FROM ICELAND: TEN PROPOSALS FOR PEACE

By Johan Galtung and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

NEW YORK, Jun 6 2004 (IPS) - On June 26, Iceland will hold presidential elections, with candidate Thor Magnusson running on a peace platform. If he wins, he could do a lot — for Iceland and for the world, write Johan Galtung, professor of Peace Studies and Director of TRANSCEND: A Peace and Development Network, and Dietrich Fischer, Academic Director of the European University Centre for Peace Studies in Stadtschlaining, Austria and Co-Director of TRANSCEND. In this column, authors present ten proposals for what the president of a small country could do for peace. Today, a peace president could invite all of the governments in the Middle East to a modern \’\’Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation\’\’ to explore the creation of a six-state Middle East Community, comprised of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and a fully-recognised Palestine, modelled after the European Community. Why not build on successes rather than heading for new failures with the misguided US \’\’road map\’\’? A peace president could be the first to introduce peace education in all schools with a focus on non-violent alternatives. A study of TV violence shows that damage is done less by the viewing of violent acts than by the absence of non-violent alternatives and attention to the grief and trauma of the bereaved. Iceland can also provide a model for developing countries. To its traditional economy based on agriculture and fishing it has added electronics and pharmaceuticals, bypassing heavy industry.

On June 26, Iceland will hold presidential elections, with candidate Thor Magnusson running on a peace platform. If he wins, he could do a lot — for Iceland and for the world. Here are ten proposals for what the president of a small country could do for peace.

[1] In today’s shrinking world everything is globalising — not only the market. What used to be called ”foreign policy” is today also global domestic policy. The ribbon-cutting leader who is ”above politics” appears comical in this new reality. The task of the president today is to be an agenda-setter, not only for his own state but also for the world, where the top priorities are peace, development, the environment, human rights, and democracy. A peace president would scan the world for like-minded presidents. Alone, and together, they would make a real difference.

[2] In 1973, Finnish President Urho Kekkonen invited all European governments to a conference in Helsinki on Security and Cooperation in Europe, bypassing the veto-ridden UN Security Council. The conference produced the brilliant Final Act of 1975, which prepared the way for the end of the cold war. Today, a peace president could invite all of the governments in the Middle East to a similar Conference on Security and Cooperation, and might explore the creation of a six-state Middle East Community, comprised of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and a fully-recognised Palestine, modelled after the European Community. Why not build on successes rather than head for new failures with the misguided US ”road map”?

[3] Costa Rican president Oscar Arias Sanchez, after conferring with his Central American counterparts, produced the Esquipulas II agreement that became the basis for ending the wars in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Arias has worked for peace ever since.

Today the world is plagued by an even worse conflict with Washington-vs-Al Qaeda at its centre. A peace president could initiate steps toward dialogue with the two parties in an attempt to identify their goals — perhaps free trade and democracy on the one hand and respect and justice for grievances of the past on the other. A solution satisfactory to both sides is certainly possible. For precedent we might look back one thousand years to when Iceland avoided being plunged into religious war by combining the newly-arrived faith of Christianity with the old Nordic faiths.

[4] Today there are hundreds of programmes in peace studies at the university level. It would take 4-5 years of professional training programmes plus a licensing system like that in medicine to produce capable, well-informed, and well-trained conflict mediators. A peace president, with competent international backing, could take the initiative in moving towards this goal.

[5] Imagine a TV programme, one hour every Sunday morning, in the spirit of brotherly and sisterly love, that would examine and seek to resolve conflicts, from the smallest personal dilemmas at home, school, or work to class and group conflicts within a society, to much larger conflicts among societies and regions — all based on case studies that people can identify with. There would be no shortage of viewers: people want a higher level of conflict literacy to tackle their own problems and to help others. Iceland could do to conflict what schools do to reading and writing, and people ready for serious conflict work, much needed in the world, would invariably emerge.

[6] A peace president could be the first to introduce peace education in all schools. A study of TV violence shows that damage is done less by the viewing of violent acts than by the absence in these programmes of non-violent alternatives and attention to the grief and trauma of the bereaved. Peace education would focus on non-violent alternatives and how to approach the enormous quantity of trauma in the world.

[7] Iceland is already a model in human rights –civil, political, cultural, and economic. Although it may have pockets of poverty, in comparisons of countries measuring the well-being of the bottom 20 percent, Iceland ranks among the top. Invite people to come, to study, to learn — and begin a dialogue, without fearing that others may have proposals too.

[8] Iceland can also provide a model for developing countries. To its traditional economy based on agriculture and fishing it has added electronics and pharmaceuticals, bypassing heavy industry. Other countries can do the same.

[9] The UN needs more democracy and better-informed dialogue on future policies designed to build a consensus or be resolved through a vote — why not a popularly-elected UN People’s Assembly? Iceland could promote this idea by being the first country to elect its UN delegation by free ballot, and by having dialogue fora all over the country deliberating on the United Nations agenda.

[10] Putting the US military base in Iceland at the disposal of the UN is a model that could be copied around the world and multiply the potential for effective peacekeeping by having the troops pre-stationed. And how about making NATO the peacekeeping arm of the UN, giving force to UN resolutions while at the same time steering NATO?

There is so much work that has to be done, and can be done. A peace president could make a big difference. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)