Movement for the Abolition of War

International Peace Bureau

	Hague Appeal for Peace

MAW Video

The video and booklet together cost £8 including P & P. For orders of 5 or more the price is £7 per copy.

Movement for the Abolition of War
11 Venetia Road,
London N4 1EJ

Guidelines for discussion, and suggested resources on the theme of the film War No More.

Introduction
Is war inevitable because violence is in our genes?
Was war the only way of dealing with Iraq?
The real costs of war
Strengthening the United Nations
International courts and law enforcement
Ending the arms trade
Nuclear disarmament
Eliminating the causes of wars by establishing justice and human rights
Education for a culture of peace
Mediation and peacekeeping
Citizens' action and campaigning
Contact list of organisations
Ideas for how to use the film War No More
Movement for the Abolition of War

Compiled and edited by Valerie Flessati
Published by the Movement for the Abolition of War, 2004

MAW would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the production of the film War No More and accompanying booklet. Please note that the content of this booklet is the responsibility of MAW, and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of those taking part in the film.

INTRODUCTION - WAR NO MORE

This short film War No More has only one aim: to convince people that wars are not inevitable and that conflicts - national and international - can be solved in other ways. Indeed, in this nuclear age they must be so solved if the human race is to survive.

There is no one road to a war-free world. We need, for instance, international courts that work and an effective, internationally-co-ordinated police force. We need an end to the political and economic injustices which drive some to believe that violence is the only answer to their problems. We need scientists and engineers who give work for peace their priority, and businessmen and women who do not think of the arms trade as a legitimate commercial activity. We need education for peace at every age and level. We certainly need a United Nations with the power to free us "from the scourge of war", as its own Charter promised.

This booklet discusses some of the major issues raised by the film, lists some of the organisations working in the peace field, and gives references to other sources of information. The aim is to promote discussion amongst people of all backgrounds and opinions including, certainly, the military. The best way, surely, to honour the bravery of those who have had to fight in past wars is to take steps to eliminate war in the future.

"What can I do?" is the question that should follow discussion. If it does, then this project, made possible by generous donors, will have been well worthwhile. Bruce Kent

IS WAR INEVITABLE BECAUSE VIOLENCE IS IN OUR GENES?

It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent human behaviour is genetically programmed into our human nature. Unesco

People don't kill each other to obtain what they want. I live in a fairly multiracial, turbulent area of North East London but we manage to live together in a reasonable sort of way, and I believe that that image - of the small London street living together harmoniously - is the one we should try to transpose to the world community. Bruce Kent

If we were biologically programmed towards violence then most of us would be fighting for most of our lives. But the opposite is true. Most people, in most places on earth, live lives free from violence and killing. More than that, kindness and co-operation are normal. In fact, our lives as social beings would be impossible without the willing, everyday sharing of our gifts and resources for the benefit of the whole community.

That war has been a significant feature of human life far back into our history is perfectly true. The rule of law has taken a long time to evolve. Relics of war - ranging from castles to war memorials - are all around us in Britain, but our world has moved on. Castles have turned into museums. Private militias have been abolished. Even to possess a deadly weapon requires some form of licence. Murders do happen, but they are a rare event, condemned by all. Individuals do not feel the need to take personal revenge if they are wronged. We have an effective police force, and courts of law that pass judgement on criminal behaviour and adjudicate in civil disputes. A whole range of people and organisations - from neighbourhood watch groups to social workers and probation officers - help the community to deal with conflict in nonviolent ways.

Our enemies abroad have turned into our neighbours - with whom we do not always agree, but whom we would not dream of killing. Germany and France, both at different times major enemies, are now friends, and interlocked with us politically and economically. We visit these countries for holidays, sport, business, study and work.

The film, War No More, asks just one important question. If war has, within our own domestic society, and between many countries and peoples, become a relic of a violent past, why can't we extend this process to the wider world community?

To say that we have no choice because of our biology is an unscientific excuse. Conflicts there will always be, but we do not have to settle them by killing other people.

Discuss:

Why do so many people believe that war is the only way to solve international conflict?

Do you think that war really could be abolished altogether?

Why is it unlikely that France and Germany will go to war again?

What would have to happen - or be changed - for war to become a thing of the past, like the slave trade?

Find out more:

The Seville Statement on Violence - Preparing the Ground for the Constructing of Peace 1991 UNESCO

This important report was drawn up by an international team of scientists whose task was to investigate whether there is a biological necessity for war. (Available as booklet from Pax Christi.) Main conclusions on www.unesco.org/cpp/uk/declarations/

Breaking the Silence: learning about the transatlantic slave trade is an excellent resource with ready-to-use lesson plans. Available at www.antislavery.org

WAS WAR THE ONLY WAY OF DEALING WITH IRAQ?

The war in Iraq didn't have to happen. It was the British and Americans who made it happen. It was their decision to take an action. Martin Bell

Was the problem the lingering suspicions regarding Iraq's programmes for weapons of mass destruction? If so, the way to clear up those suspicions was to allow the UN weapons inspection agency UNMOVIC (the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) to do its work.

According to Security Council Resolution 1284, which set up UNMOVIC, the inspectors were supposed to propose a set of tests for the Iraqi government. This programme of "key remaining disarmament tasks" was developed and presented to the Security Council for approval on 17 March 2003. It was never put into action because the US swept the inspectors aside that evening, delivering an ultimatum for war.

If the problem with Iraq was its suspected weapons programmes, nonviolent means of resolving these issues had not been exhausted on 17 March: they were dismissed by Washington. It is now generally recognised that Iraq's weapons programmes had been contained effectively by the previous inspections. The failure to find weapons of mass destruction now is highly significant.

Was the problem the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein? If so, how was it that the US and British governments turned a blind eye to Saddam's worst crimes in the 1980s? In the year after the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988 the United Kingdom granted twice as much as before in soft government loans (export credit guarantees) to Baghdad.

The UN Charter prohibits violent independent intervention in the internal affairs of other countries. If Britain and the US wanted to bring about the end of Saddam Hussein's regime they should have empowered the people of Iraq, rather than punishing them harshly through economic sanctions. They should have supported an economic revival which would have permitted the Iraqi people to concentrate on something other than mere survival. The fall of the Shah in Iran, of Pinochet in Chile, of Marcos in the Philippines, of Ceaucescu in Romania, like the fall of many other dictators, was the consequence primarily of internal revolt.

Washington allows Israel to possess nuclear weapons. Dictatorships in Central Asia and around the world enjoy US friendship. The attack on Iraq was not justified. There were other options which had not been exhausted. Military action without the authority of the United Nations - which involved over 10,000 civilian deaths - was not the answer.

Discuss:

What reasons were given for going to war with Iraq in 2003?

Do you think the war achieved those aims?

What are some of the other ways of disarming dictators or of preventing them from coming to power?

Find out more:

Milan Rai, Regime Unchanged: Why the War on Iraq Changed Nothing, London, Pluto Press, 2003

John Lampen, ed. No Alternative? Nonviolent Responses to Repressive Regimes, York, William Sessions, 2000

Peter Ackerman and Jack Duvall, A Force More Powerful: a Century of Nonviolent Conflict, New York, Palgrave, 2000. This book accompanies a video series documenting cases where people have stood up to unjust regimes. www.pbs.org/weta/forcemorepowerful/

Extensive information and links about the sanctions and war against Iraq can be found on the website of Voices in the Wilderness: www.voicesuk.org

THE REAL COSTS OF WAR

I went to visit Iraq in June and I was horrified at what I saw: the devastation of the war, the poverty, houses falling apart, sewage everywhere, rubbish everywhere, malnourished children. It's not a functioning society at all. People are surviving from one day to the next. They were desperate for me to give them any sign of hope. It was very hard for me to console them but not build up their hopes. I think I was right because things got worse. Tahrir Swift

In their book War No More: Eliminating Conflict in the Nuclear Age, Professor Joseph Rotblat and Professor Robert Hinde set out the reasons why war - even though it has been part of human history thus far - is no longer an acceptable way of solving disputes.

War has always been horrible and destructive, but modern weapons make it even more devastating than ever.
80% of the casualties in today's wars are civilians, not combatant members of the armed forces as in the past.
The bald figures telling us how many have been killed or injured do not begin to describe the long-drawn-out suffering of those bereaved, physically or mentally damaged, made homeless or forced to become refugees.
The material and environmental impact lasts for years as people have to reconstruct their homes, country and way of life.
Today a war anywhere has worldwide repercussions because technology, financial interdependence, and global communications have brought us all closer together - in rivalry as well as co-operation.
Most wars today are within and not between states - with widespread consequences for civilians. Often there is an ethnic and religious dimension. A new approach is needed to solve disputes within states.
Wars cut off food supplies and force millions to leave their homes and way of life as refugees. Relief efforts offer short-term help, but many lives are permanently disrupted.
War is a grotesque waste of money and natural resources. Modern weapons are extremely expensive. Planning and preparations for war divert human creativity, research, and resources away from health, education and better living conditions for all of us - but most especially for those in poor countries.
War is not an acceptable way to behave. It is morally wrong to treat fellow humans so brutally, to cause so much suffering and produce such detrimental effects on human well-being.

Discuss:

Have you or has someone in your family personally experienced the damaging effects of war?

How does resorting to war damage one's own society? From today's newspaper pick out a story about a current war.

What you would be feeling if you were personally involved - as the reporter… as one of the people doing the fighting… as a civilian living in that area?

Find out more:

Robert Hinde and Joseph Rotblat, War No More: Eliminating Conflict in the Nuclear Age London, Pluto Press, 2003

www.iwm.org.uk - the Imperial War Museum website offers online collections on many aspects of war and the legacy of wars.

Facts about current and past wars can be found on the Peace Pledge Union website: www.ppu.org.uk

STRENGTHENING THE UNITED NATIONS

The UN is the only game on the planet really. It is capable of taking action which can avert war. It is capable of intervening in the affairs of collapsed states - Bosnia, Somalia, any number of them - and there the United Nations can be effective. And when it refuses to be effective - as was the case with Rwanda - that's when you get this terrible genocide. Martin Bell

The fundamental purpose of the UN is an agreement between the member states that they will abide by and respect international law, and that they will respect the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council. And the system breaks down if those members states, like the US, or China or Russia - those big superpowers - if they refuse to accept the agreement that they've signed up to. Phil Shiner

The first aim of the UN as expressed in the Charter, is "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war". Despite the successes of UN agencies in so many fields - health, education, the protection of children, care for refugees amongst them - the UN has not managed to end the scourge of war. To be more effective the UN badly needs to be revitalised, reformed, and properly funded. It needs a campaign of public education to remind people of its purpose and achievements. It needs to be made more democratic, with greater involvement of civil society in decision-making. The Security Council in particular needs restructuring to serve the interests of all humanity rather than those of the great powers which dominate it.

The Charter of the United Nations was signed by 51 countries in San Francisco in June 1945. The first meeting of the General Assembly was held in London in January 1946. Over 190 countries are now UN members.
The UN Charter gave to its Security Council specific powers to deal with acts of aggression or breaches of the peace - including even the use of military force (Art.41). Except in the case of immediate self-defence (Art.51) individual UN members gave up their right to launch military action without UN authority.
However, the Security Council has no power to authorise the use of military force unless a series of suggested non-military measures would be, or have proved to be, inadequate.
The UN is built on the principle of the equality and sovereignty of states. Its structure does not allow, as of right, access by citizens' groups, though many are in fact involved. Equality involves some absurdities. China, with a population of well over a billion, has the same single vote in the General Assembly as Iceland, for instance, with its population of under 200,000. Yet large national groupings, such as the Kurds, have no representation at all because they are not a state.
The UN is not a bloated big-spending bureaucracy. Its annual budget for core functions is about $1¼ billion. Contrast that with the $800,000 billion spent on the world's military every year. The total UN annual budget for all programmes and agencies amounts to about one quarter of the municipal budget of New York City. The total number of UN employees worldwide is about 50,000. That is about the number of those working in the administration of the city of Stockholm.

Discuss:

How many agencies attached to the United Nations can you name?

When does the UN Charter allow countries to take military action?

What reforms would help to make the UN more effective in dealing with international conflicts?

Is cynicism about the UN justified? How could we help to improve the image of the UN, and build popular support for it?

Find out more:

United Nations website: www.un.org/english

Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice, Department of Public Information, United Nations NY10017

Erskine Childers, In A Time Beyond Warnings: Strengthening the United Nations System, London, Pax Christi and CIIR, 1993

The Preamble to the UN Charter, on A4 card suitable for notice-boards, is available from the Movement for the Abolition of War. (Free, but send A4-sized s.a.e.)

Our Global Neighbourhood - Report of the Commission on Global Governance, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995

INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

We need to have an improvement and strengthening of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, but primarily what we need is a system where the member states of the international community respect international law of their own volition because at the end of the day we can't go round enforcing international law against a superpower like the US, because how's that going to happen? Phil Shiner

As several speakers in War No More make clear, respect for law is fundamental to any progress on the elimination of war. One difference between civilisation and barbarism is that agreed laws are observed, whether local, national or international.

There is already a surprising variety of courts with international jurisdiction. Churches, trade unions, and sports organisations, to name but a few, have their own mechanisms for settling disputes, and for the most part their rulings are accepted. The World Trade Organisation, independent of the UN system, has its own legal powers for settling disputed trade questions.
There are also a number of courts affecting particular regions of the world - for instance, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Court of Justice. Some of the rulings made by these bodies are accepted as binding by national courts.
The International Court of Justice, based in The Hague, was described as "the principal judicial organ of the United Nations…" in the 1945 UN Charter. Though it has successfully settled a large number of conflicts, some of which might otherwise have led to military action, it has some weaknesses. Its jurisdiction extends only to cases which the parties refer to it.
It also has the power to give advisory opinions on any legal question at the request of any UN-authorised body. Hence the issuing in 1996 of a legal advisory opinion about the threat and use of nuclear weapons and of the obligation (unanimously agreed) to negotiate their abolition.
The latest court to be established is the International Criminal Court, which has the power to investigate and prosecute crimes committed after 1 July 2002. It must also be shown, before any international prosecution is launched, that national courts are unwilling or unable to act. Britain has signed and ratified the treaty setting up this court. Though a very important addition to the international legal order, the court does not have the support of several major powers - the United States, Russia and China.
It is often said that there are no enforcement powers available to international courts. That is only partially true. If it wishes the courts to have greater powers, the UN could so authorise. In any event, most individuals, corporations and states do not observe law only because they would otherwise face police action. They know that law needs to be respected and they do not want the contempt rightly shown to those who disregard it.
The most important step forward would be for national courts to accept international law as part of their mandate and for national police forces to operate in the same way. Greater co-operation between national police forces is already evident and effective.

Discuss:

Can you think of examples where British citizens have taken a case to an international court?

What international laws are already binding in the UK?

What do you remember about the attempt by the Spanish courts to put General Pinochet of Chile on trial for crimes against human rights?

Find out more:

The World Court Project website: www.gn.apc.org/wcp includes various articles on the legality of war and nuclear weapons in particular.

Major documents of international law on war, including the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, can be found on the website of the International Committee of the Red Cross: www.icrc.org

The progress of the International Criminal Court can be followed at www.iccnow.org

Going to Court Not War - an Introduction to the International Court of Justice and the Future of World Peace through Law, Institute for Law and Peace, 2000

ENDING THE ARMS TRADE

The arms trade makes me very angry because it is an example of a policy that would be so easy to change… Britain certainly is one of key arms sellers - and it's very easy for those arms to get into the wrong hands, as it were: the hands that weren't the ones intended. It fuels a massive amount of death and destruction across the world and I think that we are absolutely responsible for a great deal of that directly through the arms trade. Caroline Lucas MEP

In the last 100 years the arms trade has become a major global industry with disastrous consequences. Those involved in it often side-step the moral issue. Thus, Sir Ronald Ellis, head of the British Defence Sales Organisation in 1977 said: "The government decides the markets. I help to supply them. I lose no sleep whatever on the moral issue - the morality lies with the user".

The annual amount spent on the world's military is about $800 billion. About $30 billion of that amount is represented by the arms trade. Some 80% of the weapons sold, especially small arms (rifles, machine guns, landmines, etc.) go to developing countries. The World Bank estimates that about a third of the national debts owed by developing countries are the result of arms sales on credit. The sale and movement of small arms is difficult to monitor. They are responsible for an estimated 90% of war casualties, especially in "low intensity" wars such as those in some African countries.

Britain is usually second only to the United States as an arms distributor. The amount we sell - vigorously marketed by arms sales exhibitions and fairs - is worth somewhere between £3 and £6 billion per year. The arms conversion agency, once promised by the Labour Party, has never been established. Proposals for the redirection of industry and technology have never been given serious consideration, even though experience after World War Two clearly showed that a war industry could be converted into one based on peaceful production. There are now some international codes of conduct aimed at regulating the arms trade, but they are weak and do not envisage its abolition.

One of the arguments used to justify the sale of weapons is that the right to self-defence applies to countries as much as individuals. So, if countries need weapons to defend themselves, why should we not supply them? This justification is an illusion. Weapons are sold to a wide range of countries, rich and poor, without any evidence that they are under threat, or any certainty that the weapons will not simply be sold on. Arming individual countries only adds to regional and global insecurity and does not reduce it.

A second justification is that arms sales are good for our economy. If subsidies and credit guarantees are taken into account, this is simply untrue. In fact, every British arms trade job gets what amounts to a subsidy of about £12,000 from taxpayers every year. The real motivation behind arms sales is to try to achieve political and military influence in recipient countries. It is even an advantage to our military, if conflict breaks out, to see how well British weapons perform.

Discuss:

What sort of weapons does Britain make and sell?

Which countries are they being sold to?

How does the arms trade fuel future wars?

Does Britain need to sell arms?

What other products could be sold?

What do human beings need for their security? Do armaments contribute to this?

Find out more:

www.caat.org.uk - gives information about Campaign Against Arms Trade programmes: the Clean Investment Campaign challenges the acceptance of weapons as a "normal" business investment;
Fanning the Flames looks at how British weapons are being used in conflicts round the world; Shelling Out analyses how British taxpayers subsidise the arms industry. www.iansa.org is the website of the International Action Network on Small Arms. It gives a daily total for gun deaths since 1 January.

www.iansa.org is the website of the International Action Network on Small Arms. It gives a daily total for gun deaths since 1 January.

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

There's always the danger that a war which may start as a local conflict like in Kashmir, may start locally but may escalate. It may get out of hand; it may become a nuclear war. We have now come to the stage where we must all work together to prevent war, because if we don't work together we shall die together. Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat

Nuclear weapons are the most devastating weapons of mass destruction. The damage they can do makes the abolition of war itself a pressing and urgent task. If states and non-state groups continue to try to solve their conflicts by violence, then sooner or later nuclear weapons will be used either deliberately or by accident. We have to dispel the myth that they add to our security, and begin the process of elimination as part of our efforts to abolish war.

Nuclear weapons were exploded twice in the 20th century and many other threats to use them have been made. The first bomb, on 6 August 1945, destroyed the Japanese city of Hiroshima and killed about 100,000 people at once. The second, on 9 August, destroyed the city of Nagasaki and killed about 70,000 people. Many more have died since then as a result of the radiation effects of those bombs.
The justification for using those bombs, each about a thousand times more destructive than any previous bomb, was that it was the only way of ending the war against Japan. Generals Montgomery and Eisenhower, and Admiral Leahy, President Truman's Chief of Staff, and many other experts dispute this justification. Admiral Leahy said that his country had "adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians in the dark ages".
Nuclear weapons are now deployed by eight countries at least - the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain, Israel, India and Pakistan. Worldwide, over 20,000 of them are ready for use at very short notice. Most of these weapons have a destructive power far greater than that of the Hiroshima bomb. Other countries are suspected of trying to develop them. So far no terrorist groups are believed to have them.
During the last fifty years there have been a large number of accidents involving nuclear weapons. Some have even been dropped from planes. On a number of occasions countries were under the impression that they were about to be attacked with nuclear weapons and prepared to launch their own in retaliation.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed in 1968. That treaty obliged the non-nuclear weapon state signatories not to develop them, and the nuclear weapon states to negotiate the elimination of theirs. No negotiations aimed at the elimination of all nuclear weapons have ever taken place.
In 1996 the International Court of Justice advised that the nuclear weapon states have a legal obligation "to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control". This legal obligation has not been honoured.
A draft treaty aimed at nuclear weapon elimination has been prepared by legal and scientific experts and was lodged with the United Nations by Costa Rica in 1997. It covers all the difficult issues of inspection and verification. It has yet to be the subject of negotiation.

Discuss

Do nuclear weapons defend us? Do you think they have "kept the peace"?

Is there a difference between nuclear weapons and other so-called weapons of mass destruction?

What in your view are the best arguments for nuclear disarmament?

Find out more:

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament website www.cnduk.org provides briefings about British nuclear weapons, especially Trident, and current campaigns against plans for Missile Defence "Star Wars" using Fylingdales in Yorkshire.

Robert Green, The Naked Nuclear Emperor: Debunking Nuclear Deterrence, Christchurch, Disarmament and Security Centre, 2000. This describes the major milestones in the history of nuclear deterrence, significant disarmament proposals, and all the arguments along the way - in less than 100 pages.

ELIMINATING THE CAUSES OF WARS BY ESTABLISHING JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

It's a matter of common sense that wars are frequently an expression or by-product of deprivation and poverty, especially of competition for scarce resources, usually water. Most of the impoverished countries in southern Africa have seen war… It's a question of the will of the richer part of the world, and especially the Western democracies, whether we are willing to sacrifice some of our prosperity to help other people. Martin Bell

I think a civil war was averted in South Africa by a combination of pressure from outside - from ordinary people who wanted to join things like the boycott campaign, or from politicians who were prepared to speak out about apartheid - and that linked up with processes inside... Caroline Lucas MEP

If the world could end apartheid the world can end war. Archbishop Desmond Tutu

The attacks on New York and Washington of 11 September 2001 showed that even the most powerful nation in the world, armed with enormous military strength, is vulnerable to a relatively simple but devastating attack by people with grievances. Since then, we have got used to hearing about "security" and the "war on terror". The response of Western nations led by the United States has been that terrorists are evil people, sheltered by evil regimes, and that military power can overcome them, one by one. In the effort to round up those suspected of planning terrorist attacks, civil liberties have been cut back - disproportionately affecting certain ethnic or racial groups.

In his book Losing Control: Global Security in the Twenty-first Century, Professor Paul Rogers argues that the theory that control of this increasingly unstable world can be maintained by more military defence, putting a lid on the underlying problems, is a fallacy. Real security can only emerge from giving closer attention to the root causes of future wars.

The likely sources of conflict include the widening gap between the rich minority and the poor majority of world citizens. Thanks to modern media, the poorest can now see how the rich live. Competition for natural resources will also increase, as environmental changes, such as global warming, put pressure on the planet's limited ecosystem. If we do not attend to these causes of conflict then we will see greater instability, more outrageous acts of violence by the have-nots against the haves, and corresponding wars to repress them.

Most wars within states, too, are the consequence of deeply-held feelings of injustice because an elite maintains its privileges and power by keeping the rest down. Ethnic, religious and racial intolerance remain potent sources of conflict. People will not put up with being second-class citizens, denied their civil rights and culture.

If we want to abolish war, it is vital we work for a world system in which the organs of financial regulation establish global justice under the democratic rule of a reformed United Nations. The suppressed peoples of the world must be given their own political rights, perhaps under the protection of a specific UN body as they move towards autonomy or independence.

At the same time, many of those with a deep sense of injustice are accepting that armed struggle is not the best or the only way to justice. It may well be counter-productive. It was not military action but isolation and economic pressure from outside which brought apartheid to an end in South Africa.

Discuss:

How does injustice perpetuate violence and cause conflict? What role does poverty play?

What initiatives and campaigns have you come across that are aimed at economic justice for the world's poor?

How can we make more efficient use, and consume less, of the world's resources?

What were the different forces which came together to end apartheid in South Africa?

What might be the way forward for the conflict between Israel and Palestine?

Find out more:

Paul Rogers, Losing Control: Global Security in the Twenty-first Century, London, Pluto Press, 2002

From Here to Sustainability: Politics in the Real World, The Real World Coalition, London, Earthscan, 2001

Desmond Tutu, No Future Without Forgiveness, London, Rider, 1999

EDUCATION FOR A CULTURE OF PEACE

I think that education is the key to moving towards a more peaceful society because it does shape the mind-sets of those who will be governing society in the future, and therefore if they are taught that the only way to resolve things is to resort to violence then they will resort to violence. If they are taught that violence is not even a last option, but it's not an option at all, then they will not consider it an option. Kierra Box

"The Decade for a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence for the Children of the World" - Given the damage to children caused by violence and armed conflict, this is how the United Nations has designated the years 2001-2010 which open the 21st century. The UN defines a culture of peace as:

"all the values, attitudes and forms of behaviour that reflect respect for life, for human dignity and for all human rights, the rejection of violence in all its forms, and commitment to the principles of freedom, justice, solidarity, tolerance and understanding between people".

Every country has been asked to ensure that children receive an education that enables them "to resolve any dispute peacefully and in a spirit of respect for human dignity and tolerance".

These are aspirations to which governments readily pay lip service, but are they prepared for the consequences? The kind of education which might really enable young people to turn around the global culture of violence would also be very challenging to the status quo, and to the kind of values underpinning modern society.

So what would a radical approach to peace education involve? The Peace Education Network of organisations in this field has drawn up some aims of peace education:

To understand the nature and origins of violence and its effects on both victim and perpetrator.
To create frameworks for achieving peaceful, creative societies
To sharpen awareness about the existence of unpeaceful relationships between people and within and between nations
To investigate the causes of conflicts and violence embedded within perceptions, values and attitudes of individuals as well as within social and political structures of society
To encourage the search for alternative or possible nonviolent skills
To equip children and adults with personal conflict resolution skills.

Of course peace education is not just for the young. Culture is something that is passed down and learned from one generation to the next. All of us need to acquire the information and skills which will enable us to create and pass on a culture of peace.

Discuss

What are some of the ways in which our society encourages a culture of violence?

What do young people need to learn now if they are to find other ways of settling conflict in the future?

Have you ever been shocked or upset by violence in a TV programme, film or video? Do you think watching violence on television, playing with war toys or violent computer games, has any harmful effects on children?

Can you think of some heroes and heroines who have risked their lives in peaceful causes?

Find out more:

Useful lists of resources on conflict resolution and mediation suitable for primary and secondary schools, and on citizenship, can be found on the website of Quaker Peace and Social Witness: www.quaker.org.uk

Learnpeace is part of the Peace Pledge Union website www.ppu.org.uk dedicated to peace education.

www.britishcouncil.org Through the British Council website schools can be linked with potential partner schools in other countries. Citizenship resources are also listed.

Towards a Culture of Peace: a Curriculum Proposal for Peace Education, Peace Education Network, 2001 (available from PEN, c/o Pax Christi) The network can also be contacted at www.peaceeducation.org.uk

The Woodcraft Folk is a peace-oriented children's organisation which has published several collections of activities for young people promoting a culture of peace: www.woodcraft.org.uk

Exhibition panels can be downloaded from www.peacemuseum.org.uk

MEDIATION AND PEACEKEEPING

New types of conflict have made new demands on the traditional soldier, especially where military forces have to perform a peacekeeping role in a civilian context. National governments supply troops - whose training and experience varies widely - to the United Nations on an ad hoc basis. The creation of some kind of permanent UN peace force, especially trained for humanitarian operations, seems an obvious step towards earlier and more effective peacekeeping.

At the same time, there is also a growing demand for civilian peacebuilders. We are used to seeing civilians providing practical help when "natural" disasters strike anywhere in the world - earthquake, famine, floods. Now there is more recognition of the valuable role that civilians can play when communities face the disaster of violent conflict and war. Specialists in material relief may certainly be needed, but so are specialists in human relations and conflict resolution.

With suitable training, civilians can act as international observers to protect human rights and monitor elections; they can work as mediators and negotiators between parties to a conflict. They can train local people, helping them to build channels of communication which will foster trust and prevent violence from escalating, heal divisions after a war, and create conditions which will encourage long-term stability and democracy.

There are now many organisations working towards the development of an international force of trained civilian peace professionals, ready to be mobilised like an army, but for the nonviolent management and transformation of conflicts.

Discuss:

If you could ask them, what questions would you put to people of nonviolence such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King?

Have you ever acted as a go-between or mediator in a dispute between family members, friends or work colleagues? What skills did it require of you?

Have you had any experiences in life that have convinced you that nonviolent ways of handling conflict are better than violent ones?

Find out more:

Mediation UK www.mediationuk.org.uk offers practical guidance for various types of mediation in everyday life: peer mediation for schools, victim-offender, and neighbour disputes.

War Prevention Works - 50 Stories of People Resolving Conflict Oxford Research Group 2001. The ORG website www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk includes a useful list of resources about conflict resolution case studies.

Courses for young people in peer mediation and conflict resolution skills are offered by LEAP Confronting Conflict - which pioneered the programme and publication: Playing with Fire: Training in the Creative Uses of Conflict by Nic Fine and Fiona Macbeth. Published by the National Youth Agency. Available from LEAP A full list of organisations providing training can be found in: Rachel Grant and Mareike Junge, eds. UK Training Directory - a compilation of practical and academic training opportunities in the field of peace and conflict. Peaceworkers UK 2002

Peacebuilding: a Caritas Training Manual Caritas Internationalis, 2002 (Caritas, Palazzo San Calisto, 00120 Vatican City). A very thorough programme with exercises suitable for older students and group use as well as for extensive training. Small amount of specifically religious material. Predominantly international and universal perspective.

CITIZENS' ACTION AND CAMPAIGNING

I think among the young there is much more determination now to seize control of their own future. And that includes electing a government that will not embark on an unnecessary war, and it includes strengthening the United Nations, and it definitely includes helping the poorer nations of the earth. Martin Bell

This is our future that we're building and we need to be the ones who ensure that it's a place that we want to live and we want to bring our own children into. Kierra Box

War No More asks viewers to choose a culture of peace not a culture of war. How this choice is expressed will vary for each one. Many people see a connection between their personal behaviour and the kind of culture in which we live. What we buy in the supermarket, select for our entertainment, how we treat our partner or speak to our children, choose a job, or vote in an election, all have an effect on those around us and help to shape the wider world.

The choice for some people has an inner, spiritual dimension. Part of their contribution to a culture of peace is to try and behave in a more nonviolent way themselves by addressing some of their innermost contradictions, competitiveness or anger, for example. Through meditation, prayer, and studying the practitioners of nonviolence, they find a path to personal peace. Their energy and hope is recharged for their engagement in more active forms of peacemaking.

The culture of war has complex origins that can be challenged at personal and local as well as at global level. In many societies, for instance, women experience violence in their own homes as much as in situations of war. The dominance of macho politics is a key obstacle to the abolition of war. War involves "toys for the boys". If women played an equal part in decision-making at national and international level then other ways of settling disputes might gain credibility and different priorities might be selected.

Conscientious objectors take personal responsibility in a very immediate way by refusing to serve in the military, or in a particular act of war. A recent example are the Israeli pilots who have refused to bomb Palestinian targets. There are scientists who will not contribute their knowledge and skills to military industries, and individuals who withhold that part of their taxes which would be spent on military defence. Human rights workers in many countries have been threatened and even killed for taking a stand against illegal government actions and corporate corruption.

We admire those with the courage to say "No" when faced with decisions which carry such personal risk. For most of us, choosing a culture of peace will lead us to some kind of action with other citizens. At the end of this booklet there is a list of organisations working in the field of peace education, disarmament, international justice, development and human rights. If you are not sure where to start, contact the ones that appeal to you and see how you could get involved. Be selective. Nobody can do everything, but everybody can do something.

Discuss:

Have you ever signed a petition? Written to your MP? Joined in a vigil or demonstration? What part do such actions play in the democratic process? What would make them more effective?

What fresh perspectives can young people bring to the process of peacebuilding? What choices can they make to shape a better world? How can older people help them?

Can you imagine a situation in which you would feel obliged to become a "whistle-blower" and expose activities or information that the authorities wanted to keep secret? What keeps your sense of hope alive?

What gives you inner strength for the challenge of working for a culture of peace?

Find out more:

The Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice for the 21st Century - a very comprehensive list of 50 action points towards abolishing war

CONTACT LIST OF ORGANISATIONS

Many other peace and justice organisations are listed in
Housmans World Peace Diary and Directory
5 Caledonian Road
London N1 9DX
020 7837 4473

ABOLITION 2000 UK
162 Holloway Road
London
N7 8DQ
www.gn.apc.org/abolition2000uk

ACTION FOR UN RENEWAL
3 Whitehall Court
London SW1A 2EL
020 8399 2547
www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk

ALTERNATIVES TO VIOLENCE PROJECT
Old Painswick Inn
Gloucester Street
Stroud
Glos. GL5 1QG
01453 756751
www.avpbritain.org.uk

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
99-119 Rosebery Avenue
London EC1R 4RE
020 7814 6200
www.amnesty.org.uk

CAFOD
Romero Close
Stockwell Road,
London SW9 9TY
020 7733 7900
www.cafod.org.uk

CAMPAIGN AGAINST ARMS TRADE
11 Goodwin St,
London N4 3HQ
020 7281 0297
www.caat.org.uk

CAMPAIGN FOR A MINISTRY FOR PEACE
c/o John McDonnell MP
House of Commons
London SW1

CAMPAIGN FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
162 Holloway Road
London N7 8DQ
020 7700 2393
www.cnduk.org

CHRISTIAN AID
PO Box 100
London SE1 7RT
020 7620 4444
www.christian-aid.org.uk

CONCORD VIDEO AND FILM COUNCIL
Rosehill Centre
22 Hines Road
Ipswich IP3 7BG
01473 726012
www.concordvideo.co.uk

CONSCIENCE - THE PEACE TAX CAMPAIGN
Archway Resource Centre
1b Waterlow Road
London N19 5NJ
020 7561 1061
www.conscienceonline.org.uk

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
26-28 Underwood Street
London N1 7JQ
020 7490 1555
www.foe.co.uk

FELLOWSHIP OF RECONCILIATION
Eirene Centre
The Old School
Clopton
Kettering
Northants NN14 3DZ
01832 720 257
www.gn.apc.org/fore

GANDHI FOUNDATION
c/o 21 Fleetwood Court
Madeira Road
West Byfleet
Surrey KT14 6BE
01932 343614

GREENPEACE UK
Canonbury Villas
London N1 2PN
020 7865 8100
www.greenpeace.org.uk

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
33 Islington High Street
London N1 9LH
020 7713 1995
www.hrw.org

INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND PEACE
c/o Vijay Mehta
12-14 Cavell Street
London E1 2HP
020 7702 7633

LEAP CONFRONTING CONFLICT
The Leap Centre
8 Lennox Road London
N4 3NW
020 7272 5630
www.leaplinx.com

MEDACT
The Grayston Centre
28 Charles Square
London N1 6HT
020 7324 4739
www.medact.org

MEDIATION UK
Alexander House
Telephone Avenue
Bristol BS1 4BS
0117 904 6661
www.mediationuk.org.uk

MOVEMENT FOR THE ABOLITION OF WAR
11 Venetia Road
London N4 1EJ
020 8347 6162
www.abolishwar.org.uk

MUSICIANS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS
71 Greenfield Gardens
London NW2 1HU
020 8455 1030

NETWORK FOR PEACE
5 Caledonian Road
London N1 9DY
020 7278 3267
www.networkforpeace.org.uk

OXFAM
274 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7DZ
01865 311311
www.oxfam.org.uk

OXFORD RESEARCH GROUP
51 Plantation Road
Oxford OX2 6JE
01865 242819
www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk

PAX CHRISTI
St Joseph's
Watford Way
London NW4 4TY
020 8203 4884
www.paxchristi.org.uk

PEACE BRIGADES INTERNATIONAL
1A Waterlow Road
London N19 5NJ
020 7281 5370
www.peacebrigades.org

PEACE ONE DAY
The Old Truman Brewery
91 Brick Lane
London E1 6QL
020 7456 9180
www.peaceoneday.org

PEACE PLEDGE UNION
41b Brecknock Road
London N7 0BT
020 7424 9444
www.ppu.org.uk

PEACEWORKERS UK
18a Victoria Park Square
London E2 9PB
020 8981 7088
www.peaceworkers.org.uk

QUAKER PEACE & SOCIAL WITNESS
Friends House
Euston Road,
London NW1 2BJ
020 7663 1000
www.quaker.org.uk

SAFERWORLD
28 Charles Square
London N1 6HT
020 7324 4646
www.saferworld.co.uk

TRADE JUSTICE MOVEMENT
c/o Fairtrade Foundation
Suite 204
16 Baldwin's Gardens
London EC1N 7RJ
020 7405 5942
www.tradejusticemovement.org.uk

UNICEF UK
Africa House
64-78 Kingsway
London WC2B 6NB
020 7405 5592
www.unicef.org.uk

UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION
3 Whitehall Court
London SW1A 2EL
020 7930 2931
www.una-uk.org

WAR ON WANT
37-39 Great Guildford Street
London SE1 0ES
020 7620 1111
www.waronwant.org

WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM
Briar Cottage
The Green Frant
Tunbridge Wells
Kent TN3 9DF
01892 750576

WOODCRAFT FOLK
13 Ritherdon Road
London SW17 8QE
020 8672 6031
www.woodcraft.org.uk

WORLD COURT PROJECT
c/o George Farebrother
67 Summerheath Road
Hailsham
Sussex
BN27 3DR
01323 844269
www.gn.apc.org/wcp

WORLD DEVELOPMENT MOVEMENT
25 Beehive Place
London SW9 7QR
020 7737 6215
www.wdm.org.uk

WORLD DISARMAMENT CAMPAIGN
PO Box 28209
Edinburgh EH9 1ZR
0131 447 4004

IDEAS FOR HOW TO USE THE FILM WAR NO MORE

Whether you are showing this film to students in the classroom or to a group of adults, you will want your audience to react to, discuss, and think about the issues it raises. As the teacher or organiser, make sure that you watch the film yourself at least once beforehand so that you can decide how you want to angle the discussion.

Before showing the film give a brief introduction, announcing its title and origins, but don't comment further. Allow members of the audience to make up their own minds about it.

You might find that one of the following ideas would be suitable for your particular audience.

Use some of the discussion questions in the War No More booklet. For a one-off event, decide beforehand which of the many possible topics you want to focus on
If you are using the film as the starting point for a series of classes or meetings with the same group, each topic in the booklet could provide the basis for a separate session. Photocopy the pages for the following session and ask participants to do some research using the library or internet before they meet again.
Before showing the film, ask the audience to watch out as they view it for the answers to a short list of questions. (You could write these in advance on a flip-chart.) The questions could be about the facts conveyed in the film, the people interviewed and the opinions voiced. This exercise will help participants to watch with greater concentration. Afterwards, get the group to share their answers.
As soon as the film finishes, ask people to jot down the most vivid images that remain in their minds. In pairs, ask them to share the three most memorable images, and then try to agree together a list of the three most important points in the film. (If time allows, these could be told to the whole group, or listed on the flip-chart.)
Another way of evoking responses to the film is to ask people to think back over what they have just seen. If they could interview one of the people in the film, who would they like to cross-examine, and what would be the main question they would want to ask that person?

The people interviewed in War No More are:
Martin Bell - former war reporter
Kierra Box - student
Bruce Kent - Chair, Movement for the Abolition of War
Caroline Lucas - Member of the European Parliament
Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat - Nobel Peace Prizewinner
Phil Shiner - international lawyer, Public Interest Lawyers
Jon Snow - newscaster, Channel Four
News Tahrir Swift - Iraqi exile
Archbishop Desmond Tutu - Nobel Peace Prizewinner
The film could be used to start off a meeting or conference at which some of the topics are developed further by speakers, workshops, and bookstalls drawn from some of the organisations listed at the back of the War No More booklet.
If you have trouble obtaining any of the resources listed in this booklet, contact the Movement for the Abolition of War for advice, or Housmans Bookshop, 5 Caledonian Road, London N1 9DX. Tel: 020 7837 4473

(Some of the above suggestions have been adapted from Seeing and Perceiving: Films in a World of Change by Neil Taylor and Robin Richardson, Ikon Productions and Concord Films Council 1979)