Mother's Day - A Day for PEACE and PEACE activism

The mother of Mother's Day was Julia Ward Howe, who declared the first Mother's Day in the United States in 1870 with the "Mother's Day Proclamation"in order to promote peace and protest the carnage of war.


This holiday (later approved as a national holiday by Woodrow Wilson in 1914) was initially a day to celebrate the role of mothers as peacemakers.  Howe, the author of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" (written as anti-slavery song), had seen one too many sons and husbands killed in the American Civil War and in the Franco-Prussian War.  "This proclamation was tied to Howe's feminist belief that women had a responsibility to shape their societies at the political level" Wikipedia article.


 "In the1870s, during the Franco-Prussian war, Julia felt "the cruel and unnecessary character of the contest. . . . a return to barbarism, the issue having been one which might easily have been settled without bloodshed." She began a one-woman peace crusade that began with an impassioned "appeal to womanhood" to rise against war. She translated her proclamation into several languages and distributed it widely. In 1872 she went to London to promote an international Woman's Peace Congress but was not able to bring it off. Back in Boston, she initiated a Mothers' Peace Day observance on the second Sunday in June and held the meeting for a number of years. Her idea spread but was later replaced by the Mothers' Day holiday now celebrated in May." Biography of Julia Ward Howe (click here)


In the true spirit of the holiday, I wish all the mothers of the world peace this day.  Let us remember the words of Julia Ward Howe and celebrate the powerful message of this MOTHER'S DAY PROCLAMATION.

Arise, then, women of this day!

Arise, all women who have hearts,
Whether our baptism be of water or of tears!

Say firmly:
"We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies, Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the bosom of the devastated Earth a voice goes up with our own.
It says: "Disarm! Disarm! 

The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."

Blood does not wipe out dishonor, nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil at the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel.

Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace,
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God.

In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And at the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

Julia Ward Howe, mother of six, American abolitionist, 
social activist, poet  and  peace  maker
(1819-1910)

Was Bin Laden's Killing a Reason to Celebrate? by Dr. Ray Perkins

Was Bin Laden’s Killing a Reason to Celebrate?

by Dr. Raymond Perkins

May 6, 2011

There are a number of points to consider here which strongly suggest that it was not. 

I’ll get to those in a minute, but let’s look at the main arguments in favor. There seem to be two: 

1. The killing of bin Laden, the monstrous mass murderer of 9/11, is justice done on behalf of those  thousands of victims and their relatives who now feel better for the closure it brings.

I don’t doubt there’s some truth here. Many do feel better. And that is a good thing. But  it’s hard to see that this feeling is anything more than a satisfying feeling of revenge which, though sweet, may be illusory, both because it may not last and because it may not be true justice. Bin Laden’s death can not undue the suffering and loss that his actions unleashed, and as some have already said, can’t bring any meaningful closure to the losses felt so intensely by so many.

2. A vicious mass murderer is dead and will not be able to murder again, thus making the world safer.

It’s true that bin Laden won’t be around to do any evil.  But he is now, in the eyes of many, a martyr, and that may not be conducive to a safer world. Surely history has taught us that revenge and violence breed more revenge and violence. And a nuclear device detonated in Manhattan on behalf of bin Laden, although unthinkable for rational folk, might be a determined goal for some practitioners of revenge.

This unpleasant possibility—not new, but perhaps with probability recently raised—is, as I see it, still the most pressing problem of our time. I’m talking, of course, about the threat of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons—a threat to all of us, and even to the continued existence of our species.  

The way out of this nuclear predicament, if there is one, is surely going to require a kinder gentler world where human rights are respected and protected and where conflict, especially conflict between nations, can be resolved without resort to war. Such a world would be one in which nuclear weapons would be abolished, and general disarmament as required in Art VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1970) and outlined in the McCloy-Zorin Agreement of 1961. But of course, as Albert Einstein and Bertrand  Russell made clear in their 1955 Manifesto, disarmament will not be enough. Small wars can expand, and forbidden weapons can be rebuilt as  potential losers scramble to avoid defeat. War itself must be abolished both in the sense of being illegal and in the sense of being unthinkable and unnecessary as a means of conflict resolution between human groups and nations.

This is an awesome challenge which will require that the majors powers, and especially the US, lead in the direction of some sort of world governance, i.e. a coherent supranational network of democratic institutions to make, adjudicate and enforce international law.

In recent years the seriousness of our situation has been seen and movement initiated by numerous world statesman, including some former US coldwarriors such as Secretaries of State/ Defense Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara, Paul Nitze, Colin Powell, and George Shultz. They have not been talking explicitly about world governance, but they have been talking about the need for, and the feasibility of, global nuclear disarmament. President Obama has endorsed the concept and publically advocated it. This is very encouraging stuff even if the promise has lain nearly lifeless since the ratification of the NNPT (1970).

 

And this brings us back to bin Laden’s recent killing. All the facts are not yet in. But it smacks of yet more international vigilantism. It was, like the ferocious assaults on Afghanistan and Iraq , a prima facie illegal use of force with little regard for due process and international law. (Is not Pakistan a sovereign nation? Are not suspected criminals entitled to trial?). By what authority—other than our own unilateral sense of national interest—was bin Laden deemed guilty of crimes and shot dead? Even if no US laws had been broken, and they almost certainly were, can such unilateral use of national force be taken as a model for all nations? I think not. Indeed, it’s a formula for precisely the sort of national behavior that makes the abolition of war near impossible and makes a travesty of our hopes for averting what Einstein once called the “unparalleled catastrophe.” And that’s nothing to celebrate. 

Give Peace a Chance: How to Fight Terrorism in the Post-Bin Laden Era

Give Peace a Chance: How to Fight Terrorism in the Post Bin Laden Era

by Terry Keleher

Wednesday, May 4 2011

(re-posted from www.colorlines.com)

With Osama bin Laden now removed from center stage of the so-called global war on terror, there’s an opportunity to rethink our national security strategy. The pursuit of Bin Laden provided the pretext, in large part, for two U.S. wars, one of which is the longest in U.S. history. And the question we must ask now is, what have we achieved? And is there a more effective way to establish long-term security for not only the United States but the whole world.

On Sunday night, when President Obama announced that Bin Laden had been killed by U.S. special forces, a post on the BBC’s news blog caught my attention:

Indrajit in Kolkata, India writes: “People like bin Laden are not born, they are made. By poverty, inequality, discrimination. As long as these are prevalent in the world, I fear killing one Bin Laden won’t really solve anything.”

It reminded me of how our zeal to “capture and kill” the terrorists has lead us so far astray from addressing any of the real causes and conditions that give rise to terrorism.

Sure, the killing of Bin Laden and his inner circle at his compound may eradicate some key Al Qaeda leadership and infrastructure. And it certainly brings some relief and resolution to those who’ve suffered unimaginable losses from his brutal deeds. But it doesn’t eliminate the ideology behind him. Indeed, it may even strengthen it. A monster in the eyes of many is now a martyr in the eyes of some. Righteousness deepens, along with the desire for revenge and the resolve to prevail.

How did we get to this approach and how can we forward the prospects for peace?

In the days following the 9/11 attacks, former President George W. Bush said, “this crusade, this war on terror, is going to take awhile.” A week later, Congress and Bush enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, which set the stage for the beginning of our war in Afghanistan. “Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there,” Bush said in elaborating the strategy to a joint session of Congress months later. “It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”

He prepared the nation well for a new kind of war, one with potentially innumerable targets and no clear end. The “war on terror” framework, along with the broader Bush doctrine of unilateral and preemptive military action, was a dream come true for the defense industry.

Bush’s flawed but clever conflation of the 9/11 terrorist attacks with efforts to remove Saddam Hussein later helped provide a pretext for the U.S. war in Iraq. In his prime-time press conference in the weeks leading up to the war, he repeatedly mentioned September 11, often in the virtually same breath that he invoked Hussein—enough for 45 percent of Americans to believe that Hussein was “personally involved” in 9/11, according to a New York Times/CBS poll conducted a week prior to our invasion of Iraq.

The combined wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, conducted largely under the “war on terror” banner, have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, countless numbers of people injured and dislocated from their homes, and billions of dollars of military expenditures. And yet, no one has won this war on terror. That’s because it is an un-winnable war rooted in untenable ideas about our role in the world.

Though the Obama administration has discarded the Bush-era “war on terror” label, the foundational terror-fighting approach remains intact. Obama continued and escalated our troop presence in Afghanistan, now at its highest level since the war began with some 90,000 troops stationed there. And even though Obama is drawing down our military operations and troop levels in Iraq, some 50,000 troops remain.

During 10 years of wartime, we’ve been unwilling to provide for our security needs at home—in the form of health care, housing and food for millions who are struggling. While military spending climbed to record heights, the safety net steadily frayed as vital social service were slashed, the foreclosure crisis continued, and unemployment ranks swelled.

With the largest military might in world history, it’s much too easy for us to declare war on any target or tactic we choose. And if the race and religion of the target is deemed to be outside the mainstream understanding of our national identity, the task is made even easier.

When we lead with our might, rather than with what’s right, it comes back to bite us. To regain a moral footing and righteous reputation in the eyes of the world, we must take a different tact.

So if there’s any victory to be had in this moment, it will come from creating a mandate to end our “war(s) on terror” and courageously confront the root causes of conflict.

To do this, we must understand and embrace each others’ humanity, address inequities, and institute domestic and global policies that truly foster peace, justice and unity. We must begin to build a “global security net” through foreign policy that rejects inequality and wealth stratification and supports shared and sustainable prosperity. Our true power will come from leading with and modeling the values of equity and inclusion that are embodied in the ideal of “liberty and justice for all.”

It’s time to replace the global war on terror approach to security with one rooted in peace through global justice and human rights. There can be no peace without justice.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” reminds us that, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” If we are truly committed to peace and being peacemakers, if the losses and sacrifices of the last 10 years are not to be in vain, we must be willing to heed these prophetic words.

Peace Action offers a good starting point for those ready to take action by visiting their webpage: It’s Time to Make The Call—End the War!

Some Thoughts on the Death of Osama Bin Laden

People gather in peace in remembrance of the victims of 9/11.  

Photo credit: www.colorlines.com "Give Peace A Chance"

Some Thoughts on the Death of Osama Bin Laden (R.I.P.)

by Dr. Whitney Howarth

Thursday, May 5, 2011

"Ten years and over 6000 US soldiers killed. Trillions of dollars wasted. Hundreds of thousands of civilians killed. Tens of thousands imprisoned. Torture as part of foreign policy. And we are supposed to celebrate the murder of one person? I am not excited. I am not happy. I remain profoundly sad." -- Matt Dalosio, from Witness Against Torture. Full article here at Truthout.org

In the last few days I've been struck by the diversity of opinions and emotions on Facebook and in the media responding to the execution of Public Enemy #1: Osama Bin Laden.

While groups of Americans rushed to chant "USA! USA!" at ground zero in NYC and some gathered in front of the White House to sing patriotic songs in joyous celebration of our 'triumph', I found myself feeling sad.  Sad because I felt that this euphoric celebration of the death of one man (even a horribly sinister and dangerous man) did not represent what or WHO I thought we were as a nation.  I posted this quote from a Chris Hedges article on my Facebook page:

"The death of Osama bin Laden gives us an opportunity to ask ourselves: What kind of nation and what kind of species do we want to be? Do we want to become a species that honors life? Do we want to become a species that embodies peace? If that is what we want, then we need to start now to examine our own hearts and actions, and begin to consciously evolve in that direction. We could start by not celebrating the killing of another."

                                                        -- https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/02-2

I also asked people, friends on FB who were supporting the frenzy of elation, what they thought the rest of the world might think of us for these celebrations -- we, who have killed so many, and destroyed the lives of so many, in an effort to bring 'justice' to the families of 9/11?  To me, we reveal the darkest and most depraved aspects of our selves (and our nation-state) when we dance on the graves of our enemies.  Reveling in bloodshed makes us look like monsters.  It is nationalism at its darkest.  And this quote from Salon.com,summarized that best, so I posted that on my FB page, too:

"This is bin Laden’s lamentable victory -- he has changed America’s psyche from one that saw violence as a regrettable-if-sometimes-necessary act into one that finds orgasmic euphoria in news of bloodshed. In other words, he’s helped drag us down into his sick nihilism by making us like too many other bellicose societies in history -- the ones that aggressively cheer on killing, as long as it is the Bad Guy that is being killed." 

David Sirota, Osama and Chants from salon.com

Friends argued that they had the right to celebrate because "justice" had been done -- and "closure" had been given to the victims of Osama's terror.  I questioned if any of that was true.

According to many political analysts, 2011 Osama was irrelevant.  His death doesn't end the war on terror.  It doesn't bring back those people who died in the Twin Towers and it certainly doesn't erase the fact that we killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq in a war that was not sanctioned by the international community -- a war based on lies and deceit and hidden agendas. 

Al Qaeda lives on, it is stronger than ever -- certainly stronger than it was 10 years ago. We (Americans) are more vulnerable today than we were 10 years ago.  We are also more reviled and more misunderstood.

"The jubilation of Americans and Western leaders at the death of Osama bin Laden, though understandable, misses the point. In many ways, the figure gunned down in Pakistan was already irrelevant -- more a symbol of past dangers than a real threat for the future."  

-- Barry Lando, Huffington Post article

But perhaps the biggest issue, unresolved by those patriotic mobs cheering in the streets and waving American flags in front of the media cameras is this: WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO NEXT?  Is this an opportunity for peace and reconciliation or are we just going to bang the war drum harder?

One student in my class told me, yesterday, that we need to send more drones 'over there' and take out the Pakistani leaders who are not being loyal to us.  I was stunned.  Is this the answer now when we disagree with those who oppose us?  Those who betray our expectations?  Those who do not align their interests with our own?: "TAKE THEM OUT"??

Thank god not all my students feel this way.  Many were discomforted by the celebratory displays of American patriotism -- many said that they thought a sombre sense of relief and a quiet gratitude were the appropriate responses to the news.  They recognized this for what it is: a complex issue.  Many admitted they just didn't know what to think of all of this, and I appreciated that honesty.  They were, after all, only 8 years old when the towers fell.

Perhaps the most inspiring and powerful writing on the topic that I've read in the last few days came from a friend and former student, Seth Diemond, who wrote these words for facebook:

"I 100 percent agree that we should be incredibly proud. Ecstatic. Thrilled. Rejoicing. But I do not agree that muscle flexing (singing "we are the champions" and "gooodbyyye") is a show of pride- it is a show of insecurity. Pride is displayed by honoring your heroes, not by dancing on the body of your enemies. Pride is displayed by exporting your values, your ideals, your vision, not by taunting those with different values, different ideals, different visions. A more humbled approach to showing our pride in America would have gone a lot further in providing America with lost credibility both in the western world and the muslim world. Obama did this- during his speech announcing osama's death, he showed no elation, no taunting, no "we are the champion" mentality. He reminded us that Osama was not a leader of muslims, he was a mass murderer of muslims and he reminded us that this was a victory for the world, not just for the united states. I think much of the ridicule that the US has endured over the past decade (and going back decades longer) is a result of this "USA USA USA" mentality. Speaking just of the last decade, two unilateral wars (when the world's sympathy was with us), a "mission accomplished" declaration in Iraq, and the anti-muslim sentiment left after 911, have certainly created the brunt of that ridicule... 


... I completely agree with your criticism of the media- for one I think their filming of those celebrations will probably be used as al qaeda and the Taliban's next propaganda video against us. Fact, yes we got him and yes we are happy. Not fact- did those partying in front of the white house react appropriately? Fact- the media is responsible for turning it into a divisive issue and a potentially harmful one to our national security. Fact- because of these actions by the media, it is the duty of us to show the world that our intentions were not to taunt, but only out of pride and relief. However, what made me upset the night of obama;s announcement before the media really delved into this area was that the people celebrating were a)younger than you and i (for the most part) which would have put them in elementary school on 9/11. They were college kids looking for a party- they would have celebrated anything that had momentum behind it and that they felt strongly about. They did not consider the implications of their celebration."

Thank you Seth for your honest and careful analysis of this complicated issue.  And for reminding me that we aren't all what we see on tv.  Most of us aren't cheering and singing victory songs, must of us aren't banging on the war drums.  The media sensationalizes us, our responses and our emotions -- just like they focus only on fundamentalists foaming at the mouth in distant lands.  They want to sell papers, they want to make their corporate commercial sponsors happy.

This is probably why Fox is so successful and so rich.  News and 'entertianment' news channels don't focus their cameras on those among us who heard the news and then sat quietly and mourned the memory of those we had lost.  The cameras didn't turn to us who breathed deeply and prayed softly when we heard the news of Osama's death.  Where's the glory and the juicy headline there?

But I want us to remember this day and how we responded, all of us in our diversity and our intensity and in our silence and in our aching confusion.  I want us to recognize that the emotional intensity of those of us who didn't take to the streets to sing, dance, and shout, was just as powerful and patriotic as the emotional intensity of those that did.

Making a media spectacle of oneself doesn't prove you are an American.  Defending people who choose to laugh at violent and degrading images of Osama, doesn't make you more patriotic.  Dancing on his grave and waving a flag doesn't make you somehow more happy he's gone than I am.

But let's ask ourselves "where to now?"  What will we do with this moment and how will we honor all those who have died - all those who died at Osama's hands -- those killed by our hands -- and those murdered at the hands of other terrorists who, like some of us, revel in the bloodshed and celebrate death?

I agree with Tom Hayden in the LA Times who wrote today:

"There is no excuse for not beginning to end [the Iraq and Afghan] wars one at a time, at vast savings in lives and billions in tax dollars. This is Obama's moment of opportunity. Let the hawks in the Pentagon and the Republican Party call for endless war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama can campaign on ending two quagmires, and on breaking the momentum of the long war on terrorism that some propose."                                                        LA Times article

Enough bloodshed and horror.  Let's find a way to build bridges of reconciliation and understanding.  YES -- some of our enemies do seek to be understood.  Reconciliation may be an option since we can't fire bomb and drone attack everyone on the planet who disagrees with us.  As much as we fear the enemy and despise them, we must remember the enemy is not without humanity -- the enemy is not without valid viewpoints -- the enemy is not without justifiable motivations and insecurities.  Only by reaching out a bit beyond our own self-righteousness and jingosim -- only by reaching towards the enemy -- can we hope to achieve a compromise.  

Remember when we didn't think compromise was a weakness?  Remember a place called the middle ground, where people met, talked, and resolved to build a better future tomorrow by conceding some and cooperating?

The time has come to bring the troops home.  The time has come to talk to our enemies and to listen, also.

Then and only then, can we have justice and closure and some semblance of peace.  Then we can cheer and dance.

Will there always be war? by Leo Sandy

Will there always be war?

Leo R. Sandy

5-3-11

The answer to this question could be a yes or no depending upon one’s thinking.  The answer would be yes if many people believed that war will always be with us because they would condone the preparation for it and then establish a confirmatory bias when war did occur. This is called the self-fulfilling prophecy because if people believe something strongly enough, then it will happen because they will help bring it about. This is the fatalistic argument that makes war more likely to stay with us. This argument is also strongly reinforced by those who have a vested interest in the institution of war. The answer is no when many people believe that war can be abolished because new behavior would emerge from such thinking that would lead to the permanent absence of war or to its rarity because structures would have to be put into place that prevent war. War has been called a “racket” by former Marine general Smedley Butler,  “hell” by General William T. Sherman and“a theft from those who hunger and are not fed” by former General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower. If Nelson Mandela could be president of South Africa; if the Berlin Wall could be dismantled; if slavery and dueling could be made illegal, then surely war can be made extinct.

Those who maintain that war is inevitable because of human nature fail are not aware of the evidence that strongly counters that argument. Just because humans have the potential and capacity for violence and war is not the same thing as believing that such potential and capacity must be realized. Robert Hinde (WW II RAF pilot) and Joseph Rotblat (nuclear physicist) in their book, War no more, pointed out that “the Inuit of the Canadian Arctic, and a few hunter-gatherer societies living in tropical or sub-tropical regions elsewhere, never engage in inter-group violence.”  Over 25 peaceful tribes have been identified by researchers including the Hadza Tribe of Tanzania, Amish, Buid, Tassaday, Pueblo, Batek, Birhor, Chewong, Fipa, G/wi, Hutterites, Ifaluk, Ju/’hoansi, Kadar, Ladakhi, Lepchas, Malapandaram, Mbuti, Nubians, Paliyans, Piaroa, Rural Thai, Semai, Tahitians, Tristan Islanders, Yanadi and Zapotec of La Paz.

“Most of the time these peaceful societies successfully promote harmony, gentleness, and kindness toward others as much as they devalue conflict, aggressiveness, and violence…most of the time they interact in a highly pro-social manner and they successfully avoid both violence within their own societies and warfare with other peoples…Many of them are masters at devaluing conflicts, minimizing and resolving them when they do occur, and preventing them from developing into violence. Many of these peaceful societies also devalue competition, self-focus, and other ego-centered social behaviors that they feel might lead to violence” (http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/).

Hinde and Rotblat (2003) also noted that “these societies tend to be egalitarian and to have an anti-violence value system…that combative sports are rare or non-existent; the norms governing day-to-day behavior are such that quarrelling, boasting, stinginess, anger and violence are stigmatized, while generosity and gentleness are encouraged.” Hinde and Rotblat (2003) also mention Switzerland that, although prepared for war, has a history of neutrality. Most of the Scandinavian countries were at one time the worst marauders in history but are now among the most peaceful and productive countries in the world. Perhaps they just grew up over time.

In an informal study done by professor John Horgan (2009), and validated by many of students over the years who have taken my War and Peace course, it was found that a majority of college students believe that war cannot be abolished and justify their beliefs based on the world’s long history of wars, fighting among Chimpanzees who share our DNA, the basic evil nature of people, the tendency for humans to be territorial, the human tendency for domination, testosterone in men and people’s high susceptibility to propaganda. In his refutation of such rationale, Horgan pointed out a study on ordinarily aggressive Rhesus monkeys that grew up to be kinder and gentler after having been raised by mild-mannered stumptail monkeys. He also mentioned the Pan paniscus species of chimpanzees called bonobos that do not engage in deadly warfare and have no male dominance but do engage in enormous amounts of sex. Other studies have shown that the level of aggressiveness normally associated with particular animal species can be significantly reduced when certain environmental conditions occur. In one study, a female tiger raised piglets as her own because she herself had been raised by a sow thereby believing that she was a pig.

Only a few decades ago there were 35 to 40 wars going on at any given time in the world but now that number has been reduced to 20 to 25. Possible reasons for this include the rise of democracies, longer life expectancy and globalization whereby the countries of the world are becoming more interdependent in the pursuit of commerce. One major way to end war as an institution was suggested by anthropologist and psychiatrist, Melvin Konner. He recommended female education as key to ending conflict. He felt that with more female education there would be a more stabilized population leading to lower birthrates that reduce the need for governmental and health services as well as  limiting the population of unmarried and unemployed men who provide cannon fodder for war.

Some other ways that we can work toward establishing a culture of peace include:

• Teaching peace in our schools from early childhood through graduate school
• Developing ways to improve international cooperation aimed at advancing human development
• Rejecting violence as a method to solve international disputes
• Distributing, displaying, applying and enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at all levels
• Removing glass ceilings and ensuring that women are represented equally in all settings
• Reforming political campaign financing so that electoral offices have democratic representation
• Celebrating cultural diversity and attending to the needs of vulnerable groups
• Supporting independent media and insisting that media serve the public good according   to law
• Giving more attention to peacemaking and to conflict prevention and resolution at national and international levels

War can be abolished if we have the will to prepare for peace instead of for war. Some say that only strength will bring us peace. The truth is that only peace will bring us strength. As A.J. Muste once said, “there is no way to peace; peace is the way.”

4th International Conference on Conflict Resolution May 5th registration (for conf. in June 2011 in Ohio)

Join more than 70 presenters from 15 states and 9 countries at the:

4th International Conference on Conflict Resolution Education (CRE), Building Infrastructures for Change:  Innovations in Conflict Resolution Education (CRE)

June 8 - 13, 2011, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

http://creducation.org/cre/goto/4th

Discounted Registration Extended to May 5^th, 2011

Credits offered: Graduate, Social Work, RCH, CEU

Costs - Discounts - Register Before May 5^th :

Main Conference (June 10^th and 11^th): $150 both days or $100 per day; College Students $100 both days or $50 per day

Hear from more than 70 presenters representing 15 states and 9 countries while choosing between 47 workshops and 4 keynote speakers!

Pre-Conference Trainings (June 8^th and/or 9^th):

·         Sustained Dialogue - $200. (June 8^th and 9^th)

·         Strategies for Trauma Awareness and Resilience: Breaking the Cycle of Violence - $200. (June 8^th and 9^th)

·         Building Campus Community Around Peace and Conflict Studies - $50. (June 9^th)

·         Bullying Prevention and Intervention - $50. (June 8^th)

U.S. Community College Seminar Developing Peace and Conflict Studies Programs (June 12^th – 13^th) : $150.00

Special Hotel Rates – by May 20^th!:  ONLY $69 per night Crowne Plaza Cleveland Airport.  Free transport to and from the airport and the main conference venue from this hotel only.

Discounted rates of $69.00 per night are available by making your reservation by May 20, 2011. Reservations after May 20, 2011 will be accepted at prevailing rates and availability. The discounted rates are $69.00 plus 16.25% tax. If your organization is tax-exempt, you must bring an official tax exempt form with you and present it at check in.  Reservations:  Go to www.crowneplaza.com/clevelandarpt or by calling 800-2CROWNE or 440-243-4040 between the hours of 9:00 am and 8:00 pm Eastern Standard Time. Please use group code CUY.

Additional Details and to Register for the Conference:

All conference events, workshops, keynote, pre-conference summaries, and registration materials are available http://creducation.org/cre/goto/4th

Questions?  Contact Global Issues Resource Center, Cuyahoga Community College at 216-987-2224.

Planning Committee Members Represent the Following Organizations:

·         The American Red Cross

·         The Association for Conflict Resolution, Education Section

·         Bellefaire JCB, SAY - Social Advocates for Youth

·         Case Western Reserve University, Mandel School of Applied Social Science 

·         Cleveland Metropolitan School District, Winning Against Violent Environment Program (WAVE)

·         Cleveland State University, College of Education and Human Services

·         Cuyahoga Community College, Peace Club

·         Department of Education, Melbourne, Australia

·         Eastern Mennonite University, Center for Justice and Peacebuilding

·         The Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC)

·         International School Psychologists Association

·         University of Maryland, Center for Dispute Resolution

·         University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Program in Conflict Studies and Dispute Resolution

·         Minnesota Department of Education

·         Nashua Community College, Peace and Justice Studies, New Hampshire

·         The National Peace Academy

·         The Ohio Attorney General’s Office, Youth and Juvenile Programs

·         Ohio Commission on Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management

·         Ohio Department of Health, Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Prevention Program

·         Ohio Domestic Violence Network

·         On-Tasc, Inc.

·         Sustained Dialogue Campus Network

·         The University of Akron, College of Education

·         United States Institute of Peace

·         Wilmington College, Peace Resource Center

4th International Conference on Conflict Resolution Education (CRE), Building Infrastructures for Change: 

Innovations in Conflict Resolution Education (CRE)

www.creducation.org/cre/goto/4th

June 8 - 13, 2011

 Cuyahoga Community College - 

West Campus, 1100 Pleasant Valley Rd., Parma, Ohio

June 8-9 -     Pre-conference trainings
June 10-11   Main Conference, Keynote and workshops
June 12-13 US Community College Seminar: Developing Peace and Conflict Studies programs

Save! Early Registration due May 1, 2011!

Credits offered: Graduate, Social Work, RCH, CEU, Counseling

The 4^th International Conference on CRE is an opportunity to engage in interdisciplinary collaboration and research on issues related to the development of infrastructure in CRE. Presentations will focus on innovations in the fields that are making broad impacts in local, state, national, and international communities.  Participants will exchange best practices, evaluation methodology, creation of policy implementation structures, consideration of obstacles to success, and new and innovative use of training, resources and technology. Conference participants will be drawn from the local, state, national, and international community.  College students and faculty are encouraged to attend and present their findings.  On-site events include a meeting of Ohio Colleges and Universities developing peace and conflict studies programs, June 9^th, 6:30PM – 9:30PM, an Association for Conflict Resolution Education Section meeting and a capacity building seminar for U.S. Community Colleges developing peace and conflict studies programs in partnership with the United States Institute of Peace.

Global Issues Resource Center and Library at Cuyahoga Community College is partnering with colleges and universities, and local, national, and international non-governmental and governmental organizations to host the 4th International Conference on Conflict Resolution Education (CRE), Building Infrastructures for Change:  Innovations in Conflict Resolution Education (CRE) in Cleveland, Ohio, USA.  Earlier conferences and working group meetings brought together government representatives from among the 50 states, around the globe, and their non-governmental organization partners who have legislation or policies in place to deliver CRE/SEL/PE and Civics Education at the K-12 level and in universities.  Conference and meeting publications are available at:  www.CREducation.org/cre/goto/4th

Audience:  Those interested in CRE/Social and Emotional Learning(SEL)/peace education (PE), including policy makers, practitioners, researchers, educators, college and university faculty, staff, and students, K-12 educators, public health officials, prevention specialists, probation officers, juvenile detention officers, specialized docket practitioners, state, local, national, and international policy makers, and individuals who work with youth serving organizations.

Keynote Speakers (June 10 – 11, 2011):

Dr. Harold Saunders, Former Asst. Secretary of State, Director of International Affairs, Kettering Foundation	Transforming Racial and Ethnic Conflict through Sustained Dialogue Around the Globe and on College Campuses
Brig. Gen. (USA, ret.) Patrick Finnegan, Longwood University	Combating Torture by Educating “Citizen Leaders”
Dr. Lisa Schirch, Eastern Mennonite University	Strategic Peacebuilding: Collaboration between civil society and policymakers in government and military
Johanna Orozco, Domestic Violence Center	Preventing Dating Violence

Pre-Conference Trainings (June 8 – 9, 2011, 9AM – 5PM)

June 8th and 9th - Sustained Dialogue: Transforming Relationships…Designing Change	International Institute for Sustained Dialogue
June 8th and 9th - Strategies for Trauma Awareness and Resilience: Breaking the Cycles of Violence	Eastern Mennonite University
June 9th - Building Campus Community Partnerships Around Peace and Conflict Studies	University of North Carolina at Greensboro
June 8th – Bullying Prevention and Intervention	Cleveland State University and the University of Akron

Special Events

·         June 9^th, 6:30PM – 9:30PM - Network Meeting of Ohio Colleges and Universities developing peace and conflict studies programs

·         Date TBD - Association for Conflict Resolution: Education Section Meeting

·         June 12 - 13 - Open to All Community College Faculty and Staff Community Colleges Seminar: Developing peace and conflict studies programs in partnership with the United States Institute of Peace and Global Issues Resource Center, Cuyahoga Community College

Additional Details?

Conference and meeting publications are available http://creducation.org/cre/goto/4th For more information, please contact Global Issues Resource Center, Cuyahoga Community College at 216-987-2224.

Hosted by:

Global Issues Resource Center and Library at Cuyahoga Community College and our many college, university, government, and non-governmental organization partners and sponsors.