

Once the institute was well under way, he accepted a position as professor of peace and conflict research at the University of Oslo.  He then served as the director general of the International University Centre in Dubrovnik, and also was the president of the World Future Studies Federation.  He subsequently was invited to other universities located in such diverse places as Santiago, Chile, the United Nations University in Geneva, Columbia and Princeton  universities in the United States and the University of Hawaii.  In 1993, he co-founded "Transcend - A Peace, Development and Environment Network," an organization dedicated to resolve conflicts through peaceful means.  This organization was created for the purpose of directly applying the principles he developed; some of which will be described below.

Galtung has persisted over the years in his pursuit of understanding the nature of human conflict and ways to peace.  He learned to apply his academic knowledge in the fields of mathematics and sociology to this pursuit.  He has become a renowned theoretician in regards to conflict resolution through peaceful means.  He has attempted to deconstruct the origins of human conflict and conflict resolution in order to devise painstaking and orderly techniques to meet the challenges that methodologies focused on peace invariably face.

Galtung has applied logical analysis to formulate pathways to achieve peaceful non-violent solutions to conflict.  He has developed a series of paradigms to describe the process.  He compares the path to peace to the path taken in medicine to understand the disease process and regain health.  He refers to this as a process involving three stages – diagnosis, prognosis and therapy.  He likens disease to violence, and proposes that creating peace involves two possible approaches – reducing violence regarded as a cure and avoiding violence regarded as prevention.  Within this model, violence can be regarded as:

·         Direct Violence 

·         Structural Violence – indirect, emanating from social structures such racism or sexism

·         Cultural Violence – represented by repression and exploitation.

The motivating force behind such violence is, of course, power.  Power can take many forms – cultural, economic, military and political.  Peace policies can, likewise, take different routes.  These dimensions echo the kinds of power enumerated – political, military, economic and cultural.  Galtung also makes distinctions between what he refers to as Negative Peace versus Positive Peace.  For example, negative peace in the economic realm would involve self-reliance, the use of local resources, etc.; whereas, positive peace would involve sharing externalities, horizontal exchange and South-South cooperation.  Positive peace would be more inclusive and extend beyond the borders of local communities or state and would be global in dimension.

According to this approach, in order to successfully develop paths to peace it is important to understand what sustains war and what prompts people to kill.  It is evident from recent human history that the political system of a country does not prevent it from using violence towards other sovereignties.  For example, democratic countries have not inhibited their governments from being involved in slavery, colonialism and other belligerent activities.  According to Galtung, an answer might be to, "democratize the inter-state system."  This would also apply to the arena of human rights.

Galtung is convinced that many of the factors that uphold war encompass patriarchy – rule by the male gender.  In his view, males have a propensity towards violence to a much greater degree than females.  To counter this tendency is exceedingly difficult since it has strong cultural dimensions as well as biological factors.  He suggests that, "The struggle against the tendency of states to seek recourse to military power goes by way of alternatives that are more compelling."

As to the issue of why people kill, he maintains that culture is a potent legitimizer of violence, but also has the potential to support the concept of peace rather than war.  Religions or ideologies can either be the purveyors of violence or peace.  Galtung delineates what he refers to as, "hard and soft" aspects of ideologies.  The hard variety would tend to be more abstract and aloof from human experience; it would tend to invoke the concept of a chosen people.  According to Galtung, this idea is particularly dangerous and essentially inimical to peace.  The softer variety is more cognizant of the plight of humanity and more closely connected to the tangible nature of human existence and, therefore, more empathic.  The major religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – are not monolithic in this regard, but have mixtures of both.  Galtung is strongly convinced that we are all carriers of peace strategies. 

In his pursuit of the study of peace, Galtung has come up with two overlapping definitions of peace:

·         Peace is the absence and/or reduction of violence of all kinds

·         Peace is the by its nature nonviolent and the result of "creative conflict transformation."

 

The first definition is oriented towards violence; whereas, the second is directed towards conflict.  From this starting point, peace work is involved in reducing violence through peaceful means, and peace studies delineate the conditions required for peace work.  In addition, these definitions relate to social conditions; the study of peace is, therefore, a social science.  It is apparent that Galtung used his professional grounding in mathematics and sociology to construct his approach towards the study of peace.

According to his paradigm, the study of peace involves three tiers – Data, Theories, Values.  Data is collected from what is known and what can be measured.  It is this data that are used to formulate theory.  Values determine what is desired and what is rejected.  The inclusion of values sets peace studies apart from other social sciences, for peace always is the desired outcome.

In regards to the diagnosis, prognosis and therapy approach to wellness as described earlier, the goal of intervention is to achieve a range of possible outcomes that can be exemplified by the following:

·         Best outcome – cured but also left with a health benefit and therefore can lead to a very favorable prognosis

·         Second Best  - symptom free but not necessarily protected from recurrence

·         Third Best – chronic, long-lasting but acceptable illness

·         Fourth Best – Unacceptable illness but alive.

There are obvious limitations in applying this approach to implementing peace, but according to Galtung it can be used as a reliable model in the study of peace in the following way:

·         Diagnosis – refers to states of violence

·         Prognosis – refers to the progression of violence through time i.e. increase, decrease or stays the same

·         Therapy – equivalent to peace work.

Within this model, violence can be categorized in the following ways:

·         Nature violence- originating in nature

·         Direct violence – perpetrated by human beings either individually or within the broader context of society

·         Structural violence – indirect violence built into social structures and essentially unintended

·         Cultural violence – legitimizes structural violence

·         Time violence – violence having negative impact of future generations.

 

In addition, therapy can take two distinct forms – violence reduction or negative peace and life enhancement or positive peace.  Although this kind of study of peace may seem cumbersome and appear to be merely an academic exercise, it affords a reliable and predictable approach to the overall understanding of human conflict and its resolution through peaceful means.

 

Galtung used his approach to analyze the methodologies of Mahatma Gandhi who he described as, "the leading theoretician and practitioner of nonviolence.  He also described him as a puritan in his approaches to conflict resolution.  According to Gandhi, nonviolence is a struggle against both direct and structural violence and, by its nature, avoids such violence in the struggle itself.  Gandhi relied on satyagraha – a term that can be defined as truth force – and, accordingly, there is no way to peace; rather, peace is the way.

Furthermore, Galtung determined that Gandhi's process involves disintegration so that non-cooperation becomes essential; integration or all-inclusiveness so that there are no boundaries such as gender, race, class etc.; compromise for the purpose of affecting a remedy over a shorter period of time; transcendence so that what previously seemed incompatible becomes viewed as compatible.  Gandhi was also an optimist who saw the potential of the ultimate integration of all of humankind into the fabric of peace.

 

In Galtung's mind, the search for peace is a road to transcendence where the usual path of social disintegration – Conflict, Polarization and ultimately Violence and War – can be upended by preventive therapy.  The goal would be to transform violent culture to peace culture and violent structure to peace structure.  The peace narrative involves the transformation to peace through depolarization of attitudes, culture and ultimately behavior.  Johan Galtung has taken a theoretical approach to achieving peace and social justice and has made a significant contribution to our understanding of the roots of conflict and pathways to viable peace and social justice.