Global security and global civil society

Technos: Quarterly for Education and Technology, Winter, 2001 by Janet Bloomfield

It is in the shelter of each other that the people live.

--Irish proverb

I would like to stress from the outset that I am not a diplomat, academic expert, or official. I am an activist and peace campaigner. I have tried for the last 20 years of my life to be an active and aware member of civil society, locally, nationally, and internationally. So my focus in this article is on the role of civil society in creating global security.

On October 13, 2001, I stood on the plinth of Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square in the heart of central London looking at a crowd of about 50,000 people calling for peace and justice and an end to terror and bombing. There were thousands of placards, but one stood out for me. It simply said, "WHY?" I am sure that is a question most people have asked themselves since the dreadful events of September 11 unfolded in front of the eyes of the world ...

And when I looked at that placard, I remembered a previous, much smaller gathering that I attended earlier last year. It was an Oxford Research Group (O.R.G.) consultation on National Missile Defence with decision makers from all the key countries involved, experts, and members of O.R.G. Professor Paul Rogers of the Bradford School of Peace Studies spoke about his analysis of the prospects for Global Security in our new century. The nub of his remarks are as follows:

   Western strategies for controlling a polarized and environmentally
   constrained world do not take into account the fundamental vulnerabilities
   of modern urban-industrial states to asymmetric warfare.... Attempting to
   keep the lid on--"liddism"--without addressing the core reasons for dissent
   will not work.... It is reasonable to conclude that the coming years
   represent a period of fundamental challenge and potential transformation.
   The early decades of the 21st century could be an era in which deep
   divisions in the world community lead to instability and violence that will
   transcend boundaries and affect rich and poor alike. They could also be an
   era of substantial progress in developing a more socially just and
   environmentally sustainable world order. * [emphasis added]

How tragically prescient! In the discussion that followed, a senior physician from the United Kingdom National Health Service told us that all major medical institutions in the UK had recently received stockpiles of anti-nerve gas agents. I wrote in my small notebook, "government preparing for the coming chaos ..."

Another valued colleague and peace researcher from Britain, Mary Kaldor, in early 1999 outlined the stark reality of the situation we face. Her analysis perhaps goes some way toward answering the question "WHY?"

   Most contemporary wars are about identity politics--that is to say, the
   exclusive claim to power on the basis of identity, be it ethnic, religious,
   or linguistic. This type of conflict cannot be channeled into peaceful
   directions. The goals of the conflict are to "sow fear and hatred," to
   eliminate physically opponents of a different identity. These goals can
   only be pursued through violence--genocide, ethnic cleansing, and so on.
   Moreover, since the parties to the conflict depend on outside support or on
   loot and pillage of civilians, there tend to be deeply entrenched political
   and economic interests in a continuation of violence. [Boston Review,
   February/March 1999]

But how do nongovernmental organizations help themselves and their fellow citizens--including you and me--to understand this world of "new wars," "asymmetric threats," "nonstate actors," "failed states," "liddism," and all the other intellectual buzzwords?

I have found that trying to think through what it really means for the world to be one very small place really helps. So for a moment, let us engage in a thought experiment. Pretend that we are in a room of about 200 people, making up a global village, if you will. One hundred forty of us are unable to read; only 2 of us have a college education. More than 100 of us would be suffering from malnutrition, and more than 160 of us would live in substandard housing. Forty of us receive 75 percent of the income; another 40 receive only 2 percent of the income. Besides all of this, our village is facing extreme environmental pressures and a rapidly changing climate.

The final burden we face is that the village has access to enough explosive power in nuclear weapons to blow itself to smithereens many times over. Plus a huge inventory of conventional explosives, with all manner of delivery systems, plus hundreds of small arms, plus the possibility of the use of chemical and biological agents, which is available to those with the will to do so. Is it any wonder that the villagers feel deeply insecure? That the majority sees the minority who has access to most of the wealth and resources as a threat? That the minority feels threatened by the majority and unsure of what may happen in the village in the future? History would suggest that this village be on the brink of a violent and bloody revolution. But perhaps if this village really did exist (and doesn't it?), the villagers would be close enough to each other's lives and experiences to realize that none of them can have a safe future if the community continues in its old ways. No one can be safe unless they are all safe. Perhaps they would begin to see another way forward. Perhaps they would see the value and necessity of recognizing their common humanity and their interdependence.