Inequality out in the open. Credit: A.D. McKenzie/IPS

By Blerim Mustafa
GENEVA, Sep 23 2019 (IPS)

Increasing economic inequality is a defining challenge of our time. In recent years, it has triggered analysis and reflection by many scholars, politicians and others on its causes and consequences on economic growth and efficiency, politics and democracy, human rights, individual behaviors, access to health, social cohesion and environmental degradation. The perception that the top 1% of income earners are gaining at the expense of the other 99% has resulted in widespread public debates in many countries on the social and political repercussions of inequality.

Inequalities in income and wealth are often blamed for the deepening anxieties of the middle class in many developed economies. Market power among business elites and multinational companies – in pursuit of higher profits – are one of the key drivers to inequality as access to resources remain in the hands of powerful business groups, and not in the hands of the people and their elected representatives. Serious doubts are therefore raised on the claims that globalization, technological developments and the “invisible hand” of capitalism and economic liberalism have liberated humans from disease, poverty and inequality.

It has long been assumed that GDP growth would address income inequality and lift people out of poverty. But economic growth can often be disproportionate and unequal, adversely affecting marginalized and disadvantaged groups in society. If economic growth does not lead to an equitable spread of its benefits, most citizens specifically the collar workers, the hard-working middle class and rural dwellers will not enjoy commensurate improvements of their living standards. In many countries, this has contributed to the rise of a crisis of legitimacy of governments and a crisis of democracy that has facilitated the surge of populism as well as the return of exclusionary forms of nationalism.

However, with the global financial and economic crisis that swept the world in 2007-2008, inequality has risen in all world regions. ¹ In response to the adverse impact of the crisis, governments worldwide introduced fiscal austerity programs to reduce public at the expense of ballooning levels of sovereign debt that strangle economic growth. As highlighted in the latest report of the UN’s “World Social Situation” ², popular dissent is increasing while trust in governments is plummeting “as people believe they are bearing the brunt of crises for which they have no responsibility and feel increasingly disenfranchised.” It is estimated that national governments have spent an astonishing USD 117 trillion to save the financial system and to bail out banks that were on the brink of bankruptcy but precious little to support the youth. No surprise that people took to the streets in Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Greece and Cyprus to protest against draconian austerity measures imposed by governments to cover up for the failures of the banks and the financial system.

In this regard, it is foreseen that the adverse impact of austerity measures could further impact socio-economic living conditions in Europe; Oxfam estimates that an additional 15-25 million people in Europe could live in poverty by 2025. Professor Stiglitz has likewise suggested that “austerity has only crippled Europe’s growth, with improvements in fiscal positions that are always disappointing. Worse, it is contributing to inequality that will make economic weakness longer-lived, and needlessly contributes to the suffering of the jobless and the poor for many years.”

It is evident that economic inequality has had adverse economic, social and political impacts for social stability and cohesion, political participation, poverty reduction, as well as the enjoyment of human rights. In addition, economic inequalities impede the enjoyment of social, cultural and economic rights, thus contributing to persistent socio-economic disadvantages among social groups. As states are in need of fiscal stability to secure the provision of welfare benefits and redistributive fiscal policies to maintain social security, the dwindling of public resources impedes their ability to deliver basic public services. For instance, in the case of Greece, more than two million people – equivalent to 20% of the population – did not have access to adequate health insurance as underlined by former UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order Professor Alfred de Zayas. Tackling global income and wealth inequality therefore requires important shifts in addressing its root causes

In the outcome document of the 2012 Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development entitled “The Future We Want,” decision-makers committed themselves to achieve sustainable development by promoting “sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth”, creating greater opportunities for all social segments of society so as to reduce inequalities. Social inclusion was likewise a key outcome. In this connection, it was emphasized that “sustainable development must be inclusive and people-centred and recognized that broad public participation was essential to promoting sustainable development goals.” Appropriate measures to address the rise of economic inequality could include resource mobilization for social investment, distribution of income and wealth through targeted social transfers, progressive income taxation as well as the extension of social protection and decent work standards.

Governments are therefore required to address income and wealth inequality, and to prevent its further deterioration. They must build on a human rights and a people-centered approach that enables states to ensure the full enjoyment of human rights on a non-discriminatory and equal basis – among its citizens – in line with the provisions set forth in the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Agenda.

 
¹ “Across the OECD, since 1985 the Gini has increased in 17 of 22 countries (…),” according to Professor Stiglitz (see page 5 of his book entitled “The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future.”)
² United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs, “Inequality matters: Report on the World Social Situation.“ Pages 22-23. New York, 2013. Accessed 14 January 2019. PDF.

Blerim Mustafa, Project and communications officer, the Geneva Centre for Human Rights Advancement and Global Dialogue. Postgraduate researcher (Ph.D. candidate) at the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester (UK).

Excerpt:

By Blerim Mustafa
GENEVA, Sep 20 2019 (IPS)

The proliferation of political crises and armed conflicts in every corner of the world does not exclude religious groups, which unfortunately also contribute to animosities, intolerance and hatred. The Middle East has been on the hit-list of violet extremist groups for decades. One telling example is Syria where clashes have on occasion taken religious or denominational overtones, fracturing Syrian society for decades to come. They have given rise to sectarian divisions along ethnic and religious lines in a country where inter-religious harmony once prevailed. We observe a similar situation in Iraq. In Myanmar, government security forces unleased a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing and hatred against the Muslim Rohingya population. The military crackdown on the Rohingya community has significantly aggravated inter-communal violence in the country. And in the Central African Republic, armed militant groups sloganizing misrepresentations of Islam and Christianity, commit abuses and human rights violations on each other on a daily basis.

The conclusion that can be drawn is that the proliferation of political crises and armed conflicts indiscriminately target communities and societies regardless of religious beliefs or denominations. Violent extremism cannot be ascribed to one religion or region of the world. The recent appalling violent extremist attacks in Christchurch, Oslo and Colombo illustrate that violent extremism targets societies and communities blindly and where we least expect it to happen.

In a time where racism, racial discrimination intolerance and the fear of the other is on the rise, defusing inter-religious conflicts and enhancing understanding for religious diversity is needed more than ever.

In this spirit, inter-faith dialogue and cooperation remains an essential vehicle for religious believers to know, understand, and respect one another. Interreligious and religious-secular dialogues have the power to promote lasting change through a dialogue that fosters mutual coexistence, tolerance and empathy. This entails sharing a relationship of respect and mutual confidence as well as to identifying commonalities among religions, creeds and value systems in promoting multidimensional equalities, accepting diversity between human beings and promoting empathy. As His Holiness Pope Francis reminded us in Sarajevo in 2015 during his visit to Bosnia-Herzegovina:

“We need to communicate with each other, to discover the gifts of each person, to promote that which unites us, and to regard our differences as an opportunity to grow in mutual respect.”

This is a telling reminder that interreligious dialogues can serve as a vector to help break down the walls of ignorance that characterize many societies around the world. There is a need to build alliances between all religions and faiths to address the surge of racial discrimination, intolerance and prejudice. The visit of Pope Francis to the United Arab Emirates in February this year, for instance, and the historical signing of the joint document on “Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” between the Pope and the Grand Imam of Al Azhar Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb are eloquent examples of endeavours made by religious leaders to promulgate a vision of unity in diversity.

It is likewise one of the greatest paradoxes of the contemporary world that major world faiths and creeds are being perverted by violent extremist groups to justify hatred and exclusion. All major world religions advocate peace and justice. The religious teachings of many traditions recognise that prevention of conflict in society by acceptance of the other is rooted in the dignity endowed to the human being. It is through unity — not division — that humanity can promote a world living in peace and harmony. All religions can play an important role.

Let me cite some examples.

Islam, for instance, puts strong emphasis on equality, proclaiming that all human beings are borne free and equal. During the era of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), he said to his followers:

“An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.”

In Judaism, equality before the law plays a strong role in the enhancement of human dignity, human conduct and responsibility towards one another. Sanhedrin 4:5 teaches us that “(…) none should say, (my) Father is greater than yours,” for we are all descendants of the same ancestor.

In Christianity, we are taught in Galatians 3:28 that equality must guide our actions. “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

The right to equality is also emphasised in Hinduism. The Vedas – the sacred scriptures of Hinduism – observe: “No one is superior or inferior. All are brothers and all should strive for the interest of all and progress collectively.” So too in Budhism, as indeed Buddha taught a social message of love, equality and fraternity which underpin equal citizenship rights.

In Confucianism, the notion of “datong” or ‘Great Community’ symbolizes a world in peace and unity in which all people live in harmony with each other, collective and individual human rights being affirmed and closely interwoven.

These examples illustrate that religions and faiths themselves are not the source of hatred and intolerance, but only their distorted instrumentalization for vested interests by violent extremist groups. One must therefore harness the collective energy of all religions and faiths in the pursuit of peaceful and inclusive societies as stipulated in Sustainable Development Goal 16 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. There is no reason for religious communities to fear one another as our commonalities clearly exceed our differences.

Blerim Mustafa, Project and communications officer, the Geneva Centre for Human Rights Advancement and Global Dialogue. Postgraduate researcher (Ph.D. candidate) at the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester (UK).

Global arms trade is booming and has become a lucrative business.

By Blerim Mustafa
GENEVA, Aug 8 2019 (IPS)

“I don’t want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster.” ¹

These were the words of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt on 22 May 1940 when he learned of individuals profiting because of the booming arms trade industry during the Second World War. Seven decades down the line, President Roosevelt’s warning against the rise of the military-industrial complex and war profiteers is more relevant than ever and a telling testimony that for many in safe places war means profit. But, should the pursuit of economic profit be allowed to supplant ethical considerations, especially when weapons often end up in the hands of terrorists, human rights violators and criminal governments?

There is no doubt that the global arms market remains a lucrative business. Arms trade raises numerous ethical issues both for the exporting and for the importing country. War profiteers operate with scant concern for ethical and moral considerations, being guided by the search for power or profit for their corporations. Those who produce and sell arms have been called “merchants of death.” ² HH Pope Francis said it was hypocritical to speak of peace while fuelling the arms trade, which only serves the commercial interests of the arms industry. ³ It is of course the inalienable right of States to exercise their right to self-defence as stipulated in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and to maintain independent military strength to deal with periodic armed conflict or threats that may emerge. Experience shows that arms exporters fuel conflict and create an atmosphere not at all conducive to peace and development in the world. A business model the feeds on armed conflict, violence and instability must be banned in the 21st century.

According to recent statistics from the Stockholm Peace Institute, arms sales of the world’s 100 largest arms-producing and military services companies totalled USD 398.2 billion in 2017. ⁴ That is more than the nominal cumulative GDPs of South Africa, Denmark, Singapore, Egypt, Algeria and Malaysia, a group of countries which is home to more than 200 million people. Since 2002, annual arms sales have surged 44% and are expected to continue growing in the years to come. ⁵ In other words, international arms trade is “big business” and a vector for economic growth in some countries, reminiscent of John Maynard Keynes’ vision of ‘Military Keynesianism’.

In the Middle East, the irregular and black-market arms trade – estimated at USD 10 billion a year – have weaponised extremism and fuelled instability. Disturbing images of civilian infrastructure being bombed and destroyed by extremist groups are telling testimonies that the flow of arms and weapons continues to exacerbate violent conflict in the Arab region. This is particularly the case in Syria, Libya and Iraq where the supply of weapons to the warring sides has prolonged the fighting and adversely affected the civilization population. The rebuilding of societies affected by armed conflict and violence in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is estimated at USD 250 billion. A price tag that the next generations in the MENA region will have to repay for decades to come.

In this connection, world civil society must take action to curb future arms proliferation in regions prone to armed conflict and violence. Governments and arms traders must commit to respecting and to fulfilling the provisions set forth in the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights of the United Nations. ⁶ The aim should be to identify, prevent and mitigate as the case may be, the human rights-related risks of business activities in conflict-affected areas. Civilians should not have to bear the brunt, as they do now, of the devastating consequences of military conflict. The greed involved in the arms trade must be kept in check.

As foreseen in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the promotion of just, peaceful and inclusive societies rests on the ability of world society to promote a climate conducive to peace and sustainable development. According to the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, the countries that are furthest from achieving the targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are in, or emerging from, armed conflict and violence. The best investment to peace and prosperity therefore rests on the ability of decision-makers and governments to curb arms trade, prohibit economic gains from war, armed conflict and human suffering and instead commit to rally for a world where peace and justice prevails. The simple motto for all should be “disarmament for development”. What is most needed is a conversion strategy that will gradually transform war economies into sustainable peace economies. ⁷

¹ https://www.thenation.com/article/war-profiteering/
² https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/1934-07-01/merchants-death
³ https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/06/03/pope-franciss-prayer-stop-merchants-death/
⁴ https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/fs_arms_industry_2017_0.pdf
⁵ Ibid
⁶ https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/GuidingprinciplesBusinesshr_eN.pdf
⁷ See 2014 report to the Human Rights Council by the UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order, http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/27/51

Blerim Mustafa, Project and communications officer, the Geneva Centre for Human Rights Advancement and Global Dialogue. Postgraduate researcher (Ph.D. candidate) at the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester (UK).

Excerpt:

Scores of migrants and refugees have been desperately trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea. Credit: Ilaria Vechi / IPS

By Blerim Mustafa
GENEVA, Aug 1 2019 (IPS)

The migrant and refugee crisis has become a serious test for the unity of Europe as a political project. The inflow of destitute migrants and refugees has tested Europe’s political unity to an unprecedented extent. With a long-term solution to the migrant and refugee crisis nowhere in sight, the adverse impact of the current situation has the potential to unfold further and to give rise to a broader crisis with long-term implications, affecting Europe and the MENA region alike.

In his influential essay “The End of History?”, Professor Francis Fukuyama predicted that the universalization of the Western concept of liberal democracy, in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War, would prevail and erase differences between peoples, societies, civilizations and world regions. Nevertheless, the manipulation of despair and the violent destruction of lives and assets in the Middle East have taken their toll in terms of the radicalization of youth. The re-emergence of populism in advanced countries continue to divide their societies. The situation is particularly striking in countries of Central and Eastern Europe that witnessed a surge in nationalist sentiments once the communist era came to an end and that did not have a colonial past. In Western Europe, the adverse impact of globalization and the financial crisis have given rise to the notion of a lost generation in which Europe’s youth experience greater degrees of impoverishment, inequality and unemployment. A political vacuum has therefore emerged, which has given rise to movements that anchor their ideologies on anti-globalization, unilateralism, protectionism and extreme forms of nationalism. Progress is being achieved to come to terms with its deadly sting, but populism in the West and extremism in the Middle East – spilling over into Europe – cannot be set against one another. The former is still – but for how long – predominantly peaceful in nature while the latter is generating political violence.

Populist parties are emerging as credible actors in light of the recent electoral successes in local and national elections. Their recipe for success: spread of fear, anger, hatred and xenophobia towards refugees and migrants in an attempt to confer legitimacy to their political ideologies. Right wing and populist parties in the West are on the offensive and are now threatening the democratic traditions of a continent referred to as the birthplace of democracy, liberalism and Enlightenment. It challenges the legitimacy of national governments and threatens to restore extreme forms of nationalistic reactions that constitute direct threats to peace, reconciliation and international cooperation. It remains a paradox that countries in Central and Eastern Europe – often the most vocal critics of the arrival of migrants and refugees – have one of the lowest percentages of people belonging to Islam. These are the countries that have benefitted most from inter-EU migration and from an open labour market. Populism, however, does not arise out of nowhere. Establishment political parties have catered to the wealthy and failed to address burning social issues, thus creating a vacuum into which political opportunists could move.

Another feature that is ubiquitous is the tendency to externalise responses to address the plight of people on the move. In this regard, fences and walls have been erected and borders sealed off in an attempt to outsource and externalise solutions to address the rise of people on the move. In addition to the notorious wall between US and Mexico, which will be made even more repellent, and to the no less notorious one cutting off the Palestinian Occupied Territories, border fences and wires have been erected between the borders of Spanish enclaves (Melilla, Ceuta)/Morocco, Slovenia/Croatia, Hungary/Croatia, Hungary/Serbia, Macedonia/Greece, Turkey/Greece and Bulgaria/Turkey. Hungary has also considered erecting a fence along the Hungarian/Romanian border in response to the influx of people on the move.

Although it is the sovereign right of every country to implement measures deemed appropriate to protect their national borders, these physical barriers can come in conflict with the right of people to seek asylum as stipulated in article 14, paragraph 1, of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a right, however, not included in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), and in the 1951 Refugees Convention, which defines a refugee as a person outside his country of nationality who has a well founded fear of persecution if returned to his country of origin. Providing assistance and protection to refugees is, therefore, in line with States’ obligations under international law and not only with their moral duties to respond to the dire situation many desperate people are facing. In this connection, it is worth referring to Pope Francis’s tweet made on 18 March 2017 where he appealed to decision-makers to not “build walls but bridges, to conquer evil with good, offence with forgiveness, to live in peace with everyone.” Pope Francis has likewise urged societies “to welcome, to protect, to promote, and to integrate migrants and refugees”.

The origin of attempts in Europe to “externalize” solutions to the refugee and migrant crisis can be traced back to the 1990 Dublin Convention. The latter stipulates the right to deport migrants and refugees to the first country of arrival, primarily to Greece, Spain and Italy, which are the first European entry points for people on the move owing to their geographical location. Countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea therefore are faced with the burden of absorbing the migrant and refugee inflows from the MENA region. This approach has contributed to an unfair distribution and relocation system of migrants and refugees where countries neighbouring bordering Syria and Iraq and then European countries situated on the Mediterranean Sea coast are the most affected. In the report of the United Nations Secretary-General addressing large movements of migrants and refugees – submitted in April 2016 to the United Nations General Assembly – he regretted that “too often, responsibility for new arrivals lies with the authorities and host communities in the first country of arrival.”

The European Union (EU) has also attempted to work with neighbouring states to defuse the crisis and to externalise solutions to control the flow of people on the move. It appears that the EU has drawn inspiration from the Australian government that have established refugee camps in neighbouring countries such as the island state of Nauru to address the inflow of refugees. In this connection, an agreement was reached between EU and Turkey, in March 2016, which stipulates, inter alia, that Ankara accepts the return of illegal migrants entering Europe. In counterpart, the EU would commit to investing EUR 3 billion to support livelihood projects for returning migrants. A similar position has also been taken vis-à-vis another migratory transit country Libya, in which the EU is committed to supporting the endeavours of the Libyan government to detain migrants and refugees in confinement camps. In response to this practice, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein referred to the detention of migrants and refugees in Libya as “an outrage to humanity”.

Despite these attempts to outsource solutions to the migrant and refugee crisis, inflows of people on the move have not ceased as the main destination regions of migrants and refugees remain the advanced and developed countries in Northern Europe. In this connection, the migrant and refugee crisis is not sustainable in the long run either for Europe or for the Arab region. The rise of populism in Europe – which so far remains political in nature – and the rise of violent extremism in the Middle East – which is an immediate threat – endanger the long-term stability of both regions and has the potential to stir an even bigger migrant and refugee crisis in the future. The root-causes of the unprecedented flow of people on the move have multiple causes, which require a multilevel response. It is imperative that decision-makers recognise the multitude of factors that contribute to the forced displacement of people. Most importantly, peace and stability and a climate conducive to the development of and the respect for human rights must be restored. It is hard to imagine why refugees and migrants would return to their home societies if sustainable and alternative livelihood options are not in place to meet the individual and collective needs of peoples and societies, and if wars and armed conflicts continue unabated.

Blerim Mustafa, Project and communications officer, the Geneva Centre for Human Rights Advancement and Global Dialogue. Postgraduate researcher (Ph.D. candidate) at the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester (UK).

Excerpt:

Access to education is key to facilitate the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies. Photo credit: Getty Images

By Blerim Mustafa
GENEVA, Jul 26 2019 (IPS)

Education constitutes an important building block to enhance inter-faith dialogue, cultural exchange between ethnic and linguistic groups, counter violent extremist narratives and promote peaceful and inclusive societies. The founder of Modern India, Mahatma Gandhi, once said:

“If we are to teach real peace in this world, and if we are to carry on real war against war, we shall have to begin with the children.”

Yet current trends tend to be in denial of this reality. At no time has there been greater need than now for sensible strategies aimed at lifting the veil of ignorance that shapes public opinion. Ignorance and fear are leading to violence and social fragmentation. disrupting the harmony of diverse, multi-ethnic societies. The world is currently witnessing the proliferation of xenophobic populism and white supremacists in advanced societies, but also the rise of Islamophobic demagogery. There is also a wave of extremist violence in all parts of the world. The cause of these phenomena may differ but all feed on the rejection of the Other.

Of great concern is, of course, the exposure of frustrated or marginalised youths to terrorist and violent extremist groups. They lack religious or ideological awareness and fall easy prey to media and social media manipulations. The doubts and frustrations that they experience are not being addressed adequately and hit the wall of unresponsive societies. And, as in all social movements, there are individuals or groupings which take advantage of this latent anger for their own vested interests. They harness it with the objective to achieve positions of power through violence or through undermining national unity.

How can one counter extremist narratives through education? Is the latter the ultimate silver-bullet to address prevailing toxic narratives fuelling extremist and violent ideologies?

Indeed, moving towards social harmony starts with a first step: that of educating our youth. In times of community fragmentation, equal access to education can open vital spaces for inclusiveness, reconciliation and dialogue. Education is a particularly effective means for promoting inclusive and equitable societies, as it targets one of the most receptive and unbiased audiences: the youth. Mrs. Irina Bokova, the former Director-General of UNESCO, noted in this sense that “the risks and opportunities we face call for a paradigm shift that can only be embedded in our societies through education and learning.”

There are numerous paths for addressing this social ill that spreads in both advanced and developing countries. In countries affected by the surge of populism and extremist violence, special efforts should be made to improve the education system. Through education, youth and other vulnerable social segments of societies can be empowered to move beyond biases and preconceptions that they may have inherited. This will help to promote the immunity of youths against the rise of extremist forces that we see at present times. It will help the traumatized among them to come to terms with the horrors witnessed from foreign invasions or extremist violence. In rich and advanced societies, it will aim at rolling-back the devastating impact of hate speech. At the same time, we must recognize that the rise of populism responds in part to the inertia of established political parties that for much too long have failed to address social issues.

Communities should likewise celebrate both the commonality of values and the specificities of practices of diverse faiths as expressions of enrichment through pluralism. It is necessary therefore to explore models of education rooted in religious teachings and in inclusive secularity. Through their thoughtful intertwining, one can contribute to the emergence of a society that embraces religious plurality and harnesses unity in diversity. Archbishop and former Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu once said: “My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. We are different precisely in order to realize our need of one another.”

Moreover we should call on religious authorities and lay leaders of different faiths and cultures who bear the responsibility to correct the unscrupulous misrepresentations of values and beliefs. They must unite and harness the collective power of religions and creeds for peace-building. Religious leaders can play an important role in providing counselling to address radicalist thoughts and to promote the values of tolerance, coexistence and dialogue. They must refute the stereotyping of caricatural differences between religions and cultures that breed hatred.

For a variety of historical and modern-day political reasons, emphasis has been put on the differences existing between faiths and value systems. It remains the duty of religious leaders to show that, in themselves, religions are not problematic. What is problematic is their distortion to serve political purposes and vested interests. The synergies of providing access to education built on common universal values makes a strong contribution towards the realization of social stability and peace. In the joint declaration on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together signed on 4 February 2019 in Abu Dhabi by HH Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al Azhar His Eminence Ahmed el-Tayeb, we are reminded of the “importance of awakening religious awareness and the need to revive this awareness in the hearts of new generations through sound education and an adherence to moral values and upright religious teachings.”

Indeed, the great religions of the world bear a unique fundamental message of peace, tolerance and compassion. Only through dialogue between populations and regions of all cultures and religious faiths can the bridges of understanding and tolerance be built.

Blerim Mustafa, Project and communications officer, the Geneva Centre for Human Rights Advancement and Global Dialogue. Postgraduate researcher (Ph.D. candidate) at the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester (UK).

Excerpt:

By Blerim Mustafa
GENEVA, Feb 25 2019 (IPS-Partners)

When Donald Trump was elected as the 45th President of the United States on 8 November 2016, the electoral triumph defied poll estimates and came as a surprise to observers and pundits. President Trump’s “America First” agenda succeeded in winning the hearts and minds of many Americans and the allocation of votes pursuant to the electoral college gave Trump the edge, although he received nearly three million votes less than Hillary Clinton. With Trump at the helm, how would Washington’s new political direction affect international peace and stability?

To answer this question, Professor and Chair of the International and Comparative Politics Department at the American University of Paris, Hall Gardner, pens an honest and timely book entitled “World War Trump: The Risks of America’s New Nationalism” to assess the repercussions of President Trump’s “America First” foreign policy agenda. Professor Gardner foresees that President’s Trump unpredictable foreign policy agenda will contribute to reverse and undermine multilateralism, pave the way for the rise of Washington’s political rivals and weaken the status and credibility of the US as the world’s leading Great Power. In other words, an insecure political future that could accelerate the demise of the Pax Americana, put regional powers at loggerheads and throw the world into a new Cold War that could develop into World War III.

The backlash of this ominous precedent could contribute to spur the growth of a more assertive alliance composed of Washington’s political rivals – such as China, Russia, Turkey, Iran, Turkey and South Africa – that decide to confront Washington as they become more self-assertive owing to their growing political, financial and military influence. Through the lens of offensive realism, it is predicted that power projection, military aggression and “might is right” will dominate the scene of the 21st century’s international order. From this point of view, the author argues that President Trump’s confrontational and alienating relationship with political adversaries and allies will pave the way for Washington to pursue unilateralism and a self-isolationist approach to settle international security issues. Professor Gardner predicts this could throw the world one step closer towards an Orwellian future.

Against this ominous background, it is urgent to reinvigorate multilateralism and foster an atmosphere conducive to peace and stability. This will rest on the ability to defuse geopolitical rivalries – it is argued by the author – through consensus-building, compromises and concessions on political matters with alienated regional powers such as China and Russia. “Global peace and human development can only be achieved by redefining the US national interest in such a way to reach compromises not just with US allies and friends but also with American rivals (…),” suggests Professor Gardner (2018, p. 280). In other words, without engaged and concerted diplomacy to defuse political disputes, international stability and peace will not prevail. From this perspective, “World War Trump: The Risks of America’s New Nationalism” offers food for thought for world decision-makers to steer away from pursuing political outcomes that could threaten international stability. The book provides realistic solutions for the current global political landscape and framing the future of the international world order.

Excerpt: