Toward a Century of Peace

A Dialogue on the Role of Civil Society in Peacebuilding

Kevin P. Clements, Daisaku Ikeda

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429821622
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Peace studies pioneer Kevin Clements and Buddhist peacebuilder Daisaku Ikeda engage in dialogue on topics such as conflict resolution, the refugee problem, nuclear disarmament, building a culture of peace and human rights, and the path to recovery and reconstruction following natural disasters. While articulating their personal religious beliefs, their unique perspectives underlying their actions for peace and their problem-solving methodologies, they present a message based on unlimited trust in the transformative power for change residing within each individual.

1
Lessons of History and the Commitment to Peace

Building a creative vision for peace

IKEDA: Peacebuilding begins with deep consideration, both as an individual and as a member of global society, of our incomparable mutual worth and dignity as living beings. It is a challenging process of taking one step forward after another, motivated by the wish for happiness for self and others alike, and through a constant process of open-minded communication and exchange.

More than a decade has gone by since the passing of the twentieth century, an age that has been described as a time of war and violence, and our embarkation into the twenty-first century. Globalization has advanced at a rapid pace, and both people and goods are moving around the world on an unprecedented scale. At the same time, we have seen a rise in conflict and frictions among peoples and cultures that, in tandem with clashes over economic and national interests, have heightened tensions around the world.

In addition, since the 9-11 terror attacks on the United States, an extreme emphasis on security has caused major problems, leading to such infringements of basic human rights as excessive restrictions on freedom of speech and intrusions into personal privacy.

If these trends proceed unchecked, we will be unable to halt the cycle of war, violence, and hatred, and the lives, dignity, and human rights of many individuals will continue to be enormously compromised.

We must find a way to bring an end to this vicious cycle and, through a network of the people, open the way forward on the great path of hope leading to a century of peaceful coexistence, free from the bane of war.

CLEMENTS: I share your concerns, President Ikeda, about the direction in which our world seems to be moving.

Humanity is indeed facing a battery of extremely serious challenges—the persistence of violent conflict and civil unrest, the deforming impacts of poverty, hunger, and environmental destruction, and the all-too-persistent violations of human rights.

Unfortunately, however, what is sadly missing from much of the current international political debate about how to deal with these questions is a vision of what a just and peaceful world might look like.

Through the peace proposals that you offer annually, President Ikeda, and in numerous other ways, you have made a continuous effort to develop such a vision. In particular, you have focused on visions that flow organically from a deep awareness of our history (learning from its mistakes) and by some sense of creative possibility based on an awareness of our present strengths and aspirations.

IKEDA: Thank you for your kind words. They are especially meaningful coming from you, a leading peace scholar who has offered a creative vision for peace.

Through our dialogue, I would like to explore together with you a new means to creating peace that will impart hope to future generations.

You are a professor at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, as well as the director of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (NCPACS)¹ there. In addition, as a former secretary general of the International Peace Research Association (IPRA)² and a policy adviser to the governments of New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the Netherlands, you have made important contributions for many years in the areas of peacebuilding and conflict resolution.

In our dialogue, while asking you in detail about your efforts for peace, I hope to work together with you to outline a “people’s peace alternative,” a program of action by the people and for the people, that is effective in overcoming the barriers presented by the harsh realities that we are facing.

CLEMENTS: I look forward to these discussions with high hopes.

What is clear is that while states are important sources of law, order, and stability, they cannot be relied upon in all circumstances to serve the common good. When states fail or ignore their duties to their citizens, it is vital that there is a robust civil society in place to remind political leaders of their obligations and of the necessity to serve the public good rather than private or sectional interests.

Equally important in this globally interdependent world is the need to develop some sense of global citizenship, which can transcend the limitations of individual states, with all that this means in terms of global responsibilities and higher levels of global solidarity.

This is a theme that I hope to explore with you in our dialogue.

IKEDA: Yes, that is an absolutely critical point in creating a better world and bringing an end to the tragic history of the human race as it has unfolded up to now, and one that I would definitely like to discuss in depth.

I first met you, Dr. Clements, in July 1996, soon after the establishment of the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research.³ I fondly recall the discussion that you, I, and the institute’s first director, Dr. Majid Tehranian (1937–2012) had on the importance of the United Nations, the challenges of conflict prevention, and other important topics.

At that time, you strongly emphasized the following points: peace is a never-ending process, and we never really arrive at a static place that we can call peace. This is sometimes captured in the phrase “There is no way to peace—peace is the way.” Peace and conflict are dynamic processes which we choose to employ for different purposes. Because of this it is important, for those of us interested in promoting stable peace, that we identify values, beliefs, and institutions that promote peace and reinforce these so that they might eventually restrict and replace cultures and structures of violence with cultures and structures of peace.

Your argument that neither government, economics, culture, nor education alone is sufficient, that every aspect of our lives must be directed toward building peace, resonates powerfully with the principles of Buddhist pacifism that we of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI) embrace.

CLEMENTS: I remember our very first meeting in Tokyo in 1996 with much pleasure.

The philosopher Simone Weil (1909–43) observed that attention is “the rarest and purest form of generosity,”⁴ which you demonstrated in abundance on that occasion.

I was extremely impressed by the time you had taken to get to know something about my background, my interests, and my driving passions. I also deeply appreciated the way in which you listened to every word I said, reflected on what was said, and built on my contributions to develop a generative dialogue, resulting in a meeting of minds and concerns.

IKEDA: I was deeply moved by your abiding passion for peace and your perceptive observations backed up by keen intelligence.

As one effort to lead our world in the direction of peacebuilding, Dr. Tehranian and I were engaged in a dialogue between Islam and Buddhism, seeking to offer a vision of a civilization illuminated by respect for the worth and dignity of life and a pluralistic outlook. Our dialogue was published in 2000 as Global Civilization: A Buddhist-Islamic Dialogue.

Unfortunately, Dr. Tehranian passed away at the end of 2012, but I am deeply grateful to him for his precious contributions in extending a global network of peace studies, transcending ethnicity and religion, as the first director of the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research, through the research projects he established on the theme of human security and global governance.

You supported Dr. Tehranian’s efforts in numerous ways and have continued to cooperate with the activities of the Toda Institute. As one of the core international advisers to the institute since its establishment, you have been an invaluable support in international conferences and research projects, and since 2009, as secretary general of the institute, have worked with its second director, Dr. Olivier Urbain, to promote its further growth. As the institute’s founder, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for all your contributions.

CLEMENTS: It has been a great honor to work with the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research and participate in its activities and programs.

From my many years of involvement with peace research as well as my experience with the NGO International Alert,⁵ which specializes in conflict resolution in Africa and Asia, I am very much aware that academic research which gathers dust in libraries is not very useful for changing attitudes and behavior, nor for removing some of the structural sources of violence. Dr. Tehranian and the others at the Toda Institute, knowing this all too well, tried to overcome those limits by providing opportunities for diverse constituencies of peace researchers, policymakers, and community activists to engage in conversations and concrete collaboration on ways of solving different problems associated with violent conflict.

I have always believed in the power of multi-track diplomacy and conflict prevention to generate innovative research on nuclear weapons and other questions. When I think back to the late 1990s, it is clear that many of these discussions in Toda and similar organizations generated a solid intellectual rationale for the total abolition of nuclear weapons. The institute has also generated groundbreaking work on the need for solid regional and multilateral organizations in its papers, books, and workshops on the reform of the United Nations.

I thought that the institute’s sponsorship of the Persian Gulf Security Forum (held on four occasions since 1999) was an excellent effort to create an environment conducive to peacebuilding in the Middle East.

In the Middle East, it is very challenging just to get the people of the various countries together for a conference. The Toda Institute exerted itself admirably to promote dialogue among the nations of the region and continued to create opportunities for constructive dialogue. I see this as a very meaningful effort not seen in other research institutes. I have been engaged in scholarly research on promoting peace in Asia and the Pacific for many years. I organized a regional meeting in New Zealand in 1993 on what sorts of regional peace and security mechanisms would promote peaceful relations in Southeast and East Asia. This was published as Peace and Security in the Asia Pacific Region (1993) by the United Nations University (UNU).

Building on the achievements of the Toda Institute to date, as secretary general of the institute I would like to focus on making the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF)⁶ more effective for building peaceful coexistence in Southeast Asia and I would like to see something similar established for Northeast Asia. While there is a certain skepticism (on the part of big powers) about the utility of such mechanisms for the prevention of violent conflict, they do provide important fora for airing grievances, confidence building, and creating ripe conditions for thinking about arms control and disarmament. Because of this, I was deeply sympathetic with your call for renewed efforts to establish a Northeast Asian Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone, and your concrete proposals for easing tensions in China-Japan relations that you gave voice to in your peace proposal issued in January 2013.

IKEDA: Thank you for the encouraging words.

Since the normalization of diplomatic relations between China and Japan in 1972, the two countries have expanded cooperation and exchange in a wide range of areas and, step by step, nurtured a friendly relationship. But in 2012, in spite of it being the fortieth anniversary of the restoration of diplomatic relations, bilateral relations cooled to the worst state of affairs since the end of World War II.

In that context, I suggested that in order to prevent further deterioration of relations, Japan and China should engage in high-level bilateral dialogue as quickly as possible, based on a reconfirmation of the two main points of the 1978 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People’s Republic of China— namely that they should settle all disputes by peaceful means, refraining from the use of threat or force, and that neither party would seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region or in any other region.

Further, believing in the indispensability of creating an environment where the leaders of both countries could meet face-to-face no matter what the prevailing circumstances, I proposed that Japan and China institute the practice of holding regular summit meetings.

The more difficult the situation appears to be, the more important it is to engage in frank and open dialogue. Heated and earnest dialogue based on a commitment to peace and creative coexistence is an extremely important process that can reveal the fears, concerns, and aspirations of each side.

With the postponement of talks between Japanese, Chinese, and Korean leaders that had been scheduled for May 2013, the situation remains problematic, and I hope that talks between the leaders of China and Japan will take place at the earliest possible moment, leading in the direction of improved relations.

CLEMENTS: I completely agree with the idea that the more serious the conflict or tension is, the more important it is to create, by whatever means possible, a space for constructive problem-oriented dialogue.

In order to prevent conflicts escalating into violence and war, it is vital to pause and reflect. Simone Weil described this as an “interval of hesitation,” a moment of pause before taking action. This is a moment in which one tries to be truly empathetic and consider the effects of one’s actions on the feelings and behavior of the other. This is absolutely key to successful problem solving and peacemaking.

Hesitation and refl...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Editor's note
• 1 Lessons of history and the commitment to peace
• 2 Youth united for a world without nuclear weapons
• 3 Making the sanctity of life the spirit of the age
• 4 Spiritual transformation to build a society of harmonious coexistence
• 5 The bonds between Pacific neighbors
• 6 The path to the reconstruction of hope and courage
• 7 Empowerment of women: the foundation for transforming our times
• 8 Building a culture of human rights and respect for diversity
• 9 Social security: protecting the dignity of life
• 10 Social capital and the importance of engagement in society
• 11 New currents in education for global citizenship
• 12 Creative joint efforts between the United Nations and civil society
• 13 Rejection of war and violence: the banner of humankind
• About the authors
• Index