The culture of peace is advancing

July 10, 2005 5:40 PM

The culture of peace is advancing according to accounts from all regions of the world. This is the conclusion from information submitted by almost 700 organisations and summarised in a report which has been formally submitted to the United Nations Secretary-General by the Bangladeshi Ambassador to the UN, Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury. This report provides the first comprehensive view of the progress of the global movement for a culture of peace, since it was called for in 1999 by United Nations Resolution A/53/243. The advance of the culture of peace comes despite almost total neglect from the mass media, according to most accounts from all regions.
posted by UbuRoivas (21 comments total)

If this is true, and it continues, will we have fringe groups protesting that we aught to "make war not love"
posted by TwelveTwo at 5:44 PM on July 10, 2005

One hopes this is accurate, I know it will not take long for a dismissive comment to show up. Seems as if there is some promising data to be gleaned though.
posted by edgeways at 5:46 PM on July 10, 2005

will we have fringe groups protesting that we aught to "make war not love"

we already do. you can find them in the white house & westminster. /glib
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:05 PM on July 10, 2005

Was it here or somewhere else just the other day where someone was complaining about schools teaching children nonviolent conflict resolution skills? Michelle Malkin (a brainless tart if there ever was one) was the source of the complaint - something to the effect that it was turning our young men into pussies when we most need their aggression to fight terrorists. Anyway, peace is bad for the economy and it stirs up unhealthy thoughts of altruism among the populace. Ban the peace. Kill a commie terrorist.
posted by caddis at 6:23 PM on July 10, 2005

I can't help notice that a bunch of peace organizations have a vested interest in saying "yes, peace is advancing." That's like asking employees if they do a good job and using the answers for their performance evaluations. Of course, terrible methodology doesn't mean the results are wrong. I'm still confident the world is becoming more peaceful. I just don't think this report tells us that.
posted by scottreynen at 7:10 PM on July 10, 2005

Via NYT:

You would never guess it from the news, but we're living in a peculiarly tranquil world. The new edition of "Peace and Conflict," a biennial global survey being published next week by the University of Maryland, shows that the number and intensity of wars and armed conflicts have fallen once again, continuing a steady 15-year decline that has halved the amount of organized violence around the world.

Those statistics are no solace for mourners in Iraq and Darfur. But so many other people are now living in peace that you don't have be a dreamer like John Lennon to take seriously the question raised by Gregg Easterbrook in this week's New Republic cover story, "The End of War?"

I posed that question nearly a decade ago to my favorite prophet, Julian Simon, the economist who spent his career refuting doomsayers' predictions. He was convinced that three horsemen of the apocalypse - famine, pestilence, death - were in rapid retreat, and he suspected that the fourth was in trouble, too.

"I predict that the incidence of war will decline," he told me in 1996, two years before his death. He based his prediction on the principle that there's less and less to be gained economically from war. As people get richer and smarter, their lives and their knowledge become far more valuable than the land, minerals and natural resources they used to fight over.

The Iraq war is sometimes described, by both foes and supporters, as a pragmatic venture to keep oil flowing, but not even the most ruthless accountant can justify the expense. Even before the war, America's military costs in the Persian Gulf were much greater than the value of all the oil it was getting from the region, and now it's spending at least four times what the oil's worth.

posted by dhoyt at 8:08 PM on July 10, 2005

(shhh, they're on to us. Keeping making peace.)
posted by wah at 8:28 PM on July 10, 2005

scottreynen: fair point about the methodology, but it would be equally possible to argue that these charities, NGOs etc have a vested interest in painting the gloomiest picture possible, in order to attract more funding, no?

it also raises the question of whether there are any vested interests in the media perhaps making the world out to be far more dangerous and scary than it really is.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:31 PM on July 10, 2005

The advance of the culture of peace comes despite almost total neglect from the mass media, according to most accounts from all regions.

Well, we do get distracted by the various terrorist incidents, car bombs and wars that seem to go on constantly.
posted by clevershark at 8:49 PM on July 10, 2005

I wonder if that is a case of increased terrorist incidents, car bombs etc... or an increase in reporting?

We haven't had a true world war for 50+ years, which according to some indicates that one is "due".

Also another thought, in the early 1900s they where saying/thinking similar things in Europe, and then we ended up with the bloodiest century on record.

I remain, cautiously optimistic.
posted by edgeways at 9:11 PM on July 10, 2005

it also raises the question of whether there are any vested interests in the media perhaps making the world out to be far more dangerous and scary than it really is.

Not really. The media, like any other business, exists to make money. Scary, violent stuff sells better than calm, peaceful stuff. "Mankind Coexists In Joyful Harmony" simply won't sell as well as "Terrorist Sharks Unleash Hurricane Dennis on Florida Panhadle".
posted by Sangermaine at 9:47 PM on July 10, 2005

well, yeh, that's more or less what i was implying, not some kinda international zionist conspiracy.

btw - "panhandle" as in the nadsat slovo?
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:58 PM on July 10, 2005

btw - "panhandle" as in the nadsat slovo?
The terrorist sharks envy our form of procreation. That's why they hate us.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:45 PM on July 10, 2005

Actually, terrorist incidents (overall) have been on a downward trend since the mid-1970s. There has been an increase in the deadliness of the attacks, but the number has been decreasing worldwide and has been doing so for quite a while, despite all the recent unpleasantness.

So, hot damn. This is good news. I remain, however, guardedly pessimistic.
posted by warbaby at 10:49 PM on July 10, 2005

Ubu: that was obscure.

But actualy the "pan-handle" is the non erection part of Florida. If Florida really were a penis, then the pan-handle would be the taint.
posted by delmoi at 10:51 PM on July 10, 2005

I don't know what the "culture of peace" is, exactly, but I'm all for it. War, however, continues apace, so I guess "culture" is kind of irrelevant to it.

delmoi: I wish Hyman had known more Russian; that glossary grates on me almost as much as the actual "nadsat" talk did when I read the book (I liked the idea but thought Burgess did a poor job of implementing it). Some samples:

Oozy     Chain   Russian: uzh/snake (?)
Pishcha Food   Russian: pisha/food
Platch To Cry   Russian: plakat/to cry

Yes, plakat' is 'to cry,' but "platch" is directly from the imperative plach' ("Ne plach'!" = Don't cry!). The Russian for 'food' is pishcha, exactly as Burgess transcribes it. And Hyman must have been using an awfully tiny dictionary, or not known how to use a larger one, because "oozy" is clearly uzy 'bonds' (which doesn't have a singular, so if he tried looking it up under "uz" he was SOL).
posted by languagehat at 7:10 AM on July 11, 2005

if they're talking about peace, it's "what is this? a slow news day or what?"

i confess that, skimming through the report, i smelt a whiff of NGO perpetual-optimism--like, those people are always saying things are getting better. they have to, or why would they do what they do? but then, thank the gods they do, because the rest of us are so freaking apathetic that nothing would ever happen without them. it takes the terminally optimistic to be willing to go into a place like the Congo and try to teach schoolchildren about what a culture of peace might mean.

is it real? well, in my own world, i read a lot of newspapers from 80-100 years ago. and it would seem we live in a less brutal world, in some ways.

i notice how they harped on the media for lack of interest in their projects internationally... it occurs to me that when i wrote for a local alt-weekly, whenever i wrote about a peace org or project, i was sometimes painted as being "biased" by the mainstream reporters i know. like, "you can do that because you work for them... we don't have that luxury."
posted by RedEmma at 7:50 AM on July 11, 2005

little things. It's the little things.
posted by warbaby at 8:16 AM on July 11, 2005

ewige blumenkraft.

...off to get a bit of spatchka.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:27 AM on July 11, 2005

Michelle Malkin (a brainless tart if there ever was one)
Now, that's not fair. She's a pretty good writer, despite her hard-on for authority of any type. I'd rather read a thousand Malkin essays than struggle through Coulter's lastest illegible garbage.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:37 AM on July 11, 2005

little things. It's the little things.

like sending Kids to Montessori Schools? ;)
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:40 PM on July 11, 2005