User Tools

Site Tools


enabling:social_movements_and_states_shall_prioritize_sustainable_common_security_to_address_shared_global_challenges

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
enabling:social_movements_and_states_shall_prioritize_sustainable_common_security_to_address_shared_global_challenges [2019/05/04 22:21]
192.252.166.4
enabling:social_movements_and_states_shall_prioritize_sustainable_common_security_to_address_shared_global_challenges [2019/05/05 13:29] (current)
192.252.166.4
Line 3: Line 3:
 ---- ----
  
-  * Every UN Member State should undertake a comprehensive,​ independent,​ and inclusive review of security within the next two years. The reviewers should be tasked to determine what currently, and within the next decade, will provide security, and what is likely to generate insecurity. ​ 
-  * Social and political leaders worldwide should immediately encourage progressive internationalism,​ a one-world perspective,​ and steps to fast-track global governance. 
-  * As preparations for war are now unsustainable and counterproductive,​ governments should now instead plan for a global peace system. 
-  * Governments should shift from the pursuit of national power by supporting new Departments of Peace and Departments of Environmental Sustainability,​ with related research, educational outreach, and academic programs. 
- 
----- 
- 
-Rapporteur: Dr. H. Peter Langille (hpl@globalcommonsecurity.org) 
- 
-Sustainable common security is an umbrella concept to help with the deeper understanding and cooperative action now urgently required to address shared global challenges, human and environmental needs. There are wider objectives, including to: 
- 
-  * revitalize idealism, a ‘one-world’ perspective and work for a better world; 
-  * clarify the links between militarism, capitalism, the climate crisis, growing inequality and insecurity; 
-  * build support, solidarity and cooperation toward a movement of movements; 
-  * challenge the outdated approaches to national security, with constant preparation for more war; 
-  * develop viable, progressive policy options for peace and conflict, defence and foreign policy, disarmament and development,​ military transformation and economic conversion, with a priority accorded to a global peace system and, arguably most important; 
-  * encourage the substantive system shifts and transformations needed. 
- 
-Numerous global systems are now dysfunctional and failing. People need radical leaps from an unsustainable economic system to a Green New Deal; from a high-risk, high-cost war system to a global peace system; from a competitive,​ self-help sovereign state system to a caring and cooperative system of local and global governance.  ​ 
- 
-The concept of sustainable common security is a synthesis drawing from both the imminent common security imperative of preventing worse and the sustainable security emphasis on the deeper causes. As an effort to address both immediate security needs while motivating and mobilizing for sustainable solutions, this is a modestly more comprehensive and broader umbrella for wider related efforts, although one to complement rather than diminish work on either approach. The emphasis is on ‘pulling together’ for a more just and safer world. 
- 
-In short, sustainable common security is also an organizing principle for progressive internationalism. 
- 
-==== The rationale ==== 
- 
-In the words of the Dalai Lama, " your right to life, and the right to life of your children are no longer secure." ​ 
-Recently, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres wrote that, “… we are in a race for our lives, and we are losing." ​ 
- 
-People and the planet are in jeopardy. Climate change is accelerating. Another nuclear arms race is underway. Inequality continues to rise. Extremes are mobilizing. ​ Disintegration is spreading. Democracy appears to be at risk.  
- 
-Paul Rogers writes that: “A hurricane of crises across the world – financial meltdown, economic recession, social inequality, military power, food insecurity, climate change – presents governments,​ citizens and thinkers with a defining challenge: to rethink what ‘security’ means in order to steer the world to a sustainable course. The gap between perilous reality and this urgent aspiration remains formidable.” 
-Understandably,​ in a period of overlapping crises, people feel deep insecurity. Increasingly,​ representatives of diverse sectors see a need for a new approach to security, one that may prompt hope, along with a guide to dealing with their various challenges. 
- 
-Yet previous attempt to redefine security have had limited results. As an earlier attempt to explain this dilemma noted, ​ 
- 
- 
-'To date, concepts of cooperative security – whether collective, comprehensive,​ common or human security – have been helpful but insufficient. The emancipatory potential of each was evident early on, just not agreeable to the most powerful. As a result, our key systems and institutions did not shift as hoped. Within a few years it was back to national security, preparing for war and business as usual. Despite a rapidly globalizing world, transformational change continues to be resisted in all the state-centric institutions. This raises a fundamental question: how do we break from this pattern to do better?"​ 
- 
-Security concepts usually have a fifteen- to twenty-year shelf-life. They linger until new challenges arise exposing their limits. In this, they are vaguely similar to paradigm shifts, but often without the wider transformation intended. By definition, paradigm shifts occur when prevailing systems are deemed inadequate or failing and, when another option is widely viewed as better. 
- 
-People might ‘break from this pattern to do better’ by acknowledging that their deeper interdependence is part of their shared, interconnected issues, by aiming higher and mobilizing worldwide.  ​ 
- 
-The Oxford Research Group warns that, “current approaches to global security are characterized by the ‘control paradigm’:​ an approach based on the premise that insecurity can be controlled through military force or containment,​ thus maintaining the status quo.” ​ They identify four interconnected trends that are most likely to lead to substantial global and regional instability,​ and large-scale loss of life, of a magnitude unmatched by other potential threats: 
- 
-  * Climate change 
-  * Competition over resources 
-  * Marginalization of the majority world 
-  * Global militarization 
- 
-For the ORG and proponents of sustainable security, the emphasis shifts toward the long-term impact and consequences of our policies, as well as the underlying causes of insecurity, desperation and conflict.4 The central premise is that the consequences of insecurity are beyond control and fighting the symptoms will not work sufficiently;​ the focus must shift to resolving the deeper causes. 
- 
-Common security was a blueprint for survival that helped to stem the last Cold War, stop provocative deployments,​ calm tensions and cut both conventional and nuclear weapons. It emphasized our interdependence and mutual vulnerability. This insight applies to Russia and America, India and Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, even to people everywhere. We may share security, but we can no longer fight to win it. The competitive pursuit of national security at the expense of others now incurs unacceptable costs and risks. ​ 
- 
-A common security approach relies on deeper cooperation,​ empathy, and mutual respect for the golden rule: treat others as you would wish to be treated. With the critical issues ahead, cooperation isn’t just a nicer approach; human survival may depend upon it. 
- 
-Clearly, there is no one magic bullet or policy option panacea that will deliver sustainable common security. Our dominant systems – capitalism, climate, democracy, sovereign states, even the international security system – are dysfunctional. Similarly, decline is apparent in world order, the neo-liberal order, a rules-based system, Pax Americana, and the transatlantic post-war alliances. ​ 
- 
-Like it or not, our diverse global systems and challenges are now ‘linked in’ so, interconnected and interdependent. They cannot be solved by isolated efforts. Progress in one area may depend on progress in others. Comprehensive understanding and integrated approaches are required. As always, progressive change will stem from social movements that widen the conception of what is acceptable. ​ 
- 
-==== What’s different in Sustainable Common Security? ==== 
- 
-This idea is simply more comprehensive,​ with an approach that combines short-mid and long-term challenges and needs. Arguably, this approach helps to address both imminent threats and the underlying, deep causes of insecurity. 
- 
-Sustainable common security is largely synonymous with positive peace. As peace research pioneer, Johan Galtung stipulated, positive peace stems from fostering the attitudes, institutions,​ and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies. “Both sustainable common security and positive peace are more holistic than the narrower notions of national and international security or the conception of negative peace (the absence of direct, overt violence). Both work across systems, beliefs and borders. Both make the connection between direct violence, structural violence (exploitation and exclusion) and cultural violence, and help in efforts to curtail each.” 
- 
-Cosmopolitan conflict resolution entails a similar approach. A hybrid mix of local, regional and global conflicts have emerged that defy resolution by traditional means. With globalization,​ our shared obligations expand beyond borders and the Westphalian state system. In an emerging ‘world community’,​ progressive governance is needed to enhance justice and the welfare of all. As Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall write, the term cosmopolitan conflict resolution indicates “…the need for an approach that is not situated within any particular state, society or established site of power, but rather promotes constructive means of handling conflict at local through to global levels in the interest of humanity.” As with sustainable common security, three key objectives are in justice, human welfare and emancipation via constructive rather than destructive means. 
- 
-As people inhabit and depend upon complex interdependent systems — political, environmental,​ social, economic, military – more comprehensive,​ integrated analysis is essential to understand, improve and transform each. As this is relatively new and global, people are now in the ‘same boat’. Rather than pull apart, it’s time to pull together. 
- 
-Whereas the British thinking on sustainable security promotes a national security ethos, sustainable common security is a global endeavor, seeking to enhance global security with global governance. Thus, renewing multilateral cooperation and progressive internationalism are steps in a process that must promptly lead to deeper shifts. ​ 
- 
-In the words of the late Howard Zinn, “we need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.” It’s also time to think beyond sovereignty and patriotism. Instead of cancelling international agreements and erecting walls to exclude, sustainable common security is to build a more inclusive global community, with a one-world perspective. 
- 
-UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has confirmed support for ‘sustainable peace’ as the framework to guide peace and security efforts. Yet the UN Security Council promptly endorsed this shift as little, if anything, would change. Each of the great powers can argue that their national security practices and nuclear weapons sustain peace. There was no obligation to change prevailing approaches or systems. Thus, the emancipatory potential of “sustainable peace” may be limited. 
- 
-Sustainable common security is to complement, expand and update both “sustainable security” and “common security.” ​ 
-  
-==== Origins ==== 
- 
-‘Sustainable international security’ arose from an official Canadian response to UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s 1992 ‘An Agenda for Peace’. As early as 1992, Department of External Affairs documents advised that, “the Security Council should not only be in a position to react to short term crises. It should also aim to look at the long-term evolution of our world and at ways of promoting the conditions for sustainable international security”. For three years, officials attempted to promote this approach. ​ 
- 
-There were already numerous key contributors,​ including the United Nations and several pivotal international commissions. In 1980, the Brandt report, North-South:​ A Programme for Survival, Survival, envisaged a new kind of global security. Their case combined social, economic, and political challenges with traditional military threats. They also proposed ‘A Society of Nations’. ​ World peace and disarmament,​ international justice, and addressing the human needs of the more vulnerable were at the forefront of priorities. 
- 
-By 1982, the Palme report, Common Security: A Blueprint for Survival, emphasized our shared dependence -- that security for one nation could only be enhanced by increasing the confidence and security of others. Preventing war and violent conflict had to be common priorities. Survival required a comprehensive conception of security, moving beyond narrow notions of national security to include wider global challenges. ​ 
- 
-The “common security” approach emphasizes co-operative over competitive security planning; advocates national military restraint; promotes the common good rather than national interests; and co-ordinates multinational security through the United Nations. ​ 
- 
-For many, this concept continues to provide an enduring vision. It helped end the earlier Cold War in 1988/89, guided the post-Cold War era, and was included in the UN Secretary-General’s 1992, An Agenda for Peace. ​ That agenda prompted official interest in sustainable international security until being eclipsed by a new ‘human security’ approach. 
- 
-That concept— “human security”— stemmed the 1994 UNDP’s Human Development Report which suggested enhancing global security by ensuring "​freedom from want" and "​freedom from fear.” A human security agenda and network was developed in several states, with Canada and Japan assuming lead roles, albeit with different interpretations and approaches. ​ 
- 
-Human security expanded the traditional focus on state (national) security to include the security of individuals. It arose largely in response to both globalization and the fragmentation of states that prompted violent, internal conflicts and widespread human suffering. It elevated human rights and development,​ resource limits, as well as protection from poverty, disease, military and criminal threats. Thus, it was to broaden and update the security focus to complement rather than replaced existing approaches. Enthusiasm for this agenda faded. It was designed for the era prior to overlapping global challenges and not intended to encourage systemic shifts. 
- 
-The further development of “sustainable security” was largely by British academics, peacemakers,​ and NGOs. In 2006, Chris Abbott, Paul Rogers, and John Sloboda wrote “Global Responses to Global Threats” for the Oxford Research Group. They framed the deeper causal factors of global crises not as threats, but as challenges requiring a new framework. As Abbott wrote, “…sustainable security is inherently preventative in that it addresses the likely causes of conflict and instability well before the ill-effects are felt.” ​ 
- 
-In 2014, the Ammerdown Invitation -- a British civil society peace network -– encouraged alternatives to national security. ​ 
- 
-==== Support ==== 
- 
-A Canadian effort followed. The objective was to merge “common” and “sustainable” security while addressing the core concerns of both. Peter Langille published a sequence of articles advocating sustainable common security as a guide to Canadian foreign and defence policy. ​ Subsequent development of the concept was in, Mondial, the newsletter of the World Federalist Movement - Canada, with modest elaboration of the core principles in the World Federalist Debate. 
- 
-By 2017 the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons adopted the idea. It was also included on the agenda of the Group of 78 and Rideau Institute and within their Shift document, ‘Defence and Foreign Policy Priorities’ supported by a coalition of civil society organizations. Further, the “Policy Recommendations From: Getting to Nuclear Zero, Building Common Security for a Post-MAD World” encouraged the Federal government to “…adopt the umbrella concept of sustainable common security to bridge disarmament,​ peace and justice, and global environment campaigns.” ​ 
- 
-In 2016, the British ‘Ammerdown Group’ evolved into the NGO – academic network, ‘Rethinking Security’. Considerable elaboration on a new, more inclusive approach was included in their discussion paper”. ​ As noted, ​ 
- 
-"​People across the world face growing insecurity. Violent conflict is spreading and intensifying,​ economic inequality is widening, and the natural ecology on which human life depends is in jeopardy. The world'​s poorest people bear the brunt, while those in rich countries are also increasingly affected."​ 
- 
-In summary, they note the problem is a shared one: national security continues to dominate, despite an outmoded, dubious narrative. Aside from overriding common rights and legitimate needs, national security advances national interests as defined by political and corporate elites to extend control in the short-term over perceived physical threats with offensive military capacity and alliances. The real long-term drivers of insecurity are overlooked. The reluctance to adapt is explained by the control of a small elite group: the disproportionate influence of business, particularly arms industries; institutional inertia and a political pragmatism dismissive of alternatives. ​ 
- 
-Security for the many requires a collective effort to build the necessary conditions over the long-term with a commitment to the common good. Yet with respect to ‘Practicable Alternatives’,​ their list was short on viable policy options. 
- 
-An early contributor to the Ammerdown Group, Professor Paul Rogers, frequently writes on sustainable security in his column for Open Democracy and his global security briefing for the Oxford Research Group. ​ 
- 
-In Canada, the concept of sustainable common security was adopted as one of the ‘enabling measures’ in the May 2018 consensus platform of the conference, ‘How to Save the World in a Hurry’. This coalition-building initiative soon became ‘Project Save the World’. ​ 
- 
-==== Impediments ==== 
- 
-Governments have yet to consider the concept of sustainable common security. Climate change is accelerating and action to limit it led to the Paris Agreement in 2015, though the commitment levels remain inadequate. 
-Neo-liberalism has deregulated capitalism, making it an increasingly predatory economic system, exploiting people and the planet’s resources. With an emphasis on austerity, there has been less funding of social programs and development. ​ 
- 
-While wealth surges up for a small minority, precarious conditions pour down heavily onto people in more vulnerable conditions, particularly near the equator. With increasing inequality and marginalization,​ desperation is generating further pressure on people, weak states and the environment. ​ 
- 
-The results are now evident: the extinction of living species; ​ increasing temperatures for a decade; ​ destruction of habitat; a surge of 68.6 million forcibly displaced people world-wide; a three-fold increase in civil wars ; and, the increasing extremism of both weather and politics.  ​ 
- 
-In the cycle of acceptance, many adults are still in denial and angry over the intrusion into their plans. That millions are overwhelmed,​ depressed and already in precarious struggles to cope is undeniable. Once they reflect and accept that what’s rumored is a disturbing reality -- that they may not have grandchildren without substantive change – there is likely to be a very different response. In turn, politics and security may soon acquire deeper consideration of the present, the future and, whose interests are being served by prevailing policies. 
- 
-Considerable public trust and unquestioning allegiance has been placed in governments and national security institutions to manage serious challenges. Good governments share valid concerns about the safety and security of their people, their country, even their neighbor’s nearby and partners worldwide. Since the system of independent sovereign states took root following the Thirty Years’ War and the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, national security has been an overriding priority. While the early objectives appeared helpful and timely, the intentions and approaches shifted over time. Clearly, it did not stop the competition for power whether in Empire, Imperial control, balances of power, civil wars and world wars or, simply as every states’ right to retain a monopoly over the use of force in its sovereign territory. 
- 
-Now, this system and the approaches pursued within national security pose an array of serious impediments to progress. Ten can be identified: ​ 
- 
-First, national priorities are often distorted by national security. All 193 sovereign states have a legitimate right to national security and the vast majority retain independent armed forces — armies, navies, air forces and intelligence services. These services usually compete to acquire as large a share of the national budget as possible. Many also compete to remain inter-operable with larger allies such that they are ‘capable of fighting alongside the best against the rest’. 
- 
-Second, with few exceptions, national security drives militarization at home and abroad. Countries still compete for limited resources and constantly prepare for more war. In many Western states, permanent war is effectively institutionalized with a ‘long war policy’. Another inconvenient truth is that national militaries are more frequently used to repress citizens and stifle dissent at home than against aggression from neighbors or abroad. 
- 
-Third, attention and resources are now diverted to another Cold War, with a nuclear and conventional arms race. A balance of terror and a system of mutually-assured destruction (MAD), are rationalized as national security priorities. Combined, they drive another security dilemma, an action – reaction response that increases weapons and stress, reducing global security. In short, our prevailing approaches to security now generate vast insecurity. 
- 
-Fourth, political realism and American security studies dominate Western academe – focusing primarily on pursuit of national interests – with military power and use of force central to advancing national security. In their realist paradigm, cooperation tends to be dismissed at the international level, which is assumed to be a self-help system, characterized by anarchy and competition for power. Ken Booth was correct to write that, "the concept of security in world politics has long been imprisoned by conservative thinking."  ​ 
- 
-Fifth, within national security analysis, there is a recurring tendency to ascribe blame to others, while their nation and its allies’ policies and deployments are presumed benign. Threats are externalized and exaggerated to rationalize further militarization and spending. By fostering tension there is little prospect for the deeper cooperation needed to address serious challenges. 
- 
-Sixth, national security helps to ensure business as usual. Few governments can say “no” to higher military spending in preparation for war or, to arms sales abroad. Most lack the political autonomy to slow or stop either process. 
- 
-Seventh, national security consolidates a global military-industrial complex. President General Dwight Eisenhower warned of this complex in his 1961 farewell address, cautioning that “the total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government… the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” Governments were advised to guard against such unwarranted influence, power and control. Instead, many encouraged it. 
-With globalization and the global war of terror (GWOT), the military-industrial complex expanded worldwide into finance, banking and insurance sectors, big oil and gas, homeland security and intelligence,​ logistics and tele-communications,​ media and academe, information and high-tech. The military-industrial complex sets the global agenda by harmonizing interests and ensuring their constituents get a share of the pie. Investing in protracted violent conflict yields high profits and few risks, especially when aligned to overwhelming political, economic and military power. ​ 
- 
-Eighth, national militaries are a central institution of national security and among the most conservative and, the most opposed to progressive change. Many within work at perception management and influence. 
-On numerous global issues – from disarmament and peace operations to climate change and inequality – there is a strong official preference for pragmatic, incremental reform to existing arrangements. In turn, there is a deep aversion to transformational change in most governments. Frequently, their agencies use a network of embedded think tanks, NGOs and academics to define problems, develop agreeable analysis and gatekeep consideration of acceptable options. 
- 
-Ninth, national security like neo-liberalism,​ helps to control a hierarchy of credibility,​ access and funding. As a result, NGOs and civil society may opt for cooperative,​ siloed complacency to acquire funding and access. Or, if active, they may lose funding and be isolated, limiting efforts at networking, bridge-building and educational outreach. ​ 
-A related impediment arises from the prevailing approach to growing insecurity. As noted, one aspect is aptly described as the ‘control paradigm’ – utilizing dated, counter-productive methods to secure national interests with force. Paul Rogers labels this ‘liddism’ – applying old coercive approaches in attempting to keep the top on a pressure cooker of overheated issues by tightening the lid. 
- 
-Tenth, the national security priorities of the most powerful have inordinate influence over security and the United Nations Security Council, which since 1945 has retained primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. ​ 
- 
-Yet the UN does not have its own dedicated service to respond to any breach of peace and security, nor sufficient means to prevent armed conflict and protect civilians. ​ As the President of the UN General Assembly lamented in 2016: “it is clear that the UN today remains insufficiently equipped to meet its overriding 1945 objective: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” ​ 
- 
-A more effective UN is critical. The Organization already leads cooperative multilateral efforts on sustainable development,​ climate control, disarmament,​ human rights, equality, peace and security. In the words of Hans-C von Sponeck, Richard Falk and Dennis Halliday: 
- 
-"More than ever before in human history the peoples of the world are being severely challenged by problems of global danger that can only be solved globally. The best hope of humanity to meet these challenges is to abandon unilateralism and isolationism and instead empower the United Nations to become at last an effective mechanism for the protection of “fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. ​ 
-Overall, the UN now has an annual budget of $5.4 billion, shared proportionally among 195 Member States, with a separate budget for peace operations of $ 6.7 billion— a small fraction of the over $2 trillion devoted to national security spending." ​ 
- 
-In short, powerful vested interests dominate most decisions over national and international security, climate change, social welfare, conflict and political economy.  ​ 
- 
-Breaking from this pattern will be difficult, but shared problems are stirring concerns. First, despite massive efforts and expense, wars over the past fifty years have been largely unwinnable, even for the most powerful. Second, the probability of nuclear use with uncontrollable escalation to nuclear war and nuclear winter continues to rise, risking life on earth. ​ Third, the Global Peace Index now report the annual cost of violence at a staggering $14.7 trillion (USD) in purchasing power terms— a figure is equivalent to 12.4 per cent of the world’s economic activity or $1,988 for every person. Fourth, as climate change – the ultimate threat multiplier – affects more, it activates more. Millions more are now mobilizing in response to the environment and the new political extremes. ​ 
- 
-Few, if any, states are ready for the shifts ahead. Combined, the problems may appear overwhelming. Occasionally,​ the solutions may seem overly complex.  ​ 
- 
-Admittedly, as Metta Spencer has commented, the policy recommendation “Social movements and states shall prioritize Sustainable Common Security to address shared global challenges” sounds like a Hallmark greeting card, not a bill in parliament. This concept is not easily formulated as a single resolution or agreeable policy option for current governments. Without progressive leadership, the implications are likely to be seen as too far reaching and too radical. ​ 
- 
-Generating public awareness of the wider challenges is essential, but also onerous. Corporate media helps little, for most journalists must defer to expert opinion and academic research, which has lost its critical edge.  
-Social movements have yet to unite or align efforts behind an agreed vision and agenda. Intersectoral cooperation is key to a broad-based campaign and unity of effort. Naomi Klein stresses that “no one movement can win on its own,” and urges a move beyond silos into cooperative alliances of solidarity. This prospect has attracted enthusiasm yet too few tangible partnerships. 
- 
-That people need to '​Leap'​ for new systems, including a Green New Deal is evident. However, the intersecting crises of our time include more than climate change, racism and inequality. ​ 
- 
-In “How to Revive the Peace Movement in the Trump Era”, Daniel May calls for merging social justice with anti-war activism. That’s an encouraging first step but why stop there? More recently, Medea Benjamin and Alice Slater make a compelling case for Green New Deal advocates to address militarism. As they write, 
- 
-"If climate change is not addressed rapidly by a Green New Deal, global militarism will ramp up in response to increases in climate refugees and civil destabilization,​ which will feed climate change and seal a vicious cycle fed by the twin evils militarism and climate disruption. That’s why a New Peace Deal and a Green New Deal should go hand in hand. We cannot afford to waste our time, resources and intellectual capital on weapons and war when climate change is barreling down on all of humankind. ​ If the nuclear weapons don’t destroy us than the pressing urgency of catastrophic climate will." 
- 
-Sustainable common security was also intended to build solidarity in a wider movement of movements. Clearly, social movements need partners in a broader global coalition, although coordinating efforts can be akin to ‘herding cats’. Aside from diverse priorities, few have financial resources, making it very difficult to mobilize, coordinate, and campaign together. 
- 
-==== Next steps ==== 
- 
-Sustainable common security is a work in progress. Bold plans are required for a new security agenda. These must include more comprehensive and innovative ideas to:  ​ 
- 
-  * stimulate renewables, a Green New Deal and related Leaps; ​ 
-  * demand equality with empowerment of women society-wide; ​ 
-  * mobilize for serious sustainable development and a living wage; 
-  * encourage disarmament and demilitarization; ​ 
-  * prompt military transformation and economic conversion; ​ 
-  * renew efforts at a global culture of peace and non-violence;​ 
-  * ensure humanitarian care, particularly for the more vulnerable; 
-  * develop a more effective United Nations;  ​ 
-  * revitalize multilateral cooperation and global governance; 
-  * initiate a global peace system; 
-  * inspire confidence, inclusion and hope. 
- 
-A global dialogue and discussion of diverse security needs would be helpful, particularly in identifying areas of complementarity and concern. Civil society organizations in each area have experience in coordinating global campaigns. For example, NGO networks have fast-tracked progressive change on diverse issues such as a global ban on land mines and a climate convention. Hence, moving sustainable common security onto the agenda of social movements shouldn’t be ‘mission-impossible’,​ but it will require persistent efforts and enlightened leadership. 
- 
-Educational outreach and dedicated research programs will require independent centres, leadership, and funding. There is also an urgent need for progressive programs in democracy, human rights, social justice, peace and conflict studies, sustainable development and environment studies. ​ 
-  
-Youth and students have the most potential and the biggest stake in sustainable common security. The Dalai Lama writes that, "​…thanks to the rapid development of information technology, this is the first generation of truly global citizens"​. There are no borders in digital culture and there is a lot of sharing world-wide. ​ 
- 
-It shouldn'​t be any surprise that students now demand bold and urgent action. As British activist, Cameron Joshi, put it, "They fear us because they know if we get our shit together, we can change the world. We're at an absolutely seminal point in history, years of consumerism,​ capitalism, and environmental murder, and we can change it all if we want it all, and we do." Youth are motivated and now mobilizing in both their own campaigns and in cooperation with progressive social movements. ​ 
- 
-Unions should also play a prominent, wider role. Most within understand the importance of support, solidarity and struggles to improve socio-economic standards. Their members aren't immune to global challenges. Aside from being key partners in social movements, they formerly contributed both research and educational outreach to help with peace, security, disarmament and development. 
- 
-Nonviolent mass movements for change provide inspiring examples and demonstrate what actually works. Recent research suggests that once 3.5% of a population becomes sustainably committed to nonviolent mass movements for political change, they are invariably successful. ​ 
- 
-Better ideas that offer hope and inspire widely definitely matter. As Rebecca Solnit writes, “Ideas are contagious, hope is contagious, courage is contagious. When we embody those qualities we convey them to others.” 
- 
-It may help to recall that system shifts are neither unreasonable nor impossible. They are essential to shared security and survival and, they may be underway. As Jeremy Lent writes:  ​ 
- 
-Paradoxically,​ the very precariousness of our current system, teetering on the extremes of brutal inequality and ecological devastation,​ increases the potential for deep structural change. Research in complex systems reveals that, when a system is stable and secure, it’s very resistant to change. But when the linkages within the system begin to unravel, it’s far more likely to undergo the kind of deep restructuring our world requires....The current dire predicament we’re in screams something loudly and clearly to anyone who’s listening: if we’re to retain any semblance of a healthy planet by the latter part of this century, we have to change the foundations of our civilization. 
- 
-Yet the diverse problems of national security and militarization will continue to demand bold steps. Albert Einstein astutely noted that, “past thinking and methods did not prevent world wars. Future thinking must.” In the words of Pope Francis"​...the ultimate and most deeply worthy goal of human beings and of the human community is the abolition of war." ​ 
- 
-Of course, war and preparation for more war may not fade from outrage and protest alone. Yet there may be another way. As Buckminister Fuller once noted, “you never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” 
- 
-The proposed United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS) – a UN 911 first responder for complex emergencies – is a new model to help prevent armed conflict and genocide, to protect civilians at risk, to ensure prompt start-up of demanding peace operations and, to address human needs where others cannot or will not. It should also offer a rapid and reliable, legitimate UN security guarantor, thus facilitating wider disarmament. ​ 
- 
-A UNEPS is no panacea. It’s simply one key step toward a global peace system; one that encourages a wider shift from war-fighting to providing prompt help and useful services. It is one of the other planks in the current Platform for Survival that this wiki is addressing. 
- 
-Clearly, other steps will be needed including, wider support of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, a stronger Arms Trade Treaty and Departments of Peace, as well as renewed efforts on military transformation and economic conversion.  ​ 
- 
-Yet work on these and other steps in isolation simply hasn’t delivered the required results. It’s now vital that people aim higher. 
- 
-Increasingly,​ it’s understood that our shared global challenges are not being adequately addressed. And, challenges such as climate change, inequality and sustainable development,​ cannot be met if two-thirds of 193 sovereign states continue to prepare for more war. Our dilemma is captured in the recent slogan, ‘PLANET OR WAR – YOU CHOOSE’. 
-A global peace system is overdue. It will not be easy to shift from a wildly expensive, high-risk, dysfunctional war system to a legitimate, cost-effective global peace system. Yet the key steps to start this shift are already available. 
- 
-To date, there has not been sufficient political will or a widely perceived need for such a shift. That many countries world-wide are currently reluctant to help with this or other aspects of sustainable common security is understandable;​ many feel directly intimidated and fear attracting retaliation from the most powerful bully. Yet this is a temporal condition; one likely to change over the next two years. 
- 
-American leaders are already moving related ideas  and so too in Britain. ​ Among their priorities are steps to save the world, a more effective UN, a more just world and, a global order based on human solidarity. Here, it may also help to recall that what’s radical one day may be conservative and accepted the next. 
- 
-Sustainable common security is about ‘how to save the world in a hurry’. To quote Fuller again, “We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims.” ​ 
  
enabling/social_movements_and_states_shall_prioritize_sustainable_common_security_to_address_shared_global_challenges.txt · Last modified: 2019/05/05 13:29 by 192.252.166.4