"HOW TO ACHIEVE WORLD PEACE"

A summary of the book Peace Within Our Grasp By Crandall R. Kline Jr.,
August 1999
Preamble by Robert Stewart
This "How To" manual for achieving world peace is quoted from Crandall R.
Kline Jr.'s book Peace Within Our Grasp: Making the dream a reality (ISBN 09640656-2-2; 1999 version; copies available from C.R. (Dale) Kline, ME, 820
Hampton Ridge Dr., Akron, Ohio, U.S.A. 44313; cost US$10.50; 283 pages;
email Mr. Kline at peacedefense@sbcglobal.net ).

The reader is strongly

encouraged to read Mr. Kline's book to understand the fullness of his

explanations. You may not agree with everything, but this is the best "How
To Achieve World Peace' book that I have read - if you have seen better,
please let me know and I will share that too. It also promotes dialogue on all
of the contents. Mr. Kline has done the world a great service by clearly
demonstrating that World Peace is Achievable, and that a "How To" manual
can be written, improved, and followed to significantly reduce violence in the
world and its human cost. Thank you Crandall R. (Dale) Kline Jr. Happy
reading, and please share this extremely valuable information with everyone
you can. Robert Stewart (comments are invited to stewartr [at] peace.ca )
Preface
"'Manliness' means upholding and defending moral rules - not preaching
hatred, holding grudges and seeking revenge.
1900 - 1999 The Bloodiest Century Ever!

27,000,000 soldiers and

170,000,000 civilians killed - Total 197,000,000. In order for all these people
to be killed, there must be millions of people who did the killing. Why is it so
easy to find men who are willing to kill?

Introduction
On the question of military defense, people tend to be polarized.
This polarization makes the selling of the necessary solution difficult and is a
serious handicap to attaining peace.
For peace, we need to focus on the killers, which are estimated at 2% of the
male population.
The evidence that collective defense can prevent wars is quite clear...
The second part of the plan calls for the elimination of the government's
right to kill in any situation, unless unavoidably necessary for the protection
of lives or national borders.
Repressive governments should be removed, preferably by nonviolent
means.
To have world peace, people need to be activists, writing newspapers and
(Government) on the issues relating to war prevention.

An active

intelligencia supporting the right policies is essential for keeping the

government on a peaceful track.
...killing, the use of violence for political ends, (is) the common denominator
of war.

World peace is not a utopian dream -- it is within our grasp.

Wars are caused by conflicting ideas on what is acceptable national
behaviour. The urge to exert national will and protect perceived rights,

however irrational, ... is a powerful emotion. Wars begin in the minds of

men.
For world peace, the upper brain must be in control.

Chapter 1. The System is the Problem

Laws are made to determine where one person's rights end and the next
person's rights begin.
International politics is being played with faulty rules and attitudes.
...a good set of rules and enforcement are needed to get people to live
together peacefully.
To have world peace, we need some international rules and a means of
enforcing them.
...governments should have no more right to kill than the civilians do.

Chapter 2. Religions' Positions, Vacuums and Misdirections

After 2,000 years of trying, it is time to realize that pacifism has no chance
of attaining the popular appeal that is necessary to make it effective in
preventing wars.
The problem with the just-war rules is that the definition of "just-cause" is
too lenient and the rules have been misused.

Nonviolent reforms should always be the first method tried for correcting a
repressive regime, but when all nonviolent means fail, enforcement by the
U.N. is unfortunately the only effective answer.
...it is imperative for world peace that the people not accept the "orders is
orders" concept in their role as citizens.

Instead, they should hold the

conviction that (1) governments have no right to kill and (2) citizens should
refuse to follow orders to kill. It has taken centuries to get rid of the "divine
right of kings" concept, now we need to get rid of the divine right of
governments.
...citizens have a right to disobey immoral orders when issued by the
government...
...about 70% of the people in the U.S. are in favor of the death penalty. This
preference is based on emotions, rather than on clear thinking.
The facts are that the death penalty does not deter murder, and does not
save taxpayers any money.

Chapter 3. Better Rules are the Solution

Defense does not mean the right to make a preemptive strike. The first one
to strike is the guilty party.
Our ultimate goal should be to adopt a rule that government leaders should
have no right to kill anybody.
...all nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are not defensive weapons
and should be eliminated.

...nations have no right to use military violence to settle their differences.

...the one who strikes first is the culprit and deserves the condemnation of
the world community.
Nations should be allowed to defend themselves and the blame should be
placed on the one who initiated the violence.
...a criminal has no right to defend himself from punishment imposed by a
legitimate government.
The legitimacy of the government is important in this scene.
The government must be the choice of the people.
The government should be the assurer of nonviolence.
There must be some freedoms as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, especially
freedom of speech and freedom for religions.
The majority must be charitable.
It must have a military and diplomatic policy of defense-only.
A government should be considered negligent if it does not provide the
means for earning a living for all the people who want to work.
...a reasonable distribution of wealth
Rules Needed for World Peace:
1. Nonviolence - No one has the right to kill anyone else. Groups of people
have no more right to kill than individuals have. Governments have no right
to

kill

anyone.

2. No Aggression - Lives and land are sacred. Nations have no right to

invade

another,

kill

the

people

or

take

their

land.

3. Defense - A nation that has a non-repressive government has a right to

defend

itself

from

an

invasion

or

revolution.

4. Guilt - The nation that initiates or supports an invasion, revolution or

terrorism is the guilty party. If their army is on another nation's land they are
the guilty party.
The best system for defense is collective defense.
... the United Nations ...

In order for the United Nations to be effective, it must give a permanent

warning to all nations that the U.N. will come to the aid of any victim of an
invasion. ... As of now, the U.N. is not structured to do this.
Peace Defense basic tenets:
1. No one has the right to kill for any reason except as immediately and
unavoidably

required

to

protect

human

life

or

national

borders.

2 & 3. Adequate defensive forces, in combination with rule number 3, are

necessary to prevent aggression and repel the invaders. A world mutual
defense pact (as expressed in the U.N. Charter) and a firm resolve by all
members to join together to repel aggression (against any nation that
complies

with

rule

number

1)

are

essential.

4. Citizens must withdraw support for any leader that violates rule number
1.
5. Capital punishment is to be replaced with permanent life imprisonments.
These are five fundamental moral rules from which other rules can be
derived in order to implement them. Not only do we need the right rules, but
we need enough people who understand them and who are concerned
enough that they will speak up and demand that the government implement
them.

We need to distinguish between a military to be used for empire building

and one for maintaining human rights.
The lesson is clear: Where anarchy prevails, as in Somalia, only the threat
of superior force can restore a semblance of order.
All leaders should be given notice ahead of time that killing will not be
tolerated.
If the United Nations had an international law against repression, the world
opinion supporting that law would influence the leader's behaviour. And
furthermore, if the International Criminal Court had the power to bring him to
trial and a collective-defense military organization had the authority to arrest
him, any leader with thoughts of violence would be deterred from doing any
repressive acts.
There is a serious need for non-lethal weapons.
Thus far the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win
wars. From now on, its chief purpose must be to avert them.
Just-Cause...
Towards a Global Ethic:

We all have a responsibility for a better global order.

Our involvement for the sake of human rights, freedom, justice,

peace, and the preservation

of

the Earth

is

absolutely necessary.

We do not consider ourselves better than other women and

men.

There will be no better global order without a global ethic.

What you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to others.

No one has the right physically or psychologically to torture,

injure,

much

less

kill,

any

other

human

being.

No people, no state, no race, no religion has the right to hate.

Commit to a life of truthfulness.

Pervasive honesty is necessary for the success of democracy. Corruption

destroys any government.
Secular Golden Rule: Do nothing that harms another person, that injures,
jeopardizes or even offends.
...treating everyone with respect...
...wisdom consists of knowing when a rule is to be followed and when it
should not be followed.

Chapter 4. Getting the Rules Straight

The world is different now; with the introduction of democracies and the
United Nations our thinking about wars and diplomacy has progressed.
Diplomacy Strategies
...human built-in irrationality, bordering on insanity...
How the World Has Changed:
1. ...nations must abide by moral rules. ... Raison d'etat and Realpolitik,
which ignored moral rules in international relations, was and still is the
thinking of some nations and even some political leaders in the U.S.
2. The conviction that empire-building is an honorable sport has subsided.
3. Intolerance of ethnic and racial difference has subsided considerably in
this

century.

4. People are beginning to understand that nations don't cause wars;

individuals cause wars.
Thinking That Leads to War:
1. It used to be ours, so we have a right to take it back by force.
2.

They

3.
4.

did

don't

Blaming

want

it

to

whole

be

nation

governed

for

the

acts

to

us.

by

foreigners.

of

individuals.

5. The rogues, the homicidal 2%, will be nice to us if we are nice to them.
6. I have a right to do anything that is not prohibited by law, even if it harms
others.
7. If I am nice to others and especially if I am kind to foreign visitors, I am
doing my share to prevent wars. ... It is fallacious to think that our personal
diplomacy will be enough to make a difference. Instead we need to learn
what national and international policies are needed and work to implement
them.
8.
9.

Extreme
Degrading

10.

the

value

Callous

human

Concern

11.
12.

of

nationalism.
lives

of

those

for

Mass

foreign

13.

policy,

the

Putting

14.

The

away.
Murder.

Confrontational
In

far

diplomacy.
ends

justify

faith

the

in

passion

means.
arms.

for

revenge.

15. Going to war or continuing a war for honor, or to avenge an insult.

16.

Seeking

balance

of

power

in

each

region.

17. Unilateral disarmament will prevent wars. ... (The) hope is that rather
than having a balance, the democracies of the world can form a coalition
that is so strong that it can dominate.
Correct Thinking That Will Prevent Wars:

1. Reject "We used to own it" as acceptable reason to regain control by

force.
2. Reject "I want my government to be the same ethnicity as I am."
3. The police (or military) of a legitimate (non-repressive) government have
the

right

to

use

force

(threaten

violence)

to

accused

capture
criminals.

4. The objective of the police (or military) should be to apprehend the

accused individuals with as little violence as possible (use non-lethal
weapons).
5. When a criminal act occurs, the correct goal is to capture and try in court
the individuals who did it, not to seek revenge by killing others of the same
race,

religion

or

nationality.

6. We should consider as permanent all national boundaries as of 1950, when

the

United

Nations

became

effective,

(certain

exceptions).

7.
8.
9.

except

Reject
Give

equal

Pacifism

revenge

value
has

to

the

and

lives

no

of

hatred.

everyone

chance

of

in

the

preventing

world.
wars.

10. Wars are caused by the 2% who are homicidal and the 8% who
encourage
11.

Citizens

them
need

to

be

(cohomicidals).
active

to

prevent

wars.

12. We cannot be silent when massacres occur in other nations.

13. True culture comes not from fine art, music, gowns and palaces. Culture
comes from having the right set of moral rules as the foundation of society,
adhering to them and promoting them, so that wars can be avoided.
14.

Widespread

15.

Morality

honesty
is

is
the

essential
basis

for

good
of

16. Think "I can have an influence on the course of events."

government.
all

laws.

Chapter 5. How Peace Defense Could Have Prevented Five (?) Wars
Pope John Paul II should make a clear statement that Catholics have a duty
to stop supporting leaders that kill.
To prevent invasions, the aggressor needs to be warned that the victim will
receive military help.

Chapter 6. How the United Nations Should Be Revised

It is appropriate to uphold world governance as the ultimate goal, but being
practical, we need to work toward that goal in a step by step fashion, by
gradually increasing the influence of the U.N., making sure that each step is
working satisfactorily as we progress forward.
Elements of an Effective U.N.:

International

The

laws

Security

clearly

Council

and

as

explicitly

the

written.

governing

body.

An intelligence gathering arm, working with the CIA, KGB, and

others.

An enforcement arm consisting of a command structure, armies

and

a
An

International

commando
Criminal

Court

force.
to

try

individuals.

A means of incarcerating the guilty.

... having laws without some means of enforcing them is useless.

The best part of a collective defense system is the leverage that it provides
in protecting one from invasion. When 10 countries are going to come to

your aid, you don't need such a large military force to protect yourself. This
is a system that invites a military build-down rather than a buildup.
The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights ... does not have
a clear statement that no one shall be killed. This vague language should be
corrected and clear laws written prohibiting all forms of repression.
...the U.N. should require all nations to make and enforce laws prohibiting
anyone from supplying money or arms to terrorists, rebels, revolutionaries or
repressive leaders.
All weapons of mass destruction should be eliminated except that the five
permanent members of the Security Council should have five nuclear bombs
each. ... This 5 x 5 plan will eliminate the need to spend wasteful money on
SDI or any ABM systems.
There should be an international law against the manufacture, testing,
possession and transfer of materials or technical information on nuclear,
biological and chemical weapons. the member nations should be required to
enact and enforce these same laws, internally.
All nations should agree to inspections for these weapons.

Chapter 7. The Churches' Support for The U.N.

The purpose of the Peace Defense League is to ask these religions to revise
their position statements so that support for these four issues is brought out
as a clear position and not buried in or compromised by disagreeing
statements that result in an ambiguous position. This will help to clarify the
thinking of the general public so that the right choices for a world system can
be made and supported.

Chapter 8.

Understanding Our Psychological Makeup, A Key to

Peace
We, the whole population, need to understand ourselves in order to arrive
at beneficial conclusions regarding war and all the related issues that lead us
to wars. All of us need to know that we are driven by our inner emotions,
and these emotions can be misleading and even destructive. We need to
recognize that we have built-in, gene driven feelings and early-training
feelings that to a large extent determine our personalities and our mental
decisions on courses of action.
In all of life, one needs to learn to control one's impulses and instinctive
emotions.
Reaching world peace requires making decisions objectively.
Here are six basic aspects for understanding ourselves:
1.
2.

The

Excitement
Violence

of

Any

vs.

Tranquility.

Contest.
...genes

The hawks and the doves will never understand each other,

unless they are taught that their emotions are a result of the juices that flow
inside them. Neither side is making objective decisions, but rather decisions
based

on

their

internal

feelings.

...find that most peace groups have a serious defect; they

promote solutions that assume that everyone can become the same as they
are. Possibly less that 20% of the people have the genes to accept the
pacifist philosophy. ... Instead, people who are searching for peace need to
promote a program of Peace Defense, a system that believes in the right of
self-defense, and which therefore can appeal to a larger segment of the

populations.
3.

The

4.

of

The

Lack

pride

Love

Revenge.

Ego
of

respect

Factor.

brings

violent

anger.

Saddam's statements that he and all Arab men would die for
is

clear

signal

of

why

we

have

wars.

To prevent wars, we need educational programs to overcome

such

thinking.

...killing for any reason, and especially pride, is wrong.

The pride of nationalism is another part of the ego factor.

To prevent wars, we need to be willing to sacrifice ego to avoid

killing
5.

people.
The

Insanity

of

the

War

Mentality.

6. The Respect and Support for Leaders that Kill.

When we add up all these points, we find that there is a lot of information
that needs to be taught to the public that is not now widely accepted or
understood. There is a lack of information in the public's mind about what is
driving his or her feelings and influencing their decisions on the war issues.
Understanding our psychological makeup is valuable for reaching objective
solutions to our problems so that we can resolve them peacefully.
Then with the public thinking objectively, they would take on the
responsibility of influencing the leaders in all levels of government to
implement these plans that are necessary for peace.

Chapter 9. Testosterone
The main point of this chapter is to persuade the reader to recognize the
influence of our hormones on our thinking and actions. It is a given that our

character is a product of both heredity and environment. (The) hope here is

that by understanding why we feel anger, desire for revenge and many other
emotions, we will be better able to control our responses.
The study of animals indicates a correlation between testosterone and
fighting.
Paul D. MacLean, in his book "The Triune Brain in Evolution", wrote that the
control centers for sex, aggression, dominance and territoriality lie in the
deep ancient part of the brain called the R complex.
Ethnocentrism is the belief that one's own group is superior. Xenophobia is
the fear and hatred of strangers. These ideas are rooted in the (R) portion of
the brain, associated with dominance and territoriality ...
Testosterone makes men enjoy competing and driving for success.
The elimination of this feeling of racial superiority is an essential step in
preventing wars.
War is a testosterone game.
To prevent wars, we need concern for others and a willingness to
compromise -- attributes that are more characteristic of women. For men, to
compromise is to lose; if one of the men wants to compromise he is told he
has lace on his shorts. If women ran the world, there would be no wars.
The upper brain, the part that makes us different from animals, that makes
us humans, has the ability to control our thoughts and actions.

It can

override the (R or lower) brain emotions. One proof that the upper brain can
control behavior is with the use of Ritalin. ... Ritalin ... is a stimulant that
stimulates the upper brain to be more active and control the lower brain.

These

emotions

that

originate

in

the

lower

brain

are

automatic,

spontaneous reactions that occur without conscious thought.

The (R, lower brain) emotions are strong and are enjoyable, so it takes
some effort to repress them. One rather obvious indication of the influence
of testosterone is the prevalence of teenage gangs.
testosterone

they

enjoy

ethnocentrism,

dominance,

As boys gain in
aggression

and

territorialism, exactly the characteristics of street gangs.

The (R, lower brain) emotions are so overpowering that they repress the
logic of the upper brain. Men love guns because they give them a sense of
power and dominance... Guns are testosterone toys. Guns increase men's
power over others. Yet, a gun in the home is six times more likely to kill a
family member or friend than an intruder. Logic says that your family is six
times safer if you have no gun in the house than if you have a gun. Yet, the
(R, lower brain) emotion is so strong that people reject the upper brain logic.
Gun accidents cause $6 billion in hospital and medical expenses each year
(U.S. statistics). Thirteen children die every day from a gun accident in the
home and there are 20 children injured by guns in the home for every one
who is killed. The thinking, caring person would choose to have a nonlethal
weapon for his protection instead of a gun. Here is a tremendous market for
an enterprising inventor.
The urge to be respected is a powerful urge.
Men as individuals don't fight wars for greed as much as for gaining a
position of respect and honor, the feeling of being in control of others,
superior to the defeated enemy. They don't admire swords, guns, warships
for greed but as instruments of gaining superiority over others, of gaining
respect from others, of being strong and able to protect themselves, their
clan and nation.

...it is reasonable to say that one in 50 or 2% of men are homicidal.

Einstein said that if 5% of the people would actively oppose wars, wars
would be eliminated. He later reduced that number to 2%, and I agree; that
is the number that I now use. We need six times as many people actively
speaking out against wars (as there are now).
Wars are caused by the 10% who are "cohomicidal".
In order to prevent wars, the peaceful 90% need to muster the courage to
oppose the violent ones and establish an International Criminal Court that
will control the cohomicidals by arresting their leaders.
Whatever plan you choose for the prevention of wars, it must take into
consideration the portion of men who love the excitement of war, who are
willing to kill and want to use war to rise to power or promote their particular
ideology. They find financial backing for their scheme and then easily find
men willing to join their rebel group. There are dozens of such groups in the
world and it takes military force to disarm them. That is why pacifism
doesn't work.
Women especially need to understand that many men are ingrained with
the love of playing war.
As of this writing, August 1999, there are 474 hate groups in the U.S.
...psychiatrists should be able to identify people with thoughts of killing and
we need a better system to assure that they cannot purchase or possess
guns.
... genes have a greater influence on IQ than the environment.
The narcissism of teenagers and their desire to rebel are brought on by
genes and not their environment.

The effects of genes and testosterone are not rigid rules. The environment
and other genetic factors can mitigate the effects.
Psychologists say that human beings are very malleable.
Adults are more difficult to change ...
The desire to be respected is too universal to be exclusively the result of
training.
It takes mental effort to use our higher brain, reject the appeal of feeling
superior and choose instead tolerance and democratic solutions. And, that
mental effort is crucially important; it is essential for a peaceful world.
... feelings and desires are harder to conquer and transform than ideas or
actions.
With effort, the upper brain can rule one's emotions and behavior.
... happiness is a decision.
... we can mentally choose not to be bigoted or revengeful, and that by
knowing the source of our bigotry and revenge emotions, we are better able
to make the decision to reject them.
We need to be aware how violent our society is. We are so exposed to
violence, even as children, that we have become numb to it.
We tend to think primarily of our concern for those who were killed, but we
need to concentrate our thinking on where did they find so many men who
would willingly participate in killing women and children, let alone the
conquered soldiers. The love of killing is more widespread in humans than
we want to admit mentally.

Today, in our homes, children are being abused by their parents and at least
25% of the wives are battered. TV brings violence into our homes. The
average U.S. child watches television about three hours a day and witnesses
more than 8,000 murders before finishing elementary school. Children are
influenced by what their parents say and do, so parents have a responsibility
to teach nonviolence.
Since adults are selling these (for profit) children think that the adults must
approve, so such adults are a bad influence.
...the urges remain and each person needs to suppress greed, anger and
selfishness all their lives.
People don't want to read about how to make peace; they are more
interested in reading about war and killing.
...propose that psychologists should compose tests to analyze people's
concern for others (empathy) and their titillation from violence (sadism). ..
the Concern Quotient (CQ)...
The terrorist lives for terror, not for the change he tells himself he wants.
He masks his desire to kill and destroy behind the curtain of a cause.
Any plan for peace must include a means of controlling the portion of the
people who love violence.
If ethnic hatred is not the number one cause of wars, it must be a close
second.
Where ethnic hatred is strong, a pluralistic democracy with a strong peace
force capable of capturing violent rebel leaders is needed for peace.
...one should expect that the religions ... should influence their government
and insist that the police system protect people of other religions.

Since ethnic hatred (perceived by some to be religious hatred) is so

rampant, the control of this emotion needs to be seriously addressed by all
who seek to advance the cause of peace. All religions need to be vocal in
preaching against religious and ethnic hatred and should out-shout the
ethnic hatred movements.
... training children in non-violent conflict resolution is the right thing to do
but it will be a slow process that will take several generations. ... But part of
that training needs to be how to suppress one's own love of violence.
Any plan that relies on everyone being nice is doomed to failure. It would
take a vocal majority of people in every nation who are capable of controlling
the political decisions in order to be effective. That is not an impossible
dream but one that will be a long time in coming.
A more effective, short-term goal is to put into place an international judicial
system. The U.N...
...biology does not condemn humanity to war. There is hope for peace if we
humans will apply ourselves to finding ways to prevent wars.
The ten percent who are homicidal or cohomicidal need more social
restraint, more intense training that the other 90%.
The basic theme of this book is that killing is the principle root of war.
...common knowledge that our genes are influencing our love of revenge
and violence.
The success of Alcoholics Anonymous proves that we can overcome even
the strongest urges in our genes. But, before AA can help the alcoholic, the
person must recognize that he/she cannot control the urge to drink, and
must want to be helped.

Possibly, we need a "homicidal anonymous" with a phone number where

people can call whenever they are possessed with the urge to kill someone.
Let your "human" brain control you life.

Chapter 10. The Love of Risking One's Life

Criminals are attracted to crime because the risks are exciting. It is an
addiction. They need the stimulation of risk to make life enjoyable.
The prevention of war requires that the non-combat people need to set up a
social system that exerts strong control over those who would choose to fight
as rebels.
The message here for peace lovers is that they need to understand that
there are some men who are genetically drawn to crime and that we need
good policemen to pursue them.

Also, we need to clarify conventional

wisdom, our set of knowledge on what behavior is moral, so that fewer

people are misled by charismatic leaders with faulty plans and messages.
Because of the excitement of war, the unthinkable frequently becomes
thinkable.

Chapter 11. What is Truth?

There is a cure for cancer. A cure exists; we just need to keep looking until
we find it.
Similarly, there is a set of rules, a body of knowledge, behavioral advice,
that can bring peace to the world.

...call this body of behavioral advice "peace knowledge".

We have wars because the public believes that many things are true that
are really not true, or at least are only partially true.
Worshipping false ideas is a cause of wars.
...most issues are such that there is an optimum amount that produces the
most benefit as the bell curve shows.
... everything is not black and white. ... many things are grey.
...there are exceptions to every rule ... We define wisdom as knowing when
a rule should be followed and when it should be bent or abrogated.
Here are two rules that are near absolutes: "Harm no one" is the basic rule
for pleasant cohabitation of the earth. It is the basis of all laws. "Kill no one"
is the basic rule for the prevention of wars. The basic cause of wars is killing.
"Harm no one", is the basis of justice.
Conclusions, to be valid, must be reached by careful logic.

A valid

conclusion is one that any clear-thinking person, trained in testing the

rationality of a statement and who has access to all the contributing
evidence, would conclude.
The more one knows, the better conclusions one can discern.
Words like truth, logical and moral are self-cleansing names. If it isn't true,
it isn't truth. If it isn't true logic, it isn't logical. If it isn't moral, if it harms
someone, it isn't moral.
What makes a rule is repeatability...

But in human relations, 100% repeatability is unrealistic, so one needs to

think in terms of high probability. If aspirin works to relieve a headache 60%
of the time, with no bad side effects, then it is adopted as a reasonably good
tool for curing headaches. If Peace Defense will prevent war in 60% of crisis
situations, then it should be accepted as a reasonably good process for war
prevention.
... getting straight our convictions, our rules contributes to a more peaceful
system for peaceful coexistence.
...founded on moral principles.
...having policemen and the FBI does not eliminate crime, but with absolute
certainty it reduces crime.
So we know for certain that a system of laws and police enforcement is
necessary to reduce the amount of crime.
... the basic needs for people are everywhere the same. We know for
certain that people need food, clothing and shelter and that means they, for
certain, need a means for attaining these.
Since the needs are the same, the basic moral rules are the same
everywhere. The right to life and protection of the means for subsistence
and for peaceful coexistence, and embracing the policy of 'all men (and
women) are created equal', are essentials and universal.
There is a lack of discussion about what should be the right policies for
peaceful coexistence. They seem more intent on enjoying gossip than on
discussing what is the right course, what needs to be done.

Chapter 12. The Psychological Roots of War

...we know that in order for people to live together peacefully, in a civilized
manner, many rules are necessary.
Man's loose interpretation of the meaning of "freedom" has contributed to
his discontent. People tend to think of freedom in an absolute sense. The
ultimate freedom is living on a deserted island where one has no need to be
concerned about neighbors or what neighbors think. This is of course an
impossible ideal in a crowded world, so we need to define freedom as it
applies to living in a democracy, and this we have done (in Chapter 17).
When people understand the limitations of freedom, they will not be misled
by unrealistic expectations and will be more satisfied, less discontent, with
all the rules of civilization.
Another crucial area where men have exaggerated ideas of liberty occurs in
our understanding of sovereignty.
Accepting that other nations have equal rights is a hard pill to swallow.
People need to adopt a set of rules that they are willing to live by regardless
of the nationality of the judge and jury.
To attain world peace, we need more people who are dedicated to
promoting the unselfish political policies such as providing reasonable
subsistence for all people.
A pleasant and orderly civilization depends on the use of force to control
people in the criminal fringe who break the laws.
...firmness in guiding the child to act socially acceptable is important, but
the firmness should be flexible and democratic, rather than authoritarian.
Parents should also teach children to be generous and helpful.
practices lead to good self-esteem and social skills.

These

The urge to feel superior is so strong that people will always (almost) look
for inferiors so that they can feel superior to them.
... ego's wishes for omnipotence.
Here is a list of near-absolutes which are close enough to being absolutes
that they should be treated as such:
1. All men (and women) are created equal (in a political sense).
2. The basic physical needs of all people are essentially the same:
continuous sources of air, water, food, shelter, space, heat and light.
3. The basic social and mental needs of all people are: being treated with
respect, privacy, social communication, education, and understanding of
life.
4. The moral rules for coexistence: harm no one, cooperate, help each other,
and

respect

the

laws.

5. Some crimes are more serious than others. There is a hierarchy of laws.
Wisdom

consists

of

knowing

which

law

is

superior.

6. The majority has the right to make the rules as long as the rules are not
harmful to the minority.
Given these conditions, we can say unequivocally that the basic rules for
peaceful coexistence are universal.
The U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights are a good description of
and a good prescription for the essentials for peaceful coexistence and even
universal happiness. These rights are near absolutes and should be treated
as reliable aims for all cultures.
Whether we have war or peace depend on the choices made by the control
or reasoning centers of the public's brains.

Desiring to help everyone in the world, believing that everyone should seek
to be a "citizen of the world", is not widespread, and herein lies an
impediment to creating support for the United Nations. "Citizens of the
world" is not a natural, built-in emotion; it is a decision of the logic of the
upper brain. For world peace, the upper brain must be in control.
...social order is held together by mutual concerns and rational self-interest.
...criminals think differently than normal people and proposes a cure that
consists of a long program of teaching the criminal to think like a normal
person.
It is heartening to find that changing people's thinking and choice of action
is possible.
Kids are not enticed into crime by peers; they choose the bad crowd to run
with.
Addiction to crime is difficult to reject and the process is similar to that of
Alcoholics Anonymous. ... "A person either shuts the door completely on
crime or he does not. No middle ground exists. ..."
The criminal is completely selfish. He is the ultimate chauvinist; his wife is
an object, not a partner.
For the criminal, learning how to control anger is an important part of the
cure. Anger is a malignancy that must be removed.
...it is essential for people in the diplomatic services of the government to
be able to not show anger.
"In short, the change process calls for criminals to acquire moral values that
enabled civilization to survive. The object is to teach them to live without
injuring others."

In times of stress, nations look for the cause of their suffering. It is human
nature to not blame one's self but to find a scapegoat. ... protect their self
image ... the denial of reality...
... ethnocentrism, segregation of "us" and "them", is common to all human
beings. People with low self esteem need someone to look down on to raise
their own self worth.
Other nations are often passive, even though attempts to exert influence
may require little courage or real sacrifice from them.
...people who are well adjusted and in comfortable circumstances are more
likely to accept pluralism and international equality.
...the 90% who are not cohomicidal need to be active. ... "Bystanders can
exert powerful influence. Bystanders... help shape society by their actions. .
..by their passivity or participation in the system they can affirm the
perpetrators."
We need to promote an ethic for helping others in distress.
Connectedness that extends beyond one's groups to all human beings is an
important building block of a peaceful world.
"Social change requires highly committed citizens guided by ideals. We
need a vision of long-term change and specific small ways in which people
can contribute."
Major points of this book:
1. Some men are homicidal; they have an instinctive thought that killing
would

be

fun.

2. Revenge, ethnosuperiority, and competitiveness, mental and physical, are

instinctive

urges.

3. There are physical and mental needs that are absolutes and universal.
4. "Don't harm others" is a basic, universal rule for peaceful coexistence.
5.

Governments

6.

Governments

7.

Parents

need

coercion

need
need

to

keep

order.

force

to

capture

criminals.

firmness

in

raising

children.

8. "All men (and women) are created equal (politically)" applies to the whole
world.
9. We need UN and ICC with the ability to capture criminal leaders.
Chapter 13. Sacreligion
How can a gang of murderers call themselves a religion?
It's men who do the killing.
All the world's famous religions teach members to be good neighbors and
live in peace.
religion - a set of thoughts about what happens to people after they die,
what one should believe or how one should live in order to reach eternal life,
or to obtain bliss in this life or in a future life, especially that one should treat
others with kindness.
All the true religions are degraded when the newspapers label assassins as
religious fanatics, extremists or fundamentalists.
Many people misinterpret the instructions of their faith so drastically that
they end up with a faith system that is not a religion.
...new definitions for a new era.
Example - Akron Area Interfaith Council Position on Hatred and Violence.
... we should not be allowed to say untruths that harm others.

...preaching of hatred should be outlawed. The U.S. has laws against the
preaching of terrorism but not preaching of hatred.
Proposed definition: freedom of speech, press and expression - the right to
do or say whatever one wants except not to tell untruths that harm others
nor to offend widely held public customs that are not harmful.
Coerced conversions and coerced compliance are close to sacreligion.

Chapter 14. Changing the Public's Opinion

Wars can be caused by conflicting moral principles.

Wars are caused by a conflict of ideas; wars are the result of ideas in the
minds. Therefore there are two ways, at least, to settle the dispute:
1.

Keep

discussing

the

differences

until

there

is

an

agreement.

2. ...fight...
In the decision contest between maintaining friendship or following moral
principles, the principles that are essential to world peace must win out. The
religions of the world need to stress this. A friend who kills should no longer
be considered a friend because he/she has become an enemy of the peaceful
system.
Public opinion polls reflect the knowledge that the public has on the item in
question, how well the public is informed on the issue.

...this results in reporting what the people who are not informed think and
what the people who are informed think. The media provides no clear
indication of which is which.
...misinformation...
...results should be reported in a way that educates the public...
An informed public is essential for the smooth operation of a democracy.
The changes in public opinion about seat belts, cholesterol and smoking
were brought about primarily by spreading the information through the
media ... Good information, spread by the media can change public opinion.
The only thing that now stands in the way of eliminating wars is getting
enough people to read, assimilate and support the ideas presented.
Unfortunately, everyone thinks that world peace is an impossible dream,
the plan could not be true and it would be a waste of time to even consider
the plan.
Trying to persuade someone to change their mind is a very difficult thing.
Yet civilization can only progress when enough people change their minds
so that they influence the decisions of government.
It is a dichotomy; changing minds is so easy but yet so difficult.
...the majority of people disagree with the pacifist position and favor
instead the right of self defense. These people will supply the military needs
for an effective national defense and collective defense system.

There

should be no need to draft people who do not want to serve. An all-volunteer

army is a preferable goal and it should be easily attained.

One can say with some credibility that we have wars because the churches
support such a broad spectrum of attitudes toward wars that the people can
believe whatever they choose on the morality of war. The churches do not
teach which of the attitudes is effective in preventing wars and yet this is the
most important aspect one should consider in selecting a moral attitude
toward war.
The purpose of this book is to ask the religions to focus on some specific
morality rules that have, by historical evidence, prevented wars. ... Defenseonly is the only position that has a high probability of being effective.
Preaching Christianity with the moral rules as they have historically been
taught has not, and will not prevent wars.
"Good works" are things that work, things that help people. ...things that
make the world better...
If someone suggests to you that another way is better, that means he is
implying that your reasons are wrong.
One should not be discouraged if a new idea is not given instant acclaim.
It takes time for good ideas to be accepted and appreciated by many
people.
For peace, nations must meet as equals, as they do in the United Nations,
and discuss equitable solutions to their conflicting goals. But beyond that,
nations must behave as good neighbors, seeking to help those in dire need.
The United Nations is organized to do that also. Justice, charity and defense
are the three primary pillars on which peace rests and the U.N. is committed
to all three.

Patriotism (proposed definition) - love for one's own country along with a
realization that the people in other countries also love their country, so to
get along, we need to show respect for each nation, as long as its leaders
comply with the rules for peaceful coexistence.
... people have a right and a duty to point out where our national policies
are mistaken.

Chapter 15. Alternatives to Violence

...showing respect...
Since we go to war to protect our egos, the way to avoid wars is to bolster
the ego in some other way.
To avoid violence, we need to seek justice; we need to show concern for the
person's needs.
... a wonderful goal, that all children in the world be trained to handle
conflicts nonviolently.
The just-war rules say that the use of force must be the last resort. While
nonviolent conflict resolution procedures may not always work, they must be
given full, even excessive trials before resorting to threats of violence or
actual force.

Chapter 16. Is It In Our National Interest?

This book holds high the idea that world peace is a primary national
interest.

The question should be not only, "Is it in our national interest?" but, "Is it in
humanity's interest?" We hold very strongly the view that world peace is at
the pinnacle of humanity's best interests.
President Truman: "If history has taught us anything, it is that aggression
anywhere in the world is a threat to peace everywhere in the world. When
that aggression is supported by the cruel and selfish rulers of powerful nation
who are bent on conquest, it becomes a clear and present danger to the
security and independence of every free nation."
...political concerns greatly influence the decisions on what is the national
interest and we need to be cautious about our decisions.
Peace should be held higher than any monetary benefit.
...if we have to violate basic moral principles that erode a peaceful world
system to maintain our standard of living, then we should choose a lowering
of our standard of living. In a tradeoff between war and standard of living,
peace should be chosen, as long as we are following moral international laws
in the process.
...a major point of this book, the importance of a good structure in society.
We need rules and a means of enforcement. Just asking people to be nice
isn't going to do it. Without rules and enforcement, people will not be nice.
To attain peace, we must allow the United Nations to be the enforcer of
international laws.
...another major point of this book - peace requires that we have strong
defensive forces.
In this world there are the good and the bad, and the good decide which is
which.

Good is that which helps bring long, healthy and happy lives to everyone.
There needs to be a balance between the three parts: long life, healthy life
and happy life.
Smoking where non-smokers are present, polluting or wasting scarce
natural resources are examples of things that should not be done because
they impinge on the rights of others.
Those who decide in favor of policies that provide for a long, healthy, happy
life should be in charge.
To prevent wars, the "good people", those who follow the moral policies of
equality, freedom, defense-only and peace defense, must speak out and take
charge.
The rules must say that killing for any cause is never justified. If you (as a
nation) are short of water, you have no right to conquer your neighbor to get
water. If a nation has no natural supply of oil, it does not have a right to
conquer another to gain a supply of oil. Each nation must learn to exist with
the resources it has . Then it should use trade to obtain what it needs,
exchanging what it has for things it doesn't have. Of course, if a famine
occurs, other nations should help provide food.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is for the good
people to do nothing.
One of the things that make war prevention difficult is leaders who lie to
mislead the public or other nations.
Breaking a cease-fire is the equivalent of an initiated attack and the first
leader to break it should be put in jail by the U.N.

People in general are reluctant to embrace changes; they don't even like to
talk about change. Yet, to progress toward peace, some changes need to be
made.
Some new policies that this book is promoting are:

The U.S. should put in writing what international laws it would

be willing to support and then allow the United Nations to be the enforcer.

authority

weapons

The U.N. should have an International Criminal Court with the

to

try

individuals

that

violate

international

laws.

The U.S. and other industrial nations should develop nonlethal

for

use

in

capturing

criminals

and

controlling

riots.

The U.N. should have a commando force trained to use

nonlethal weapons to capture criminals who violate international laws and

bring them to trial.
...wars can be caused by conflicting moral principles. The purpose of this
book is to promote a standardization of moral principles by explaining the
reasons for each.

Chapter 17. Sovereignty's Limits

The just-war rules and the Geneva Conventions also define what a nation
can and cannot do.
We want to make clear that sovereignty is limited.
A point that this book wants to make is that there are moral limits to what a
democratic government can do even if a 2/3 majority of citizens vote for it.
The U.N. does not take away our sovereignty; we voluntarily join with other
nations to set the limits of acceptable behavior. It is to our benefit to do so.

The only thing we give up is the right to do bad things, which are not
sovereign rights.
...the basis of all law is morality.
One can conclude that the purpose of all law is to keep people from hurting
others.
It is therefore appropriate to say in the definition that sovereignty is limited
by "generally accepted moral principles, by the civil rights of the people, and
by customary international law."
This proves that no government, no matter how autocratic, has the right to
commit aggression or genocide, to violate the basic rights of people either in
its own country or other countries.
We need to convey to the public that sovereignty does not include the right
to do bad things. It does not give a nation the right to kill all the whales or
catch all the salmon in the oceans or to pollute the air or water that moves
to neighboring nations. It does not give them the right to conquer another
nation or to commit terrorism. These things are not sovereign rights. The
United Nations was formed to have the authority to stop nations from doing
things outside their sovereign rights. The U.N. does not take away sovereign
rights because they were not the rights of nations in the first place.
...Secular Golden Rule, "Do nothing that harms another person, that injures,
jeopardizes or even offends." This should be the moral basis for all laws.
...philosophical position is that morality supersedes laws. One is obligated
to follow moral rules in the absence of laws.
...the purpose of all laws is to protect us from some form of harm.
...freedom is limited by the right of others to not be injured.

Within a nation, a citizen's individual rights extend only until they reach the
limits of the neighbor's equal rights. So too, a nation's rights can extend only
until they conflict with the equal rights of other nations. In such a world, no
nation can have sovereign rights as defined in the dictionary, with supreme
power to wage war or pollute the air and oceans. Likewise, no government
has the right to be repressive - to have supreme power over the citizens or to
be free from external control on these issues.
This also proves that morality supersedes sovereignty.
The laws for all nations must be universally the same. We cannot have one
set of rules for other nations and a more lenient set for ourselves.
freedom (proposed definition) - the political condition in which choices or
actions are limited only by the equal rights of all other people, including their
right to be free from detrimental consequences of one's actions.
sovereignty (proposed definition) - the authority to govern, limited by the
basic rights of citizens and by the equal rights of all other nations.
The goal of this book is for the United Nations to have a "Department of
Justice" for enforcing international laws against aggression and repression.
To perform these functions, it needs to be the policeman, have a court to try
individuals, and have an institution for incarceration.
...when advocating authority for the International Criminal Court, we intend
that it should have authority to enforce those laws that prohibit aggression,
repression and terrorism, issues that lie outside national sovereignty. The
ICC may be given some authority over other issues such as drug trafficking
and pollution, but these are less crucial for assuring world peace.
To attain peace, the people need to rise up and stop all this killing. ...want
to see outrage by everyone against any killing that occurs anywhere.

An army warring against aggression can violate the territorial integrity and
political sovereignty of the aggressor state, but its soldiers cannot violate the
life and liberty of enemy civilians.
The German bombing of London did more to stimulate the British war effort
that it did to end the war. ... people are greatly strengthened when they face
adversity together.
Imagine what would have happened if the British, instead of bombing
Berlin, had dropped food packages.
... collateral damage is morally unacceptable.
...nuclear war is a "monstrous immorality - an immorality we can never
hope to square with our understanding of a just war. Nuclear weapons
explode the theory of a just war." ...Nuclear weapons are asinine, insanity.
Furthermore, the need for nuclear bombs would be eliminated in a world
where three fourths of the world is supporting the United Nations and
supplying it with armed forces to resist aggression anywhere. Also there
would be no need for nuclear bombs when the defense forces are structured
to capture repressive leaders rather than fight large armies.
Dr. Kissinger, in Diplomacy... wrote that the twentieth century's greatest
calamity (WWII) might have been avoided by the elimination of a single
individual (Hitler).
The sum of this is that sovereignty does not include the right to use nuclear
weapons. Our call for the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction is
morally and practically sound.
Acts of state are also acts of particular persons, and when they take the
form of aggressive war, particular persons are criminally responsible.

...leaders who kill must lose their right to rule.

Just because war is hell, it does not give soldiers the right to kill captured
soldiers or civilians. Such actions do not bring an earlier end to the war but
are only acts of frustration.
...soldiers cannot kill others (enemy soldiers trying to surrender or civilians)
to improve their own odds, "Not that they cannot do, because that no man
can do".
First, in planning their campaigns, they must take positive steps to limit
even unintended civilian deaths ... Second, military commanders, in
organizing their forces, must take positive steps to enforce the war
convention and hold the men under their command to its standards.
Barbarism to prevent barbarism only perpetuates the violence.
Revenge cannot be justified on Biblical grounds and all the religions should
preach fervently against it.
...the only people authorized to own guns (*) should be the policemen or
soldiers hired by the state, and they are justified in using guns only in
defensive situations as defined in this book.
The problem with sanctions, blockades and sieges is that the hardships fall
on the citizens rather than on the military.
Sanctions, blockades and sieges violate the just war rules against harming
citizens, unless food and medicine are allowed through the blockade.
Pacifism is not the answer (short term), but, of course, nonviolent methods of
conflict resolution need to be tried before resorting to force.
...the laws of war are radically incomplete.

We need to move from making international judgements on the basis of

moral rules or precedents to having a clear body of laws on the limits of
sovereignty and what constitutes aggression, repression, and atrocities.
Only by clear, explicit laws can national leaders know the limits of
sovereignty and the United Nations carry out its duty to enforce international
laws.
... the most influential thing that the United Nations could do to bring peace
would be to hold individuals responsible for aggression and repression. To do
this, the U.N. would need to establish an International Criminal Court and
make some changes in the U.N. Charter.
...the world community's lack of interest ... encourages violations.
No legal order, let alone a 'new world order', can exist on the basis of
double standards and impunity of the powerful. These are strong words and
powerful arguments in favor of an ICC.
...the U.N. has jurisdiction over all nations on the issue of peace.
A world federal union would be able to control the pollution and other
damage to the ecology.
A world federal union is needed to manage the regions not now under
government control: the oceans, polar caps, atmosphere and space.
A world federal union would be able to better control international crime
such as drug trafficking.
A world federal union would promote a sense of world community.
The U.S. needs only to vote for representatives in Congress who are willing
to cooperate with the U.N.

The first priority ... is the step-by-step strengthening of the U.N. Those
steps are: giving the U.N. a rapid deployment military force, establishing an
International Criminal Court, and banning all weapons of mass destruction,
including nuclear weapons.

Chapter 19. Nonlethal Weapons

Chapter 20. A New World Order

To end these fears and hatreds, the advocates of a peaceful world order
need to clarify exactly what they have in mind when speaking of a new world
order. And they need to reassure everyone that there will be guaranteed
rights, protected by a bill of rights, just as our own U.S. freedoms are
protected.
...we need to build into the plan the same guarantees that our U.S.
government has - balance of power and the right for each nation to retain
arms to the extent needed for internal order and defense, but not for
aggression.
This writer's idea of a new world order is only an improved U.N. - one that is
more effective in carrying out its duties according to the U.N. Charter. It
would be improved by using the Binding Triad method of vote counting.
...the United Nations does not interfere with a nation's sovereign rights but
rather operates in the area outside of national sovereignty.
...the first priority should be to make the U.N. capable of enforcing the laws
that it already has.

In order for the U.N. to be able to finance itself, it should be given

jurisdiction over all international waters and the atmosphere.
An international bill of rights should be based on two basic moral rules: (1)
that all nations have equal rights, in the sense that rules that apply to one
nation also apply to all other nations, and (2) that no nation has the right to
do anything that harms another nation.
Example Bill of Rights for Nations
The Sum of All Knowledge: What People Need to Know to Arrive at a
Peaceful World System - Appendix 2.

Chapter 21. The Role of Editors and Reporters

...hope that there are many editors who want their readers to be accurately
informed on all issues that can bring justice and improve the quality of life.
...the primary role of a reporter or editor is to present news that is beneficial
to the community. His/her primary role is education - presenting information
that helps people.
...honesty that is a blunt stating of our negative thoughts is not the right
policy for a peaceful, pleasant existence, in a family, among friends, or in
politics.
We need a widespread public conviction that says that insults are not valid
reasons for going to war.

In short, the news media can be influential in leading the world in a peaceful
direction by adopting the following rules:

1. The primary role of the news media is to inform and educate the public
with truthful information, but without violating sensibilities and social
norms.
2. Balanced reporting consists of stating the good points to the extent they
are good and stating the bad points to the extent they are bad, not stating
an equal number of good and bad points and not giving undue weight to
minor

factors

or

suppressing

major

factors.

3. Being objective means reporting the events factually without using

subjective adjectives or comments, other than to express sympathy for those
who are harmed and to express criticism of those who are doing harm.
4. Conclusions should be drawn only after all factors influencing the activity
are

considered,

only

after

looking

at

the

whole

elephant.
5. When reporting the words of politicians or other speakers, the writers
should point out any erroneous or untrue statements, otherwise the editors
are

guilty

of

disseminating

misinformation.

Chapter 22. Peace Hall of Fame

Peacemakers are the real heroes.
In this Peace Hall of Fame, we are singling out leaders who moved the world
toward a more peaceful system.
...by holding up the examples of their good deeds, we can train the school
children of future generations in the right direction to go and whom to
admire and emulate.
All leaders do some good things and some not so good...
...states should be judged by the same ethical criteria as individuals...

Chapter 23. Summary of Goals and Actions

The religions therefore can have a very important role in teaching the rules
that are necessary for peaceful coexistence and peaceful conflict resolution.
The word "politics" has two meanings: "the art or science concerned with
guiding or influencing policy" and "the art or science concerned with winning
and holding control over a government."
...good government rests on a citizen population that is basically honest.
Corruption greatly reduces the quality of government and the quality of life
for the citizens.
The moral rules that ... should support:
1. Every nation has a right and a duty to defend the lives of all people within
its

borders.

2. Every non-repressive nation has a right and a duty to defend itself from an
invasion
3.

of

Offensive

war

of

armed
any

kind

is

forces.

not

morally

justified.

4. Nations have a responsibility through an international organization (such

as the U.N.) to militarily help other non-repressive nations who are victims of
aggression.
5. No one and no government has the right to kill people except as
immediately and unavoidably required for the protection of human life or
national

borders.

Capital

punishment

should

be

eliminated.

6. Killing is not an internal affair. Nations have a right and a duty to protest
killings in other nations. An international organization (the U.N.) has a right
to intervene in a repressive nation to protect the citizens and the right to
bring

to

trial

the

leaders

by

the

use

of

force

if

necessary.

7. Citizens should withdraw support from any leader who is repressive in

violation of rule number 5.

No one should supply money or arms to

terrorists, armed rebels, revolutionaries or repressive leaders. Such support

is immoral and a violation of ... laws. Suppliers of money or arms should be
punished.
8. The revised set of just-war rules should be supported in total. Weapons of
mass

destruction

are

not

morally

justified.

9. All men and women are created equal and have equal rights, with "all"
meaning all the people in the world.
To bring peace, the new world order should adopt the two main components
of the Peace Defense plan; no aggression and no repression. This new world
order could be established fairly simply by making some changes in the
United Nations. The U.N. would need only to enact two international laws (or
make the existing laws more explicit) and provide the means to enforce
them:
1. No nation has the right to invade or attack any other nation. Any violation
of this rule requires that .. all remaining member nations in the U.N. come to
the aid of the victim by sending their assigned military components of the
U.N.

forces

to

repel

the

invader.

2. No government official has the right to kill except where immediately and
unavoidably required to protect human life or a national border. In any
violation of this rule, an International Criminal Court will try the accused and
incarcerate for life those found guilty. The U.N. forces have the right to
capture those who violate this rule to bring them to trial. The U.N. forces
have the right to come to the aid of the people in any nation where this rule
is violated.
...international police forces can work.
...the best way to ensure peace is: 'Don't let people like Saddam run
countries'.

...two

main

requirements

of

Peace

Defense:

collective

security

organization that provides a prior warning and the elimination of repressive

leaders.
All nations should subscribe to the defense-only concept, should support
the U.N. changes proposed here and adopt the national laws required to
enforce the proposed rules.
...abolish a ruler's right to kill citizens for political reasons, or for any extrajudicial reason.
...provide a warning and prevent future invasions...
Peace is not cheap, but it is much less expensive than wars and infinitely
more humane.
Commercial considerations must be subordinate to moral considerations if
the U.N. is to succeed.
Deciding whom to side with is a difficult problem. All sides were guilty ...
But this is not unusual. ...we should not expect to side with a government
that is blameless.
The U.N. should seek to find some "clean" leaders and advise them that
they will be given military support if they pledge to seek a government that
allows freedom of religion and no ethnic discrimination, will speak out
against atrocities, will not seek retribution and will help to put in jail all who
have committed atrocities.
In any civil war situation, the first effort should be to determine who is
fighting against repression and for freedom.

Basing military aid on conditions of promised democratic changes is risky. ..

.to progress to a democratic, peaceful world we need to take that risk and
then coerce them to comply with the agreement.
Power corrupts ...
Citizens need to keep in touch with their elected officials with frequent
letters and phone calls.
Yet the civil hand must never relax, and it must without one hint of apology
hold the control that has always belonged to it by right.
...build up to at least 2% working for peace, six times as many as there are
now.
One has probably learned in kindergarten the fundamentals of foreign
policy: Don't cheat. Don't lie. Don't steal. Don't kill. Don't hate. Don't seek
revenge. Be responsible. Treat others with respect. Seek friends who follow
these rules.
We hope the reader will be moved to embrace the moral rules and the
peace plan proposed here, will be inspired to persuade others to this point of
view, and will be activated to work for the goal of world peace.
Crandall R. Kline, Jr.
=============================================
=======================
APPENDIX 1
CAUSES OF WARS
In David Letterman style, we list these causes in reverse order.

Reasons Why We Have Wars

18.

Pastors

are

reluctant

to

discuss

peace

issues.

17. People's thinking is controlled by old ideas that are half truths.
16. People are squeamish about having to fight a war to defend themselves.
They would rather cross their fingers and hope they are not attacked.
15. Peace groups seek disarmament rather than building a security system.
14.

People

13.

The

don't
"Our

want
friends

to

discuss

can

do

or

accept

no

new

wrong"

ideas.

syndrome.

12. The men's code of honor, "I would rather die than let the other side win."
11. All the dead people who were killed in wars are not here to vote against
another

war.

10. Naivety - people think that by being peaceful themselves, other people
will

be

peaceful.

9. Over Optimism - we believe that we don't have to be concerned -- good

people

will

be

elected

who

will

guide

us

in

thright

path.

8. People don't take the time to study the issues and come out on the right
side.
7. We give respect to nations with the most military power and not to nations
or
6.

leaders
We

honor

who
people

who

promote
kill

for

political

peace.
reasons.

5. Too many people prefer revenge to peace and believe that lethal
retribution (as in capital punishment) is justifiable and morally acceptable.
4. People make decisions based on gut feelings rather than on rational
thought.
3. People have too much confidence in their elected leaders and too little
confidence

in

their

own

judgement.

2. Ego - people have their ego to bolster. Some prefer death to a loss of
pride.
1. Fatalism - people think that nothing can be done, that it is useless to try to
change governments to prevent wars.

==============================================
===============
APPENDIX 2
"THE SUM OF ALL KNOWLEDGE"
What People Need to Know to Arrive at a Peaceful World System
If 2% of the people in the larger nations would hold these convictions and
actively speak out to their governments in support of these, world peace
could be attained.
1. Defense Only - Nations have a right to defend themselves but not commit
aggression.
2. Collective Defense - When defense-only nations join a mutual defense
pact,

security

is

greatly

increased.

3. Peace Defense - Killing within a nation is not an 'internal affair'. The U.N.
has the right to enforce no-killing laws (Genocide, Terrorism and Human
Rights Conventions) if the local government fails to do so. Freedom fighters
are criminals unless they are trying to overthrow a government that is
repressive

that

controls

by

killing

political

dissidents.

4. Golden Rule - ... A secular golden rule of morality should be: "Do nothing
that harms another person, that injures, jeopardizes or even offends." So the
correct definitions of 'sovereignty' and 'freedom' are:
sovereignty - the authority to form and change the government of a state or
other political unit and to govern it in internal and external affairs, limited by
generally accepted moral principles, by the civil rights of the people, by
customary international law, and by applicable international treaties
(including the Charter of the United Nations)

freedom- the political condition in which one's choices or actions are limited
only by the equal rights of all other people, including their right to be free
from detrimental consequences of one's actions.
As a result of these convictions, we support the following system elements:
1. The U.N. needs to be able to enforce its laws against aggression, genocide
and terrorism.
a) The U.N. needs to have in place a command staff and troops held in
reserve by member nations prepared for rapid deployment in U.N.
service.
b) The U.N. needs an International Criminal Court to try individual
criminal

leaders.

c) The U.N. needs the authority to have individual criminals arrested

and

brought

to

trial.

d) The U.N. should promote the development of nonlethal weapons.

2. The U.N. needs to adopt a "bill of rights" for nations. This is necessary to
insure that the U.N. will not infringe on sovereign rights.
3. The U.N. should have jurisdiction over the seas and the atmosphere, so it
can:
a) Make laws to protect these from pollution and can fine polluters.
b) Make laws to control the resources in them. It can issue licenses for
fishing

and

mining

the

oceans.

c) Police the seas and atmosphere to assure the safety of travellers

and compliance with the rules.
4. The democracies of the world need to form a political party with all of
these elements in their platform. Together, they would have enough votes to

control the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly, and be able to guide
the U.N. according to these plans.
5. Real security requires the elimination of nuclear weapons. Their use would
destroy innocent lives. They are so inhumane, like poison gas, they should
never be used. The U.N. should enforce a ban on all weapons of mass
destruction. All weapons grade fissionable material should be locked up and
guarded so there is no possibility of illicit trade. Instead of mass destruction,
our defense should focus on the capture of criminal leaders.
(We recommend this Appendix be copied and distributed at meetings...)"

The Promise of World Peace

A Statement of the Universal House of Justice
Introduction
October 1985
To the Peoples of the World:
The Great Peace towards which people of good will throughout the centuries
have inclined their hearts, of which seers and poets for countless generations
have expressed their vision, and for which from age to age the sacred
scriptures of mankind have constantly held the promise, is now at long last
within the reach of the nations. For the first time in history it is possible for
everyone to view the entire planet, with all its myriad diversified peoples, in
one perspective. World peace is not only possible but inevitable. It is the next
stage in the evolution of this planet--in the words of one great thinker, "the
planetization of mankind".

Whether peace is to be reached only after unimaginable horrors precipitated

by humanity's stubborn clinging to old patterns of behaviour, or is to be
embraced now by an act of consultative will, is the choice before all who
inhabit the earth. At this critical juncture when the intractable problems
confronting nations have been fused into one common concern for the whole
world, failure to stem the tide of conflict and disorder would be
unconscionably irresponsible.
Among the favourable signs are the steadily growing strength of the steps
towards world order taken initially near the beginning of this century in the
creation of the League of Nations, succeeded by the more broadly based
United Nations Organization; the achievement since the Second World War of
independence by the majority of all the nations on earth, indicating the
completion of the process of nation building, and the involvement of these
fledgling nations with older ones in matters of mutual concern; the
consequent vast increase in co-operation among hitherto isolated and
antagonistic peoples and groups in international undertakings in the
scientific, educational, legal, economic and cultural fields; the rise in recent
decades of an unprecedented number of international humanitarian
organizations; the spread of women's and youth movements calling for an
end to war; and the spontaneous spawning of widening networks of ordinary
people seeking understanding through personal communication.
The scientific and technological advances occurring in this unusually blessed
century portend a great surge forward in the social evolution of the planet,
and indicate the means by which the practical problems of humanity may be
solved. They provide, indeed, the very means for the administration of the
complex life of a united world. Yet barriers persist. Doubts, misconceptions,
prejudices, suspicions and narrow self-interest beset nations and peoples in
their relations one to another.

It is out of a deep sense of spiritual and moral duty that we are impelled at
this opportune moment to invite your attention to the penetrating insights
first communicated to the rulers of mankind more than a century ago
by Bah'u'llh, Founder of the Bah' Faith, of which we are the Trustees.
"The winds of despair", Bah'u'llh wrote, "are, alas, blowing from every
direction, and the strife that divides and afflicts the human race is daily
increasing. The signs of impending convulsions and chaos can now be
discerned, inasmuch as the prevailing order appears to be lamentably
defective." This prophetic judgement has been amply confirmed by the
common experience of humanity. Flaws in the prevailing order are
conspicuous in the inability of sovereign states organized as United Nations
to exorcize the spectre of war, the threatened collapse of the international
economic order, the spread of anarchy and terrorism, and the intense
suffering which these and other afflictions are causing to increasing millions.
Indeed, so much have aggression and conflict come to characterize our
social, economic and religious systems, that many have succumbed to the
view that such behaviour is intrinsic to human nature and therefore
ineradicable.
With the entrenchment of this view, a paralyzing contradiction has developed
in human affairs. On the one hand, people of all nations proclaim not only
their readiness but their longing for peace and harmony, for an end to the
harrowing apprehensions tormenting their daily lives. On the other, uncritical
assent is given to the proposition that human beings are incorrigibly selfish
and aggressive and thus incapable of erecting a social system at once
progressive and peaceful, dynamic and harmonious, a system giving free
play to individual creativity and initiative but based on co-operation and
reciprocity.
As the need for peace becomes more urgent, this fundamental contradiction,
which hinders its realization, demands a reassessment of the assumptions

upon which the commonly held view of mankind's historical predicament is

based. Dis- passionately examined, the evidence reveals that such conduct,
far from expressing man's true self, represents a distortion of the human
spirit. Satisfaction on this point will enable all people to set in motion
constructive social forces which, because they are consistent with human
nature, will encourage harmony and co-operation instead of war and conflict.
To choose such a course is not to deny humanity's past but to understand it.
The Bah' Faith regards the current world confusion and calamitous
condition in human affairs as a natural phase in an organic process leading
ultimately and irresistibly to the unification of the human race in a single
social order whose boundaries are those of the planet. The human race, as a
distinct, organic unit, has passed through evolutionary stages analogous to
the stages of infancy and childhood in the lives of its individual members,
and is now in the culminating period of its turbulent adolescence
approaching its long-awaited coming of age.
A candid acknowledgement that prejudice, war and exploitation have been
the expression of immature stages in a vast historical process and that the
human race is today experiencing the unavoidable tumult which marks its
collective coming of age is not a reason for despair but a prerequisite to
undertaking the stupendous enterprise of building a peaceful world. That
such an enterprise is possible, that the necessary constructive forces do
exist, that unifying social structures can be erected, is the theme we urge
you to examine.
Whatever suffering and turmoil the years immediately ahead may hold,
however dark the immediate circumstances, the Bah' community believes
that humanity can confront this supreme trial with confidence in its ultimate
outcome. Far from signalizing the end of civilization, the convulsive changes
towards which humanity is being ever more rapidly impelled will serve to

release the "potentialities inherent in the station of man" and reveal "the full
measure of his destiny on earth, the innate excellence of his reality".
Section I
The endowments which distinguish the human race from all other forms of
life are summed up in what is known as the human spirit; the mind is its
essential quality. These endowments have enabled humanity to build
civilizations and to prosper materially. But such accomplishments alone have
never satisfied the human spirit, whose mysterious nature inclines it towards
transcendence, a reaching towards an invisible realm, towards the ultimate
reality, that unknowable essence of essences called God. The religions
brought to mankind by a succession of spiritual luminaries have been the
primary link between humanity and that ultimate reality, and have
galvanized and refined mankind's capacity to achieve spiritual success
together with social progress.
No serious attempt to set human affairs aright, to achieve world peace, can
ignore religion. Man's perception and practice of it are largely the stuff of
history. An eminent historian described religion as a "faculty of human
nature". That the perversion of this faculty has contributed to much of the
confusion in society and the conflicts in and between individuals can hardly
be denied. But neither can any fair-minded observer discount the
preponderating influence exerted by religion on the vital expressions of
civilization. Furthermore, its indispensability to social order has repeatedly
been demonstrated by its direct effect on laws and morality.
Writing of religion as a social force, Bah'u'llh said: "Religion is the greatest
of all means for the establishment of order in the world and for the peaceful
contentment of all that dwell therein." Referring to the eclipse or corruption
of religion, he wrote: "Should the lamp of religion be obscured, chaos and
confusion will ensue, and the lights of fairness, of justice, of tranquillity and

peace cease to shine." In an enumeration of such consequences

the Bah'writings point out that the "perversion of human nature, the
degradation of human conduct, the corruption and dissolution of human
institutions, reveal themselves, under such circumstances, in their worst and
most revolting aspects. Human character is debased, confidence is shaken,
the nerves of discipline are relaxed, the voice of human conscience is stilled,
the sense of decency and shame is obscured, conceptions of duty, of
solidarity, of reciprocity and loyalty are distorted, and the very feeling of
peacefulness, of joy and of hope is gradually extinguished."
If, therefore, humanity has come to a point of paralyzing conflict it must look
to itself, to its own negligence, to the siren voices to which it has listened, for
the source of the misunderstandings and confusion perpetrated in the name
of religion. Those who have held blindly and selfishly to their particular
orthodoxies, who have imposed on their votaries erroneous and conflicting
interpretations of the pronouncements of the Prophets of God, bear heavy
responsibility for this confusion--a confusion compounded by the artificial
barriers erected between faith and reason, science and religion. For from a
fair-minded examination of the actual utterances of the Founders of the great
religions, and of the social milieus in which they were obliged to carry out
their missions, there is nothing to support the contentions and prejudices
deranging the religious communities of mankind and therefore all human
affairs.
The teaching that we should treat others as we ourselves would wish to be
treated, an ethic variously repeated in all the great religions, lends force to
this latter observation in two particular respects: it sums up the moral
attitude, the peace-inducing aspect, extending through these religions
irrespective of their place or time of origin; it also signifies an aspect of unity
which is their essential virtue, a virtue mankind in its disjointed view of
history has failed to appreciate.

Had humanity seen the Educators of its collective childhood in their true
character, as agents of one civilizing process, it would no doubt have reaped
incalculably greater benefits from the cumulative effects of their successive
missions. This, alas, it failed to do.
The resurgence of fanatical religious fervour occurring in many lands cannot
be regarded as more than a dying convulsion. The very nature of the violent
and disruptive phenomena associated with it testifies to the spiritual
bankruptcy it represents. Indeed, one of the strangest and saddest features
of the current outbreak of religious fanaticism is the extent to which, in each
case, it is undermining not only the spiritual values which are conducive to
the unity of mankind but also those unique moral victories won by the
particular religion it purports to serve.
However vital a force religion has been in the history of mankind, and
however dramatic the current resurgence of militant religious fanaticism,
religion and religious institutions have, for many decades, been viewed by
increasing numbers of people as irrelevant to the major concerns of the
modern world. In its place they have turned either to the hedonistic pursuit
of material satisfactions or to the following of man-made ideologies designed
to rescue society from the evident evils under which it groans. All too many
of these ideologies, alas, instead of embracing the concept of the oneness of
mankind and promoting the increase of concord among different peoples,
have tended to deify the state, to subordinate the rest of mankind to one
nation, race or class, to attempt to suppress all discussion and interchange of
ideas, or to callously abandon starving millions to the operations of a market
system that all too clearly is aggravating the plight of the majority of
mankind, while enabling small sections to live in a condition of affluence
scarcely dreamed of by our forebears.
How tragic is the record of the substitute faiths that the worldly-wise of our
age have created. In the massive disillusionment of entire populations who

have been taught to worship at their altars can be read history's irreversible
verdict on their value. The fruits these doctrines have produced, after
decades of an increasingly unrestrained exercise of power by those who owe
their ascendancy in human affairs to them, are the social and economic ills
that blight every region of our world in the closing years of the twentieth
century. Underlying all these outward afflictions is the spiritual damage
reflected in the apathy that has gripped the mass of the peoples of all
nations and by the extinction of hope in the hearts of deprived and
anguished millions.
The time has come when those who preach the dogmas of materialism,
whether of the east or the west, whether of capitalism or socialism, must
give account of the moral stewardship they have presumed to exercise.
Where is the "new world" promised by these ideologies? Where is the
international peace to whose ideals they proclaim their devotion? Where are
the breakthroughs into new realms of cultural achievement produced by the
aggrandizement of this race, of that nation or of a particular class? Why is
the vast majority of the world's peoples sinking ever deeper into hunger and
wretchedness when wealth on a scale undreamed of by the Pharaohs, the
Caesars, or even the imperialist powers of the nineteenth century is at the
disposal of the present arbiters of human affairs?
Most particularly, it is in the glorification of material pursuits, at once the
progenitor and common feature of all such ideologies, that we find the roots
which nourish the falsehood that human beings are incorrigibly selfish and
aggressive. It is here that the ground must be cleared for the building of a
new world fit for our descendants.
That materialistic ideals have, in the light of experience, failed to satisfy the
needs of mankind calls for an honest acknowledgement that a fresh effort
must now be made to find the solutions to the agonizing problems of the
planet. The intolerable conditions pervading society bespeak a common

failure of all, a circumstance which tends to incite rather than relieve the
entrenchment on every side. Clearly, a common remedial effort is urgently
required. It is primarily a matter of attitude. Will humanity continue in its
waywardness, holding to outworn concepts and unworkable assumptions? Or
will its leaders, regardless of ideology, step forth and, with a resolute will,
consult together in a united search for appropriate solutions?
Those who care for the future of the human race may well ponder this
advice. "If long-cherished ideals and time-honoured institutions, if certain
social assumptions and religious formulae have ceased to promote the
welfare of the generality of mankind, if they no longer minister to the needs
of a continually evolving humanity, let them be swept away and relegated to
the limbo of obsolescent and forgotten doctrines. Why should these, in a
world subject to the immutable law of change and decay, be exempt from
the deterioration that must needs overtake every human institution? For
legal standards, political and economic theories are solely designed to
safeguard the interests of humanity as a whole, and not humanity to be
crucified for the preservation of the integrity of any particular law or
doctrine."
Section II
Banning nuclear weapons, prohibiting the use of poison gases, or outlawing
germ warfare will not remove the root causes of war. However important
such practical measures obviously are as elements of the peace process,
they are in themselves too superficial to exert enduring influence. Peoples
are ingenious enough to invent yet other forms of warfare, and to use food,
raw materials, finance, industrial power, ideology, and terrorism to subvert
one another in an endless quest for supremacy and dominion. Nor can the
present massive dislocation in the affairs of humanity be resolved through
the settlement of specific conflicts or disagreements among nations. A
genuine universal framework must be adopted.

Certainly, there is no lack of recognition by national leaders of the world-wide

character of the problem, which is self-evident in the mounting issues that
confront them daily. And there are the accumulating studies and solutions
proposed by many concerned and enlightened groups as well as by agencies
of the United Nations, to remove any possibility of ignorance as to the
challenging requirements to be met. There is, however, a paralysis of will;
and it is this that must be carefully examined and resolutely dealt with. This
paralysis is rooted, as we have stated, in a deep-seated conviction of the
inevitable quarrelsomeness of mankind, which has led to the reluctance to
entertain the possibility of subordinating national self-interest to the
requirements of world order, and in an unwillingness to face courageously
the far-reaching implications of establishing a united world authority. It is also
traceable to the incapacity of largely ignorant and subjugated masses to
articulate their desire for a new order in which they can live in peace,
harmony and prosperity with all humanity.
The tentative steps towards world order, especially since World War II, give
hopeful signs. The increasing tendency of groups of nations to formalize
relationships which enable them to co-operate in matters of mutual interest
suggests that eventually all nations could overcome this paralysis. The
Association of South East Asian Nations, the Caribbean Community and
Common Market, the Central American Common Market, the Council for
Mutual Economic Assistance, the European Communities, the League of Arab
States, the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of American
States, the South Pacific Forum--all the joint endeavours represented by such
organizations prepare the path to world order.
The increasing attention being focused on some of the most deep-rooted
problems of the planet is yet another hopeful sign. Despite the obvious
shortcomings of the United Nations, the more than two score declarations
and conventions adopted by that organization, even where governments

have not been enthusiastic in their commitment, have given ordinary people
a sense of a new lease on life. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
and the similar measures concerned with eliminating all forms of
discrimination based on race, sex or religious belief; upholding the rights of
the child; protecting all persons against being subjected to torture;
eradicating hunger and malnutrition; using scientific and technological
progress in the interest of peace and the benefit of mankind--all such
measures, if courageously enforced and expanded, will advance the day
when the spectre of war will have lost its power to dominate international
relations. There is no need to stress the significance of the issues addressed
by these declarations and conventions. However, a few such issues, because
of their immediate relevance to establishing world peace, deserve additional
comment.
Racism, one of the most baneful and persistent evils, is a major barrier to
peace. Its practice perpetrates too outrageous a violation of the dignity of
human beings to be countenanced under any pretext. Racism retards the
unfoldment of the boundless potentialities of its victims, corrupts its
perpetrators, and blights human progress. Recognition of the oneness of
mankind, implemented by appropriate legal measures, must be universally
upheld if this problem is to be overcome.
The inordinate disparity between rich and poor, a source of acute suffering,
keeps the world in a state of instability, virtually on the brink of war. Few
societies have dealt effectively with this situation. The solution calls for the
combined application of spiritual, moral and practical approaches. A fresh
look at the problem is required, entailing consultation with experts from a
wide spectrum of disciplines, devoid of economic and ideological polemics,
and involving the people directly affected in the decisions that must urgently
be made. It is an issue that is bound up not only with the necessity for

eliminating extremes of wealth and poverty but also with those spiritual
verities the understanding of which can produce a new universal attitude.
Fostering such an attitude is itself a major part of the solution.
Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate
patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a
whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and
mankind its citizens." The concept of world citizenship is a direct result of the
contraction of the world into a single neighbourhood through scientific
advances and of the indisputable interdependence of nations. Love of all the
world's peoples does not exclude love of one's country. The advantage of the
part in a world society is best served by promoting the advantage of the
whole. Current international activities in various fields which nurture mutual
affection and a sense of solidarity among peoples need greatly to be
increased.
Religious strife, throughout history, has been the cause of innumerable wars
and conflicts, a major blight to progress, and is increasingly abhorrent to the
people of all faiths and no faith. Followers of all religions must be willing to
face the basic questions which this strife raises, and to arrive at clear
answers. How are the differences between them to be resolved, both in
theory and in practice? The challenge facing the religious leaders of mankind
is to contemplate, with hearts filled with the spirit of compassion and a
desire for truth, the plight of humanity, and to ask themselves whether they
cannot, in humility before their Almighty Creator, submerge their theological
differences in a great spirit of mutual forbearance that will enable them to
work together for the advancement of human understanding and peace.
The emancipation of women, the achievement of full equality between the
sexes, is one of the most important, though less acknowledged prerequisites
of peace. The denial of such equality perpetrates an injustice against one
half of the world's population and promotes in men harmful attitudes and

habits that are carried from the family to the workplace, to political life, and
ultimately to international relations. There are no grounds, moral, practical,
or biological, upon which such denial can be justified. Only as women are
welcomed into full partnership in all fields of human endeavour will the moral
and psychological climate be created in which international peace can
emerge.
The cause of universal education, which has already enlisted in its service an
army of dedicated people from every faith and nation, deserves the utmost
support that the governments of the world can lend it. For ignorance is
indisputably the principal reason for the decline and fall of peoples and the
perpetuation of prejudice. No nation can achieve success unless education is
accorded all its citizens. Lack of resources limits the ability of many nations
to fulfil this necessity, imposing a certain ordering of priorities. The decisionmaking agencies involved would do well to consider giving first priority to the
education of women and girls, since it is through educated mothers that the
benefits of knowledge can be most effectively and rapidly diffused
throughout society. In keeping with the requirements of the times,
consideration should also be given to teaching the concept of world
citizenship as part of the standard education of every child.
A fundamental lack of communication between peoples seriously undermines
efforts towards world peace. Adopting an international auxiliary language
would go far to resolving this problem and necessitates the most urgent
attention.
Two points bear emphasizing in all these issues. One is that the abolition of
war is not simply a matter of signing treaties and protocols; it is a complex
task requiring a new level of commitment to resolving issues not customarily
associated with the pursuit of peace. Based on political agreements alone,
the idea of collective security is a chimera. The other point is that the
primary challenge in dealing with issues of peace is to raise the context to

the level of principle, as distinct from pure pragmatism. For, in essence,

peace stems from an inner state supported by a spiritual or moral attitude,
and it is chiefly in evoking this attitude that the possibility of enduring
solutions can be found.
There are spiritual principles, or what some call human values, by which
solutions can be found for every social problem. Any well-intentioned group
can in a general sense devise practical solutions to its problems, but good
intentions and practical knowledge are usually not enough. The essential
merit of spiritual principle is that it not only presents a perspective which
harmonizes with that which is immanent in human nature, it also induces an
attitude, a dynamic, a will, an aspiration, which facilitate the discovery and
implementation of practical measures. Leaders of governments and all in
authority would be well served in their efforts to solve problems if they would
first seek to identify the principles involved and then be guided by them.
Section III
The primary question to be resolved is how the present world, with its
entrenched pattern of conflict, can change to a world in which harmony and
co-operation will prevail.
World order can be founded only on an unshakeable consciousness of the
oneness of mankind, a spiritual truth which all the human sciences confirm.
Anthropology, physiology, psychology, recognize only one human species,
albeit infinitely varied in the secondary aspects of life. Recognition of this
truth requires abandonment of prejudice--prejudice of every kind--race, class,
colour, creed, nation, sex, degree of material civilization, everything which
enables people to consider themselves superior to others.
Acceptance of the oneness of mankind is the first fundamental prerequisite
for reorganization and administration of the world as one country, the home

of humankind. Universal acceptance of this spiritual principle is essential to

any successful attempt to establish world peace. It should therefore be
universally proclaimed, taught in schools, and constantly asserted in every
nation as preparation for the organic change in the structure of society which
it implies.
In the Bah' view, recognition of the oneness of mankind "calls for no less
than the reconstruction and the demilitarization of the whole civilized world-a world organically unified in all the essential aspects of its life, its political
machinery, its spiritual aspiration, its trade and finance, its script and
language, and yet infinite in the diversity of the national characteristics of its
federated units."
Elaborating the implications of this pivotal principle, Shoghi Effendi, the
Guardian of the Bah'Faith, commented in 1931 that: "Far from aiming at the
subversion of the existing foundations of society, it seeks to broaden its
basis, to remold its institutions in a manner consonant with the needs of an
ever-changing world. It can conflict with no legitimate allegiances, nor can it
undermine essential loyalties. Its purpose is neither to stifle the flame of a
sane and intelligent patriotism in men's hearts, nor to abolish the system of
national autonomy so essential if the evils of excessive centralization are to
be avoided. It does not ignore, nor does it attempt to suppress, the diversity
of ethnical origins, of climate, of history, of language and tradition, of
thought and habit, that differentiate the peoples and nations of the world. It
calls for a wider loyalty, for a larger aspiration than any that has animated
the human race. It insists upon the subordination of national impulses and
interests to the imperative claims of a unified world. It repudiates excessive
centralization on one hand, and disclaims all attempts at uniformity on the
other. Its watchword is unity in diversity".
The achievement of such ends requires several stages in the adjustment of
national political attitudes, which now verge on anarchy in the absence of

clearly defined laws or universally accepted and enforceable principles

regulating the relationships between nations. The League of Nations, the
United Nations, and the many organizations and agreements produced by
them have unquestionably been helpful in attenuating some of the negative
effects of international conflicts, but they have shown themselves incapable
of preventing war. Indeed, there have been scores of wars since the end of
the Second World War; many are yet raging.
The predominant aspects of this problem had already emerged in the
nineteenth century when Bah'u'llh first advanced his proposals for the
establishment of world peace. The principle of collective security was
propounded by him in statements addressed to the rulers of the world.
Shoghi Effendi commented on his meaning: "What else could these weighty
words signify," he wrote, "if they did not point to the inevitable curtailment of
unfettered national sovereignty as an indispensable preliminary to the
formation of the future Commonwealth of all the nations of the world? Some
form of a world super-state must needs be evolved, in whose favour all the
nations of the world will have willingly ceded every claim to make war,
certain rights to impose taxation and all rights to maintain armaments,
except for purposes of maintaining internal order within their respective
dominions. Such a state will have to include within its orbit an International
Executive adequate to enforce supreme and unchallengeable authority on
every recalcitrant member of the commonwealth; a World Parliament whose
members shall be elected by the people in their respective countries and
whose election shall be confirmed by their respective governments; and a
Supreme Tribunal whose judgement will have a binding effect even in such
cases where the parties concerned did not voluntarily agree to submit their
case to its consideration.
"A world community in which all economic barriers will have been
permanently demolished and the interdependence of capital and labour

definitely recognized; in which the clamour of religious fanaticism and strife

will have been forever stilled; in which the flame of racial animosity will have
been finally extinguished; in which a single code of international law--the
product of the considered judgement of the world's federated
representatives--shall have as its sanction the instant and coercive
intervention of the combined forces of the federated units; and finally a
world community in which the fury of a capricious and militant nationalism
will have been transmuted into an abiding consciousness of world
citizenship--such indeed, appears, in its broadest outline, the Order
anticipated by Bah'u'llh, an Order that shall come to be regarded as the
fairest fruit of a slowly maturing age."
The implementation of these far-reaching measures was indicated
by Bah'u'llh: "The time must come when the imperative necessity for the
holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally
realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and,
participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will
lay the foundations of the world's Great Peace amongst men."
The courage, the resolution, the pure motive, the selfless love of one people
for another--all the spiritual and moral qualities required for effecting this
momentous step towards peace are focused on the will to act. And it is
towards arousing the necessary volition that earnest consideration must be
given to the reality of man, namely, his thought. To understand the relevance
of this potent reality is also to appreciate the social necessity of actualizing
its unique value through candid, dispassionate and cordial consultation, and
of acting upon the results of this process. Bah'u'llh insistently drew
attention to the virtues and indispensability of consultation for ordering
human affairs. He said: "Consultation bestows greater awareness and
transmutes conjecture into certitude. It is a shining light which, in a dark
world, leads the way and guides. For everything there is and will continue to

be a station of perfection and maturity. The maturity of the gift of

understanding is made manifest through consultation." The very attempt to
achieve peace through the consultative action he proposed can release such
a salutary spirit among the peoples of the earth that no power could resist
the final, triumphal outcome.
Concerning the proceedings for this world gathering, `Abdu'l-Bah, the son
of Bah'u'llh and authorized interpreter of his teachings, offered these
insights: "They must make the Cause of Peace the object of general
consultation, and seek by every means in their power to establish a Union of
the nations of the world. They must conclude a binding treaty and establish a
covenant, the provisions of which shall be sound, inviolable and definite.
They must proclaim it to all the world and obtain for it the sanction of all the
human race. This supreme and noble undertaking--the real source of the
peace and well-being of all the world--should be regarded as sacred by all
that dwell on earth. All the forces of humanity must be mobilized to ensure
the stability and permanence of this Most Great Covenant. In this allembracing Pact the limits and frontiers of each and every nation should be
clearly fixed, the principles underlying the relations of governments towards
one another definitely laid down, and all international agreements and
obligations ascertained. In like manner, the size of the armaments of every
government should be strictly limited, for if the preparations for war and the
military forces of any nation should be allowed to increase, they will arouse
the suspicion of others. The fundamental principle underlying this solemn
Pact should be so fixed that if any government later violate any one of its
provisions, all the governments on earth should arise to reduce it to utter
submission, nay the human race as a whole should resolve, with every power
at its disposal, to destroy that government. Should this greatest of all
remedies be applied to the sick body of the world, it will assuredly recover
from its ills and will remain eternally safe and secure."

The holding of this mighty convocation is long overdue.

With all the ardour of our hearts, we appeal to the leaders of all nations to
seize this opportune moment and take irreversible steps to convoke this
world meeting. All the forces of history impel the human race towards this
act which will mark for all time the dawn of its long-awaited maturity.
Will not the United Nations, with the full support of its membership, rise to
the high purposes of such a crowning event?
Let men and women, youth and children everywhere recognize the eternal
merit of this imperative action for all peoples and lift up their voices in willing
assent. Indeed, let it be this generation that inaugurates this glorious stage
in the evolution of social life on the planet.
Section IV
The source of the optimism we feel is a vision transcending the cessation of
war and the creation of agencies of international co-operation. Permanent
peace among nations is an essential stage, but not, Bah'u'llh asserts, the
ultimate goal of the social development of humanity. Beyond the initial
armistice forced upon the world by the fear of nuclear holocaust, beyond the
political peace reluctantly entered into by suspicious rival nations, beyond
pragmatic arrangements for security and coexistence, beyond even the
many experiments in co-operation which these steps will make possible lies
the crowning goal: the unification of all the peoples of the world in one
universal family.
Disunity is a danger that the nations and peoples of the earth can no longer
endure; the consequences are too terrible to contemplate, too obvious to
require any demonstration. "The well-being of mankind," Bah'u'llh wrote
more than a century ago, "its peace and security, are unattainable unless
and until its unity is firmly established." In observing that "mankind is

groaning, is dying to be led to unity, and to terminate its age-long

martyrdom", Shoghi Effendi further commented that: "Unification of the
whole of mankind is the hall-mark of the stage which human society is now
approaching. Unity of family, of tribe, of city-state, and nation have been
successively attempted and fully established. World unity is the goal towards
which a harassed humanity is striving. Nation-building has come to an end.
The anarchy inherent in state sovereignty is moving towards a climax. A
world, growing to maturity, must abandon this fetish, recognize the oneness
and wholeness of human relationships, and establish once for all the
machinery that can best incarnate this fundamental principle of its life."
All contemporary forces of change validate this view. The proofs can be
discerned in the many examples already cited of the favourable signs
towards world peace in current international movements and developments.
The army of men and women, drawn from virtually every culture, race and
nation on earth, who serve the multifarious agencies of the United Nations,
represent a planetary "civil service" whose impressive accomplishments are
indicative of the degree of co-operation that can be attained even under
discouraging conditions. An urge towards unity, like a spiritual springtime,
struggles to express itself through countless international congresses that
bring together people from a vast array of disciplines. It motivates appeals
for international projects involving children and youth. Indeed, it is the real
source of the remarkable movement towards ecumenism by which members
of historically antagonistic religions and sects seem irresistibly drawn
towards one another. Together with the opposing tendency to warfare and
self-aggrandizement against which it ceaselessly struggles, the drive towards
world unity is one of the dominant, pervasive features of life on the planet
during the closing years of the twentieth century.
The experience of the Bah' community may be seen as an example of this
enlarging unity. It is a community of some three to four million people drawn

from many nations, cultures, classes and creeds, engaged in a wide range of
activities serving the spiritual, social and economic needs of the peoples of
many lands. It is a single social organism, representative of the diversity of
the human family, conducting its affairs through a system of commonly
accepted consultative principles, and cherishing equally all the great
outpourings of divine guidance in human history. Its existence is yet another
convincing proof of the practicality of its Founder's vision of a united world,
another evidence that humanity can live as one global society, equal to
whatever challenges its coming of age may entail. If the Bah' experience
can contribute in whatever measure to reinforcing hope in the unity of the
human race, we are happy to offer it as a model for study.
In contemplating the supreme importance of the task now challenging the
entire world, we bow our heads in humility before the awesome majesty of
the divine Creator, Who out of His infinite love has created all humanity from
the same stock; exalted the gem-like reality of man; honoured it with
intellect and wisdom, nobility and immortality; and conferred upon man the
"unique distinction and capacity to know Him and to love Him", a capacity
that "must needs be regarded as the generating impulse and the primary
purpose underlying the whole of creation."
We hold firmly the conviction that all human beings have been created "to
carry forward an ever-advancing civilization"; that "to act like the beasts of
the field is unworthy of man"; that the virtues that befit human dignity are
trustworthiness, forbearance, mercy, compassion and loving-kindness
towards all peoples. We reaffirm the belief that the "potentialities inherent in
the station of man, the full measure of his destiny on earth, the innate
excellence of his reality, must all be manifested in this promised Day of
God." These are the motivations for our unshakeable faith that unity and
peace are the attainable goal towards which humanity is striving.

At this writing, the expectant voices of Bah's can be heard despite the
persecution they still endure in the land in which their Faith was born. By
their example of steadfast hope, they bear witness to the belief that the
imminent realization of this age-old dream of peace is now, by virtue of the
transforming effects of Bah'u'llh's revelation, invested with the force of
divine authority. Thus we convey to you not only a vision in words: we
summon the power of deeds of faith and sacrifice; we convey the anxious
plea of our co-religionists everywhere for peace and unity. We join with all
who are the victims of aggression, all who yearn for an end to conflict and
contention, all whose devotion to principles of peace and world order
promotes the ennobling purposes for which humanity was called into being
by an all-loving Creator.
In the earnestness of our desire to impart to you the fervour of our hope and
the depth of our confidence, we cite the emphatic promise of Bah'u'llh:
"These fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the 'Most
Great Peace' shall come."
THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE
Additional information about The Universal House of Justice

Introduction
Central Figures & Institutions
Spiritual Truths
The Baha'i Sacred Writings
A Global Community
A New Vision for Humanity's Future
A New Vision for Humanity's Future
The Promise of World Peace
Who Is Writing the Future?

The Prosperity of Humankind

Turning Point for All Nations
Advancing the Status of Women
Unity of the Human Race
Social Action
Perspectives and Profiles
About This Site
Site Index
The Promise of World Peace
A Statement of the Universal House of Justice
Introduction
October 1985
To the Peoples of the World:
The Great Peace towards which people of good will throughout the centuries
have inclined their hearts, of which seers and poets for countless generations
have expressed their vision, and for which from age to age the sacred
scriptures of mankind have constantly held the promise, is now at long last
within the reach of the nations. For the first time in history it is possible for
everyone to view the entire planet, with all its myriad diversified peoples, in
one perspective. World peace is not only possible but inevitable. It is the next
stage in the evolution of this planet--in the words of one great thinker, "the
planetization of mankind".
Whether peace is to be reached only after unimaginable horrors precipitated
by humanity's stubborn clinging to old patterns of behaviour, or is to be
embraced now by an act of consultative will, is the choice before all who
inhabit the earth. At this critical juncture when the intractable problems

confronting nations have been fused into one common concern for the whole
world, failure to stem the tide of conflict and disorder would be
unconscionably irresponsible.
Among the favourable signs are the steadily growing strength of the steps
towards world order taken initially near the beginning of this century in the
creation of the League of Nations, succeeded by the more broadly based
United Nations Organization; the achievement since the Second World War of
independence by the majority of all the nations on earth, indicating the
completion of the process of nation building, and the involvement of these
fledgling nations with older ones in matters of mutual concern; the
consequent vast increase in co-operation among hitherto isolated and
antagonistic peoples and groups in international undertakings in the
scientific, educational, legal, economic and cultural fields; the rise in recent
decades of an unprecedented number of international humanitarian
organizations; the spread of women's and youth movements calling for an
end to war; and the spontaneous spawning of widening networks of ordinary
people seeking understanding through personal communication.
The scientific and technological advances occurring in this unusually blessed
century portend a great surge forward in the social evolution of the planet,
and indicate the means by which the practical problems of humanity may be
solved. They provide, indeed, the very means for the administration of the
complex life of a united world. Yet barriers persist. Doubts, misconceptions,
prejudices, suspicions and narrow self-interest beset nations and peoples in
their relations one to another.
It is out of a deep sense of spiritual and moral duty that we are impelled at
this opportune moment to invite your attention to the penetrating insights
first communicated to the rulers of mankind more than a century ago
by Bah'u'llh, Founder of the Bah' Faith, of which we are the Trustees.

"The winds of despair", Bah'u'llh wrote, "are, alas, blowing from every
direction, and the strife that divides and afflicts the human race is daily
increasing. The signs of impending convulsions and chaos can now be
discerned, inasmuch as the prevailing order appears to be lamentably
defective." This prophetic judgement has been amply confirmed by the
common experience of humanity. Flaws in the prevailing order are
conspicuous in the inability of sovereign states organized as United Nations
to exorcize the spectre of war, the threatened collapse of the international
economic order, the spread of anarchy and terrorism, and the intense
suffering which these and other afflictions are causing to increasing millions.
Indeed, so much have aggression and conflict come to characterize our
social, economic and religious systems, that many have succumbed to the
view that such behaviour is intrinsic to human nature and therefore
ineradicable.
With the entrenchment of this view, a paralyzing contradiction has developed
in human affairs. On the one hand, people of all nations proclaim not only
their readiness but their longing for peace and harmony, for an end to the
harrowing apprehensions tormenting their daily lives. On the other, uncritical
assent is given to the proposition that human beings are incorrigibly selfish
and aggressive and thus incapable of erecting a social system at once
progressive and peaceful, dynamic and harmonious, a system giving free
play to individual creativity and initiative but based on co-operation and
reciprocity.
As the need for peace becomes more urgent, this fundamental contradiction,
which hinders its realization, demands a reassessment of the assumptions
upon which the commonly held view of mankind's historical predicament is
based. Dis- passionately examined, the evidence reveals that such conduct,
far from expressing man's true self, represents a distortion of the human
spirit. Satisfaction on this point will enable all people to set in motion

constructive social forces which, because they are consistent with human
nature, will encourage harmony and co-operation instead of war and conflict.
To choose such a course is not to deny humanity's past but to understand it.
The Bah' Faith regards the current world confusion and calamitous
condition in human affairs as a natural phase in an organic process leading
ultimately and irresistibly to the unification of the human race in a single
social order whose boundaries are those of the planet. The human race, as a
distinct, organic unit, has passed through evolutionary stages analogous to
the stages of infancy and childhood in the lives of its individual members,
and is now in the culminating period of its turbulent adolescence
approaching its long-awaited coming of age.
A candid acknowledgement that prejudice, war and exploitation have been
the expression of immature stages in a vast historical process and that the
human race is today experiencing the unavoidable tumult which marks its
collective coming of age is not a reason for despair but a prerequisite to
undertaking the stupendous enterprise of building a peaceful world. That
such an enterprise is possible, that the necessary constructive forces do
exist, that unifying social structures can be erected, is the theme we urge
you to examine.
Whatever suffering and turmoil the years immediately ahead may hold,
however dark the immediate circumstances, the Bah' community believes
that humanity can confront this supreme trial with confidence in its ultimate
outcome. Far from signalizing the end of civilization, the convulsive changes
towards which humanity is being ever more rapidly impelled will serve to
release the "potentialities inherent in the station of man" and reveal "the full
measure of his destiny on earth, the innate excellence of his reality".
Section I

The endowments which distinguish the human race from all other forms of
life are summed up in what is known as the human spirit; the mind is its
essential quality. These endowments have enabled humanity to build
civilizations and to prosper materially. But such accomplishments alone have
never satisfied the human spirit, whose mysterious nature inclines it towards
transcendence, a reaching towards an invisible realm, towards the ultimate
reality, that unknowable essence of essences called God. The religions
brought to mankind by a succession of spiritual luminaries have been the
primary link between humanity and that ultimate reality, and have
galvanized and refined mankind's capacity to achieve spiritual success
together with social progress.
No serious attempt to set human affairs aright, to achieve world peace, can
ignore religion. Man's perception and practice of it are largely the stuff of
history. An eminent historian described religion as a "faculty of human
nature". That the perversion of this faculty has contributed to much of the
confusion in society and the conflicts in and between individuals can hardly
be denied. But neither can any fair-minded observer discount the
preponderating influence exerted by religion on the vital expressions of
civilization. Furthermore, its indispensability to social order has repeatedly
been demonstrated by its direct effect on laws and morality.
Writing of religion as a social force, Bah'u'llh said: "Religion is the greatest
of all means for the establishment of order in the world and for the peaceful
contentment of all that dwell therein." Referring to the eclipse or corruption
of religion, he wrote: "Should the lamp of religion be obscured, chaos and
confusion will ensue, and the lights of fairness, of justice, of tranquillity and
peace cease to shine." In an enumeration of such consequences
the Bah'writings point out that the "perversion of human nature, the
degradation of human conduct, the corruption and dissolution of human
institutions, reveal themselves, under such circumstances, in their worst and

most revolting aspects. Human character is debased, confidence is shaken,

the nerves of discipline are relaxed, the voice of human conscience is stilled,
the sense of decency and shame is obscured, conceptions of duty, of
solidarity, of reciprocity and loyalty are distorted, and the very feeling of
peacefulness, of joy and of hope is gradually extinguished."
If, therefore, humanity has come to a point of paralyzing conflict it must look
to itself, to its own negligence, to the siren voices to which it has listened, for
the source of the misunderstandings and confusion perpetrated in the name
of religion. Those who have held blindly and selfishly to their particular
orthodoxies, who have imposed on their votaries erroneous and conflicting
interpretations of the pronouncements of the Prophets of God, bear heavy
responsibility for this confusion--a confusion compounded by the artificial
barriers erected between faith and reason, science and religion. For from a
fair-minded examination of the actual utterances of the Founders of the great
religions, and of the social milieus in which they were obliged to carry out
their missions, there is nothing to support the contentions and prejudices
deranging the religious communities of mankind and therefore all human
affairs.
The teaching that we should treat others as we ourselves would wish to be
treated, an ethic variously repeated in all the great religions, lends force to
this latter observation in two particular respects: it sums up the moral
attitude, the peace-inducing aspect, extending through these religions
irrespective of their place or time of origin; it also signifies an aspect of unity
which is their essential virtue, a virtue mankind in its disjointed view of
history has failed to appreciate.
Had humanity seen the Educators of its collective childhood in their true
character, as agents of one civilizing process, it would no doubt have reaped
incalculably greater benefits from the cumulative effects of their successive
missions. This, alas, it failed to do.

The resurgence of fanatical religious fervour occurring in many lands cannot

be regarded as more than a dying convulsion. The very nature of the violent
and disruptive phenomena associated with it testifies to the spiritual
bankruptcy it represents. Indeed, one of the strangest and saddest features
of the current outbreak of religious fanaticism is the extent to which, in each
case, it is undermining not only the spiritual values which are conducive to
the unity of mankind but also those unique moral victories won by the
particular religion it purports to serve.
However vital a force religion has been in the history of mankind, and
however dramatic the current resurgence of militant religious fanaticism,
religion and religious institutions have, for many decades, been viewed by
increasing numbers of people as irrelevant to the major concerns of the
modern world. In its place they have turned either to the hedonistic pursuit
of material satisfactions or to the following of man-made ideologies designed
to rescue society from the evident evils under which it groans. All too many
of these ideologies, alas, instead of embracing the concept of the oneness of
mankind and promoting the increase of concord among different peoples,
have tended to deify the state, to subordinate the rest of mankind to one
nation, race or class, to attempt to suppress all discussion and interchange of
ideas, or to callously abandon starving millions to the operations of a market
system that all too clearly is aggravating the plight of the majority of
mankind, while enabling small sections to live in a condition of affluence
scarcely dreamed of by our forebears.
How tragic is the record of the substitute faiths that the worldly-wise of our
age have created. In the massive disillusionment of entire populations who
have been taught to worship at their altars can be read history's irreversible
verdict on their value. The fruits these doctrines have produced, after
decades of an increasingly unrestrained exercise of power by those who owe
their ascendancy in human affairs to them, are the social and economic ills

that blight every region of our world in the closing years of the twentieth
century. Underlying all these outward afflictions is the spiritual damage
reflected in the apathy that has gripped the mass of the peoples of all
nations and by the extinction of hope in the hearts of deprived and
anguished millions.
The time has come when those who preach the dogmas of materialism,
whether of the east or the west, whether of capitalism or socialism, must
give account of the moral stewardship they have presumed to exercise.
Where is the "new world" promised by these ideologies? Where is the
international peace to whose ideals they proclaim their devotion? Where are
the breakthroughs into new realms of cultural achievement produced by the
aggrandizement of this race, of that nation or of a particular class? Why is
the vast majority of the world's peoples sinking ever deeper into hunger and
wretchedness when wealth on a scale undreamed of by the Pharaohs, the
Caesars, or even the imperialist powers of the nineteenth century is at the
disposal of the present arbiters of human affairs?
Most particularly, it is in the glorification of material pursuits, at once the
progenitor and common feature of all such ideologies, that we find the roots
which nourish the falsehood that human beings are incorrigibly selfish and
aggressive. It is here that the ground must be cleared for the building of a
new world fit for our descendants.
That materialistic ideals have, in the light of experience, failed to satisfy the
needs of mankind calls for an honest acknowledgement that a fresh effort
must now be made to find the solutions to the agonizing problems of the
planet. The intolerable conditions pervading society bespeak a common
failure of all, a circumstance which tends to incite rather than relieve the
entrenchment on every side. Clearly, a common remedial effort is urgently
required. It is primarily a matter of attitude. Will humanity continue in its
waywardness, holding to outworn concepts and unworkable assumptions? Or

will its leaders, regardless of ideology, step forth and, with a resolute will,
consult together in a united search for appropriate solutions?
Those who care for the future of the human race may well ponder this
advice. "If long-cherished ideals and time-honoured institutions, if certain
social assumptions and religious formulae have ceased to promote the
welfare of the generality of mankind, if they no longer minister to the needs
of a continually evolving humanity, let them be swept away and relegated to
the limbo of obsolescent and forgotten doctrines. Why should these, in a
world subject to the immutable law of change and decay, be exempt from
the deterioration that must needs overtake every human institution? For
legal standards, political and economic theories are solely designed to
safeguard the interests of humanity as a whole, and not humanity to be
crucified for the preservation of the integrity of any particular law or
doctrine."
Section II
Banning nuclear weapons, prohibiting the use of poison gases, or outlawing
germ warfare will not remove the root causes of war. However important
such practical measures obviously are as elements of the peace process,
they are in themselves too superficial to exert enduring influence. Peoples
are ingenious enough to invent yet other forms of warfare, and to use food,
raw materials, finance, industrial power, ideology, and terrorism to subvert
one another in an endless quest for supremacy and dominion. Nor can the
present massive dislocation in the affairs of humanity be resolved through
the settlement of specific conflicts or disagreements among nations. A
genuine universal framework must be adopted.
Certainly, there is no lack of recognition by national leaders of the world-wide
character of the problem, which is self-evident in the mounting issues that
confront them daily. And there are the accumulating studies and solutions

proposed by many concerned and enlightened groups as well as by agencies

of the United Nations, to remove any possibility of ignorance as to the
challenging requirements to be met. There is, however, a paralysis of will;
and it is this that must be carefully examined and resolutely dealt with. This
paralysis is rooted, as we have stated, in a deep-seated conviction of the
inevitable quarrelsomeness of mankind, which has led to the reluctance to
entertain the possibility of subordinating national self-interest to the
requirements of world order, and in an unwillingness to face courageously
the far-reaching implications of establishing a united world authority. It is also
traceable to the incapacity of largely ignorant and subjugated masses to
articulate their desire for a new order in which they can live in peace,
harmony and prosperity with all humanity.
The tentative steps towards world order, especially since World War II, give
hopeful signs. The increasing tendency of groups of nations to formalize
relationships which enable them to co-operate in matters of mutual interest
suggests that eventually all nations could overcome this paralysis. The
Association of South East Asian Nations, the Caribbean Community and
Common Market, the Central American Common Market, the Council for
Mutual Economic Assistance, the European Communities, the League of Arab
States, the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of American
States, the South Pacific Forum--all the joint endeavours represented by such
organizations prepare the path to world order.
The increasing attention being focused on some of the most deep-rooted
problems of the planet is yet another hopeful sign. Despite the obvious
shortcomings of the United Nations, the more than two score declarations
and conventions adopted by that organization, even where governments
have not been enthusiastic in their commitment, have given ordinary people
a sense of a new lease on life. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,

and the similar measures concerned with eliminating all forms of

discrimination based on race, sex or religious belief; upholding the rights of
the child; protecting all persons against being subjected to torture;
eradicating hunger and malnutrition; using scientific and technological
progress in the interest of peace and the benefit of mankind--all such
measures, if courageously enforced and expanded, will advance the day
when the spectre of war will have lost its power to dominate international
relations. There is no need to stress the significance of the issues addressed
by these declarations and conventions. However, a few such issues, because
of their immediate relevance to establishing world peace, deserve additional
comment.
Racism, one of the most baneful and persistent evils, is a major barrier to
peace. Its practice perpetrates too outrageous a violation of the dignity of
human beings to be countenanced under any pretext. Racism retards the
unfoldment of the boundless potentialities of its victims, corrupts its
perpetrators, and blights human progress. Recognition of the oneness of
mankind, implemented by appropriate legal measures, must be universally
upheld if this problem is to be overcome.
The inordinate disparity between rich and poor, a source of acute suffering,
keeps the world in a state of instability, virtually on the brink of war. Few
societies have dealt effectively with this situation. The solution calls for the
combined application of spiritual, moral and practical approaches. A fresh
look at the problem is required, entailing consultation with experts from a
wide spectrum of disciplines, devoid of economic and ideological polemics,
and involving the people directly affected in the decisions that must urgently
be made. It is an issue that is bound up not only with the necessity for
eliminating extremes of wealth and poverty but also with those spiritual
verities the understanding of which can produce a new universal attitude.
Fostering such an attitude is itself a major part of the solution.

Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate

patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a
whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and
mankind its citizens." The concept of world citizenship is a direct result of the
contraction of the world into a single neighbourhood through scientific
advances and of the indisputable interdependence of nations. Love of all the
world's peoples does not exclude love of one's country. The advantage of the
part in a world society is best served by promoting the advantage of the
whole. Current international activities in various fields which nurture mutual
affection and a sense of solidarity among peoples need greatly to be
increased.
Religious strife, throughout history, has been the cause of innumerable wars
and conflicts, a major blight to progress, and is increasingly abhorrent to the
people of all faiths and no faith. Followers of all religions must be willing to
face the basic questions which this strife raises, and to arrive at clear
answers. How are the differences between them to be resolved, both in
theory and in practice? The challenge facing the religious leaders of mankind
is to contemplate, with hearts filled with the spirit of compassion and a
desire for truth, the plight of humanity, and to ask themselves whether they
cannot, in humility before their Almighty Creator, submerge their theological
differences in a great spirit of mutual forbearance that will enable them to
work together for the advancement of human understanding and peace.
The emancipation of women, the achievement of full equality between the
sexes, is one of the most important, though less acknowledged prerequisites
of peace. The denial of such equality perpetrates an injustice against one
half of the world's population and promotes in men harmful attitudes and
habits that are carried from the family to the workplace, to political life, and
ultimately to international relations. There are no grounds, moral, practical,
or biological, upon which such denial can be justified. Only as women are

welcomed into full partnership in all fields of human endeavour will the moral
and psychological climate be created in which international peace can
emerge.
The cause of universal education, which has already enlisted in its service an
army of dedicated people from every faith and nation, deserves the utmost
support that the governments of the world can lend it. For ignorance is
indisputably the principal reason for the decline and fall of peoples and the
perpetuation of prejudice. No nation can achieve success unless education is
accorded all its citizens. Lack of resources limits the ability of many nations
to fulfil this necessity, imposing a certain ordering of priorities. The decisionmaking agencies involved would do well to consider giving first priority to the
education of women and girls, since it is through educated mothers that the
benefits of knowledge can be most effectively and rapidly diffused
throughout society. In keeping with the requirements of the times,
consideration should also be given to teaching the concept of world
citizenship as part of the standard education of every child.
A fundamental lack of communication between peoples seriously undermines
efforts towards world peace. Adopting an international auxiliary language
would go far to resolving this problem and necessitates the most urgent
attention.
Two points bear emphasizing in all these issues. One is that the abolition of
war is not simply a matter of signing treaties and protocols; it is a complex
task requiring a new level of commitment to resolving issues not customarily
associated with the pursuit of peace. Based on political agreements alone,
the idea of collective security is a chimera. The other point is that the
primary challenge in dealing with issues of peace is to raise the context to
the level of principle, as distinct from pure pragmatism. For, in essence,
peace stems from an inner state supported by a spiritual or moral attitude,

and it is chiefly in evoking this attitude that the possibility of enduring

solutions can be found.
There are spiritual principles, or what some call human values, by which
solutions can be found for every social problem. Any well-intentioned group
can in a general sense devise practical solutions to its problems, but good
intentions and practical knowledge are usually not enough. The essential
merit of spiritual principle is that it not only presents a perspective which
harmonizes with that which is immanent in human nature, it also induces an
attitude, a dynamic, a will, an aspiration, which facilitate the discovery and
implementation of practical measures. Leaders of governments and all in
authority would be well served in their efforts to solve problems if they would
first seek to identify the principles involved and then be guided by them.
Section III
The primary question to be resolved is how the present world, with its
entrenched pattern of conflict, can change to a world in which harmony and
co-operation will prevail.
World order can be founded only on an unshakeable consciousness of the
oneness of mankind, a spiritual truth which all the human sciences confirm.
Anthropology, physiology, psychology, recognize only one human species,
albeit infinitely varied in the secondary aspects of life. Recognition of this
truth requires abandonment of prejudice--prejudice of every kind--race, class,
colour, creed, nation, sex, degree of material civilization, everything which
enables people to consider themselves superior to others.
Acceptance of the oneness of mankind is the first fundamental prerequisite
for reorganization and administration of the world as one country, the home
of humankind. Universal acceptance of this spiritual principle is essential to
any successful attempt to establish world peace. It should therefore be

universally proclaimed, taught in schools, and constantly asserted in every

nation as preparation for the organic change in the structure of society which
it implies.
In the Bah' view, recognition of the oneness of mankind "calls for no less
than the reconstruction and the demilitarization of the whole civilized world-a world organically unified in all the essential aspects of its life, its political
machinery, its spiritual aspiration, its trade and finance, its script and
language, and yet infinite in the diversity of the national characteristics of its
federated units."
Elaborating the implications of this pivotal principle, Shoghi Effendi, the
Guardian of the Bah'Faith, commented in 1931 that: "Far from aiming at the
subversion of the existing foundations of society, it seeks to broaden its
basis, to remold its institutions in a manner consonant with the needs of an
ever-changing world. It can conflict with no legitimate allegiances, nor can it
undermine essential loyalties. Its purpose is neither to stifle the flame of a
sane and intelligent patriotism in men's hearts, nor to abolish the system of
national autonomy so essential if the evils of excessive centralization are to
be avoided. It does not ignore, nor does it attempt to suppress, the diversity
of ethnical origins, of climate, of history, of language and tradition, of
thought and habit, that differentiate the peoples and nations of the world. It
calls for a wider loyalty, for a larger aspiration than any that has animated
the human race. It insists upon the subordination of national impulses and
interests to the imperative claims of a unified world. It repudiates excessive
centralization on one hand, and disclaims all attempts at uniformity on the
other. Its watchword is unity in diversity".
The achievement of such ends requires several stages in the adjustment of
national political attitudes, which now verge on anarchy in the absence of
clearly defined laws or universally accepted and enforceable principles
regulating the relationships between nations. The League of Nations, the

United Nations, and the many organizations and agreements produced by

them have unquestionably been helpful in attenuating some of the negative
effects of international conflicts, but they have shown themselves incapable
of preventing war. Indeed, there have been scores of wars since the end of
the Second World War; many are yet raging.
The predominant aspects of this problem had already emerged in the
nineteenth century when Bah'u'llh first advanced his proposals for the
establishment of world peace. The principle of collective security was
propounded by him in statements addressed to the rulers of the world.
Shoghi Effendi commented on his meaning: "What else could these weighty
words signify," he wrote, "if they did not point to the inevitable curtailment of
unfettered national sovereignty as an indispensable preliminary to the
formation of the future Commonwealth of all the nations of the world? Some
form of a world super-state must needs be evolved, in whose favour all the
nations of the world will have willingly ceded every claim to make war,
certain rights to impose taxation and all rights to maintain armaments,
except for purposes of maintaining internal order within their respective
dominions. Such a state will have to include within its orbit an International
Executive adequate to enforce supreme and unchallengeable authority on
every recalcitrant member of the commonwealth; a World Parliament whose
members shall be elected by the people in their respective countries and
whose election shall be confirmed by their respective governments; and a
Supreme Tribunal whose judgement will have a binding effect even in such
cases where the parties concerned did not voluntarily agree to submit their
case to its consideration.
"A world community in which all economic barriers will have been
permanently demolished and the interdependence of capital and labour
definitely recognized; in which the clamour of religious fanaticism and strife
will have been forever stilled; in which the flame of racial animosity will have

been finally extinguished; in which a single code of international law--the

product of the considered judgement of the world's federated
representatives--shall have as its sanction the instant and coercive
intervention of the combined forces of the federated units; and finally a
world community in which the fury of a capricious and militant nationalism
will have been transmuted into an abiding consciousness of world
citizenship--such indeed, appears, in its broadest outline, the Order
anticipated by Bah'u'llh, an Order that shall come to be regarded as the
fairest fruit of a slowly maturing age."
The implementation of these far-reaching measures was indicated
by Bah'u'llh: "The time must come when the imperative necessity for the
holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally
realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and,
participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will
lay the foundations of the world's Great Peace amongst men."
The courage, the resolution, the pure motive, the selfless love of one people
for another--all the spiritual and moral qualities required for effecting this
momentous step towards peace are focused on the will to act. And it is
towards arousing the necessary volition that earnest consideration must be
given to the reality of man, namely, his thought. To understand the relevance
of this potent reality is also to appreciate the social necessity of actualizing
its unique value through candid, dispassionate and cordial consultation, and
of acting upon the results of this process. Bah'u'llh insistently drew
attention to the virtues and indispensability of consultation for ordering
human affairs. He said: "Consultation bestows greater awareness and
transmutes conjecture into certitude. It is a shining light which, in a dark
world, leads the way and guides. For everything there is and will continue to
be a station of perfection and maturity. The maturity of the gift of
understanding is made manifest through consultation." The very attempt to

achieve peace through the consultative action he proposed can release such
a salutary spirit among the peoples of the earth that no power could resist
the final, triumphal outcome.
Concerning the proceedings for this world gathering, `Abdu'l-Bah, the son
of Bah'u'llh and authorized interpreter of his teachings, offered these
insights: "They must make the Cause of Peace the object of general
consultation, and seek by every means in their power to establish a Union of
the nations of the world. They must conclude a binding treaty and establish a
covenant, the provisions of which shall be sound, inviolable and definite.
They must proclaim it to all the world and obtain for it the sanction of all the
human race. This supreme and noble undertaking--the real source of the
peace and well-being of all the world--should be regarded as sacred by all
that dwell on earth. All the forces of humanity must be mobilized to ensure
the stability and permanence of this Most Great Covenant. In this allembracing Pact the limits and frontiers of each and every nation should be
clearly fixed, the principles underlying the relations of governments towards
one another definitely laid down, and all international agreements and
obligations ascertained. In like manner, the size of the armaments of every
government should be strictly limited, for if the preparations for war and the
military forces of any nation should be allowed to increase, they will arouse
the suspicion of others. The fundamental principle underlying this solemn
Pact should be so fixed that if any government later violate any one of its
provisions, all the governments on earth should arise to reduce it to utter
submission, nay the human race as a whole should resolve, with every power
at its disposal, to destroy that government. Should this greatest of all
remedies be applied to the sick body of the world, it will assuredly recover
from its ills and will remain eternally safe and secure."
The holding of this mighty convocation is long overdue.

With all the ardour of our hearts, we appeal to the leaders of all nations to
seize this opportune moment and take irreversible steps to convoke this
world meeting. All the forces of history impel the human race towards this
act which will mark for all time the dawn of its long-awaited maturity.
Will not the United Nations, with the full support of its membership, rise to
the high purposes of such a crowning event?
Let men and women, youth and children everywhere recognize the eternal
merit of this imperative action for all peoples and lift up their voices in willing
assent. Indeed, let it be this generation that inaugurates this glorious stage
in the evolution of social life on the planet.
Section IV
The source of the optimism we feel is a vision transcending the cessation of
war and the creation of agencies of international co-operation. Permanent
peace among nations is an essential stage, but not, Bah'u'llh asserts, the
ultimate goal of the social development of humanity. Beyond the initial
armistice forced upon the world by the fear of nuclear holocaust, beyond the
political peace reluctantly entered into by suspicious rival nations, beyond
pragmatic arrangements for security and coexistence, beyond even the
many experiments in co-operation which these steps will make possible lies
the crowning goal: the unification of all the peoples of the world in one
universal family.
Disunity is a danger that the nations and peoples of the earth can no longer
endure; the consequences are too terrible to contemplate, too obvious to
require any demonstration. "The well-being of mankind," Bah'u'llh wrote
more than a century ago, "its peace and security, are unattainable unless
and until its unity is firmly established." In observing that "mankind is
groaning, is dying to be led to unity, and to terminate its age-long

martyrdom", Shoghi Effendi further commented that: "Unification of the

whole of mankind is the hall-mark of the stage which human society is now
approaching. Unity of family, of tribe, of city-state, and nation have been
successively attempted and fully established. World unity is the goal towards
which a harassed humanity is striving. Nation-building has come to an end.
The anarchy inherent in state sovereignty is moving towards a climax. A
world, growing to maturity, must abandon this fetish, recognize the oneness
and wholeness of human relationships, and establish once for all the
machinery that can best incarnate this fundamental principle of its life."
All contemporary forces of change validate this view. The proofs can be
discerned in the many examples already cited of the favourable signs
towards world peace in current international movements and developments.
The army of men and women, drawn from virtually every culture, race and
nation on earth, who serve the multifarious agencies of the United Nations,
represent a planetary "civil service" whose impressive accomplishments are
indicative of the degree of co-operation that can be attained even under
discouraging conditions. An urge towards unity, like a spiritual springtime,
struggles to express itself through countless international congresses that
bring together people from a vast array of disciplines. It motivates appeals
for international projects involving children and youth. Indeed, it is the real
source of the remarkable movement towards ecumenism by which members
of historically antagonistic religions and sects seem irresistibly drawn
towards one another. Together with the opposing tendency to warfare and
self-aggrandizement against which it ceaselessly struggles, the drive towards
world unity is one of the dominant, pervasive features of life on the planet
during the closing years of the twentieth century.
The experience of the Bah' community may be seen as an example of this
enlarging unity. It is a community of some three to four million people drawn
from many nations, cultures, classes and creeds, engaged in a wide range of

activities serving the spiritual, social and economic needs of the peoples of
many lands. It is a single social organism, representative of the diversity of
the human family, conducting its affairs through a system of commonly
accepted consultative principles, and cherishing equally all the great
outpourings of divine guidance in human history. Its existence is yet another
convincing proof of the practicality of its Founder's vision of a united world,
another evidence that humanity can live as one global society, equal to
whatever challenges its coming of age may entail. If the Bah' experience
can contribute in whatever measure to reinforcing hope in the unity of the
human race, we are happy to offer it as a model for study.
In contemplating the supreme importance of the task now challenging the
entire world, we bow our heads in humility before the awesome majesty of
the divine Creator, Who out of His infinite love has created all humanity from
the same stock; exalted the gem-like reality of man; honoured it with
intellect and wisdom, nobility and immortality; and conferred upon man the
"unique distinction and capacity to know Him and to love Him", a capacity
that "must needs be regarded as the generating impulse and the primary
purpose underlying the whole of creation."
We hold firmly the conviction that all human beings have been created "to
carry forward an ever-advancing civilization"; that "to act like the beasts of
the field is unworthy of man"; that the virtues that befit human dignity are
trustworthiness, forbearance, mercy, compassion and loving-kindness
towards all peoples. We reaffirm the belief that the "potentialities inherent in
the station of man, the full measure of his destiny on earth, the innate
excellence of his reality, must all be manifested in this promised Day of
God." These are the motivations for our unshakeable faith that unity and
peace are the attainable goal towards which humanity is striving.
At this writing, the expectant voices of Bah's can be heard despite the
persecution they still endure in the land in which their Faith was born. By

their example of steadfast hope, they bear witness to the belief that the
imminent realization of this age-old dream of peace is now, by virtue of the
transforming effects of Bah'u'llh's revelation, invested with the force of
divine authority. Thus we convey to you not only a vision in words: we
summon the power of deeds of faith and sacrifice; we convey the anxious
plea of our co-religionists everywhere for peace and unity. We join with all
who are the victims of aggression, all who yearn for an end to conflict and
contention, all whose devotion to principles of peace and world order
promotes the ennobling purposes for which humanity was called into being
by an all-loving Creator.
In the earnestness of our desire to impart to you the fervour of our hope and
the depth of our confidence, we cite the emphatic promise of Bah'u'llh:
"These fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the 'Most
Great Peace' shall come."
THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE
Additional information about The Universal House of Justice

Introduction
Central Figures & Institutions
Spiritual Truths
The Baha'i Sacred Writings
A Global Community
A New Vision for Humanity's Future
A New Vision for Humanity's Future
The Promise of World Peace
Who Is Writing the Future?
The Prosperity of Humankind

Turning Point for All Nations

Advancing the Status of Women
Unity of the Human Race
Social Action
Perspectives and Profiles
About This Site
Site Index

The Promise of World Peace

A Statement of the Universal House of Justice
Introduction
October 1985
To the Peoples of the World:
The Great Peace towards which people of good will throughout the centuries
have inclined their hearts, of which seers and poets for countless generations
have expressed their vision, and for which from age to age the sacred
scriptures of mankind have constantly held the promise, is now at long last
within the reach of the nations. For the first time in history it is possible for
everyone to view the entire planet, with all its myriad diversified peoples, in
one perspective. World peace is not only possible but inevitable. It is the next
stage in the evolution of this planet--in the words of one great thinker, "the
planetization of mankind".

Whether peace is to be reached only after unimaginable horrors precipitated

by humanity's stubborn clinging to old patterns of behaviour, or is to be
embraced now by an act of consultative will, is the choice before all who
inhabit the earth. At this critical juncture when the intractable problems
confronting nations have been fused into one common concern for the whole
world, failure to stem the tide of conflict and disorder would be
unconscionably irresponsible.
Among the favourable signs are the steadily growing strength of the steps
towards world order taken initially near the beginning of this century in the
creation of the League of Nations, succeeded by the more broadly based
United Nations Organization; the achievement since the Second World War of
independence by the majority of all the nations on earth, indicating the
completion of the process of nation building, and the involvement of these
fledgling nations with older ones in matters of mutual concern; the
consequent vast increase in co-operation among hitherto isolated and
antagonistic peoples and groups in international undertakings in the
scientific, educational, legal, economic and cultural fields; the rise in recent
decades of an unprecedented number of international humanitarian
organizations; the spread of women's and youth movements calling for an
end to war; and the spontaneous spawning of widening networks of ordinary
people seeking understanding through personal communication.
The scientific and technological advances occurring in this unusually blessed
century portend a great surge forward in the social evolution of the planet,
and indicate the means by which the practical problems of humanity may be
solved. They provide, indeed, the very means for the administration of the
complex life of a united world. Yet barriers persist. Doubts, misconceptions,
prejudices, suspicions and narrow self-interest beset nations and peoples in
their relations one to another.

It is out of a deep sense of spiritual and moral duty that we are impelled at
this opportune moment to invite your attention to the penetrating insights
first communicated to the rulers of mankind more than a century ago
by Bah'u'llh, Founder of the Bah' Faith, of which we are the Trustees.
"The winds of despair", Bah'u'llh wrote, "are, alas, blowing from every
direction, and the strife that divides and afflicts the human race is daily
increasing. The signs of impending convulsions and chaos can now be
discerned, inasmuch as the prevailing order appears to be lamentably
defective." This prophetic judgement has been amply confirmed by the
common experience of humanity. Flaws in the prevailing order are
conspicuous in the inability of sovereign states organized as United Nations
to exorcize the spectre of war, the threatened collapse of the international
economic order, the spread of anarchy and terrorism, and the intense
suffering which these and other afflictions are causing to increasing millions.
Indeed, so much have aggression and conflict come to characterize our
social, economic and religious systems, that many have succumbed to the
view that such behaviour is intrinsic to human nature and therefore
ineradicable.
With the entrenchment of this view, a paralyzing contradiction has developed
in human affairs. On the one hand, people of all nations proclaim not only
their readiness but their longing for peace and harmony, for an end to the
harrowing apprehensions tormenting their daily lives. On the other, uncritical
assent is given to the proposition that human beings are incorrigibly selfish
and aggressive and thus incapable of erecting a social system at once
progressive and peaceful, dynamic and harmonious, a system giving free
play to individual creativity and initiative but based on co-operation and
reciprocity.
As the need for peace becomes more urgent, this fundamental contradiction,
which hinders its realization, demands a reassessment of the assumptions

upon which the commonly held view of mankind's historical predicament is

based. Dis- passionately examined, the evidence reveals that such conduct,
far from expressing man's true self, represents a distortion of the human
spirit. Satisfaction on this point will enable all people to set in motion
constructive social forces which, because they are consistent with human
nature, will encourage harmony and co-operation instead of war and conflict.
To choose such a course is not to deny humanity's past but to understand it.
The Bah' Faith regards the current world confusion and calamitous
condition in human affairs as a natural phase in an organic process leading
ultimately and irresistibly to the unification of the human race in a single
social order whose boundaries are those of the planet. The human race, as a
distinct, organic unit, has passed through evolutionary stages analogous to
the stages of infancy and childhood in the lives of its individual members,
and is now in the culminating period of its turbulent adolescence
approaching its long-awaited coming of age.
A candid acknowledgement that prejudice, war and exploitation have been
the expression of immature stages in a vast historical process and that the
human race is today experiencing the unavoidable tumult which marks its
collective coming of age is not a reason for despair but a prerequisite to
undertaking the stupendous enterprise of building a peaceful world. That
such an enterprise is possible, that the necessary constructive forces do
exist, that unifying social structures can be erected, is the theme we urge
you to examine.
Whatever suffering and turmoil the years immediately ahead may hold,
however dark the immediate circumstances, the Bah' community believes
that humanity can confront this supreme trial with confidence in its ultimate
outcome. Far from signalizing the end of civilization, the convulsive changes
towards which humanity is being ever more rapidly impelled will serve to

release the "potentialities inherent in the station of man" and reveal "the full
measure of his destiny on earth, the innate excellence of his reality".
Section I
The endowments which distinguish the human race from all other forms of
life are summed up in what is known as the human spirit; the mind is its
essential quality. These endowments have enabled humanity to build
civilizations and to prosper materially. But such accomplishments alone have
never satisfied the human spirit, whose mysterious nature inclines it towards
transcendence, a reaching towards an invisible realm, towards the ultimate
reality, that unknowable essence of essences called God. The religions
brought to mankind by a succession of spiritual luminaries have been the
primary link between humanity and that ultimate reality, and have
galvanized and refined mankind's capacity to achieve spiritual success
together with social progress.
No serious attempt to set human affairs aright, to achieve world peace, can
ignore religion. Man's perception and practice of it are largely the stuff of
history. An eminent historian described religion as a "faculty of human
nature". That the perversion of this faculty has contributed to much of the
confusion in society and the conflicts in and between individuals can hardly
be denied. But neither can any fair-minded observer discount the
preponderating influence exerted by religion on the vital expressions of
civilization. Furthermore, its indispensability to social order has repeatedly
been demonstrated by its direct effect on laws and morality.
Writing of religion as a social force, Bah'u'llh said: "Religion is the greatest
of all means for the establishment of order in the world and for the peaceful
contentment of all that dwell therein." Referring to the eclipse or corruption
of religion, he wrote: "Should the lamp of religion be obscured, chaos and
confusion will ensue, and the lights of fairness, of justice, of tranquillity and

peace cease to shine." In an enumeration of such consequences

the Bah'writings point out that the "perversion of human nature, the
degradation of human conduct, the corruption and dissolution of human
institutions, reveal themselves, under such circumstances, in their worst and
most revolting aspects. Human character is debased, confidence is shaken,
the nerves of discipline are relaxed, the voice of human conscience is stilled,
the sense of decency and shame is obscured, conceptions of duty, of
solidarity, of reciprocity and loyalty are distorted, and the very feeling of
peacefulness, of joy and of hope is gradually extinguished."
If, therefore, humanity has come to a point of paralyzing conflict it must look
to itself, to its own negligence, to the siren voices to which it has listened, for
the source of the misunderstandings and confusion perpetrated in the name
of religion. Those who have held blindly and selfishly to their particular
orthodoxies, who have imposed on their votaries erroneous and conflicting
interpretations of the pronouncements of the Prophets of God, bear heavy
responsibility for this confusion--a confusion compounded by the artificial
barriers erected between faith and reason, science and religion. For from a
fair-minded examination of the actual utterances of the Founders of the great
religions, and of the social milieus in which they were obliged to carry out
their missions, there is nothing to support the contentions and prejudices
deranging the religious communities of mankind and therefore all human
affairs.
The teaching that we should treat others as we ourselves would wish to be
treated, an ethic variously repeated in all the great religions, lends force to
this latter observation in two particular respects: it sums up the moral
attitude, the peace-inducing aspect, extending through these religions
irrespective of their place or time of origin; it also signifies an aspect of unity
which is their essential virtue, a virtue mankind in its disjointed view of
history has failed to appreciate.

Had humanity seen the Educators of its collective childhood in their true
character, as agents of one civilizing process, it would no doubt have reaped
incalculably greater benefits from the cumulative effects of their successive
missions. This, alas, it failed to do.
The resurgence of fanatical religious fervour occurring in many lands cannot
be regarded as more than a dying convulsion. The very nature of the violent
and disruptive phenomena associated with it testifies to the spiritual
bankruptcy it represents. Indeed, one of the strangest and saddest features
of the current outbreak of religious fanaticism is the extent to which, in each
case, it is undermining not only the spiritual values which are conducive to
the unity of mankind but also those unique moral victories won by the
particular religion it purports to serve.
However vital a force religion has been in the history of mankind, and
however dramatic the current resurgence of militant religious fanaticism,
religion and religious institutions have, for many decades, been viewed by
increasing numbers of people as irrelevant to the major concerns of the
modern world. In its place they have turned either to the hedonistic pursuit
of material satisfactions or to the following of man-made ideologies designed
to rescue society from the evident evils under which it groans. All too many
of these ideologies, alas, instead of embracing the concept of the oneness of
mankind and promoting the increase of concord among different peoples,
have tended to deify the state, to subordinate the rest of mankind to one
nation, race or class, to attempt to suppress all discussion and interchange of
ideas, or to callously abandon starving millions to the operations of a market
system that all too clearly is aggravating the plight of the majority of
mankind, while enabling small sections to live in a condition of affluence
scarcely dreamed of by our forebears.
How tragic is the record of the substitute faiths that the worldly-wise of our
age have created. In the massive disillusionment of entire populations who

have been taught to worship at their altars can be read history's irreversible
verdict on their value. The fruits these doctrines have produced, after
decades of an increasingly unrestrained exercise of power by those who owe
their ascendancy in human affairs to them, are the social and economic ills
that blight every region of our world in the closing years of the twentieth
century. Underlying all these outward afflictions is the spiritual damage
reflected in the apathy that has gripped the mass of the peoples of all
nations and by the extinction of hope in the hearts of deprived and
anguished millions.
The time has come when those who preach the dogmas of materialism,
whether of the east or the west, whether of capitalism or socialism, must
give account of the moral stewardship they have presumed to exercise.
Where is the "new world" promised by these ideologies? Where is the
international peace to whose ideals they proclaim their devotion? Where are
the breakthroughs into new realms of cultural achievement produced by the
aggrandizement of this race, of that nation or of a particular class? Why is
the vast majority of the world's peoples sinking ever deeper into hunger and
wretchedness when wealth on a scale undreamed of by the Pharaohs, the
Caesars, or even the imperialist powers of the nineteenth century is at the
disposal of the present arbiters of human affairs?
Most particularly, it is in the glorification of material pursuits, at once the
progenitor and common feature of all such ideologies, that we find the roots
which nourish the falsehood that human beings are incorrigibly selfish and
aggressive. It is here that the ground must be cleared for the building of a
new world fit for our descendants.
That materialistic ideals have, in the light of experience, failed to satisfy the
needs of mankind calls for an honest acknowledgement that a fresh effort
must now be made to find the solutions to the agonizing problems of the
planet. The intolerable conditions pervading society bespeak a common

failure of all, a circumstance which tends to incite rather than relieve the
entrenchment on every side. Clearly, a common remedial effort is urgently
required. It is primarily a matter of attitude. Will humanity continue in its
waywardness, holding to outworn concepts and unworkable assumptions? Or
will its leaders, regardless of ideology, step forth and, with a resolute will,
consult together in a united search for appropriate solutions?
Those who care for the future of the human race may well ponder this
advice. "If long-cherished ideals and time-honoured institutions, if certain
social assumptions and religious formulae have ceased to promote the
welfare of the generality of mankind, if they no longer minister to the needs
of a continually evolving humanity, let them be swept away and relegated to
the limbo of obsolescent and forgotten doctrines. Why should these, in a
world subject to the immutable law of change and decay, be exempt from
the deterioration that must needs overtake every human institution? For
legal standards, political and economic theories are solely designed to
safeguard the interests of humanity as a whole, and not humanity to be
crucified for the preservation of the integrity of any particular law or
doctrine."
Section II
Banning nuclear weapons, prohibiting the use of poison gases, or outlawing
germ warfare will not remove the root causes of war. However important
such practical measures obviously are as elements of the peace process,
they are in themselves too superficial to exert enduring influence. Peoples
are ingenious enough to invent yet other forms of warfare, and to use food,
raw materials, finance, industrial power, ideology, and terrorism to subvert
one another in an endless quest for supremacy and dominion. Nor can the
present massive dislocation in the affairs of humanity be resolved through
the settlement of specific conflicts or disagreements among nations. A
genuine universal framework must be adopted.

Certainly, there is no lack of recognition by national leaders of the world-wide

character of the problem, which is self-evident in the mounting issues that
confront them daily. And there are the accumulating studies and solutions
proposed by many concerned and enlightened groups as well as by agencies
of the United Nations, to remove any possibility of ignorance as to the
challenging requirements to be met. There is, however, a paralysis of will;
and it is this that must be carefully examined and resolutely dealt with. This
paralysis is rooted, as we have stated, in a deep-seated conviction of the
inevitable quarrelsomeness of mankind, which has led to the reluctance to
entertain the possibility of subordinating national self-interest to the
requirements of world order, and in an unwillingness to face courageously
the far-reaching implications of establishing a united world authority. It is also
traceable to the incapacity of largely ignorant and subjugated masses to
articulate their desire for a new order in which they can live in peace,
harmony and prosperity with all humanity.
The tentative steps towards world order, especially since World War II, give
hopeful signs. The increasing tendency of groups of nations to formalize
relationships which enable them to co-operate in matters of mutual interest
suggests that eventually all nations could overcome this paralysis. The
Association of South East Asian Nations, the Caribbean Community and
Common Market, the Central American Common Market, the Council for
Mutual Economic Assistance, the European Communities, the League of Arab
States, the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of American
States, the South Pacific Forum--all the joint endeavours represented by such
organizations prepare the path to world order.
The increasing attention being focused on some of the most deep-rooted
problems of the planet is yet another hopeful sign. Despite the obvious
shortcomings of the United Nations, the more than two score declarations
and conventions adopted by that organization, even where governments

have not been enthusiastic in their commitment, have given ordinary people
a sense of a new lease on life. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
and the similar measures concerned with eliminating all forms of
discrimination based on race, sex or religious belief; upholding the rights of
the child; protecting all persons against being subjected to torture;
eradicating hunger and malnutrition; using scientific and technological
progress in the interest of peace and the benefit of mankind--all such
measures, if courageously enforced and expanded, will advance the day
when the spectre of war will have lost its power to dominate international
relations. There is no need to stress the significance of the issues addressed
by these declarations and conventions. However, a few such issues, because
of their immediate relevance to establishing world peace, deserve additional
comment.
Racism, one of the most baneful and persistent evils, is a major barrier to
peace. Its practice perpetrates too outrageous a violation of the dignity of
human beings to be countenanced under any pretext. Racism retards the
unfoldment of the boundless potentialities of its victims, corrupts its
perpetrators, and blights human progress. Recognition of the oneness of
mankind, implemented by appropriate legal measures, must be universally
upheld if this problem is to be overcome.
The inordinate disparity between rich and poor, a source of acute suffering,
keeps the world in a state of instability, virtually on the brink of war. Few
societies have dealt effectively with this situation. The solution calls for the
combined application of spiritual, moral and practical approaches. A fresh
look at the problem is required, entailing consultation with experts from a
wide spectrum of disciplines, devoid of economic and ideological polemics,
and involving the people directly affected in the decisions that must urgently
be made. It is an issue that is bound up not only with the necessity for

eliminating extremes of wealth and poverty but also with those spiritual
verities the understanding of which can produce a new universal attitude.
Fostering such an attitude is itself a major part of the solution.
Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate
patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a
whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and
mankind its citizens." The concept of world citizenship is a direct result of the
contraction of the world into a single neighbourhood through scientific
advances and of the indisputable interdependence of nations. Love of all the
world's peoples does not exclude love of one's country. The advantage of the
part in a world society is best served by promoting the advantage of the
whole. Current international activities in various fields which nurture mutual
affection and a sense of solidarity among peoples need greatly to be
increased.
Religious strife, throughout history, has been the cause of innumerable wars
and conflicts, a major blight to progress, and is increasingly abhorrent to the
people of all faiths and no faith. Followers of all religions must be willing to
face the basic questions which this strife raises, and to arrive at clear
answers. How are the differences between them to be resolved, both in
theory and in practice? The challenge facing the religious leaders of mankind
is to contemplate, with hearts filled with the spirit of compassion and a
desire for truth, the plight of humanity, and to ask themselves whether they
cannot, in humility before their Almighty Creator, submerge their theological
differences in a great spirit of mutual forbearance that will enable them to
work together for the advancement of human understanding and peace.
The emancipation of women, the achievement of full equality between the
sexes, is one of the most important, though less acknowledged prerequisites
of peace. The denial of such equality perpetrates an injustice against one
half of the world's population and promotes in men harmful attitudes and

habits that are carried from the family to the workplace, to political life, and
ultimately to international relations. There are no grounds, moral, practical,
or biological, upon which such denial can be justified. Only as women are
welcomed into full partnership in all fields of human endeavour will the moral
and psychological climate be created in which international peace can
emerge.
The cause of universal education, which has already enlisted in its service an
army of dedicated people from every faith and nation, deserves the utmost
support that the governments of the world can lend it. For ignorance is
indisputably the principal reason for the decline and fall of peoples and the
perpetuation of prejudice. No nation can achieve success unless education is
accorded all its citizens. Lack of resources limits the ability of many nations
to fulfil this necessity, imposing a certain ordering of priorities. The decisionmaking agencies involved would do well to consider giving first priority to the
education of women and girls, since it is through educated mothers that the
benefits of knowledge can be most effectively and rapidly diffused
throughout society. In keeping with the requirements of the times,
consideration should also be given to teaching the concept of world
citizenship as part of the standard education of every child.
A fundamental lack of communication between peoples seriously undermines
efforts towards world peace. Adopting an international auxiliary language
would go far to resolving this problem and necessitates the most urgent
attention.
Two points bear emphasizing in all these issues. One is that the abolition of
war is not simply a matter of signing treaties and protocols; it is a complex
task requiring a new level of commitment to resolving issues not customarily
associated with the pursuit of peace. Based on political agreements alone,
the idea of collective security is a chimera. The other point is that the
primary challenge in dealing with issues of peace is to raise the context to

the level of principle, as distinct from pure pragmatism. For, in essence,

peace stems from an inner state supported by a spiritual or moral attitude,
and it is chiefly in evoking this attitude that the possibility of enduring
solutions can be found.
There are spiritual principles, or what some call human values, by which
solutions can be found for every social problem. Any well-intentioned group
can in a general sense devise practical solutions to its problems, but good
intentions and practical knowledge are usually not enough. The essential
merit of spiritual principle is that it not only presents a perspective which
harmonizes with that which is immanent in human nature, it also induces an
attitude, a dynamic, a will, an aspiration, which facilitate the discovery and
implementation of practical measures. Leaders of governments and all in
authority would be well served in their efforts to solve problems if they would
first seek to identify the principles involved and then be guided by them.
Section III
The primary question to be resolved is how the present world, with its
entrenched pattern of conflict, can change to a world in which harmony and
co-operation will prevail.
World order can be founded only on an unshakeable consciousness of the
oneness of mankind, a spiritual truth which all the human sciences confirm.
Anthropology, physiology, psychology, recognize only one human species,
albeit infinitely varied in the secondary aspects of life. Recognition of this
truth requires abandonment of prejudice--prejudice of every kind--race, class,
colour, creed, nation, sex, degree of material civilization, everything which
enables people to consider themselves superior to others.
Acceptance of the oneness of mankind is the first fundamental prerequisite
for reorganization and administration of the world as one country, the home

of humankind. Universal acceptance of this spiritual principle is essential to

any successful attempt to establish world peace. It should therefore be
universally proclaimed, taught in schools, and constantly asserted in every
nation as preparation for the organic change in the structure of society which
it implies.
In the Bah' view, recognition of the oneness of mankind "calls for no less
than the reconstruction and the demilitarization of the whole civilized world-a world organically unified in all the essential aspects of its life, its political
machinery, its spiritual aspiration, its trade and finance, its script and
language, and yet infinite in the diversity of the national characteristics of its
federated units."
Elaborating the implications of this pivotal principle, Shoghi Effendi, the
Guardian of the Bah'Faith, commented in 1931 that: "Far from aiming at the
subversion of the existing foundations of society, it seeks to broaden its
basis, to remold its institutions in a manner consonant with the needs of an
ever-changing world. It can conflict with no legitimate allegiances, nor can it
undermine essential loyalties. Its purpose is neither to stifle the flame of a
sane and intelligent patriotism in men's hearts, nor to abolish the system of
national autonomy so essential if the evils of excessive centralization are to
be avoided. It does not ignore, nor does it attempt to suppress, the diversity
of ethnical origins, of climate, of history, of language and tradition, of
thought and habit, that differentiate the peoples and nations of the world. It
calls for a wider loyalty, for a larger aspiration than any that has animated
the human race. It insists upon the subordination of national impulses and
interests to the imperative claims of a unified world. It repudiates excessive
centralization on one hand, and disclaims all attempts at uniformity on the
other. Its watchword is unity in diversity".
The achievement of such ends requires several stages in the adjustment of
national political attitudes, which now verge on anarchy in the absence of

clearly defined laws or universally accepted and enforceable principles

regulating the relationships between nations. The League of Nations, the
United Nations, and the many organizations and agreements produced by
them have unquestionably been helpful in attenuating some of the negative
effects of international conflicts, but they have shown themselves incapable
of preventing war. Indeed, there have been scores of wars since the end of
the Second World War; many are yet raging.
The predominant aspects of this problem had already emerged in the
nineteenth century when Bah'u'llh first advanced his proposals for the
establishment of world peace. The principle of collective security was
propounded by him in statements addressed to the rulers of the world.
Shoghi Effendi commented on his meaning: "What else could these weighty
words signify," he wrote, "if they did not point to the inevitable curtailment of
unfettered national sovereignty as an indispensable preliminary to the
formation of the future Commonwealth of all the nations of the world? Some
form of a world super-state must needs be evolved, in whose favour all the
nations of the world will have willingly ceded every claim to make war,
certain rights to impose taxation and all rights to maintain armaments,
except for purposes of maintaining internal order within their respective
dominions. Such a state will have to include within its orbit an International
Executive adequate to enforce supreme and unchallengeable authority on
every recalcitrant member of the commonwealth; a World Parliament whose
members shall be elected by the people in their respective countries and
whose election shall be confirmed by their respective governments; and a
Supreme Tribunal whose judgement will have a binding effect even in such
cases where the parties concerned did not voluntarily agree to submit their
case to its consideration.
"A world community in which all economic barriers will have been
permanently demolished and the interdependence of capital and labour

definitely recognized; in which the clamour of religious fanaticism and strife

will have been forever stilled; in which the flame of racial animosity will have
been finally extinguished; in which a single code of international law--the
product of the considered judgement of the world's federated
representatives--shall have as its sanction the instant and coercive
intervention of the combined forces of the federated units; and finally a
world community in which the fury of a capricious and militant nationalism
will have been transmuted into an abiding consciousness of world
citizenship--such indeed, appears, in its broadest outline, the Order
anticipated by Bah'u'llh, an Order that shall come to be regarded as the
fairest fruit of a slowly maturing age."
The implementation of these far-reaching measures was indicated
by Bah'u'llh: "The time must come when the imperative necessity for the
holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally
realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and,
participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will
lay the foundations of the world's Great Peace amongst men."
The courage, the resolution, the pure motive, the selfless love of one people
for another--all the spiritual and moral qualities required for effecting this
momentous step towards peace are focused on the will to act. And it is
towards arousing the necessary volition that earnest consideration must be
given to the reality of man, namely, his thought. To understand the relevance
of this potent reality is also to appreciate the social necessity of actualizing
its unique value through candid, dispassionate and cordial consultation, and
of acting upon the results of this process. Bah'u'llh insistently drew
attention to the virtues and indispensability of consultation for ordering
human affairs. He said: "Consultation bestows greater awareness and
transmutes conjecture into certitude. It is a shining light which, in a dark
world, leads the way and guides. For everything there is and will continue to

be a station of perfection and maturity. The maturity of the gift of

understanding is made manifest through consultation." The very attempt to
achieve peace through the consultative action he proposed can release such
a salutary spirit among the peoples of the earth that no power could resist
the final, triumphal outcome.
Concerning the proceedings for this world gathering, `Abdu'l-Bah, the son
of Bah'u'llh and authorized interpreter of his teachings, offered these
insights: "They must make the Cause of Peace the object of general
consultation, and seek by every means in their power to establish a Union of
the nations of the world. They must conclude a binding treaty and establish a
covenant, the provisions of which shall be sound, inviolable and definite.
They must proclaim it to all the world and obtain for it the sanction of all the
human race. This supreme and noble undertaking--the real source of the
peace and well-being of all the world--should be regarded as sacred by all
that dwell on earth. All the forces of humanity must be mobilized to ensure
the stability and permanence of this Most Great Covenant. In this allembracing Pact the limits and frontiers of each and every nation should be
clearly fixed, the principles underlying the relations of governments towards
one another definitely laid down, and all international agreements and
obligations ascertained. In like manner, the size of the armaments of every
government should be strictly limited, for if the preparations for war and the
military forces of any nation should be allowed to increase, they will arouse
the suspicion of others. The fundamental principle underlying this solemn
Pact should be so fixed that if any government later violate any one of its
provisions, all the governments on earth should arise to reduce it to utter
submission, nay the human race as a whole should resolve, with every power
at its disposal, to destroy that government. Should this greatest of all
remedies be applied to the sick body of the world, it will assuredly recover
from its ills and will remain eternally safe and secure."

The holding of this mighty convocation is long overdue.

With all the ardour of our hearts, we appeal to the leaders of all nations to
seize this opportune moment and take irreversible steps to convoke this
world meeting. All the forces of history impel the human race towards this
act which will mark for all time the dawn of its long-awaited maturity.
Will not the United Nations, with the full support of its membership, rise to
the high purposes of such a crowning event?
Let men and women, youth and children everywhere recognize the eternal
merit of this imperative action for all peoples and lift up their voices in willing
assent. Indeed, let it be this generation that inaugurates this glorious stage
in the evolution of social life on the planet.
Section IV
The source of the optimism we feel is a vision transcending the cessation of
war and the creation of agencies of international co-operation. Permanent
peace among nations is an essential stage, but not, Bah'u'llh asserts, the
ultimate goal of the social development of humanity. Beyond the initial
armistice forced upon the world by the fear of nuclear holocaust, beyond the
political peace reluctantly entered into by suspicious rival nations, beyond
pragmatic arrangements for security and coexistence, beyond even the
many experiments in co-operation which these steps will make possible lies
the crowning goal: the unification of all the peoples of the world in one
universal family.
Disunity is a danger that the nations and peoples of the earth can no longer
endure; the consequences are too terrible to contemplate, too obvious to
require any demonstration. "The well-being of mankind," Bah'u'llh wrote
more than a century ago, "its peace and security, are unattainable unless
and until its unity is firmly established." In observing that "mankind is

groaning, is dying to be led to unity, and to terminate its age-long

martyrdom", Shoghi Effendi further commented that: "Unification of the
whole of mankind is the hall-mark of the stage which human society is now
approaching. Unity of family, of tribe, of city-state, and nation have been
successively attempted and fully established. World unity is the goal towards
which a harassed humanity is striving. Nation-building has come to an end.
The anarchy inherent in state sovereignty is moving towards a climax. A
world, growing to maturity, must abandon this fetish, recognize the oneness
and wholeness of human relationships, and establish once for all the
machinery that can best incarnate this fundamental principle of its life."
All contemporary forces of change validate this view. The proofs can be
discerned in the many examples already cited of the favourable signs
towards world peace in current international movements and developments.
The army of men and women, drawn from virtually every culture, race and
nation on earth, who serve the multifarious agencies of the United Nations,
represent a planetary "civil service" whose impressive accomplishments are
indicative of the degree of co-operation that can be attained even under
discouraging conditions. An urge towards unity, like a spiritual springtime,
struggles to express itself through countless international congresses that
bring together people from a vast array of disciplines. It motivates appeals
for international projects involving children and youth. Indeed, it is the real
source of the remarkable movement towards ecumenism by which members
of historically antagonistic religions and sects seem irresistibly drawn
towards one another. Together with the opposing tendency to warfare and
self-aggrandizement against which it ceaselessly struggles, the drive towards
world unity is one of the dominant, pervasive features of life on the planet
during the closing years of the twentieth century.
The experience of the Bah' community may be seen as an example of this
enlarging unity. It is a community of some three to four million people drawn

from many nations, cultures, classes and creeds, engaged in a wide range of
activities serving the spiritual, social and economic needs of the peoples of
many lands. It is a single social organism, representative of the diversity of
the human family, conducting its affairs through a system of commonly
accepted consultative principles, and cherishing equally all the great
outpourings of divine guidance in human history. Its existence is yet another
convincing proof of the practicality of its Founder's vision of a united world,
another evidence that humanity can live as one global society, equal to
whatever challenges its coming of age may entail. If the Bah' experience
can contribute in whatever measure to reinforcing hope in the unity of the
human race, we are happy to offer it as a model for study.
In contemplating the supreme importance of the task now challenging the
entire world, we bow our heads in humility before the awesome majesty of
the divine Creator, Who out of His infinite love has created all humanity from
the same stock; exalted the gem-like reality of man; honoured it with
intellect and wisdom, nobility and immortality; and conferred upon man the
"unique distinction and capacity to know Him and to love Him", a capacity
that "must needs be regarded as the generating impulse and the primary
purpose underlying the whole of creation."
We hold firmly the conviction that all human beings have been created "to
carry forward an ever-advancing civilization"; that "to act like the beasts of
the field is unworthy of man"; that the virtues that befit human dignity are
trustworthiness, forbearance, mercy, compassion and loving-kindness
towards all peoples. We reaffirm the belief that the "potentialities inherent in
the station of man, the full measure of his destiny on earth, the innate
excellence of his reality, must all be manifested in this promised Day of
God." These are the motivations for our unshakeable faith that unity and
peace are the attainable goal towards which humanity is striving.

At this writing, the expectant voices of Bah's can be heard despite the
persecution they still endure in the land in which their Faith was born. By
their example of steadfast hope, they bear witness to the belief that the
imminent realization of this age-old dream of peace is now, by virtue of the
transforming effects of Bah'u'llh's revelation, invested with the force of
divine authority. Thus we convey to you not only a vision in words: we
summon the power of deeds of faith and sacrifice; we convey the anxious
plea of our co-religionists everywhere for peace and unity. We join with all
who are the victims of aggression, all who yearn for an end to conflict and
contention, all whose devotion to principles of peace and world order
promotes the ennobling purposes for which humanity was called into being
by an all-loving Creator.
In the earnestness of our desire to impart to you the fervour of our hope and
the depth of our confidence, we cite the emphatic promise of Bah'u'llh:
"These fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the 'Most
Great Peace' shall come."
THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE
Additional information about The Universal House of Justice

Introduction
Central Figures & Institutions
Spiritual Truths
The Baha'i Sacred Writings
A Global Community
TOWARD BETTER CONCEPTS OF PEACE

CONFLICT RESEARCH CONSORTIUM

Working Paper 89-14. April, 1989.
By Milton Rinehart
Department of Sociology
University of Colorado, Boulder

This paper was written with a small grant from the Conflict Resolution
Consortium, University of Colorado. Funding for the Consortium and its Small
Grants Program was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
The statements and ideas presented in this paper are those of the author
and do not necessarily represent the views of the Conflict Resolution
Consortium, the University of Colorado, or the William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation. For more information, contact the Conflict Resolution
Consortium, Campus Box 327, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
80309-0327. Phone: (303) 492-1635, e-mail: crc@cubldr.colorado.edu.
Copyright (c) April, 1989, Milton Rinehart. Do not reprint without permission.
This paper received the American Sociological Association Peace and War
Section's Elise Boulding Student Paper Prize for 1989.
Funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the University of
Colorado, the Conflict Resolution Consortium is a coordinated program of
research, education and application on three of the University's four
campuses. The program unites researchers, educators, and practitioners
from many fields for the purposes of theory-building, testing, and application
in the field of conflict resolution. Current focus areas include international
conflict; environmental and natural resource conflict; urban, rural, and inter-

jurisdictional conflicts; and the evaluation of alternative dispute resolution

mechanisms.
WORKING PAPERS
The Conflict Resolution Consortium working paper series includes a variety of
papers written by our members as a part of their research. Usually these
papers are in preliminary draft stage and are being prepared for eventual
publication in professional journals or books. Other papers record discussions
from Conflict Resolution Consortium seminars and plenary presentations.
The purpose of the working paper series is to generate a dialogue about the
work presented. Readers are encouraged to respond to the papers either by
contacting the author directly or by contacting the Consortium office.

INTRODUCTION
Our popular concept of peace has failed. It is concepts of peace such as
"peace is not war" or "not conflict" that I accuse of failure. Not withstanding
the current INF treaty, we continue our drift towards unparalleled
catastrophe as many nations continue unprecedented arms races including
nuclear ones. As those nuclear arms become more technologically
sophisticated the margins of equipment and human error become
dangerously small. Yet the prospect of annihilation has not made the world
more peaceful. On the contrary, we seem to have as much armed conflict
now as ever. This is due in part to a failing of our commonly used concepts of
peace to direct our pursuit of peace. Reardon (1988), Hall (1984) and,
Darnton (1973) suggest a relationship between peace definitions and peace
action. Peace definitions or concepts are the basis on which we decide how
to make peace. For example, if I define peace as not war, then I would
attempt to make peace by attempting to eliminate war or at least mitigate

its severity. On the other hand, if I defined peace as inner harmony, I would
meditate as much as possible in order to make peace. The point is that
concepts or definitions of peace are the basis for peacemaking. What one
does to achieve peace depends on how one images, defines, or
conceptualizes peace. If our present peace efforts are in danger of
catastrophic failure then our concepts may need revision. Perhaps it is also
our inability to make those concepts clear that has led to their failure. Indeed
"peace" has proven difficult to define. Perhaps because it has rhetori- cal
uses for political leaders who benefit from the ambiguity of the term
(Cuzzort, 1989). Also there are socially constructed cultural differences in
peace concepts. Usually citing Ishida's (1969) work, a variety of authors have
discussed these differences. The need here is obvious. If we as a world of
diverse yet increasingly interdependent people are to survive the drift
towards unparalleled catastrophe that Einstein (1980) forewarned, we must
maintain some type of peace. To do so we must reach some level of
agreement on what that peace might be. Therefore, we must know our
options and be careful to understand each other.
PURPOSE - This paper tries to clarify our concepts of peace and to expand
the range of our peace thinking by identifying additional and possibly more
adequate concepts. In thispaper my main purposes are to 1) analyze some
categorizations of peace concepts, 2) extract two paradigms of peace
concepts from those categorizations and, 3) provide a theo- retical basis for
those paradigms. These paradigms are broad categories of peace concepts
that are based in differ- ent peace orientations. Not all peace concepts will fit
easily into one paradigm or the other. But most do.
ORGANIZATION - This paper is organized into three sections. In the first I will
analyze selected categorizations of peace concepts as a short cut to
sampling peace concepts in the literature, and I will extract the two
paradigms from them. In the second, I will present Wilber's (1983, 1985,

1986) transpersonal sociology and locate the peace paradigms in it. In the
final section I will attempt to show how we can move from the Popular
paradigm to the Numinar one.[1]
CATEGORIZATIONS OF PEACE CONCEPTS
In this section I will summarize and analyze categorizations of peace
concepts from the literature. These categorizations were selected through an
extensive but not exhaustive, literature search. To be included a
categorization had only to meet two simple criteria; 1) refer to concepts or
defini- tions of peace and 2) contain at least two of them. All the
categorizations that I found are summarized below.
TAKESHI ISHIDA - Through an examination of the original meanings of peace
in the world's main cultures (excluding Islam), Ishida examines the main
emphasis of each word for peace in order to help reduce the semantic
differences that can create problems between different cultures negotiating
peace. Table 1 presents Ishida's approach. Western concepts of peace
originate in 1) the Ancient Judaism concept of shalom, 2) the Greek concept
of eirene, and 3) the Roman concept of pax. Here the most common
elements are prosperi- ty and order where order refers primarily to rule of
law. The Easter concepts of peace emphasize order and tranquility of mind.
Here order refers both to the political and cosmic order achieved through
individual conformity.
1. The original meanings of the concepts of peace of the world's main
cultures according to Ishida (1969, p.135).
Emphasis The will of Prosperity Order Tranquility Culture God, justice of mind
Ancient Judiaism Shalom
__________________________

[1] Popular paradigm refers to the general approach to peace that is

expressed in the popular concepts of peace. This paradigm has its
intellectual roots in Western philosophy and political thought. It is truly a
popular paradigm as evidenced not only in the wide usage of its concepts by
the media and our political leaders but also by many of our major peace
thinkers such as K. Boulding, Rapaport, and Galtung. The Numinar paradigm
refers to the general approach to peace that is expressed in the "other"
concepts of peace that I have already referred to. Its intellectual roots are in
the teachings and writings of various numinous individuals throughout
history. I will elaborate these paradigms later in the paper.
(page 2)
Greece Eirene
Rome Pax China
(Japan) He Ping (Heiwa)
India Shanti
Analysis -- Ishida's work has influenced several of the conceptual schemes
below, most notably Rummel's. Ishida suggests an east - west dichotomy of
peace concepts where the eastern concepts see peace achieved through
individual conformity to customs, norms, etc. as an outcome of individual
internal harmony. Western concepts see peace more as a property of social
systems functioning to assure prosperity. This dichotomy has been further
developed by Galtung (1981) who sees the difference between east and west
as one of "social cosmology".
ANATOL RAPAPORT - Starting from the view that war, especially nuclear war,
is the greatest threat to the survival of humanity, Anatol Rapaport (no date)
examines international cooperation aimed at "controlling" war. His

conceptual scheme of peace images includes peace through strength,

balance of power, collective security, peace through law, revolutionary
pacifism, and personal pacifism. His conceptual scheme analyzes these
images in relation to a) the problem that is seen as fundamentally important,
b) the conceptualization of a solution, c) the identification of actors expected
to cope with the problem, d) modalities of social control, or the mechanisms
the actors are expected to use to implement the solution to the problem.
Here Rapaport uses threat, trade, and integrative modalities (from K.
Boulding, 1987). Where a threat system emphasizes sanctions such as
reduction in trade; a trade system depends on promises of benefits in return
for reciprocated benefits, such as the U.S. selling F-16's to Saudi Arabia in
exchange for their moderating influence in that region of the world; and an
integrative system where members share common goals and see each other
as co-members, as seems to be the case between the U.S. under Reagan and
Great Britain under Thatcher. The remaining aspects of Rapaport's
conceptual scheme are e) induced attitudes or psychological states which
harmonize with the particular peace image, such as fear and pugnacity in the
peace through strength image, and f) the role of international cooperation
envisaged in the particular image that will help bring about peace or
preserve it.
Analysis - In this scheme the formulation of the problem is the fundamental
determinant of the concept of peace. The solution follows logically from the
problem as do the principle actors from the solution. Modalities of social
control and roles of international cooperation follow from the construction of
problem, solution and principle actors combined. Induced attitudes, in this
scheme, appear as useful artifacts of the image or concept of peace itself. It
is not clear what relationship induced attitudes has to the formulation of the
fundamental problem. Does fear create a perception of threat or threat, fear?
A possible solution to this is to look for relationships between world- views
and peace concepts. By world-view I mean the cognitive, normative, and

affective biases or tendencies to which we are largely socialized that greatly

determine the meanings we ascribe to our experiences, or the ways in which
we co-create our realities.[1] Rapaport implies this relationship but does not
explicate it, and thus leaves the question of which is more fundamental - the
problem or the emotion. A world-view approach attempts to avoid this
question since world-view largely determines both, one's perception of a
problem and one's emotional response to it (as I have defined world-view).
Interestingly Rapaport implies a range of peace concepts that are based on
threat, induced fear and no international cooperation at one end (peace
through strength), and based on integration, induced love and no
international cooperation at the other end (personal pacifism). In Rapaport's
scheme, the conception of peace as "peace through strength" perceives
external threat, uses threat as a means of control, and maintains an attitude
of fear. While the conception of peace as "personal pacifism" perceives the
problem of human aggressiveness responded to by individuals through selfperfection and an attitude of love.
RUDOLPH RUMMEL - Beginning with the view that conflict is ubiquitous and a
necessary part of social life (1981, p.16)[2], Rummel develops a definition of
peace as a social contract from social field theory. Conflict, in Rummel's view
does a number of important things; 1) it is the means for establishing and
adjusting social order, 2) similarly, it establishes the balance of powers
between what people want and what they can get[3], and 3) through the
resolution
__________________________
[1] Other authors have different definitions of world-view. David Statt defines
world-view as "A way of understanding the world; a philosophy of life" (1982,
p.130). Horace and Ava English define world-view as "Any comprehensive
explanation of external reality and of Man's relation to it" (1958, p.592). M.

Scott Peck defines world-view as "our understanding of what life is all

about... our religion" (1978, p.185). Here Peck is using religion in a very
broad sense. Some attempt has been made to measure world-view. Gilford
Bisjak (1983) attempts to use philosophical orientations to measure world
view.
[2] Also see Simmel (1955).
[3] Ted Gurr (1970) offers a good discussion of relative deprivation which is
what Rummel is getting at, I think.
(page 3)
of conflict agreements are reached. These agreements are implicit or explicit
in the resolution of conflict and constitute social contract. Thus Rummel's
definition of peace is closely related to those that define peace as conflict
resolution or conflict management.
In arguing the merits of his definition of peace, Rummel discusses other
concepts and compares them to his. Rummel organizes other concepts of
peace that he has identified into two major categories: a) Cultural-Religious
concepts which consists of those concepts identified by Ishida (1969), and b)
Secular, Cross-Cultural Concepts. These secular concepts he further divides
into Empirical, Abstract and Normative. Additionally, Rummel identifies seven
underlying principles of these concepts of peace. These principles identify
peace concepts as a state of either; a) no conflict, violence or war, b) order,
c) mind, d) law, e) (coercive) power, f) divinity or, g) goodness. He attempts
to group the concepts of peace under these seven principles.
Analysis - Rummel's work is fairly disorganized. Certain parts, such as his
organizational and analytical schemes, which I have not summarized, are not
clearly connected. He does use some of the conceptual dimensions (e.g.,
empirical, abstract, normative) as sub-categories of secular, cross- cultural

concepts. But he does not use all of them. And he does not explain his
usage. He focuses instead on what he sees as the underlying principles of all
these peace concepts, apparently to demonstrate how his definition
superiorly meets five out of seven of these principles (1981, pg. 65, table
3.3).
However, Rummel's work does have merit. Rummel illustrates the
importance of social level in distinguishing concepts of peace. Some
concepts see the starting point at international relations, some at
interpersonal relations, and some are in between. Further, while there seems
to be no empirical basis for it, Rummel has created the most complete list of
peace concepts I have found. Additionally Rummel gives some legitimacy to
some "principles" such as peace is a state of mind, divinity and goodness. In
my view we need to intellectually explore those aspects of peace further if
we are to develop concepts of peace that are successful in the sense that
they provide a basis for successful peacemaking.
GUNNAR JOHNSON - With the clear purpose of adding intellectual depth to
the field of peace studies, Johnson (1976) presents three major concepts of
peace, abstracts elements of these concepts into theoretical categories, then
explores the scientific, ethical and political uses of these concepts. For the
purposes of this paper I will discuss only his major concepts.
Apparently Johnson has identified major concepts of peace from his own
readings, in this case in the field of peace studies. Johnson's three
categories, are 1) peace as a world without war, 2) peace as world justice,
and 3) peace as world order.
The peace is not war category, championed in recent times by Quincy Wright
(1942) and Anatol Rapaport (1968), is concerned with disarmament, control
of or elimination of war, understanding the root causes of war, and the
control of or elimination of war-like violence (oppressive, bloody regimes like

Idi Amin in Uganda or the Khemer Rouge of Cambodia). To these ends most
of peace research has been dedicated, according to Johnson[1]. Johnson
identifies three conceptual groups under this world without war view of
peace. First are those concerned with eliminating causes of war. Second are
those committed to finding non-violent ways of settling conflict. And third,
those who wish to remove the instruments of war and mediate
confrontations which might lead to war (p.17). Johnson is clearly including
under the peace is not war category such concepts as 1) peace through no
violence, 2) peace through conflict resolution, and 3) peace through
disarmament.
The peace is world/social justice category, championed by Johan Galtung
(1967), critiques the peace is not war category as reinforcing the status quo,
preserving patterns of international dominations, and further legitimizing the
justification of warlike behavior by governments by claiming the necessity of
such behavior to achieve peace (ex. "War to end all wars"). Besides the
charge that the peace is not war category maintains the status quo, the
peace is social justice category, according to Johnson, contains two other
important themes. First, the awareness of the presence of structural
violence, or violence perpetrated by social systems. And second, the
preference for research directed towards strategies of non-violent change
(p.24). The peace as social justice school has shifted focus from the causes
of war to the conditions of violence and peace. In doing so it has continued
to define peace in terms of violence and has added conflict theory to peace
theory.
The peace as world order category, championed by the Institute for World
Order in New York, including Greenville Clark and Louis Sohn (1966),
attempts to address the problem of human survival in the face of
increasingly complex world problems such as nuclear war, and ecological
disaster. The primary problem under this category, is the existence of

autonomous, independent nation-states which, except for the influence of an

emerging world economy, function largely in response to their own internal
needs. Thereby, some coun__________________________
[1] Boulding and Vayrynen (1980) disagree. They see most of peace research
focusing on the creation of peaceful social structures where "peaceful"
seems to mean both social justice (Galtung, 1969) and controlled conflict.
(page 4)
tries use DDT while others don't, some countries kill whales while others
don't, some countries have nuclear attack capability while others don't. The
solution is the establishment of some world governing body, perhaps an
enhanced United Nations to implement some sort of world law.
Methodologically this school uses "relevant utopias" to explore the
techniques and details of achieving such a goal. While Johnson credits this
"world order school" with the realization that peace cannot be studied
productively apart from global concerns, he criticizes them for being
uncritical in their usage of the term peace (p.35).
Analysis - Johnson assumes without sufficient support that the appropriate
level of analysis of peace is that of international relations. This is an
assumption of the Popular peace paradigm and the international relations
approach to peace making (Boulding and Vayrynen, 1980). By making this
assumption he unnecessarily limits his scope to only a few concepts of
peace, indeed those that predominate peace studies literature, according to
him. It is ironic that while he intended to add some intellectual depth, he did
so at the expense of intellectual breadth.
JOHN MACQUARRIE - Macquarrie's (1973) conceptual scheme is a dichotomy.
He contrasts a Christian concept of peace to a Hobbesian (1934) view. His

Christian view of peace includes the healing of fractures[1], the distinction

between peace as a process and peace as an end-state, and the importance
of world view in shaping one's peace concept.
"Healing fractures" has to do with estrangement, alienation, bitter division
and war. Fractures occur in many if not all aspects of human life including; a)
war between and within nations, b) Industry, in the form of Hegel's
alienation, c) marriage and family with problems of creating and sustaining
intimate relationships, d) alienation from nature as a result of overpopulation
and increased technology creating an environmental crisis, e) alienation from
reality itself in the sense of loss of existential meaning, and f) finally
fractures occur within the individual such as indecision, conflicting emotion,
and mental illness. The Christian concept of peace is the healing of fractures.
In the Hobbesian view, fractures are taken as an inescapable part of
existence and must be dealt with, perhaps preserved, or peace is not
possible.
Peace is viewed as a process of creating a more peaceful world, or of
manifesting the latent true nature of humanity,
__________________________
[1] "Fractures" is Macquarrie's term, but I prefer "separations". However,
while summarizing and analyzing Macquarrie's work, I will use "fractures". In
the rest of the paper, I will use "separation". I see constructed reality as
fundamentally maintaining separation. So "healing fractures" is nearly
synonymous to "reducing separation".
(page 5)
where that peaceful world or latent nature are ideal states or goals. The
actual attainment of the goal or the existence of the goal is taken as a
matter of faith, or of transcendent experience. However the process of

creation is seen as more immediately important. On the other hand the

Hobbesian view sees peace as an end-state, the end of violence, war, and
misery. How this end is achieved is not as important as the end itself.
In his Christian world view the world is not seen as truly fearsome and
threatening and full of competition, as in the Hobbesian world view, but
rather nurturing and promising and full of cooperation. This nurturing,
promising, cooperativeness is the true nature of the world that it is our job to
make real for all by healing fractures, according to Macquarrie. The problem
of peace is one of fractures. The process of peace is one of healing fractures.
This world view is the basis for the concept of peace as a process and the
definition of peace as healing fractures. On the other hand, the Hobbesian
world view leads to an end-state concept of peace as not violence or war.
Macquarrie's Christian peace concept includes the Hobbesian but goes far
beyond it to heal all fractures, not just those causing war and violence.
Analysis - Macquarrie's discussion of fractures is important for two reasons.
First, wholeness[1] is a fundamental aspect of the Christian concept of peace
and healing fractures promotes wholeness. Secondly, because fractures can
be within the individual, the pursuit of peace implies inward as well as
outward effort. Thus peace is both an internal and an external phenomena.
But more importantly Macquarrie illustrates the importance of world view in
determining concepts of peace. A world view that does not have a basic
orientation of fear leads to a concept of peace that is integrative. Integrative
in the sense that creation of peaceful relations and creation of peaceful
social structures are incorporated. Also integrative in the sense that the
Hobbesian concept of peace is incorporated.
GRAY COX - Cox (1986) contrasts peace as static absence (an end-state), to
peace as harmony in order to show the limitations of each and thereby the
need for his definition, peace as action (a process). Peace as an end-state, he

argues, is based on eristic[2] reasoning characterized by disputations.

Rational argument, he points out, often incorporates meta__________________________
[1] In this sense wholeness refers to leaving nothing out, inclusivity, the total
picture, as well as integration.
[2] From the Greek eris meaning "strife".
(page 6)
phores of war. Knowledge is viewed as external and absolute. Individual
claims must be either true or false based on how well they correspond with
fixed reality. Logic is a tool to dissect argument, assess the truth of individual
claims, and determine that fixed reality which exists outside of the
interaction. Emotions get in the way of reason and effective argument. The
approach is an instrumental one in Weber's (1968) concept of means-ends
rationality. A rational act is one that uses the most efficient means to achieve
a given end.
This leads, according to Cox, to a "culture of conflict" where truth can only be
determined through argument and life requires a true understanding of
reality to survive. Conflict is seen as essential to life and has been
institutionalized to the extent that we find it hard to conceive of human
activity in ways which do not make conflict an essential part of it (p.61). This
culture of conflict conceptualizes peace as a "static absence". Peace is seen
as the absence of war, violence, or conflict. Curiously, there is a
contradiction; if conflict is essential to life, and if peace is the absence of
conflict, then peace means death, according to Cox.
The peace as action concept is based on maieutic[1] reasoning. Here
knowledge is seen as something constructed through the sharing of

meanings. Emotions do not get in the way, rather they are additional sources
of information to be shared in the development of truth. Truth and meaning
are emergent and to some extent situational. Truth is not external to the
interaction but emerges through it. Individual claims can be both true and
false depending on the situation to which they are applied. Or they can be
partly true and partly false depending on the specific aspects of the shared
meanings. In other words truth is not absolute. Discussion, as opposed to
disputation, often employs analogies to growth rather than metaphores of
war.
Maieutic reasoning leads to a view of life that does not see conflict as
essential. Life is seen as an occurrence of being not a state of conflict. Peace
is viewed as a different phenomena from war.[2] Peace is the action or
process of realizing the meaning of being.
Analysis - I find Cox's assertion that we live in a culture of conflict to be
similar to Virilio and Lotringer's (1983) concept of pure war in that nearly
everything in our culture
__________________________
[1] From the Greek maieusis meaning "midwifery".
[2] Geoffrey Darnton (1973) comes to the same conclusion, that peace and
war are different phenomena, by arguing that they are based on different
social systems.
(page 7)
maintains the existence and necessity of conflict.[1] "We live in a culture in
which predominant conceptions of reason, feeling, meaning, value, truth,
and the self characterize activity in terms of conflict, and this view is

buttressed by conceptions of knowledge and action which are entrenched in

the dominant institutions of our society" (Cox, 1986, p.61).
Also, Cox attempts to show the underlying assumptions that determine his
two approaches to peace. These assumptions can be referred to as world
views. So Cox argues, as does Macquarrie, that world views determine peace
concepts. Cox also relates world view to the process/end-state differences
among peace concepts. I think however that Cox's world views are more
similar to Gergen's (1982) exogenic and endogenic world views. Those who
favor an exogenic world view see knowledge as objectively grounded, which
enables common agreement based on objectively correct and incorrect
answers. Reality is seen as independent of the observer, and fact should be
separated from value. Endogenic thinkers, on the other hand, see knowledge
as primarily a product of the processing agent and therefore objectivity is
questionable. Because multiple interpretations are possible, total agreement
is suspicious. Reality is a construction of the observer and fact and value are
inseparable (p.176-7).
PARADIGMS - All of the above conceptual schemes imply two basic ways of
conceptualizing peace. Rapaport, Rummel and Johnson focus mostly on the
popular ways, yet suggesting that there may be others. Macquarrie and Cox
focus on the other ways of conceptualizing peace using the popular ways to
contrast and illustrate them. So what generalizations can be made about
these two paradigms of peace?
The Popular paradigm includes concepts of peace that are largely
materialistic, international, and external. Materialistic in the sense that peace
is associated with prosperity; war and violence reduce prosperity.
International in that the appropriate starting point for peace is at the level of
relations between nations. External in the sense that peace, if it is possible,
must exist outside the individual or the relationship (individual to
others/society); peace is more the product of social structures than of

interactional patterns or subjective states. The problem of obtaining peace is

seen as war or violence (physical and structural). In this paradigm peace
concepts come out of world views that have a basic orientation of fear, and
are exogenic. Human nature is seen as fundamentally conflictual, although
humans can choose to behave non-conflictually.
__________________________
[1] Within that "culture of conflict" conflict can be functional as Coser (1956)
points out.
(page 8)
And separation[1] is maintained. Defenses are necessary in a world that
appears to be rife with conflict. Separation is a means of defense.
The Numinar paradigm includes concepts of peace that are more idealistic,
inter- and intra-personal, and both internal and external. Idealistic in that
non-material goals and processes are valued in the achievement of peace;
peace is not necessarily related to prosperity. Additionally, peace is idealistic
in that like other aspects of social reality, it is constructed and maintained
through social processes (Berger and Luckmann, 1966) and can be revised
through those same processes. Inter- and intra-personal in that the best level
at which to begin peacemaking is seen as developing internal peace with
which one then interacts more peacefully with others. Internal in the sense
that peace must first exist within the individual in relationship to others;
peace is more the product of interactional patterns or subjective states than
of social structures. Yet external concepts of peace are not excluded. Social
structures must also be changed to institutionalize changes in interactional
patterns or subjective states. In this paradigm, peace concepts come out of
world views that have a basic orientation other than fear, and are endogenic.
Elements of fear may still be present in those world views but fear is not the

basic orientation. Consequently the world is not assumed to be a

threatening, competitive, hostile place, and human nature is not seen as
fundamentally conflictual. And peace- making is aimed at reducing
separation, the barriers and divisions needed to defend ones self against the
fundamental conflict of the popular world view. This paradigm integrates but
goes radically beyond the popular paradigm.[2]
__________________________
[1] See footnote 6.
[2] Some examples of peace concepts from each paradigm may help
illustrate the differences. From the Popular paradigm: peace is not war,
violence, conflict; peace is social justice; peace is conflict resolution. From
the Numinar paradigm: peace is community (Peck, 1988); peace is action
(Cox, 1986); peace is healing fractures (Macquarrie, 1973) and reducing
separation; peace is oneness with God, others, the Universe; peace is
harmony. A concept of peace that belongs in neither paradigm is peace is
death. If peace refers to relations between people, and if death is used in its
absolute sense (the end of both physical and spiritual existence) then death
cannot logically be peace.
A few comments about these examples are necessary. First, there is some
"gray area" between the paradigms. Some peace concepts are not clearly in
one paradigm or the other but combine aspects of each. I have included
"peace as conflict resolution" in the Popular paradigm but one could argue
that it is not clearly so. Conflict resolution can be viewed as beginning at the
interpersonal level rather than the international level. But I maintain that in
its usual usage it implies resolving conflict for mutual economic gain or to
minimize loss, and therefore is materialistic. This gray area is, I believe, the
result of the as yet incomplete differentiation of the Numinar from the
Popular. Second, Peck's concept of peace is that peace is approached as a

group becomes and operates as a community where community is

characterized by inclusivity, consensus, commitment, realism, being a safe
place, being a group of all leaders, etc. This concept, like other truly Numinar
ones, includes Popular concepts like not doing violence (either physical,
structural or psychological) yet goes radically beyond them by integrating
them (at a minimum). And third, some Numinar concepts of peace such as
"peace is oneness" and "peace is harmony" are too vague to serve as a
meaningful basis for peacemaking but clearly belong in this paradigm
according to the criteria I have given.
(page 9)
The above discussion raises some questions. Cox (1986) and others point out
that concepts of peace, such as not war or not violence, are useful in several
ways. First there is general consensus that peace is at least not war
(Boulding, 1978). And second, such concepts are empirically useful so long
as one can operationally define "war", "violence" or "conflict". But is there an
equally useful concept of peace in the Numinar paradigm that will not fail to
guide successful peacemaking, and that does not logically imply peace =
death? Additionally, what is the relationship between world views and the
paradigms? What is the relationship between the paradigms themselves?
What is the sociological basis for the Numinar paradigm? And finally, what
larger theoretical structure embodies these peace concepts? I will attempt to
answer these questions in reverse order.
TRANSPERSONAL SOCIOLOGY
This theory[1] comes primarily from the work of Ken Wilber (1985, 1986, and
especially 1983). Wilber's work was initially in other areas, so his ideas are
still sociologically sketchy. His major sociological presentation (1983) does
attempt to integrate his previous work.[2] In My summary of Wilber I will
focus on his major concepts.

While Marx and Engles (1848) view all history as the history of class conflict
Wilber sees history as the record of the development or evolution of human
consciousness. It is the emergence or expansion of human consciousness
that is the basic process of human social development in Wilber's view.
Wilber describes several stages that we have already gone through up to the
present "rational-egoic" stage and he predicts several stages to come.
__________________________
[1] I am using the word "theory " in the more general sense of a plausible set
of principles used to explain something. I am not suggesting that Wilber's
work is a true theory in the scientific sense. It cannot yet be expressed as a
series of propositions and corollaries from which testable hypotheses can be
derived.
[2] For a critique of Wilber's theory see Washburn (1988).
(page 10)
At the collective level, each stage represents the level of consciousness at
which most people are at. This average level of consciousness reproduces
itself through exchange of the elements of that level analogous to the way
the body reproduces itself through sex. The average level of consciousness
and the elements available to it constitutes a basic mode of relational
exchange which is different for each stage. (Each stage is able to access
different elements that Wilber refers to as "mana" which will be described
below.) This average level of consciousness is maintained through social
processes and evolves dialectically through social reconstruction.[1] In our
present rational-egoic stage, our structures of relational exchange, for
example, are the scientific method and bureaucratic organization both based
on means-ends rationality.

At the individual level, Wilber sees us as compounded basically of mind, body

and spirit. The compound individual emerges through a social dialectic in
which each aspect is reproduced, body through sex, mind through
communication and, spirit through communion. For reproduction there must
be relational exchange. Each aspect, therefore, is a process of relational
exchange.
Each stage differentiates from the ground unconsciousness[2] and is related
to the others heirarchically. Each stage can be described as encompassing
greater "areas" of awareness, eventually including the ground
unconsciousness thus completing the circle. In this hierarchical theory each
higher level emerges from the lower but is not "caused" by it. Before it
emerges, the higher is initially fused and confused with the lower. As it
emerges, the higher first differentiates from then integrates the lower. The
higher can, according to Wilber, repress the lower as mind can repress the
body's drive to reproduce, but not vice versa. However, distortions in the
lower can distort the higher. According to this theory, Marx showed how
material distortions can distort all other stages, and Freud demonstrated how
emotional distortions can distort all higher levels. What we need, Wilber
says, is a sociological theory that examines; a) distortions in exchange within
levels (horizontal exchange) and b) distortions between levels (vertical
exchange). Wilber employs Habermas (1971) to begin to do this (as I will
discuss in the next subsection entitled "Habermas' theory").
Major Concepts - Wilber distinguishes between deep structures and surface
structures. Deep structures are the stages of consciousness referred to
above. They are ahistorical. To use the game checkers as an analogy, deep
structures are the rules of the game. It doesn't matter what moves you make
or what you use for pieces, if you follow the rules then you are playing
checkers and not chess. Surface structures are the variable components of
those stages or deep structures. They are historically conditioned. In the

game of checkers, they are the pieces and the sequence of moves in a
particular game that can vary. You can use rocks or coins for pieces, and the
sequence of moves will probably vary from game to game, but such
modifications do not involve you in playing a different kind of game.(pp. 4546)
__________________________
[1] Therefore, I argue that this theory is not psychologically reductionistic.
[2] The ground unconscious may be defined as the undifferentiated and
potential state of consciousness contained in
humanity (Wilber, 1986, pp 31).
(page 11)
Translation refers to the relation between the surface structures of a given
level. Transcription refers to the relation between deep structures and
surface structures within a given stage. I think world view is a transcriptive
mechanism. Transformation refers to changing from one deep structure to
another (from one level of consciousness to another). This change may be
evolutionary, inexorable but slow, or revolutionary, fast but requires
intentionality. If the stages are pictured as the various floors of a build ing,
then translation is moving furniture around on one floor; transcription is the
relation of the furniture to the floor; transformation is moving to a different
floor (Wil ber, 1983, p.45). The specific aspects of each deep struc ture, or
the givens of each floor in our analogy, such as load bearing walls, plumbing,
windows, and heating systems, limits not only the relationship of the
furniture to the floor but also what furniture (surface structures) can be put
on the floor.

The propelling force behind translation, transcription and transformation is

the effort to obtain "mana" and to avoid "taboo". Mana is that which is
exchanged at a given level. It is the food or truth of a level. It is analogous to
the relationship between; a) meat and vegetables to the physical body, b)
feeling, warmth and companionship to the emotional body, c) symbolic
exchange and communication to the mind, and d) illumination and insight to
the spirit. Since it is the medium of exchange, Wilber sees it as constituting a
social glue that can be integrative or disintegrative. Each stage requires a
type of mana specific to that stage, so higher stages have access to higher
mana. Vertical growth is a process of a) finding the present stage's mana
inade quate and b) learning to access and utilize the higher stage's mana.
Taboo, on the other hand, is the death anxiety of the sepa rate self
contemplating the end of its existence existen tial terror.[1] It is something to
be avoided. The self, in cooperation with other selves, creates immortality
sym bols to repress taboo. Culture is an example of an immor tality symbol
(or perhaps many of them) constructed and reproduced to preserve an
illusion of immortality and there by avoid existential terror. To reduce this to
a psycholog ical explanation is inaccurate. The self operates in rela tional
exchange with other selves to avoid taboo.
Translation, transcription and transformation have several functions.
Translation functions in horizontal growth to integrate and stabilize a level. It
integrates by assimi lating level specific mana, food, or truth. It stabilizes by
avoiding taboo. Growth is also a process of the eventual inadequacy of
translation to provide sufficient and appro priate mana to avoid taboo at a
given level, thus causing the self to look elsewhere. Transcription's function
is essentially like RNA which "reads" the cell's DNA (deep structure) and
synthesizes protein (surface structure) accordingly. Transformation's function
is to provide verti cal growth by gaining access to higher mana. Vertical
growth requires the self to cease exclusive identification with the present

level. What makes transformation "kick in" is vertical emancipatory interest

which I will describe below.
HABERMAS' THEORY To explain how transformation works, Wilber (1983)
uses Habermas' (1971) three modes of knowl edge/inquiry. The empirical
analytic mode deals with objec tive processes. The historical hermeneutic
mode deals with interpretive understanding of symbolic configurations. And
the critical reflexive mode apprehends cognitive operations and subjects
them to a measure of insight (Wilber, 1983, pp 111). Because knowledge is
always moving (e.g. expanding through learning and contracting through
forgetting) each mode is linked to a type of interest or why you want to know
something. The empirical analytic employs technical cogni tive interest to
predict and control. The historical herme neutic employs practical cognitive
interest for understand ing and sharing the mutualities of life, morality,
purpose, goals, values, etc. The critical reflexive employs emanci
__________________________
[1] In discussing the need for symbolic universes, Berger and Luckmann
state, "On the level of meaning, the institutional order represents a shield
against terror. ...the symbolic universe shelters the individual from ultimate
terror by bestowing ultimate legitimation upon the protection structures of
institutional order. ...The primacy of the social objectivations of everyday life
can retain its subjective plausibility only if it is constantly protected against
terror" (1966, pp.101 2). This terror is the deep fear of absolute aloneness or
annihilation of the self through the loss of the social structures that protect
against absolute death. It is communicated and perhaps to some degree
constructed socially. It is similar to Durkheim's anomie (1951; Parsons, 1949).
Indeed Berger and Luckmann call it anomic terror.
(page 12)

patory interest to release distortions and constraints of labor, language, etc.

that result from non transparency.
However, Habermas is looking only at horizontal emancipa tion, according to
Wilber. To explain vertical emancipa tion, Wilber examines the modes of
cognition of the complex self. Recall that the complex self consists basically
of body, mind, and spirit. The body possesses a pre symbolic, sensory
knowledge, perhaps instinct; the mind, symbolic knowledge; and the spirit
deals with trans symbolic knowl edge or gnosis[1]. The mind can form
symbols of all three (Wilber, 1983, p.112). Figure 1 is Wilber's illustration of
these modes of cognition. Note that emancipatory interests are not shown.
Wilber sees these as arising from tension. Either tension within levels
creating horizontal emancipatory interest. Or tension between levels creating
vertical emancipatory inter est. In other words, as the level specific mana
becomes inadequate and taboo harder to avoid, tension is created between
the present level and the next higher level, which generates vertical
emancipatory interest, which "kicks in" transformation.
__________________________
[1] In this usage gnosis means unmediated understanding or understanding
beyond the meanings of the symbols involved.
(page 13_
Figure 1 : General Modes of Cognition of Compound Individual. (From Wilber,
1983, p.113).
spirit > spirit
mind > mind
body > body

PEACE PARADIGMS AND TRANSPERSONAL SOCIOLOGY

I will attempt to illustrate the above presentation of transpersonal sociology
by applying it to the peace para digms. In my opinion peace concepts are
surface structures transcribed by world views from deep structures. These
deep structures provide the limits for world views and surface structures. The
rational egoic self generates a world view partly on its own and partly from
interaction with others. This world view thereby is shaped to some degree by
sociali zation and other interactive forms but its basic features are given by
the rational egoic stage. The rational egoic stage is the stage of maximum
separation from the ground unconscious (Wilber, 1985, 1986). It creates a
world view that perceives the world as full of separation and there fore,
conflict.[1] Thus the world appears fearsome, compet itive and dangerous.
Interaction with other rational egoic selves reinforces this view. The "truth" of
this level is that separation, conflict and competition exist. It is a self fulfilling
prophecy of a Darwinian and Hobbesian world. Peace then is viewed as a
state in which conflict is somehow abated if only temporarily. Yet conflict,
violence and war are perceived as inevitable, indeed necessary to life. The
only permanent peace is death. Therefore, life and peace are incompatible,
peace is impossible and peacemaking is illogical (Cox, 1986). In today's
terms that means that the only way we will have peace is through nuclear
annihilation probably through an inevitable war.[2] As we consider this, we
are faced with the termination of all our immortality symbols and thereby the
death of our separate self. We will be unable to live on through our children,
our buildings and our publications. In short we are unable to avoid taboo or
existential terror. There are two ways out. One is to repress this terror and
turn back to our immortality sym
__________________________

[1] We perceive what we create as objectively real by reifying it or forgetting

that it is a construction (Berger and Luckmann, 1966) and therefore can be
reconstructed.
[2] Kenneth Boulding (1983) also sees war as inevitable, within the current
superpower relations, and uses the analogy of a 100 year flood to illustrate
his claim.
(page 14)
bols.[1] In the short run it may "work". The other way is to grow to the next
level, vision logic. And this is, I believe, what Einstein (1980) tried to tell us;
we must change our mode of thinking to avoid the unparalleled catas trophe
of total annihilation.
In my opinion, the existence of nuclear weapons, and the threat of
annihilation they pose, is causing the realization that the rational egoic mana
is no longer adequate to avoid taboo. This I feel is why Numinar peace
concepts are becom ing differentiated and more useful. People are seeking
higher mana, creating inter level tension and generating transformative
processes[2]. Vision logic world views are beginning to replace rational egoic
fearful ones. These new world views in turn transcribe new surface structures
such as peace concepts. This creates intra level tension with old surface
structures and other new ones so that transla tion operates to integrate the
old. Thus the Numinar para digm includes the Popular but goes radically
beyond it; it has to in order to assimilate the new higher mana or truth. This
new truth is in part, I believe, the realization that what we perceive as reality
is constructed and can be recon structed. In other words, the conflictual,
competitive world where separation is maintained does not have to be so; we
can stop reifying it. Ironically, as the average level of consciousness moves
up to the vision logic stage reality is reconstructed, the culture of conflict

(Cox, 1986) will evolve to a more integrative one based on different modes of
relational exchange.
PEACE AS REDUCING SEPARATION Among the emerging Numinar peace
concepts are "peace as community" (Peck, 1987), "peace as action" (Cox,
1986) and peace as reducing separation. Of these, I feel peace as reducing
separation may be the most useful. Partly because it incorporates
"community" and "action"; community is by definition less separated than
non community and reducing implies action. But this peace concept is useful
for other reasons as well.
First, peace as reducing separation may resolve the cross cultural semantic
problems that Ishida (1969) points out. Ishida describes the Ancient Judaism
concept of shalom as emphasizing the will of God, justice and prosperity; the
Greek concept of eirene as emphasizing prosperity and order; the Roman
concept of pax and the Chinese and Japanese con
__________________________
[1] Lifton's (1967) psychic numbing is an example of this.
[2] These transformative processes are the subject of Ferguson's The
Aquarian Conspiracy (1980). Building on Thomas Kuhn's (1970) work,
Ferguson describes wide scale paradigm shifts in most sectors of our society,
based on her own field research. These paradigm shifts occur through
transformative processes. And it is these transformative processes that
Wilber is describing.
(page 15)
cept of ho ping and heiwa respectively, order and mental tranquility; and the
Indian concept of shanti as emphasizing tranquility of mind. Essentially these

are different ways of achieving peace. Reducing separation may be a

common intention among them. Clearly more research is needed here.
Secondly, peace as reducing separation includes what is left out of popular
peace concepts (Galtung, 1981). Popular concepts that focus on the macro
international level ignore the micro inter and intra personal levels. While
there is general agreement that peace is at least not vio lence, war, etc.
there is also a feeling that this leaves too much unsaid.[1] Peace as reducing
separation applies easily to all levels of analysis as Macquarrie (1973) point
ed out. And it says more about every day life than peace is not war or
violence does.
__________________________
[1] At this time I can only base this statement on discussions with my
students. However, I am currently analyzing the results of a survey study to,
in part, verify this.
(page 16)
Finally, I argue that peace as reducing separation may have empirical utility
similar to that of peace is not war, violence or conflict. Once a theoretical
structure of separation is
developed, it should be possible to operationalize the concept.[1]
CONCLUSION
Our popular concepts of peace have failed as our peacemaking efforts, based
upon them, have failed to assure peace and thus assure the avoidance of
nuclear catastrophe. We need to understand how to promote movement to
the next develop mental step identified by Wilber. One way is to explore
other concepts of peace such as peace is reducing separa tion, to see what

we can learn from them. To do so we will need to develop a theory of

separation beginning perhaps with Wilber's work. Another is to confront the
inadequacy and illogic of our old ways of thinking about peace. There is
clearly something wrong with concepts of peace that logically include "peace
is death". Additionally, we need to better understand world view, how it is
formed and how it operates in constructing our peace concepts. I have sug
gested some ways in which world view is formed and works, but this needs
much deeper analysis than I have given. Finally, I see this movement to the
next developmental step as happening now, but at an evolutionary rate.
Perhaps we have enough time for this evolution, but if Kenneth Boulding is
right (1983), we do not. If not, then we must intention ally promote this
development by employing our reality construction and maintenance
theories. As social scientists and peace researchers we carry much of this
burden.
__________________________
[1] In my mediations, I see reducing separation as a) making it possible for
people to reach agreement where it was not possible before, b) resolving the
conflict, and c) enabling the people to communicate on a friendly basis
where often they begin mediation as mutual antagonists (this is not always
completely successful but usually partially so). I do not mean to suggest that
reducing separation is the same as conflict resolution. It includes conflict
resolution but is more than that. Reducing separation implies a degree of
healing relationships, of bringing people closer together emotionally as well
as cognitively. Conflict resolution does not.
(page 17)

Conclusion
The United Nations, its Charter, its vision, its multilateral ethos and
democratic ideals are not a passing illusion. They need to be defended,
nurtured and enhanced. The UN's work over the past six decades needs to
be respected and built on. Institutional reform and renewal must be inspired
by this policy orientation. The UN and its future cannot be and should not be
surrendered, nor should the organization be allowed to become an
instrument of unilateralism and power.
The UN should be maintained and reclaimed as a genuinely multilateral,
enabling organization to lead the international community and all of its
peoples into a period of peace, cooperation and solidarity with one another
and with the coming generations, based on a redefined democratic
architecture, structures and processes of global governance. It should
transcend the role of being considered as just a place where governments
meet to argue, negotiate, adjust and promote their national interests, a
process where the rich and powerful unavoidably have the upper hand. It
should also evolve into an institution that brings peoples and cultures
together in their diversity, and bridges differences that divide them by
pursuing common goals and objectives and overcoming the multiple
fractures that fragment the international community.
In failing to adequately deal with these critical issues, the SecretaryGeneral's Report "In Larger Freedom" has taken a partial and at times
partisan view of the matter. For a major reform of the UN to gain credibility
and legitimacy the process has to become open, fair, democratic and
participatory. This is a challenge for the countries of the South to take up,
now that the issues have been put on the table, initial debate has taken

place, and the process initiated. In fact, the biases and unilateralism, and
even manipulation, that have characterized the current reform drive and
process, have played a positive role by building awareness and bringing into
the open some of the underlying issues, and by giving rise to opposition and
reaction on the part of the developing countries, who today have an
opportunity to assume the initiative. It is to be hoped that as a result, at the
end of the process the UN will come out a strengthened organization.

In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Freedom and Human Rights for All
September 2005
Share
0
0
U.N. Report of the Secretary General
Five years into the new millennium, we have it in our power to pass on to our
children a brighter inheritance than that bequeathed to any previous
generation. We
can halve global poverty and halt the spread of major known diseases in the
next ten
years. We can reduce the prevalence of violent conflict and terrorism. We can
increase respect for human dignity in every land. And we can forge a set of
updated
international institutions to help humanity achieve these noble goals. If we
act
boldly -- and if we act together -- we can make people everywhere more

secure,
more prosperous and better able to enjoy their fundamental human rights.
All the conditions are in place for us to do so. In an era of global
interdependence,
the glue of common interest, if properly perceived, should bind all States
together in this
cause, as should the impulses of our common humanity. In an era of global
abundance,
our world has the resources to reduce dramatically the massive divides that
persist
between rich and poor, if only those resources can be unleashed in the
service of all
peoples. After a period of difficulty in international affairs, in the face of both
new
threats and old ones in new guises, there is a yearning in many quarters for
a new
consensus on which to base collective action. And a desire exists to make the
most farreaching
reforms in the history of the United Nations so as to equip and resource it to
help advance this twenty-first century agenda.
Full Text of Document
My peace within
My concept of world peace

My belief of larger freedom