Working toward peace in Nepal
Kamala Sarup
November 19, 2008
Kathmandu, Nepal, November 18 — In 2005, former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called for all countries and peoples to stop hostilities for one day to observe the International Day of Peace. Annan said 24 hours of global ceasefire is not a long time, but it is enough for the combatants and political leaders to consider the destruction they are visiting on their people and on their lands. It is long enough to look over the barricades and through the barbed wires and to see if there is another path.
The 20th century was one of the worst in history, in terms of violence. Then why think that peace-loving efforts will make life any better in the 21st century? From all evidence, game theory, the League of Nations, the Declaration of Human Rights, the Einstein-Russell Manifesto, etc., have done nothing to prevent or ameliorate violence, war or terrorism to date. We can continue making declarations and manifestos, we can continue sending bills to the government or parliament, but terrorism and aggression still continue. Also, the movement to establish Ministries of Peace alone is not likely to accomplish anything.
There is a serious danger that human civilization will self-destruct, possibly before the end of the 21st century. Therefore, let us consider what this means. This is a strong appeal for the world to be better, as we want it to be.
A peace activist I know, Mr. Kozawlowski, told me, "The likelihood of achieving our aspirations will be found through an analysis of human behavior, which is a combination of genetic and environmental causes, including a behavior pattern called aggression. We have evidence for aggression from infants at birth, before any socialization, who exhibit aggression when their immediate needs are not met. Also, we have plenty of evidence from primitive and modern societies that aggression is promoted or inhibited by different cultures, so that some are only relatively pacific."
He further said, "Spartans were taught to be aggressive, Athenians less so. Among Native Americans, Iroquois were aggressive, while Algonquin were less so. Thus, the problem of making more peace and less violence, terrorism and war amounts to a societal restructuring of the environment that promotes peaceful behavior patterns. We shall see if our preferences for a peaceful world are likely to achieve our goals."
At present, the rich people prefer to help to the poor. It seems that the rich will send huge amounts of money to the poor for the sake of human kindness. The best that can be done is to continue with globalization, which takes money from the lower classes of the rich and gives some of it to the poor (and the remainder to the rich upper classes), in a way that is palatable to the upper classes.
There is absolutely some logic or evidence that the promotion of sustainable global economic growth will close the gap between rich and poor countries.
We can work hard and hope collectively for peace. As far as the role of individuals in constructing a more peaceful world, people have organized many conferences and written many on the subject for many years, but the result is not persuasive.
Nearly 23.5 million Nepalis want peace in the country. If we want to continue with democracy, we must guarantee peace.
Source:UPIAsia
The 20th century was one of the worst in history, in terms of violence. Then why think that peace-loving efforts will make life any better in the 21st century? From all evidence, game theory, the League of Nations, the Declaration of Human Rights, the Einstein-Russell Manifesto, etc., have done nothing to prevent or ameliorate violence, war or terrorism to date. We can continue making declarations and manifestos, we can continue sending bills to the government or parliament, but terrorism and aggression still continue. Also, the movement to establish Ministries of Peace alone is not likely to accomplish anything.
There is a serious danger that human civilization will self-destruct, possibly before the end of the 21st century. Therefore, let us consider what this means. This is a strong appeal for the world to be better, as we want it to be.
A peace activist I know, Mr. Kozawlowski, told me, "The likelihood of achieving our aspirations will be found through an analysis of human behavior, which is a combination of genetic and environmental causes, including a behavior pattern called aggression. We have evidence for aggression from infants at birth, before any socialization, who exhibit aggression when their immediate needs are not met. Also, we have plenty of evidence from primitive and modern societies that aggression is promoted or inhibited by different cultures, so that some are only relatively pacific."
He further said, "Spartans were taught to be aggressive, Athenians less so. Among Native Americans, Iroquois were aggressive, while Algonquin were less so. Thus, the problem of making more peace and less violence, terrorism and war amounts to a societal restructuring of the environment that promotes peaceful behavior patterns. We shall see if our preferences for a peaceful world are likely to achieve our goals."
At present, the rich people prefer to help to the poor. It seems that the rich will send huge amounts of money to the poor for the sake of human kindness. The best that can be done is to continue with globalization, which takes money from the lower classes of the rich and gives some of it to the poor (and the remainder to the rich upper classes), in a way that is palatable to the upper classes.
There is absolutely some logic or evidence that the promotion of sustainable global economic growth will close the gap between rich and poor countries.
We can work hard and hope collectively for peace. As far as the role of individuals in constructing a more peaceful world, people have organized many conferences and written many on the subject for many years, but the result is not persuasive.
Nearly 23.5 million Nepalis want peace in the country. If we want to continue with democracy, we must guarantee peace.
Source:UPIAsia
Print
Share
Email
