To increase the effectiveness of international institutions and to create new institutions at the international and national levels will require committed action by individuals and civil society organizations. We all need to realize that with rights come responsibilities. Change does not occur magically. It occurs because individuals engage with societal problems and take actions to create a better world. Often, change occurs person to person. Each of us can be an agent for change in the world. We are each as powerful as we choose to be.

 We can each start by choosing peace and making a firm commitment to peace with justice. This means that we make peace a central issue and priority in our lives and demonstrate peace in all we do. We can live peace, educate for peace, speak out for peace and support and vote for candidates who call for peace. In choosing peace, we also choose hope rather than ignorance, complacency or despair. Hope gives rise to action, and action in turn gives rise to increased possibility for change and to further hope. It is a spiral in which action deepens commitment, which leads to more action.  Like others who have chosen the path of peace—Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama—we must realize that it will not be a quick or easy journey.  The path will require of you courage, compassion and commitment. The rewards may be few, except your own understanding of the necessity of the journey. The path to peace will require persistence. You may be tempted to leave the path, but what you do for peace you do for humanity. In the struggle for a better world and more decent future, we are not allowed to give up. Our efforts to create a culture of peace are a gift to humanity and the future. What better gift could we give to our fellow citizens of the planet and to future generations than our courage, compassion and commitment in the cause of peace?

(Excerpted from Voices for a Culture of Peace Vol.1 and reprinted with permission from Culture of Peace Press.)

ANSWER: We have to have dreams, and we must have the capacity to make the dream a reality. When people told me in Ireland, “You can never do this,” I used to say, “Watch my smoke!” Don’t tell me I can’t do this, because I know that every single human being is capable of doing magnificent stuff, and there are no ordinary people. All people are extraordinary. God or Buddha or Allah or whatever we want to call that powerful force of love, powerful force of humanity and powerful force of goodness, made no ordinary people in the world. Everybody is different and extraordinary. Have you ever met an ordinary housewife? How many men here can multitask?

Not a lot. To each and every one of you, if you are not already involved in helping to change our world and make it a little bit better, from today make a solemn vow to yourself that you will become involved in changing the future that our world faces. Make that promise to yourself and remember that you are not ordinary. There is nobody in this room who has the same fingerprints. There is nobody in this room who has the same eyes. There is nobody in this room who has the same thought process. You are all absolutely individual. As Jody Williams, my coworker and fellow Peace Prize laureate says, “Violence is a choice; reject it no matter where it comes from.”

(Excerpted from Voices for a Culture of Peace Vol.1 and reprinted with permission from Culture of Peace Press.)

ANSWER: I know Augusto Boal was greatly influenced by Paulo Freire and used Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed to develop the Theatre of the Oppressed. I have had students who have taken theater workshops with Augusto Boal. I have not taken them with Boal. I believe, still, every year for a few months, he comes to the University of Oklahoma, but I know he has theater groups all over the world. We spoke together only on one occasion, the three of us, Augusto, myself and Paulo. Some people call Boal’s work guerilla theatre, but any way you name it, it’s a wonderful way of re-conceptualizing, reconfi guring human relationships in the guise of participatory theater, where people come up and assume roles and are open to the possibility of self and social transformation. Peter Sellars, not the comedian from the sixties and seventies, but Peter Sellars, the brilliant and innovative theater director, has done some marvelous work along the lines of Boal. He continues to be an inspiration for me. Peter Sellars is located here in Los Angeles. He is one of the great opera directors and theater directors of our time. I would like to be more closely connected to that in my own work. This is absolutely fundamental.

ANSWER: This has become my major project now, partly because I am one of the old people, whom I prefer to call the elders, because it is an anthropological term that signifies experience and perhaps wisdom that comes with experience. I do have a chapter coming out in a book (in 2008). The book is titled Deliberation and the Work of Higher Education (Kettering Foundation, 2008). My chapter is called “From Youth Ghettos to Intergenerational Civic Engagement.” In my many years of teaching and community work, what I have discovered is the age segregation that is occurring. Ghetto is the word for it, and some of it is unintended. It is a passionate subject of mine. I will give you three examples. Parents, especially high school parents, are more invested in trying to help their kids and paying huge amounts of money to get them tutors for college and so on. Even in college now, my college and others have set up a division to deal with parents. It used to be that colleges didn’t want to have anything to do with parents. To an excess, they wouldn’t even give the grades or anything about the students, but The Chronicle of Higher Education did an article last year that said now colleges have helicopter parents. Any of you who have children who went to middle school from elementary school, the phrase helicopter parents described parents who, like helicopters, were hovering over the school. The reason for this was that now the kids were going to go to different classrooms, and they had anxiety about it. Helicopter parents have expanded to the high schools and even to the colleges. However, what my study and others have shown is that high school and college students almost never speak with their parents about matters of substance, about what is going on in the country and the world. We did our surveys with residential students, all of whom have cell phones. I still don’t have a cell phone, but someday I will. Almost all of them spoke to one parent every day, sometimes for a minute just to be in touch, sometimes for an hour or two, and in a way it is lovely that children keep in touch with the parents. When we asked them what they talked about, they almost never talked about what it means to be a citizen, what is happening in our country, what is happening in the world, where they read newspapers and so on. That’s been true for a lot of youth, because they are doing other things, so they aren’t engaged, so that’s part of the challenge of engagement. But what about their parents? Where are the parents modeling this stuff? There is a book called The Other Parent. It is already outmoded because it is about television. The point of The Other Parent is that with the husband and wife working, the more professional they are, the more exhausting it is. It’s easier to put the kids in front of a TV because the parents are exhausted. That book was very disturbing. Now, of course, we are way beyond TV. We are into MySpace and YouTube. The study showed in a disturbing fashion how many people have their own TVs, how many young people have computers where their parents aren’t monitoring it, not talking with them, and not even eating together. I don’t blame the parents so much, because they are experiencing what sociologists now call “time poverty.” Arlie Russell Hochschild referred to it as the “time bind.” How many things can you do? I think the cost is trying to get the kids to succeed but without paying attention to their character. I blame the grandparents. I always blame the grandparents. Hey, the parents are too busy; it is up to you—the elders—to model these kids. Grandparents have been doing more of it. Then, when the children go to college, of course, they are really in a youth ghetto. The only adults they encounter are their professors, and that is not reality for a lot of them. What we found in our study is that most colleges give students access to something like a hundred TV channels free. I can’t tell you how many hours that college students spend watching television. Where is the discipline to stop doing that? We are making efforts to bring people together. It is sad to say our best success has been in bringing very old people together with high school students and college students, primarily because old people are in fact more available to do it. People in their fifties, forties and thirties are so busy. The public library is one of the great public spaces in our society that has trouble attracting people in their thirties, forties and fifties. The last thing I want to say about that is that I have made efforts to bring together young people and the elders. I write about that. What happens is when I bring young people together, the elders outnumber them, because I bring a class of thirty and there are maybe seventy or a hundred or a hundred and fifty elders, and we have a discussion on current events and perspective. After it is over, I take the young people aside and ask for their responses. The responses go like this, “Wow! I never saw so many old people in one place.” That is the first response. Then they all sit separately. They don’t mingle. I let them do that at first so we can have a debriefing. Then they say: “Those old people know a lot, but they don’t have anything to do. It’s not as if they are going to school or working as we are. Later on, we will be able to know stuff. They do care, you know, but they have got a lot more time to do it.” Then they get shamed. I don’t shame them, but eventually they say, “Well, gee, maybe we should be doing some more of this.” I was asked a question earlier about whether students go through changes. This experience has literally transformed many young people, who say: “Wow, I think I better register to vote. I think I should become better informed, because there are people who are doing it and I am not being responsible.” Those are encouraging signs. (Excerpted from Voices for a Culture of Peace Vol. 1 and reprinted with permission from Culture of Peace Press.)  

ANSWER: We have 300 million people, a democratic system and, depending on definitions, probably around 5 percent of the population is politically engaged. Essentially 95 percent of the population sits back and complains. They say: "I do not care. I do not like the situation in Iraq, but I am not going to do anything. I am going to sit here and watch TV.” I worked in Washington, D.C., for four years. Congress responds to the people who are there lobbying them. Our eighteen- to twenty-five-year-olds, they do not vote, and they do not become involved politically. They have the capacity to reshape this country dramatically. Politics has become unattractive. People do not want to participate in it. People do not want to campaign. They do not want to force or bring up new issues. They sit back, and they are passively fed by television. We are a democracy. A democracy requires that we become engaged politically. It requires that we attend meetings, that we make that extra effort, that we send letters, that we do things. If we don’t, of course, nothing is going to change. 

You are right. Many, many people in this country disagree with the government on Iraq, on terrorism, on stem cell research, on Cuba, on all of these issues. Gay marriage, they disagree with the government’s position, but they don’t do anything. I think that one thing we have to do is get involved. That is the beauty of a democracy—we can say what we want; we can do what we want. 

Today there are some real signs of light. America’s youth are experimenting with information technology, and politics will respond to this. Everyone here can support Internet politics, join discussions, make donations, send email to our people in Congress. We are tired of war, we disagree with torture, we want alternative energy, we want to help alleviate poverty here and abroad, we want to expand the zone of dignity and peace. That is what our country is all about, and we should keep reminding our politicians of this. We are a long way from exhausting all the opportunities our democracy affords for progress and change, for doing what is right instead of what is easy.

(Excerpted from Voices for a Culture of Peace Vol.1 and reprinted with permission from Culture of Peace Press.)

ANSWER: I will answer in a general way, because it is probably most meaningful that way. Let’s say there are two groups in the city. The city leadership has to be cognizant and aware that there are distinct group identity needs for a majority in control and a minority that has been subordinated. Through the delivery of urban services, through the governance of an urban system, those identity needs and aspirations have to be accommodated. In these cities of division, you cannot impose an assimilative model on all citizens where everyone will be treated the same. The majority in control has to think through a new lens of coexistent viability. It is important for this minority group to feel they are viable, respected and productive members of that urban society for the city and the society to blossom and to be healthy. Anything short of that or any messages that the minority feels that their identity is threatened or not respected is going to exacerbate the problem. It is not necessarily going to lead to violence, but it is certainly going to add to the social and psychological separation of those two groups in the city and then we are in a situation where we are getting into a downward slope. I answered your question generally, but there is a whole set of implications this has for how a majority city government would view a minority with respect and viability. Group identity is an important attribute to acknowledge in cities of multiple cultures; its preservation is connected to the UN Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace(#6): Advancing understanding, tolerance and solidarity.

(Excerpted from Voices for a Culture of Peace Vol.1 and reprinted with permission from Culture of Peace Press.)

ANSWER: "As I keep saying, the critical mass is the individual. It is the most important thing. Peace within can only bring peace outside. That is very relevent. Empower yourself first with the message of peace that you believe. When you are empowered like that, you will never feel disappointed, you will never feel discouraged. But you have a point because I believe that the most important thing cannot be simply stated that  the critical mass is the important part.

I have seen that many people have started on an individual basis in a very low-key way. These days, in this technological age, you can share many things without individually reaching out. The computers are there, the Internet is there. You can not only read, you can share, you can develop many things without the physical connection that we needed in earlier days. The physical connection, however, I never undervalue, because that has its own significance.

It is valuable to start at the low-key level, if you feel there are no people with you. I can tell you that, very soon, you will find many, because in each of us that human quest for peace is there. It is manifested in a different way in each individual. You have to strike the right chord to persuade a person to join you in your endeavor for peace. I think that is very natural, but start by talking with  your colleagues, talking with your friends, talking with your family members. I think that is the best way to start. I have seen that. If I can get one additional fellow traveler with me, I believe I have contributed in a big way. That is what we need to do. With that simple thinking, you will get results that you could never dream of.

Don't get discouraged. Keep focused. Start with the people you can reach out to first, and then you will find that needed critical mass growing."

(Excerpted from Voices for a Culture of Peace Vol.1 and reprinted with permission from Culture of Peace Press.)

Sir Joseph Rotblat (1908-2005) was one of the scientists recruited to work on the U.S. project to construct the atomic bomb during World War II. He left the project when it became clear to him that Nazi Germany would not succeed in developing their own atomic bomb. He subsequently became a tireless campaigner for the abolition of nuclear weapons, co-founding the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs in 1957. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995. Daisaku Ikeda is president of the Soka Gakkai International and has spearheaded the organization's nuclear abolition and peace activities since the 1960s. This dialogue is taken from the book A Quest for Global Peace: Rotblat and Ikeda on War, Ethics and the Nuclear Threat (I.B. Tauris, 2007).

Ikeda: Professor Rotblat, you participated in the U.S. project for the development of nuclear weapons, the Manhattan Project, at first, but you resolutely quit the project. I would like to ask you, where were you on August 6, 1945, when Hiroshima was struck by the atomic bomb? Also, how did you find out about it?

Rotblat: At that time, I was living in Liverpool, England. I had already left the Manhattan Project and departed from the U.S. When it became clear that I could not be prevented from returning to England, I was presented with a condition that I must not contact any of my former colleagues who worked at the Los Alamos Laboratory [in New Mexico].

All letters were screened and recorded, so I did not send any letters to my former colleagues. I was afraid that it would put them in danger. As a result, after leaving Los Alamos in December 1944 and returning to Liverpool, I had no idea of what was happening there. This was the context in which I heard the news of the atomic blast. It was August 6, 1945. I heard about it on a BBC news broadcast.

Ikeda: How did you feel when you heard the news?

Rotblat: I was numbed by the shock because, at that time, I still had hope. It was a faint hope, but I had hope that the Americans would be unsuccessful at building the bomb. I thought that since the research had been conducted completely on the basis of theoretical calculations, perhaps at the actual bomb-making stage it might not work. I also harbored hope that even if they were successful at making a bomb, they would not use it, especially against civilian populations.

In other words, even if a bomb were successfully created, it would first of all have to be tested in a remote location such as an uninhabited island. And so I still hoped that the Americans would tell the Japanese, "Look! We have this super weapon," and then the war would be over.

But sadly, reality unfolded quite differently. Man's first atomic bomb was dropped on a civilian population.

Joseph Rotblat and Daisaku Ikeda meet in Okinawa, February 2000 [©Seikyo Shimbun]
Ikeda: The news of the dropping of the atomic bomb was broadcast through the public-address system at Los Alamos. [We are told that] at that moment, the entire Los Alamos Laboratory erupted in victorious jubilation. However, later that evening a gloomy mood enveloped the celebration party. After the elation and sense of accomplishment wore off, they were left with a sense of regret and foreboding.

Rotblat: I was completely overcome with hopelessness. It was an indescribable sense of shock from which it took a long time to recover. This is because I knew that the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima was just the first step in an extended program of nuclear weapons development.

At that time, I knew that the hydrogen bomb existed, but it was highly classified. I knew that a weapon possessing a thousand times more destructive power would be developed next.

Ikeda: If I were to categorize human history into parts, I would draw the line between the pre-nuclear and post-nuclear periods. This is because, with the introduction of nuclear weapons, for the first time, the extinction of the human race became a conceivable reality. We must never lose sight of the fact, however, that human beings created nuclear weapons.

Urgent Efforts
Rotblat: I became obsessed with the need to discover a way to prevent human extinction. Let me illustrate how driven I was by this goal. When I look back now, I wonder how I ever came up with such a crazy idea. Thinking as a scientist, I looked for a way to halt research in nuclear physics. I wanted to do whatever it took to stop the development of the hydrogen bomb. I thought that this could happen if all the scientists agreed to temporarily halt their research. So I proceeded to contact scientists, primarily physicists at English universities, to convince them that something needed to be done to prevent the extermination of the human race.

Ikeda: What kind of response did you receive from the scientists?

Rotblat: Many of them did not realize the nature of the problem, and so there was not much reaction. Some of the physicists were sympathetic to my position, but others were completely opposed. I realized that it would be impossible to halt all research and, realistically speaking, all indications pointed to the inevitable progression of worldwide nuclear research.

Ikeda: Professor Rotblat, I empathize completely with your sense of urgency and concern. In any case, you were moved to action. A person's worth must be determined, not by thoughts, but by actions. Many of the people involved in nuclear weapons research at Los Alamos were very emotionally conflicted about their role. And after the atomic blast, some people were filled with regret. But Professor Rotblat, you were the only one who acted upon your convictions and quit the Manhattan Project before the bomb was dropped.

Betrayed by the Bomb
Rotblat: Personally speaking, the atomic bomb did not only fill me with dread, it made me wonder about the survival of the human race. It also made me determined to devote the rest of my life to making sure that nuclear weapons would never again be used.

To begin with, in 1946 I established the Atomic Scientists' Association in England in order to organize scientists to fight against any effort to use nuclear weapons. Next, I felt impelled to share the reality of nuclear weapons with the public at large, because the average person had no idea about the dangers and threat of nuclear arms.

I poured much of my energy into exhibitions that explained the beneficial uses of nuclear energy as well as its abuse in destructive military campaigns.

I helped sponsor a mobile exhibition that was carried in a train of two carriages. We called it the Atom Train. This was our first attempt to convey information and educate the public. This train exhibition traveled through the British Isles and then throughout Europe, and even went as far as the Middle East.

The participants in the first Pugwash conference, 1957; Joseph Rotblat, seventh from the right [Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs]
Ikeda: What an amazing venture!

Rotblat: I felt that I was betrayed by the atomic bomb. I consider myself a scientist who strives for the benefit of humankind, not for its destruction. I felt that if my scientific research was going to be used, I would want to decide how it could be used and to see with my own eyes it being used in beneficial ways. Nuclear physics was being used in numerous ways in the field of medicine, so I decided to abandon my ambitions in the field of nuclear physics and specialize in the medical application of physics.

Ikeda: You have visited both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did you experience a shift in your perceptions after visiting Hiroshima?

Rotblat: Absolutely. After seeing with my own eyes the devastation wreaked upon Hiroshima, I was able to convey more clearly to others the magnitude of misery inflicted by nuclear weapons.

When I viewed the photographs in the Peace Memorial Museum, I could barely contain my tears. Ever since, I have been urging the museum to establish permanent exhibits in many other places outside Hiroshima. Every town and city should have an atomic bomb exhibit to remind people constantly of the horrors of the atomic bomb.

Ikeda: At this point, what lessons do you think humanity should learn from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Rotblat: I have a rather broad view of their potential contribution that includes but also goes beyond the effort to abolish nuclear weapons. In other words, I believe that we must strive to create a world without war itself. I have set myself two goals in my life--one short-term and one long-term. My short-term goal is to abolish nuclear weapons, and the long-term goal is to eliminate war entirely. I do not believe that I will live to see either of my objectives achieved within my lifetime, but I believe that ultimately they will be realized.

The Bigger Agenda
Ikeda: Our duty as citizens of the twenty-first century is to work toward a world without war. First of all, we have a responsibility to the past. We live with the knowledge that over one hundred million people have been sacrificed to war in the twentieth century. We have a responsibility to these people. Second, we must consider our responsibility in the present. In today's world, hundreds of millions of people live in abject poverty and are on the verge of starvation. War only aggravates those problems, and moreover, war gives rise to further wars. Humanity must interrupt this vicious circle.

Third, I would like to point out our responsibility to the future. In today's world, wars and the buildup of armaments are not only likely to lead to nuclear war but will surely threaten humanity with their massive power to devastate life systems and the environment on a global scale. If a nuclear war were triggered, humanity's continued existence would be in question.

Rotblat: What concerns me is the thought that nuclear weapons will not be the final weapon invented by scientists. With the advance of research, new types of weapons that inflict even greater massive destruction will be developed. Therefore, until humankind learns to coexist without resorting to war, we are not safe.

Ikeda: The development of nuclear weapons began initially in response to the threat from the Nazis. The reasoning then became "to contain the Soviet Union," and next, it shifted to a deterrent role that held the threat of "massive retaliation" and maintained an understanding of "mutual assured destruction" or MAD.

The ending of the Cold War provided a golden opportunity to end the nuclear age once and for all, but nuclear weapons were retained and now are being considered for use in conventional warfare. In other words, nuclear weapons do not continue to exist out of necessity. Rather, you could say that there are those who need to justify the existence of nuclear weapons by finding a convincing argument.

So, against this illogical backdrop is, as you often say, a persistent "culture of war" in which military might begets even more powerful military force.

Rotblat: Victory will never be achieved by opposing evil with the power of evil. It does not make sense to try to avoid war by using the threat of war. We must learn to resolve our conflicts without resorting to military means. We must not bring human civilization, a miraculous product of millions of years of evolution, to an untimely and tragic end.

Ikeda: When we look at the harsh reality of the international situation, some say that it will be impossible to abolish nuclear weapons. These people are committing the error of predicting the future based on the conditions of our present reality.

As you often mention, during the period before World War II, France and Germany were bitter enemies. Today, however, both countries form the nucleus of the European Union. Examples such as these abound throughout history. A major human weakness is assuming that the reality before our eyes will continue unchanged into the future. We must not forget that the success of the movement to abolish nuclear weapons will be determined by human will.
 

Chile is a narrow country that stretches for 4,300 km from north to south, and is an average of 180 km from its eastern to its western border. This unique geography and the diversified climate and culture encompassed between its northern and southern extremes make Chile a distinctive country.

Chileans are proud of their cultural heritage, having given the world two of its great Nobel Prize-winning poets, Gabriela Mistral and Pablo Neruda. Furthermore, in this age of women's empowerment, Chile was, in March 2006, the first South American country to elect a female president.

The first SGI district was formed in March 1974, one year after the country's military coup. It was during the 14 years of this brutal military regime that our organization was forged. For most of this time, we could not freely hold meetings and, under martial law and regulation of the Ministry of Defense, could gather only at the house of our general director. In 1981, however, we opened a center where, although still under various restrictions, members of SGI-Chile began promoting an understanding of the SGI movement in our society.

Peace Through Culture

In 1990, the people's power movement restored democracy in Chile. Three years later, in 1993, SGI President Ikeda paid his first visit to Chile and met with then President Patricio Aylwin, a key figure in the transformation from military rule. During his visit, President Ikeda was presented with an honorary citizenship of Santiago, Chile's capital.

In the new climate of freedom, SGI-Chile was able to promote its activities more openly. Even though we are a small organization, with just 900 members, people in Chile are often attracted to the SGI because they see that our members are bright, vibrant and energetic. They are also impressed that our members believe that they themselves are responsible for their own happiness and have the power to open up and develop their lives.

Cultural activities have been an important means for our organization to reach out to the broader public and communicate our ideals. In 1994 we held the "Dialogue with Nature" photographic exhibition, which attracted some 20,000 guests, and in May 1996 the "SGI-Chile Culture Festival" was held, in which youth members took the lead in staging dance, group gymnastics, music and chorus performances. The famous contemporary Chilean poet, Ra√∫l Zurita, offered a poignant and memorable reading of one of his poems.

The following year, the Tokyo Fuji Art Museum, founded by SGI President Ikeda, collaborated with the National Museum of Chile to present the "Eternal Treasures of Japan" exhibition in Chile. This exhibition, which was a considerable success, was a part of an event commemorating the 100th anniversary of relations between Chile and Japan. Subsequent public exhibitions include "Dialogue of Humanism: A Network of Hope" held at the University of Santiago in 1999, and the "World Boys and Girls Art Exhibition" in 2000, which was viewed by over 30,000 people.

On a smaller scale, we have also held cultural evenings in the garden of our center, at which guests have enjoyed musical and choral performances.

On their own initiative, the young members of SGI-Chile's New Century Band have been using their skills as a means of encouraging other young people, arranging performances at orphanages and hospitals.

Promoting Nonviolence

Our most recent large-scale activity has been the hosting of the "Gandhi, King, Ikeda: A Legacy of Building Peace" exhibition commissioned by the MLK International Chapel of Morehouse College, the alma mater of Martin Luther King, Jr. The topic of nonviolence promoted by the exhibition holds particular significance in light of Chile's modern history, and after the exhibition's initial opening at the National Library in Santiago in 2005, we quickly received requests from several people to hold this exhibit in other venues. As a result, in March 2006, it was held first at Santiago's Central University, and then at the University of the Pacific, where former President Aylwin attended the opening ceremony.

The exhibition was also held at the City Hall of Rancagua city, south of Santiago, and in July, it was hosted by the University of Talca where, as a result of interest by local schools, the exhibition dates were extended considerably.

Currently, violence and drug abuse are problems of increasing concern in Chile, affecting both youth and adults who should be providing a role model for children. It is in light of such social problems and suffering, however, that the existence of the SGI becomes most significant. This is the conviction and responsibility that guide the practice and activities of the members of SGI-Chile.

Italian food writer Carlo Petrini's efforts to encourage people to rethink our relationship with food have inspired a global popular movement that is redefining the relationship between what we eat, the people who grow it, the systems that distribute it and the Earth that produces it. A key activity of this Slow Food movement is the Terra Madre (Mother Earth) gatherings that bring together thousands of food producers from around the world to discuss problems and find possible solutions. Petrini has also founded the University of Gastronomic Sciences in Pollenzo and Colorno, Italy, that offers an interdisciplinary approach to food studies.

SGI Quarterly: How has our attitude to food and eating changed since the time of our grandparents, and what effects has this had?

Carlo Petrini: In recent decades we have witnessed a gradual impoverishment of the senses--our ability to feel, taste and smell. The increasing speed of our lives deprives us of the ability to experience the genuine diversity and authenticity in the world around us. Humankind has lost touch with the land, with time, traditions, knowledge, culture and cuisine. The moments of encounter rooted in the ancient rituals of daily life and the cycle of the seasons are no longer part of our experience. The uniform flavor of industrial foods, which are the same all over the world, has impoverished our ability to recognize food.

SGIQ: What is good quality food, and why should such quality be important?

CP: According to the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment published in 2005, food production and transportation is now the main cause of the pollution and gradual destruction of our planet. This should make us reflect. If it is true, as Wendell Berry says, that eating is also an "agricultural act," then good quality foods that are produced in ways that respect the natural environment and local traditions can encourage biodiversity, equity and sustainability.

If you are concerned about the fate of the planet, the definition of good food goes beyond gourmet considerations; it must be eco-gastronomic, that is, we must be aware of the potential impact of our choices. For eco-gastronomes, quality is defined by three adjectives: good, clean and fair. Good refers to the pleasure derived from the qualities of the food, but also the complex realm of feelings, memories and sense of identity that arise from our emotional associations with food. Clean products are those that do not stress the land, that are produced with respect for the natural environment. Fair means it conforms to the concepts of social justice with regard to its production and marketing.

Beyond Consumption

SGIQ: What are the aims of the Slow Food movement, and what is it in practice?

CP: There is a lot that needs to be done to spread a conscious perception of food. We begin by focusing on taste: promoting school gardens, taste workshops, theater, our Master of Food courses and other initiatives that help retrain and revive the senses, especially among the younger generation.

Food is not only food but also pleasure, culture and conviviality--the mediator of values and attitudes, a vehicle for realization and a catalyst of our emotions. With this awareness we become coproducers, rather than merely consumers. The "consumer" has to feel part of the production process, with an awareness of the influence of their preferences, either supporting degradation or rejecting injustice and unsustainability.

This doesn't mean that we must all go back to living in the countryside or produce our own food, but our connection to Earth--the severed umbilical cord--can be restored through a search for information, through producers communicating their processes, through large retailers rethinking their systems and supporting local production. It can be restored by our desire to return to being coproducers, by creating new "food communities" in which the gastronome is simply the final link in a whole functional chain.

SGIQ: Choosing conscientiously produced food might simply be considered a luxury that many can't afford. What is the movement's relevance in developing countries?

CP: In Italy after World War II until the early '70s, most of the family budget was allocated to food purchases. In Europe today statistics show much lower figures of between 16 and 17 percent. The importance of food has declined in relation to other products. In the global South and developing countries the figures are much higher, but entire nations are losing their food sovereignty, the direct relationship between production and consumption at the local level.

Our Terra Madre network brings together farmers and fishermen, artisans and agri-food producers, chefs and academics. This is the positive face of globalization. It gives a voice to those who do not approve of inhumane models of production and of attaching market values to the living world. It is precisely from the global South--from those at daily risk of being crushed by overwhelming market dynamics--that the cry for solidarity arises.

SGIQ: How do you see the future relationship between local food producers and the international trade networks?

CP: Terra Madre was born out of the need to embrace a new concept of the economy, beginning with agriculture, which is at the center of local communities, to the food of the local community, its culture and the local region. We're seeing now the enormous limitations of the market economy.

The Terra Madre food communities establish a "short chain," or at least a chain based on mutual understanding between those involved. A simple example is the farmers' markets that are found globally. We are not talking about closed economies, or about not being able to enjoy products and dishes we love. The term "local" should be understood as an economic system that is well integrated with the region; not a forced expression of the law of supply and demand but a recognition of the historical heritage of a community. The dignity of the local economy is the only thing that will allow us to realize what is becoming an oxymoron: sustainable development.

Preserving Knowledge

SGIQ: In our rapidly changing world, what do you see as the value of traditional knowledge and wisdom?

CP: Food is tied up with the traditional culture of peasant communities, not only in the culinary sense, but also with its crafts, poetry, music and local history. The disappearance of traditional knowledge, already experienced in communities in the West, is now occurring in the rural societies of the poorest countries. Dignity and value have been discarded in the name of scientific progress to make room for a "modernity" that knows only about the culture of the market. This is why at Terra Madre in Turin we started a "dialogue between different fields of knowledge," bringing representatives of the scientific and academic world into dialogue with representatives of food communities.

In addition, in the 2008 meeting of the food communities, we launched a new initiative, Sounds of Terra Madre, in which 49 nonprofessional music groups from 30 countries shared the culture of their traditional feasts and celebrations. We plan to do a similar thing in coming years with languages that are at risk of dying out.

SGIQ: Why do you believe the Slow Food movement has grown so quickly?

CP: Humanity has almost reached a point of no return. Our way of life, the speed with which we "consume" each moment of our existence, is beginning to pose serious questions. Many feel the need to reappropriate their time, to go deeper, to recover their roots. In developing countries, there is a need to preserve culture, cultivation techniques and recipes.

In helping to build the Terra Madre network, what has impressed me most has been the incredible humanity expressed by these farmers, fishermen, gatherers of wild fruit and artisans from around the world. Their stories, their daily struggles, are the true expression of the farming community and a sign of hope. It is a heritage that the world cannot afford to lose.

Internationally, disabled women belong to the most marginalized group. There are more than 250 million disabled women in the world today, approximately three quarters of whom live in developing countries. Yet international development programs rarely address the needs of disabled women or include them in development ventures.

Of course, disabled men and women have issues in common which affect them equally. But there are many issues which affect and discriminate against disabled women specifically. These include sexuality, motherhood, bioethics, violence, sexual violence, education and professional training, jobs, health care and personal assistance.

In the developing world, disabled girls are often excluded from even basic education, because of a general perception that education is more necessary for boys. Disabled women are thus forced into economic dependency. Even in the industrialized countries, it is difficult for disabled girls to get training in as many professions as nondisabled girls. Marriage opportunities for disabled girls may be lower than for nondisabled girls, which means that education and training are even more important for them. Disabled women, however, are even more discriminated against than disabled men when it comes to employment.

Violence against women is most prevalent among disabled women. Disturbingly, statistics tell us that disabled girls and women are more likely to be sexually abused than nondisabled girls and women. Political pressure is needed to establish social support mechanisms and facilities for disabled women.

Many disabled women are prevented or discouraged from having children out of fears that their children might also be disabled. A woman should have the right to choose whether she wants to have a baby or not, and all children should be welcomed into the world and provided with appropriate levels of social, practical and financial support.

In order to bring about change, disabled women have to talk about their special issues and demand political change. Disabled women need to be included and specifically mentioned in all relevant laws and regulations.

Every disabled girl and woman (as well as boys and men) must get the support they need so that they are able to participate in all human activities: parenting, sexual activities, education, employment, leisure, culture and politics.

People with disabilities have the right to participate in the life of the community, to live a decent life. And disabled women themselves have to define what a decent life means for them--not politicians or anybody else.

Dinah Radtke is chair of the Women’s Committee and Deputy Chairperson on Human Rights for Disabled Peoples International.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), proclaimed in Paris on December 10, 1948, represented a unifying foundation for humanity. It was the first occasion on which the community of nations, organized under the newly formed United Nations organization (UN), agreed on the "inalienable rights of all members of the human family" and codified them in the Declaration as "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations."

At that time, the UN was composed of 58 states with different philosophical, cultural and political traditions. The Declaration therefore was a reflection of these various perspectives; it represented the meeting point of different conceptions of human beings and society. The UDHR developed the human rights provisions included in the 1945 United Nations Charter, which resolved in its preamble "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small."

Knowledge and Skills

After its proclamation, UDHR principles inspired the anticolonial struggle and were inserted in the constitutions of the newly independent countries. The UDHR also prompted the development of the vast body of international human rights law which exists today, including both legal instruments and mechanisms for human rights protection, and served as the basis and inspiration for all regional human rights systems.

When proclaiming the Declaration, the UN General Assembly affirmed in the preamble: "every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms."

Human rights education is vital to building a universal culture of human rights. In order to contribute to this goal, education needs to address not only knowledge of human rights standards and the mechanisms for their protection, but also the skills necessary for people to apply human rights principles in daily life; it must develop values and reinforce attitudes which uphold them, so as to prompt action to defend and promote human rights. Human rights education is therefore an action-oriented process.

Today, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) contributes to global human rights education by facilitating information-sharing and networking among all those involved in human rights education globally, through, for instance, a web-based Database on Human Rights Education and Training, accessible through OHCHR's website, and a special Resource Collection on Human Rights Education and Training in the OHCHR Library; and by developing and disseminating selected materials. To support UN system-wide coordination, OHCHR bolsters the Secretariat of the United Nations Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee on Human Rights Education in the School System; it also assists UN member states and others with technical cooperation and expert advice, as well as grassroots initiatives through the Assisting Communities Together (ACT) Project, a joint initiative with the United Nations Development Programme providing small grants to national and local nongovernmental organizations.

In recent years human rights education has become more and more present on the international agenda, and programs as well as partnerships among various national and international actors have increased; however, there are still challenges ahead. One of these is a lack of political will to undertake comprehensive and sustainable programming; another is a lack of national and international monitoring and evaluation systems for human rights education. There is a need for further collaboration between governmental and nongovernmental actors, and the need to develop appropriate methodologies, including research on impact. Major contextual problems facing human rights education include poverty, political instability, illiteracy and cultural traditions in contrast with human rights standards.

Brad Adams has been executive director of Human Rights Watch's Asia Division since 2002. Previously he worked as the senior lawyer for the Cambodia field office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and legal adviser to the Cambodian parliament's human rights committee.

SGI Quarterly: How would you explain human rights to someone who's never heard of them?

Brad Adams: It's as simple as saying, "You can't do certain things to me without violating a law, and you can't tell me what to think." The history of the world has been full of feudalism and dictatorship with powerful people telling powerless people what they can and can't do. The concepts of human rights are a way of saying that there are limits on this.

SGIQ: Do you think human beings have an innate sense of human rights that is universal?

BA: Yes. I have no doubt about that. Unfortunately temptations like power and money lead people to argue that only some people have rights, or that groups are more important than individuals, which is something we only hear from the powerful, not the weak and poor. People used to talk about "Asian values" being in opposition to human rights principles, but what Asian wants to be tortured by some police officer or soldier? Nobody thinks that's acceptable. What Asian wants to have their land taken away by some rich guy with a gun? These things really are universal.

I'm not trying to say that everybody grows up in the same environment and culture, but I am saying that many basic things are the same everywhere. I think that really there is no debate now about what basic rights are. The challenges for human rights now are largely about holding the people in power accountable, and this is where human rights and politics overlap. In the long run real improvement on rights does require political change or political development.

SGIQ: Do you think in order to push for political change there has to be an educated public that is demanding that change?

BA: Sometimes change comes from the bottom up, such as the ousting of President Marcos in the Philippines in 1986 or the ending of the monarchy in Nepal this year. Sometimes change comes from the top down. If you look at Europe and the abolition of the death penalty, actually the political elite made the change. It's not always driven by the public, but it's much better if the public is on board and educated and believing in it, otherwise you can have a new government come in and just reverse things.

I think human rights education is at its best in civics lessons in primary and secondary education. Educating adults--with all the problems they are facing in their daily lives--about human rights is complicated. Take the death penalty. We're taught from day one in all cultures that killing is wrong. If that's your bedrock principle and you learn that when you are young, it would be very easy for you to get past all the other arguments in favor of state-sanctioned killing, which is what the death penalty is. But if you don't have that bedrock principle, then you can convince yourself that it is OK.

Films are one very good way of raising awareness, as by seeing what happened to someone else, people will say, "Now I see why it's important for the army to be under control, or for there to be international laws against torture." People are touched emotionally, and some of them may take action as a result. The media also has a big role to play.

SGIQ: Do you think the situation is improving globally?

BA: The trend is uneven, but in its historical scope it is very positive. Most countries are at least accepting that in principle they must be more rule-based. The Internet and media are putting everybody under much more scrutiny.

We've been doing a huge amount of work on the Olympics, and a lot of people who come to China for the first time in a long time are quite surprised. Even in a one-party state, the government has to spend a lot of time explaining to the people what they're doing and why they are doing it. And there is a huge amount of demand from the public in China for basic freedoms. People are constantly challenging the authorities. Of course, many still end up in prison or are beaten up by state security, so we have to be vigilant and demand an end to these practices, wherever they occur.

SGIQ: What motivated you to work in this field?

BA: I was initially a legal aid lawyer in California, trying to provide access to the justice system to poor people, homeless people, to get their basic economic rights, because at the time that seemed to be the most pressing human rights problem in the U.S. For me, it's about allowing everyone to pursue happiness. It's not about enforcing rights for their own sake. Rights are a means to a happy end. We're just trying to create the conditions for people to get what they can and want out of life and not be blocked by dictators or other powerful forces. This is one reason we focus so much on freedom of speech, since it is a necessary precondition for this. But if we're just trying to get these rights as some kind of legalistic thing, it doesn't necessarily improve people's lives.

The following is excerpted from the 2009 peace proposal, Toward Humanitarian Competition: A New Current in History by SGI President Daisaku Ikeda. Each year on January 26, the founding date of the Soka Gakkai International, Mr. Ikeda issues a proposal examining the current state of global affairs and proposing solutions grounded in a Buddhist perspective. The full text of this proposal can be read at www.daisakuikeda.org.

The impact of the "once-in-a-century" financial meltdown, which started with defaults in the subprime mortgage market in the United States, has now spread to engulf the whole world.Even as policy makers struggle to find effective responses, the current financial turmoil is undermining the real economy, bringing about a global recession. If we remember that the Great Depression only fully set in two years after the 1929 stock market crash, the gravity of the current situation becomes even more apparent.People have the right to live in peace and humane conditions, and to that end, they exert themselves assiduously day after day. It is unacceptable that the foundations of people's livelihoods should be disrupted and devastated by the effects of "tsunami" that they could not foresee and which originated in realms far beyond their control.

The processes of globalization, buoyed by deregulation and technological innovation, have encountered a fierce backlash in the form of globalized recession. It is now apparent that the faith in free competition and markets to resolve all problems was misplaced; nothing in the world is so neatly preordained.As an alternative paradigm to both unbridled competition and centralized control, I would like to explore certain ideas set out by the founding president of the Soka Gakkai, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, in his 1903 work The Geography of Human Life. Specifically, I would like to explore the possibilities to be found in his idea of "humanitarian competition.

"In the closing chapters of this work, which was published when he was just 32, Makiguchi surveyed the grand flow of human history and identified the forms of competition--military, political and economic--that have prevailed in different periods, overlapping and intertwining as they undergo gradual transformation.Makiguchi concludes with a call for us to set our sights on the goal of engaging in humanitarian competition, a perspective he reached by tracing the inner logic of historical development.

Makiguchi describes humanitarian competition thus: "To achieve the goals that would otherwise be pursued by military or political force through the intangible power that naturally exerts a moral influence, in other words, to be respected rather than feared."I am reminded here of the idea of "soft power," defined by Joseph S. Nye Jr. of Harvard University as "the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion."Likewise, there are resonances between the concept of a "win-win world" put forward by the American futurist Hazel Henderson and the views Makiguchi expresses in the following passage: "What is important is to set aside egotistical motives, striving to protect and improve not only one's own life, but also the lives of others. One should do things for the sake of others, because by benefiting others, we benefit ourselves.

"I am fully convinced that the time has now arrived, 100 years after it was originally proposed, for us to turn our attention to humanitarian competition as a guiding principle for the new era.Free competition driven by the unrestrained impulses of selfishness can descend into the kind of social Darwinism in which the strong prey on the weak. But competition conducted within an appropriate framework of rules and conventions brings forth the energies of individuals and revitalizes society.

Herein lies the value of humanitarian competition. As a concept, it compels us to confront the reality of competition while ensuring that it is conducted firmly on the basis of humane values, thus bringing forth a synergistic reaction between humanitarian concerns and competitive energies. It is this that qualifies it to be a key paradigm for the 21st century.

The opening of Arctic waters creates enormous profit potential from shorter international trade routes and access to seabed oil, gas and marine resources. The Law of the Sea gives countries territorial jurisdiction within 200 nautical miles of their coast, but outside these zones nations are taking measures to ensure access, rights and, in some cases, sovereignty over portions of the seabed. Territorial claims and counterclaims will be a source of tension that could degenerate into open conflict.

Naval operations of both Russia and the United States, the two nuclear powers in the region, will increase when there are open waters, creating a potential for military confrontation, especially because both have nuclear-armed submarines. Nowhere else are the two major nuclear powers in such close proximity to each other. There is a potential for additional nuclearization of both sea and land.

Nuclear weapons in the region present a multifaceted danger to the Arctic lands and peoples, and preventive measures must be taken before it is too late. The creation of legal structures and procedures is already beginning to be discussed, and it is important that nuclear weapons issues are put on that agenda; otherwise the status quo will become ingrained. Existing agreements and the present status in the Arctic provide a hopeful start because:

• There is a seabed treaty in force that prevents stationing of nuclear weapons on the Arctic Ocean floor.
• Strategic bombers in Arctic airspace are much less significant now than during the Cold War.
• Negotiations could begin now on military confidence-building measures. Of note is the Antarctic Treaty, where each contracting party has the right to send observers to every base of any country in that region, thus producing a very powerful confidence-building measure for ensuring full compliance.
• It is hoped that strategic arms reduction talks between the U.S. and Russia will begin again.

There are, however, serious obstacles to a nuclear weapon-free Arctic. The United States and Russia both regularly deploy nuclear-capable submarines in Arctic waters. Russia's naval base at Zapadnaya Litsa maintains their most advanced ballistic missile submarines, and patrol areas are mainly in the Arctic. Thus, negotiations for an Arctic Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ) could only be attempted after complementary disarmament measures by the United States.

There is new mainstream support for abolition. Former high-level officials in the U.S., U.K., Italy, Germany and others have called for immediate comprehensive steps to reduce the nuclear danger, continuing to abolition of nuclear weapons. A conference at the Hoover Institute in the U.S. in October 2007 recommended a 500-warhead limit for both the U.S. and Russia. If such a reduction were to be achieved, it would be in the best interests of Russia to place its reliance on mobile land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. The result could be closure of nuclear submarine facilities in the Arctic, or alternatively, retention of nuclear-powered submarines not outfitted with nuclear arms. Either of these alternatives would clear the way for a NWFZ in the Russian Arctic.

The Russian Reality
A most important distinction between Russia and the other Arctic nations is that Russia has nearly 4 million people in the region, and many are not indigenous. The geopolitical reality, as seen from Russia, is that military security is inseparable from energy security. In preparation for greatly enhanced activity in the Arctic, billions of dollars have been or will be spent by both the East (Russia) and the West (U.S. and Canada) for icebreakers, Arctic patrol ships, oil platforms, army bases and similar equipment and infrastructure. At present, Russia appears better prepared than the West.

Over a 14-year period, five Central Asian states negotiated the Central Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (CANWFZ), assisted by the UN. The 2006 Treaty of Semipalatinsk, which has not entered into force, involves former nuclear weapon states that have agreed to International Atomic Energy Agency site visits for inspection and verification. Only Russia and China, so far, are signatories to the protocol respecting the CANWFZ. The CANWFZ offers experience applicable to an Arctic NWFZ: negotiations require a significant period of time. Work should start now.

A Regional Treaty
A potentially productive approach would be for all nonnuclear Arctic states to work together on a regional treaty, as allowed for in Article VII of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, "to assure the total absence of nuclear weapons from their respective territories." Norway, Sweden and Finland, all with sovereign territory north of the Arctic Circle, are nuclear weapon-free. Greenland has a U.S. military base at Thule, but Denmark is a nonnuclear weapon state (NNWS). Canada is already a de facto nuclear-free country. The Northwest Passage, a shipping channel which passes many islands of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, is a very unfavorable passageway for submarines because it is narrow and shallow, posing severe difficulty to both the maneuverability and undetectability of a submarine. This passage is very probably a de facto nuclear weapon-free zone. Regarding surface travel through the Northwest Passage, maritime safety in these dangerous waters would certainly dictate obtaining an international agreement to ban nuclear fissile materials.

Declaring only a portion of the Arctic regions and waters to be a NWFZ could be problematic. On the other hand, partial solutions, taken together, could be the right path.

For the reasons outlined above, it is a realistic hope that the two nuclear weapon states in the region will make significant reductions in their nuclear arms, creating the negotiating atmosphere that would allow them to turn their attention to an Arctic NWFZ.

The issue of a NWFZ is central to the Arctic security environment. Arctic peoples have a right to be secure from nuclear weapons stationed on their land or in their seas.

Declaring a partial NWFZ in Canada, in the Northwest Passage, would be difficult because it would focus attention on assertions by the U.S. and others that it is an international waterway, whereas the mutual benefit of both Canada and the U.S. would be to keep the status quo. In this reality, it would be easier for the Canadian government to designate the whole of Canada as a NWFZ.

Such a legislative act by Canada would show persuasive leadership, leading to a regional treaty between all the NNWS in the Arctic. The cumulative effect would model the process for the United States and Russia.

Once the NWFZ in Africa enters into force, as now expected, 110 countries, including the entire southern hemisphere, will be protected by NWFZs. Each NWFZ is unique, with different terms of agreement. This is a helpful precedent in that both the U.S. and Russia could, with the right political will, designate only their territories north of the Arctic Circle as nuclear weapon-free, without having to change other nuclear security strategies.

Comparison with the legal and political framework of the Antarctic is of interest, although the situation differs greatly. In 1991, the Madrid Protocol designated Antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science, and prohibited mining exploration activities indefinitely. Environmental protection, wisely seen to be necessary in the Antarctic, might serve as a useful starting point in the Arctic too.

The challenges of opening the Arctic are unprecedented. Providing an equitable governance regime calls for a high degree of international cooperation and a resolution of rivalries. An Arctic Treaty would reduce conflict and provide an opportunity to embed the expectation of a NWFZ. An Arctic NWFZ, introduced conceptually in the near future, could gradually gain support. It would be a significant step toward disarmament, and would build confidence toward a nuclear weapon-free world.

Dr. Adele Buckley is a physicist, engineer and environmental scientist. She is a member of the Pugwash Council, a cofounder and former vice president of MDS Sciex, and formerly vice president of technology & research at the Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement.

I believe the Culture of Peace transcends boundaries. It transcends differences in age, and it transcends differences in culture. It is the most universal thing that you can have.

I worked for a decade for the United Nations and as an Ambassador for Bangladesh, but this mention of the decade has a different significance for me. It was on 31 July 1997 that I wrote to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, at that time Kofi Annan, as the Bangladesh Ambassador, asking him to circulate my request for a separate agenda item on the Culture of Peace for the Plenary sessions of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Since then, it has been nearly ten years, just fifteen days short. That very letter has mushroomed in a big way to this global movement for the Culture of Peace.

The subject matter under the euphemism “Towards a culture of peace” was debated for a number of years before it became a separate agenda item of the UNGA in 1997. The Secretary-General was asked to present a draft program of action, which, after long negotiations for nine months, was adopted in September 1999. Earlier in 1997, the UNGA adopted another resolution declaring the year 2000, the millennium year, as the International Year for the Culture of Peace. The next year, the United Nations adopted a very significant and promising resolution to declare the years 2001 to 2010 as the International Decade for the Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World. I believe that during these last ten years, from July 1997 to this day, the international community has reached a point where we can surely call it a Global Movement for the Culture of Peace. For that, all of you deserve a big “thank you” as well!

Peace is integral to human existence ‚Äî in everything we do, in everything we say and in every thought we have, there is a place for peace. Absence of peace makes our challenges, our struggles, much more difficult. I believe that is why it is very important that we need to keep our focus on creating the Culture of Peace in our lives.