What is the role of the individuals in the peace-building process? Through our interviews with Agents of Peace worldwide we have come to realize that the individual is in fact very important to peace realization and actualization.
It is not uncommon for us to believe that the only way for us to truly make a difference in this world is to support large, well-established organizations. Even then, we often think "what is my contribution going to do? How can this minuscule donation of my time or money help affect change?"
Speaking with Marianne Elliott on the telephone earlier this month I was pleasantly surprised to find that she had come to terms with this dilemma is a dramatic and life-altering way. As a Human Rights Lawyer with the UN in Afghanistan, Marianne had first hand experience of the inability, sometimes, of even the big organizations to make a difference (visit this link for more information). Through her experience in Afghanistan she went from believing that the only organization that was big enough to really make any difference in Afghanistan was the UN to realizing that the only way that she could truly contribute to peace was to "behave in a way that [she was] contributing to peace and not contributing to conflict."
This is interesting given the nature of this project and the question arises again: are individuals important to the peace-building process? Marianne explained during the interview that she saw first hand the affects of individual leadership on the actions and outlook of peace-keeping troops in Afghanistan--but how does this translate into non-military groups? How does this translate into grassroots peacekeeping?
Do an individual's motivations and emotions regarding peace and peacebuilding have an effect on the project and process itself?
It is something to ponder.
Be sure to listen to the interview with this inspiring woman on our NUPRI website. Also check out our interview with Peter Singer for another take on individuals and peace.
Showing posts with label questions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label questions. Show all posts
Thursday, 28 July 2011
Monday, 25 July 2011
Political Representativeness and the Politics of Sheep-Rearing
On Friday July 22nd 2011 the world suffered yet another great loss--and in my opinion that great loss was not of beloved, rebellious singer Amy Winehouse. Rather, in Norway, more than 70 people were killed by terrorist attacks--some by bombings in Oslo, and at a camp about an hour away from the Capital. A terrible act of terrorism with a complete lack of rational political motivation by a crazed individual bent on ridding the world of "Islam". How this man hoped to achieve this goal by shooting tens of innocent youth at a summer camp is beyond me. But that aside, this post is not about the bombings and tragic events of the past weekend. Rather it is about our political leaders.
What responsibility to our political leaders have in the face of the public? Does their obligation to the public stop at the boundaries of their power? Or as public figures, do they have a responsibility to put forward a face of informed concern for public safety, politics, terrorism and international issues?
The simple answer would be "yes". As our public figures, and as our representatives to the world political leaders do have a responsibility to publicly show concern for the issues effecting our globe, beyond celebrity gossip and pop culture it-subjects. Further, political representatives from all sectors of government--local, provincial, federal--have the pull to influence the thought processes of the represented. If our PM or MP of Mayor tells us that popular culture issues, such as the death of a celebrity, or the personal goings on of a famous golfer, are important, but fail to note that political issues, such as terrorist acts, government activities, and international issues are also, if not more, important than it is not surprising that those they represent, it can be expected, will act accordingly.
That is not to say that all citizens necessarily act as sheep in relation to important political issues. The question is, can they be expected not to?
I would love to hear your responses to this!
Happy monday!
Peace,
Johanna
What responsibility to our political leaders have in the face of the public? Does their obligation to the public stop at the boundaries of their power? Or as public figures, do they have a responsibility to put forward a face of informed concern for public safety, politics, terrorism and international issues?
The simple answer would be "yes". As our public figures, and as our representatives to the world political leaders do have a responsibility to publicly show concern for the issues effecting our globe, beyond celebrity gossip and pop culture it-subjects. Further, political representatives from all sectors of government--local, provincial, federal--have the pull to influence the thought processes of the represented. If our PM or MP of Mayor tells us that popular culture issues, such as the death of a celebrity, or the personal goings on of a famous golfer, are important, but fail to note that political issues, such as terrorist acts, government activities, and international issues are also, if not more, important than it is not surprising that those they represent, it can be expected, will act accordingly.
That is not to say that all citizens necessarily act as sheep in relation to important political issues. The question is, can they be expected not to?
I would love to hear your responses to this!
Happy monday!
Peace,
Johanna
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
Individual Obstacles to Peace
Having spoken to a number of individuals in the past couple of weeks about the obstacles to peace in our world, it has become abundantly clear that many of the most pressing obstacles are caused by our individual flaws. Danielle David, a young woman and avid volunteer studying Psychology and Religion at Careleton University in Ottawa, the most important obstacle to peace is ignorance and a lack of desire to know more about what is going on in the world, an complete inability to separate oneself from one's own "stuff". This was quite perceptive of Ms. David and we decided to think about it a little more--could it be that our North American culture, the culture of "I" and "Me" and "Mine", could be the main obstacle to peace? Or is it more than just a North American phenomenon?
We spoke with Marianne Elliott from New Zealand this week and the discussion was quite enlightening as throughout our 40 minute conversation on peace with the ex-UN peacekeeper and now yoga instructor, we came to the realization that it is not just a North American trait to be obsessed, or perhaps simply preoccupied with one's own problems. Marianne spent a number of years working for grassroots NGOs and larger organizations such as the UN with the hope that she could affect peace in the world. What she realized in participating in discussions with individuals in conflict was that they too were preoccupied with themselves, though perhaps in a different way. In her experience, individual motivations often overshadow the final destination in discussions of peace-building and peacekeeping missions. If you come at peace-building from a position of anger and resentment to those disrupting the peace, Marianne believe, then how can you possibly expect a peaceful resolution? A valid point, given the inherent lack of peace associated with anger and resentment.
So if we as individuals are the problem, then how can we solve this problem without becoming more self-absorbed. Danielle David and Marianne Elliott, women or different ages and upbringings, from opposite ends of the globe have found the solution in themselves. Both seem to agree that in order to build peace you must first have knowledge, in Marianne's case, knowledge of yourself and your motivations, in Danielle's case, knowledge of the world around you.
When you reconcile the two perspectives on individuality as an obstacle to peace, it appears that you have arrived at a coherent and all-encompassing solution to this specific problem--that is: know what the problems are around you that you would like to fix, and come to terms with the reason that you feel the need to fix them.
So what do you think? Does this seem like a valid and effective way to approach peacekeeping? If so why, and if not, why not?
We spoke with Marianne Elliott from New Zealand this week and the discussion was quite enlightening as throughout our 40 minute conversation on peace with the ex-UN peacekeeper and now yoga instructor, we came to the realization that it is not just a North American trait to be obsessed, or perhaps simply preoccupied with one's own problems. Marianne spent a number of years working for grassroots NGOs and larger organizations such as the UN with the hope that she could affect peace in the world. What she realized in participating in discussions with individuals in conflict was that they too were preoccupied with themselves, though perhaps in a different way. In her experience, individual motivations often overshadow the final destination in discussions of peace-building and peacekeeping missions. If you come at peace-building from a position of anger and resentment to those disrupting the peace, Marianne believe, then how can you possibly expect a peaceful resolution? A valid point, given the inherent lack of peace associated with anger and resentment.
So if we as individuals are the problem, then how can we solve this problem without becoming more self-absorbed. Danielle David and Marianne Elliott, women or different ages and upbringings, from opposite ends of the globe have found the solution in themselves. Both seem to agree that in order to build peace you must first have knowledge, in Marianne's case, knowledge of yourself and your motivations, in Danielle's case, knowledge of the world around you.
When you reconcile the two perspectives on individuality as an obstacle to peace, it appears that you have arrived at a coherent and all-encompassing solution to this specific problem--that is: know what the problems are around you that you would like to fix, and come to terms with the reason that you feel the need to fix them.
So what do you think? Does this seem like a valid and effective way to approach peacekeeping? If so why, and if not, why not?
Thursday, 7 July 2011
Can individuals make a difference?
A recurring theme in our discussions with agents of peace worldwide is the question of whether or not individuals acting as peaceful agents can make a difference. Is it possible for the individual, apart from any social movement or organization cause real change in the world of peace-building and activism.
There has not been a lot of focus on the individual in research that has been done on peace agency. In fact, the individual is nearly absent in discussions of peace-building. While there are many papers written about groups of individuals working together--women for peace, muslims for peace, christians for peace, gays for peace and so forth--little is said about the single individuals working on their own with the intent of affecting real change with in their communities, in their countries and on the global stage.
So I ask you, can individuals make a difference? And if so, how?
There has not been a lot of focus on the individual in research that has been done on peace agency. In fact, the individual is nearly absent in discussions of peace-building. While there are many papers written about groups of individuals working together--women for peace, muslims for peace, christians for peace, gays for peace and so forth--little is said about the single individuals working on their own with the intent of affecting real change with in their communities, in their countries and on the global stage.
So I ask you, can individuals make a difference? And if so, how?
Tuesday, 5 July 2011
Can an idea of "peace itself" affect real change?
It is hard to discuss the prospect of peace in our global age of war, massacres, and much bloodshed. There are so many prevalent human rights issues being discussed in the news on a daily basis, and nearly every minute our twitter feed tells us of another shocking event that would cause anyone to shudder.
So now we are brought to the question of the times: Can we discuss peace in its own terms? Is peace more than just the product of a cessation of conflict or the absence of war? Our interviewees thus far have reinforced our hopes that peace CAN be discussed on its own terms...each person expressing the belief that peace goes beyond discussion of war and conflict and into an often more abstract, but sometimes more specific realm. Peace can be something as simple as knowing where your next meal comes from, as simple as calm and peaceful communications between countries, members of a community or members of a family.
But can this idea of peace be expanded and put into practice in order to affect real change--whether it be in our homes, our communities, our countries or the world? That is the question of the day.
So now we are brought to the question of the times: Can we discuss peace in its own terms? Is peace more than just the product of a cessation of conflict or the absence of war? Our interviewees thus far have reinforced our hopes that peace CAN be discussed on its own terms...each person expressing the belief that peace goes beyond discussion of war and conflict and into an often more abstract, but sometimes more specific realm. Peace can be something as simple as knowing where your next meal comes from, as simple as calm and peaceful communications between countries, members of a community or members of a family.
But can this idea of peace be expanded and put into practice in order to affect real change--whether it be in our homes, our communities, our countries or the world? That is the question of the day.
Monday, 4 July 2011
What does peace mean to you?
It is hard sometimes to define peace. While the basic definition is "no war", is it not also important to realize that peace means more than simply a cessation of armed conflict? A large part of the Agents of Peace project is collecting different definitions of peace and it is amazing how varied responses to such a simple question can be.
Is peace: a cessation of war? Human security? The ability and right to make your own choices? The freedom to be yourself? The privilege of knowing where your next meal is coming from?
Please tell us what peace means to you.
Is peace: a cessation of war? Human security? The ability and right to make your own choices? The freedom to be yourself? The privilege of knowing where your next meal is coming from?
Please tell us what peace means to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)