Education for a Culture of Peace:
Lessons from September 11th & Beyond
Wednesday, September 26, 2001

TRANSCENDING THE SPIRAL OF VIOLENCE
Reflections on September 11th and Beyond
By Toh Swee-Hin

2001 is the first year of the United Nations' International Decade for a
Culture of  Peace and  Nonviolence for the Children of the World, a campaign
to encourage all nations and peoples to build a more peaceful,
compassionate, just and sustainable world. Tragically, it is also the year
marked by the violent September 11th  attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon
which constitute a crime against humanity, a gross violation of the basic
rights of thousands of human beings. As preparations forge ahead for
military retaliation by the United States and allied governments, millions
more, already living in desperate conditions in war-torn Afghanistan, will
suffer amidst the growing tide of refugees. As the United Nations warns, a
great humanitarian disaster is already underway.

In countries like Canada, children and adults have been deeply affected by
grief and emotional shock. Many are worried that the crisis may spiral into
a wider conflict, further terrorist violence, and perhaps a new world war.
There have been loud expressions of anger among citizens and political
leaders as they call for revenge and justice, now crystallized as a "war
against international terrorism."  However, although less visible in
mainstream media, there are also voices counseling against armed
retaliation, advocating for a non-violent response to the attacks and the
concomitant political crisis.

Amidst this complexity of emotions, reactions, analyses, strategic planning,
advocacy and lobbying for the minds and hearts of citizens, all educators
face major responsibilities and  challenges. Foremost is the task of
creating respectful spaces where dialogue can equitably occur among a range
of perspectives or worldviews.  Regrettably, much of mainstream media has
not opted to foster such dialogue.  Second, it is crucial for education
about "September 11th  and beyond" to help overcome feelings of despair and
powerlessness, and empower everyone to act to transform the crisis. In my
view, it means education that diverts nations, leaders and citizens from
pursuing a culture of violence and war towards building a culture of peace
and nonviolence.

The case for waging a relentless "war" against terrorism, including the use
of military force if necessary, has been loudly proclaimed by leaders and
well advertised by mainstream media. Propositions that promote active
non-violence for resolving conflicts have been muted or inadequately
discussed. But if we are to learn from the recent history of  long-standing
violent  political conflicts, it has not been the continuing armed fighting
or  terrorism and counter-terrorism, which opened the door to possible
peace. Rather, as in the cases of Northern Ireland, Central America, the
Philippines, Israel/Palestine, and South Africa, it was through the
political will of combatants or opposing sides to negotiate that peace
accords resulted. While these accords still require effective and complex
implementation to prevent a relapse into violence, they provide ordinary
citizens some human rights protection and respite from the cross-fires,
group/state terrorism, and  dehumanizing refugee conditions. In contrast,
militaristic responses have been shown to escalate and perpetuate the cycle
of violence and counter-violence.

Many individuals and groups have appropriately called the September 11
attacks a crime against humanity. Nevertheless, rather than envisioning the
call for justice in narrow terms of vengeance and vigilantism, the task of
bringing the perpetrators to justice needs to embrace the rule of law.
Significant progress has already been made in the human rights field to have
those guilty of crimes against humanity stand trial in international
tribunals (e.g., Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia). The "right" to armed
response in self-defense of national or group interests, much like the "just
war" doctrine found in some religions, has an inherent limitation --  it can
be invoked continuously by combatants in a conflict.  Nonviolent application
of the rule of law will often need patience but it can transcend the cycle
of violence more sustainably.

Some commentators also advocate the wisdom of seeking justice with
reconciliation, such as witnessed in the South African experiment. As Bishop
Tutu noted, key leaders of a repressive apartheid regime and the ANC-led
freedom movement decided it was in the best interests of all South African
peoples not to pursue the spiral of violent conflict which can only lead to
a mutually destructive civil war.  Instead, creative and courageous forging
of a negotiated settlement based on "truth and reconciliation" laid some
basic conditions for building a more just and non-racist society.  Equally
inspiring is the plea of the widow of a US military officer killed in
September 11th, asking her nation's leaders "not to take the path that leads
to more widespread hatreds - that make my husband's death just one more in
an unending spiral of killing."

Like other people worldwide, I grieve deeply over the loss of thousands of
human beings including the dedicated, heroic rescuers who lost their lives
in September 11th. My grief and empathy, however, is based on a sense of
common humanity, that the victims were all human beings regardless of
nationality or culture. As I grieve, I also remember that I have  been
grieving for a long time, ever since  I became more aware of  world issues
and problems.  I recall my first vicarious encounter of  state terrorism
inflicted on countless South African human beings, which moved me to join
the non-violent anti-apartheid solidarity movement. I still feel the grief
of the thousands of Chileans tortured or executed by the Pinochet
dictatorship which received aid and backing from some powerful North
nations.  I feel great grief over the 200,000 East Timorese killed by the
Indonesian military under President Suharto, a then favoured ally of North
nations inclined only to protect their economic and geopolitical interests
in Indonesia. I still grieve for the 58,000 US soldiers and the over 1
million Vietnamese who died in a needless Cold War-inspired conflict. I
grieve for the 500,000 Iraqi children who have died due to the  post-Gulf
War sanctions, or the over 10 million children yearly whose lives are
prematurely ended by  hunger and disease in our very unequal world order.
For indigenous peoples worldwide, I continue to grieve over the past 500
years of colonial violence, cultural destruction and displacements they have
endured and continue to face under today's aggressive globalization from
above.

I need to express these moments of past and continuing grief  because it is
only ethical that we are not selective in empathizing with human beings in
suffering. We need to express a universal mode of grieving over injustices,
repression and crimes against humanity.  My grief for the September 11th
victims is certainly not diminished in respect and compassion, even as I
recall the many episodes of  violence worldwide over many centuries, nor
does this imply a reduced  condemnation of this recent crime against
humanity. Most importantly, by practising universal grieving, we are better
able to appreciate how sometimes, it may well be "us" who are directly or
indirectly complicit in acts of violence or terrorism against "others".

Another reflection brings me to the issue of root causes of conflicts and
violence. Any policy which seeks to effectively and sustainably resolve a
societal or world problem such as terrorism requires a deep understanding of
underlying causes. In this regard, there is already a body of analyses which
identifies a range of historical and contemporary political, economic,
social and cultural injustices and marginalization at the roots of  these
conflicts and enmities. Specific foreign policies, not just of the US but
also other powerful North states and agencies  and allied South elites, that
serve narrow geopolitical and economic interests (e.g., safeguarding oil
resources, Cold War  aims, profit-maximizing globalization) have set in
motion the cycles of frustration, bitterness, hatred and a sense of
victimization that are fertile grounds for the growth of  armed resistance
and contemporary terrorism. Equally important, internal root causes must be
addressed, such as social/economic injustices, "fundamentalist" religious
interpretations and practices, xenophobic schooling, and authoritarian
governance by local elites.

This is not to imply that challenging structural inequalities is inevitably
violent. There are various exemplars of peaceful people power  movements in
both North and South societies. But if we wish to truly transcend wars and
violent conflicts rooted in such inequities and marginalization often backed
by state-sponsored terrorism on citizens, then those political, economic,
social and cultural roots must be addressed, not symptomatically repressed
by powerful doses of  missiles, military aid or  installing "friendly"
regimes. Military victories over one or more groups do not necessarily
prevent the formation of new groups or fresh recruits for new rounds of more
violence.

Regrettably, some commentators have distorted calls to address root causes
as somehow supporting the September 11th attacks or terrorism in general.
Hence, it bears reiterating here that seeking to address the causes of
conflicts and violence does not mean justifying counter-violence.  It means
understanding why and how such violent reactions and strategies have
emerged. It calls on committed efforts to resolve the armed conflicts
through negotiation, and to implement a global truth and reconciliation
project. It means definitely that those groups, individuals and state
leaders who commit acts of violence or terrorism are not absolved of
personal responsibility, and hence need to be  non-violently brought to
justice. Importantly, it means a humble sense of self-criticism, a
willingness to acknowledge that some groups or leaders now identified as
terrorists were originally nurtured and supported by powerful nations and
allies in the cause of "defending democracy and freedom."

Our educational institutions can contribute much to the critical and
constructive understanding of complex issues and themes around the tragic
events of September 11th  and beyond.  At all levels, it is possible to
infuse education for a culture of peace so that all learners and teachers
can understand the root causes of violence and conflicts. This
understanding, in turn, will hopefully empower citizens to actively
participate in the formulation of their nation's foreign and domestic
policies underpinned by principles of justice and active nonviolence. Hence,
even when armed retaliation begins, countries like Canada, with  our
"middle-power" status and a long record of peacekeeping,  can still play a
vital role in mobilizing nonviolent conflict resolution strategies.
Political leaders will need to  exercise critical independence to transcend
coercive edicts  like "either you are with us or you are with international
terrorism," and to disengage from a  "war" coalition to building a "peace"
coalition.  But this is more likely to happen when a critical mass of
Canadians realize the grave dangers of militarized escalation of the cycle
of violence, and begin to grieve with the millions of Afghanis fleeing from
the threat of  imminent war, desperately cut off from humanitarian relief.

Education for peace also calls for deepening and extending the concept and
practice of "safe and caring" or "peaceful" schools, now found across
Canada and other countries.  If  we are encouraging our children to approach
conflicts and violence in constructive nonviolent ways, how credible would
our call be if we do not apply these same principles to building safe and
caring societies, and a safe and caring world?  Just as war and
counter-violence are not encouraged in schools, likewise adults and leaders
need to role-model such conduct in the wider society and world.   Citizens
can legitimately expect their governments to enhance their personal safety
and security (e.g. an effective policing and justice system),  but this
should not entail resorting to war and armed violence.

In Canada, multiculturalism and multicultural education have helped to
enhance inter-cultural respect and appreciation of diversity. What is
limiting, however, is a superficial  approach focusing on "dance, diet,
dress and dialect." As a result, substantive and difficult issues of
discrimination, racism, and structural inequalities are neglected, while an
authentic dialogue among  civilizations --  a deep, respectful and humble
self-critical sharing of civilization's values, strengths and weaknesses --
rarely happens.  The urgent need for such critical multicultural education
and dialogue among civilizations is highlighted by the backlash of
intolerance, stereotyping, "collective punishment" and racist attacks
experienced by  Muslims and Arab North Americans or Europeans in the
aftermath of September  11th.  Without such in-depth dialogue and
understanding, "demonization" and "racialization" of the "other" happens all
too easily.

Education for a culture of peace also focuses centrally on the role played
by media in reporting the attacks and subsequent events. Over the past three
weeks, it is clear that, apart from the space given for grieving and
empathy, significant  sections of mainstream media have opted to directly or
indirectly support feelings and policies based on  vengeance, armed
retaliation, ultra-patriotism and intolerance against a demonized "other."
Educators hence need to help learners and citizens demystify such dominant
media presentations, and to seek alternative sources of  "truth" and
perspectives that have not been  invited into mainstream media space.
In recent days, there has also been a disturbing emergence of official and
media voices that do not respect or tolerate alternative worldviews speaking
for nonviolent resolution strategies and/or analyzing root causes.  To
question official policies of  "war" has somehow been reduced to support or
sympathy for "terrorism" or even "anti-Americanism." Education for peace
needs to assertively challenge these voices, for they undermine the very
basis of the democracy being "protected." If active citizens cannot exercise
their rights to think and speak freely and critically without being labeled
"enemies," what kind of "civilization" are those voices speaking for?

A final reflection brings me to the space of our inner being, where
profoundly complex and challenging issues of spirituality are nurtured.  As
thinkers and practitioners of  many faiths and  spiritual beliefs constantly
remind us,  we need to struggle to cultivate values of peacefulness,
non-violence,  justice and compassion. Not only would these values help
promote intercultural and inter-civilizational understanding and respect,
they also integrally link with life-world issues like consumerism,
materialism and  power. As we rethink the root causes of conflicts and
violence worldwide, we are challenged to deeply transform excessively
consumerist lifestyles that fuel policies and structures of inequity and
human rights violations. In sum, are we willing to live gently with billions
of human beings and also planet earth in an authentic spirit of nonviolence,
solidarity, justice, sustainability  and compassion?

Toh Swee-Hin is a professor in international, intercultural and global
education, University of Alberta. In 2001, he was awarded the UNESCO Prize
for Peace Education.

Toh Swee-Hin (S.H.Toh)  PhD
Professor, Ed Policy Studies
7-104 Educvation North
Univrsity of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta  T6G 2G5
Ph: (780) 492-2556
Fax:  (780) 492-0762
e-mail: s.h.toh@ualberta.ca