Be the Students of Life and Teachers of Peace

I have been granted the immense honor to host on my blog the commencement speech addressed today by Dr. Óscar Arias Sánchez, Nobel Peace Laureate and two times Costa Rican president, to the alumni graduating from Soka University at Hachioji, Tokyo, Japan. Here are his inspiring words for a world that urgently needs more peace:

"Esteemed faculty, graduates, and families:

Friendship is one of the most beautiful and mysterious secrets in life. It takes people as different as can be, and ties them together with an unbreakable bond. It can unite us across divisions of age, gender, race, nationality and class. And it has united a young man who grew up among the seaweed farms of Tokyo, with a young man who grew up among the coffee fields of Costa Rica. I am honored to call Daisaku Ikeda my friend, and to have had several opportunities over the years to benefit from his support, inspiration and collaboration. In the universe of human accomplishment, art, philosophy and wisdom, the nation of Japan is one of the brightest galaxies in the firmament; Daisaku Ikeda is one of the brightest corners of that galaxy; and in the remarkable constellation that is his life work, Soka University, without any doubt, is one of the brightest stars. I am honored to have been invited to visit, once more, this extraordinary place, a beacon of peace and progress for the world.

At first glance, one would say that my friendship with your founder is not based on a shared nationality, or a shared language, or a shared job. But in a way, it is based on all those things. Our friendship is based on the shared job of making the world a more peaceful place. It is based on the shared language of peace. It is based on the shared nationality that belongs to all those of us who recognize that borders are only lines sketched by humans on the world map; who place our common identity as humans before all others; and who call ourselves citizens of the world.

            This is a job, and a language, and a nationality that all of you join today when you receive your degree. The mission of this institution is one I wish that more educators would take on as their own mission. It is a goal that echoes a belief I have expressed for many years at schools and universities all over the world: the belief that if we are to create a more peaceful world, that process must begin in our classrooms and lecture halls.

            The novel “Love and Pedagogy,” by Spanish writer Miguel de Unamuno, tells the story of a father obsessed with educating a genius. This tragic work makes no attempt to hide its message. It shows us what happens when education is a simple compendium of facts without values, ideas without emotions. When we form scholars, but not wise men. When we form experts, but not human beings.

Dr. Ikeda has said that “a great Human Revolution in just a single individual will help achieve a change in the destiny of a society and further, will enable a change in the destiny of all humankind.”  Education must create just this kind of human revolution, or it is not worth the effort. It must be the greatest agent of change in the destiny of humankind, or it has failed in its mission. Education is not an end in itself – it is a path. It is a way to overcome a kind of eternal adolescence that has struggled for millennia to reach maturity. It is not enough to say, “We educate,” or “We have been educated.” We must ask, “To what end?” We must ask what kind of society we are building through our arts and sciences.

When we look at today’s leading universities and colleges, it seems obvious that we are educating in order to create more prosperous societies. The twentieth century was, without a doubt, the most prolific multiplier of wealth in history. Hundreds of millions of people emerged from poverty in the last few decades. For the first time in memory, more than half of the world population belongs to the middle class. A planet that is growing at an exponential rate has managed, with surprising ingenuity, the lack of resources that this growth implies. Technology has connected every corner of the world. In material terms, we have never been better off. But we can see that this material development, while essential to human development, is not the only thing we need.

That same twentieth century, generator of fortunes and opportunities, was also the birthplace of unprecedented barbarity. Never before has humankind killed on such a scale. Never before has hate poisoned our words to such a degree. Never before has death reigned with such impunity over all races. Never before have so many tears been shed because of man-made tragedies. Never before have so many minds, so many ideas, been wasted in the name of torture and violence.

What was the role of education in all of this? How did the academy contribute to the decline of the human spirit? Were illiterates responsible for the worst genocide in history? Was ignorance or lack of access to the texts and thoughts of wise men to blame for the civil wars in which millions of brothers killed each other? Did we have too few teachers? Or could it be that we had too many soldiers?

The answer is that education was not enough. The world forgot to add an essential course to the curriculum that it teaches its young. The world forgot to add a course that brings heart to our thoughts, and soul to our studies. That course is one that I like to think of as “Peace and Pedagogy.”And it is one that is found on the curriculum of Soka University.

Peace and Pedagogy means education for peace, and with peace. There is no point in forming learned men and women who do not understand the value of a life. There is no point in forming professors for whom war is justified. There is no point in graduating students who do not care if dozens of people die every day in the most cruel and absurd violation of human rights: armed conflict. No student, of any discipline, in any country, should be unaware of the cries of the victims of Iraq and Afghanistan, of Colombia and Sudan, of Somalia and Myanmar. No student, of any discipline, in any country, should be unaware of the fact that most casualties in wars today consist of innocent civilians, and not soldiers who have chosen to fight. No student, of any discipline, in any country, should be unaware that there are 17,000 nuclear warheads watching over us as we sleep, waiting for any moment of insanity or carelessness to strike. No student, of any discipline, in any country, should be unaware that the world spent 1.75 trillion dollars on weapons and war in 2012 alone, at a time when tiny fractions of that sum could eliminate preventable diseases, hunger, and illiteracy from the face of the earth. No student, of any discipline, in any country, should be unaware that 640 million small arms and light weapons flow uncontrolled across borders every day while we await the ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty that was approved last year by the United Nations.

One does not need to subscribe to any particular ideology to understand that this is absurd, and that it is entirely within our power as humans to change our course. If our universities cannot teach this, if our elementary and secondary schools fail to transmit this basic concern for human rights, then education fails as an instrument of peace. It fails as a way to heal the pain of humanity.

Educating for peace and with peace means recognizing all of this. It also means building in our classrooms the world we seek to see in the street. So often, our schools are home to a competitive, even violent environment. Students are allowed to carry out a war of words that is the prologue to a war of weapons. They are taught patriotic values that border on xenophobia. They are brought up in a world divided by borders and nationalities, where success is measured in triumphant military campaigns. Nowhere is this more clear than in my own region, Latin America, where students are better able to narrate the glories of soldiers than the accomplishments of those who have struggled for world peace. If we make peace an extracurricular subject, it becomes an extracurricular attitude. It becomes the strange whim of bohemians and dreamers, not the mission of academics and doctors.

This is the challenge that each of you will face when you leave this unique institution, where Peace and Pedagogy really is a part of the curriculum. You will face being written off as unrealistic, naïve, or out of touch with reality. I have said that Soka University is a bright star in the human firmament. It follows that when you leave here, you will, at least sometimes, go from light into darkness. You will go from the fellowship of the student, to the loneliness of the peacemaker in a world that still prizes war. If everyone on the globe were represented by 100 people, only seven of those people would possess a university education – and of those seven, not even one would possess a degree like yours. Not even one would possess a degree that represents not only a grasp of facts and figures, not only mastery of data and disciplines, but also a profound commitment to nonviolence, to negotiation, to changing the misplaced priorities and twisted paradigms that have for too long cast a shadow over human history.

But that is no reason to fear. This is the quest for which your studies have prepared you. I urge you not to falter. I urge you not to fail. I urge you to look back, every day of your lives, to the determination you feel at this moment, and to draw from it the strength you need.

My friends:

It is in the spirit of friendship that I have come here today. The spirit of the friendship between our countries; the spirit of the friendship I share with your founder; and the spirit of the friendship that unites all those who seek peace. That is the friendship that will sustain you through the challenges ahead. Never forget the words of Mahatma Gandhi: “A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history. Nonviolence of the strong is any day stronger than that of the bravest soldier fully armed or a whole host.”

            The determined spirits I see before me have been students in these hallowed halls. Now that you are moving into the world beyond, you must be more than that. You must be professors. You must prepare yourselves to bring these lessons of peace and pedagogy to a greater audience. When you pass through these doors, become students of life, and teachers of peace – to continue learning how to heal our planet, as you share the lessons you have learned here with the world.

            Thank you very much."

Óscar Arias Sánchez

Former President of Costa Rica

Nobel Peace Laureate 1987

Commencement Address

Soka University, Japan
Thursday, March 20th, 2014

Transforming Global Conflict #1: Personal Anecdotes

From 2002 to 2004, I studied a Masters degree in Peace Studies andConflict Transformation at Tromsø University in northern Norway. Back then, Iwas convinced the most severe conflict humanity was facing was the “War onTerror”, a euphemism for many atrocities that have taken place in the name ofgods and motherlands since the Twin Towers episode in New York City in 2001.

In 2007, the Costa Rican president at the time, Dr. Óscar Arias Sánchez,gave a speech at the launching of the international campaign called Peace withNature, in which he raised awareness about the state of environmental affairsin the world. All ecosystems and biodiversity species threatened, he vowed to“not renounce to life on planet Earth.” This became my calling and since then Ihave been eagerly studying Climate Change as the most severe conflict humankindfaces.

It has come quite handy to study conflict transformation. As I learnmore about energy and environment, consumption and pollution, natural constraintsand people’s expectations, I have plotted a matrix of causes and consequencesthat have facilitated my understanding of the issue, allowing me to describediagnoses, prognoses and proposals for effective transformation.

I intend to make a brief description of this intellectualmatrix that both shows the origin of some of our most pressing issues at alocal level, and also presents a clear exit path into the future. This is anempirical effort to raise awareness and generate enthusiasm through thevirtuous strategy of ethical action. As Emile Durkheim once said: “When valuesare sufficient, laws are unnecessary; when values are insufficient, laws areunenforceable.” This is why I strongly believe ethics is the common thread outof this big mess. 

"A Critical Mass of Leaders Wanting to Think Different"

Today I attended a public seminar called "The Climate for Development: Where Next on Climate Change?", at the World Bank in Tokyo. The speaker, Dr. Andrew Steer, special envoy for Climate Change for the World Bank Group, did a wonderful job presenting a realistic and updated diagnosis about this global conflict, as well as new windows of opportunity to move forward.

I found it remarkable that, according to a recent global poll, much more people are concerned with climate change in developing countries than in developed countries. It ranges from 48% concern in the United States and 68% in European countries, to 80% in Latin America, 90% in Africa and the Middle East, 93% in Southeast Asia and up to 99% in small island countries.

This statistics made me wonder if richer people think climate change will in fact affect poorer people first or more, when the truth is that we cannot ascertain that as a fact. Furthermore, it is my belief that the lifestyles of the rich and famous will be affected more dramatically than the lifestyles of the less privileged societies in the world. I mean, those of us living beyond our global footprint per capita will be forced -by nature, by law or by ethics- to reduce our consumption of material possessions drastically.

Dr. Steer raises an interesting question: why is the World Bank concerned about climate change if the main purpose of the institution is poverty reduction? He makes the case that climate change will make us all poorer, not richer. Therefore, it represents a great global threat to poverty alleviation.

When he shows the figures of the money required for climate change needs (US$120 billion for adaptation + US$220 billion for mitigation annually = US$340 billion), I do not find it a very a big figure, considering that, by 2010, the world was spending US$1.6 trillion in military armament. This means that the money we as a civilisation are spending on guns and weapons exceeds by 5 times the amount needed to transform climate change effectively according to experts. So there is hope if we think about addressing the issue by shifting expenses in armament to expenses in forests, water treatment plants, soil fertility, sustainable agriculture, renewable energies, capacity building in ecosystems and biodiversity conservation, etc. Then we could say we are preparing to fight the global battle that we really need to fight together, and not us versus them.

I reminded Dr. Steer that I have been appointed as Ambassador to Japan to develop a green growth strategy between Costa Rica and Japan. I also reminded him that, while the global diplomatic community is working on a legally binding deal to curb carbon emissions worldwide, Costa Rica launched in 2007 an initiative to achieve carbon neutrality by 2021. It is not a public policy. There is no law behind it. It is simply the result of bold, ethical leadership by former president Dr. Oscar Arias Sanchez, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and the embrace of the challenge by the organized civil society including private corporations, academic institutions, not-for-profit entities, and of course, the government. This scenario reminds me of Emile Durkheim, the famous French sociologist, who said: "When values are sufficient, laws are unnecessary; when values are insufficient, laws are unenforceable."

A country like Costa Rica, that abolished its military army in 1948 (yes, 64 years ago), who is a world leader in environmental conservation and sustainability, is poised to lead the world in the endeavour of swapping guns for trees. We need to reduce our militaries and at the same time increase our forests. We need to prioritize and focus on the real battle human civilization needs to fight.

As Dr. Steer reminded us at the end of his seminar, "what it takes is a critical mass of leaders that want to do things different."

I hope you too are one of us.

Speech at Sasakawa Peace Foundation: Long-term Benefits of Demilitarization in Costa Rica

Introduction.

It is my great honor to address such distinguished audience at this institution that embraces such noble purpose as the promotion of international peace among nations of the world. I would like to thank Sasakawa Peace Foundation and most particularly their Executive Director, Junko Chano-san, for her invitation to participate in this event and share with you some thoughts about my country’s efforts to promote international peace.

In an effort to present a case for international peace from the Costa Rican approach, I would like to comment a very brief history of Costa Rica’s demilitarization, illustrating the value proposition of what this means to us as a nation and what it represents to the world. Also, I would like to exemplify some benefits of this decision and present some challenges that lie ahead for the international community in terms of peace and disarmament, and conclude with some final considerations of what demilitarization means for international peace in the world we live in today.

First, I would like to elaborate on the concept of violence and peace. The Jainist religion from India defines violence as anything that alters harmony. Then, there are several forms of violence, from the direct physical violence of a homicide, to the structural violence of contamination of air and water, which ultimately affects both human and non-human life on the planet.

I would catalogue military spending as indirect violence for two reasons: first, because it represents an imminent threat to human life as the institutionalized power of violent force; and second, because the opportunity cost of spending in arms and weaponry implies that such funds cannot be spent in other more virtuous expenses, such as education, healthcare or environmental conservation.

Johan Galtung, a Norwegian peace philosopher, defines peace as “the ability to transform conflicts creatively, empathically and harmoniously.” This means, to think about solutions to human incompatibilities in a way that generates innovative ideas that keep us moving along the path to prosperity; always keeping the other in mind when thinking about the consequences of my behaviors and decisions; and, most importantly, to do so without violence, not inflicting damage or pain or loss to the other.

In that regard, the abolishment of a military army is a virtuous and civilized political decision towards a more peaceful coexistence between human beings towards a more prosperous future for all.

I. Abolishing the army: a brief history.

In 1948, Costa Rica was the scenario of a sociopolitical unrest that originated from an allegedly fraudulent electoral process. This led to a confrontation that became violent and both parties resorted to weapons to fight for what they considered their legitimate right.

A man by the name José Figueres Ferrer became the leader of the national liberation army, which was a paramilitary army of 700 men, some of which were foreigners from neighboring Latin American countries. This contingent was poorly armed and trained, but in 44 days managed to defeat the national state army and instate what became known as the Founding Junta of the Second Republic. During 18 months, Figueres Ferrer himself led a process through which Costa Rica issued a new Constitution including some paramount reforms that have shaped the country’s idiosyncrasy ever since.

One of these reforms was the permanent abolishment of the state military army.

History offers a particular view about this event within the circumstantial perspective of the time. As it has been stated before, this was a weak, poorly armed military body. Abolishing it did not imply a particularly large political cost. There was not going to be much opposition to the decision, especially after being defeated by a group of poorly trained and armed men.

It is said that Figueres Ferrer inspired his decision on a quote from H.G. Wells’s book “The Outline of History”, which says that “the future of mankind cannot include armed forces. Police yes, because people are imperfect.” He aimed at creating a society that would reach a higher level of civilization in which conflicts would never be dealt with through the violence of firearms.

II. A value proposition.

This historical decision has had profound repercussions domestically as well as abroad. For once, all nations around the world, most particularly our immediate neighboring countries of Nicaragua and Panama, have the certainty that Costa Rica will never resort to military power as a way to solve conflicts across borders.

Perhaps the most tangible example of this reality is the present border conflict that Costa Rica and Nicaragua are facing since October of 2010. An occupation of Nicaraguan military troops into Costa Rican territory triggered an international campaign by Costa Rican diplomacy both to legitimize its right to vindicate its sovereignty and territorial claim, as well as to take action at the corresponding international court of justice at The Hague as its fundamental defense strategy.

Would Costa Rica had an army, it is likely to imagine that it would have been deployed to fight the aggression by force. Although there were some isolated cries for militarization in the wake of this conflict, no one in Costa Rica dares to suggest the name and location of the first soldier we would choose to see perish in combat. As Ryoichi Sasakawa once said, “Blessed is the Costa Rican mother, who knows at the time of birth that her child will never be a soldier.”

In 1948, the world, most particularly Europe and Japan, had learned the hard way that war was never the way towards prosperity. The lesson was well learned, and it is no coincidence that today both the European as well as the Japanese nations are among the most prosperous in the world. These cultures understood the principles of peaceful coexistence and have embraced them ever since.

Figueres Ferrer had been very studious of European models of human development. World War II had a profound effect on him and made clear to him that the path towards development could not include military power in the equation.

III. Some benefits.

Looking back at Latin American history, one notorious difference between Costa Rica and many of its neighbors is that there has never been a military intervention in political or state affairs. If a foreign power would have wanted to infiltrate the military to influence political leadership in a country, as it has happened so many times, this was never a possibility in Costa Rica.

This has provided a solid political stability that has guaranteed, since 1948, that all political disputes have been solved in accordance with constitutional rules.

As I have said before, not having an army is a guarantee to the international community, most in particular to our immediate next-door neighbors, that they will never receive a military aggression from Costa Rica. This is why it is said that Costa Rica has waged peace on the world.

A third remarkable benefit of demilitarization for Costa Rica has been the possibility to reallocate military spending towards more virtuous and humane purposes, such as healthcare, education and environmental conservation. Costa Rica has embraced education as a pillar towards development since the 1880s, as well as healthcare to all inhabitants of the country, be they indigenous or migrant, regardless of their legal status through a world-renowned universal healthcare system.

Regarding environmental conservation, the country is well known internationally as an active promoter of sustainable development, ecological tourism, renewable energies and biodiversity. This is why it is said that Costa Rica, after waging peace on the world has also waged peace on nature.

Yet another benefit is the culture of peace. Having no military forces, there is no military training and therefore not a vast knowledge about how to deal with firearms. According to the Costa Rican Constitution, bearing weapons is not a right but a privilege granted by the State to people that prove sufficient understanding of the risks of keeping weapons at home or carrying them.

IV. Challenges of demilitarization.

A few decades ago, civil wars were present in three Central American countries. A peace plan presented by Costa Rica before the international community resulted in strong political commitments from all Central American governments to make all necessary efforts to restore peace. As a result, former Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sánchez was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987. Also, as a result, civil wars were eradicated from the region, with relative political stability since then.

Today the challenges faced by the region also have to do with armed violence. Six of the seven most violent countries in the world in 2011 are in the Caribbean basin of Latin America, and three of those are in Central America. These homicide epidemics represent the greatest obstacle to development in the region, without a doubt the most violent region in the world today. Although this has no relation with institutionalized demilitarization, it represents an urgent need to disarm extremely violent populations that show no respect for human life.

On a positive note, Panama has taken the decision a few years back to abolish its military army, which means that Costa Rica shares with its southern neighbor perhaps the safest border in the world, with no military presence on either side of the international border.

Precisely, another challenge of demilitarization today is the urgency to patrol borders and domestic waters against drug trafficking. Central America and Mexico is the natural bridge of heavy narcotics that are trafficked between South America and North America. This has created an illegal market economy of storage, distribution and sale of drugs that has corrupted millions of people in the region pushing them towards violent crime to earn a living and die young.

The drug war in Mexico, in which the military army has been fighting drug lords and cartels over the past 5 years has rendered nearly 50,000 deaths. It is questionable whether military intervention has been successful. Inevitably, the question looms large about what are alternatives to such intervention by the use of force.

V. Final considerations.

Moreover, at a global level re-militarization is an increasingly worrisome situation. By 2010, the world has managed to reach an amount of military spending of $1.6 trillion dollars. Compared to the financial needs to accomplish by 2015 the millennium development goals launched by the United Nations in the year 2000, military spending exceeds such amount by 30 times.

Also, compared to the Climate Change adaptation costs suggested by the Stern Report in 2005, military spending exceeds the amount by 15 times. In other words, the money spent in military armament and weapons is enough to finance adaptation to climate change and all Millennium Development Goals together more than ten times.

The question is which enemy is it that military armies are preparing to fight against. It makes one wonder if they are aware of human-made environmental challenges that already represent a serious threat to civilization as we know it. And yet there is no military army that can fight a battle that knows no borders and that could affect water supplies and fertility of agricultural production to feed all of humanity.

A recent statistic revealed that worldwide we have produced 14 billion rounds of ammunition. That is two bullets per every single person living in the planet. Is this really necessary?

This is a question that has to be dealt with ethically. What is the kind of civilization we expect to build? How much do we wish to embrace peaceful coexistence, the kind that is lived in Japan, a country ranked third in the Global Peace Index?

For countries that do not have an army, like Costa Rica, the abidance of international rule of law represents the ultimate line of defense against any and all foreign aggressions, be it a state aggression such as a foreign military intervention, or a non-state aggression, such as drug trafficking. The recomposition and absolute respect for international treaties and supranational governance enthroned by multilateralism, is not only a guarantee for the preservation of world peace, but, most importantly, the pinnacle of the most civilized peaceful coexistence in today’s world.

In 2006, Costa Rica presented the Costa Rica Consensus, which was an idea to readjust the rules of international cooperation according to each country’s reduction of military spending. The idea consisted on proposing that the countries that more decidedly reduced their military spending would be the ones to rank higher on the list of countries subject to receiving foreign development aid. Unfortunately, this was not an idea deemed virtuous or of merit by the international community. It is no coincidence that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are the biggest sellers of weapons and armament worldwide. They would likely disagree with any international treaty that would promote reduction of military expenditure.

Also in 2006, Costa Rican president Oscar Arias Sánchez led an initiative by a group of Nobel Peace laureates to present what has become known as the Arms Trade Treaty, which was adopted at the United Nations General Assembly as resolution 61/89, “Towards and Arms Trade Treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.”

Along with Costa Rica, Japan is among the original co-authors of the resolution. The passing of this resolution counted with support by 153 countries, with 24 abstentions and only one vote against, by the United States of America, who is responsible for $55 billion dollars a year in international trade of conventional firearms. In October, 2009, president Barack Obama overturned his country’s former position, granting support to such an international treaty. As of September, 2011, 58 US Senators oppose the treaty, representing a sufficient number to block any such treaty from being ratified by the United States.

As the 21st Century moves along into a far more integrated and interconnected global society that at present counts 7 billion inhabitants and is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050, other global challenges will become far more relevant, such as the availability of forests to clean the air that we breathe and the water that we drink, availability of sanitary conditions such as clean water for all the world’s population, availability of fertile lands and oceans to grow our food resources such as agricultural crops and fisheries to feed us all, and availability of human security not threatened by climate-related catastrophes.

Putting our guns down would be an ethical step towards building global trust to get our heads and hearts around dealing effectively with far greater issues than military confrontation. This calls on peaceful nations like Japan, like Costa Rica, to lead the way by example.

As Johan Galtung reminds us, “peace is the ability to transform conflict creatively, empathically and harmoniously.” This is the aim of the Costa Rican nation and the aspiration of Costa Rica to the world.

Thank you.

Alvaro Cedeno Molinari
February 08, 2012
Tokyo, Japan