The Peace Report, Issue #6
By Louise Diamond, Ph.D.

The Building a Culture of Peace conference coming soon in Santa Fe has spawned a very interesting phenomenon. It seems some of the local peace groups (especially anti-nuclear weapons proliferation groups, as befits the area around Los Alamos) are ‘up in arms’ about the conference.

They have various complaints (the State of New Mexico, which is sponsoring the event, cannot do so with integrity since it is aligned with the nuclear industry; the money for the conference would be better spent being given to the complaining peace organizations; no issues of real substance will be discussed there and no new ideas will come out of it; etc.)

In addition to airing their complaints through various media channels (see below, on Peace Journalism), and urging people not to attend, they are now threatening? promising? to take their protest to the streets and demonstrate outside the conference venue.

One of the interesting elements of this situation is that some of the people articulating this dissent are casting themselves as ‘the peace community,’ even as they castigate those involved with the conference as, yep, fakes, softies, or agents of the State Department..

So who or what exactly is ‘the peace community,’ or for that matter, ‘the peace movement?’ Are people involved with reducing teen violence or promoting peer mediation in the schools part of ‘the peace community?’ What about mediators who manage divorce processes or multi-stakeholder environmental problems? And peace musicians and artists, are they in the same movement as anti-war activists? Are international peacebuilders who work in war zones in the same arena as business innovators who create jobs and products related to peace, or as spiritual teachers who provide pathways to inner peace?

How about the foundations that fund the many non-profit organizations, or the religious groups that work for social and economic justice around the world? The psychologists who help relieve the trauma of violence? The human rights advocates who hold nations accountable for their oppressive regimes? The development workers who seek an end to poverty, and the professors who teach about racism,? And let’s hear it for that small handful of national politicians (you know who they are) who have stood up for the ways of peace in the midst of a stampede to war.

We are a vast and intricate network, those of us who care about making ‘peace on earth’ more than a greeting card sentiment. We are a diverse and motley collection that cuts across age, race, gender, ethnicity, sector – in fact, all the usual labels we put on our identity. We have different perspectives and passions unique to our own smaller sub-sets, yet ultimately we aim for the same goal, and all of us are necessary for its realization. I often imagine what our collective power could be should we ever understand that we are a single force for good on this planet, and pool our resources for strategic action.

Which makes it all the sadder for me when I see one small group attempt to lay claim to the mantle of ‘the peace community’ and demonize others who may choose a different path on the same overall quest. What a waste of energy to be protesting against each other, to pick a fight within our own ‘family’ where none need be.

It is true that there are two (at least two) distinct approaches to working for peace. These can be seen, somewhat simplistically, in the anti-war movement and the pro-peace movement. I happen to believe that both are useful, for the one calls attention to the evils of war, oppression, and injustice and says ‘NO!’ while the other calls attention to the new and better ways of living together on this planet that would make those systems obsolete, and says ‘YES!’

What’s interesting, though, is that some of the tools of the former – protest, demonstrations, marches, etc. – even when technically nonviolent, are sometimes full of polarizing, name-calling, blaming, and self-righteousness, the very qualities that the second group is trying to change as the norms of society. It has been a rich and not-always-easy learning experience in Santa Fe, holding the positive tone of a culture of peace within the maelstrom of false accusation, misinformation, and anger coming from within the peace movement.

It’s easy to think of the metaphors – a house divided, a dog chasing its own tail. It becomes immediately obvious what the energy of separation and divisiveness can do to the whole system, even (and especially) when one ‘side’ refuses to ‘fight back.’ (See how deeply steeped in adversarial paradigms even our common language usage is?) And it shows us how much more we need to be in dialogue together, to build bridges, to make revolutionary partnerships, even within our own community.

I am reminded of a series of dialogues I once ran between the Israeli left and the Israeli right. They were quite different from the dialogues between Israelis and Palestinians, and in some respects much harder. Indeed, in all the conflict zones I have ever worked in, sooner or later the parties realize there is as much factionalization and range of differences within their own group as between them and ‘the enemy.’

Let this be a call out, then, for those of us in the various streams of ‘the peace community/peace movement’ to reach out to each other, find greater common ground, and discover how we can build on our various strengths and shared goals to make this world a place where peace does indeed prevail, starting with (where else?) ourselves.