Pieces for Peace

Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai volcano has erupted unleashing a force rarely felt. “The tremendous energy of this latest explosion, which NASA estimated to be equivalent to five to six million tons of TNT, is unlike any seen in recent decades. The eruption sent a tsunami racing across the Pacific Ocean. It unleashed a sonic boom that zipped around the world twice. It sent a plume of ash and gas shooting into the stratosphere some 19 miles high, with some parts reaching as far as 34 miles up. And perhaps most remarkable, all these effects came from only an hour or so of volcanic fury.”(National Geographic)

 Perhaps in some unknown way, this rare event is responsible for a similar force that erupted and surfaced this morning, at least briefly, in my own consciousness. Like the usually quiet volcano, this eruption has been percolating beneath the surface, perhaps over a lifetime. I can’t be sure, but this is an attempt to understand how it has reached the point where its eruption is now becoming detectable, and what might flow from it.

I will try to trace the steps that are immediately visible before the memories evaporate. Last week I picked up a book I had put aside because some other more engaging titles found their way into my reading stack. That book was Global Governance Futures published in 2021 by Routledge. The book was edited by Thomas Weiss and  Rorden Wilkinson. I had read the twenty page introduction by the editors which was interesting, but I also noted that it was written primarily for an academic audience, which tends to make reading a bit more of a slog, even if the subject matter is compelling. I have read other works by Thomas Weiss before and I believe I picked this up when looking to see if he had written anything recently. He is a leading scholar/writer on “global governance” which I have been particularly drawn to as a result of my invitation a few years ago to join the board of the Greater Lansing United Nations Association. That affiliation has led me deeper into the world of the UN Sustainable Development Goals which tie together for me so many of the strands of thought I have wrestled with for decades.

When I picked up Global Governance Futures again a few days ago and read the second chapter, “Global Governance and the Anthropocene: Explaining the Escalating Global Crisis” by Peter Dauvergne, an author I was also familiar with, he referenced another book in his short chapter (actually more than 50 titles) -- Peter Newell’s Global Green Politics (Cambridge University Press 2020). It was that book among a handful of others emanating from a combination of Dauvergne’s references and my own bibliofetishism, that I retrieved from the library the following day. Of the seven supportive quoted blurbs by others on the back of the book’s cover, I have read six of those authors. So I started in on the Newell book yesterday, though a little stiffer than I prefer. He’s blending a lot of forces into this tome that resonate with my evolving understanding of the world. So while I’ve only finished his twenty page chapter one and crept into the first few pages of chapter two, it was here that resonance felt strong enough to know there might be a possibility of something emerging from it that I should try and record, before it vanishes into the black hole that is my memory.

I think the spark that was ignited this morning was a reconnection with my enthrallment some 25 years ago or so with the Green Movement’s 10 Key Values. My intrigue with the 10 Key Values led me to a week-long research sabbatical to the National Green Clearinghouse for the US Green Party in Kansas City. I was able to dig through their files to better understand how various local and state green parties made decisions. “Grassroots Democracy” is the first of the Ten Key Values! This commitment to a deeper and conscious approach to democracy has stayed with me and frequently inserted itself in almost all other intellectual and activist detours since.

 

Of course, as many of you know, I then came to believe that the Ten Key Values might offer a better guide to a good life than the Ten Commandments. I became very active in trying to get the Green Party in Michigan on the ballot collecting over 600 signatures one summer. Shortly thereafter I decided to run for local township office as a Green Party candidate and got walloped. Fast forward a bit and I ran for a county commissioner seat as a Democrat and won, in a county that had not seen an elected Democrat in my time there (if ever). Years later I tried the Green Party option when running statewide for university Trustee for Michigan State University Board, but again was swamped by major party candidates. Minor party candidates will not succeed in this country, except in the occasional local race, until the playing field of elections is changed.

If one has ever attended a Green Party meeting, there is a lot of attention to process. Sometimes that commitment to process becomes maddening, especially in a culture that wants to move fast. But even within that worthy effort, there are those who are more skilled at moving the process forward towards strong consensus, respecting all the voices and creating conditions that enable those voices a hearing. But it is a slow culture change.

Decades since my original crush on the Green Movement, I still believe the Ten Key Values point our way out of the messes we are in as a human family on a finite, living planet. But I’ve learned a few things along the way (and I’m still hoping to learn a few more before the last breath exhales this vessel).  The remainder of this post will be an attempt to capture that learning and to share it, just in case it helps any who may stumble on it, in hopes it makes a life and the future a bit better. As one of my mentors refers, this is a journey to “Betterment”.

In 2000, the Earth Charter was approved and signed at UNESCO. It serves as a call to humanity embedded around 16 principles and as such is a pre-cursor to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (2015). I saw it as an affirmation of the Greens’ Ten Key Values. It’s preamble from two decades ago is arguably even more relevant today:

We stand at a critical moment in Earth's history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

The four pillars and 16 principles of the Earth Charter align closely with both the Ten Key Values and the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals:

I. Respect and Care for the Community of Life

1. Respect Earth and life in all its diversity.
2. Care for the community of life with understanding, compassion and love.
3. Build democratic societies that are just, participatory, sustainable and peaceful.
4. Secure Earth's bounty and beauty for present and future generations.

II. Ecological Integrity

5. Protect and restore the integrity of Earth's ecological systems, with special concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life.
6. Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach.
7. Adopt patterns of production, consumption and reproduction that safeguard Earth's regenerative capacities, human rights and community well-being.
8. Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and wide application of the knowledge acquired.

III. Social and Economic Justice

9. Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social and environmental imperative.
10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.
11. Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care and economic opportunity.
12. Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities.

IV. Democracy, Nonviolence, and Peace

13. Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision-making, and access to justice.
14. Integrate into formal education and lifelong learning the knowledge, values and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.
15. Treat all living beings with respect and consideration.
16. Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence and peace.

My attraction to the Earth Charter led to an invitation to join a global Earth Charter summit in Urbino Italy in 2002. Originally, we were scheduled for a week in Italy and another in Russia, but as I recall, the Russian leg was removed for some geopolitical reasons at the last moment. The meeting in Urbino connected me with a small set of committed individuals from around the world to discuss how to take the Earth Charter and make it local. It was full of vibrant and deep conversations about possibilities and barriers. Experiencing the deep commitment from people from around the planet to the possibilities of the Earth Charter to propel us forward was inspiring.

But, despite the best intentions of the Urbino attendees and many others, the Earth Charter has never really escaped the shadows into the bright sunshine of everyday global discussion. But its offspring, the UN Sustainable Development Goals have!! Especially noteworthy is the fact that they were approved by every member state of the United Nations in 2015, all 193 members!!!

 In naming the values (Greens), principles (Earth Charter), and goals (SDGs) there is significant overlap and shared emphasis. Wisely, the natural world and health of the biosphere are central in each. More obliquely addressed are two areas I feel that need more emphasis and attention along with the biosphere health. The language used to address those areas is more diffused.

First area of concern is ‘decision making’. How and who gets to make decisions? The Greens call for “Grassroots Democracy”, as a clearcut focus and list it first, although no hierarchy in values is intended in their listing. The Earth Charter is perhaps the most descriptive of what that means when they state the principle - “Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision-making, and access to justice.” The SDGs address this more obliquely in goal #16 Peace and Justice and Strong Institutions and in #17 Partnerships for the Goals. To be fair, it should be noted that the more specific 169 SDG targets across the 17 goals do have decision making elements infused like that of Target 16.7 --“Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.”. But it is so easy to forget process when impassioned about an issue, unless process is an issue.

Second, and equally important in my mind, is the direct naming and addressing of “militarism”. While both the Green values and Earth Charter principles highlight “Nonviolence” as a specific focus and the SDG goal #16 claims “Peace” as a goal, addressing militarism directly is not visible. And yet, as ethics professor Ned Dobos notes in a recent book, “Ethics, Security and the War Machine”, the simple fact of preparing for war has questionable legitimacy, especially as practiced by the U.S. and other militarized states. Here’s a brief 5-minute summary his gives during a panel discussion with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace last month. The book itself gives one much more to ponder, raising all sorts of questions we likely never stop to consider, but should. The sheer misdirection of resources to war and militarism robs the society of needed capital (human, natural, and financial) to get us to ‘betterment’. For one brief introduction visit the Costs of War Project at Brown University.

However we choose to move forward as a human family into the hazy future, I firmly believe that keeping these two concerns in mind when forging solutions to our multiple challenges is crucial to those solutions being sustainable. There are plenty of examples of efforts from every corner of the world to attend to these. We need to make them part of the discussion around the other values, principles and goals as interdependent pieces necessary for truly sustainable outcomes.

Perhaps the most hopeful area where more important systemic change is at work is in the arena of economics. It’s clear to many, if not most, economists that the neoliberal model of unlimited growth on a finite planet has not only brought us to the crises we’re in, but that in many ways it destroys the social fabric needed to hold us together. One of the prescriptions that is getting global attention at many levels and connects to many, if not all, of the values, principles, and goals above comes from British economist Kate Raworth. Her important visualization of key components to building a sustainable future is the Doughnut – merging of the limits of a finite planet (environmental ceiling) with inclusive and sustainable economic development (social foundation) and the “safe and just space for humanity” in the balance. Thus the title of her acclaimed work and subsequent applications – “Doughnut Economics”.

 

Raworth isn’t alone in pushing us towards better possibilities for managing our relations towards each other and the planet we share. Austrian economist Christian Felber has laid out a similar platform in his Economy for the Common Good. Or there is the renewed interest in the Circular Economy, Steady State Economy and Solidarity Economy that surely offer amongst them and other :new: economic thinking, better possibilities for driving us toward betterment. The vast majority of citizens are totally unaware that there are other and better ways to manage our affairs. I would include in that the vast majority of our elected officials. If one can’t imagine a different, better world, how would you possibly be inspired to build it. That’s our job. It’s more than any one of us can do and yet it is a job for everyone of us. We need all of us to open up new possibilities that we may “live as siblings with beast and flower” and one another as offered by the poet Denise Levertov.

Beginners

(Dedicated to the memory of Karen Silkwood and Eliot Gralla)

From too much love of living,
Hope and desire set free,
Even the weariest river
Winds somewhere to the sea -

But we have only begun
To love the earth.

We have only begun
To imagine the fullness of life.

How could we tire of hope?
- so much is in bud.

How can desire fail?
- we have only begun

to imagine justice and mercy,
only begun to envision

how it might be
to live as siblings with beast and flower,
not as oppressors.

Surely our river
cannot already be hastening
into the sea of nonbeing?

Surely it cannot
drag, in the silt,
all that is innocent?

Not yet, not yet-
there is too much broken
that must be mended,

too much hurt we have done to each other
that cannot yet be forgiven.

We have only begun to know
the power that is in us if we would join
our solitudes in the communion of struggle.

So much is unfolding that must
complete its gesture,

so much is in bud.

 

Lost in the Turbulence

 

I want to address a cultural flaw that, in my opinion, underlies our human predicament.

We consume too much. The planet cannot provide everyone on this spinning sphere with the oversized appetites for things that we Americans and many other citizens of the developed world feed. We keep buying more: bigger homes, bigger vehicles, more recreational toys. People, even some environmentalists, believe we just need to replace fossil fuel energy with renewable sources, be it solar or wind. In this view, as long as the power is fossil-free we can continue to consume as we did before without guilt or serious impacts. But remember, those energy forms, too, require resources mined and manufactured, sometimes creating their own hazards in someone else’s backyard, far from our field of vision. This does not even factor in what it is like to do the necessary work along the supply chain to create, assemble or install that which we consume.

As consumers we have responsibilities that we too easily shrug off. That is not to say that the producers do not also have responsibilities for that which they produce. They should in fact take more responsibility, which I will get to shortly. As a longtime volunteer in community recycling programs, we are always gratified that people take the little bit of effort to recycle some of their discards rather than bury them in a landfill. That is a key decision point. Single-stream recycling makes this easy on the resident, as opposed to separating the glass from the metal and plastic and paper. But not sorting it also pushes that work on to someone else. And if you have ever visited a materials recovery facility (MRF), you might be repulsed at the prospect of working there 40 hours a week, at low wages and limited, if any benefits. It is bad enough as only a monthly volunteer at a source-separated site, given many residents’ reluctance to simply rinse an item before throwing it in the mix. Yuck!! ,

As consumers, not only do we need to consume less, but we need to push back on producers to reduce their impacts, both in the production of the product itself and the packaging that we are left to find a home for. Consumer goods should be designed and made to be either repairable for reuse or at least disassembled so that the materials can be easily added to the production supply chain. Better yet, make the producer take the product back at the end of its life and support the reclamation of the packaging they use. That will require that we salvage all that we can and get it into the hands of the nearest responsible manufacturer. Doing so will greatly reduce the amount of energy consumed, whether fossil or renewable based, as well as the demand for mining new materials and the production of additional potentially hazardous waste.

My colleague, Dr. Rex LaMore, proposed some years back, that builders and developers should be required to put money in an escrow account to cover future deconstruction of any building they construct when it reaches its useful end of life. Think of the total embodied energy and materials that went into building a Walmart, Kmart, or Sears store that finally closes shop. What does a community do with that building and the huge concrete or asphalt parking area?

To close this loop—“circular economy” is the new catchphrase--we need to use less. But when we buy we should buy more used and reconditioned products and those with recycled content. To keep the loop sustainable, items being recycled must be clean and sorted to minimize the contamination that hinders reutilization of salvaged materials. This is a responsibility for consumers, especially here in the developed world where we have the biggest ecological footprints. The outrageous and increasing income inequality on this finite and fragile planet demands our attention to this. July 29, 2021 is this year’s overshoot day – a day by which the human family has “exhausted nature’s budget for the year.”

Once upon a time there was a simple technology called a broom or a mop. It was a simple construction of renewable materials. We used these to clean our homes. The vacuum cleaner was invented for the new carpets with longer fibers for which a broom or mop was less effective. The vacuums needed electricity to work (while there were non-electric sweepers like those made by Bissel, once shag carpeting appeared even those were not effective). These vacuum machines are made up of all types of different materials– metal, various plastic resins, electronics, wire, etc.--and aren’t always easy to disassemble. They were probably produced half a world away before arriving at Target or Best Buy and making their way into our closets at home.

Vacuums are simple technologies; I’ve repaired a few myself (that’s how simple they are!). You can even buy new parts like the rubber belts that eventually wear out, if you keep the same machine for a decade or more. But how about that desktop printer? Sure, you have to buy ink cartridges. But once it starts acting up, you’re likely to buy a new one as almost no one repairs them, parts are not readily available, and new ones are relatively inexpensive, at least cheaper than many repairs. But even here we can lessen our footprint by refilling the ink jet cartridges rather than buying new ones.

But the larger systems push back against this. When something breaks our tendency is to just get a new one.  It is more “cost efficient” to just replace old with new. Sometimes the immediate cost is cheaper, but environmentally it’s not. It’s the same with accidents. When a car is “totaled” it simply means the financial cost to repair it is more than the resale value of the car. But the environmental cost of producing a new car, or a new roof, or a new anything is almost always higher, because the extra energy and mining and manufacturing of new materials, but it’s externalized. Even the insurance system reinforces this because they only look at out-of-pocket expenses, so why repair a few damaged parts when it costs as much to replace the whole dang thing? And we accept it, because we are hooked into thinking of “out-of-pocket” costs as the primary test. I suffer from it too, even as I decry its impact.

Another underlying force we should push back on is the distinction between “wants” and “needs.” The advertising industry works on sparking the “wants” and then pushing that to a “need” level. Perhaps if we asked ourselves a question like the following before we jump down the consumer rabbit hole we might pause: “If I don’t buy this item now, in ten years will I have felt my life was diminished?” If our lives are that connected with things as opposed to experiences and relationships, will we really find true fulfillment and meaning? If we look at our brethren in the developing world, what would we be willing to reduce so that they might have a little more security? Could we lower the thermostat one or two degrees in the winter and raise it one or two in the summer? Would we pay a little more to keep local responsible businesses thriving in our communities? Might we turn off lights when we aren’t using them? Will we pay a bit more to support responsible businesses, which endeavor to lighten their impacts and share with their workers and local communities?

As the world community comes together this November under the umbrella of the United Nations Climate Summit, we owe it to these neighbors who suffer as a result of our own energy and resource consumption to make some commitment to fairness and justice. Perhaps we can begin to look inside ourselves to see what we are called to do – to take care of each other and conserve what we have.

Will the Circle Be Unbroken?

A major reason we never experience a peace dividend when we wind down a war is the fact that those that can profit through fear, construct another enemy that will require more or more powerful  weapons, more soldiers at the ready, and certainly no additional investment in diplomacy. We’ve been replaying this scene since at least the end of WWII. I say at least WWII, because over the past few months I have found myself reading about the end of that war and the role that fear towards Russia and China was stoked by key figures in government, the military, and hawks of that time.

There were progressive voices, including from the military offering alternatives to these more confrontational approaches, like making huge investments in economic conversion from weapons to redevelopment in war torn arenas, and to peace time needs that could employ the returning GIs. But the industries that were strongest and relied heavily on the government to buy their products, were resistant. As later President Eisenhower would call the Military Industrial Complex:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. [President Dwight Eisenhower, April 16, 1953]

 Many of the leaders that made the birth of the United Nations possible struggled constantly to build a world of peace, openness, diplomacy, and economic prosperity. Factions that believed Russia was committed to conquering the world, or that the communists in China had all of Southeast Asia in their sights, foisted their fears on the general population fueled by right wing fear-mongering. Today is no different.

This became quite apparent especially with the decision to drop the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. It is clear from the records of those involved in that decision, that it was more to show Russia how tough we were, than to defeat the crumbling Japanese force. From there we see the rise of J. Edgar Hoover and his socio-pathic fear of everything; the rise of Joseph McCarthy; the failed domino theory of Vietnam, etc., etc., etc.

When Gorbachev changed the Soviet Union’s approach and Reagan engaged with him, they found both nations willing to limit nuclear weapons. When the Soviet Union broke apart as Gorbachev cut the chains, the peace dividend that should have followed evaporated as the new enemies du jour were transplanted to the Middle East and Central America, followed by the Axis of Evil, and now full circle to China and Russia again. If we keep following this circus train that shines its floodlights on ever new enemies, we will bleed the world of resources needed to meet the globally agreed upon Sustainable Development Goals and the encroaching global threats of pandemics, climate change and income inequality. We need to get off this escalator to nowhere and get serious about building enduring institutions, avenues of diplomacy and shared prosperity.

The fight is on once again to bump up an already over-bloated, un-auditable war budget. President Biden is asking for more money for the war machine, even as he ends the Afghanistan war. Deficit hawks rarely suggest a cut to the sacred war budget. Yes, you can cut food stamps, cut environmental protection, shrink diplomatic corps, or make tax evasion by the wealthy so much easier, but please don’t touch the war budget.

Just today it was reported that the ten largest defense industry contractors spent $25.7 million lobbying their case in just the first three months of this year!!!

 

Economic conversion as discussed at the end of WWII and then intermittently and briefly thereafter with a slight resurfacing at the end of the cold war, has never seriously been debated in the public sphere. Yet, studies like those at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Affairs “Cost of War” project show that the same amount of funds invested in education, health care or renewable energy, will produce substantially more jobs than the defense industry, not to mention all the social and environmental benefits that would follow. Recent polls show an overall willingness of voters to support a reduction in military spending (not at the expense of our soldiers).

[A new report released today from the Center for International Policy, notes not only the outrageous salaries of the defense industry CEOs, but the great disparity between soldiers we send into battle and the industry executives.]

Too many members of Congress, with rare exceptions, have been unwilling to challenge the military industrial juggernaut that always calls opponents “soft on defense” or “socialists” or some other pejorative name. The same playbook keeps working. It has gotten so bad that Congress has all but forfeited its Congressional power to declare war, allowing presidents of either party to initiate and/or continue armed incursions without approval.

Maybe there is kindling a possible formidable challenge to this unbroken circle. The following signs suggest a change in direction might finally be possible. In recent months we have seen the emergence of a Defense Spending Reduction Caucus in the House of Representatives with more than 50 members signing on to a letter to President Biden to reduce military spending.

Organizations as diverse in political orientation as the National Taxpayers Union, Cato Institute to Code Pink, Public Citizen, FCNL, and World Beyond War are calling for reductions. The Poor Peoples’ Campaign has made redirecting bloated military spending to human needs one of the five primary issues. A coalition of more than 20 national organizations has been formed to resist the lobbying of the wealthy defense industry under the name People Over Pentagon label. H.R. 256 that would repeal the 2002 AUMF that has been used to authorize so many military excursions now, has a remarkable 128 co-sponsors.

All that seems to be missing to move the needle are citizen voices ringing on the phones of Congress. Can you spare two minutes of your time to help break this circle of violence and redirect our resources towards real human security?

 

* Telephone:  202-224-3121