July 27, 2008
TECHNOS QUARTERLY Winter 2001 Vol. 10 No. 4
Global Security and Global Civil Society
By Janet Bloomfield
It is in the shelter of each other that the people live. -- Irish proverb
I would like to stress from the outset that I am not a diplomat, academic expert, or official. I am an activist and peace campaigner. I have tried for the last 20 years of my life to be an active and aware member of civil society, locally, nationally, and internationally. So my focus in this article is on the role of civil society in creating global security.
Peace
demonstrators gathered at London's Trafalgar Square on October13, 2001. Photo
courtesy of Sue Longbottom, CND/London.
On October 13, 2001, I stood on the plinth of Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square in the heart of central London looking at a crowd of about 50,000 people calling for peace and justice and an end to terror and bombing. There were thousands of placards, but one stood out for me. It simply said, "WHY?" I am sure that is a question most people have asked themselves since the dreadful events of September 11 unfolded in front of the eyes of the world . . .
And when I looked at that placard, I remembered a previous, much smaller gathering that I attended earlier last year. It was an Oxford Research Group (O.R.G.) consultation on National Missile Defence with decision makers from all the key countries involved, experts, and members of O.R.G. Professor Paul Rogers of the Bradford School of Peace Studies spoke about his analysis of the prospects for Global Security in our new century. The nub of his remarks are as follows:
Western strategies for controlling a polarized and environmentally constrained world do not take into account the fundamental vulnerabilities of modern urban-industrial states to asymmetric warfare. . . . Attempting to keep the lid on - "liddism" -- without addressing the core reasons for dissent will not work. . . . It is reasonable to conclude that the coming years represent a period of fundamental challenge and potential transformation. The early decades of the 21st century could be an era in which deep divisions in the world community lead to instability and violence that will transcend boundaries and affect rich and poor alike. They could also be an era of substantial progress in developing a more socially just and environmentally sustainable world order.* [emphasis added]
*Paul Rogers, Losing Control: Global Security in the Twenty-first Century. London, and Sterling, VA: Pluto Press (2000); also, www.plutobooks.com.
How tragically prescient! In the discussion that followed, a senior physician from the United Kingdom National Health Service told us that all major medical institutions in the UK had recently received stockpiles of anti-nerve gas agents. I wrote in my small notebook, "government preparing for the coming chaos . . ."
Another valued colleague and peace researcher from Britain, Mary Kaldor, in early 1999 outlined the stark reality of the situation we face. Her analysis perhaps goes some way toward answering the question "WHY?"
Most contemporary wars are about identity politics -- that is to say, the exclusive claim to power on the basis of identity, be it ethnic, religious, or linguistic. This type of conflict cannot be channeled into peaceful directions. The goals of the conflict are to "sow fear and hatred," to eliminate physically opponents of a different identity. These goals can only be pursued through violence -- genocide, ethnic cleansing, and so on. Moreover, since the parties to the conflict depend on outside support or on loot and pillage of civilians, there tend to be deeply entrenched political and economic interests in a continuation of violence. [Boston Review, February/March 1999]
But how do nongovernmental organizations help themselves and their fellow citizens -- including you and me -- to understand this world of "new wars," "asymmetric threats," "nonstate actors," "failed states," "liddism," and all the other intellectual buzzwords?
I have found that trying to think through what it really means for the world to be one very small place really helps. So for a moment, let us engage in a thought experiment. Pretend that we are in a room of about 200 people, making up a global village, if you will. One hundred forty of us are unable to read; only 2 of us have a college education. More than 100 of us would be suffering from malnutrition, and more than 160 of us would live in substandard housing. Forty of us receive 75 percent of the income; another 40 receive only 2 percent of the income. Besides all of this, our village is facing extreme environmental pressures and a rapidly changing climate.
The final burden we face is that the village has access to enough explosive power in nuclear weapons to blow itself to smithereens many times over. Plus a huge inventory of conventional explosives, with all manner of delivery systems, plus hundreds of small arms, plus the possibility of the use of chemical and biological agents, which is available to those with the will to do so. Is it any wonder that the villagers feel deeply insecure? That the majority sees the minority who has access to most of the wealth and resources as a threat? That the minority feels threatened by the majority and unsure of what may happen in the village in the future? History would suggest that this village be on the brink of a violent and bloody revolution. But perhaps if this village really did exist (and doesn't it?), the villagers would be close enough to each other's lives and experiences to realize that none of them can have a safe future if the community continues in its old ways. No one can be safe unless they are all safe. Perhaps they would begin to see another way forward. Perhaps they would see the value and necessity of recognizing their common humanity and their interdependence.
And that leads me to the second question that confronted me as I observed the crowd in Trafalgar Square. I heard a radio discussion program where a British Muslim woman was questioning a radical Australian journalist. He had eloquently rehearsed all the failings of the West, particularly the United States, but she kept saying, "Yes, but what would you do now in Afghanistan? How would you bring the terrorists to justice?" He had no answer. . . . So the other question is, "WHAT IS TO BE DONE?"
Those of us -- and we are growing in number -- who recognize that bombing is not the answer, have a responsibility to think through the answer to that question. We have to be honest with people about how long it will take to create the institutions, structures, and concepts that will enable us to deal with political violence in all its forms. I believe this is crucial.
In answering the question, "What can be done?" I would like to offer suggestions for the short term, the medium term, and long term.
In the short term, we need to recognize that we can no more win a war on terrorism than we can bomb murder out of existence. I love New York City, and have spent a fair amount of time there. I was so sad to see that you all have to live with the reality that we have faced in London for many years because of the activities of the IRA and others. I saw the people of New York living daily with the kind of security checks and disruptions that we have faced in London for the last 30 years. But let me tell you: life in London goes on. It is vital that we don't let the terrorists stop us from living our lives.
You have to deal with terrorism as we have dealt with it in some way in Northern Ireland, through a political solution. And you must not ever see yourself giving the terrorists what they want, which is to ratchet up the violence. That is what we must think of in the short term.
Education for all the world's children will foster understanding.
In the medium term, we need to recapture politics from the politicians. We need to recapture it for the people, and recognize that politics is what we are engaged in. Politics, as a full public discourse that engages all citizens, has been atrophying for too long in the comfortable democracies of the North. As Mary Kaldor says:
What is needed, above all, is a political project based on inclusion, democracy, and the international rule of law. Such a project can supplant the exclusivist political thinking that leads to war; it does not offer technical solutions but changes the way people perceive the world. This is just as important in the societies that are considered peaceful, such as the United States or Europe, as in the regions currently engulfed by war. As long as air strikes are popular and divert attention from domestic problems, as long as American lives are valued more highly than Iraqi or Sudanese lives, there can never be a serious program to prevent war. As long as people are prepared to die for an exclusive identity and not for humanity, wars will continue. . . . But the task of grassroots activists is not to educate (or miseducate) the public about technical approaches; the task is to change global consciousness. [Ibid.]
Yes, education is crucial to maintaining and establishing healthy democracies. We need to give our young people an understanding of the world that they live in so that they can engage as citizens in a well-informed and thoughtful way. As adults they will be called upon to engage with and decide upon complicated issues presented to them in simplistic terms by the media and politicians. They deserve better. Teachers can equip them, using all the amazing resources available on the Internet, to be responsible participants rather than passive observers in the democracy that was attacked on September 11.
I believe that history and geography should be central to a modern curriculum. Without knowledge of the past, how can we understand the present? Without knowledge of the global environment and how other people live their lives, how can we resist prejudice, intolerance, and fundamentalism? The World Trade Center was a living example of the interdependence and diversity of the modern world. New York City has a population that comes from 150 different racial and ethnic groups, from every conceivable religious tradition in the world, living and working together. An education that engages with that reality will equip young people to resist terrorism far more than one that denies the problems of the world.
This leads me to the long-term possibilities. I keep thinking of that phrase, "where there is no vision, the people perish." And tragically, it is true. In 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia was signed in Munster (in what is now modern Germany) between the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of France and their respective allies. This is generally seen as the first legal recognition of the nation-state as a distinct entity. In a nice historical irony, the Treaty of Westphalia was signed on October 24, the same day the UN Charter was signed, the day we honor as United Nations Day. That was 297 years ago last October. European nation-states grew out of warring city-states and a world where warlords and fiefdoms ruled. The United Nations has another 241 years to go before it reaches the age of the Treaty of Westphalia. I would argue that our world is in a stage of transition similar to the one that took place 300 years ago in Western Europe. In that light, we must remember that every decision we now make will have a profound effect on the world in the year 2242.
Again, I recall being in Trafalgar Square last October. South Africa House overlooks the Square. I couldn't help but think of Nelson Mandela while I sat there. In prison, he realized that his country could be reborn only through nonviolence, negotiation, and reconciliation. By committing himself to this vision, it is estimated that five to six million lives were saved. That is the kind of wisdom and courage we need now.
I wish you could have seen that sea of faces in London. Despite warnings of possible terrorist threats that weekend, 50,000 had not been cowed into staying at home. They refused to allow fear to rule their lives. And they remembered their humanity. They were a striking cross section of humanity: all ages, men and women, all faiths and none, many different ethnic groups and political allegiances. But they were united by a passionate longing for peace and justice.
So, that would be my final call to us all: Let us not allow fear to rule our lives. Let us remember our humanity.
This article is based on a presentation given by the author on Thursday, October 18, 2001, in the United Nations, New York, sponsored by the UN Department for Public Information, the UN Department for Disarmament Affairs, and the Non-Governmental Committee on Peace and Disarmament. Ms. Bloomfield's fellow panelists were Professor John Steinbruner from the University of Maryland, author of Principles of Global Security; Ambassador Henrik Solander of Sweden to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva; and Randy Rydell, UN Department for Disarmament Affairs.