a speech about peace is possible

Speech on Peace Is Possible

Peace is not just a dream, it’s a real possibility. You might think it’s too big a task, but remember, big changes start small.

Imagine a world where everyone gets along, where kindness is the norm. It’s a world we can create together. Let’s explore how peace is possible.

1-minute Speech on Peace Is Possible

Good day, everyone. I’m here to talk about an important belief that shapes our world – “Peace is Possible”.

Let’s start with ourselves. We all have quarrels, right? But then, we shake hands, say sorry, and make up. That’s peace. We don’t stay angry forever. If we can do this, so can the world. It begins with each one of us.

Now, let’s think about our neighborhood. We all are different – different homes, different food, different hobbies. Yet, we play together, share things, and celebrate festivals. We respect these differences and live happily. This is peace too. If our neighborhood can do this, so can the world.

Next, let’s talk about our country. Have you seen a map? It’s full of different colors, each representing a different part of our country. These colors can live side by side on a map, and so can we in real life. This togetherness is peace. If our country can do this, so can the world.

Finally, think about our earth. It’s a big family where everyone has a place. The sky doesn’t fight with the sea, the sun doesn’t quarrel with the moon. If nature can live in peace, so can we.

Remember, peace doesn’t mean everyone is the same. Peace means everyone is different, but we respect those differences. We need to carry this belief in our hearts, spread it through our words and show it in our actions.

Let’s start today. Let’s make peace possible. Because, if we believe in it, we can achieve it. Thank you.

2-minute Speech on Peace Is Possible

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, today I stand before you to talk about a simple yet powerful idea. The idea that peace is not just a dream, but a real possibility.

Let’s start by imagining a world where every child can go to bed without fear, where every mother can go about her day knowing her family is safe. This world is not a fairy tale, but something we can create. That’s the world we dream of when we say “peace is possible.”

You may ask, “Why is peace so important?” Well, peace brings happiness. It allows us to learn from each other, to grow together, and to build a better world for our children. When there’s peace, there’s room for love, for friendship, for understanding. These things make us human, they make our lives worth living.

Now, let’s talk about how we can make peace possible. First, we must understand each other. We all have different thoughts, different cultures, different beliefs. We need to respect these differences. We need to listen, to learn, and to accept. Remember, it’s okay to be different. It’s these differences that make us unique, that make our world colorful.

Second, we must show kindness. Kindness is a language that touches the heart. It doesn’t cost anything to be kind. A simple smile, a helping hand, a kind word, these things can make a big difference. They can turn enemies into friends. They can bring peace.

Lastly, we must believe in peace. Believing is the first step towards achieving. If we believe we can live in peace, we will find a way to make it happen. We will find a way to resolve conflicts, to forgive, and to move forward.

Many great people before us believed in peace and worked hard to make it a reality. People like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela. They taught us that peace is not just a dream, but a real possibility. They showed us that even in the face of great challenges, we can choose peace.

Friends, peace is not a task for the few. It’s a responsibility for all. Each one of us can contribute to peace. By understanding, by showing kindness, by believing, we can make peace possible.

In the end, remember that peace starts with you and me. It starts in our homes, in our schools, in our communities. If we can create peace in these small places, we can create peace in the world.

So, let’s take this step towards peace. Let’s believe that peace is possible. Let’s work together to make our world a peaceful place. Not just for us, but for our children, for our grandchildren, for all the generations to come.

• Speech on Current Education System
• Speech on Current Affairs
• Speech on Curiosity

We also have speeches on more interesting topics that you may want to explore.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Chronicle Conversations
• Article archives
• Issue archives

World Peace in One Hour

About the author.

Nenad Bach   is a musician, composer and peace activist.

18 September 2020 Y ou may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one                       - John Lennon

Is this just a song or wishful thinking? Are these just words or is it prophecy? Is humanity capable of achieving sustainable, everlasting peace?

I say YES, and the time is NOW.

You can't say that there has been a lack of declarations and resolutions on peace: 1948:  Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1978:  Declaration on the Preparation of Societies for Life in Peace 1984:  Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace 1999:  Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace 2011:  The Bruxelles Declaration, “Pledge to Peace” 2016:  Annex to Declaration on the Right to Peace 2018:  The Global Resolution for the Establishment of Infrastructures to Support the Culture of Peace  (not a United Nations resolution)

In 1984, the year I arrived in New York, the United Nations General Assembly, by resolution 39/11, adopted the Declaration of the Right of Peoples to Peace, in which United Nations Member States solemnly proclaimed that the peoples of our planet had a sacred right to peace. Let me repeat this: We all have a sacred right to Peace

Too many leaders, no one to follow Too many clouds, not enough rain Too many words and promises, too hard to swallow Too many innocents died in vain                                 -  “I Will Follow You”  by Nenad Bach

Previous efforts to achieve global peace have all been full of good intentions, but they resulted in too many declarations and not enough action. This is a historic moment, and if we do not seize it, maybe we do not deserve to survive. As is the case when launching a rocket to meet the International Space Station in orbit, there is a very small window of opportunity to make world peace happen. Protecting the existence of all species, sustaining life on Earth, exploring outer space, tackling disease and mortality, solving the pollution problem, coexisting with the environment, electing more women to leadership positions and creating real freedom that includes true private property: world peace is a prerequisite for all of these objectives.  This pandemic should open our eyes to the fact that the First World War ended with the Spanish flu pandemic. So why not use the same modality to end all current wars—now. For this project, I do not rely exclusively on intellectuals or artists or politicians or peace activists. We are all in it—from truck drivers to nurses, from presidents of companies to presidents of countries. Whoever understands the plan and the steps needed to be taken is welcome. I just want to communicate the idea to whomever this resonates with, whether that be the Pope, Paul McCartney, Bono, a hot dog vendor on the corner of First Ave. and Houston St., the Nobel Institute, or any essential worker during the COVID-19 pandemic. We are all in it. Easier said than done? Hear me out. In order to achieve global economic stability and sustainable growth, we should take the following steps and anticipate positive outcomes: 1. Military budgets should stay as they are, amounting to  around $2 trillion  globally, or maybe even increase, but... 2. Fifty per cent of new arms production should be rewired/transformed to build infrastructure and support research and development. 3. If the G20 countries do that, the current global power structure and balance will remain the same, because those countries represent  two thirds of the world’s population and 80 per cent of world-wide gross domestic product . 4. Balance equals peace. 5. Mother Earth will get real infrastructure: tunnels between continents, etc. 6. Viruses will be controlled or even better, they will be used as a vehicle for something good. Imagine a virus that spreads knowledge, immunity, long life.  7. We as a species will be able to unlock our true human potential, respecting all living creatures.

Facts: 1. Twitter goes around the world in a second. The number of smartphones and digital cameras in the world now number about 4 billion . Violence can no longer be easily hidden. Technology is on our side. 2. During the twentieth century, it has been estimated that up to  200 million people were killed by war, oppression and other atrocities . There have been just over  1 million deaths due to conflict in the first 20 years of this century . If this trend were to continue over the next 80 years, it would result in an approximately 40-fold decrease in such deaths. 3. The Western Hemisphere has been a war-free zone since the end of the internal conflict in Colombia in 2016. 4.  There are an estimated 110 million active landmines and an equal amount in stockpile .  5. According to the  Stockholm International Peace Research Institute , the estimated nuclear warhead count for the top five countries with the most nuclear weapons in 2020, based on available information, is as follows: Russia, 6,375 United States, 5,800 China, 320  France, 290 United Kingdom, 215

Rough estimates of the cost of building and maintaining these terrible weapons are in the trillions of dollars . Cutting these costs in half would defuse a lot of anxiety and free up cash. And again, the power structure and balance would remain the same.

6. The Abraham Accords between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, signed on 15 September 2020, bring us one step closer to world peace in 2021. These are not just words anymore, and the planet is more than ready!

I am actually very impressed by humanity; world leaders paused everyday life on Earth in an effort to save our brothers and sisters from COVID-19. You may be cynical, but almost no one could have predicted this outcome, which proves that the past doesn't equal the future. One day, all the wars will stop permanently. Knowing this, we should capitalize emotionally and unleash unlimited human creativity. A few days ago, I found companies that already exist for mining asteroids. If that is happening now, imagine what a free flow of creativity could produce in the near future.

Pandemics have happened before, but never were we as connected as we are today. Good, bad, but not indifferent, our social media structure should be used not just for sharing what you ate for breakfast this morning, but as a potent vehicle to drive world peace. Yes, it could happen in one hour; if we put the leaders of the G20 countries in one room or on Zoom, and don't give them cookies, it may take only 45 minutes. And yes, I am trying to be funny, but in reality, with the proper preparation, I believe it will happen fairly quickly. In the present state of war, we could dabble in attempts to solve the mysteries of life for the next thousand years, or we could proclaim peace and move forward on all fronts in the next hundred years. You wonder how? Just ask Elon Musk; he’ll produce the plan in two weeks.

“You may say I'm a dreamer/But I'm not the only one/I hope someday...” actually, let that day be 21 September 2021, at United Nations Headquarters in New York: the signing of a world peace declaration. And if you would allow me to dream just a minute longer, two days before, a ping pong tournament could be held in New York between all the presidents, prime ministers and other world leaders at the Javits Convention Center in Manhattan. Ping pong has long been seen as a proven method of diplomacy. And after the signing ceremony, the World Peace in One Hour Orchestra, with all the instruments of the world, will perform “ Everything Is Forever ” and “Stand by Me”, and close with John Lennon’s “ Imagine ”. With our present life span, we cannot travel beyond our solar system, never mind explore the Milky Way. So giddy-up, humanity—there is plenty to be accomplished by the creative class. First stop: the moon; next: Mars; and then the stars, to discover what we are all about and when, how and why it all began. There is no time to waste, and yet, “Time Is All We Have” and “love is all we need”. 

For more information on World Peace in One Hour, visit  https://worldpeaceinonehour.com/history .

Click here for a full audio recording of this article.

The UN Chronicle  is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

Thirty Years On, Leaders Need to Recommit to the International Conference on Population and Development Agenda

With the gains from the Cairo conference now in peril, the population and development framework is more relevant than ever. At the end of April 2024, countries will convene to review the progress made on the ICPD agenda during the annual session of the Commission on Population and Development.

The LDC Future Forum: Accelerating the Attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals in the Least Developed Countries

The desired outcome of the LDC Future Forums is the dissemination of practical and evidence-based case studies, solutions and policy recommendations for achieving sustainable development.

From Local Moments to Global Movement: Reparation Mechanisms and a Development Framework

For two centuries, emancipated Black people have been calling for reparations for the crimes committed against them. 

Documents and publications

• Yearbook of the United Nations 
• Basic Facts About the United Nations
• Journal of the United Nations
• Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
• United Nations Official Document System (ODS)
• Africa Renewal

Libraries and Archives

• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• UN Audiovisual Library
• UN Archives and Records Management 
• Audiovisual Library of International Law
• UN iLibrary 

News and media

• UN News Centre 
• UN Chronicle on Twitter
• UN Chronicle on Facebook

The UN at Work

• 17 Goals to Transform Our World
• Official observances
• United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI)
• Protecting Human Rights
• Maintaining International Peace and Security
• The Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth
• United Nations Careers

Follow our work by receiving our newsletter.

Kofi Annan Foundation

News & media.

Peace is possible: A call for action

This week, the United Nations reported that two million people, primarily women and children, have fled from Ukraine to neighbouring countries, in the fastest exodus on the European continent since the end of WWII. Thousands of men, women, children, and young soldiers – many still in their teens – have died or been injured. Cities have been flattened. Bridges, roads, schools, hospitals, and factories have been destroyed. Agriculture has come to a standstill in a land blessed with some of the richest soils on the planet.

This is the scourge of war from which the founders of the United Nations wanted to save succeeding generations. War is again bringing untold sorrow to mankind on the very continent where world wars started, and we seem incapable of stopping it. Just as we have been unable to bring peace to Ethiopia, Yemen, Syria and many other places.

We must try harder and do better. Peace is possible. Kofi Annan told us that enmity between people does not, and cannot, last forever, but that making peace requires extraordinary courage on the part of all sides. Time and time again, he reminded us that conflict is rarely solved through force of arms alone, and that political dialogue is the key to building lasting peace.

We must talk about peace, even as war rages. To say that there must be a negotiated end to the madness is not to give up on the need to hold those committing horrendous crimes accountable. Kofi Annan also told us that we must be ambitious enough to pursue both justice and peace, and wise enough to know when and how to do so.

We applaud the exemplary welcome which Ukrainian refugees have received in neighbouring countries. These actions stand in stark contrast with other recent crises when we saw walls erected and refugees turned away or left to drown in treacherous seas. We must, however, focus first and foremost on stopping the violence that drives people from their homes.

We must show courage, determination, and imagination to seek real solutions rather than an elusive military victory, and to begin building trust between communities engulfed in violence. This means urgently asking tough questions such as what de-escalation might look like, how can we extract concessions and get to an effective ceasefire, and what confidence-building measures or assurances must be put in place to stop the bloodshed.

In the longer term, it means resuming discussions on collective security, peaceful coexistence, the protection of minorities, a fair access to resources, the promotion of the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, disarmament, and all the issues that our multilateral system was created to address, and which have been brushed aside by strong men in recent decades.

Technology has given us the tools to predict conflicts, pandemics, climate change and other shocks and crises. When they occur, we can rely on elaborate multilateral mechanisms and a solid legal framework to facilitate international cooperation. And yet leaders choose to ignore them and flout internationally agreed rules and standards.

“…we all have a responsibility for peace.”

When leaders fail to lead, Kofi Annan remarked, the people take the lead and make the leaders follow. While we have seen demonstrations in our cities, including some by very courageous activists on the streets of Moscow and Saint Petersburg, we need a much bigger groundswell of support for peace.

Diplomats, civil society activists, teachers, journalists, artists, and entrepreneurs; the old and the young; men and women: we all have a responsibility for peace.

Today, all of us must call for an urgent end to aggression and violence in Ukraine, and the start of actual peace negotiations in good faith. Tomorrow, we must commit to an honest appraisal and far-reaching reimagining of our multilateral system, so that it enables peacemaking, peacebuilding and cooperation rather than greed and belligerence.

We owe it to future generations.

News & Articles

Read the latest articles and news from the Kofi Annan Foundation

Key posts in this category

• Get involved

World peace is not only possible but inevitable

September 20, 2020.

Nika Saeedi

Team Leader, Prevention of Violent Extremism, UNDP's Global Focal Point on MHPSS; Religion; and Hate Speech

COVID-19 has shifted our world. Over the last six months, no matter where we live, our lives, assumptions, and relationships have changed. Now, more than ever, we have witnessed people from all backgrounds and all ages rise to assist each other

While communities have formed networks of mutual support, many of the institutions mandated to support them have failed to fully harness and amplify the wealth of capacities and support structures that already exist. In international development in particular, a key blind spot that limits the effectiveness of our work exists in the rhetoric we use to understand the communities we work with.

UNDP, along with many other partners, continues to advance new approaches to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, but our continued use of terminology that fails to fully embrace the power of people impedes the transformative potential of our work. This can also lead to inadequate policy and programming, or to insufficient – or inappropriate – action. One of the most prominent examples of this is our tendency to target support to individuals and communities facing poverty, conflict, or other sources of instability by identifying them as ‘vulnerable’ people.

For example, the problem with categorizing  women as vulnerable group project women’s passivity and helplessness, denying them agency and power in the processes of change. A radical reaction to portraying women as vulnerable in recent years has been an over glorification of women’s role as fighters in support of violent extremist groups, hindering their capacity and role as peacebuilders.

Words matter. They shape mindsets, and mindsets shapes approaches and outcomes. There is an important distinction between a vulnerable person and a person living in a vulnerable circumstance. When we define people by their circumstances, we fail to engage with them as multidimensional beings. It’s time for UNDP to move from using ‘vulnerability’ as a means of defining the people it supports, to considering all people as protagonists for change.

This might allow us  to meet people’s aspirations  and assist us in assessment and conceptualization of where inequality stems from and who has a role in combating it. By moving away from a deprivation perspective, which leads to divisive mentalities about the capacity of particular groups of people, we are better positioned to recognize the reality of humanity’s common journey in building a peaceful world, and the role of each individual as a protagonist in it. We can start this journey by changing the words we use and therefore the whole narrative from vulnerability to empowerment and constructive resilience.

Whether this reconceptualization of what unites us to be reached only after a global crisis such as this pandemic has revealed the cost of humanity’s stubborn clinging to old patterns of behaviour, or is to be reached through consultation and dialogue, is the choice before all.

We can choose to graduate from the idea of labeling women, youth, racial, religious and ethnic minorities as ‘vulnerable groups in the discussions that guide our decision-making. We can embark on a journey with greater clarity of vision and determination to question and reflect on how our policy and programming promote the nobility of them and draw on their experience.

To accept that the individual, the community, and the institutions of society are the protagonists of civilization building, and to act accordingly, opens up great possibilities for human happiness and allows for the creation of environments in which the true powers of the human spirit can be released.

Several opportunities to enhance our work with peacebuilders, activists, and other populations in bringing about sustainable change and to ensure we recognize and articulate with greater clarity their latent capacity may include the following:

• To  stand with women peacebuilders to ensure they are recognized for their work and courage, have full inclusion and representation in local and global peace and recovery processes and are protected against threats and are receiving the resources  to carry out their work. This year will mark the 20th anniversary of WPS, and UNDP is proud to join the International Civil Society Action Network(ICAN) and the Women’s Alliance for Security Leadership (WASL) as they launch the global #shebuildspeace call to action and campaign building on our partnership on Invisible Women .  
• To recognize the powers endowed in people of faith, especially women of faith, at all levels. Women of faith are actively engaging in the local peace process and they are advocating against hate speech, initiatives addressing issues connected to the environment, like climate. UNDP and UN Women report on Conflicting Identities: The Nexus between Masculinities, Femininities and Violent Extremism in Asia recommend Programming take a whole-of-family and hole-of-community approach when designing interventions. 
• To recognize the essentiality of community-based peacebuilding as parallel or pre-requisite to high-level negotiations. The effects of COVID-19 proved that local trust, access and resilience is essential part of social cohesion .  
• To include and appreciate young climate change advocates , environmental defenders and environmental journalists who have recognized that creation is an organic whole and they are promoting systems required to respect the earth and to organize and fully utilize its raw materials. Their inclusion in essential in programs that promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies. 
• To acknowledge the role of storytellers who provoke conversations, initiate reflections and ; and work of volunteer online defenders  and work of volunteer online defenders from across the globe combating trolls who spread hate speech.
• To show gratitude to the unique contribution of Indigenous peoples to our planet and our common future. 
• To recognize persons with disabilities as having significant experience and innovative approaches to navigating barriers in their daily lives.
• To learn how people make decisions and act on them, how they think about, influence, and relate to one another, and how they develop beliefs and attitudes. We are working with young people to apply behavioral insights to address violent extremism in countries such as Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

The innovation and resilience shown by communities amidst the pandemic have underscored the need for more expansive understandings of human relationships, and to place more emphasis on identifying the latent capacities and desires of those we hope to serve. This means believing in people and their desires to be sources of peace and justice. This means opening our eyes to the extent of people’s capacity so that we can see more peacebuilders and changemakers in more places. This means embracing the oneness of humankind and human nobility as a foundation for how we develop our policies and programmes.

Related Content

The collective mental health of communities

With one in eight people in Ukraine suffering from mental health issues, providing mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) is more necessary than ever.

'Invisible' women; when home is not a sanctuary

The challenges women and girls face in returning to their communities after being associated with extremist groups.

Violent extremism reopens the conversation about women and peace

“No peace without women,” is a statement we are all eager to agree with. But what are the nuances of women’s participation in peace, conflict and extremism today,...

Peace Is More Possible Than You Think

Discussions about peace have tended toward idealism or theory, but it can be talked about as the subject of scientific inquiry.

Most people who hear the question “is a world without war possible” probably answer “no.”  The history of humanity can be told as a history of war. From the classical age through the dark ages and into the middle ages, the renaissance, and modern history, warfare has always been a significant part of human history. Most observers would probably argue, as the realist school of international relations does, that the international system is determined first and foremost by power – particularly military power – and as a result, war is a fundamental part of the international system.

Both of these perspectives are rooted in individual analysis, interpretation of history, and the decision-making process that leads to war. They ultimately treat the question of whether a world without war is possible as a philosophical question: a question of human nature and how decisions are made. There is another way of thinking about this question, however. Seen from another perspective, the question of whether it’s possible that the world will eliminate war is an empirical question. It’s a question that can be informed, if not answered, by the trends in war and the causes of war over human history. Seen from this perspective, there’s a developing conclusion that peace is possible.  Moreover, the social trends and pressures that are contributing to peace – or potentially undermining it – can be uncovered and addressed by research. 

Article Details

Peace Negotiation

One Earth Future

Content Type

Opinion & Insights

Is World Peace Possible?

“Genuine “world peace”–meaning effective consensus regarding shared sacrifices as well as voluntary cooperation–is theoretically possible.

But “world peace” imposed by a dominant power assisted by a few partners is unlikely because global power is becoming increasingly diversified and contentious.

Worldwide peace is most likely only some decades from now, when threats to humanity’s existence generated by global warming, pollution, etc., become an imminent threat to all.

In brief, only world peace driven by a recognition of the threat to everyone’s survival is the most likely source of salvation for a shortsighted humanity currently not able to see and think beyond the immediate.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI

NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER IN THE CARTER ADMINISTRATION AND AUTHOR OF STRATEGIC VISION

“World peace is possible if all of us think it is possible.

It’s not easy to list all of the things John and I, jointly and separately, did hopefully to make a better world for all of us. However, now, so many people are activists, working seriously day and night to make world peace happen. We are very, very close since we know that there is no recourse. We are about to conquer all prejudices–racism, sexism and ageism. We are now getting the taste of working as activists, and how exciting that is. I think we are on the right track. Don’t you? I love you with all my heart!

ARTIST AND ACTIVIST

“When violence occurs, it is usually because of people’s incentives, which depend on their beliefs.

Extremist echo chambers, and their social networks, are serious threats. If leaders and citizens think that enemies are everywhere, or that their best chance to get ahead (or to heaven) is to attack, then peace will be a pipe dream.

But incentives and beliefs can change in a hurry. Democracies do not generally go to war against each other: their leaders have strong incentives to maintain the peace, and information flows freely, breaking down echo chambers and enabling people to find conflict-free paths. As self-government and freedom of speech spread, world peace becomes more feasible.

CASS SUNSTEIN

PROFESSOR AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL AND AUTHOR OF CHOOSING NOT TO CHOOSE

More Must-Reads From TIME

• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• How Far Trump Would Go
• Why Maternity Care Is Underpaid
• Scenes From Pro-Palestinian Encampments Across U.S. Universities
• Saving Seconds Is Better Than Hours
• Why Your Breakfast Should Start with a Vegetable
• Welcome to the Golden Age of Ryan Gosling
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

Speech: “Lasting peace depends on equal rights, equal opportunity and the equal participation of women”—Lakshmi Puri

Date: Thursday, 7 September 2017

Distinguished Minister / Madame Minister, Excellencies, Distinguished participants, Dear friends,

I am delighted to address you today at this important gathering of parliamentarians decision-makers and thought leaders, to talk about your crucial role in promoting women’s voice participation and leadership in the ‘sustaining peace ' Agenda set out in the United Nations resolution adopted last year (A/RES/70/262 resolution on Review of United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture) and in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted in 2015.

These two international frameworks are two sides of the same coin, mutually interdependent and reinforcing. Both recognize the essentiality of gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls as a precondition and an objective in itself. They are based on the conviction that women's increased, enhanced and equal voice, participation and leadership in both these great and noble projects of humanity in the 21 st Century are a vital enabler and beneficiary.

Further, the link between ending violence against women and girls, sustaining peace and achieving sustainable development is symbiotic too. Violence against women and girls is both an early predictor of conflict, spills over into larger violence including in the context of violent extremism and terrorism, feeds conflict whereby rape and other forms of violence are used as weapons of war by warring parties and hampers reconciliation and sustaining peace.

Hence the international Community in its Women, and Peace and Security Agenda (UNSC resolutions 1325 (2000) and subsequent eight related resolutions) commit to prevention, protection, prosecution of perpetrators, and access to justice/reparations for victims and survivors of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in pre conflict, conflict and post conflict and provision of multi-sectoral critical services to them as part of the Prevention and Sustaining Peace Agenda.

Equally, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development enshrines the elimination of violence against women as a sustainable development target under SDG 5 on achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls. This as well as outcome Agreed Conclusions of the 60 th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) also affirm women's equal participation and leadership and decision-making in public and private sectors, in economic, political, social, technological life and fields and at all levels as a Sustainable Development target and one that will also enable SDG 16 on just and peaceful societies to be realized.

Why women's leadership matters and is a game changer

The evidence is clear that increased women’s participation and leadership in all fields and in political decision-making helps build safer, more inclusive and more harmonious societies. If we acknowledge and invest in their role as peace actors as well as development actors they will be game changers to prevent breakout of conflict, broker more durable piece, prevent relapse and build back better after conflict.

UN Women supported the 2015 Global Review and Study on the occasion of the 15 th anniversary of Security Council resolution 1325 lays this out in chapter and verse that:

• Women’s participation improves the sustainability of peace agreements.
• Women often lead dialogue processes that stop the slide into conflict, and build consensus after war.
• More women in our respective police and military forces make for more effective institutions to ensure our security.
• Evidence has shown that women typically invest more of their economic peace dividends into family and community wellbeing.
• Women’s agency also improves the humanitarian assistance; strengthens the protection efforts of our peacekeepers; and contributes to the conclusion of peace talks and the sustainability of peace agreements.
• The women’s agency in peace processes ensures the inclusion of community needs to achieve deeper peace benefits; enhances economic recovery after conflict; and helps counter violent extremism.
• Women’s participation in political processes improves them. When women are in decision-making positions, often more inclusive decisions are made, different voices are heard, and a variety of solutions are created.
• Women frequently demonstrate political leadership by working across party lines through parliamentary women's caucuses - even in the most politically combative environments.
• In countries where more women participate as political leaders, greater attention is paid to issues like health, education, infrastructure, ending violence against women, and overall quality of life concerns. These issues are all central to the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals and illustrate how goal 5 on “achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls: is a catalyzer for all the other goals, including goal 16 of “Just, peaceful and inclusive societies.

Despite challenges some progress is recorded

There are several markers of progress in relation to women leaders and frontline activists for peace participating in peace building processes and therein lies hope and faith that it's mission possible.

• More than ever before, women are making decisions for peace and security in the halls of governments and international organizations but also there is increased recognition of their pivotal role as peacebuilders in conflict theaters.
• For example, in 2015, seven out of ten peace agreements signed included gender specific provisions—a vast improvement compared against the analysis showing that only 73 out of 664 agreements produced between 1990 and 2000 included a reference to women.
• There are more women in mediation support teams and more regular consultations with civil society leaders.
• Countries and regional organizations are beginning to take more robust action against sexual violence.
• Courts and commissions of inquiry are paying more attention to gender-based crimes, even though this has not yet translated into higher levels of prosecution.
• More security sector personnel are now trained to prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence, and more countries are implementing national action plans or related strategies.
• Furthermore, there is recognition that in conflict-affected contexts, women’s participation and representation in public life brings credibility to peace processes and negotiations, as their presence and influence is essential for unifying divided communities and rallying peace-building actors. We have seen this illustrated recently in Colombia where feminist leaders were central to bringing the perspective of women and minorities and the voices of victims to the negotiating tables in Havana.
• The Secretary-General of the United Nations and the UN political missions, peace keeping operations and mediation efforts are committing to women's participation and leadership in this agenda, to ending violence against them and to harness their critical role in Secretary-General's Prevention and Sustaining Peace Agenda as well as in preventing and countering violent extremism and terrorism.

Continuing and new challenges

Yet, and despite recognizing remarkable progress, the situation remains far from equitable and women continue to bear the brunt of war and more endangered than combatants themselves.

• Many atrocities continue to be committed against women and girls, including by ex combatants and extant peace actors including some of our own peacekeepers.
• Extremist groups are targeting women’s rights as a deliberate, devastating method for subjugation and control.
• Despite women play a vital role in preventing conflict and building and maintaining peace, far too often, they are prevented from full participation in peacemaking and peacebuilding.
• As result, peace processes, humanitarian programmes and peacebuilding plans ignore them and fail to meet their needs and protect their human rights.

Gender equality is vital for achieving sustainable peace

The groundbreaking and historic resolutions on sustaining peace adopted simultaneously by the UN General Assembly and Security Council in 2016 have demonstrated a shift in the mindset and strategic priorities of the UN Member States.

• Indeed, Member States have committed to ensure that sustaining peace is based on the people-centered approach of the 2030 Agenda and grounded in international human rights laws and standards. The Sustaining Peace resolutions emphasize that inclusivity is key to successful efforts to prevent, resolve and rebuild from conflict.
• Let me emphasize that from a gender equality perspective inclusivity means adherence to the 2030 Agenda’s pledge to leave no one behind and reach the furthest behind first. It also means ensuring that women are not the missing—yet vital—factor to make the lasting peace for which we all long and strive.
• Women are drivers of sustainable development and peace—not merely beneficiaries, and women are strategic partners as well. Therefore, I would like to underscore that true inclusivity and empowerment requires that the equal half of humanity—Womanity—be brought to the center of decision making on sustaining peace and sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental dimensions.

Gender equality is a driving force for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and an important building block for sustainable peace

Gender equality and women's empowerment is one vital force and truth, reconciliation and gender justice are both interlinked means and an end to sustainable peace.

For both, the 2030 Agenda as well as for Sustaining Peace, gender equality is not only the key ingredient and catalyzer but without it the whole sustainable peace project is jeopardized.

• Sustainable peace is not only the absence of war. It will only be possible when there is zero tolerance to violence in households and in communities, within countries and across States. Yet around the world, one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or abused in some way. Violence against women is therefore a major threat to sustainable peace. It compromises the health, dignity, security and autonomy of women and girls.
• Sustainable peace will only be possible if there is equal participation of all citizens—women and men - in the public life of their country and community. Equal representation provides a strong foundation for the development of sustainable peace.
• Sustainable peace demands social justice and social cohesion. There again, women have shown to be particularly effective in creating and sustaining social cohesion and social justice. In fact, women's empowerment constitutes a key component of social justice. Equal access to productive resources, economic recovery and reconstruction are essential factors of social justice.
• Overall, sustainable peace requires transforming attitudes that promote violence and discrimination. This means tackling gender stereotypes that often underpin the culture of violence and inequality.

UN Women’s action

Guided by the international commitments on peace and security, including all eight Security Council resolutions on women and peace and security and other key reference points like the Beijing Platform for Action, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, UN Women works in the following areas to achieve transformative change:

Mediation and conflict prevention:

• UN Women has championed women’s participation in peace negotiations for Syria, Myanmar, South Sudan and Mali, and supported the Colombia peace talks which led to significant numbers of women at the table and a gender perspective in all aspects of the final agreement.
• UN Women has also held regional trainings of women mediators in West Africa and the Horn of Africa, Myanmar, South East Asia and Central Asia, and deployed gender advisors to the offices of special envoys in the Sahel, Great Lakes, Syria and Burundi.

Peacebuilding and recovery:

• UN Women promotes that gender issues are addressed in all peacebuilding efforts of the UN and that 15 per cent of funds going to post-conflict recovery are earmarked for projects whose principle objective is to enhance gender equality.
• In numerous countries, UN Women supports gender-sensitive security sector reform and demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants as well as to increase the numbers of women in post-conflict governance institutions.

Peacekeeping:

• UN Women runs training courses for female military officers – providing a space where women in the armed forces can gain exposure, additional training and opportunities for professional advancement.
• UN Women also supports the Department of Peacekeeping Operations(DPKO) in training military peacekeepers in the prevention of and response to conflict-related sexual violence in their areas of deployment.

Ending impunity:

• UN Women’s ‘Gender-Sensitive Transitional Justice’ programme supports women’s engagement in holistic post-conflict justice processes at the international level, as well as in Kosovo, Colombia and the Philippines.
• Further, through a roster managed together with Justice Rapid Response, UN Women has deployed gender advisors and sexual violence investigators to all UN Commissions of Inquiry established since 2009, fact finding missions, investigations of the International Criminal Court and national accountability processes.

Countering violent extremism :

• UN Women promote a gender-sensitive approach to preventing and countering violent extremism by:
• expanding and deepening a data-driven evidence base on the drivers of extremist violence and its impact on women and girls;
• ensuring counter-terrorism frameworks integrate gender and are informed by experiences of women;
• increasing access to justice and essential services for victims of sexual and gender-based violence in the context of terrorism and violent extremism; and
• increasing women’s participation and leadership in counter-terrorism response and prevention efforts.

National Action Plans :

• UN Women has supported the development of national action plans on resolution 1325 (NAPs) with technical expertise, with a specific focus on ensuring that action plans have concrete targets, resources for implementation and monitoring plans.

UN coordination and reporting:

• UN Women is responsible for the annual report of the Secretary-General on Women, Peace and Security, as well as the Secretary-General’s report on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian women.
• UN Women also chairs the InterAgency Standing Committee on Women, Peace and Security, which brings together all relevant UN entities with civil society as observers.

Catalytic funding:

• UN Women serves as a secretariat for the Global Acceleration Instrument on Women, Peace and Security and Humanitarian Action (GAI), which is a funding mechanism that aims to re-energize action and stimulate a significant increase in the financing of women’s participation, leadership and empowerment in humanitarian response and peace and security settings.

Way forward

Whether supporting intergovernmental processes, individual Member States/participating States, or women’s organizations, together, we can and we must ensure that women of all ages are included and empowered to contribute to sustainable development and peace.

In order to do so, the Secretary-General's seven-point action plan on women's participation in peace-building promotes:

• Involving women in peace processes and make gender expertise available;
• Taking into account women's needs and participation in post-conflict planning processes;
• Ensuring that civilian capacity has specialized skills to rebuild state institutions in a way that makes them more accessible to women and girls and less prone to gender-based discrimination;
• Ensuring women's representation in post-conflict governance;
• Promoting women's rights to security and justice in the context of the rule of law - before, during and after conflicts;
• Ensuring women's participation in economic recovery;
• Increasing financing for gender equality and women's empowerment in post-conflict situations.

With respect to the last bullet, let me emphasize that achieving sustainable peace requires regular, predictable and dedicated funding for women’s peacebuilding. Yet, while the UN has committed to ensuring a minimum of fifteen per cent of all peacebuilding funding be allocated to gender equality, the recent Global Study on the implementation of Security Council resolution 1325 on Women and Peace and Security demonstrated that less than two per cent of all official development assistance was allocated to gender equality in fragile contexts…Less than 2 per cent. We can do better, we must to better!!

As parliamentarians, you have a particular role to play in promoting women’s participation in sustaining peace and promoting sustainable development.

As lawmaking establishments, oversight bodies and representative institutions, parliaments have a key function in setting a country’s wider development vision, and in developing sound policies in support of that vision.

As UN Women, we encourage you to take steps to:

• Ensure the allocation of financial resources to promote women’s participation as candidates and voters.
• Eliminate discriminatory laws against women and pass legislation that advances gender equality including gender responsive budgeting across various sectors.
• Align national legislation with National Action Plans on Security Council resolution 1325 where applicable and appropriate resources for the Plans’ implementation.
• Promote measures to ensure women’s effective participation at all levels and at all stages in peace processes and mediation efforts, conflict prevention and resolution, peacekeeping, peacebuilding and recovery, including through through temporary special measures, by setting and working to achieve concrete goals, targets and benchmarks.
• Promote zero tolerance of violence against women in the political sphere.
• Create space for diverse voices and listen to your female constituents. Hear their priorities for development and peacebuilding in their communities and beyond and act accordingly.
• Allocate and prioritize adequate , targeted and mainstreamed resources.

Let me emphasize that as parliamentarians it is your role and responsibility to ensure that the interests and needs of the women and men, girls and boys whom you represent are considered in every decision you make.

UN Women stands ready to support you with our technical expertise and networks. Women’s leadership from the grass roots to the highest levels of government is a powerful capacity for peace and development.

We must engage women and harness their potential if we are to achieve the ambitious vision enshrined in the Sustainable Development Goals.

As Raden Ajeng Kartini, national heroine of Indonesia once famously said “the girl whose mind has been educated, her views enlightened, will no longer be able to live in the world of her ancestors.” By extension this means creating and inhabiting a world in which the vision of the 2030 Agenda has become a reality, a world in which gender equality and women’s empowerment are the new norm.Only in that world will peace prevail and sustain .

Lasting peace depends on equal rights, equal opportunity and the equal participation of women. By definition, women's agency is an integral component of this approach and therefore essential for sustainable peace.

• ‘One Woman’ – The UN Women song
• UN Under-Secretary-General and UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous
• Kirsi Madi, Deputy Executive Director for Resource Management, Sustainability and Partnerships
• Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda, Deputy Executive Director for Normative Support, UN System Coordination and Programme Results
• Guiding documents
• Report wrongdoing
• Programme implementation
• Career opportunities
• Application and recruitment process
• Meet our people
• Internship programme
• Procurement principles
• Gender-responsive procurement
• Doing business with UN Women
• How to become a UN Women vendor
• Contract templates and general conditions of contract
• Vendor protest procedure
• Facts and Figures
• Global norms and standards
• Women’s movements
• Parliaments and local governance
• Constitutions and legal reform
• Preguntas frecuentes
• Global Norms and Standards
• Macroeconomic policies and social protection
• Sustainable Development and Climate Change
• Rural women
• Employment and migration
• Facts and figures
• Creating safe public spaces
• Spotlight Initiative
• Essential services
• Focusing on prevention
• Research and data
• Other areas of work
• UNiTE campaign
• Conflict prevention and resolution
• Building and sustaining peace
• Young women in peace and security
• Rule of law: Justice and security
• Women, peace, and security in the work of the UN Security Council
• Preventing violent extremism and countering terrorism
• Planning and monitoring
• Humanitarian coordination
• Crisis response and recovery
• Disaster risk reduction
• Inclusive National Planning
• Public Sector Reform
• Tracking Investments
• Strengthening young women's leadership
• Economic empowerment and skills development for young women
• Action on ending violence against young women and girls
• Engaging boys and young men in gender equality
• Sustainable development agenda
• Leadership and Participation
• National Planning
• Violence against Women
• Access to Justice
• Regional and country offices
• Regional and Country Offices
• Liaison offices
• UN Women Global Innovation Coalition for Change
• Commission on the Status of Women
• Economic and Social Council
• General Assembly
• Security Council
• High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development
• Human Rights Council
• Climate change and the environment
• Other Intergovernmental Processes
• World Conferences on Women
• Global Coordination
• Regional and country coordination
• Promoting UN accountability
• Gender Mainstreaming
• Coordination resources
• System-wide strategy
• Focal Point for Women and Gender Focal Points
• Entity-specific implementation plans on gender parity
• Laws and policies
• Strategies and tools
• Reports and monitoring
• Training Centre services
• Publications
• Government partners
• National mechanisms
• Civil Society Advisory Groups
• Benefits of partnering with UN Women
• Business and philanthropic partners
• Goodwill Ambassadors
• National Committees
• UN Women Media Compact
• UN Women Alumni Association
• Editorial series
• Media contacts
• Annual report
• Progress of the world’s women
• SDG monitoring report
• World survey on the role of women in development
• Reprint permissions
• Secretariat
• 2023 sessions and other meetings
• 2022 sessions and other meetings
• 2021 sessions and other meetings
• 2020 sessions and other meetings
• 2019 sessions and other meetings
• 2018 sessions and other meetings
• 2017 sessions and other meetings
• 2016 sessions and other meetings
• 2015 sessions and other meetings
• Compendiums of decisions
• Reports of sessions
• Key Documents
• Brief history
• CSW snapshot
• Preparations
• Official Documents
• Official Meetings
• Side Events
• Session Outcomes
• CSW65 (2021)
• CSW64 / Beijing+25 (2020)
• CSW63 (2019)
• CSW62 (2018)
• CSW61 (2017)
• Member States
• Eligibility
• Registration
• Opportunities for NGOs to address the Commission
• Communications procedure
• Grant making
• Accompaniment and growth
• Results and impact
• Knowledge and learning
• Social innovation
• UN Trust Fund to End Violence against Women
• About Generation Equality
• Generation Equality Forum
• Action packs

Spirituality

36 quotes on peace and freedom, “peace is its own reward.” – mahatma gandhi.

Posted January 17, 2011

In honor of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., learn more about peace, non-violent resistance, and freedom through these quotes:

"One day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but that it is a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means." - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"When you find peace within yourself, you become the kind of person who can live at peace with others." - Peace Pilgrim

"There is no way to peace, peace is the way." - A.J. Muste

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha

"Peace is its own reward." - Mahatma Gandhi

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." - Jimi Hendrix

"We look forward to the time when the Power of Love will replace the Love of Power. Then will our world know the blessings of peace." - William Gladstone

"Peace is costly but it is worth the expense" - African proverb

"Freedom is dearer than bread or joy." - Jessie E. Sampter

"All we are saying is give peace a chance." - John Lennon

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other." - Mother Teresa

"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi

"We seek peace, knowing that peace is the climate of freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

"It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it." - Eleanor Roosevelt

"Nonviolence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed." - Mohandas Gandhi

"The pursuit of peace and progress cannot end in a few years in either victory or defeat. The pursuit of peace and progress, with its trials and its errors, its successes and its setbacks, can never be relaxed and never abandoned." - Dag Hammarskjold

"The real and lasting victories are those of peace, and not of war." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Peace is the only battle worth waging." - Albert Camus

"Human Beings, indeed all sentient beings, have the right to pursue happiness and live in peace and freedom." - Dalai Lama

"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." - Albert Einstein

"It is possible to live in peace." - Mahatma Gandhi

"Peace is every step." - Thich Nhat Hahn

"Nothing is more precious than peace. Peace is the most basic starting point for the advancement of humankind." - Daisaku Ikeda

"Peace may sound simple - one beautiful word - but it requires everything we have, every quality, every strength, every dream, every high ideal." - Yehudi Menuhin

"The more freedom we enjoy, the greater the responsibility we bear, toward others as well as ourselves." - Oscar Arias Sanchez

"Brute force, no matter how strongly applied, can never subdue the basic human desire for freedom." - Dalai Lama

"The well-being and the hopes of the peoples of the world can never be served until peace - as well as freedom, honor and self-respect - is secure." - Ralph J. Bunche

"Everyone has a right to peaceful coexistence, the basic personal freedoms, the alleviation of suffering, and the opportunity to lead a productive life..." - Jimmy Carter

"Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free." - Dalai Lama

"There is in this world no such force as the force of a person determined to rise. The human soul cannot be permanently chained." - W. E. B. DuBois

"Nobody's free until everybody's free." - Fannie Lou Hamer

"Let us not accept violence as the way of peace. Let us instead begin by respecting true freedom: the resulting peace will be able to satisfy the world's expectations, for it will be a peace built on justice, a peace founded on the incomparable dignity of the free human being." - Pope John Paul II

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

"If you are tired, keep going; if you are scared, keep going; if you are hungry; keep going; if you want to taste freedom, keep going." - Harriet Tubman

"When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, ‘Free at last! free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!'" - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

www.stephaniesarkis.com

www.twitter.com/stephaniesarkis

www.facebook.com/stephaniesarkisphd

www.youtube.com/docadhd

Stephanie Moulton Sarkis, Ph.D., N.C.C., D.C.M.H.S., L.M.H.C ., is the author of Gaslighting: Recognize Manipulative and Emotionally Abusive People — and Break Free .

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Oxford University Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World

Ten Facts about World Peace

World Peace (And How We Can Achieve it)

• By Alex J. Bellamy
• September 21 st 2019

The United Nations’ International Day of Peace is celebrated on 21 September each year, marking efforts to bring the world closer to a state of harmony and further away from violence. Here are some surprising facts about peace and the quest to achieve it:

1. Peace is more common than we think .

Through the course of human history, most societies have enjoyed peace, most of the time. In fact, some societies have avoided war altogether or for very long periods. One study found that a tenth of societies never experienced war and over half experienced it only once a generation.

2. In the twenty-first century, most regions of the world are more peaceful than they have been for generations – if not ever.

Humans alive today are less likely to die as a result of wars or atrocities than their parents or grandparents. War in East Asia is at its lowest point in centuries and has been for nearly three decades. War is almost extinct in the Americas, Caribbean, and western Europe. It is now uncommon in eastern Europe, southern African and increasingly in coastal west Africa.

3. The search for peace is as old as war itself.

For as long as there has been war, there have been people trying to find ways of resolving disputes without it. The very first human story written down, the epic of Gilgamesh (c. 1500-2000 BCE), recounts how this King of Uruk learns that war and conquest cannot give him immortality. Gilgamesh finds meaning in life by becoming a wise and just king and abandoning the wanton violence of his past.

4. Aggressive war was prohibited by international law in 1945.

Governments have a legal obligation to not use force against others. This obligation is written into the Charter of the United Nations. There are only two exceptions: self-defence and operations authorised by the UN Security Council. The crime of aggression is now recognized by the International Criminal Court, which means that political leaders might one day be prosecuted for launching wars.

5. Gender equality makes states and societies more peaceful.

Gender-equal societies are far more peaceful than patriarchal societies. Studies have repeatedly demonstrated a connection between gender equality and peace. More gender equal societies are less likely to wage aggressive wars, less likely to experience civil wars, and more likely to support international institutions. Peace processes that include women as equal partners are more likely to deliver sustained peace. Gender equal societies tend to have better relations with their neighbours.

6. Economics matters.

Peace and economic development go hand in hand, as does war and economic decline. As a basic rule of thumb, societies become less prone to experiencing civil war the wealthier they become. That is not to say that middle income countries never experience civil war, just that it is much rarer. There is also a connection between the level of economic inequality and a society’s risk of mass atrocities. War on the other hand tends to have a significant negative impact on economic development. It is no coincidence that the greatest declines in war have come in places experiencing significant economic improvements.

7. UN peacekeeping works.

A large body of academic work demonstrates that UN peacekeeping operations help prevent wars, shorten wars, limit civilian suffering, and reduce the likelihood of war recurring. It also shows that quantity has a quality all of its own. The greater the number of peacekeepers deployed, the greater these positive effects tend to be.

8. We spend much more on war than we do on peace.

Despite clear evidence that conflict prevention, peacekeeping, humanitarian action, and peacebuilding have positive impacts, these activities are all under-resourced. Global spending on arms is approximately $1.8 trillion. It is estimated that annual cost of war is around $1trillion. By contrast, the entire UN system – its peacekeeping operations, humanitarian programs, development work and much else, costs around $50billion a year – a tiny fraction of what is spent and lost on war. The result is that peacekeeping missions often lack the troops they need, humanitarian aid is rarely sufficiently funded, and basic functions like mediation lack guaranteed funding.

It is estimated that annual cost of war is around $1trillion. By contrast, the entire UN system – its peacekeeping operations, humanitarian programs, development work and much else, costs around $50billion a year – a tiny fraction of what is spent and lost on war.

9. The Christmas truce wasn’t limited to 1914.

There was one in 1915 too. Despite the best efforts of commanders on both sides, on Christmas Day 1915 soldiers of the 15th Battalion Royal Welch Fusiliers left their trenches to exchange gifts and play football with German soldiers. Their commanding General demanded they stop and threatened to court-martial all involved. British artillery fired warning shots. But when the General left the frontline, the soldiers went back into no-man’s land to talk and sing together.

10. 21 September marks the International Day of Peace.

The Peace One Day initiative, launched twenty years ago at London’s Globe Theatre, is a campaign to make The International Day of Peace, 21 September, a day that is truly without war. If peace can be achieved in some places where war once reigned, as in Western Europe for example, then there is no reason why it cannot be achieved in all places. One day of peace may not be much. But it is a start that would show that world peace is possible.

Feature image: International Day of Peace, public domain via Flickr

Alex J. Bellamy , professor of peace and conflict studies and director of the Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, the University of Queensland, Australia

• Art & Architecture
• Arts & Humanities
• Social Sciences

Our Privacy Policy sets out how Oxford University Press handles your personal information, and your rights to object to your personal information being used for marketing to you or being processed as part of our business activities.

We will only use your personal information to register you for OUPblog articles.

Or subscribe to articles in the subject area by email or RSS

Related posts:

Recent Comments

Bravo, Alex Bellamy. Thanks for this direct and succinct account. It’s an honour to have you as our colleague.

Links to material supporting some of the claims in this item could be of value.

Welch? Like grape jam? Are you writing about the Welsh perhaps???

Hi Jean — actually no, Welch is correct! We looked it up to make sure. The regiment retained the archaic spelling until 2006.

Each Sunday eve about 6-8 people have music, silence, holding our peace-forging signs … 7-7:30, Grand and Lindell. A peace vigil with a long history, since 2002. Any ideas of how we might capture the attention of the citizens of St. Louis…and suggest some action flowing from Intern’l Peace Day, Sept. 21, ‘21?!!!!? Thanks for your courageous dedication to peace creation!!!

Comments are closed.

• Speeches & transcripts

by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the Kultaranta talks in Finland

• 12 Jun. 2022 -
• Last updated: 13 Jun. 2022 14:12

(As delivered)

President Niinistö, dear Sauli, 

it's really great to be back here and to meet with you. And thank you for inviting me to the Kultaranta talks. This is really a first for me, and it's great to see you again, and a pleasure to also meet you together with so many distinguished guests, including the Prime Minister of Norway, Prime Minister Støre, it's good to be here, together with all of you.

The last time I visited Finland, we - and that was actually last fall - you and I, we discussed how to strengthen the close partnership between NATO and Finland. But I did not imagine that the next time I was going to visit Finland you would have applied for a membership in our Alliance. 

What caused this dramatic change was President Putin's war against Ukraine, which has shattered peace in Europe. It is really a game changer. Not just for European security, but also for the global order.

We may have been shocked by Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine.  But we should not be surprised.  NATO shared intelligence and warned about a potential invasion for months. It is part of a pattern.  The destruction of Grozny.  The attack against Georgia.  The illegal annexation of Crimea.  The bombing of Aleppo.  And now, this cruel war against a peaceful neighbour. 

NATO is not part of the war. In response to the war, NATO has two fundamental tasks.  One is to provide support to our close partner Ukraine. To uphold its right of self-defence, a right enshrined in the UN Charter. We have done that actually for many years. And since the invasion, we have significantly stepped up our support to Ukraine, and so has Finland, including with military, economic and humanitarian aid. Our aim is to ensure that Ukraine prevails, as a sovereign and democratic state in Europe.        The other task for NATO is to prevent the war from escalating. NATO’s main responsibility is to protect our people.  That is why we are strengthening our defence, especially in the east of the Alliance, on land, at sea, and in the air.  This is deterrence.  Not to provoke, but to prevent a conflict.  And to preserve peace.

Putin’s ambitions go beyond Ukraine.  The so-called ‘security treaties’ he presented to NATO and the United States last December made demands not only on Ukraine, but also on NATO to refrain from any further enlargement, and remove NATO troops and infrastructure from countries that joined the Alliance after 1997, introducing some sort of first class and second class members of NATO.

These demands amount to the complete re-write of the European security order, enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act.  One of the main principles in the Helsinki Final Act is the right of each nation to choose its own path.  This is exactly what President Putin is openly contesting.  He is trying to establish an alternative world order, where might is right, where big powers decide what smaller nations can or cannot do. 

You, as Finns, know only too well the consequences of such a world order.  You defend your rights as a sovereign nation, and you have made your free choice  to apply for NATO membership.  I truly welcome this brave decision. 

And if President Putin wanted less NATO on his borders, he is getting the opposite.  More NATO.

The applications by Finland and Sweden to join our Alliance send a clear message.  Aggression does not pay.  Intimidation does not work.  NATO’s door remains open. 

Joining the Alliance would make Finland safer. NATO is a big family of 30 democratic nations across Europe and North America. We represent half of the world’s economic and military might.  And are committed to protect and defend each other against any threat.  All for one, and one for all. This is at the heart of Article 5 of our founding treaty.  It is unique and extremely powerful.  In a dangerous and more competitive world, it is more important than ever that we stand together.

Finland’s membership would also make NATO stronger.  You are a strong democracy, with a resilient society, and with advanced military.  Earlier this year, I saw your forces in action  above the Arctic Circle, during our exercise Cold Response in Norway.  Your soldiers impressed me with their professionalism and determination. 

Together with Sweden, you have considerable military capabilities.  Including substantial reserves, and advanced aircraft, and naval forces, all able to work together with NATO. 

We are now considering the next steps on Finland and Sweden’s path to join our Alliance.   As we do this, we take into account the security interests of all Allies.   When an Ally raises concerns, we address them seriously and we find common ground.  So we are now working through Türkiye’s serious security concerns, including on terrorism.

Türkiye is an important Ally, with a strategic location, playing a key role in the Black Sea, bordering Syria and Iraq, vital for our fight against ISIS.  Türkiye is also the NATO Ally that has suffered more terrorist attacks, including at the hands of the PKK. We are now working together, in a constructive spirit, to find a united way forward.

I therefore welcome the contacts you, Sauli, have with President Erdoğan. I also remain in close dialogue you, Sweden, and with our Ally Türkiye.

All Allies agree that NATO's door is open, that enlargement has been an historic success, and that we must continue to stand together as we face the greatest security crisis in a generation.

The security of Finland matters to NATO.  Many Allies have already made clear security assurances to Finland and Sweden. And NATO remains vigilant. We have increased our military presence in the region.  And we are holding more exercises.

As we speak, our exercise BALTOPS is underway here in the Baltic region.  With over 45 ships, 75 aircraft, and over 7,000 personnel from 14 different NATO Allies, as well as Finland and Sweden, all training side by side. 

In just a few weeks, NATO leaders will meet in Madrid.  We will make important decisions. To continue to strengthen and adapt our Alliance to a new security reality,  and protect our people and our values.  I look forward to the day when we can welcome both Finland and Sweden into our Alliance. This will make Finland and Sweden safer. NATO stronger. And the whole Euro-Atlantic area more secure.   Thank you.

MODERATOR: Mr President, please join the Secretary General and your chair is the white one. You have about 30 minutes to discuss and then, I’m sorry, I will be interrupting you because we will be giving our wonderful audience the chance to ask questions and comment. But now, please?

SAULI NIINISTÖ [Finnish President]: I heard you saying that, actually, what Russia is after is kind of a new world order. Well, at least to put order to any smaller nations. But nevertheless, that reminds me of discussions in UN Week, a couple of years ago I was listening to speeches like we all do and suddenly noticed that those who most undermined the international cooperation, multilateral, they were Russia and China. Somehow, well, maybe they had a different idea of multilateralism than we. But nevertheless, if we talk about world order, we see a large scale, and Russia behaving like it does. Do you see that Russia is just by itself? I mean, surely, having a warfare against Ukraine, but in its thinking that the world should somehow be changed. And I think if that would be the case, it must be taken very seriously?

JENS STOLTENBERG [NATO Secretary General]: My answer to that question is fundamentally, yes, they want another world order. They don’t want a world order, which we have agreed to in many different documents, agreements and institutions. And perhaps the starting point of that world order was enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act – the Final Act that is very close to all things, of course, which actually stated some basic rules on how to behave and how to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of nations, in Europe in particular. We all know that, of course, we can discuss borders and the historic reasons for those different borders in Europe and elsewhere in the world. But we agreed there, and we have agreed again and again that these borders should be the fundament for how we work together and how to find solutions by diplomatic means together. Another key principle in the Helsinki Final Act, and again, repeated again and again in many other documents, was the right for every nation to choose its own path, including what kind of security arrangements they wanted to be part of. So then to say that this is a provocation and a threat that countries like the Baltic countries or now then Finland and Sweden apply for NATO membership is, by itself, contradicting the basic principles in the Helsinki Final Act. And I will always, or often, use an example that if you accept that big powers can say that if small powers or small nations do something they don’t like, that’s a threat, and they can use power to hinder that to happen. Well, I’m very glad that that was not the case back in 1949 when Norway applied for membership, or actually Norway was a founding member, but, actually, the capitals in the major countries like Washington, London, Paris actually said, well – Norway at that time was the only country bordering Russia or the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union didn’t like that – but these capitals US, UK, France and the others, they said, ‘Well, it’s for Norway to decide and accepted our membership of the Alliance. So, yes, when a country like Russia, or President Putin, so clearly contest and violates those principles, not only in words but also in deeds, by using brute military force, because the whole invasion of Ukraine is violating the world order I believe in, where we respect the sovereignty, the integrity and the free decisions of independent countries, then I think the only answer to your question is that, yes, they want a different world order. And I regret that, because I have to be honest that I remember the years after the end of the Cold War, and I also remember working with President Putin as Prime Minister of Norway, that I believed it was possible to actually get Russia on board, to make Russia part of a new order where we actually work together, where we trust each other and we were able to overcome the grievances and hatred from the past. I’m not able to tell exactly when I changed my mind. But of course, after the illegal annexation of Crimea, many things changed. And then it became even worse after the annexation now. So, well, then, our responsibility is to ensure that he doesn’t succeed. But also, as I said, that this war doesn’t escalate and become a full-fledged war. And that is not an easy task. It’s a difficult task, an important task, and we can return to that later on, I guess. But how to reconcile the need to be strong and firm but without ending up in escalating is one of the big challenges we face as NATO, but, of course, also in close partnership with Finland as a future member.

SAULI NIINISTÖ: Thank you. Let’s stay in Ukraine for a moment. There are three very crucial questions, actually, which I believe we all would like to hear your opinion. First, do you see any possibilities of gaining peace? Second, what are the risks of the warfare escalating if it continues and continues? I just want to underline that even during these months, we have seen changes in behaviour. I mean, Russia has started to use more aggressive armament, more destroying armament. And on the other hand, we, the West, whatever we want to call us, the aid to Ukraine has widened, especially on armament. In the very beginning, it was very, very thoroughly thought whether you can aid . . . give something to Ukraine, now it’s, in a way, enlarging all the time, which I don’t mean to criticise that, they need it. But nevertheless, if we see, in a way that, no escalation but the limits of escalation are tested further and further, and if the war . . . warfare continues, continues, continues, that might create a risk. And the third question. Well, we must ask, maybe ourselves too, at least when a couple of months continue with warfare, we are helping Ukraine, but we are facing, like I said, normal people are facing different kind of circumstances in their own, economic maybe, and that might eat up a bit resilience, to support Ukraine, which might be also the risk. So far, we have been expecting that Russia is, and Russians, would be losing their resilience. Is the question that, where it is lost more most or more?

JENS STOLTENBERG: So first to the question of whether peace is possible. Yes, peace is possible. The question is what kind of peace? Because if Ukraine withdraw its forces and stop fighting, then Ukraine will cease to exist as an independent, sovereign nation in Europe. If President Putin stops fighting, then we’ll have peace. So the dilemma is, of course, that peace is always possible. Surrender can provide peace. But as we have seen, the Ukrainians, they don’t accept peace at any price. They are actually willing to pay a very high price for their independence. And again, Finland is a country that really knows the price for peace and also the price for independence and being a sovereign nation. And it’s not for me to judge how high price the Ukrainians should be willing to pay. I mean, we pay a price because we provide support, we see the economic effects of the economic sanctions. But there is no doubt, as you said Sauli, that the highest price is paid by Ukrainians every day. And therefore it’s for them to judge, not for me, what is the price they are willing to pay, for peace and for independence? So, that’s, in a way, the moral dilemma. Peace is possible, but the question, how much are you willing to forsake to pay for getting that peace? The absolute best way to achieve peace in Ukraine is for President Putin to end this senseless war. We have to remember, every morning, every day, every hour during the day, there is one man, one nation that is responsible for that – and that is President Putin. Then we have difficult dilemmas, difficult choices, but it is President Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine that has created those dilemmas. And they can be solved by . . . from his side by ending the war. Then, one more thing on this, is that as President Zelensky has stated many times, this war will end at the negotiating table. The question is what kind of position will the Ukrainians have when they negotiate a solution? Our responsibility is to make that position as strong as possible. We know that there is a very close link between what you can achieve at the negotiating table and your position at the battlefield. So our military support to them is a way to strengthen their hand at the negotiating table when they, hopefully soon, will sit there and negotiate the peace agreement. So that was ‘peace is possible’ – that’s not the question anyway, the question is: what price are you willing to pay for peace? How much territory? How much independence? How much sovereignty? How much freedom? How much democracy are you willing to sacrifice for peace? And that’s a very difficult moral dilemma. And it’s for those who are paying the highest price to make that judgement. Our responsibility is to support them. Then, on escalation, I think it’s extremely important that we remember there is a danger of escalation. Also, as you said this morning, a horizontal escalation, we always see a kind of vertical escalation – more fighting, more suffering, heavier weapons in Ukraine – but escalation beyond Ukraine. And NATO has been very aware of this risk since the beginning, actually before the invasion, because we have to remember that when the invasion came, we were very prepared. In one way, we have been prepared for this eventuality since 2014, with the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the Cold War, with the battlegroups in the eastern part of the Alliance, more defence spending, higher readiness, new command structure and all that. And then it was, actually, when we met, I remember we met, we discussed the possibility of an invasion of Ukraine. We had very precise intelligence on the nation. Russia absolutely denied. We had the meeting in the NATO-Russia Council in January, I think it was, where that was the last serious effort from our side to find a negotiated way out of this. Russia said, ‘We have no plans whatsoever to invade.’ They actually sent out pictures, days beforehand, showing some battle tanks moving over this bridge […] the strait between Azov and the Black Sea, saying that they were actually withdrawing their forces. Then they invaded. And then, that morning, we activated NATO’s defence plans and deployed significant additional troops, because we were prepared, and now we have 40,000 NATO troops in the eastern part of the Alliance. Why did we do that? To prevent escalation. Because we have this increased presence to send an absolutely clear message to President Putin, to remove any room for miscalculation, misunderstanding in Moscow about our readiness to protect and defend every Ally. And as long as that’s clear, there will be no attack. So our deterrence is to prevent escalation. I’m sad that we are in such a situation, because it would have been better for all of us if we could spend all that money we now are spending on deterrence, more weapons, more artillery, more missiles, more troops, more ships, more planes – on education, health, infrastructure. But in a more dangerous world, we have to invest in security and that’s exactly what we’ll do to prevent escalation. So, I know I’m being a bit long, but we are . . . NATO is actually doing two things to prevent escalation. One is deterrence. As we do – and we’ll also make new decisions at the Madrid summit to strengthen further our posture: investing more, more troops, more readiness. But the only thing we do, is that we don’t move into Ukraine. And that’s not an easy decision. In my conversations, my talks, with the Ukrainian leaders, including President Zelensky, it’s not easy to tell them that we are not going to impose a no-fly zone. They asked for a no-fly zone, we said no. They wanted us to – and some Allies as well – there has been some proposals that we should move with creating a humanitarian corridor. We’re not doing that. There have also been discussions about NATO reinforcing a naval corridor to get food out. To not do that, it’s not easy, because it has a cost for the Ukrainians. But we . . . but the reason why we don’t move in with NATO troops in Ukraine is to prevent escalation. So we are always, since the beginning of this war, been very mindful about the need, the moral obligation, to support a country fighting for their freedom, for democracy, for their independence. But at the same time, preventing escalation by not being directly involved in the conflict. Then the last question was about resilience?

SAULI NIINISTÖ: Resilience, yes.

JENS STOLTENBERG: Yes. I think what we have learnt is that, of course, the strength of a nation is not about capabilities – number of battle tanks, number of planes or armoured vehicles and so on – but it’s very much about will. And I think that the will of the Ukrainian people to stand has been extremely impressive. The political courage of their leadership, the professional armed forces, has impressed the whole world. That’s first and foremost their responsibility, their courage. But I’m also glad that NATO has helped to train them. We have to remember that we have been there, NATO Allies and NATO have been there since 2014, training tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers, which are now on the frontline in the fight, and that has proven extremely effective. For instance, I know, I visited Yavoriv, the base they bombed quite earlier, west near Poland, that was one of the centres where they had significant NATO and NATO Allies training Ukrainian soldiers, which are now playing a key – and officers – which are now playing a key role, and actually help them to maintain and keep up the resilience of their armed forces.

SAULI NIINISTÖ: Okay. Yes. Making peace is not an easy task. I think that we, like I reminded you, told you about, the Second World War and the Finnish position when we had to make the peace. But nevertheless, losing Karelia, Petsamo too, but specifically Karelia, well Finns actually, I guess, never have forgotten it, and it took decades that people had in their minds all the time that a very, very wrong thing was done to Finland and Finnish people. So from that basis, I guess we understand that it is very difficult for Ukraine after all these victims, after all this fighting, to give up their land, not even partly. So that makes it difficult. But seeing that Russia would lose all its holdings is not maybe at all, at this point, foreseeable, who knows? But all this tells that gaining peace is absolutely difficult. I would go now to NATO membership and us, Finns, Finland. During the years past, let’s say, especially past ten years, when we have been enhanced partner in NATO, we have increased, developed all the time, the cooperation. And it was said that, actually, Finland and Sweden are, well, at least fitting well other each member country of NATO. The question is only that the official nomination is not there. That was kind of the discussion spirit. And that surely led us also thinking in a way that we are, well, meeting all the criteria’s and still have the feeling. So I just want you to understand that the Turkish intervention here was kind of surprising, because according to our studies, our legislation, our position with Turkey’s terrorism, or being against that, is on average NATO-country level. So I just want to point this out so that we know why it has amazed a bit, Finnish people – understanding very well that we that we have to continue, like I said, discussions with Turkey and trying to find answers – but somehow we have a feeling that it’s not only Finland, it’s not only Sweden, but they want to somehow to point out to all NATO, and maybe even outside NATO countries, their own problem like they . . . they have it, like they tell. Just . . . yeah.

JENS STOLTENBERG: So I will comment on Finland and their NATO membership in a moment. But I would just, first, have a very brief reflection on what you said about losing territories and you made a kind of historical reference to, that you lost Karelia and Petsamo after the Second World War. It’s always very dangerous to make historical parallels or to draw to precise historical lessons. But I have read articles by very, I should say, recognised scholars saying that one of the reasons why actually Finland was able to come out of the Second World War as an independent, sovereign nation with most of your territory intact, was that you fought so hard during the Winter War. So you demonstrated a willingness to actually impose a high cost on a potential adversary trying to take your territory. I’m not saying that that’s necessarily the right historical analysis, but I’m saying that at least it demonstrated that Finland is willing to pay a price for independence and freedom. And that’s exactly what we see that Ukraine is willing to pay now, which is extremely harmful, or extremely hard, because it actually means that you see sacrifices of lives every day, because they believe in something which is extremely important: your own independence, democracy and freedom. And this is also not only about territorial integrity, but it’s also about believing in a free, democratic society. And that’s what the Ukrainians are fighting for today. Then you made a compromise and it’s not for me to comment on that. But that enabled . . . that at least created the historic foundations for the independent and modern Finland we see today. Then on Finland, membership of NATO. First of all, I think it’s important that we step up and actually recognise the magnitude of the decision. I always said that Norway will become a member of EU much before Finland becomes a member of NATO. I was wrong. And, of course, we could all speculate about the possibility of Finland joining NATO. But, if you just looked at the opinion polls, polls back then, as late as in this fall, it was not very likely that this would happen in the near future. Now you have applied and you will become a member, and that will be good for Finland, it will be good for NATO and it will be good for the whole transatlantic area. And, actually, you bring to NATO something which is of great importance: a stable democracy, a strong, resilient society and very advanced military capabilities. I mean, the whole world is impressed by what you have been able to uphold, and also the fact that you have actually seen the value of military strength, of resilient societies, in a way that many other European countries and most NATO Allies have not been, after the end of the Cold War. And I also think that NATO will be good for you. Then, of course, we need to take seriously the concerns expressed by Turkey. And Turkey is an important NATO Ally for different reasons, not least for its geographic location. As I mentioned, they are a Black Sea nation bordering Russia and the Black Sea. They played and play a key role in our fight against terrorism. Infrastructure bases in Turkey has been, is key, in the fight against ISIS and similar terrorist groups. And then I think also being in a Nordic country and in Western Europe, it’s important to remember that sometimes maybe we don’t recognise how much Turkey suffers – Turkey, yeah – suffers from terrorist attacks. No other . . . the magnitude of the number of terrorist attacks they suffer is far much more than any of us suffer. I remember, I went to . . . first of all, I remember after Charlie Hebdo, many European leaders, including myself, we went out to Paris and we marched through the streets of Paris in solidarity with France. That was a great thing to do. A few weeks after, I went to Ankara and President Erdoğan said, ‘So why didn’t you come here? We had many more casualties, many more people killed, a kind of youth camp, where a terrorist attack killed a lot of young people. No one came.’ The same after the coup attempt, I went to Ankara and I saw they had actually bombed the parliament. So, sometimes I think we need to recognise that Turkey faces threats, terrorist threats at a scale none of us faces. And of course, then they have the right to defend themselves. I mean, speak about groups which we all recognise as terrorists. PKK is not something they have invented as a terrorist group – it’s agreed by Finland, Sweden, EU, NATO Allies. So then, I think, we just have to realise how to fight this terrorism, which is causing so much pain, suffering for them, it matters for them. And then when they raise concerns about that, we need to sit down and find out how to address it. And that’s exactly the way we do when there are different views in NATO and that’s what we do now, in close, of course . . . so, I welcome the close dialogue between you, Ankara. Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto was here, so there are many levels of engagement now. And we work also, from the NATO side, we work actively to find a solution and I’m very much looking forward to when we do that, because I really look forward to welcoming Finland and also Sweden as a full member of NATO as soon as possible.

SAULI NIINISTÖ: Well, we have to keep in mind that it’s ‘Türkiye’ . . .

JENS STOLTENBERG: Yeah, I try . . .

SAULI NIINISTÖ:  . . . from now on. Very good. Yes, I made an official visit to Ankara in 2015 and just a couple of days earlier there was a huge terrorist act. I don’t remember, tens of people died. So it is a real threat to Turkish people, actually. So actually, I have made my questions. But one promise: we have got a lot of support from Norway, from our Nordic friends, and from many others during this process. What about if we promise to support Norway to become a member of EU as strongly as they’re supporting us. JENS STOLTENBERG: Yes, but first of all, Norway has to a certain decision, yes, because you remember when we met to discuss this issue last fall? My message has been to Finland and Sweden all the time that NATO will never push, never in any way try to influence a domestic debate on whether to apply or not. Because I think it will not be helpful if NATO came to Helsinki and said, ‘You should apply for membership.’ Now, when you have decided through your own democratic process to apply, that changes everything, then we can welcome that. But I will not speak on behalf of Norway, but Jonas Gahr Støre is there, and he is a very experienced politician, he knows both NATO issues, EU issues, and he knows the people of Norway, so I think it’s for him to speak about the issue of EU membership. I actually tried, as part of the government I was part of then in ’94.

SAULI NIINISTÖ: I know.

JENS STOLTENBERG: We lost and, yeah, I will not be the leader of the next campaign.

SAULI NIINISTÖ: But if I remember, if I remember correctly, nevertheless, you said that, ‘If you decide, we will support,’ and this is for Norway, ‘If you decide, we will support.’ Okay. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Luckily, we have the Prime Minister of Norway here. I don’t know if you want to comment on this, or maybe ask a question? This is now time for questions. There’s a microphone on the table. Please grab it.

JONAS GAHR STØRE [Prime Minister of Norway]: Thank you. Mr President, dear audience, thank you for inviting me. Let’s avoid that last topic, we should not dive into the two big complexities. But let me say, there are so many dimensions to the issues you are discussing today. And I think they were two enlightening interventions. Let me, on behalf of Norway, say a few things directly, since the president of Finland is our host. Now that you have applied, Norway strongly supports that application. In Parliament, on Thursday, Parliament will vote with an overwhelming majority the accession of Finland into NATO. Now, knowing, one may then ask, ‘Should there not be that protocol and all the signatories and all that process in between?’ But we make our decisions, because we believe in the Nordic region. We should be clean on this, direct on this. And I agree with the Secretary General, we have awaited this until you have made your decision, and then we are very firm. It is historic that there will be five Nordic countries on the horizon working on security inside NATO. Now, I . . . I have many interests into what you discussed on Ukraine. I agree with the Secretary General, any conflict, be it as horrendous as it may be, ends at the negotiating table sometime. And when we see the immense destruction going on of human life, property and infrastructure in Ukraine, one should hope that that day comes sooner rather than later. And I agree with the President that we should also reflect on that dimension. But my comment will be on the Nordic region. Since January, Mr President, we have been in touch pretty regularly, I think almost weekly. I have appreciated it to share analysis with you and your insight. And perhaps we have been able to share some of our experience, being a bordering country with Russia. Now, my message has always been the Nordic region threatens none. And when we join in NATO, we will be five countries who would like to take care of our sovereignty and our integrity and be active participants in the peaceful development of Europe and in our neighbouring relations. Some have said that with Finland in NATO, NATO will move to Russia’s border. And my view has been that that is not what is happening, because Finland is on Russia’s border and Norway is on Russia’s border, and we make decisions on how we look after our security with our allies. And we have 70 years of experience with Russia being a neighbour. And most of the cold winds that have influenced negatively on that relationship have not emerged on our border, it has come from other geopolitical settings. So I believe that when we welcome Finland and Sweden into NATO, we will have important contributions to make: what it means to be a neighbour in a peaceful way, deciding on our own security. And that’s where I would like to perhaps challenge the President to reflect on that, because no country can choose its geography. We are happy to have the geography we have. Norway, for its part, has been at peace with Russia for a thousand years. We are probably the only neighbour of Russia that has not been at war with Russia. So when I meet my Estonian colleague or my Finnish colleagues, I acknowledge that we have different histories of being neighbours. And my view, in my view, Russia does not have a neighbour policy, but it has policy with neighbours. And it differs. But now, if the Nordic group comes into NATO, I think we should be a voice of wisdom, a voice of looking at the long lines. There will come a day after this  conflict. And the day after, Russia will still be there and we will be there and we will be neighbouring Russia. Norway with its maritime outlook and Finland with its long land border. So, Mr President, I welcome that we now, from today and onwards, will work together on reflecting how we can use the Nordic experience being medium, small-sized nations, peaceful, prosperous, to contribute to Europe. And I appreciate highly the dialogue we’ve had up until today. And it’s the ambition of my government to deepen and continue that relationship. Thank you.

SAULI NIINISTÖ: Excellent. Yes. We really have been discussing quite a lot and it all has been very useful to me. I want to thank you for all the support you have given and to your Parliament for its decision, it has been very valuable. And I want to add that you haven’t been working just for Norway to support us, but you have brought quite a lot of other supporters with you. So, I have always found very interesting the relation Norway-Russia, because you are a neighbour. And in Finland, we tend to speak about the Norwegian model. I think it’s totally misunderstood, if one thinks that it's only with nuclear armament or permanent basements in question, I see the Norwegian model in a very different way. You described it, actually. And I would like to see us Nordics thinking like I have said, that the fact that Finland is joining NATO, it will surely increase our security, but it’s not away from anybody, it’s not a zero-sum game. If somebody increases security, it’s not away from anybody, not away from Russia. So I’m most pleased and I’m sure that we all are very pleased to go on discussing and thinking with you. It’s very valuable.

MODERATOR: Okay. Next question. I have Erkki Tuomioja a Member of Parliament, please?

Erkki Tuomioja [Finnish Member of Parliament]: Thank you. I want to address the wider implications of the crisis in Ukraine, because it’s not the only conflict and war, or crisis, which is ongoing in the world today. And it is creating, actually, a new crisis, a global food crisis on top of all the other issues that we have to address. But it is unique, of course, that we have not seen this in the heart of Europe for over . . . since the Second World War. And obviously, we have not seen a state attacking, unprovokedly, another state. But we have seen states engage in proxy wars, and they are doing that in other parts of the world. Our response has been unique to the Russian attack, and make no mistake, it has been the right response. We have responded with unprecedented sanctions, with unprecedented support for Ukrainian defence and unprecedented welcome to all the refugees that have had to leave the country. But the question is, what is raised in other parts of the world, so if this is the right response, why have we not responded in the same way to other crises? Because, say, Yemen, or other illegal occupations, we have illegal occupations in Cyprus, we have it in Palestine, we have it in other parts of the world. So it raises the question of double standards. And while we have to continue supporting Ukraine in the way we do, but I think there is a lesson to be learnt from this crisis and the global response to it. And it is, and I would hope, that this is a co-joined Nordic view, a Nordic response, that we must, in the future, react to all illegal use of force, military operations and the human rights violations in the same manner, no matter who is behind them. But there is a legacy in the world that comes from the 30s, when President Roosevelt was said to have remarked on Somoza that, ‘He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.’ And that is a too-common attitude towards authoritarian regimes who are engaged in human rights violations. So can we, in the future, react in the same manner, a consistent manner, to all human rights violations and illegal use of force, irrespective of where and by whom they are committed? Thank you.

MODERATOR: Who wants to go first? Please.

JENS STOLTENBERG: So, ideally, yes. Then I think we . . . and, actually, we have some institutions that are supposed to do exactly that, not least the United Nations. But the problem is, of course, that to be able to react in the way we have against the invasion of Ukraine, we need to be united at the level we are going to react. So, for instance, on some of the conflicts you mentioned, we are far away from the same level of unity. Then we can discuss that, why we have not been able to unite on other conflicts, but that should not reduce the importance of our commitment to stay united in the way we react to the brutal invasion of Ukraine. And I think that President Putin underestimated both the courage and the strength of the Ukrainian people and armed forces, but also the unity and the strength of the reaction from NATO Allies, partners and countries all over the world. If I can add one more reflection it’s that, from a NATO perspective, we are working hard to strengthen our partnership with other likeminded countries around the world. So, for instance, at the upcoming NATO summit now, later on this month in Madrid, we will for the first time, have our leaders, the presidents and the prime ministers of Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea at a NATO summit to further strengthen our partnership, because we see that China – with its authoritarian rule, the lack of support for the rules-based international order – working more closely with Russia, that’s about also standing up for our values, our democratic institutions, and also working more closely with countries, beyond NATO, including the Asia-Pacific partners. So, I don’t have a very easy answer to your question. I think it party reflects the lack . . . that the UN is not able to deliver what it should do, because it is run the way it is run. NATO tries to work more closely with partners, also, outside NATO, and the closer partnership with democratic nations in other parts of the world is one step in that direction.

SAULI NIINISTÖ: I think, basically, you raised quite a correct question, which we should all ask ourselves. But how to solve it? I link it to this world order or new world order talks. If we can’t universally have a world order, which surely the UN should be constructing, I do not believe that we can very much avoid situations where . . . what you described. So, working on that level and from that point of view, I see that it is most important to, now, to very, very carefully and closely follow which kind of reactions Russian behaviour raises elsewhere. We know the NATO countries, we know the European opinion, but what about elsewhere? And it would be very worrying if such behaviour would – even if it wouldn’t be supported directly – but, being forgotten. So we just have to believe that we can somehow come together in multilateral cooperation […] in UN.

MODERATOR: Next we have Anna Laurila, President of the Finnish National Youth Council. And we are running out of time, so if everybody can make their questions precise.

ANNA LAURILA [President of Finnish National Youth Council]: Yes. Thank you. And thank you for the important discussion. The principal of the Action Programme on Youth, Peace and Security is the inclusion of young people in peace work. Finland is the only Nordic country that has drawn up a national action programme based on the UN 2250 resolution. How do we ensure that the youth are involved as active actors in building a safe and peaceful environment and society in the changed security situation? And this is because the effects on the crisis, such as climate, Corona, and now Ukraine, cause the deepest impacts for young people. And the key solution should be to consult youth in the decision making. Thank you.

SAULI NIINISTÖ: Well, I have nothing else to say that you have said there. It’s very natural because the future is not necessarily for me, but it’s for you, and listening to you. I would say that the discussion we have had, or security policy, which I described, that it’s more lively, more wide than ever before, maybe that’s a good model to continue on other issues too.

MODERATOR: Do you wish to comment?

JENS STOLTENBERG: Well, the problem is not the questions, the problem is too-long answers and especially from me. So therefore, I tried to refrain, but now I can say some words. And to be honest, first of all, I think that governments, grown-up politicians like me and Sauli, we can invite young people to participate in all kinds of important international meetings, and that’s good that we should try to do that. But to be honest, the most important thing is to be active yourself, as young people. My experience from politics over many years is that young people have a lot of power when they organise and are active, either in different organisations – be it against nuclear weapons or in favour of peace, or yes or no to the European Union, whatever it is – they have a lot of say, they really make a difference. And not least when young people are active in political parties, they have a lot to say. So my main message is really to say, just use the power you have, be active in political processes, political parties, and then the grown-up elderly men like me and Sauli that’s the problem . . . that’s not a problem, but the challenge.

MODERATOR: Minister for Foreign Affairs, Pekka Haavisto, please?

PEKKA HAAVISTO [Minister for Foreign Affairs, Finland]: Thank you. Thanks for the interesting discussion. And, actually, my question goes back to the first part of the discussion about the European security architecture, which has failed or collapsed because we couldn’t prevent a war in Europe. And we have the OSCE as an organisation, Finland will chair it 2025, and my question to you is that what . . . how can we bring the things back to the track and, particularly, what kind of security guarantees we can give to Ukraine, a country like Ukraine, who has lost the trust to its neighbours and so forth? What can European countries or European organisations or NATO provide in this context? Thank you.

JENS STOLTENBERG: So, first of all, I remember I discussed with both of you, actually, the kind of beautiful idea that Finland is going to share The OSCE – the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe – in 2025, and then hosting a new summit, most likely in Helsinki, 50 years after we agreed to the Helsinki Final Act. It’s not for me to decide what you will do, but of course, the likelihood of having that as a kind of peaceful demonstration of how we can work together in Europe is significantly reduced by the brutal invasion of Ukraine that we all have seen over the last months. Then, I don’t disagree with you, but I think we have to be mindful about the following. It’s that, in one way, the European security architecture has failed, because the idea of the European security architecture is to protect all countries being part of it, and of course, Ukraine is part of that. So in that sense, you are absolutely right. But from a NATO perspective, NATO’s also part of the European security perspective. But only . . . we are not the whole . . . we are not the European security architecture, but we are an important pillar of it, for those Allies, for those countries that have chosen to be part of NATO – and that’s now 30, soon 32. And of course for those, I think it only underlines the importance of security organisations as NATO, where we share some common values, where we have some common goals, but not only that, we will have some common structures to enforce those values and goals. Because I’m a strong believer in the OSCE. I’m a strong believer in the United Nations. But the problem is, that they don’t have the power to reinforce the principles. NATO has power, because we have Article 5 commitment. We have the command structure. We have the military capabilities. And we have, of course, the transatlantic unity. There’s no doubt that what makes NATO the most successful alliance in history is that we bring Europe and North America together. So the failure of the big European security architecture makes only the more limited, but also still very important, architecture in NATO even more important – and even more important now that you have decided to apply and become a member of this part. Then, to try and answer on what kinds of guarantees, what we can do to Ukraine is to provide support, and that’s . . . to provide them with weapons is perhaps now the most important thing we can do to help them protect their security. But as we all know, that comes with a price. And I don’t speak about the price for us to pay for those weapons, but it comes with the price of prolonging this war. But as I said many times, I think it’s for Ukraine to decide, not for me to decide when they think they have paid too high a price for the war. Hopefully, as part of some kind of peace agreement, there will also be some kind of security . . . I don’t call them ‘guarantees’, because I don’t think it will be Article 5 guarantees, but ‘assurances’. The problem, and I’m quite honest with you, is that Ukraine has had that before. They had a beautiful memorandum called the Budapest Memorandum, where Russia guaranteed, because Ukraine got rid of all their nuclear weapons. But also other countries guaranteed. So the problem is that these kind of documents, they . . . if you have countries, as Russia, who are violating those documents, they don’t make so much difference. So you need documents, you need values, you need principles. But at the end of the day, you need some hard power to protect those values.

SAULI NIINISTÖ: Yes, when it comes to security guarantees, which is very understandable that Ukraine wants them and needs them, because any solution would leave very easily a doubt that, ‘When they come again?’ And how to, well, guarantee – that’s a really complex question. There was an idea that all the permanent members of the UN would give this guarantee, including Russia. Okay. But I tend to agree with the Secretary General, it’s, at the end, it’s hard power. We don’t have a court deciding whether somebody is behaving against agreements, international agreements. They are just broken, like in this case. In Europe, the architecture, we have made European Map, Strategic Map. NATO is having its Strategic Concept and there have been discussions of EU-NATO cooperation. So there is, ongoing, a lot of discussion and ideas of European security, without Russia. And then the big question is that the moment it is possible – and it’s possible only after Ukraine is peaceful – in that moment, one has to link, somehow, Russia to these kind of talks. Trying to, let’s say, at least secure the future. Even though, in that case too, we have to remember that any document, well, might be [inaudible] if it’s broken. 2025, you reminded – well, we had a beautiful idea, yes. And that maybe also Russia supported that warmly. So maybe that’s an indication that sometimes some people tend to think too positively for the future.

MODERATOR: I’m going to break the rules here, but I’m going to take one more question. But that means that, also, you need to make your answers a bit shorter. We have Professor Matti Nojonen.

MATTI NOJONEN [Professor]: Yes. Thank you. I’m a China scholar and I have a question for General Secretary Stoltenberg related to China-NATO The question is that, whether NATO will write into the strategy, China. And then how . . . or do you think China will react to that, and what kind of ball game then NATO will face in the future, because then it’s really a global player. And whether that also will push China closer to Russia and increase bipolarity.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

JENS STOLTENBERG: First of all, NATO is an alliance of North America and Europe, and NATO will remain an alliance of North America and Europe. So we will not become a global alliance. But North America and Europe, this region faces global threats and challenges. That includes, for instance, cyber, which is a truly global threat. People can be in China, in North Korea, they can be all over the world and impose heavy damage on NATO Allies, on our security, through cyberspace. Space is becoming more and more important for our security, the satellites, the communications, everything we do, or more and more what we do on the earth is dependent on space capabilities globally. We need to react to that. Terrorism brought NATO to Afghanistan on the borders, actually of China – a global threat. And then China matters for our security. It is absolutely impossible to deny that. They are the second-largest defence spender in the world. They are investing heavily in new nuclear weapon systems, including a lot of long-range nuclear missiles that can reach the whole of NATO territory. They are the largest navy in the world, they have the largest navy in the world. And they are working more and more closely with Russia, like it or dislike it. But they operate together with them militarily, diplomatically. They have not condemned the invasion of Ukraine. They spread the same false narrative about NATO causing this war, about NATO and the United States producing biological chemical weapons in Ukraine, they are spreading that with their public information means, underpinning the Russian narrative about the war in Ukraine. So, they are trying to control our infrastructure, so we need to respond to that. We will respond to that as we have always responded to that. But we also reflect that in the new Strategic Concept, not saying that China is an adversary, but addressing the fact that China’s growth matters to our security. Now I have to stop because she moved towards me.

MODERATOR: I did. Thank you for noting that. And thank you both. The talks will continue tomorrow morning at 9:45am. See you all then for a discussion on the Nordic model and security. And for our audience watching this live on TV, the programme will continue until 8:00pm, but from us here in the tent, see you tomorrow and have a great night.

You must provide an address

This is not a valid e-mail address!

Something went wrong sending the address

• What is NATO?
• Founding Treaty
• NATO member countries
• NATO’s partnerships
• Secretary General
• NATO History
• NATO on the Map
• Strategic Concepts
• Dispatches from the field
• We are NATO
• Funding NATO
• Encyclopedia of NATO Topics
• Collective defence and Article 5
• Deterrence and defence
• De-bunking Russian disinformation on NATO
• NATO-Ukraine relations
• Cyber defence
• Environment, climate change and security
• Women, Peace and Security
• Media advisories
• Press Office contacts
• Media accreditation
• Speeches & transcripts
• Event programmes
• Official texts
• Use of content

Work with us

• Careers at NATO
• Young Professionals Programme
• Internship Programme
• Business opportunities
• NATO Co-sponsorship grants
• Basic texts
• NATO at a glance
• NATO Terminology
• Standardization Agreements
• NATO Archives
• Newsroom archive (pre 2008)
• NATO Library
• NATO Research Guides
• Secretary General’s Annual Report
• Brand Identity Manual
• Military Committee & International Military Staff (IMS)
• Allied Command Operations (ACO)
• Allied Command Transformation (ACT)
• KFOR (Kosovo Force)
• Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI)
• Mediterranean Dialogue
• Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC)
• Science for Peace and Security

News from the Columbia Climate School

Could ‘Peace Speech’ Save the Planet?

Lindsay Key

Columbia Climate School

“Peace on Earth” is a popular sentiment this time of year, hung beneath storefront wreaths and scrawled across holiday greeting cards. But what does peace on Earth look like exactly, during a time when the planet is experiencing rising temperatures, dwindling biodiversity, polluted water and air, and violent land disputes? Achieving peace—especially when it comes to planetary issues—has a lot to do with the language we use, according to Columbia Climate School social psychologist Peter Coleman and award-winning poet Pádraig Ó Tuama .

With support from the Morton Deutsch International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution (MD-ICCCR), Teachers College, and the Climate School at Columbia University, Coleman and Ó Tuama are teaming up to explore the power of language when it comes to promoting peace, security, and sustainability across the globe. Coleman, a professor of psychology and education and director of MD-ICCCR, is an expert in conflict resolution, and editor of the seminal textbook, Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice (2014) . Ó Tuama is a writer of poetry and prose, theologian, public speaker, and community peace builder. Originally from Ireland, from 2014-2019 he was the leader of the Corrymeela Community , Ireland’s oldest peace and reconciliation community.

From October 2021 to May 2022, Ó Tuama will be in residence in New York City working with Coleman and other collaborators at the MD-ICCCR and Climate School. The outcome will be the publication of an anthology of 35 poems exploring major themes expressed in Coleman’s award-winning handbook, which covers conflict between individuals; conflict in groups; ambivalent responses to conflict; regression, aggression and resistance; cooperation and negotiation; as well as conflict as a state of existence in the current climate crisis.

“For me, theology, conflict, and poetry are all centered around the usage of words and the power of words,” said Ó Tuama. For years, when counseling both writers and community builders, he has stressed that language — especially in syntax, tense and story — is a powerful container for meaning. An artistic approach towards word choice can be harnessed to deepen peace building.

“Some people find themselves wordless in the face of conflict, and other people find themselves with extraordinary access to possibly the most devastating language in the space of conflict and can say things that that are ultimately unforgettable,” he said. “That can happen among people who love each other, as well as people who hate each other, or both. And for me, conflict resolution has always been an act of poetry to think about what is possible in the poem that’s created in the room where a conversation is taking place.”

Although he was already familiar with conflict resolution theory due to his work in peace building in Ireland, Ó Tuama said he has found Coleman’s handbook to be an excellent resource during his residency. He first came to know Coleman about five years ago, when the Columbia professor emailed him out of the blue. Coleman was grieving the loss of a friend and heard an interview with Ó Tuama on the On Being with Krista Tippett show broadcast on NPR .

“I was really taken by it,” said Coleman. He reached out to Ó Tuama, who, ironically, happened to be right down the street on a visit to New York City, and they struck up a friendship and creative partnership. Coleman immediately looked for ways to bring Ó Tuama to New York as a collaborator, and this year’s residency was made possible with support from the Climate School, Columbia University’s Teachers College, and two anonymous donors.

“One of the things I’ve been privileged to be able to do in the last 20 years is work in these multidisciplinary teams, which bring together very different kinds of people,” to study the planet’s multi-faceted, complex problems, said Coleman. “I always learn when working with colleagues who are coming at problems from a fundamentally different point of view. It’s refreshing to me. It’s critical to understanding the different natures of phenomena and to advancing our understanding of complex topics.”

Most recently, at Columbia’s Advanced Consortium on Cooperation, Conflict and Complexity, Coleman is leading the Sustaining Peace Project —a team of multidisciplinary researchers devoted to bridging the gap between the academic understanding and practical applications of lasting peace. The group is working to build consensus around what types of language represent “peace speech”— the opposite of “hate speech”—in order to investigate how language might be used to repair and heal violent or broken communities. For one project, the team is using machine learning to scan 900 million news articles published during a 10-year span in both highly violent and highly peaceful nations. They are analyzing and comparing linguistic differences among the countries.

“What data science can reveal sometimes are kind of fundamental cultural differences in how people communicate that may be harder to find when you’re studying language at the micro level,” said Coleman. “And what we’re finding in the mining of this language between these societies is that there are different lexicons that are functioning in highly peaceful societies versus less peaceful societies. The structure of the language is different.”

Using “peace speech” is highly important when it comes to discussing controversial matters related to the environment like climate change, according to Coleman and Ó Tuama. Ó Tuama will explore this concept further in the work released after the end of his residency in May.

“The question as to what language is working and what language needs to be avoided is a fluid one, depending on the room. In some groups, for instance, you know, ‘climate deniers’ might be a phrase that even if you think is accurate, is actually just going to impede the possibility of communication and is going to cause someone to feel insulted,” said Ó Tuama. “The bigger question for the communicator in this is, ‘What do you want?’ What do you hear in this negotiation? What hope for any kind of resolution do you have? And how can your language be focused on and achievable and workable and important for resolution rather than trying to win every little battle?”

During Ó Tuama’s residency, he will also host multiple public readings and workshops, open to Columbia University students and the general public. The hope is that these events will be useful for writers and communicators as well as well as for students of narrative medicine, climate change, theology and conflict resolution, he said.

Upcoming Events

Poetry Lab: Exploring conflict intelligence through the lens of a single poem

Fridays, 2.30pm. (Feb 4, 11, 18, 25; March 4, 11)

Open to all. Register here .

Poetry and Climate: Bringing a poet together with a climate specialist, these three online sessions will explore climate change, place, lament, protest and art. Sessions will be available on Youtube following the series. Dates and times TBD. Check our events page for updates .

Poetry and Conflict: Bringing a poet together with a conflict specialist, these three online sessions will explore conflict, language, lament, change and intervention. Sessions will be available on Youtube following the series. Dates and times TBD. Check our events page for updates .

Related Posts

Columbia Beautiful Planet 2024

Repairing Tectonic GNSS in Bangladesh’s Tea Region

Finishing the Coastal Service Run

Celebrate over 50 years of Earth Day with us all month long! Visit our Earth Day website for ideas, resources, and inspiration.

Get the Columbia Climate School Newsletter →

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser .

T4Tutorials.com

Speech on peace [1, 2, 3, 5 minutes], 2 minutes speech on peace.

Dear teachers and students!

Greetings to all. and thank you to all of you to give me chance to give a speech.

The absence of hostility, violence, and fear characteristics a state of peace. It is a place where different cultures, religions, and ideas are respected and celebrated, and where people live in peace and harmony with one another and with other groups. The growth and well-being of people, communities, and nations depend on peace.

Addressing the underlying causes of conflict, such as poverty, inequality, and injustice, is crucial for bringing about peace. This can be accomplished by combining various initiatives, such as good governance, economic development, and educational advancement. Additionally, it is crucial to address problems like discrimination and oppression because they can stoke resentment and anger, which can then result in violence and conflict.

Effective intergroup communication and dialogue is a crucial component in fostering peace. Finding common ground and developing trust can be accomplished by listening to and comprehending the viewpoints of others. This can result in effective negotiation and a readiness to make concessions, both of which are necessary for resolving disputes and bringing about peace.

It’s crucial to understand that peace should not only be the absence of violence but also include constructive actions and moral principles. I want to request you to behave with peaceful behaviors like Compassion, Generosity, fairness, and respect for one another. This peaceful behavior is helpful to the development and sustainability of a peaceful culture. Dear friends don’t forget that very one has a responsibility to maintain peace, not just governments and leaders. Speaking out against injustice and violence, as well as encouraging respect and cooperation between various groups, are all ways that we can all contribute to peace. Only by working together can we hope to bring about a lasting peace.

Quotes for Speech about Peace

• “Peace is not merely a distant goal but a journey we walk with every step.” – Thich Nhat Hanh
• “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.” – Albert Einstein
• “Peace begins with a smile.” – Mother Teresa
• “The day the power of love overrules the love of power, the world will know peace.” – Mahatma Gandhi
• “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.” – Nelson Mandela
• “Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict.” – Dorothy Thompson
• “Peace is a journey of a thousand miles, and it must be taken one step at a time.” – Lyndon B. Johnson
• “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.” – Mahatma Gandhi
• “Peace is not something you wish for; it’s something you make, something you do, something you are, and something you give away.” – Robert Fulghum
• “Better than a thousand hollow words is one word that brings peace.” – Buddha
• “Imagine all the people living life in peace. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope someday you’ll join us, and the world will be as one.” – John Lennon
• “World peace must develop from inner peace. Peace is not just mere absence of violence. Peace is, I think, the manifestation of human compassion.” – Dalai Lama
• “Peace is the result of retraining your mind to process life as it is, rather than as you think it should be.” – Wayne Dyer
• “When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.” – Jimi Hendrix

5 Minutes Speech on Peace

In our individual lives, our communities, and the globe at large, we all aspire to live in peace. Finding peace, however, is not always simple since it frequently calls for compromise, comprehension, and a desire to band together and work toward a shared objective.

Practice peace in our own lives as one of the first things we can do to advance it. Even when we disagree with someone, we should still show them courtesy and respect. It entails hearing many viewpoints and making an effort to comprehend others’ opinions. Additionally, it entails taking accountability for our own deeds and attempting to settle disputes amicably.

But establishing a just and equitable society is also important for maintaining peace; it goes beyond individual acts. Access to the fundamentals of life, such as food, housing, and healthcare, is what it means to live in peace. It entails tackling issues like poverty, injustice, and prejudice that are the main drivers of violence.

The presence of justice, not the absence of conflict, is what defines peace, so it’s crucial to keep that in mind as well. We need to be prepared to face and resolve the problems that put the peace at risk if we want to keep it. By doing so, you are defending human rights and speaking out against injustice.

We as a global society must unite in order to bring about world peace. To do this, it is necessary to collaborate with individuals from other origins and cultures as well as to be prepared to set aside our differences in order to work toward a shared objective.

Being conscious of the problems that threaten it, such as war, terrorism, and prejudice, is another way that we may contribute to the promotion of world peace. When we observe these problems occurring, we should not be afraid to speak out and take appropriate action.

In summary, we may all work toward and contribute to the creation of peace. The creation of a just and equitable society begins with individual activities, but it also necessitates a group effort, as well as a readiness to face and resolve the problems that endanger it. Together, let’s work to advance world peace.

Thanks a lot.

Speeches in English

• Speech on women’s empowerment
• Speech on social media
• Speech on environment
• Speech on gender equality
• Speech on poverty
• Speech on Global Warming
• Speech on Environmental Pollution
• Speech on Earth Day
• Speech on Discipline
• Speech on Human Rights
• Speech on Education
• Motivational speech for students
• 2-minute Self-introduction speech examples
• Speech on Mahatma Gandhi
• Speech on freedom fighters
• Speech on APJ Abdul Kalam
• Speech about friendship
• Speech about Technology
• Speech on Parents
• Speech on Health
• Speech on Doctor
• Speech about Life
• Speech on Health and Hygiene
• Speech on sports
• Speech on Racism
• Speech on Mental health
• Speech on Population
• Speech on Overcoming Fear
• Speech about Family
• Speech on Mobile Phones
• Speech on water conservation
• Speech on Honesty
• Speech on Culture
• Speech on Unity in diversity
• Speech on Peace
• Speech on Time
• Speech on Success
• Speech on Leadership

Related Posts:

• Speech about pen [1,2,3 Minutes short Speech]
• Speech on women's empowerment [1, 2, 3, 5 Minutes]
• Speech on social media [1, 2, 3, 5 Minutes]
• Speech on environment Day[1, 2, 3, 5 Minutes]
• Speech on gender equality [1, 2, 3, 5 Minutes]
• Speech on poverty [1, 2, 3, 5 Minutes]

• Skip to language switcher
• Skip to menu
• Skip to content
• Skip to footer

Is Peace Possible?

Most of us think we know what peace is, but people often have very different definitions of this apparently simple word. And although almost everyone would agree that some form of peace—however it is defined—is desir­able, there are often forceful, even violent, disagreements over how to obtain it.

Frequently, there is an unstated assumption in peace discourses that peace is universal and unchanging. This premise underlies much peace talk, both Western and non-Western. But few if any peace scholars and activists provide reasons and arguments to justify this belief. And most conversations about peace prior to the past century have been among Western and East Asian men of privilege. This is gradually changing, however, as female, non-Western, and previously unempowered peace advocates and peacemakers make their voices heard.

An additional belief, especially in Occidental peace theories prior to the twentieth century, has been that peace is “the absence of war.” In other words, peace has been defined “negatively,” almost always in the context of inter-state political violence. This binary opposition between peace and war entails the further belief that peace and war are mutually exclusive—e.g. nations are either “at peace” or “at war”—and that there is no continuum between war and peace. It also implies that nations (at least from the 17th century on) and empires (through the end of World War I) have been the major peacemakers and belligerents.

However, since, roughly, the mid-twentieth century and the end of the Second World War, other actors, including multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations, peace and related social justice movements, spiritual and religious leaders, and groups labeled “terrorist” by states, have become important players on the global stage. Also, since 1945, intra-state conflicts and proxy wars (especially in the “developing” world) have replaced wars between great powers.

Additionally, there are often significant conflict zones within nations formally “at peace” and without declared civil wars. For example, perhaps the three most powerful nation-states—the United States, Russia, and China— while officially “at peace” among themselves, are riven by internal conflicts and “terrorist” attacks, as in southern parts of Russia, some American cities, and Western parts of China. Systemic racism still lingers in the U.S.; there is widespread lack of freedom for Christians in China and for Muslims in Russia; and all three countries have endemic and increasing inequities of income and power. These and other factors catalyze violent intra-national conflicts, including eruptions of violence between “alt-right” and “anti-fascist” fringes (as in Charlottesville, Virginia) and atrocities committed by disaffected jihadists, labeled “terrorists” by government officials and the mass media, who attack civilians and officials in the superpowers and elsewhere.

During their Cold War from 1945 to 1991, the U.S. and Russia were involved in many belligerent ventures, particularly in Central America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, and more recently in proxy wars, most noticeably in Syria, resulting in the loss of millions of lives, mostly people of color. And China, whose current political posture is consistent with its long history of internal consolidation rather than overseas military adventurism, has recently expanded its global economic presence (particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia), and, while reluctant to do so, may become directly involved in international conflicts, especially those involving the United States, South and North Korea. Even in such failing states as Iraq, there are regions largely immune (such as its Kurdish region) from the civil wars raging through the rest of the country. Hence, there is a peace-war continuum between great powers and within many nations.

Nuclear Peace

The notion of nuclear peace refers to the assumption that the existence of nuclear weapons contributes to international peace and stability. While Steven Pinker presents evidence suggesting the historical decline of interstate wars and other forms of collective violence contributing to the surprising contemporary state of “global peace,” there are others who go as far as to claim that the peace (aka the absence and/or decline of officially declared interstate wars between great powers) Earth has enjoyed since the end of World War II can be attributed primarily to the presence of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear peace, so it is claimed, results from the costs of war being too high—in a confrontation between nuclear powers, the cost of war (national, regional, and/or global annihilation of life) is unacceptable and thus serves as a deterrent. Following this line of thought leads to the desirable outcome of controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons. An analysis by Victor Asal and Kyle Beardsley indicates that the presence of states with nuclear capabilities reduces the likely levels of violence. But is the alleged 37% decline in the probability of war between nuclear powers worth the numerous risks associated with proliferation of nuclear weapons? (For example, a nuclear arsenal at the disposal of a lunatic president?) Research by Robert Rauchhaus reveals that the odds of war decline in the presence of so-called nuclear symmetry. However, in cases of nuclear asymmetry, the probability of military conflict is actually higher.

Nuclear peace proponents often struggle to explain the risks, tradeoffs, and costs (to health, ecosystems, other government programs) associated with developing, testing, maintaining, and disposing nuclear weapons and materials. According to The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, mismanagement and security threats at nuclear sites in the United States continue to occur despite the country’s advanced technologies and capacities.

The US spends almost $6 billion annually to restore the environment and manage the waste related to its nuclear weapons. Costs for compensating affected workers are also extremely high, and the total cost of cleanup is estimated to reach an amount that is far beyond the actual cost of producing the weapons. Furthermore, as David Barash and I have argued, there are numerous “skeletons in the closet of deterrence,” which, taken together, cast doubt on the claim that nuclear deterrence has “worked” to prevent wars between great powers. Finally, should deterrence “fail,” there may be no one left to assess why.

On July 7, 2017, 122 nations voted at the United Nations to approve a global treaty to ban nuclear weapons. While a landmark achievement, none of the nine states with nuclear weapons voted for the treaty; they boycotted the meetings. And therein lie some of the problems with nuclear peace. While most countries voted to ban nuclear weapons, the nuclear powers remained committed to their nuclear programs, and instead of backing a global ban and nuclear disarmament, continue to support nuclear non-proliferation.

Deterrence, therefore, does not apply globally, and the legitimacy of decisions already made about who can own nuclear weapons continues unchallenged. These factors are threats to peace rather than contributors to stability. In addition to the diversion of resources from peace, and the environmental and health damage caused by nuclear weapons programs, Richard Falk also warns of the “moral depravity of relying on genocidal capabilities and threats to uphold vital strategic interests of a West-centric world.”

In his 1964 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Martin Luther King Jr. declared: “Somehow we must transform the dynamics of the world power struggle from the negative nuclear arms race which no one can win to a positive contest to harness man’s creative genius for the purpose of making peace and prosperity a reality for all of the nations of the world. In short, we must shift the arms race into a ‘peace race’…”. Since King spoke these words, at least 11 nations have abandoned their nuclear weapons programs.

Given human history and the current parlous state of our world, one might understandably be tempted to be skeptical about the prospects for enduring peace on Earth in an era of potential instantaneous global war with weapons of mass and vast destruction.

But it is worth recalling that other political ideals once thought unachievable also came to pass. It took millennia to outlaw slavery and legitimize human rights. It might take at least as long to delegitimize political violence, both from above (by the state) and from below (by non-state actors). Although irreversible “peace on Earth” might be unachievable, at least for a sustained period of time, this does not invalidate the struggle to achieve a world with greater justice and equity and without violence, or at least with significantly less violence, injustice, and inequity. On the contrary, the nonviolent struggle to liberate humanity from its means of self-destruction and self-enslavement is its own end. The absence of a guarantee of “success” in the effort to bring peace to humanity, and the real possibility of the failure of the human experiment, do not undermine the effort to pacify existence but instead bestow on it existential nobility and moral virtue.

Peace is like the human project itself—a work (and a word) in progress.

Related Articles

UNYP Chronicle Newsletter

The e-mail address you provide will be used only to send you the newsletter. Your privacy is important to us.

For more information download our UNYP Brochure .

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

Peace is possible

Together, we can create a peaceful, fair, just and compassionate world that cares for people and planet..

In today’s world, we face serious challenges.

The devastating impacts of climate change are acutely felt across the world. Our economic system is wired to enrich the most powerful, and the world’s 1% is richer than the other 99% combined. Welfare systems are broken down piece by piece, and many people are doing tough. Worsening inequality and racism are feeding politics of fear and divisiveness. The world has become less peaceful, and a sharp uptick in conflict means that we are in the middle of the biggest global refugee crisis since World War II.

Yet, many of our leaders across the world are failing us. They act from fear, not hope or vision. The day’s media headlines and newsfeeds are likely to prompt a feeling of powerlessness, sadness and anger can at times feel overwhelming.

It doesn’t have to be like this.

Let’s change the conversation

Although they often go unrecognised, extraordinary people around the world have powerful solutions for the world’s biggest problems.

Together, we can make sure their voices are heard. Together, we can help them keep going. Together, we can create a peaceful, fair, just and compassionate world that cares for people and planet.

We give people who prove that peace is possible a platform to ensure governments and media take notice. We honour and support these leaders to further their work, and inspire the Australian public to take action.

Peace with justice.

For societies to truly live in peace, people require more than safety from the violence of war and oppression. To achieve true and lasting peace, we must reject fear and division so that we can build strong, loving and compassionate communities. To achieve true and lasting peace, we must address deep injustice and inequality so that we can all thrive and live in dignity. Peace with justice is tangible. It means we end the violence of poverty, and leave no one behind. It means we don’t discriminate and make sure everyone’s voice is heard. Unless we live these principles, any culture becomes merely a survival of the fittest.

Essay on Peace

500 words essay peace.

Peace is the path we take for bringing growth and prosperity to society. If we do not have peace and harmony, achieving political strength, economic stability and cultural growth will be impossible. Moreover, before we transmit the notion of peace to others, it is vital for us to possess peace within. It is not a certain individual’s responsibility to maintain peace but everyone’s duty. Thus, an essay on peace will throw some light on the same topic.

Importance of Peace

History has been proof of the thousands of war which have taken place in all periods at different levels between nations. Thus, we learned that peace played an important role in ending these wars or even preventing some of them.

In fact, if you take a look at all religious scriptures and ceremonies, you will realize that all of them teach peace. They mostly advocate eliminating war and maintaining harmony. In other words, all of them hold out a sacred commitment to peace.

It is after the thousands of destructive wars that humans realized the importance of peace. Earth needs peace in order to survive. This applies to every angle including wars, pollution , natural disasters and more.

When peace and harmony are maintained, things will continue to run smoothly without any delay. Moreover, it can be a saviour for many who do not wish to engage in any disrupting activities or more.

In other words, while war destroys and disrupts, peace builds and strengthens as well as restores. Moreover, peace is personal which helps us achieve security and tranquillity and avoid anxiety and chaos to make our lives better.

How to Maintain Peace

There are many ways in which we can maintain peace at different levels. To begin with humankind, it is essential to maintain equality, security and justice to maintain the political order of any nation.

Further, we must promote the advancement of technology and science which will ultimately benefit all of humankind and maintain the welfare of people. In addition, introducing a global economic system will help eliminate divergence, mistrust and regional imbalance.

It is also essential to encourage ethics that promote ecological prosperity and incorporate solutions to resolve the environmental crisis. This will in turn share success and fulfil the responsibility of individuals to end historical prejudices.

Similarly, we must also adopt a mental and spiritual ideology that embodies a helpful attitude to spread harmony. We must also recognize diversity and integration for expressing emotion to enhance our friendship with everyone from different cultures.

Finally, it must be everyone’s noble mission to promote peace by expressing its contribution to the long-lasting well-being factor of everyone’s lives. Thus, we must all try our level best to maintain peace and harmony.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of the Essay on Peace

To sum it up, peace is essential to control the evils which damage our society. It is obvious that we will keep facing crises on many levels but we can manage them better with the help of peace. Moreover, peace is vital for humankind to survive and strive for a better future.

FAQ of Essay on Peace

Question 1: What is the importance of peace?

Answer 1: Peace is the way that helps us prevent inequity and violence. It is no less than a golden ticket to enter a new and bright future for mankind. Moreover, everyone plays an essential role in this so that everybody can get a more equal and peaceful world.

Question 2: What exactly is peace?

Answer 2: Peace is a concept of societal friendship and harmony in which there is no hostility and violence. In social terms, we use it commonly to refer to a lack of conflict, such as war. Thus, it is freedom from fear of violence between individuals or groups.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Yes, Peace Is Possible!

Contributor

Understood, it is more challenging to say "yes" to an encounter and "no" to a conflict.

Understood, Most of us tend to listen with an eye to contradict what we hear rather than understand it.

Understood, Peace requires hard work, and that hard work can bring pain as it involves loss of comfort.

Understood, Peace is only possible when we speak the truth with love as well as listen with trust and good intentions.

Understood, Even though sometimes war seems to be necessary, it is still an illness that must be cured.

Understood, For many of us it is more important to "win" the debate than to solve the problem ethically.

Understood, When speaking about others, most of us use stereotypes and assumptions rather than their actual experiences.

Understood, If we are serious about dealing with violence, we need to make a sincere effort to lessen our own distrust, hatred and aggression toward others.

Understood, Some of us would like to amuse ourselves by asking rhetorical questions to confuse others instead of trying to really help them express their thoughts and opinions.

Understood, It is easier to blame others than to take the responsibility of talking with them.

Understood, Most of us hear but not listen, and when we do it is with the intention to devalue rather than strengthen and affirm.

Understood, Long-lasting peace cannot be imposed from the outside; rather, it is born from within and between communities through empathy and dialogue.

Understood, Fine literature is one crucial key to peace.

Understood, Peace cannot be achieved unless people refuse to go to war.

Understood, It's not enough to talk about peace: We must believe in it as it is the only option.

Understood, The true and strong peace of nations only consist in mutual trust.

Understood, Peace can only be achieved through understanding.

Understood, Peace is not a relationship of nations; it is a state of mind of the people of the nations and lasting peace is only possible with peaceful people.

Understood, "peacemaking" takes much more courage than "warfare."

Understood, Peace is priceless.

For more A rzu Kaya-Uranli

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

It's another trump-biden showdown — and we need your help, the future of democracy is at stake, your loyalty means the world to us.

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.

Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.

The 2024 election is heating up, and women's rights, health care, voting rights, and the very future of democracy are all at stake. Donald Trump will face Joe Biden in the most consequential vote of our time. And HuffPost will be there, covering every twist and turn. America's future hangs in the balance. Would you consider contributing to support our journalism and keep it free for all during this critical season?

HuffPost believes news should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. We rely on readers like you to help fund our work. Any contribution you can make — even as little as $2 — goes directly toward supporting the impactful journalism that we will continue to produce this year. Thank you for being part of our story.

It's official: Donald Trump will face Joe Biden this fall in the presidential election. As we face the most consequential presidential election of our time, HuffPost is committed to bringing you up-to-date, accurate news about the 2024 race. While other outlets have retreated behind paywalls, you can trust our news will stay free.

But we can't do it without your help. Reader funding is one of the key ways we support our newsroom. Would you consider making a donation to help fund our news during this critical time? Your contributions are vital to supporting a free press.

Contribute as little as $2 to keep our journalism free and accessible to all.

Dear HuffPost Reader

Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.

The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?

The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.

Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.

Popular in the Community

From our partner, more in religion.

• General Assembly

‘Make Peace More Profitable Than War,’ General Assembly Hears, as It Adopts Text to Mark 25 Years Of Landmark Declaration on Culture of Peace

As speakers discussed the importance of collective efforts to promote a culture of peace in a world torn by conflict and crisis, the General Assembly today adopted a draft resolution in pursuit of that goal, in addition to draft texts on a variety of other topics.

The draft resolution titled “Follow-up to the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace” (document A/78/L.57 ), adopted without a vote, proposes several activities to observe the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Assembly’s adoption of the Declaration and Programme of Action, including the convening of a day-long high-level forum during the 163-member organ’s seventy-eighth session. 

The representative of Bangladesh, who introduced the draft, recalled that Dhaka, in 1998, initiated the process leading to the Declaration, stating that his country — born out of a devastating war rooted in discrimination, intolerance and subjugation — made promoting peace fundamental to its foreign policy.  Today, amid spiralling conflict, “we must rekindle the brighter and harmonious faculties of the human minds, foster respect for equality and equal value of all human beings,” he urged. “And, most importantly, we must make peace more profitable than war.” 

In a debate on the topic, Member States outlined their views on what must be done at the international and national levels to promote a culture of peace in a fractious global context.

The representative of Brunei Darussalam, speaking for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), recognized the necessity of institutionalizing a culture of prevention amid today’s sustainable-development challenges, socioeconomic inequalities and discrimination.  Voicing concern over borderless threats — such as extremist ideologies — she underscored the need to promote tolerance and mutual respect, adding: “Achieving peace among peoples and nations requires collective efforts, transcending individual endeavours.”

Similarly, the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, underlined the importance of multilateralism and observed: “This is the only way to respond collectively and efficiently to global crises, challenges and threats that no one can tackle alone.”  Additionally, she underscored the need to ensure freedom of the press and to protect civic space, both online and offline, and spotlighted the importance of safeguarding freedom of religion and instilling a culture of peace in children through inclusive, quality education.

For his part, Venezuela’s representative, speaking for the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, warned against mistakenly justifying racism, racial discrimination and hate speech by invoking the freedom of expression.  In that context, he condemned anti-religious sentiment, the glorification of Nazism and the stigmatization of migrants.  “Fostering understanding and respect among various cultures and religions is of paramount importance in our shared pursuit of global peace,” he emphasized.

Bahrain’s representative, also stressing the need to promote dialogue, understanding and mutual respect among religions, detailed his country’s efforts to promote tolerance and coexistence at the international and regional levels.  These include establishing the King Hamad Global Centre for Peaceful Coexistence and calling for the adoption of an international convention to criminalize religious or racial hate speech.  He also joined others in calling on the international community to shoulder its responsibility and stop the “current catastrophic humanitarian situation” in Gaza.

“Development and prosperity cannot be envisaged in a society that does not enjoy peace,” such as in Gaza, stressed the representative of Mauritania, also pointing out:  “We cannot preserve peace and stability in the midst of poverty and inequality.” Mauritania, therefore, created a national commission to provide health and education services and assist the victims of historical injustice.  He also spotlighted his country’s diplomatic efforts to enshrine peace in Africa.

In the same vein, Togo’s peace strategy for the Sahel and West Africa is based on exporting its vision of positive, authentic peace “which goes beyond the simple lack of war”, said that country’s representative.  Such vision supports democratic transitions, reconciliation efforts through mediation and inclusive governance, he said, also stressing that African ownership and responsibility are key concepts for managing crises on the continent.  Underlining the African Union’s peace and security architecture, he quoted former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela to observe:  “It is so easy to break and to destroy — heroes are those who make peace and who build.”

The Assembly also adopted some other texts, among which was the draft resolution titled “Global health and foreign policy:  addressing global health challenges in the foreign policy space” (document A/78/L.62 ), as amended.  By the text, the 193-member organ urged Member States to continue to consider health issues in the formulation of foreign policy. 

Introducing the draft, the representative of South Africa emphasized that “no single country can overcome a global pandemic on its own”.  The text, therefore, addresses international efforts to strengthen global health and recognizes that the supply of health products and access to relevant technology must be secured for all countries.  Additionally, he said that the text urges for timely, equitable and unhindered access to safe, affordable, effective and quality medicines, vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics — especially during health emergencies.

Some delegations, however, proposed revisions to the text.  The representative of Belgium introduced an amendment to operative paragraph 22 (document A/78/L.64 ), stating that although the word “unhindered” is not a taboo, European Union delegations “cannot accept false narratives about sanctions, intellectual-property rights and possibly other unnamed issues behind opaque formulations that are then used against us in other discussions”.  He therefore asked for this term to be deleted, adding that his delegation will disassociate from it if the amendment does not pass.

Introducing another amendment (document A/78/L.65 ) was Switzerland’s representative, who — despite joining consensus on large parts of the text — disassociated from preambular paragraph 29 as it “seriously undermines the protection of intellectual-property rights by omitting the caveats on the transfer of technology and know-how”.  She therefore proposed including the caveats “on voluntary and mutually agreed terms” in that paragraph.

Ukraine’s representative also introduced an amendment (document A/78/L.66 ), proposing to add a preambular paragraph.  He stressed that the resolution should encompass all aspects that affect global efforts in the health domain.  The impact of armed conflict on health-care systems is one such aspect, and its implications for health care are similar in all armed-conflict situations.  Therefore, as the absence of a relevant provision in the draft resolution would “reduce its relevance and credibility”, he said the amendment reflects the important nexus between armed conflict and health.

The Assembly then rejected two of the three amendments, “L.64” and “L.65”, by recorded votes of 48 in favour to 103 against, with 4 abstentions (India, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Togo), and 49 in favour to 103 against, with 3 abstentions (India, Mauritius, Togo), respectively.  However, it adopted “L.66” without a vote.

Following a request by the United States for a recorded vote on preambular paragraph 29 and operative paragraph 22, the Assembly retained both by votes of 103 in favour to 48 against, with 1 abstention (India), and 107 in favour to 47 against, with 1 abstention (India), respectively, before adopting draft resolution “L.62” as a whole, as amended by “L.66”, without a vote.

A draft resolution (document A/78/L.60 ), which proclaims 24 May International Day of the Markhor, was also adopted without a vote.  The representative of Tajikistan, who introduced the text, said that this “ecologically significant species” — found across central and south Asia — was categorized as “threatened” in 2014.  Preserving the species and its natural habitat is not only an ecological necessity — such conservation efforts will also yield economic benefits, he observed.  Acknowledging the importance of national and regional initiatives to establish mechanisms to that end, he spotlighted the ninth World Conference on Mountain Ungulates to be held by Tajikistan in October.

The Assembly also adopted, without a vote, a draft resolution (document A/78/L.59 ), which declares 2026 International Year of the Woman Farmer.  The representative of the United States, who presented the text, said that women farmers are the backbone of global agriculture.  Yet, they are more likely to face food insecurity, which undermines their health, perpetuates unjust cycles of poverty and results in poor health outcomes.  Through this observance, the global community can raise awareness of women’s essential role in agriculture and overcome the barriers they face to feed future generations.

The Assembly also adopted a draft decision (document A/78/L.61 ) without a vote to approve the participation of non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, academic institutions and the private sector stakeholders listed in its annex in the upcoming third United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries.

Facebook Twitter Email Print LinkedIn

Advertisement

Netanyahu Asserts Israel’s Right to Fight Its Enemies in Defiant Speech

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been steadfast in his goal of destroying Hamas. On Sunday, he defended Israel’s right to defend itself at a Holocaust remembrance event.

• Share full article

By Vivek Shankar

• May 6, 2024

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Sunday rejected international pressure to rein in its military campaign in Gaza and, speaking at a Holocaust memorial, asserted Israel’s right to fight its “genocidal enemies.”

Nearly seven months into the war, Mr. Netanyahu has been steadfast in his goal of destroying Hamas. This, and Mr. Netanyahu’s insistence on sending troops into Rafah, the southernmost city in the Gaza Strip, has complicated efforts to end the fighting and raised concerns about the future of the hostages held by Hamas.

But Mr. Netanyahu has remained defiant.

On Sunday, he spoke at Yad Vashem , Israel’s Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, to mark the national Holocaust remembrance day. Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack, he said, was not a “Holocaust” — not because Hamas did not have the intention to destroy Israel but because of its inability to do so. About 1,200 people were killed and more than 200 were taken hostage that day, Israeli authorities say. Hamas’s intention, Mr. Netanyahu said, was the same as that of the Nazis.

In his speech , which lasted for about 15 minutes and was largely in Hebrew, Mr. Netanyahu rejected accusations that Israel was committing genocide in the Gaza Strip. Since the beginning of the war, Gazan authorities say Israeli troops have killed more than 34,000 people, many of them women and children, though the statistics do not differentiate between civilians and combatants.

Mr. Netanyahu said that Israel’s military does everything it can to avoid harming civilians and that it has allowed aid to flow through to Gaza to avoid a humanitarian crisis. A United Nations official recently said that parts of Gaza are experiencing “ full-blown famine .”

Mr. Netanyahu made a point to say a few words in English that were aimed at the international community. He invoked the Holocaust in asserting Israel’s right to defend itself, with or without international support.

“If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone,” he said. “But we know we are not alone because countless decent people around the world support our just cause. And I say to you, we will defeat our genocidal enemies. Never again is now!”

On Monday morning after his speech, the Israeli military gave the strongest signal yet that it was going to invade Rafah as it asked tens of thousands of Gazans to evacuate from the city.

Vivek Shankar is a senior staff editor on the International desk. Previously, he worked for Bloomberg News in San Francisco, Sydney and Washington. More about Vivek Shankar

Our Coverage of the Israel-Hamas War

News and Analysis

The announcement by Hamas that it had accepted terms of a cease-fire  added to the uncertainty that began when officials said that the armed group and Israel had reached an impasse  after months of talks.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel rejected international pressure to rein in the military campaign in Gaza  and asserted Israel’s right to fight its “genocidal enemies.”

The leader of the World Food Program said that parts of Gaza are experiencing a “full-blown famine”  that is spreading across the territory.

Hobbling Education for Years: Most of Gaza’s schools, including all 12 of its universities, have severe damage that makes them unusable , which could harm an entire generation of students, the U.N. and others say.

No Palestinian Flags at Eurovision: The organizers of the Eurovision Song Contest, a glitzy singing contest, said that attendees would be allowed to wave  only the flags of participating nations — including Israel’s.

Nonviolent Resistance in the West Bank: Issa Amro, a Palestinian activist who has been arrested and beaten for simple acts of defiance, is aiming to emulate Gandhi  at a time when violence is inescapable.

Campus Protests in the U.S.: On quads and lawns from coast to coast, U.S. colleges are grappling with a groundswell of student activism  over Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Administrators are having to make controversial decisions .

UT Austin took wrong approach with crackdown on protests, trampling free speech | Editorial

Though entitled to their right to free speech, protesters bore responsibilities, too. some failed them..

The scenes from the University of Texas were shocking: police in riot gear, pawing horses, dozens of state troopers – and unarmed student protesters in T-shirts and shorts dragged through the dirt or doused with pepper spray. It was a week of overreaction by UT to largely peaceful protests by its own students. In the process, the university made a mockery of its prized culture of free speech. 

Campus protests about the war in Gaza are challenging for universities to navigate. Protesters nationwide are calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and divestment from school investments linked to Israel or the Israeli military. In this atmosphere, universities have to balance safety for their communities with the right to free speech. These are moments when principles of free speech, nonviolence and consistent enforcement of the law most need to be followed.

UT had a duty to respond to these challenges with targeted, proportionate choices that did not trample free speech in the process. In some cases, it failed utterly; we must note there were peaceful pro-Palestinian protests before and after the chaotic events of April 24 and April 29. We must note, as well, that protesters bear responsibilities. They are entitled to free speech but not to vandalism , destruction of property or violations of other city and campus regulations like camping. Some protesters reportedly had weapons. There is no place for them in a peaceful protest.

Militarized presence inflamed tensions, instead of cooling them

There is blame to go around, but some falls on UT’s administration and Gov. Greg Abbott, who together launched the militarized presence that inflamed tensions instead of cooling them. Thankfully, the pepper spray, zip ties, horses and weaponry did only limited physical harm. But the damage to free speech and the school’s values may be long-term. First Amendment scholars are questioning the validity of preemptive crackdowns on protesters. Meanwhile, research shows that repressing protesters with violence can give them a spotlight – and can ignite radicalism.

Force has no place on either side in any political protest. The militarized response was perhaps especially searing at UT, where just six months earlier the university cheerfully celebrated Free Speech Week. Under a 2019 law, outdoor spaces at Texas public universities are open both to students and the public if they don’t break the law or materially disrupt the school’s functions.

Yet on April 24, UT dispatched state, city and campus police pre-emptively. In a Houston Chronicle op-ed, UT president Jay C. Hartzell said they took the action because protesters had publicly stated an intent to break rules, rebuffed administration attempts to meet, and planned encampments banned by UT rules. As American-Statesman reporter Bayliss Wagner noted in her reporting last week, it isn’t clear if the university had the right to cancel a protest in advance or to order students to leave.

UT could have consulted its own experts to head off a crisis

What is clear: UT had choices about what to do once the students had gathered. After the Vietnam era, a whole research field began to focus on protest movements. UT, rich with specialists in history, communications, and conflict resolution, should have consulted its own experts for a strategy to head off this crisis.

At the same time, it is up to protesters to reject bad actors. University officials claim that police confiscated guns from some, although no weapons or assault charges have been filed. Guns, even when legally carried, have no place in a protest crowd -- and organizers should have been vigilant. The short-lived tent encampment also challenged UT’s ban on encampments. Yet instead of ripping tents down in front of an agitated crowd, law enforcers could have waited until twilight or dawn when there were fewer bystanders.

Instead, UT’s military-style drama drew bystanders and non-students into the melee – hurting its whole community. Aggressive crackdowns, research shows, can turn peaceful crowds violent, goad neutral students into the fray, and embolden radicals. “Attention is activist fuel,” a recent essay in Scientific American noted . “The more attention that a protest gets, the easier it is to get other people to participate and the greater pressure they can exert on their targets.”

UT still has alternatives, said protest specialist Alessandro Piazza, the Jones School Distinguished Assistant Professor of Strategic Management at Rice Business. While many protesters know they will lose effectiveness if they're violent, they also know that being disruptive gains attention, he said. So it makes sense for institutions to bring protesters to the bargaining table early on. "Students may feel ultimately that they want to be disruptive," Piazza told the Editorial Board, "but not be suspended or charged by police.”

Nurturing dialogue before a crisis explodes is the ideal

Ideally, universities should nurture dialogue with activists on simmering issues long before a crisis explodes. These relationships can create solutions even when disagreement seems hopeless. Because administrations have little direct power over investments, for example, they may have limited ability to address some protester demands, Piazza said. That’s all the more reason to defuse tensions with ongoing talks, he said. 

“Use a mediator. Try and build coalitions. Keep communication channels open. Make sure the students know your incentives. And make sure you know theirs.”

These options may sound naïve. But they can change a battleground to a field of debate. One day after a second crackdown when UT pepper-sprayed protesters and made 79 more arrests, Brown University announced an accord with protesters. The school’s highest governing body will vote on divestment from Israeli-linked firms. The students took down their encampment. No promises. But no horses, no weapons, and, perhaps, no more chaos.