Peace and Security
We are the first generation making ethical decisions that will determine whether we will be the last generation. Science, technology and sophisticated social organizational skills have gifted us with unprecedented capacities for enrichment or destruction. I believe that there is an ethical responsibility to future generations to ensure we are not passing on a future of horrific wars or ecological catastrophe. As individuals and organizations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize, we, particularly, have a heightened responsibility to encourage and empower ethically informed policies.
Each of us knows that our individual life is precious and fragile. We are now reminded that our collective existence is fragile. This compels us to address, among other issues, ensuring bio-diversity and ending the destruction of thousands of species; reversing the depletion of fishing stocks; controlling ocean dumping; preventing ozone depletion; halting global warming; controlling and eliminating nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction; ending terrorism whether by States or non-State actors; fighting pandemic diseases; ending the tragedy of crushing poverty and lack of clean drinking water; and addressing crises arising from States in chaos. No nation or even a small group of nations can succeed in addressing these issues alone.
Some solutions must be universal. Chlorofluocarbon from a refrigerant in the US or China can harm the ozone in Chile, New Zealand or anywhere. If one country allows oceanic dumping, others will follow. Viruses do not recognize religions, races or borders. Our futures are interconnected in unprecedented ways.
Wise people have been instructing us for millennia to recognize our deeper human unity. But, now necessity alerts us; the galvanizing power of moral leadership cannot be ignored in deference to short-term parochial interests. Our collective challenges require principles that are uplifting, inspiring, affirmative of our highest potential, and universal. Hope must overcome fear.
Fear is the twin of ignorance, generating a false realism. Nicolo Machiavelli stated it in The Prince: "Where the safety of the country depends upon resolutions to be taken, no consideration of justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, nor of glory or shame, should be allowed to prevail." This policy of "emergency" can hardly make sense as a norm if we are to be ethical beings living in community. Such so-called "realists" invariably assert broadly that power in their own hands is necessary to ensure the security of their individual State.
Overlooking the intricate interconnectedness of living systems, they exalt social Darwinism. Strength is good, ultimate strength is better. In the quest for the ultimate weapon, an absurd result is obtained. The means to security and the pursuit of strength undermine the end of security. Such improved means to an unimproved end is most aptly articulated by nuclear weapons whereby the means of pursuing security undermines the end of security. This is not realistic. This is irresponsible.
They also rely on a rigid world-view in which the pursuit of the good and the pursuit of the real are divisible. They say that only what can be measured, predicted and controlled is relevant in policy discussion. What gives our lives meaning, what makes us human, what exalts our lives, is thus not considered. They leave little room in the making of policy for conscience, love, or other immeasurable, formless, human treasures. Not the least of these treasures that give our lives meaning is compassion, the twin of wisdom.
Compassion is essential to our ethical nature and has universally guided every successful culture. It is upon the foundation of ethical principles that policies must become based. Without compassion, law cannot attain justice, and without justice, there is never peace. When kindness and compassion guide our policies, our rules become golden.
Buddhism: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga, 5:18; "A state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta Nikaya v. 353.
Christianity: "All things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them. Matthew 7:12
Confucianism: "Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you." Analects 15:23; "Tsi-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' - reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3; "One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself." Mencius Vii.A.4.
Hinduism: "This is the sum of duty; do not unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." Mahabharata 5:1517.
Islam: "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." Hadith.
Jainaism: "A man should journey treating all creatures as he himself would be treated." Sutrakritanga 1.11.33; "Therefore, neither does he [a wise person] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2; "In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara.
Judaism: "...thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself." Leviticus 19:18; "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man. That is the law; all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
Native American: "Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace
Roman Pagan Religion: "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."
Shinto: "The heart of the person before you is a mirror."
Sikhism: "I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all." Guru Granth Sahib, p. 1299. "As thou hast deemed thyself, so deem others."
Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." Tai Shang Kan Ying Pien, 213-218.
Yoruba Wisdom (Nigeria): "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."
Zoroastrianism: "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatsoever is not good for its own self." Dadistan-I-Dinik, 94:5.
Philosopher's statements:
Plato: "May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." Greece, 4th Century BCE.
Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." Greece, 5th Century BCE.
Seneca: "Treat you inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors." Epistle 47:11 Rome, 1st Century BCE.
This principle of reciprocity is the ethical and moral foundation of all the world's major religions. Multilateralism is the logical political outgrowth of this principle. An international order based on cooperation, equity and the rule of law is its needed expression.
Where this rule of reciprocity is violated, instability follows. The failure of the nuclear weapons states to abide by their pledge, contained in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to negotiate the elimination of nuclear weapons is the single greatest stimulus to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. For some to say nuclear weapons are good for them but not for others is simply not sustainable.
The threat to use nuclear weapons on innocent people can never be ethically legitimate. Thus, there is a moral imperative for their abolition.
I would like to add two new rules:
First, the Rule of Nations: "Treat other nations as you wish your nation to be treated."
Second, the Rule of the Powerful: "As one does so shall others do."
We are faced with a moment of collective truth: the ethical, spiritually based insights of the wise coincide with material physical imperatives for survival. The value of the love of power must give way to the power of love. In today's world, leadership must be guided by the duty to love one's neighbor as oneself. This includes the duty to protect the weakest neighbor. And, today, the whole world is one neighborhood - a moral location, not just a physical one.
What was once an admonition as a personal necessity for inner growth has now become a principle that we must learn to utilize in forming public policies. The rule is offended by ethnic and religious exclusivity and prejudice, nationalistic expansionism, economic injustice and environmental irresponsibility.
How should we view the security of people? May I suggest that Timothy Wirth, when he was United States Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, was correct when he stated that a productive focus of multilateral security should begin with people:
Security is now understood in the context of human security. Human security is about the 1 billion individuals who live in abject poverty. It is about the 800 million people who go hungry every day - the 240 million malnourished. The 17 million who die each year from easily preventable diseases fall into this definition of security, as do the 1.3 billion people without access to clean water and the more than 2 billion people who do not benefit from safe sanitation.
Failure to change from the flawed paradigm in which security is pursued primarily through violence reinforces the brutality inflicted upon millions of daily lives destroyed by conventional weapons, including small arms and anti personnel land mines. And we cannot overlook the exorbitant economic waste and social costs of militarism - more than ten trillion dollars since the end of the Cold War.
If we do not quickly get over the ridiculous excessive attachment to that which divides us, we will fail to establish effective institutions and policies in our time and we will fail to treat future generations as we would be treated. Such failure cannot be accepted by any parent who has looked into the eyes of their children.
We have developed excessively sophisticated technologies for destruction. For our survival, we require appropriate social and human technologies for cooperation, for disarmament -- for our very humanity.
An Eskimo elder at the Millennium World Peace Summit at the United Nations said, "Our history goes back 40,000 years and only now are we finding lakes in the Arctic ice cap. you have technology that is melting the ice. When will we develop a technology to melt the human heart?"
Let our deliberations for peace and security also help develop that technology.