A New Era of the People: Forging a Global Network of Robust Individuals
The year 2005 was marked by a series of devastating natural disasters,continuing terror attacks and conflict, and the threat of virulent new diseases. These issues affect every one of us, with no respect for political or geographical borders; they are an integral aspect of globalization. But the most effective search for solutions to these global problems starts with a focus on our immediate, individual realities.
The process of modernization has changed the way the individual interacts with the social and natural environment, as ties of relation with family, neighborhood and other communities unravel. While in one sense a pursuit of ever-greater freedom for the individual, this can lead toward the kind of unbridled individualism where untrammeled desire takes control. Certainly this can be seen as a root cause of some of the horrendous crimes that Japanese society has witnessed over recent years.
To avoid a slide into unbridled individualism, what is needed is to develop a robust character that can confront the changes in our society without becoming ensnared in greed and selfishness. This kind of robust individual is rooted in society, in relationships with others and in shared and mutual concerns. Religion can provide the framework for developing robust individuals—indeed, this is the primary mission of religion, as it strengthens the inner life while bringing people together in dynamic social interaction.
Montaigne and Humanism
We can find many guidelines to the practice and norms of humanism in the writings of the sixteenth-century French writer Michel de Montaigne. In his Essays, he developed a universalist outlook by enquiring deeply into the nature of his own person. This enabled him to see past the violent divisions of his age—based on religious doctrine, social status, ethnicity—and instead uncover the characteristics that are common to all people, whatever their position in life.
His writings contain important parallels to the kind of Buddhist-based humanism that can be instrumental in the solution of the global problems we face.
First, he was a strong advocate of a gradualist approach, especially in his critique of revolutionary change. He understood how firmly people are embedded in the customs and traditions of everyday life, and how futile it is to try to enforce radical change without paying attention to this everyday reality. Second, he was a firm believer in the power of dialogue. Unfettered by the constraints of the rigid social order of his day, he would engage in and appreciate dialogue with people from all walks of life. Finally, he stressed the importance of the development of personal integrity or character. His relentless questioning of himself led him to see the fundamental elements of a universal human character.
All three of these themes are crucial to the development of a form of humanism that can help us find solutions to contemporary issues. It is by exploring these avenues that religion can most effectively serve the interests of humanity.
UN Reform
The United Nations must serve as the key venue and focus for our efforts to address global issues. To strengthen and reform the UN, it is necessary to pay ever-greater attention to the voices of civil society and to build a solidarity of concerned citizens.
Last year, the UN resolved to establish a new Human Rights Council and to create a Peacebuilding Commission. These initiatives deserve full support, and special attention should be given to developing the means whereby these new structures receive input from civil society and nongovernmental organizations.
In addition to spotlighting specific abuses and seeking redress for victims, the Human Rights Council must embrace sustained efforts to change the social paradigms and political culture that allow human rights violations to continue. To this end, human rights education and public information should be made a standing agenda item for the council. Avenues for participation by civil society and NGOs need to be extended, and a consultative body of human rights experts should assist the council in its work.
The Peacebuilding Commission is designed to aid an integrated approach to international assistance for all stages of recovery from conflict, but it needs also to look to bolder goals, embracing the rebuilding of people’s daily lives, the reconstruction of their happiness. With this in mind, it must engage the men and women living in areas suffering in the aftermath of conflict and focus on removing the threats and fears they face. It should also coordinate with civil society to secure sustained assistance from the international community for the full length of time required for the peacebuilding process, and enable people from countries with experience of post-conflict recovery and peacebuilding to make their unique contributions.
Climate Change
Resolving the global environmental crisis is an integral part of meeting the challenge of building a peaceful world. Discussion of successor frameworks to the Kyoto Protocol for the period after 2012 has already begun, and Japan has a special role to play in this process, for example by using the Kyoto Mechanism to assist other countries in preserving and restoring forests and the introduction of renewable energy sources. It is crucial to encourage developing countries to participate in the framework of emission reduction programs by offering constructive means that respond to their specific needs and demands.
The way forward for Japan in the twenty-first century is to make environmental and humanitarian commitments its very raison d’être. For this reason, Japan should focus on promoting the UN Decade for Education for Sustainable Development, providing a model for implementation at home and abroad.
Peace and Integration in Asia
Asia is one of the regions where international relations are still very much colored by the conflicts and tensions of the Cold War. Recent moves to enhance the structure of dialogue among heads of government in the region are to be welcomed, especially if this leads to the formation of an East Asian Community along the lines of the process of European integration. The institutional frameworks to support this should be created.
The effort to promote mutual understanding, common values and a shared philosophical grounding must center around person-to-person dialogue and exchange on the basis of a common “ethos of coexistence.”
Improvement in relations between China and Japan is of particular importance. This requires continuous efforts to build cultural and educational ties at the citizen level, but this must be accompanied by a determination on the part of Japan to reassess the importance of this bilateral diplomatic relationship. It is important to recall the forward-looking attitudes that prevailed when relations where first normalized in the 1970s.
One area that requires regional cooperation is in solving the problem of North Korean nuclear development. In this, the six-party talks process is key, and it is essential to build on these talks, hopefully in the form of a summit of the heads of government of the six parties.
In this crucial area of nonproliferation and disarmament, it is important to stress again the role of disarmament education as a means of transforming the paradigms of society to move from a culture of war characterized by conflict and confrontation to a culture of peace based on cooperation and creative coexistence. Given the current stalemate in talks on nonproliferation, public opinion must rally to the cause of disarmament, and this requires greater efforts in peace and disarmament education.
Peace is not simply the absence of war. A truly peaceful society is one in which all people can maximize their potential and build fulfilling lives free from threats to their dignity. When ordinary citizens around the globe join hands to call for peace, a solidarity of awakened and empowered individuals can propel humankind toward the twin goals of genuine disarmament and a flourishing culture of peace. This is what drives the SGI’s movement of Buddhist humanism as we look with hope to the future.
A New Era of the People: Forging a Global Network of Robust Individuals
by Daisaku Ikeda President, Soka Gakkai International January 26, 2006
On the occasion of the anniversary of the founding of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI), I would like to present some ideas that can contribute to humanity’s shared quest for a global society of peace and creative coexistence.
Responding to worldwide crises
The year 2005 was a historic one, marking the sixtieth anniversary of the end of World War II. It was also a year in which a variety of severe threats, each capable of thrusting people’s daily lives into crisis, became manifest.
Nowhere was this more shockingly visible than in the series of natural disasters that struck different parts of the world. Before the wounds of the calamitous Sumatra earthquake and tsunami had begun to heal, India was hit in July 2005 by widespread flooding and, at the end of August, hurricanes inflicted enormous damage on the southern Gulf Coast of the United States. Large parts of Western Africa continue to suffer from severe food shortages and famine resulting from drought and locust infestations, and in October a massive earthquake in northern Kashmir left more than 73,000 dead and approximately 3 million people homeless.
The impact of Hurricane Katrina in the United States, the sight of a major American city paralyzed by the effects of flooding and its citizens left to fend for themselves in the most appalling conditions, brought into painfully sharp relief the vulnerability of even advanced industrial societies to natural disaster.
Likewise, continued terror attacks throughout the world—attacks which have killed and injured large numbers of innocent civilians—projected a deep insecurity into people’s lives throughout 2005. In July, suicide bombings on London’s public transport system killed dozens and injured hundreds of people. The shocking impact of these attacks was compounded by the fact that they were perpetrated in the face of heightened security measures in place for the G8 Summit. As part of a disturbing trend, increasingly indiscriminate violence—in Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq and elsewhere—claimed the lives of many ordinary citizens.
In addition, intolerance based on ethnic or national differences, often aggravated by international movements of population, has been the cause of conflict and criminal violence, and many societies are experiencing severe divisions. In the Darfur region of western Sudan, attacks by the so-called Janjaweed militia against the local population have claimed tens of thousands of lives and displaced some 1.9 million people. Conditions there, which UN investigators have termed “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis,”[1] have not improved, nor have the underlying causes been resolved.
Hate crimes have increased in the wake of the September 2001 terror attacks, in particular with a growing incidence of violence and discrimination against Muslims. Meanwhile, in October and November of last year, disaffected young people took to the streets as riots broke out throughout France, leading to the imposition of curfews in many cities and towns.
Further, the rapidly advancing pace of globalization has increased the risk of infectious diseases spreading to epidemic proportion. The ongoing AIDS pandemic continues to strike sub-Saharan Africa particularly hard. Worldwide, AIDS is said to have claimed more than 25 million lives and left behind some 15 million orphans. Currently, approximately 40 million people are infected with the HIV virus that causes AIDS. There are also strong concerns about the emergence of new and virulent forms of influenza. The mutation of animal influenza viruses to permit human-to-human transmission could inflict casualties on the scale of the Spanish Influenza, the great influenza pandemic of 1918–19.
Spanish Influenza
The influenza pandemic of 1918–19 was the most devastating epidemic in recorded world history, killing somewhere between 20 and 40 million people, more than died in World War I. The name Spanish Flu came from the outbreak in Spain where it killed about 8 million in May 1918. The pandemic, thought to have originated in China, circled the globe, spreading along trade and shipping routes to strike North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Brazil and the South Pacific.
The pandemic infected one-fifth of the world’s population and was most deadly for people aged 20 to 40. This pattern of morbidity is unusual for influenza, which is usually a killer of the elderly and young children. The virus had a mortality rate of 2.5 percent, compared to less than 0.1 percent for previous influenza epidemics.
The examples cited above are all representative of global issues that, directly or indirectly, affect us all. In no instance can we afford to regard them as unrelated to us, a fire on the other bank of the river as the Japanese expression has it. And, like global warming and the continued poverty that can serve as a breeding ground for terrorism, these issues are organically linked with the processes of globalization. They should be seen as its intrinsic products, just as much as the revolutionary changes on the economic, financial and information technology (IT) fronts with which it is more commonly associated. A holistic response that deals with both the positive and negative aspects of globalization is urgently required.
These issues go to the very heart of human history and are integral to the effort to create a new global civilization. Given the scale of this challenge, a rushed search for quick results could easily backfire, plunging people into an even deeper state of helplessness and despair. This sense of creeping and unnamable anxiety contrasts starkly with the spirit of hope we would like to associate with the start of a new century. In countering it, we would do well to abide by the admonition, made famous by the environmental movement: Think globally, act locally.
Indeed, perhaps nothing is more effective, when faced with a deadlock of this scale, than to first turn our attention from the macro to the micro—from events of such a vast and overwhelming scale to those that are more immediate and therefore amenable to action. When we translate global issues back into the tangible realities of everyday life, even the most grave and massive among them can be understood in its essence. This approach holds the greatest promise of opening the path to sustainable and productive responses.
The free individual and unbridled individualism
Last autumn, a review in the Seikyo Shimbun (the Soka Gakkai’s daily paper) brought to my attention a book by Bill McKibben, Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age. In this book, McKibben deals with the fundamental challenges to our humanity posed by certain types of cutting-edge technology—the potential, for example, to engage in genetic manipulation of the human germline. He warns that unless confronted, the use of such technology could invite our demise as human beings.
Reviewing the progress of modern civilization since the Industrial Revolution, McKibben writes: “What’s important is that all these changes went in the same direction: they traded context for individual freedom.”[2] As we now approach the terminus of this process, he warns: “But now—and finally, here’s the heart of the argument—we stand on the edge of disappearing even as individuals”[3] (his emphasis).
Genetic Engineering
Genetic engineering makes it possible to add or delete specific genetic information in living cells.
Somatic genetic engineering seeks to change the genetic makeup of specific body cells that comprise the organs and tissues—liver, brain, bones—of a particular individual. It may be possible to treat diseases like cystic fibrosis by inserting a corrective gene into malfunctioning cells. The changes affect only that individual and are not passed on to children.
Germline genetic engineering targets the genes in eggs, sperm or the undifferentiated cells of an early embryo. The alterations affect every cell in the body of the resulting individual and are passed on to all future generations. While germline engineering is sometimes suggested as a way to prevent transmission of genetic diseases, the fact that it would permanently alter the genetic make-up of the human species makes its long-term impact impossible to predict.
Scientific, religious and political leaders overwhelmingly oppose manipulation of the human germline.
Seeking maximum freedom for the individual, modern civilization has focused on cutting people loose from the restrictions and restraints of our various “contexts.” Our gains in material wealth and convenience have been great indeed. But what is the actuality of the “free individual” stripped of all context—the bonds and ties of family and neighborhood; regional, occupational and national communities; religious and other affiliations; and of nature itself? Is this idealized free individual not, in the end, but a fiction? Is the logical outcome of this pursuit of freedom anything other than unbridled individualism, the naked embodiment of unrestrained desire?
We live in an era filled with unpredictable hazards, what the sociologist Ulrich Beck has called the “risk society.” By translating these issues into the dimension of the individual, it is possible to clarify their essence. Unless this is fully understood, we will remain incapable of finding our way out of the overwhelming deadlock of our global realities. Everything comes down to the individual.
In recent years in Japan there has been a series of brutal crimes committed by young children, and many other previously unthinkable horrors. We constantly hear expressions of shock at these incidents, with people referring to them as “unbelievable” and “incomprehensible.” These laments express the way people attempt to grapple with and understand abnormal events that fall outside the trajectory of traditional common sense.
In 1997, the Japanese city of Kobe was the scene of a series of vicious murders of young children by a boy, himself only fourteen years old. As it turned out, this was only the start of a spate of grim crimes committed by children and adolescents. The writer and critic Kunio Yanagida has studied these incidents and their causes, and offers this analysis: “While it may not yet be possible to arrive at the true cause, a fact that I feel is extremely close to the ultimate cause is this. Virtually all of the children who committed these horrific crimes exhibit a spiritual structuring that is self-centered to the degree that they have a perfect indifference to the pain of others.”[4]
These incidents make starkly visible a certain defining characteristic of contemporary crime, and I wonder if it isn’t here that we can find the underlying reason for the unease and dread that we feel in our own lives?
By way of contrast, it might be instructive to reference a very different time and place—the world described by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–81) in his classic The House of the Dead, which chronicles his experiences during his four years of hard labor in Siberia.
What Dostoyevsky expresses in this work is the sympathy extended by the residents of this land of exile to the criminals among them. While recognizing the evil of the offenses committed, these local residents seem to possess the kind of empathy that enables them to imagine how someone—themselves included—might end up committing a horrible crime if placed in the same circumstances as the criminal. Because of this, these deeds are not “incomprehensible” but can in fact be understood —almost as a felt, corporeal reality. Thus they refer to crimes as “misfortunes” and their perpetrators as “the unfortunate.” Dostoyevsky offers a vivid and compelling portrait of heart-to-heart communication across the barriers of high walls and barbed wire.
Compare this to the pathology of contemporary society, of which youth crime represents only the proverbial tip of the iceberg; its chief symptom is the near-total absence of empathetic capacity. All too often in Japan we are treated to the televised images of people in positions of responsibility struggling to explain away their misdeeds. When finally cornered, they bow their heads in apology—as if that sufficed to redeem their willful acts. What hint of compassion or caring could any young person possibly glean from the ugly, slack expressions on the faces of these adults? It is the failure to sense or feel the pain of others that is so deeply and inexpressibly disturbing.
If our humanity is found and developed within the context of relations with other people, unbridled individualism is a condition stripped of these connections. The respectful acknowledgment of the existence of others is always predicated on the ability to master and rein in one’s private desires, and this cannot be developed except within the framework of human interaction. There is thus an intolerable vacuity at the heart of such extreme individualism, an instability and insecurity that haunts it and proves the extent to which it is estranged from any normal, healthy way of being. It is ultimately incompatible with our striving to be human.
This reality has not escaped the attention of perceptive observers of society. The writer and former cabinet minister Taichi Sakaiya, for example, has noted the lapsing of traditional bonds, such as those of family relations, locality and the workplace, and has envisaged a society organized around shared and sympathetic interests. Likewise, the playwright and critic Masakazu Yamazaki portrays the intense feelings of isolation that globalization can provoke—the sense of existing in an infinite void where “one calls out, but there is no response.”[5] He advocates the development of social relations based on trust and the sharing of the burden of life’s inevitable insecurities. As these commentators reconfirm for us, we can only live within the context of relatedness; it is only there that we can be truly human.
The consistent core and conviction of the Soka Gakkai
These ideas are of great interest, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the protagonists of any creative restructuring of society will be individual citizens. If indeed we have reached the point where we are threatened, as McKibben says, with “disappearing even as individuals,” then only by reconsidering what it means to be an individual can we find a way forward out of the darkness. It is through the strong will and desire of each of us to actively participate in social relations that society coalesces and can exist as a functional whole.
It is here that the crucial need arises for a framework that will prevent free individuals from descending into unbridled individualism. We must find the fulcrum on which people can develop the strength of will required to be proactive, robust and engaged. Unleashing the vitality of ordinary citizens—one by one—is the only certain way to bring into sight the horizons of a new civilization, a new era of the people. This has been my constant conviction for many decades.
The activities of the SGI constitute a humanistic movement based on Buddhism that seeks to develop robust individuals who can respond to the challenges of our age. Few have described this more incisively than Dr. Jan Swyngedouw, professor emeritus of Nanzan University, in an interview carried in the Seikyo Shimbun in the early 1980s.
From a perspective of more than twenty years of experience with Japanese society and religion, Dr. Swyngedouw expressed his sense of the way in which the Soka Gakkai members differ in their attitudes toward religious faith and practice from those typically held by Japanese people.
The first point he noted was how genuine and deeply held the members’ convictions regarding their faith appear to be. Secondly, he commented that the vital religious core of the Soka Gakkai’s philosophy functions to awaken people to their inner value as human beings. Dr. Swyngedouw suggested that it is in fostering and forming this kind of “backbone” of character that the Soka Gakkai raises people capable of making a real contribution to world peace.
Japanese society is said to value “harmony” (Jpn. wa), but this harmony cannot be limited only to Japan. The harmony toward which President Ikeda and the members of the Soka Gakkai are working has as its object the peace of the entire world, and this I believe represents an important change in Japanese religious attitudes. (trans.)
This observation goes to the very essence of our movement. Historically, religion in Japan has had a tendency to be subordinate to the state, and this was particularly true of Buddhism in the Edo period (1603–1867) when it was effectively consecrated to slavish service of the authorities. One of the leading intellectuals of the early years of Westernization in Japan, Yukichi Fukuzawa (1835–1901), decried this state of affairs: “It could even be said that religion has disappeared from Japan.”[6] I imagine that Dr. Swyngedouw sensed the possibility that our movement, which is rooted in Nichiren Buddhism and asserts its beliefs unhesitatingly, could serve as an effective antithesis to this subservience.
If the primary mission of religion is to forge robust and engaged individuals capable of creative responses to life’s challenges, then now, more than ever, it must rise to this task as the winds of uncertainty and change lash every corner of the world, every aspect of our lives.
Montaigne: A model of humanism
Over the past several years I have sought in these proposals to shed light on the outlines of a Buddhist-based humanism. Continuing in that vein, this year I would like to examine the life and ideas of the sixteenth-century writer Michel de Montaigne (1533–92), known as the father of the French Moralist tradition. Montaigne is relevant in this regard because, despite having no verifiable ties to or influences from Buddhism, his ideas are astonishingly cognate with the humanism manifested in the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, especially that which originates in the Lotus Sutra and was developed by Nichiren (1222–82).
In the first of his Essays, the work for which he is best known, Montaigne makes this statement: “Man is indeed an object miraculously vain, various and wavering. It is difficult to found a judgement on him which is steady and uniform.”[7] Starting with this deeply felt declaration—resonant with the Buddhist view of impermanence—Montaigne’s entire work is imbued with a sense of the relativity and mutability of phenomena.
French Moralist Tradition
The French moralist tradition is generally seen to have its origins in Montaigne’s Essays. In the second half of the 17th century, such writers as Pascal (1623–62), LaRochefoucauld (1613–80) and Nicole (1625–95) brought this tradition of humanist engagement with the world to full flower. In the 18th century, the classical French moralist writers were ranked as philosophers by readers in England, Scotland and America—although the French tended to view them mainly as great stylists—and this Anglo-American interpretation gave rise to what came to be known as moral philosophy.
Although this tone would later be typified as “Oriental,” Montaigne did not seek the kind of life that would be suggested by later Western images of Buddhism—of being propelled by distaste for the evanescent, fleeting nature of life to cloistered withdrawal in an isolated mountain retreat. While confessing that he felt most comfortable when writing in his château, he engaged in public service in a range of posts—as an officer of the law courts, as the Mayor of Bordeaux and as an adviser to several Kings of France. And he clearly enjoyed and sought out contact with the common people of his time. As befits a representative of the Moralist tradition, he had no objection to being covered with the dust of this world.
Montaigne’s life coincided nearly entirely with the religious wars that wracked Europe in the sixteenth century. Against this bloody backdrop, the measured tone and language of his Essays takes on a particular weight and brilliance. His words are indeed like the lotus flower whose pure white blooms emerge from the depths of the muddy waters.
I earlier stressed the importance of approaching global challenges through the lens of our immediate, personal realities. Such was indeed the heart of Montaigne’s project, and this is what makes Montaigne such a superb thinker for bringing into focus the kind of humanism—the ethos of world citizenship—that is appropriate to an era of globalization.
A universal vision
We cannot escape from the immediate and quintessentially personal reality of our own lives. If we do attempt to flee, there is an unavoidable price to be paid. As Montaigne puts it:
They want to be beside themselves, want to escape from their humanity. That is madness: instead of changing their Form into an angel’s they change it into a beast’s; they crash down instead of winding high. Those humours soaring to transcendency terrify me as do great unapproachable heights …[8]
In the teachings of Buddhism we find this statement: “This example of a single individual applies equally to all living beings.”[9] In like manner, through an uncompromising exploration of the humanity of a single individual—himself—Montaigne uncovered a universal vision of all humankind. He was thus able to see past the differences and discriminations of religion, starting with the bitter conflict between Catholic and Protestant. “Then compare our behaviour,” he wrote, “with a Moslem’s or a pagan’s: you always remain lower than they are.”[10] “Christians excel at hating enemies. Our religion was made to root out vices: now it cloaks them, nurses them, stimulates them.”[11]
Although Montaigne identified himself as a Catholic, he was entirely free from sectarianism. Measured and gentle in all matters, he was unsparing in his condemnation of those who would look down upon their fellow humans in the name of religion. Some 200 years before the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, in an era when the concept of “freedom of religion” had not been articulated, he included in his book an essay titled “On Freedom of Conscience,” a profoundly courageous act for the time.
Montaigne’s universality crossed the bounds of culture and ethnicity with equal ease. The distinction between the civilized and the barbarous that would underlay centuries of colonialism and which was an indisputable truth in the eyes of most Europeans was, for him, a nonsensical fabrication. His description of the native inhabitants of Brazil is bold, fair-minded and at the same time filled with warmth. “So we can indeed call those folk barbarians by the rules of reason but not in comparison with ourselves, who surpass them in every kind of barbarism.”[12]
Montaigne was utterly free from the discrimination and prejudice based on national and ethnic differences that continue, even today, to ensnare so many people. This freedom of spirit gave rise to his heartfelt appreciation for that other world citizen, Socrates.
When they asked Socrates where he came from he did not say “From Athens,” but “From the world.” He, whose thoughts were fuller and wider, embraced the universal world as his City, scattered his acquaintances, his fellowship and his affections throughout the whole human race …[13]
Montaigne’s universalist outlook likewise rendered him thoroughly unimpressed by differences of rank or social standing, as the following passages clearly attest. “ … [W]hen we come to consider a peasant or a monarch, a nobleman or a commoner, a statesman or a private citizen, a rich man or a poor man, we find therefore an immense disparity between men who, it could be said, differ only by their breeches.”[14] And: “I have seen in my time hundreds of craftsmen and ploughmen wiser and happier than University Rectors—and whom I would rather be like.”[15]
Montaigne was able in this way to dismiss feudal class distinctions with a laugh. But that does not mean that he was an anarchist. He was not about to deny the social order to which he, as an aristocrat, belonged. Montaigne was thus a person of embracing liberality and generosity of spirit and at the same time a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. His uniqueness lies in the fact that he seems never to have felt the slightest twinge of contradiction.
In Nichiren’s writings we find this passage: “Even if it seems that, because I was born in the ruler’s domain, I follow him in my actions, I will never follow him in my heart.”[16] Montaigne makes statements to similar effect. He seems to have considered this the best means of coping with reality, of gradually advancing one’s cause while avoiding the horrors of violence and bloodshed.
Another unique aspect of Montaigne’s thinking is that his penetrating gaze was not directed only at human beings, but also at the natural world, at animal and plant life.
… I am led to abase our presumption considerably and am ready to lay aside that imaginary kingship over other creatures which is attributed to us. … [T]here is a kind of respect and a duty in man as a genus which link us not merely to the beasts, which have life and feelings, but even to trees and plants.[17]
Montaigne’s thinking here is clearly different from the established views of his time that drew sharp hierarchical distinctions between humans and the rest of nature. His outlook shares a deep similarity with the teachings of Buddhism that all living beings possess Buddha nature and that plants and trees are capable of enlightenment. I believe this perspective on the relationship between humans and nature can help us in resolving the global environmental crisis.
There is another interesting passage that demonstrates how Montaigne’s skepticism led him to reexamine even the most everyday events. In the longest of his essays, written in defense of the theologian Raymond Sebond, we find the following: “When I play with my cat, how do I know that she is not passing time with me rather than I with her?”[18] From this lighthearted statement can be gleaned an awareness of the contingent nature of reality and an acute sensitivity to life, not to mention an insight into the relationship between humans and our pets.
In these ways Montaigne illustrates the ethos of world citizenship that I consider to be the very essence of humanism. Humanism includes practical norms and guides to behavior, and in this regard also, Montaigne, writing more than 400 years ago, offers an inspiring example.
There are, I believe, three crucial aspects to the practice and norms of a humanism that is rooted in Buddhism: (1) A gradualist approach; (2) An emphasis on dialogue; and (3) A focus on personal character or integrity as a pivotal value. This is something I have stressed for years and which I addressed in a January 1993 speech at Claremont McKenna College in the United States. These are also themes running through Montaigne’s philosophy.
A gradualist approach
In reading through the Essays, one quickly notes the weight that Montaigne accords habit and custom—the power and importance of their role in human affairs—perhaps to the point of overstatement. “To sum up then, the impression I have is that there is nothing that custom may not do and cannot do; and Pindar rightly calls her (so I have been told) the Queen and Empress of the World.”[19] “It is for custom to give shape to our lives, such shape as it will—in such matters it can do anything. It is the cup of Circe which changes our nature as it pleases.”[20]
A consistent focus on the personal is the hallmark of Montaigne’s philosophy. This is because our personal realities are varied in all respects; they can never be identical for two different people. They may contrast completely. And in large measure, they will be decisively influenced and shaped by the traditions and customs particular to a given locality. “Since we suck them in with our mothers’ milk and since the face of the world is presented thus to our infant gaze, it seems to us that we were really born with the property of continuing to act that way.”[21]
This again points to the fallacious nature of the free individual unencumbered by all ties or bonds. People can never be simply “reset” to a condition of emptiness, like a blank sheet of paper patiently awaiting the author’s pen. “We may have the right to use any means to arrange them [people] and set them up afresh, but we can hardly ever wrench them out of their acquired bent without destroying everything.”[22]
When dealing with the macro realities of, for example, nation or state, we must remember that this represents the complex interplay of many personal, local and cultural realities. As such, it may be possible to derive gradualist and specific measures from past experience and apply these carefully. But any attempt to tear down and rebuild the state in its entirety according to “descriptions of fictional and artificial polities”[23] is an expression of human arrogance and doomed ultimately to failure.
This was a lesson inscribed in the very depths of Montaigne’s being by the hellish wars of religion raging around him and which made him intensely skeptical of any effort at radical reform.
But to undertake to recast such a huge lump [contrivance], to shift the foundations of so great an edifice, is a task for those for whom cleaning means effacing, who seek to emend individual defects by universal disorder and to cure illness by death, “non tam commutandarum quam evertendarum rerum cupidi (yearning not so much to change as to overthrow the constitution).”[24]
This is the same man who expressed ideas that prefigure, by some 200 years, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. As I noted earlier, Montaigne had a unique capacity to embrace ideas that we would today place on opposite ends of the liberal—conservative spectrum.
Montaigne declared: “I abhor novelty, no matter what visage it presents. … ”[25] In his somewhat extreme distrust of change, Montaigne was no doubt reacting to the carnage and upheaval he had witnessed. We may agree or disagree with him on this point, much depending on our opinion of revolutionary change, such as the French and Russian revolutions of later centuries. But on one point there can be little dispute, namely that the modern proponents of revolutionary change have been overoptimistic in their assessment of the malleability of human nature and society. Arrogance of this kind has driven a hasty, unthinking radicalism and led to indiscriminate violence, torture and massacres—leaving behind a trail steeped in blood.
Here I would like to reference the chapter of the Essays where Montaigne, based on his own experience of public service, discusses political virtue. I feel this passage offers a detailed blueprint of the gradualist approach.
The virtue allotted to this world’s affairs is a virtue with many angles, crinkles and corners so that it can be applied and joined to our human frailty; it is complex and artificial, not straight, clear-cut, constant, nor purely innocent. … Anyone who goes into the throng must be prepared to side-step, to squeeze in his elbows, to dodge to and fro and, indeed, to abandon the straight path according to what he encounters; he must live not so much by his norms but by those of others; not so much according to what he prescribes to himself but to what others prescribe to him, and according to the time, according to the men, according to the negotiations. …[26]
As he indicates, it is worth remembering that politics is a matter of skill and technique, of give and take, of striking a balance between conflicting interests, bringing together various opinions. It is the art of compromise and finding middle ground where unrealistically high expectations can lead to disaster. A careful reading of the Essays allows us to appreciate the suffering, patience and endurance of Montaigne as a public figure who asserted that “[t]he way of the law is weighty, cold, and constrained,” which he contrasted with the violence and power of “ways which are lawless and wild.”[27] This formula contains important lessons, which I hope will be heeded in Japan and throughout the world.
An emphasis on dialogue
In pursuing a gradualist approach, the most effective means at our disposal is dialogue. Montaigne expressed his heartfelt love of dialogue in this way: “To my taste the most fruitful and most natural exercise of our minds is conversation. I find the practice of it the most delightful activity in our lives.”[28] In this chapter, Montaigne enters into a detailed examination of the spirit with which we should approach a dialogic engagement with others. In particular I would like here to focus on two points.
The first is that, although Montaigne himself was a member of the aristocracy, as mentioned, he considered the difference between the high- and low-born to be essentially irrelevant—little more than a matter of the breeches they wear. A committed humanist, he declared he would rather be a good groom than a good logician.[29] He preferred discussion with the common people, for it was there that he found genuinely truthful dialogue and refinement of character.
What I would praise would be a soul with many storeys, one of which knew how to strain and relax; a soul at ease wherever fortune led it; which could chat with a neighbour about whatever he is building, his hunting or his legal action, and take pleasure in conversing with a carpenter or a gardener.[30]
A gradualist approach that is grounded in our immediate personal realities can only be truly effective when practiced by someone who is composed and magnanimous, someone who has an unswerving focus on the human being.
Montaigne admired Socrates as the “Master of masters.”[31] This was because “Socrates makes his soul move with the natural motion of the common people. … ”[32] In other words, the man lauded as humanity’s first teacher had no need for specialized philosophical terms as he effortlessly negotiated the ocean of language, the ocean of the people, sharing his wisdom with whomever he encountered, wherever this might be.
Next, Montaigne declares that when engaging in dialogue, “What he undertakes is vain if a man should presume to embrace both causes and consequences and to lead the progress of his action by the hand. … ”[33] Here, Montaigne urges us to set aside human arrogance, and to engage correctly with those forces that surpass our powers of rational discernment and understanding.
My thought sketches out the matter for a while and dwells lightly on the first aspects of it: then I usually leave the principal thrust of the task to heaven.[34]
In religious terms, this attitude might be compared to prayer. If we lose sight of this kind of humility, investing undue faith in the power of words, we can easily be plunged into a destructive cynicism when our attempts at dialogue reach a deadlock. From there it is only a single step to a rejection of the possibility of dialogue. This is something we experience in daily life, and of course on the macro scale its end product can be war and revolution, violence and conflict.
Montaigne’s admonition against vanity is today more relevant than ever. The impulse to shape even our own children to our desires, through such technologies as germline genetic engineering, is an example of the most ugly and catastrophic kind of human arrogance.
Character as a pivotal value
Next I would like to take up the idea of character as a pivotal value. As noted, the Essays are strewn with expressions of a worldview that is in many ways analogous to the Eastern understanding of the impermanence and transience of all things. But this is not the kind of emotional or sentimental view of impermanence that one so often encounters in Japan. It is not a yearning for salvation through submerging oneself into some vast and inscrutable entity—such as “heaven” or “nature”—that overwhelms our individual being. Rather, it is informed with a concrete sense of the realities of daily existence.
Virtually all of the 107 chapters of the three volumes of the Essays have titles that constitute advice on how best to live in the world, themes and admonitions that are in tune with the sensibilities of people’s everyday lives. Here we see the true essence of Montaigne, the seminal French Moralist who took unsurpassed pride in being an engaged participant in the realities of daily living.
Montaigne opens the Essays with this phrase: “Reader, I myself am the subject of my book … ,”[35] and continues: “Every man bears the whole Form of the human condition.”[36] “Yet I want to be in every way master of myself.”[37] “I, who am monarch of the subject which I treat … , ”[38] and “I see myself and explore myself right into my inwards; I know what pertains to me.”[39]
Thus, while Montaigne had the clear insight to recognize that everything, including himself, was impermanent and subject to change, he continued to take a persistent, even obsessive, interest in himself. His central concern was his pursuit of personal character and integrity. “Our most great and glorious achievement is to live our life fittingly. Everything else—reigning, building, laying up treasure—are at most tiny props and small accessories.”[40]
With his famous motto of “Que sais-je?” (What do I know?), Montaigne took up the Socratic challenge to engage in a ceaseless process of self-questioning and interrogation. What was the inner state of life, the relation to truth, that Montaigne—the skeptic and relativist—attained through this obsessive pursuit and uncompromising inquiry? In the final chapter of the Essays we encounter these words:
It is an accomplishment, absolute and as it were God-like, to know how to enjoy our being as we ought. We seek other attributes because we do not understand the use of our own; and, having no knowledge of what is within, we sally forth outside ourselves. A fine thing to get up on stilts: for even on stilts we must ever walk with our legs! And upon the highest throne in the world, we are seated, still, upon our arses.[41]
By dedicating himself to the relentless process of doubting and questioning, Montaigne uprooted dogmatism and fanaticism: He shredded arrogant hypocrisy. Because his grasp of the absolute was something that issued from within—that was cultivated by bringing the relative into confrontation with the relative, by piling doubt upon doubt—he was able to avoid the pitfall of treating as absolute those processes that are by their very nature relative (as many Marxists, for example, would later do).
It is here that we find his framework, the fulcrum of his convictions. And it was this that enabled him to continue to direct scathing criticism at the wars of religion, the rapacious exploitation of colonial lands, the class system—the evils that threaten life and dignity.
Religion in the service of humanity
The writer and poet Shigeharu Nakano (1902–79) once wrote an essay in which he compared Soseki Natsume (1867–1916) and Lu Xun (1881–1936), the giants of modern Japanese and Chinese literature, respectively. While noting that both are “profoundly, humanly moving,” Nakano concludes that Lu Xun goes beyond this and “arrives at the point of proactively battling against evil; a point of truly hating evil. Even if he is not able to win in this battle, he [Lu Xun] is determined to politically brand his opponents; he will not leave them unmarked.”[42]
In their very different cultural and historical settings, and despite their differences of temperament, both Lu Xun and Montaigne were outstanding moralists. The limitation that Nakano identifies in Soseki Natsume is no doubt a reflection of the Japanese sense of impermanence, which has tended to encourage passivity or even resignation. In a similar vein, Dr. Jan Swyngedouw, the Belgian sociologist of religion I mentioned earlier, indicated that the Japanese concern for harmony typically limits itself to Japan; in contrast, the Soka Gakkai’s movement embodies the aspiration to a larger, global harmony. In this, I wonder if he was sensing a moralist commitment to dialogue, a spirit of confronting evil that is undergirded by strength of character. The mission of religious faith is to temper and strengthen people’s inner lives. Throughout the Essays, Montaigne issues his clarion call for just this: religion in the service of humanity.
The Buddha, in his final admonition to his followers, urged them and, by implication, us: “[L]ive as islands unto yourselves, being your own refuge, with no one else as your refuge, with the Dhamma as an island, with the Dhamma as your refuge, with no other refuge.”[43]
In this way, Buddhism stresses self-reliance, unmediated trust in the Dharma truth, as the basis for bringing human character to the state of absolute fruition that is known as enlightenment. This is the pivot on which everything revolves.
It is my heartfelt desire that such an awakening, the flowering of individual character, will become the core and conviction of people throughout the world as they step forward to take up their rightful role as engaged and proactive world citizens.
Freedom, security and dignity
Next, I would like to discuss specific areas in which ordinary citizens—robust, engaged people acting as individuals and in solidarity—can work to build a global society of peace and creative coexistence.
The United Nations must serve as the key venue and focus for our efforts. Humanity faces a range of complex issues that show no regard for national borders—threats such as terrorism, armed conflict, poverty, environmental degradation, hunger and disease. A reformed and strengthened UN is essential to mustering effective responses to the global challenges of the new era.
The year 2005 marked the sixtieth anniversary of the UN, and this provided additional momentum to the debate on reform. In March, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a report “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All.” In it he laid out a broad vision of the UN’s mission and the aims of reform: freedom from want, freedom from fear and freedom to live in dignity.
The report spells out, in stark and powerful terms, the interdependent relationship among these three freedoms: “Humanity will not enjoy security without development, it will not enjoy development without security, and it will not enjoy either without respect for human rights.”
For my part, I have consistently stressed that human development, human security and human rights must serve as the guiding principles for UN reform. The UN’s fundamental mission is symbolized in the opening words of the Charter: “We the peoples. … ” It must be dedicated to the welfare of all the citizens of the world and the elimination of needless suffering from the face of Earth.
Following sustained debate of the Secretary-General’s and other proposals, the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly held in September adopted the 2005 World Summit outcome document. It is truly regrettable that the difficult and protracted negotiations over its contents resulted in deletion of all mention of nuclear disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation and saw only the most general agreement on a number of issues.
Regarding the Security Council, the world’s leaders could only express support for “early reform” and failed to touch on any of the long-debated proposals such as expansion of its membership. For my part, I support the overall direction of Security Council reform—aiming for a broader sharing of responsibility with a more global perspective.
Further discussions are needed to build consensus on the kind of reforms that will fundamentally equip the UN to meet the challenges of our world. One crucial aspect of laying this foundation is solidifying the UN’s revenue base. In addition to financial contributions from member states, measures such as the people’s fund for the UN, which I suggested in my 2001 proposal, should be considered.
Despite these deficiencies, the summit saw progress in other areas. Most notable were agreements on measures to establish a UN Human Rights Council to replace the present Commission on Human Rights, to create a new Peacebuilding Commission, and to revamp the Central Emergency Revolving Fund to enable more effective rapid-response to humanitarian crises.
It is the sad reality of the UN, as an intergovernmental organization, that innovative reform ideas and undertakings will inevitably face the stubborn impediments of conflicting national interests. Nevertheless, pessimism accomplishes nothing, and we should instead focus on how best to implement the agreed-on plans and establish effective mechanisms to protect and improve the lives of the vulnerable members of the human family.
Protecting human rights
The activities of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights as currently constituted include: addressing human rights issues in specific countries as well as issues common to diverse countries and regions; debating and examining means for enhancing human rights; making recommendations through the adoption of resolutions; and publicizing abuses in order to shame those responsible into desisting.
There has been, however, a strong tendency to politicize human rights issues, a direct reflection of the diplomatic dynamics among states represented on the commission, and the persistent impeachment of particular governments has generated stalemate. Thus there has been a long-standing recognition of the need to restore confidence in the commission and its work.
I would like to make some suggestions regarding the functions and structures of the new Human Rights Council, which world leaders committed to establish at the summit as a replacement for the commission.
First, human rights education and public information should be a standing agenda item.
Examining specific abuses and seeking redress for victims are among the important tasks to be inherited from the Human Rights Commission. But in addition, sustained efforts are needed to change the social paradigms and political culture that would condone or tolerate human rights violations. This is the only way to prevent abuses from occurring and break entrenched patterns of recurrence.
The World Programme for Human Rights Education was initiated last year. Making human rights education a standing agenda item of the Human Rights Council would ensure its consistent engagement with the program and encourage it to actively monitor implementation.
Second, I wish to urge that representatives of civil society have ample opportunity to participate in the work of the new Human Rights Council. It is a fact that the UN’s efforts to promote human rights have been importantly sustained by the active involvement of many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other civil society organizations. As one of the functional commissions of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Human Rights Commission has had official working relationships with NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC. It is my earnest hope that the Human Rights Council will maintain and enhance this structure so NGOs can continue to speak at plenary meetings and engage in vigorous consultations with state and UN representatives.
Third, I wish to support calls for a consultative body of human rights experts under the Human Rights Council.
Specifically, either the existing Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights may be continued, or an organ with equivalent functions be created. In addition to its investigative and research functions in support of the deliberative processes of the new Human Rights Council, the body as I envisage it should serve to reflect the views and concerns of civil society. I would also urge that any such consultative body carry forward the mechanisms, which evolved under the sub-commission, of special rapporteurs and working groups on specific human rights concerns, such as those of indigenous peoples, minorities, etc.
Building peace
According to the UN, about half of the countries emerging from conflict find themselves enmeshed in it again within five years. It is imperative that these deadly cycles of violence be broken. To this end, in the final days of 2005, the UN General Assembly and the Security Council acted in concert to establish a Peacebuilding Commission. This body will provide advice and recommendations to both the General Assembly and the Security Council to support a sustained, coordinated and integrated approach to international assistance for all stages of recovery from violent conflict—from post-conflict peacebuilding to reconstruction.
I thoroughly welcome the creation of the Peacebuilding Commission, which will assume functions similar to those of the peace rehabilitation council I outlined in my 2004 proposal.
The UN has charged the Peacebuilding Commission with a variety of tasks. I believe the following three roles are of particular importance, and I hope all efforts will be made to realize these aims:
1. To engage not only the leaders of the governments or groups involved in a conflict but also the men and women living in afflicted areas, and to focus on removing the threats and fears they face.
2. To consult and coordinate with civil society and NGOs in order to secure sustained assistance from the international community for the full length of time required for the peacebuilding process.
3. To open the door for people from countries with experience of post-conflict recovery and peacebuilding to make a contribution to people in other countries suffering in the aftermath of conflict.
Post-conflict peacebuilding and rehabilitation tends to be considered in terms of the headline aspects of national reconstruction such as holding elections, forming a new government or drafting a constitution. But the experience of the twentieth century attests to the fact that the tragic noose of history can never be loosened unless the recovery process is grounded in the perspectives and concerns of ordinary people. With this lesson in mind, I think the Peacebuilding Commission should see its role as ensuring that international cooperation has bolder goals—that it embraces the rebuilding of people’s daily lives, the reconstruction of their happiness.
Engaging civil society
As we search for the kind of UN reform that will reflect the perspectives and concerns of ordinary citizens, I would like to focus on a revitalization of the General Assembly.
While it goes without saying that the Security Council will continue to play a central role in maintaining global peace and security, the General Assembly is crucially important as the only universal forum for dialogue where all member states can participate and develop responses to global challenges. I am convinced that efforts to increase the accessibility of this assembly of humankind would lead to a strengthening of the entire UN system.
Secretary-General Annan’s report “In Larger Freedom” cited earlier clarifies the direction of General Assembly reform as follows: “It should concentrate on the major substantive issues of the day, and establish mechanisms to engage fully and systematically with civil society” (emphasis added). While it is again truly disappointing that no specific measures were agreed upon at the 2005 World Summit, this approach undoubtedly holds the key to re-empowerment of the General Assembly. Thus I would suggest that, to further establish effective collaborative relationships with civil society, frequent opportunities be created for the General Assembly President and the members of each of its committees to closely consult with NGOs.
In June 2005, the General Assembly organized two days of informal hearings with civil society, creating an opportunity for NGO representatives and experts from around the world to express a broad range of opinions toward the 2005 World Summit. The first such attempt in the UN’s history, and one that was later welcomed by the summit participants as a step toward an interactive engagement between civil society and member states, this was indeed a groundbreaking development.
At the same time, NGOs have undertaken the bold initiative of organizing the Millenium+5 NGO Network. This informal grouping of NGOs active at the UN will bring together the input of civil society and liaise with the UN. I believe that such efforts to establish forums of dialogue between the world’s ordinary citizens and the UN will help consolidate the UN’s foundations as an international body that is underpinned by the twin pillars of its member states and civil society.
Based on the philosophy of Buddhist humanism, the SGI has consistently supported the activities of the UN. As an NGO, we have been active in a wide variety of ways, one recent example being the election of our representative as president of the Committee of Religious NGOs at the UN in June of last year.
Committee of Religious NGOs at the UN
The Committee of Religious NGOs at the UN is composed of the representatives of national and international organizations which define their work as religious, spiritual or ethical in nature and are accredited to the United Nations. The committee has been meeting regularly since 1972 to share information and insights about complex issues and events at the UN. The committee’s focus is twofold. It serves as a forum to inform and educate religious constituencies about current global challenges and the constructive role that the UN can play in addressing those issues. It also serves as a forum for exchanging and promoting shared religious and ethical values in the deliberations of the world organization.
Also, in February this year, in commemoration of its tenth anniversary, the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research will host an international conference in Los Angeles focused on reform and strengthening of the UN. Building on the success of the institute’s research projects in such areas as human security and global governance and dialogue among civilizations, the conference will explore initiatives toward transforming the UN into an organization that is truly of, for and by the people.
Combating climate change
Next, I would like to turn attention to the environmental crisis that looms over our planet.
In February 2005, I met with Nobel Peace Laureate Professor Wangari Maathai who was visiting Japan on the occasion of the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. During our meeting, Professor Maathai talked about the millions of people involved in the environmental movement worldwide, and stated that her Nobel Peace Prize served to convey a strong message that protecting the environment is crucially important for the realization of peace. Indeed, resolving the global environmental crisis is an integral part of meeting the challenge of building a peaceful world.
As is widely known, Professor Maathai founded the Green Belt Movement to fight against the desertification of her homeland, Kenya. Over the past thirty years, the many women involved in the movement have planted 30 million trees throughout Africa.
Green Belt Movement
Biologist and environmentalist Professor Wangari Maathai established the Green Belt Movement (GBM) in Kenya in 1977 as a grassroots nongovernmental organization that organized rural women in Kenya to plant trees with the goals of combating deforestation, restoring their main source of fuel for cooking and preventing soil erosion. The GBM has developed a program that incorporates four core projects: tree planting on public lands; promotion of food security at household level; advocacy and networking; and civic and environmental education. The GBM has more than 3,000 nurseries, giving job opportunities to about 80,000 people.
Since 1977, over 30 million trees have been planted and more than 30,000 women trained in forestry, food-processing and various trades that help them earn income while preserving their lands and resources. The movement has expanded beyond Kenya, with a Pan African Green Network reaching 36 organizations in 15 African countries, and a Green Belt Movement International.
Professor Maathai received the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize, in part for her work with the GBM.
Desertification is a serious and growing problem, particularly in the dry and arid regions of Africa and Asia. There is strong evidence that anthropogenic climate change is exacerbating the problem and its impact. Desertification was one of the subjects of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment conducted under the auspices of the UN. The livelihoods of the almost 2 billion people living in drylands worldwide are potentially at risk if global warming continues to aggravate desertification at the current pace.
It was against this background that the UN declared 2006 the International Year of Deserts and Desertification to promote international cooperation to address this challenge. While supporting the goals of the International Year, I would like to urge continued efforts to find new approaches in the response to climate change.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) was launched by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in June 2001 and completed in March 2005. It constitutes “the first comprehensive audit of the status of Earth’s natural capital.” It focuses on the “services” (benefits) ecosystems provide to people and also analyzes how changes in the quality of these services can affect human well-being now and in the future. It also examines responses that can be adopted at local, national or global levels to improve ecosystem management.
The MA Synthesis Report released in March 2005 revealed that approximately 60 percent of the ecosystem “services” that support life on Earth are being degraded or used unsustainably. It warns that the harmful consequences of this degradation could grow significantly in the next 50 years. This includes the emergence of new diseases, sudden changes in water quality, creation of “dead zones” along coasts, the collapse of fisheries and shifts in regional climate patterns.
Climate change is an area in which, like acid rain and ozone layer depletion before it, international efforts have coalesced. The Kyoto Protocol, which finally entered into force in 2005, obliges its industrialized signatories to reduce, by 2012, their emissions of greenhouse gasses by at least 5 percent compared to 1990 levels.
There is, however, scientific consensus that these measures are insufficient, and emissions need to be reduced to at least half the current level in order to control global warming. Now the primary challenge has become how to reengage the United States and bring developing countries such as China and India, whose emissions are rapidly increasing, into some framework of international cooperation. This question was raised at the G8 Summit held at Gleneagles in July 2005.
At the eleventh session of the Conference of the Parties to the 1992 Climate Change Convention, which was held in conjunction with the first Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in December 2005 in Montreal, Canada, a working group was created to discuss over the next two years successor frameworks to the protocol for the period after 2012. It was significant that the conference provided a venue where representatives of all countries could meet and talk. The participation of the United States and the major developing countries—although conditioned on the nonbinding nature of the talks—was enough to save the convention from collapse, which once seemed imminent.
As the country that, as host, made a significant contribution to the completion of the Kyoto Protocol, I believe Japan has a special role to play in developing a successor framework. It can no doubt be most effective in this by working with countries with strong commitment to environmental issues.
The Kyoto Protocol commits all parties to improve energy efficiency, promote afforestation and take other measures to reduce emissions and increase the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. To facilitate these efforts, it also makes use of a scheme called the Kyoto Mechanism that allows the absorption of carbon by forests acting as carbon sinks to be factored into the achievement of emission reduction targets. In addition to exerting maximum effort toward achieving its own targets, Japan should take the initiative in assisting other countries in preserving and restoring forests and the introduction of renewable energy sources.
In addition to the Kyoto Mechanism there is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which enables developed countries to invest in projects that reduce greenhouse gasses in developing countries. The proposals made by developing countries at the Montreal Climate Change Conference to add forest conservation programs to those covered in the CDM merit support.
Clean Development Mechanism
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is one of the three so-called “Flexibility Mechanisms” of the Kyoto Protocol, along with Emissions Trading (trading of emission allowances between developed nations) and Joint Implementation (transferring emission allowances between developed nations). These mechanisms are designed to make it easier and cheaper for industrialized countries to meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets that they agreed to under the Protocol. The CDM is the only flexibility mechanism that involves developing countries, and is also mandated to “assist developing countries in achieving sustainable development.” At present, developing countries have no obligations to constrain their GHG emissions, but the CDM enables them to contribute to global emission reductions on a voluntary basis.
Under the CDM, an industrialized country with a GHG reduction target can invest in a project in a developing country without a target, and claim credit for the emissions that have been avoided, using these credits to meet its own target. Typical examples are projects in developing countries that reduce emissions or remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
I am convinced that it is crucial to encourage developing countries to participate in the framework of emission reduction programs by offering constructive mechanisms that respond to their specific needs and demands.
It is estimated that deforestation is responsible for 10–20 percent of the world’s total rise in greenhouse gas emissions. There is an acute need to build a global network of cooperation for forest conservation. It was with these considerations in mind that I called, in my 2002 proposal, for the adoption of an international treaty for the promotion of renewable energy and the establishment of a global green fund.
Education for sustainable development
Parallel with these efforts to combat global warming, I believe Japan has an important role to play in the field of education. The UN Decade for Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) began last year. The idea, originally put forward by the SGI and other NGOs, was proposed by the Japanese government at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. It was later formally adopted by the UN General Assembly.
As an advocate of the DESD, the SGI will continue to work to promote it, for example, through the exhibition “Seeds of Change: The Earth Charter and Human Potential” and the documentary film A Quiet Revolution, whose production we supported.
In October 2005, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) drew up the International Implementation Scheme for the DESD. It defined the overall goal as “to integrate the principles, values, and practices of sustainable development in all aspects of education and learning,”[44] and through this it aims to change patterns of behavior and thus create a more sustainable future. It also called on governments to formulate national implementation schemes and structures to promote the DESD in order to raise awareness about sustainable development.
As sponsor of the DESD, Japan has a particular responsibility to provide a model for implementation at home and abroad. This should take the form of cooperation and assistance extended to Asian and African countries where lives and livelihoods are impacted by the effects of desertification and other forms of environmental degradation.
I have stressed on many occasions that the way forward for Japan in the twenty-first century is to make environmental and humanitarian commitments its very raison-d’être. These commitments come together in efforts to provide aid and assistance that will enable people and societies to advance on the path of sustainable development.
Building an East Asian community
Next, I would like to focus on Asia, where relations are still very much colored by the conflicts and tensions of the Cold War.
In December 2005, the first East Asian Summit was held in Malaysia attended by the leaders of sixteen countries: the ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) joined by Japan, China, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand. By far the greatest achievement of this summit was to initiate a process of dialogue among heads of government in the region aimed toward the formation of an East Asian Community (EAC).
At the ASEAN+3 (Japan, China, South Korea) Summit convened immediately prior to the East Asia Summit, participants adopted the Kuala Lumpur Declaration, committing among other things to: (1) hold the ASEAN+3 Summit annually in conjunction with the ASEAN Summit, to provide political momentum to the formation of an East Asian Community, and (2) commence collaborative efforts to prepare a second Joint Statement on East Asia Cooperation in 2007 to set out the future direction for the formation of an East Asian Community.
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established on August 8, 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Brunei Darussalam joined on January 8, 1984, Vietnam on July 28, 1995, Laos and Myanmar on July 23, 1997 and Cambodia on April 30, 1999. Today, the ASEAN region has a population of about 500 million, a total area of 4.5 million square kilometers and a combined gross domestic product of US$737 billion.
The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in Southeast Asia was signed at the first ASEAN summit on February 24, 1976. Among its key principles are mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations. China, South Korea and Japan (the “+3” countries) joined the ASEAN leaders for an expanded summit for the first time in 2001.
http://www.aseansec.org/
To someone who has long worked to promote peace and friendship in Asia, this consensus could hardly be more welcome. I sincerely hope that all involved will be able to see beyond the limits of national interest and make a concerted effort to build a community of nations free from the reality or threat of war.
The foundations for this are already being laid. As a condition for participation in the East Asia Summit, China, Japan, South Korea, India, New Zealand and Australia were required to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC). This extended the zone of countries committed to the principles of TAC, which include “settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful means” and “renunciation of the threat or use of force.”[45] The same principles are enshrined in the UN Charter, and if by further consolidating these principles on a regional basis countries can help build peaceful, cooperative relationships, the way will be opened for eventually institutionalizing the renunciation of war in the region.
To solidify progress in this direction, a regularized process of dialogue among heads of government will be essential, along with a secretariat to handle the practicalities of promoting regional cooperation. The agreement to stage the ASEAN+3 Summit and East Asia Summit on a regular basis goes far toward fulfilling the first of these conditions.
Regarding the secretariat, the group tasked to debate the content and develop the language for the second Joint Statement on East Asia Cooperation could develop into a standing East Asian commission in the future. An alternative would be to reorganize the ASEAN Standing Committee and Secretariat now responsible for the day-to-day running of ASEAN to fulfill this larger function.
Such a commission could serve as a vehicle for developing regional structures for addressing shared cross-border issues. These would include: combating the spread of new strains of influenza and other threats in the sphere of public health and hygiene; fully implementing the lessons of the December 2004 Sumatra earthquake and tsunami to enhance regional cooperation for disaster prevention and reconstruction; and preventing further destruction and degradation of the environment.
Working together in this way on matters of shared interest would undoubtedly help build trust in the region, strengthening the foundations of any future community. Linking such regional cooperation to political initiative emerging from summit-level dialogue will surely accelerate progress toward the realization of an East Asian Community.
An ethos of coexistence
Next year will mark fifty years since the launch of the European Economic Community (EEC), the forerunner to the current European Union (EU). In Europe, half a century of ongoing dialogue and cooperation has built a solid foundation for a regional community in which war is virtually unthinkable, a process which continues through such challenges as the quest for ratification of the EU constitution in individual member states.
So is it not time for the countries of East Asia to deal definitively with the legacy of conflict and tension that continues to plague the region despite the end of the Cold War, to join hands and take the first step toward building such a community? Efforts to build an East Asian Community should be grounded in a long-term vision of fifty or even a hundred years hence, of a “United States of Asia” similar to the “United States of Europe” envisaged by Victor Hugo (1802–85). In such a union, higher levels of regional integration would provide a backdrop for each nation and culture to shine more brightly with its own unique qualities and individuality while enjoying the fruits of peaceful coexistence and mutual flourishing.
Of course, we must remember that the process of European integration has been facilitated by a common spiritual foundation, the legacy of Christian civilization. What then is the East Asian equivalent? Historical attempts to claim some underlying shared identity, such as the assertion of Japanese author Tenshin Okakura (1863–1913) that “Asia is one,”[46] may be criticized as a rhetorical fancy, devoid of real substance.
In the past I have noted (in an October 1992 speech to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) that in East Asia different peoples have developed their own cultures and traditions, and thus cannot easily be bundled together. On that same occasion, however, I also expressed my belief that running through all these cultures and traditions is something that might be called an “ethos of coexistence.”
By this I mean that living in a region much of which enjoys a relatively hospitable natural environment, and sharing a view of human nature that, in contrast to the Western emphasis on individualism, experiences personal identity through intimate engagement with others, we have a psychological tendency to see cooperation rather than conflict, unity rather than fragmentation, and “us” rather than “me.”
Past experience suggests that any kind of integration in East Asia is unlikely to be achieved overnight, and would prove extremely difficult to sustain without mutual understanding, common values and a shared philosophical grounding—which is precisely why I have poured so much energy into encouraging connections among peoples at the individual level. I have always felt that this was the most certain path toward achieving lasting peace in Asia.
Enduring friendship between China and Japan
I believe that relations between Japan, China and South Korea constitute one critical factor in building a larger community in East Asia. Regrettably, in recent years bilateral relations among the three countries, in particular Sino-Japanese relations, have chilled considerably. They urgently need to be put back on track.
There is a saying to the effect that when one reaches an impasse, it is time to return to first principles. In order to find a way past the current deadlock in Sino-Japanese relations, perhaps the best way to start is by recalling and reaffirming the spirit that prevailed when diplomatic relations were first normalized between the two countries in the early 1970s.
Just a few years before, when I called in 1968 for the normalization of relations, among the Japanese people there was a fear and mistrust of the Chinese that extended to the personal level, a climate exacerbated by the shock of the Cultural Revolution. I was criticized in many quarters for taking that stand, but I firmly believed then, as I do now, that without amicable Sino-Japanese relations there can never be peace in Asia, or the world.
The Sino-Japanese summit I called for eventually came to pass in 1972, clearing the way for the historic joint communiqué announcing the normalization of relations that September. In May 1974, I visited China for the first time, at the invitation of the China-Japan Friendship Association.
When I returned that December, Premier Zhou Enlai (1898–1976), who was battling ill health, insisted on meeting with me against the advice of his doctors. Our discussions covered a wide range of topics but had one underlying theme: the fate of Asia and the world in the twenty-first century. “Now is the time to build friendship between China and Japan that will span the generations,” he told me. “The last quarter of the twentieth century will be the most critical period in the history of the world. All nations must stand as equals and help each other.”
Sadly, Premier Zhou died barely a year later, but over the years his words at that meeting have inspired my efforts to build cultural and educational ties at the citizen level, to foster an enduring friendship between China and Japan.
If one likens political and economic relations to ships, connections between ordinary people are like the ocean itself. So long as the ocean of mutual understanding and friendship continues to link peoples, amicable interactions will be maintained even through crises in which the ships risk running aground. This faith in the importance of people-to-people connections is the basis for all my actions.
Last year, designated Japan-Korea Friendship Year, I published a second volume of dialogues with Cho Moon-Boo, former President of South Korea’s Cheju National University. At present, I am engaged in a dialogue with Zhang Kaiyuan, professor at the Central China Normal University and one of China’s leading historians.
When he visited Japan in December 2005, Professor Zhang noted that many Japanese had given aid and support to the revolutionary movement of Sun Yat-sen (1866–1925), which overthrew China’s last imperial dynasty to establish a republic in 1912. He shared the following thoughts, with which I concur fully:
While we should respect history, we must also move beyond it. Most of the 2,000 years that China and Japan have been in contact have been characterized by friendship. If these two great nations separated by just a narrow stretch of water can be at peace, both will prosper; if they come into conflict, both will be the worse for it. A normal, stable relationship of amicable cooperation is good for China and Japan, for Asia, and for the world.
The top priority of Japanese diplomacy since World War II has been to maintain a cooperative relationship with the United States, but perhaps the time has come, while maintaining this overall framework, to develop another foreign relations dynamic, centered on Asia.
The recent agreement by the Chinese and Japanese governments for a series of reciprocal educational exchanges involving over 2,000 high school students annually is therefore all the more significant. Having repeatedly called for more educational exchanges between the youth of China and Japan as a way of looking to the future while confronting the lessons of the past, I find this development very welcome indeed. I strongly urge Japan to recognize that building lasting friendships spanning the generations is indeed the best course to follow in the twenty-first century. Japan, China and South Korea should work together to address the common challenges we face, forging cooperative relations that will open the way toward the creation of an East Asian Community.
Facing the future
One issue that Japan, China and South Korea are presently working together to resolve is that of North Korean nuclear development. Since the six-party talks process started in August 2003, it has moved forward in fits and starts with five rounds of government-level discussions being held so far.
Finally, at the fourth round of negotiations conducted last year, the first joint statement aimed at resolution of the North Korean nuclear problem was adopted and issued. In this statement, North Korea “committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning, at an early date, to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards.” For its part, the United States “affirmed that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade the DPRK with nuclear or conventional weapons.”
Six-Party Talks
The Six-Party Talks is the name given to meetings of representatives of the People’s Republic of China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea), South Korea, Russia, Japan and the United States, seeking a resolution of the crisis over the North Korean nuclear weapons program. There have been five rounds of talks to date: in August 2003; February 2004; June 2004; July, August and September 2005; and November 2005. In their September 2005 joint statement, the parties unanimously reaffirmed that the goal of the talks is “the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner.”
This joint statement at last gave the six parties to the talks a common starting point. Taking the next step, however, has proven far more difficult: No time-frame or specific procedures have been established for North Korea’s actual abandonment of its program for the development of nuclear weapons. The critical question of establishing a verification regime also remains. The talks themselves, moreover, have been suspended since last November.
The implications of allowing this situation to drift at a time when there is growing concern about Iran’s nuclear development program are potentially dire. I therefore suggest that to move the talks to the next stage, a summit of the heads of government of the six parties be held with the participation of high-level representatives from the UN and IAEA, to discuss how best to make a breakthrough.
An agreement reached between heads of government would have such weight as to generate an irreversible momentum. Having reached consensus, the parties could then form working committees to tackle specific issues, setting deadlines for each stage of the process until the verifiable relinquishment of the nuclear weapons program is achieved. Breaking the problem into discrete steps with concrete time-frames would seem the best way to achieve progress on this seemingly intractable problem.
The six-party talks thus provide a framework for the resolution of problems through discussions at the regional level, using soft power based on dialogue and the fostering of trust to find a solution, without recourse to the hard power of military force. Once this approach has proven effective, the prospects not only of achieving stability in East Asia but also of preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in other regions will be greatly enhanced.
Having consistently advocated that the six-party talks develop into a permanent and constructive forum for dialogue aimed at maintaining peace in Northeast Asia, I was particularly gratified to see that the aforementioned joint statement included the words: “The Six Parties agreed to explore ways and means for promoting security cooperation in Northeast Asia.” From a Japanese perspective, one must hope that an easing of tensions in the region would also bring progress on the outstanding issue of Japanese nationals abducted by North Korea, and negotiations toward normalization of diplomatic relations between the two countries.
Education for peace
Finally, I would like to stress the importance of disarmament education as a means of transforming the paradigms of society to move from a culture of war characterized by conflict and confrontation, to a culture of peace based on cooperation and creative coexistence.
Last year, the world twice missed the opportunity to mark the sixtieth anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with positive progress on nuclear disarmament; first, in the lack of results from the NPT Review Conference in May, and then in the failure to make any mention of nuclear weapons in the outcome document of the World Summit at the UN General Assembly in September.
Amidst fiercely divided opinion over the relative merits of nuclear disarmament versus nonproliferation, the Review Conference achieved no substantive progress; in fact the Conference could not even agree upon a chairman’s summary, let alone a consensus document. This conflict of opinion persisted at the World Summit, with the result that all references to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation were deleted from the outcome document.
This twofold failure is all the more tragic in light of the following three disturbing trends identified by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei—the emergence of a nuclear black market, the determined efforts by more countries to acquire technology to produce the fissile material usable in nuclear weapons, and the clear desire of terrorists to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The danger posed by nuclear weapons has cast deep shadows over the international community, highlighting the fact that the world’s disarmament efforts stand at an absolutely critical juncture.
This can be attributed in part to a lack of political will, but also significant is the absence of a strong groundswell of world opinion calling for disarmament. While there is an urgent need to bolster the international legal framework, for example, by resuscitating the NPT regime, at the same time the public must raise their voices. In concrete terms this will require a fundamental change in people’s attitudes, which can be realized through peace and disarmament education. In recent years the UN has come to recognize this, and in 2002 the General Assembly adopted an expert report on the issue, “The United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education.”
In my view, the crucial need is for a radical change in ideas and a search for new approaches. Rallying public opinion to the cause of disarmament requires not just experts or those already involved in the peace movement, but people from all walks of life. Rather than concentrating on the technical and physical facts of disarmament, there needs to be a revolutionary transformation in the way people think about peace, so that it is felt as an immediate and personal reality.
Peace is not simply the absence of war. A truly peaceful society is one in which everyone can maximize their potential and build fulfilling lives free from threats to their dignity.
As a practical initiative, I believe we must fully integrate disarmament education, in this expanded sense I have described, into the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World (2001–10), and develop activities to this end throughout civil society.
The basis for these initiatives must be a shift in our frame of reference from national to human sovereignty. Disarmament education needs to be a grassroots movement that helps to raise world citizens who are firmly committed to the interests of humankind and the planet, and to strengthen the solidarity among them. In this sense, disseminating knowledge and information about disarmament should not be an end in itself: Our greatest priority should be changing people’s mindset and behavior so that they are grounded in a culture of peace.
For our part, the SGI has sponsored exhibitions such as “Building a Culture of Peace for the Children of the World,” and last year we opened Culture of Peace Resource Centers within our SGI-USA centers in New York and Los Angeles to support this effort. Next year, to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the call made by Josei Toda (1900–58), second president of the Soka Gakkai, for the abolition of nuclear weapons, we will promote peace activities at the community level throughout the world as we seek to transform the global culture from one of war to one of peace.
Working together for a world without war
A transformation in the inner life of a single individual can spur and encourage similar changes in others, and as this extends into society, it generates a powerful vortex for peace that can steadily shape the direction of events. The collective impact of “ordinary citizens,” awakened and empowered, can propel humankind toward the twin goals of genuine disarmament and a flourishing culture of peace.
It was one of my great pleasures to have met and held in-depth discussions with Dr. Joseph Rotblat, emeritus president of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, who sadly passed away last year. I will never forget one of the remarks he shared with me on ridding the world of nuclear weapons, ridding the world of war:
When a small stone is thrown into a pond, the ripples travel widely out from the center. Though the ripples may become less powerful, they still do not completely disappear. Every person has the power to create ripples that can change society. If these efforts are concentrated and channeled through NGOs, inevitably the power to influence society will grow. … If we unite, we can change the world. It might take some time, but viewed from a long-term perspective, the people will be victorious in the end.
This solidarity of awakened citizens for which Dr. Rotblat had such great hopes is what drives the SGI’s movement of Buddhist humanism in 190 countries and territories. The next five years to 2010 are a critical opportunity; with courage and hope we look forward to working with like-minded people around the world to build the foundations of a global society of peace and creative coexistence.
Toward a New Era of Dialogue: Humanism Explored
There has been an extraordinary heightening of tensions aroundthe world since September 11, 2001. In many countries the priority accorded to national security has been used to justify curtailment of rights and freedoms, while energy and attention have been distracted from efforts to address such global issues as poverty and ecological degradation. How can we overcome the crises that face us?
There is, of course, no simple solution, but there is no need to fall into meaningless and unproductive pessimism. These problems are all caused by human beings, which means that they must have a human solution. I am convinced that so long as we do not give up we can be certain of finding a way out of the impasse.
The core of our efforts must be to bring forth the full potential of dialogue, to embrace dialogue as the sure and certain path to peace. Heartfelt, one-to-one dialogue is the essence of humanism. As ripples of dialogue multiply and spread, they have the potential to generate a sea change that will redirect the energies of dogmatism and fanaticism toward a more humanistic outlook.
Fanaticism and dogmatism come in many forms. Although often associated with religion, they can be found across the full spectrum of human activity, as seen in the way the political ideologies of the twentieth century were caught in their snares.
To some extent any ideology embodies an orthodoxy or set way of understanding the world. While this can sometimes be a positive thing, at the same time orthodoxies can bind people’s thinking and judgment to a single, exclusive point of reference. There is an intrinsic danger that this tendency can get out of control and that abstract “isms” will come to hold thrall over real people. This can give rise to fanaticism, resulting in a situation in which human life is grotesquely devalued and death is glorified.
In contrast to such orthodoxies, the most prominent feature of humanism is that it does not seek to impose norms of behavior. Rather, it places central stress on the free and spontaneous workings of the human spirit and on autonomous judgment and decision-making.
The following can be seen as a guideline for a Buddhist-inspired humanism in action: Recognizing that all is change within a framework of interdependence, we see harmony and oneness as expressions of our interconnectedness. But we can even look at contradiction and conflict in the same way. Refusing to discriminate on the basis of stereotypes or imposed limitations, we can engage with the full force of our lives in the kind of dialogue that will transform even conflict into positive connection. It is in this challenge that the true contribution of a Buddhist-based humanism is to be found.
Education for Global Citizenship
Here education holds the key. Education for global citizenship can help transform humankind’s long-standing culture of war into a culture of peace.
The United Nations can serve as a powerful coordinating focus for such efforts. The World Programme for Human Rights Education, initiated in January 2005, provides a vital opportunity in this regard. The year 2005 also marks the start of the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, something which the SGI has consistently called for and worked toward. Human rights education and education for sustainable development reflect intertwined concerns and objectives.
There is a pressing need to embrace a vision of dialogue between humanity and nature, a humanism that is not limited to the human. If we lack the humility to heed the messages of the natural world–the evidence of climate change and environmental destruction–arrogantly and recklessly asserting only the concerns and needs of the human world, the natural systems that sustain us will collapse. Indeed, no effort to make the new century an era of universal respect for human rights will be fruitful unless we can expand our understanding of rights to embrace the natural world. It is for this reason that I have for some time urged that a global commitment to harmonious coexistence with nature be reflected in the Japanese Constitution.
Reforming and Strengthening the UN
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated that the UN’s aim should be “to create a world that both has fewer threats and greater ability to meet those threats which nevertheless arise.” While the capacity to respond to threats is crucial, preventive engagement with global problems. The soft power of dialogue and cooperation lies at the heart of the UN, and soft power functions most effectively at the preventive end of the spectrum, namely, defining paradigms for addressing global problems, creating collaborative frameworks and so forth.
To strengthen the soft power role of the UN, there is a need for what might be termed a “global governance coordinating panel,” whose work could be supported by a working group of NGOs. Restructuring of the UN requires a strengthening of the partnership between the UN and civil society. The rights of NGOs to participate in and initiate debate should be extended to their relations with the UN General Assembly and the Security Council.
Confidence and Peacebuilding in the Asia-Pacific Region
The establishment of a UN Asia-Pacific office would mark the start of a new effort to advance human security in the region. Further, I would like to see the foundations in East Asia for the kind of regional integration we see in other regions. As a step toward this, issues such as ecological integrity, human development and disaster strategies are amenable to intra-regional cooperation.
Educational exchanges are also crucial. The connections forged by people of different countries in their youth can form the basis for lasting peace. China, Japan and South Korea should develop a program for student mobility that could eventually be expanded to embrace all the countries of Asia.
As well as building trusting relationships with one another through such programs and initiatives, China, Japan and South Korea should work closely together in a concerted quest for a breakthrough in the standoff over the North Korean nuclear arms development issue. A nuclear weapon-free zone should be created in Northeast Asia. The prerequisite for this must be the success of the six-party talks, whose working group set up to discuss specific procedures for the dismantlement of the North Korean nuclear program should be converted into a standing body.
Nuclear Disarmament
The nuclear powers should initiate prompt moves to reduce and dismantle their arsenals and to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime. I strongly urge the declared nuclear-weapon states to begin building the framework for disarmament. We need an international nuclear disarmament agency, a specialized agency to oversee fulfillment of the “unequivocal undertaking” by the nuclear-weapon states to totally eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
We also need to revive negotiations of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), urging India and Pakistan as well as Israel to join, thus engaging them in international regimes for the control of weapons-grade nuclear materials.
I would also like to stress the importance of disarmament and nonproliferation education, which can play a vital role in setting our world securely on a path toward peace. We need to actively incorporate disarmament and nonproliferation into school education. Complementing this are efforts to raise awareness in every part of society. For our part, the SGI will persevere in activities to promote disarmament and nonproliferation education.
This year is the thirtieth anniversary of the SGI, and I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm our fundamental spirit. Rooted in an unwavering commitment to peace, culture and education, SGI members everywhere engage in earnest dialogue, seeking to generate a global tide of peace and creative coexistence. Engraving in our hearts the profound spirit of our mentors–that this is the sure and certain path to humanity’s eternal victory–we reaffirm our determination to swell the currents of solidarity among awakened citizens, sharing and spreading a dynamic commitment to peace and humanism.
Toward a New Era of Dialogue: Humanism Explored
by Daisaku Ikeda President, Soka Gakkai International January 26, 2005
Commemorating the thirtieth anniversary of the founding of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI), I would like to take this opportunity to offer some philosophical perspectives and concrete proposals to further the search for world peace and the creative coexistence of humankind.
Before doing so, however, let me express my heartfelt condolences and prayers for all those who lost their lives in the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami at the end of last year. Our hearts go out to all those who struggle to overcome the unimaginable suffering and grief that has afflicted them.
I strongly hope that the international community will cooperate to provide the kind of sustained and coordinated support that will enable the communities that suffered such enormous damage to fully recover.
I also pray that recovery and reconstruction efforts will progress so that all the individuals and families in regions affected by this unprecedented natural disaster will be able to reestablish lives of security and hope as quickly as possible.
The crisis we face
In the years since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the world has experienced an extraordinary heightening of tensions. As governments tighten security measures to forestall the terrorist attacks that could occur at any time, the lives of many ordinary citizens are filled with a sense of fear and insecurity. There is no sign of a return to normality.
While conditions during the Cold War were in some ways similar, there is something even more unfathomable about the current threat. It is impossible to identify the potential perpetrators of terrorist acts, and there is no clear sense of what would constitute a resolution to the situation. There is a gnawing sense of vulnerability which even the most aggressive military actions or intrusive security measures are powerless to alleviate.
The situation in Iraq likewise remains chaotic. Despite the transfer of sovereignty to a provisional government last June, military clashes and terror attacks continue to occur throughout the country, and many question the chances of success for the January 30 elections for the national assembly.
Further, efforts to realize peace in the Middle East remain deadlocked. Talks on the issue of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program are stalemated. Together with a large number of regional conflicts, these circumstances have prompted pessimistic voices to warn that we are in danger of repeating the war and violence that characterized the twentieth century.
In many countries the priority accorded to national security has in recent years fueled a drive to expand armaments. Increasingly, domestic security concerns are being used to justify curtailment of rights and freedoms. Meanwhile, energy and attention have been distracted from international efforts to address such global issues as poverty and ecological degradation. The resultant aggravation of threats to people’s lives and dignity are another tragic outcome of terrorism and efforts to suppress it.
How can twenty-first-century humankind overcome the crises that face us?
There is, of course, no simple solution, no “magic wand” we can wave to make it all better. The way forward will be perilous as it requires finding an appropriate response to the kind of violence that rejects all attempts at engagement or dialogue.
Even so, there is no need to fall into meaningless and unproductive pessimism. All these problems are caused by human beings, which means that they must have a human solution. However long the effort takes, so long as we do not abandon the work of unknotting the tangled threads of these interrelated issues, we can be certain of finding a way forward.
The core of such efforts must be to bring forth the full potential of dialogue. So long as human history continues, we will face the perennial challenge of realizing, maintaining and strengthening peace through dialogue, of making dialogue the sure and certain path to peace. We must uphold and proclaim this conviction without cease, whatever coldly knowing smiles or cynical critiques may greet us.
Here I am reminded of the words of the poet Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941), whose writings have long inspired my affection and respect:
Asks the Possible to the Impossible, “Where is your dwelling place ?” “In the dreams of the impotent,” comes the answer.[1]
A whirlwind of dialogue
As mentioned earlier, this year marks the thirtieth anniversary of the SGI. The year 1975 was also a time of deepening conflict and division in the world. The aftershocks of the fourth Arab-Israeli War (1973) and the war in Viet Nam were still being felt; the first summit of leading industrialized countries was held in that year to strengthen the unity of the western bloc, while in the communist bloc, the confrontation between China and the Soviet Union was escalating ominously.
I dedicated the year leading up to the founding of the SGI to intensive efforts in dialogue. My first visits to both China and the Soviet Union were made in 1974. Keenly aware of the potentially explosive tensions, I met repeatedly with the top leadership of both countries, engaging them in earnest dialogue.
In Japan at the time, the Soviet Union and its people were regarded with violent hostility. There were many who criticized my decision to travel there, asking what purpose could possibly be served by a person of religion going to a country that officially denied the value or validity of religion. But my sincere belief, as a Buddhist, was that no vision of peace was possible that didn’t recognize and include the one-third of the world that was the communist bloc. It was crucial, in my view, that a breakthrough be found as soon as possible.
On my first visit to China in May 1974, I witnessed the people of Beijing building a vast network of underground shelters against the eventuality of a Soviet attack. When I met, some three months later, with Soviet Premier Alexei N. Kosygin (1904–80), I conveyed to him the concerns I had encountered in China about Soviet intentions and asked him straight out if the Soviet Union was planning to attack China. The premier responded that the Soviet Union had no intention of either attacking or isolating China.
I brought this message with me when I next visited China in December of that year, conveying it to the Chinese leadership. It was also on this visit that I met Premier Zhou Enlai (1898–1976), discussing with him the importance of enhancing and strengthening friendship between China and Japan, and of working together for the betterment of the entire world.
In January of 1975, I visited the United States and presented to the United Nations a petition with more than ten million signatures calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons gathered by the youth membership of the Soka Gakkai in Japan. I also had the opportunity to exchange views with U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
It was in the midst of such feverish efforts to promote dialogue that the SGI was founded thirty years ago on this day, January 26, 1975. The inaugural meeting was held on the island of Guam, site of fierce fighting in World War II, and was attended by the representatives of fifty-one countries and territories. From its inception, the SGI has sought to draw on people’s energy and creativity to forge an effective grassroots movement for peace.
Since that first gathering, the members of the SGI have consistently upheld the conviction that dialogue represents the sure and certain path to peace. I have also committed myself to “human diplomacy,” the kind of diplomacy that seeks to unite a divided world in the spirit of friendship and trust, and to promoting broad-based, grassroots exchanges in the cultural and educational fields.
Seeking to look beyond national and ideological differences, I have engaged in dialogue with leaders in various fields from throughout the world. I have met and shared thoughts with people of many different philosophical, cultural and religious backgrounds, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Confucianism. My consistent belief, reinforced through this experience, is that the basis for the kind of dialogue required in the twenty-first century must be humanism—one that sees good in that which unites and brings us together, evil in that which divides and sunders us.
As I review my own efforts to foster dialogue in this way, I gain a renewed sense of the urgent need to redirect the energies of dogmatism and fanaticism—the cause of so much deadly conflict—toward a more humanistic outlook. In a world rent by terrorism and retaliatory strikes, by conflicts premised on ethnic and religious differences, such an attempt may appear to some a hopeless quest. But even so I believe that we must continue to make efforts toward this goal.
Here I am not suggesting humanism as something that goes head-to-head with dogmatism or fanaticism in a sterile confrontation between competing “isms.”
The real essence and practice of humanism is found in heartfelt, one-to-one dialogue. Be it summit diplomacy or the various interactions of private citizens in different lands, genuine dialogue has the kind of intensity described by the great twentieth-century humanist and philosopher Martin Buber (1878–1965) as an encounter “on the narrow ridge”[2] in which the slightest inattention could result in a precipitous fall. Dialogue is indeed this kind of intense, high-risk encounter.
I believe that the analogy of trimtabs—small, adjustable flaps on the wings of airplanes and the keels of boats—is useful. As designer and philosopher R. Buckminster Fuller pointed out, a trimtab on a ship’s rudder can be operated by the unaided power of a single individual; it can facilitate the movement of the rudder, thus enabling a change in direction of a massive ship.[3] Humanism can play a similar role, redirecting the course of global society.
As ripples of dialogue multiply and spread, they have the potential to generate the kind of sea change that will redirect the forces of fanaticism and dogmatism. The cumulative affect of such seemingly small efforts is, I believe, sufficient to redirect the current of the times—just as a small trimtab can adjust the course of a massive ship or plane. What is crucial is the hard and patient work of challenging, through the spiritual struggle of intense encounter and dialogue, the assumptions and attachments that bind and drive people.
The snares of fanaticism
Fanaticism and dogmatism come in many forms. Some may be quick to associate these with monotheistic religion, when in fact they can be found across the full spectrum of human activity. Buddhism, though often thought to be relatively immune to such extremism, is by no means entirely free from its snares, as I will discuss later. Nor, of course, is fanaticism limited to religion. The degree to which many of the political ideologies of the twentieth century were caught in this same trap is something that is fresh in our memories.
To some extent any ideology (in the widest sense of the term) embodies an orthodoxy or set way of understanding the world. We need therefore to develop a better understanding of both the positive and negative aspects of such orthodoxies, or “isms.”
To the degree that an orthodoxy can serve as a norm to guide people’s actions to constructive ends, it can be a positive thing. At the same time, however, such “isms” can start to bind people’s otherwise unfettered thinking and judgment to a single, exclusive point of reference. When this tendency gets out of control, abstract “isms” can end up holding thrall over real people and their lives. It is in the nature of orthodoxies that they are capable of careening off in this direction at any time.
Fanaticism arises when this destructive aspect has ballooned out of all proportion. It can lead to a situation in which human life is grotesquely devalued and death—both one’s own and others’—is glorified. This explains the fact that the twentieth century was both an era of ideology and one of unprecedented slaughter.
In contrast to these kinds of “isms” or orthodoxies, the most prominent feature of humanism is that it does not seek to provide externally defined norms of behavior. Rather, it places central stress on the free and spontaneous workings of the human spirit and on autonomous judgment and decision-making.
Certainly, humanism upholds humanity—both in the concrete sense and as an abstract quality—as its core standard. But it does not seek to establish on that basis a fixed set of rules to guide all judgments and actions.
The renowned cultural anthropologist Eiichiro Ishida (1903–68) was once asked to provide a universal definition of “humanity.” Noting that cultural relativism makes this difficult, he struggled for the right words before finally offering this formulation: “In the end, it becomes a matter of what you yourself feel to be human” (trans.).[4]
While this may appear rather vague, it perhaps illustrates the nature of the inner-motivated, autonomous process which I am attempting to describe. But this absolutely does not signify an unprincipled, irresponsible “anything goes” type of attitude. It is when we are confronted by painful dilemmas and difficult decisions that our capacity to remain faithful to a process of free and autonomous decision-making—to be true to what you yourself feel to be human—is tested to the limit.
“Principles are made for people!”
The life of Albert Einstein (1879–1955) illustrates this point powerfully and poignantly. A man of extraordinarily deep commitment to peace, Einstein was, as a Jew, subjected to relentless harassment and threats of violence at the hands of the Nazis. After intense inner struggle Einstein came to the decision that actively opposing the Nazis was the only means of averting the worst possible outcome. This was the same Einstein who deeply admired Mahatma Gandhi and who had earlier declared, “I would rather be cut to pieces than shoot someone on command.” If this statement is interpreted dogmatically, it might appear that his change in stance compromised his principles. But, as he explained, “principles are made for men and not men for principles.”[5]
Here it is important to keep several points in mind.
The first is that Einstein was forced to the conclusion that failing to resist the outrageous, unilateral violence of the Nazis would be tantamount to supporting their destructive rampage.
The second is that his endorsement of the decision to manufacture (although not to use) nuclear weapons grew from fear of the dread consequences were the Nazis to succeed in developing them first. When, against his wishes, nuclear weapons were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he regretted his involvement, later describing it as the “one great mistake in my life.”[6]
The third is that this sense of guilt and responsibility drove his redoubled efforts as a peace activist, in the postwar years, to work for nuclear abolition and the establishment of world government.
Albert Einstein’s Pacifism
When, in 1905 at the age of 26, Einstein formulated his famous equation, that the energy of a body at rest is equal to its mass times the speed of light squared (e=mc2), he had no inkling of the implications of this principle for a nuclear weapon technology. According to physicist Leo Szilard, the idea still had not occurred to him in 1938 when Szilard, fearing that the Germans may be attempting to build an atomic bomb, appealed to Einstein to use his influence to warn the American government. Einstein agreed to sign a letter to President Roosevelt urging him to begin research into uranium chain reactions.
Ten years earlier Einstein had declared that, should a war break out, he would “unconditionally refuse to do war service, direct or indirect … regardless of how the cause of the war should be judged.” Einstein had been a staunch and outspoken pacifist since WWI. When the Nazi party seized power, his attitude to war resistance began to change. Though he never stopped supporting pacifist ideals, to the dismay of other pacifists, he began to endorse military opposition to the Nazis. In 1933 he fled Germany for the U.S. When work on an American a-bomb began, Einstein’s involvement was excluded, most likely owing to his pacifist leanings. Einstein believed that America would resist actually using the bomb. The latter period of Einstein’s life was marked by his most energetic peace efforts, leading “Life” magazine to list him as one of the U.S.A’s top 50 famous “dupes and fellow-travelers” of communism.
I believe that the consistent theme running through the complex inner drama of Einstein’s life is that each of these difficult, indeed perilous, decisions was an embodiment of the ceaseless quest to locate that which we feel to be human, the universal standard of humanity alluded to above. The essence and proof of humanism, in my view, is inner conflict and struggle in pursuit of the good. In the midst of the maelstrom of Nazism, Einstein repeatedly declared, “We must change people’s hearts,”[7] something which cannot be achieved without this kind of inner struggle.
Einstein’s philosophy after the war was not, perhaps, one of nonviolence in the very strictest sense of the word. Nevertheless I think that his ultimate goal shared profound commonalities with the nonviolent struggles of Mahatma Gandhi. This is clear from the praise that Einstein in his later years offered Gandhi, calling him “the greatest political genius of our age” (trans.).[8]
Einstein’s penetrating axiom that principles are made for people and not people for principles offers a simple and direct expression of what might be considered the lynchpin of humanism. But as the struggles of this giant of the twentieth century prove, nothing is harder to put into practice. Religions and political ideologies have all too often made people subservient and ultimately sacrificed them on the altar of inflexible rules and abstract principles. This inversion of the relative importance of people and principles derives from a deeply rooted tendency in human nature that seems to drive us into the arms of dogmatism and fanaticism. The historical record in this regard is truly chilling.
The case of Buddhism
In the Buddhist scriptures we find these words: “Shakyamuni taught that the shallow is easy to embrace, but the profound is difficult. To discard the shallow and seek the profound is the way of a person of courage.”[9] People seem too easily to lose sight of and forget their own capacity for courage, to cling and become captive to a particular dogma. We seem to possess an instinctive weakness that drives us to the shallow and easy choice of unquestioning, blind belief in dogma.
There the snares of extremism await, ready to take advantage of the weakness and folly that are found in all people, where pandering and other stratagems are used to stir up such destructive tendencies as hatred, fury, jealousy and arrogance. This kind of dogmatism works to degrade, weaken and stultify the human spirit. It stands at the opposite pole to humanism.
The controversy between the members of the SGI and the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood that flared up in 1990 is a case in point. In its essence a struggle against the perils of religious authoritarianism, it embodies a movement for religious reform that is at its heart the struggle of humanism against anti-humanism.
Nichiren Shoshu and the SGI
Nichiren Shoshu is the school of Nichiren Buddhism to which the Soka Gakkai, and later SGI, was affiliated as a lay Buddhist association. In December 1990, Nichiren Shoshu, under the leadership of its high priest, Abe Nikken, removed SGI President Ikeda from the position of the head of all Nichiren Shoshu lay societies, and in November of the following year, excommunicated all of the more than 10 million members of the SGI.
At the crux of the conflict was the clergy’s insistence that priests are necessary intermediaries between Buddhist lay believers and their goal of enlightenment. The SGI, however, had consistently taken the position that enlightenment is ultimately up to the efforts made in faith and practice by the individual. The SGI maintains that priests hold no special power over the faith of believers, and that, moreover, the priesthood’s assertions contradict core Buddhist principles. Nichiren, from whom Nichiren Shoshu and the Soka Gakkai both claim lineage, was particularly adamant on the question of universal human dignity and equality.
The priesthood appears to have assumed that most SGI members would leave the organization and affiliate themselves directly with a Nichiren Shoshu temple. More than 99 percent of membership, however, resisted such intimidation and remained with the SGI organization.
Hiding behind their assumed authority as priests, the Nichiren Shoshu establishment sought to blind others to their corruption and degradation, and to crush and oppress the spirits of lay believers. This indeed represents the worst form of anti-humanism.
For the members of the SGI, to have allowed ourselves to be cowed and defeated by this would have been to surrender our humanity. The implications of this controversy go beyond the scope of a single school of Buddhism. Rooted in the universal spirit of human dignity—that which we feel to be human—we believe it would be a disservice to humanity if we were to retreat on this issue.
When the priesthood issue first arose, the educator Taro Hori (1920–95) (at the time president of Newton College, Shiga) offered this analysis: “This represents a challenge to the authoritarianism and supplicant faith lurking in each person’s heart. By overcoming this, each member [of the SGI] will grow and develop to an astonishing degree” (trans.).[10]
In the years since this issue first surfaced, through our struggles against corrupt religious authority, members of the SGI have, both as individuals and as an organization, outgrown the restraints of our past selves, strengthening and tempering the hearts of the courageous. It is something of which I believe we can be justly proud. This pride stems from the confidence that our struggle ties into the larger challenge—inherent in the nature of civilization itself—of constructing a genuine and robust humanism.
Exploring humanism
In the proposal I made three years ago, I set out some Buddhist perspectives on the philosophy and practice of humanism. I would like to take this opportunity to further develop those ideas, specifically by offering the following three propositions as essential elements of a Buddhist-inspired humanism.
(1) All things are relative and mutable.
(2) It is therefore essential that we develop the ability to discern the relative and mutable nature of reality, as well as the kind of robust autonomy that will not be overwhelmed by it.
(3) Based on this discernment and autonomy, we accept all that is human and do not discriminate; we refuse to stereotype or circumscribe people on the basis of ideology, nationality, ethnicity, etc.; we are therefore determined to actively pursue all avenues of dialogue, never permitting them to be closed.
The first two of these propositions—the relativity and mutability of all things and the importance of developing the discernment to recognize this—are easily identifiable as being rooted in such Buddhist concepts as the “three Dharma seals” (Jpn. samboin).
The impermanence of all phenomena (shogyo-mujo) explains that all things, events and experiences can be understood as an unbroken continuity of change and transformation. Because everything changes, there is nothing that has a fixed, independent existence or substance (shoho-muga). The enlightened state realized through the fully developed capacity to discern this reality is referred to as the tranquility of nirvana (nehan-jakujo). This describes the initial awakening achieved by Shakyamuni when he realized that all things arise in the context of their interrelatedness; this is a world woven of the rich threads of diversity, as all things exist in a web of interdependence, each serving as the cause or connection by which all other things come into being.
From the perspective of the understanding of Buddhism that has prevailed in much of the world, the third proposition I set forth here—the positive commitment to action and dialogue—may seem somewhat surprising. It may appear contrary to the contemplative image generally associated with Buddhism as expressed by such concepts as the three Dharma seals.
Other early Buddhist concepts stress that enlightenment is beyond the power of words or intellection. This emphasis on the limits of language would seem, relative to French scientist and philosopher Albert Jacquard’s formulation of “dialogue comprising moments of silence as well as words” (trans.),[11] to place a much greater emphasis on silence. The treatment of silence not as a void or absence but as a rich fecundity is an important characteristic of Buddhism.
It is hardly surprising that many people—faced with the apparent deadlock afflicting Western civilization, whose dramatic development has always been based on the centrality accorded rationality and language (logos)—are seeking healing in things that are seen to be Buddhist and which offer a contrast to this language-centered worldview.
But insofar as the ability to use language remains the distinguishing attribute of the human species, we cannot remain silent and hope to realize the ideal of humanism. In this sense, we have no choice but to immerse ourselves in humanity, to commit ourselves to the ocean of dialogue.
A mark of honor
In more concrete terms, this means directly confronting the evil and unhappiness that are an inevitable aspect of human existence. Vimalakirti’s statement, “When living beings are ill, the bodhisattva is ill; when all living beings are cured, the bodhisattva is cured” (trans.),[12] expresses the resolve of the altruistic bodhisattva to undertake this very challenge. It is a resolve that figures centrally in Mahayana Buddhism. The Mahayana tradition, the tradition that flows from the Lotus Sutra to Nichiren and which informs the practice of SGI members, strongly encourages a dynamic bodhisattva practice of dialogue and engagement. (It should be noted that in doing so, it builds on, and does not deny, the inner tranquility of enlightenment.)
It is because I believe that this dynamism is an important aspect of Buddhism that I cited the following image of Shakyamuni when I spoke at Harvard University in 1993: “meeting others with joy, approaching them with a bright and welcoming countenance.”[13] I would imagine that this dynamism resonates powerfully with the “cosmic religious feelings”[14] that Einstein often spoke of.
Vimalakirti
Vimalakirti, the protagonist of the Vimalakirti Sutra, is a prominent citizen of the city of Vaishali at the time of Shakyamuni. In the sutra, he represents the ideal lay believer and has an understanding of Buddhism superior to that of Shakyamuni’s major disciples. When Vimalakirti is bedridden by illness, Shakyamuni wishes to send someone to visit him, but each of his disciples is intimidated by Vimalakirti’s profound knowledge and understanding. Eventually Bodhisattva Manjushri agrees to go. When questioned by Manjushri about the nature of his illness, Vimalakirti explains that, because bodhisattvas regard all living beings as their children, it is natural that they will be ill so long as living beings are ill. The sutra thus sets forth the ideal of the Mahayana bodhisattva, which is based on a profound empathy for the suffering of others.
In light of the above, I would like to propose the following guidelines for humanism in action: Recognizing that all is change within a framework of interdependence, we of course see harmony and oneness as expressions of our interconnectedness. But we can even appreciate contradiction and conflict in the same way. Thus the struggle against evil—a struggle that issues from the inner effort to master our own contradictions and conflicts—should be seen as a difficult yet unavoidable trial that we must undergo in the effort to create a greater and deeper sense of connection.
If we experience connection positively as a sense of harmony or oneness, we experience the same connection negatively in conflict. In that they are both aspects of connection, they can be understood as bearing an equal value. To the degree, however, that we recognize the reality of life as a struggle and understand that it is through struggle that our humanity is tempered and strengthened, a courageous engagement with conflict is even more crucial. In the Buddhist tradition, this is the mark of honor of the bodhisattva. Refusing to discriminate on the basis of stereotypes or imposed limitations, we can recognize the underlying oneness of positive and negative connection, and engage with the full force of our lives in the kind of dialogue that will transform even conflict into positive connection. It is in this challenge that the true contribution of a Buddhist-based humanism is to be found.
That has been the conviction that has supported me in my efforts over the years.
When I called in 1968 for the normalization of China-Japan relations, or made the efforts described earlier to ease tensions between China and the Soviet Union, I was motivated by the confidence that even the fiercest conflicts do not continue forever. So long as there are people who raise their voices for peace, there is hope.
In 1996, relations between Cuba and the United States were at a particularly low point, following the downing in February of two private planes by Cuban fighter jets and the tightening of the U.S. economic embargo. When in June I visited the U.S. and Cuba, where I met and had a candid exchange with President Fidel Castro, I was likewise motivated by a humanistic faith that the confrontational relationship between the two countries was not fixed or fated to continue indefinitely into the future.
What greater proof of the relative and mutable nature of reality than the fall of the Berlin Wall, perhaps the most prominent symbol of a Cold War that often seemed destined to continue forever. I recall visiting West Germany in October 1961 and standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate. At the time, I shared my belief, based on my faith in people’s courage and yearning for peace, that the wall would come down within thirty years. Remarkably, it was just twenty-eight years later that the Berlin Wall was in fact dismantled by the ordinary citizens living in both sides of that divided nation.
It has been my pleasure twice to meet with President Nelson Mandela of South Africa, and I consider him a valued friend. He describes the process by which seemingly intractable realities were challenged and the apartheid system brought down:
Many in the international community, observing from a distance how our society defied the prophets of doom and their predictions of endless conflict, have spoken of a miracle. Yet those who have been closely involved in the transition will know that it has been the product of human decision.[15]
This is a truly pregnant observation. Historic transformations that strike third-party observers as miraculous are in fact wrought by those who have the wisdom to discern the relative, mutable nature of reality and possess the will to initiate action based on a clear vision of a better future.
Looking beyond stereotypes
One of the core concerns regarding the current situation in Iraq is that the conflict will become entrenched and develop into a full-scale confrontation between opposing worldviews, that it will become the spark for a clash of civilizations.
To prevent a descent into such a quagmire, it is vital that we not conflate specific impulses to violence with the cultural traditions of whole civilizations. We must be constantly on guard against the stereotyped, deterministic approach to others that, in fact, constitutes the core of all extremist philosophies, the very snares of dogmatism.
In any society, in any country, in any civilization, the vast majority of people reject extremist views. And it is only a tiny minority that harbor hegemonic ambitions to impose their culture or legal system on other countries.
Five years ago, in 2000, I published a dialogue with Iranian-born Professor Majid Tehranian of the University of Hawai’i in which we discussed and compared the Buddhist and Islamic traditions. Professor Tehranian noted the persistence of widespread prejudice against Islam, the misconception that it is somehow violent or threatening. He stressed, for example, that the true meaning of jihad is an inner struggle waged by individuals in the quest for spiritual elevation. He also spoke of the policies of accommodation toward people of other faiths under the Ottoman Turks and the historical reality that such European cities as Sarajevo and Cordoba enjoyed religious pluralism and flourished under Muslim rule. We agreed that at the core of Islamic civilization is to be found—not intolerance—but an aspiring to the universal and a respect for diversity.
Starting in February, publication will begin of a serialized dialogue between myself and Nur Yalman, a professor of cultural anthropology at Harvard University originally from Turkey. The realities and spirituality of Islamic society are among the topics we will cover in this dialogue, which we hope will contribute in some way to opening the path toward a global civilization based on the peaceful coexistence of all humankind.
Over the years, I have had the privilege of meeting with many distinguished individuals from throughout the Islamic world, from the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Through these encounters I have sensed a deep-seated yearning for peace, and this has reinforced my faith in the great majority of Muslims who seek harmonious coexistence.
The SGI as a whole has been actively participating in interfaith dialogue in various forums. Immediately following the September 11 terror attacks, for example, we joined representatives of the Jewish, Christian, Islamic and Buddhist faiths in a dialogue convened by the European Academy of Arts and Sciences. Further, SGI-affiliated institutes such as the Boston Research Center for the 21st Century and the Institute of Oriental Philosophy have been actively engaged in efforts in interfaith and cross-cultural dialogue. All these endeavors seek to contribute to the search for a path to peace, perspectives that will enable the resolution of the complex of global challenges.
The 2004 Human Development Report, issued by the UN Development Programme (UNDP), is focused on the theme of cultural liberty. It contains important insights into the nature of coercive movements that use violence or threats to force their views on others or to establish cultural domination. The report notes that the focus of such coercive movements “is not on solving real grievances but on using ostensible grievances as rallying cries.”[16]
As the report makes clear, it is important that we have a keen awareness that people are not moved to extreme acts simply because they belong to a certain religion or nationality: “Movements of cultural domination also target members of their own community by denigrating and suppressing dissenting opinions and questioning integrity and loyalty (purity of faith or patriotism).”[17] In other words, such movements will even turn against those whom they claim as members of the same group, religion or nationality.
It is for this reason that unilateral military measures are not an effective response to violent and extremist movements, as they can in fact end up increasing sympathy and support for such movements among the general population. It is crucial that persistent efforts be made to remove the underlying causes of social instability, the grievances on which extremist groups feed.
Human rights education
Here education holds the key.
When properly implemented (when it is not, that is, merely a tool for social control as was the case in pre-1945 militarist Japan), education is a powerful force for the positive transformation of individuals and society as a whole. Education for global citizenship can help transform humankind’s long-standing culture of war into a culture of peace. It challenges us to fulfill our genuine potential as users of language (Homo loquens). The United Nations can serve as a powerful coordinating focus for such efforts.
The World Programme for Human Rights Education, initiated in January 2005, provides a vital opportunity in this regard. The need for ongoing global efforts for human rights education has been a long-standing concern of mine; in a written statement to the UN Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held four years ago in Durban, South Africa, I urged that efforts be made to this end. The SGI has worked with other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), UN agencies and the representatives of UN member states to encourage the adoption of this program. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted a recommendation for such a program in April 2004; it was formally established by a resolution of the UN General Assembly in December of that year. The program will focus in its first three years (2005–07) on integrating human rights issues into the curricula of primary and secondary schools.
World Programme for Human Rights Education
The World Programme for Human Rights Education was proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in December 2004 following the conclusion of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995–2004).
Human rights education can be defined as education, training and information aiming at building a universal culture of human rights through sharing knowledge, imparting skills and molding attitudes to, among other things: the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; the promotion of understanding, tolerance, gender equality and friendship among all nations, indigenous peoples and racial, national, ethnic, religious and linguistic groups; and the enabling of all persons to participate effectively in a free and democratic society governed by the rule of law.
The first three years of the world program (2005–2007) will focus on the primary and secondary school systems. The plan of action aims to achieve specific objectives such as: inclusion and practice of human rights in schools; providing guidelines on key components of human rights education; facilitating support to member states by international, regional, national and local organizations. It provides a definition of human rights education in the school system based on internationally agreed principles and a user-friendly guide to developing or improving human rights education in the school system.
The SGI worked to support the UN Decade for Human Rights Education (1995–2004) through the international exhibition “Human Rights in Today’s World: Toward a Century of Hope.” Plans are currently under way for a follow-up exhibition to be held in venues throughout the world in support of the new program.
The year 2005 also marks the start of the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, something which the SGI has called for and worked toward in collaboration with other members of international civil society. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the lead agency for the promotion of the decade, describes its goal as “a world where everyone has the opportunity to benefit from education and learn the values, behavior and lifestyles required for a sustainable future and for positive societal transformation.”
This is obviously not limited to environmental education but has a much broader scope. It must take into consideration such global challenges as poverty alleviation and peace, while laying the foundation for our joint efforts to build a sustainable global society that we can leave as a proud legacy to future generations.
In that sense, human rights education and education for sustainable development reflect intertwined concerns and objectives. Global society should seize upon these two UN-centered initiatives as an important opportunity to set a positive direction for humanity in the twenty-first century. I call on all parties to work for their success.
A primordial encounter
Humanism cannot be strictly limited to the human. Understanding this is essential if we are to establish the practice of humanism under the conditions that face us in the contemporary world.
Here I would like to cite again the words of Martin Buber whose philosophy of dialogue was powerfully expressed in his work I and Thou, which continues to shine as an enduring classic more than eighty years after it was written.
In this work, Buber uses the unusual formulations “I-It” and “I-You” to contrast different ways we relate to the world. The distinction between the subjective and objective realms—the dichotomy that lies at the heart of Western modernity—is seen as I-It, whereas I-You refers to the kind of encounter and relation that escapes that superficial level to engage the complete being on a far more essential dimension.
Buber states, “All actual life is encounter.”[18] He seeks to tear away the false constructs of I-It which cover modern civilization and to reveal the reality of You. By Buber’s lights, the I needs the context of I-You to truly be; the I must exist for the You to be.
This way of thinking closely resembles the Buddhist concept of dependent origination (Jpn. engi), demonstrating the universality of Buber’s vision of dialogue.
Let us listen to the quiet words with which Buber addresses us:
Three are the spheres in which the world of relation arises.
The first: life with nature. Here the relation vibrates in the dark and remains below language. The creatures stir across from us, but they are unable to come to us, and the You we say to them sticks to the threshold of language.
The second: life with men. Here the relation is manifest and enters language. We can give and receive the You.
The third: life with spiritual beings. Here the relation is wrapped in a cloud but reveals itself, it lacks but creates language. We hear no You and yet feel addressed; we answer—creating, thinking, acting. …[19]
The first point that commands our attention is the earnestness with which Buber grapples with our nature as beings who use language (Homo loquens). His positioning of language as the necessary means and vehicle for dialogue is well balanced, neither undervaluing nor overvaluing it. He of course avoids the excessive faith in language that is often an underlying factor in the development of dogmatism and fanaticism. He does not, however, question language in the way that many later followers of structuralism would.
Instead Buber scrupulously outlines the image of Homo loquens whose unique linguistic powers enable us to weave a subject-subject relationship (I-You) with people, the world of nature and the divine.
In this regard, I am reminded of a story told by the world-renowned novelist Chingiz Aitmatov. A good friend, Aitmatov and I have, over the course of numerous meetings and exchanges of views, conducted a dialogue that was published a number of years ago as “Ode to the Grand Spirit” (trans.). One day, Aitmatov was visited by a German journalist involved in a project to create a museum in space in which a wide range of materials representative of human civilization would be archived on microfilm and other formats. The journalist had read and been impressed by the dialogue, and planned to include it in the museum. He requested a brief statement from Aitmatov to be included with the book. After giving the matter careful thought, Aitmatov wrote the following words: “There is life hidden within stones. Only we human beings can give meaning to all things in the cosmos through thought and words” (trans.).[20] This is what I am referring to when I write of our destiny as Homo loquens.
The second thing I would like to note about Buber’s analysis is that, while following Jewish tradition in drawing a distinction and establishing a hierarchy between humanity and the rest of God’s creation, he recognizes that unless the oneness of the world of humanity and that of nature is embraced, the encounter of I-You cannot be realized, nor can genuine dialogue be experienced.
“How beautiful and legitimate the full I of Goethe sounds! It is the I of pure intercourse with nature.”[21] As he praises the pantheistic Goethe, Buber stands with the thirteenth-century St. Francis of Assisi, known as the patron saint of ecology, who conversed intimately with birds and plants and rocks.
When we think of the impasse of contemporary civilization, it is impossible to overemphasize the need to embrace this vision of dialogue between humanity and nature, just as Buber recognized. For myself, when I take photographs of nature I feel that I am engaged in such a dialogue. The crisis of the natural environment is far more critical now than it was in Buber’s time; the demand for this kind of dialogue has increased proportionately. In working for a culture of peace, too, we must have a similar attentiveness to nature.
Indeed, no effort to make the new century an era of universal respect for human rights will be truly fruitful unless we can expand our understanding of human rights beyond the anthropocentric tradition of modern humanism. To give human rights full meaning, we need to consider humanity as part of nature, as integral to the environment.
Nature as a bearer of rights
From the middle years of the twentieth century, an accelerating chorus of voices has been raised, as is carefully documented in Roderick Nash’s The Rights of Nature, declaring that rights are not intrinsic just to human beings but that our understanding of rights should be expanded to include animals, plants and even inert nature. Our times demand such thinking, and it is for this reason that I have for some time urged that a global commitment to harmonious coexistence with nature be reflected in the Japanese Constitution.
To recognize nature not as an object of exploitation but as a bearer of rights represents a fundamental change in human civilization. Despite the overarching importance of this transition—or, perhaps, just because its dimensions can seem so overwhelming—efforts to move toward sustainability have progressed at a frustratingly slow pace.
This is prominently evidenced by our response to climate change. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted just prior to the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. After a long and tortuous process, the ratification by Russia in 2004 of the Kyoto Protocol will finally cause it to enter into force this February.
The Kyoto Protocol stipulates at least a five-percent reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by the industrialized countries party to the treaty relative to their 1990 levels. There are, however, many crucial issues that still need to be addressed, including the United States’ withdrawal, the participation of developing countries and the development of a truly effective successor framework for the period after 2013.
The Kyoto Protocol
The terms of the Kyoto Protocol stipulate that it enters into force on ratification by at least 55 countries, including developed countries accounting for at least 55 percent of developed countries’ 1990 carbon-dioxide emissions. Russian ratification achieved this 55 percent figure. A total of 141 countries have ratified the agreement. Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia.
The Protocol’s major feature is that it has mandatory targets on reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions for those leading economies that have accepted it, “with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below existing 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.” It was originally envisioned that future mandatory targets would be established for commitment periods from 2013 onward. However, the United States, Australia, Italy, China, India and the developing countries have opposed any strategy for a Kyoto Mark II or any similar arrangement with binding commitments, as was evidenced at the Tenth Session of the Conference of Parties (COP 10) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 6–17 December, 2004.
Although critics question the value of the protocol, proponents note that Kyoto is only intended as a first step. Its true significance is that it represents the first time that an international treaty legally commits industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an important new level of coordinated international effort to address a global environmental threat.
Climate change is a key agenda item for this year’s G8 Summit of leading industrial countries to be held at Gleneagles in the United Kingdom, to which both India and China have been invited. The participation of these two countries would certainly be desirable, as would substantive efforts to encourage the U.S. to modify its position while developing a successor framework to the Kyoto Protocol.
In parallel with negotiations for the implementation of the convention, efforts have been made in various countries to establish the legal framework for a transition to a sustainable society. The European Union, for example, has led the way since the 1990s by such measures as introducing an environmental tax to control emissions of greenhouse gases and efforts to increase the share of renewable energy sources as a replacement for fossil fuels.
In this way, the short- and medium-term questions of the global environmental crisis have become part of international political and economic discourse. But in a more essential sense this crisis needs to be addressed from a long-term perspective as something that threatens to undermine the very foundations of human survival.
It is said that in order to halt global warming it will be necessary to reduce total emissions by half. We need to rethink our ways of life as individuals and the core values and structures of contemporary civilization. The nature of the long and difficult path to sustainability reinforces once again the importance of taking action now with a long-term perspective.
The truly difficult and frightening aspect of the environmental crisis is that, even if we are able to note and respond to specific, individual danger signals, we cannot predict the most distant effects within the context of a vast system of interconnections.
In November of last year, a documentary on the environmental crisis, Strange Days on Planet Earth, was broadcast in Japan. It traced the connections between what at first seem to be unrelated phenomena—respiratory illness in the Caribbean and African dust storms; landslides in Hawai’i and changes in the flora of South America—demonstrating that they are all interlinked parts of a global ecological crisis.
Such improbable connections and unanticipated consequences have been referred to as the Butterfly Effect—the chains of connection and causality whereby the fluttering of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil could be the cause of a tornado in Texas. It is one of the subjects touched on in my dialogue with Professor Victor Antonovich Sadovnichy, rector of Moscow State University, in the context of resource and environmental issues.[22]
If we look back over the past several years, they were marked by a series of extreme weather conditions, from the deadly heat wave that struck Europe to massive floods in India and Bangladesh, as well as the hurricanes that devastated parts of North and Central America. Many experts consider these phenomena to be related to global climate change.
A failure to listen
Chingiz Aitmatov, in his book, The Mark of Cassandra, uses the following parable to describe the psychological state that prevails among so many people. “Suppose,” he writes, “that a severe structural defect has been discovered in one of the massive bridges spanning San Francisco Bay, but it can still be traveled. It is as if we are saying that so long as the bridge holds up and is passable, let’s keep transporting freight over it, leaving the problem of the bridge itself for someone else to deal with in the future” (trans.).[23]
In this work, which bears the name of the Greek prophetess of doom, Aitmatov portrays the dark side of contemporary civilization. As is symbolized by the fact that the Framework Convention on Climate Change required thirteen years to become operative through the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, international efforts are lagging behind the rapid pace of ecological degradation; at this rate the gap will only grow greater. We need to pay earnest heed to Cassandra’s prophecy (the various signals indicating changes in the global environment) and take action—at the international, national and local levels—to redirect the path of human civilization before these predictions of disaster become a reality.
Another book with a similar title and theme is Alan AtKisson’s Believing Cassandra: An Optimist Looks at a Pessimist’s World. As its subtitle indicates, the book is permeated with a hopeful tone. Even as he examines various global environmental issues, he avoids apocalyptic pessimism and the dogmatism of what Alvin Toffler has criticized as “eco-theocracy.”[24] He engages in the search for a resolution to Cassandra’s dilemma.
The book deals with the environmental crisis from the perspective of systems analysis, as the disconnect between two different systems—the world of human affairs and nature. In this sense, it is a problem of miscommunication, of the human failure to correctly receive and interpret the warning signals being issued by nature. The world of humans is capable of conscious action, and it is this capacity that places responsibility on the human side.
These may be rather commonsense observations, but I was struck by AtKisson’s use of systems dynamics terminology to stress the crucial importance of feedback loops and their failure to function as the heart of the problem. The flexible, dynamic response that AtKisson proposes is just what one would expect from a committed optimist.
Such terms as communication and feedback loops are indeed suggestive of the idea of dialogue with nature. But since, as Buber observed, nature “sticks to the threshold of language,”[25] dialogue or encounter between humanity and nature can only be realized through a deliberate and sustained effort on the part of humankind, thus consciously establishing a relationship of I-You.
It might strike some as rather odd to bring language such as “I-You,” with spiritual, if not religious, overtones to a discussion of how most effectively to safeguard the natural environment. But as the phrase “think globally, act locally” suggests, this is an issue that on the one hand is extremely concrete and on the other must be viewed from the span of the entire history of human civilization.
In this sense, continuous and sustained thought and effort are crucial; they in turn must be rooted in and reinforced by spirituality. Here, the philosophy of Buddhism can provide a robust basis. It identifies life as universally present in both sentient beings such as humans and animals, and insentient beings such as plants, mountains and rivers, the earth itself. It teaches that even insentient beings such as grasses and trees have the potential for enlightenment.[26]
If we lack the humility to heed attentively the messages of the natural world, arrogantly and recklessly asserting only the concerns and needs of the human world, feedback loops will fail to function and the natural systems that sustain us will collapse. This is the ultimate consequence of an I-It relationship with the natural world. The clear vision of Martin Buber, the philosopher of dialogue, was able to penetrate the multilayered pretensions of modern civilization.
Sustaining the effort
In this context, I cannot help but be impressed by the foresight of the founding president of the Soka Gakkai, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871–1944). In Jinsei chirigaku (The Geography of Human Life), written when he was just thirty-two years old, Makiguchi noted the following eight modes of spiritual interaction between humans and their surroundings: cognitive, utilitarian, scientific, aesthetic, moral, sympathetic, public and religious. Of these, the first five tend to regard the environment purely as an object that is different from oneself, as merely the material of experience for expanding knowledge of the world. In the last three forms of interaction, we understand our surroundings to be, like us, equally a part of the world. Makiguchi viewed these more intimate forms of interaction with our environment as effective in helping develop our emotional life and character:
[The quality of] interactions between humans and the world around us can first be understood to depend on the subjective qualities of the person. It is through our various interactions with the world that we develop in a fully balanced manner. That being the case, the world around us, nature in particular, can truly be our enlightener, our guide, our consoler. Forging a variety of interactions with nature is essential in enabling us to meet and deal with the limitless vicissitudes of life. Our happiness in life can indeed be said to be proportional to the extent and intimacy of our interaction with nature.[27]
While there may be minor differences, there is a basic concordance between the types of interaction Makiguchi refers to as experience and Buber’s I-It relationship; and between the latter three forms of interaction and Buber’s I-You relationship.
When Makiguchi describes the natural world as “our enlightener, our guide, our consoler,” he is engaging in the most bold kind of personification, a confident expression of an I-You relationship with nature.
Rooted in the Hebraic tradition, Buber carefully chooses his words as he calls out to nature. In contrast, Makiguchi, living in the more animist spiritual milieu of Japan, plunges straight into a bold and direct friendship with nature.
Without the compunctions or hesitations found in Buber, Makiguchi looks directly to nature as a partner.
Whether the approach is bold or cautious, in both we find genuine encounter and dialogue with nature, a call and response that involves the entire personality. It is for this reason that Makiguchi declares: “Forging a variety of interactions with nature is essential in enabling us to meet and deal with the limitless vicissitudes of life.”
To harm one’s precious partner in life is to harm oneself. The current state of the global environment goes far beyond anything that Makiguchi would have imagined possible in his time.
Humans can exist only in harmony with our environment.
The pitfalls of globalization
The ongoing rush to globalization illustrates the kind of illusion to which contemporary civilization is prey. Despite its apparent promise, globalization in fact shows few signs of giving rise to a new global ethos. It is merely a form of economic expansionism, and its primary characteristic is the crude worship of monetary wealth, what could be termed global Mammonism. This is the bitter final outcome of the I-It objectification of the world.
Currency is of course the product of human wisdom that is essential in facilitating the smooth functioning of our life as social beings. At the same time, we need to remember that currency exists only as a set of agreements within the system of the world of human affairs. Within the system of the natural world, money is but scraps of paper. This is, of course, a deliberate overstatement; but I think it is crucial that we not lose complete sight of the artificial nature of currency.
If we are confused on this point and succumb to the allures of Mammon, we will disrupt the essential congruence between human and natural systems that is necessary if we are to survive. The untrammeled logic of capital will generate ever-greater dissonances and collisions between these two systems. Eventually, we will find ourselves at the receiving end of nature’s harsh payback.
It is for just this reason that I must emphasize the need for firm determination and action and the kind of persistence and continuity of effort that I mentioned earlier. Sustainability cannot be realized without sustained effort.
It was with this in mind that I stressed the need to learn, reflect and empower in the proposal I made to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in 2002. For I believe that these three steps are critical to the larger effort to promote and realize the goals of the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development.
Concretely, the SGI has held the exhibition “Seeds of Change: The Earth Charter and Human Potential” (developed jointly by the SGI and the Earth Charter Initiative) in more than ten countries; we are further planning a new exhibition on global ethics and the Earth Charter to be held in Japan from this year.
Reforming and strengthening the United Nations
Looking ahead, I would like to propose a number of ways to advance the tide of humanism from the perspective of international systems and institutions. This year marks the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, and sixty years also since the end of World War II and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Here I would like to focus on the following three topics: (1) reforming and strengthening the UN; (2) confidence and peacebuilding efforts in the Asia-Pacific region; and (3) initiatives toward nuclear disarmament and conflict prevention.
Last year, two bodies appointed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan submitted their recommendations for reforming the UN. These were the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, chaired by former prime minister Anand Panyarachun of Thailand, and the Panel of Eminent Persons on Civil Society and UN Relationships, chaired by former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil.
The High-level Panel’s report, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, makes concrete recommendations that include enlargement of the Security Council and establishing a new Peacebuilding Commission. It also calls for measures to enhance the legal and institutional environment within which the UN responds to new threats. These proposed measures include: the rapid completion of negotiations on a comprehensive convention on terrorism; greater and more effective utilization of the International Criminal Court (ICC); and clearer criteria for the use of force. Of these, the need for a body to assist in post-conflict peacebuilding is something I emphasized in last year’s proposal, and I hope the panel’s recommendation will be realized.
The proposed overhaul of the Security Council that forms the main focus of the report would see the Council enlarged to better reflect such factors as regional representation and level of contribution to the UN. It is praiseworthy in its attempt to facilitate a wider sharing of responsibility and development of the Council into a deliberative body with a more global viewpoint.
Secretary-General Annan has stated that the UN’s aim should be “to create a world that both has fewer threats and greater ability to meet those threats which nevertheless arise.”[28] In addition to enhanced problem-solving capabilities, this will require a renewed emphasis on preventive measures.
When viewed in the context of these comments by the Secretary-General, the report’s recommendations for enlarging the Security Council and establishing a new peacebuilding commission are perhaps more weighted toward problem-solving.
I would like to emphasize a preventive engagement with global problems—the goal of creating a world with fewer threats cited by the Secretary-General—in my ideas on how the UN might be reformed to meet the needs of the twenty-first century. My reason is that I believe that the soft power of dialogue and cooperation lies at the heart of the UN, and soft power functions most effectively at the preventive end of the spectrum, namely, defining paradigms for addressing global problems, creating collaborative frameworks aimed at prevention and so forth.
I would first like to propose a greater role for the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
In addition to supporting development cooperation via debate and policy advisories on international economic and social issues, in recent years ECOSOC has played a key role in setting the agenda for priority UN action, channeling energies into issues such as the fight against poverty and managing the effects of globalization.
Drawing upon the experience of ECOSOC to date, I would hope that any UN restructuring and reform will place central emphasis on enhancing the following four soft power roles: (1) identifying and prioritizing the issues the international community must address; (2) setting standards and targets for international cooperation; (3) coordinating and enhancing the effectiveness of the UN’s various activities; and (4) collecting and sharing information and best practices among UN agencies.
Part of my reason for stressing these roles is that in many instances the UN has moved to address such global problems as poverty and the environment only after they have reached crisis proportions. To move away from this ex post facto approach and reinvent itself as a prevention-focused body creating a world with fewer threats, the UN will need to strengthen its soft power capacities.
As part of restructuring in 1997, the various UN agencies were grouped by mission: peace and security, economic and social affairs, humanitarian affairs, and development, with executive committees for each. Above these is the Senior Management Group, which includes the conveners of each executive committee and meets regularly as the Secretary-General’s cabinet.
To build on such efforts and enable the UN to fulfill the four soft power roles I identified above, there is a need for what might be termed a “global governance coordinating panel,” whose work would be closely linked to ECOSOC deliberations and decision-making. A working group of NGOs with relevant expertise could support the activities of this panel; input from and collaboration with these NGOs would help generate a common awareness of problems and raise the public profile of the relevant issues. By further enhancing system-wide information sharing and activity coordination, the panel would reflect the interrelated and complex nature of global problems.
The priority objective of such structural reforms should be achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), tackling those issues that endanger their realization by the target date of 2015. Research by the World Bank shows that the proportion of people living in extreme poverty (less than US$1 a day) fell by almost half between 1981 and 2001, from forty percent to twenty-one percent of the world’s population, an absolute decline of as many as 400 million despite rapid population growth. As this statistic shows, realizing the MDGs may be difficult, but it is by no means impossible. What is required quite simply is a strong determination on the part of the international community.
A high-level plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly (UNGA)[29] to comprehensively review the implementation of the Millennium Declaration and progress toward achieving the MDGs is scheduled for September. I appeal to the world’s heads of state and government who gather at that time to reaffirm their commitment to the goal of ridding our world of unnecessary suffering.
The role of civil society
In conjunction with restructuring designed to bring forth the UN’s soft power capacities, I should like to propose reforms aimed at strengthening the partnership between the UN and civil society.
In this connection, many thought-provoking concepts are set out in the report of the Panel of Eminent Persons chaired by former Brazilian president Cardoso, We the Peoples: Civil Society, the United Nations and Global Governance. The report calls upon the UN to mobilize and coordinate external cooperation rather than tackling problems alone; to this end, the UN must become an “outward-looking Organization”[30] that is capable of bringing together the many actors relevant to different issues.
A prerequisite for any such effort must surely be to build closer partnerships between the UN and civil society, in particular with NGOs.
Comparing the world in 1945 when the UN was founded to the world today, we note a great increase in the number of problems of global scale, as well as a plethora of NGOs mobilized to tackle them. We cannot ignore these momentous changes; confining discussion solely to internal reform of the UN would severely limit the benefit of any restructuring.
This being the case, efforts should be made to ensure that the voices of the world’s people are more clearly heard at the UN. For example, the other major organs of the UN could adopt the system of accrediting NGOs with consultative status that is presently used by ECOSOC.
NGOs have for many years been able to observe UNGA sessions and access relevant documents, but have not been able to make statements there. At the series of Special Sessions of the UNGA convened during the 1990s, NGO representatives were able to address the assembly and take part in intergovernmental discussions at the ministerial level.
At the Security Council, too, since 1992 a practice known as the Arria Formula[31] has been in place whereby a member of the Council may invite, among others, representatives of NGOs to address an informal gathering of members of the Council on issues of shared concern.
On the basis of these experiences, moves should be made to guarantee that the right to participate in debates as nonvoting observers and to propose agenda items that NGOs currently have relative to ECOSOC be extended to their relations with the UNGA and the Security Council.
In 1963, U.S. President John F. Kennedy addressed the UNGA as follows: “My fellow inhabitants of this planet: Let us take a stand here in this Assembly of nations. And let us see if we, in our own time, can move the world to a just and lasting peace.”[32]
On the occasion of the UN’s sixtieth anniversary, let us recall Kennedy’s words as we reaffirm our commitment to uphold the underlying spirit of the UN Charter, which opens with the stirring phrase “We the Peoples … ” For the good of our planet, for the good of humankind, let us make the most of this opportunity, bringing all our intelligence and conviction to bear on the challenges of reforming and strengthening the United Nations.
For an Asia-Pacific UN office
Secondly, I would like to offer some ideas for building the foundations of trust and peace in the Asia-Pacific region. To begin, I would like to propose the establishment of a UN Asia-Pacific office as a new regional base. The establishment of an office for the Asia-Pacific region would mark the start of a new effort to advance human security in the region, and to make it a model for the UN’s goal of building a world with fewer threats.
At present, in addition to UN Headquarters in New York, there are the UN Offices at Geneva, Vienna and Nairobi. These three cities are home to a variety of UN offices and agencies, each with a focus on a different cluster of concerns—human rights and disarmament in Geneva, crime prevention and international trade in Vienna, and environment and human habitat in Nairobi.
In a previous proposal (1994), I spoke of the desirability of the UN having a regional base in Asia. I would like on this occasion to extend that idea to embrace the Pacific region as well, which includes such key supporters of UN activities as Canada and Australia. As many UN activities are focused on the particular needs of countries in Asia, these linkages could generate valuable synergies.
Moreover, Japan, which is both an Asian and a Pacific country, is home to the United Nations University (UNU), whose research and capacity-building activities in recent years have been focused on two areas: (1) peace and governance; and (2) environment and sustainable development.
A UN Asia-Pacific office could form a hub with organic links to UNU and other institutions in the region. Its energies could be focused on the realization of human security and UN-centered efforts toward building the structures of global governance that will enable people to live secure and fulfilling lives. ECOSOC, which presently convenes its four-week substantive sessions alternately in New York and Geneva, could consider including this Asia-Pacific office in the rotation.
The HUGG Project
Human Security and Global Governance (HUGG) is a collaborative international research project inaugurated by the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research.
The HUGG Project is based on the belief that issues of human security—such problems as personal, social, economic, political, environmental, and military security—need to be addressed dialogically from the perspectives of all civilizations, both the traditional Judaic, Christian, Islamic, Hindu-Buddhist, Confucian and indigenous civilizations and the modern, secular, humanist, scientific and technological civilization. The prospects for a new world civilization based on unity in diversity arising through the impact of the modern on the traditional hinge upon the resolution of the resultant contradictions and conflicts. The HUGG Project employs a dialogical method as dialogue is the most effective way of “respecting diversity, resolving conflicts and moving from cultural narcissism (ethnocentrism) to cultural altruism (empathy with others).” The project aims at facilitating the development of interlocking dialogical communities at all levels focusing on the threats to and promises of peace and justice in the 21st century.
The HUGG conferences aim to produce a series of recommendations reached by consensus and to present these to the public, government and business communities through a variety of publications, including a book series.
One possible location for such an office would be Bangkok, currently home to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP). Another might be Okinawa in Japan or Cheju Island in South Korea. Having endured the indescribable misery of armed conflict, both could be considered “peace islands” whose people harbor strong aspirations for a world without war.
The Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research has been studying the issues of human security and global governance for many years as one of its major projects. To mark its tenth anniversary, in February 2006 the institute plans to host an international conference on strengthening the UN and global governance. The Toda Institute will be carrying out an accelerated program of joint research with other institutions, including explorations of the feasibility of a UN Asia-Pacific office.
Toward East Asian integration
The next area I would like to address is laying the foundations in East Asia for the kind of regional integration we see in the European Union (EU) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Since the currency and economic crisis that struck East Asia in 1997, there have been growing calls for greater regional cooperation centered on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). A framework for intra-regional dialogue, consisting of the ten ASEAN countries plus China, Japan and South Korea (ASEAN+3), is now well established. Against this backdrop, in November 2004 a summit of ASEAN leaders decided to hold the first East Asia Summit in Malaysia this autumn. Discussions here are also expected to include moves toward greater integration with an eye to the eventual establishment of an “East Asian community.”
As someone who has called at every available opportunity for greater integration in Asia, I welcome these moves and hope that summits and other gatherings will clarify the aim of building a regional community that is open to the rest of the world and contributes to peace, stability and prosperity.
Issues such as ecological integrity, human development and disaster strategies are amenable to intra-regional cooperation. Successful collaboration would foster trust and open the way to the formation of a regional community.
In the area of the environment, frameworks such as the Acid Deposition Monitoring Network in East Asia (EANET) and the Asia Forest Partnership (AFP) already operate. Further cooperative structures should be developed to respond to the full range of environmental challenges.
In human development, public health and hygiene is a particular focus. The decade to 2015 has been designated the International Decade for Action, “Water for Life,”[33] and I hope efforts will be made through such initiatives as the Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA) to safeguard and manage water resources. With the number of reported HIV infections in East Asia rising rapidly, channeling resources into combating the virus will also be critical.
Strategies for mitigating natural disasters can be an important focus for regional cooperation. The huge earthquake that devastated the historic city of Bam in southeast Iran in December 2003, the powerful earthquake that hit Niigata Prefecture in Japan last October, and the deaths of over 200,000 people in the earthquake and subsequent tsunami in the India Ocean in December of last year—all have highlighted the acute need for an international recovery system.
This month, a decade after an earthquake killed more than six thousand people in Kobe, Japan, the World Conference on Disaster Reduction was convened in that city. Delegates to the conference adopted the Hyogo Framework for Action for the next ten years, which sets out a list of five key objectives including to “ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis.”[34] Another outcome of the conference was an agreement to set up an international recovery platform to support the mid- to long-term recovery and reconstruction efforts of societies hit by natural disasters.
Tragically, it is impossible to entirely eliminate natural disasters. It is therefore crucial, as the Kobe conference stressed, to promote disaster reduction efforts that minimize the damage caused by disasters by putting in place early warning systems and strengthening response capacities. I hope the new international recovery platform will become functional as soon as possible and would like to see substantive progress on a full range of systems for cooperation on disaster prevention and recovery support in Asia. A priority must be to set up the kind of early warning system whose need was made painfully clear by the Indian Ocean tsunami.
As mentioned, the EU provides one model for the type of regional integration that I believe could greatly benefit East Asia. Last year saw an effective relaunch of the EU following enlargement to twenty-five member states. This coincided with the signing of the EU Constitution. Together these mark a major step toward the creation of a political community transcending traditional conceptualizations of national sovereignty.
Joseph Nye, former dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, offers the following analysis: “Eight of the new members are former Communist countries that were locked behind the Iron Curtain for nearly half a century. Their attraction to the Union is a sign of the appeal—the ‘soft power’—of the idea of European unification.”[35]
Soft power is the diametrical opposite of the use and threat of military might to dominate and coerce, which has played a predominant role in shaping human history to date. Taking the form of dialogue and regional cooperation, grounded in a gradualist yet tenacious process of consensus-building, soft power has been the key to EU integration.
In Europe, it was France and Germany who worked to overcome a history of conflict in two world wars to build the relationship of trust and cooperation that became the driving force behind integration. In the same way, closer ties of friendship between China, Japan and South Korea can be pivotal to opening the way to the kind of united, integrated community that will make war in East Asia unthinkable.
Youth exchange: Basis for lasting peace
At talks between the leaders of these three countries last November, agreement was reached on an Action Strategy on Trilateral Cooperation designed not only to strengthen cooperation in areas such as environmental protection, disaster prevention and management, but also to promote cultural and people-to-people exchanges.
In terms of concrete initiatives, the EU Erasmus program provides a model for student mobility that could profitably be emulated by China, Japan and South Korea. Erasmus consists of a series of interuniversity programs that seek to realize a target of ten percent of all students in participating countries having the experience of studying at an institution of higher education in another country.
The experience of the EU points toward a number of issues that would have to be overcome in order to successfully build a corresponding infrastructure for student exchanges in East Asia. These include: assuring adequate funding for exchange students, easing worries about studying in another country, and resolving uncertainties about recognition of credits and qualifications.
I personally have long been an enthusiastic proponent of educational ties. Young people carry the hopes for our shared future, and I believe firmly that the connections forged by people of different countries in their youth can form the basis for lasting peace.
Under the University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific (UMAP) program, exchanges of students and teaching staff from institutions of higher education have been taking place since 1993. I believe these should be extended significantly—to eventually form a youth educational exchange program embracing all the countries of Asia. Such a program would do much to lay the foundations for long-term peaceful coexistence in the region.
There is already a considerable basis on which to build an interuniversity network linking China, Japan and Korea that could act as a precursor to a more comprehensive structure. China at present ranks second behind the U.S. in the number of exchange agreements with Japanese universities, while Korea ranks third. And Chinese exchange students at universities and technical schools in Japan are more numerous than any other nationality. Here again Korean exchange students are the next largest in number.
I was very proud when Soka University in 1975 became the first university in Japan to accept exchange students from China following the normalization of diplomatic relations. Soka University currently has exchange agreements with ninety universities in forty-one countries and territories worldwide. These include twenty-two universities in China and five in Korea. There are also plans for Soka University to open a Beijing office by the end of 2005, in anticipation of a further expansion of educational exchanges.
University Exchange with China
In 1975, under the sponsorship of the Chinese government, six students came to Soka University to study. Since then, Soka University has welcomed a steady stream of exchange students from China, and more than 350 students from Soka University have studied in universities and institutions of higher learning in China. The Chinese universities with whom Soka University has ongoing exchange agreements include Beijing University, Fudan University, Wuhan University, Shenzhen University, Shanghai University, Nanjing University, National Sun Yat-sen University, Northwest University and Shanghai Sanda Institute.
For its part, the Soka Gakkai in Japan has been working to form closer ties between its youth membership and the All-China Youth Federation (ACYF), to which over 300 million of China’s young people belong. Since a delegation led by China’s current president, Hu Jintao (then chair of the ACYF), came to Japan and signed an exchange protocol twenty years ago, exchange delegations have visited both countries on a regular basis. A new ten-year exchange agreement was formally signed in 2004.[36]
In addition, this year is also Japan-Korea Friendship Year, commemorating forty years since the normalization of relations between Japan and South Korea. This offers an excellent opportunity to further develop friendly relations that in recent years have seen lively growth in cultural interaction and the movement of people.
My hope is that 2005 will mark a new start for relations between China, Japan and South Korea. Sixty years after the end of World War II, we should work to support and encourage forward-looking exchanges among the young people of our respective countries based on a willingness to confront and learn from the lessons of the past.
Supporting the six-party talks
As well as building trusting relationships with one another through these forward-looking programs and other initiatives, I believe that these three countries should work closely together in a concerted quest for a breakthrough in the standoff over the North Korean nuclear arms development issue.
Southeast Asia already has a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Bangkok Treaty), which entered into force in 1997. A similar zone should be created in Northeast Asia; the prerequisite for this must be the success of the six-party talks involving the United States, Russia, Japan, China, North Korea and South Korea and the resolution of the issue of North Korean nuclear arms. The six-party talks were first held in August 2003, and the second and third rounds in 2004. The talks have so far failed to generate substantive results, however, and the absence of any timetable for further rounds is causing growing concern in the international community.
As a way out of the deadlock, I would like to suggest that the working group set up to discuss specific procedures for the dismantlement of the North Korean nuclear program be converted into a standing body. This could be based in Beijing, the venue of the past rounds of talks, or New York, the home of UN Headquarters. The working group was established at the second round of the six-party talks held in February 2004, and its role defined at the third round in June. But it has yet to be convened.
To facilitate the functioning of this working group, it would be helpful to establish a venue for informal discussions, to which countries that have voluntarily relinquished their nuclear weapons plans could be invited and where there could be a broad-based exchange of opinions on regional security guarantees.
In any event, we must revive the six-party talks and continue to make efforts to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. The six-party talks should be developed into a constructive forum of dialogue for building peace in Northeast Asia.
Generating momentum for nuclear disarmament
The third area I would like to discuss concerns steps that must be taken for nuclear disarmament and conflict prevention.
In this regard, I would like to stress the need for prompt moves on the part of the nuclear powers to reduce and dismantle their existing arsenals and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
This year is the sixtieth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only times nuclear weapons have been used in war. It is also the fiftieth anniversary of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, an international appeal for nuclear abolition.
Only one of the eleven signatories to this manifesto is still alive—Nobel Peace Laureate and emeritus president of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, Sir Joseph Rotblat. Preparations are currently underway for the publication of a serialized dialogue between myself and Sir Joseph. In our conversations, he expressed deep concern over the lack of any substantial progress in nuclear disarmament. He also deplored new nuclear development programs initiated by the nuclear powers despite the “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament” made in the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).[37]
Addressing the 54th Pugwash Conference in October 2004, Sir Joseph warned that “the proliferation of nuclear weapons cannot be stopped while the Nuclear Weapons States arrogate to themselves the possession of nuclear weapons and refuse to enter into comprehensive negotiations towards elimination. “[38]
I fully concur. Even if the undertaking in the Final Document is not legally binding, it reflects the consensus of the states party to the NPT, and acts that disregard it risk undermining the very foundation of the NPT framework and accelerating trends toward nuclear proliferation.
The 2005 NPT Review Conference is scheduled for May this year. I strongly urge the five declared nuclear-weapon states, who are also the permanent members of the UN Security Council, to promptly begin building the framework for disarmament, reminding themselves of the course of events that led to the indefinite extension of the NPT ten years ago.
Over recent years, nonproliferation issues have been continuously taken up as a critical challenge at summit meetings. The G8 Action Plan on Nonproliferation, aimed at preventing illicit diversion of nuclear materials and technology, was adopted at the Sea Island Summit in 2004.
G8 Action Plan on Nonproliferation
The G8 Action Plan on Nonproliferation, adopted at the Sea Island Summit on June 9, 2004, aims to reinforce the global nonproliferation regime and offers assistance to states in implementing their obligations. It promotes UN Security Council Resolution 1540, which calls on all states to establish effective national measures against proliferation and illicit trafficking in weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The Action Plan also seeks to strengthen the functions of the IAEA and to promote the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which aims to disrupt and dismantle proliferation networks. It reaffirms the Global Partnership Against Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction and calls for the participation of new donor countries to support this partnership. It confronts nonproliferation challenges in states such as North Korea and Iran, while welcoming Libya’s decision to eliminate its WMD program, and calls for action against bioterrorism and chemical and radiological weapons proliferation.
Effective measures to reduce arms made in good faith by the nuclear powers are essential in order for efforts such as the G8 Action Plan and the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative to be seen by the international community as convincing and credible, and to inspire the broad-based cooperation needed if they are to succeed.
For many years, negotiations on reduction of nuclear stockpiles took the form of bilateral talks between the U.S. and the Soviet Union or Russia. With the recent stagnation of this process, however, I think we need to step away from this approach and begin a new multilateral disarmament process.
The fact that for a long while we have had no prospect of reducing or eliminating nuclear arsenals heightens the danger of proliferation—not only of nuclear arms but of other weapons of mass destruction—with a resultant increase in military tensions. Nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament are inseparable; when they are advanced in tandem, our world will make important strides toward peace and stability.
Just as nuclear nonproliferation efforts are monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), I believe we need an international nuclear disarmament agency, a specialized agency to oversee fulfillment of the “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to achieve the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals” referred to above.
Progress on negotiating the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) at the Conference on Disarmament has been at a standstill for many years now. We need to revive this process, urging India and Pakistan—who came to possess nuclear weapons outside the NPT—as well as Israel to join, thus engaging them in international regimes for the control of weapons-grade nuclear materials.
The 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference
A key issue for the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference was to decide whether the Treaty should continue in force indefinitely, or be extended for a fixed period or periods. During the lead-up to the conference, it was clear that there were deep differences among states parties regarding both the operation of the NPT and the question of its extension.
Because the conference focused almost exclusively on the issue of extension, it proved impossible to reach agreement on a number of sensitive issues on which positions diverged. As a result, the conference was unable to adopt a final declaration on the review aspects of the treaty.
States that expressed misgivings about the indefinite extension of the treaty noted the failure of the nuclear-weapons states to commit to specific measures leading to nuclear disarmament within a time-bound framework and of the lack of universal adherence to the Treaty.
After intensive deliberation, the conference agreed to indefinite extension of the treaty. Together with this, it adopted decisions on “Strengthening the review process for the Treaty” and on “Principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.”
The decision on indefinite extension was thus part of a package that reflected the dissatisfactions of some parties regarding tangible progress toward disarmament, and made permanent the international legal norm against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Curbing the arms trade
I would also like to call for the earliest possible conclusion of multilateral legal controls on the arms trade. In my 1999 proposal, I stressed the urgency of restricting the trade in arms to prevent the flow of weapons into regions with ongoing conflict or heightened confrontation and tension, as one element in the process to deinstitutionalize war.
There is a rising global chorus of voices calling for such curbs. The Control Arms campaign was launched in October 2003 to advocate legally binding controls on the arms trade at all levels. Three NGOs—Amnesty International, Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms—are working together to promote this campaign, appealing to governments to conclude a treaty that would limit transfers of small arms by next year.
Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT)
There has been long-standing support for the idea of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, which would create an internationally verified ban on the production of the kinds of nuclear materials needed to produce weapons. Such an agreement has been periodically advocated since the end of World War II as a means of capping the number of nuclear weapons that can be built. As it would constitute a verifiable agreement to end production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for weapons, it would be a crucial element in realizing deep reductions in nuclear arms. It would thus be key to the nuclear-weapon states’ meeting their obligations under Article VI of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to achieve nuclear disarmament.
Complementing the existing NPT regime, it could also include the few states that have not signed the NPT (India, Pakistan, Israel), and could thus begin the process of placing agreed limits on these states’ nuclear weapons activities, engaging them in the nonproliferation regime.
Today, there are over 600 million small arms in the world, and more than 500,000 people are killed with conventional weapons every year. The UN held the first Conference on the Illicit Traffic in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects in 2001, and adopted a program of action to “prevent, combat and eradicate” this trade.
In addition to such measures against the illegal arms trade, a regulatory structure must be put in place as soon as possible to cover authorized arms exports in light of their scale—a staggering annual value totaling US $21 billion—and impact.
Exporting weapons into regions of heightened tension, whether legally or illegally, flouts any move toward conflict prevention. By feeding local and regional arms races, it also has a seriously negative impact on human security, diverting budget resources to military expenditures and away from basic services such as education, health care and sanitation desperately needed by impoverished people.
According to the Control Arms campaign, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council account for eighty-eight percent of the world’s exports of conventional weapons. In the last four years, the U.S., the U.K. and France earned more income from arms exports to Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America than they provided in aid.
It is imperative that humanity deinstitutionalize war in the twenty-first century. The first step toward this must be to learn to resist the temptation to exploit war and civil strife in other countries for the sake of one’s own influence and profit.
I earlier touched on the participation of China and India in the deliberations on climate change to be held during the G8 Summit in Gleneagles this year. In the same spirit, I would like to propose that a guideline for strengthening controls on small arms be discussed in the context of a G10 framework.
Last year I was fortunate to meet with former president Kocheril Raman Narayanan of India. One of the topics we discussed was the increasing importance of China and India in the world. Today, it would be virtually impossible to consider solutions for global challenges without their involvement.
I emphasized the significance of both countries for the twenty-first century in my proposal four years ago. It is my conviction that the spiritual heritage in which both Chinese and Indian civilizations are rooted, when brought to full blossom as soft power in the contemporary world, can make great contributions to creating peace in Asia and the world.
My proposal in 1998 that the G8 Summit meetings should evolve into a “summit of responsible states” through the added participation of China and India was also based on this idea.
Although full development into a G10 Summit may take some time, I would urge that the small arms issue be discussed during the Gleneagles Summit this year and that negotiations on a treaty involving the major powers be initiated promptly as we work toward the second Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects scheduled for next year.
Educating for disarmament
Next, I would like to stress the importance of disarmament and nonproliferation education. In recent years, there has been a growing appreciation of the need for grassroots efforts to raise awareness of these issues, particularly among the younger generations. This is essential if we are to counter the accelerating trend toward nuclear proliferation and to breathe new life into the currently stagnant nuclear disarmament process.
In 2001, UN Secretary-General Annan appointed a working group of governmental experts from ten countries. The product of their deliberations, the United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education, was submitted and adopted at the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly in 2002.
The importance of disarmament education gained prominence at the First Special Session on Disarmament of the UNGA in 1978. In a ten-point proposal written on the occasion of that session, I called for the promotion of disarmament education at the grassroots level, highlighting the significance of activities to inform the general public in a concrete and compelling manner of the atrocity of war and the horrors of nuclear weapons.
In 1982, the UN launched a ten-year World Disarmament Campaign. Leading up to it, the SGI held the exhibition “Nuclear Arms: Threat to Our World” in June of the same year at UN Headquarters in New York in collaboration with the UN Department of Public Information and the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The exhibition toured the world, visiting nuclear powers and countries of different social systems and ideologies, and was seen by an estimated 1.2 million people.
After the Cold War ended, we continued to organize exhibitions such as “War and Peace: From a Century of War to a Century of Hope” and an updated antinuclear exhibition, “Nuclear Arms: Threat to Humanity,” bringing people together in their shared yearning for peace and generating momentum toward a world without war.
In 1998, the exhibition “Linus Pauling and the Twentieth Century” was launched. It introduces the life and ideas of Dr. Pauling and pays homage to his contribution to peace and humanitarian causes. It has been shown in the U.S., Japan and several European countries, and visited by more than a million people.
The Pauling exhibition has been very well received. Jayantha Dhanapala, then UN under-secretary-general for disarmament affairs, commented that the exhibit’s concept of disarmament education concurs with that of the UN reflected in a resolution of the General Assembly in 2000. It was also mentioned in the UN Secretary-General’s report on disarmament and nonproliferation education submitted to the General Assembly last year.
It is precisely because emerging threats such as terrorism have increased instability in the world that the international community must make a united effort to set our world securely on a path toward peace. Disarmament and nonproliferation education can play a vital role in this.
In his foreword to the report mentioned above, Secretary-General Annan noted, “It is striking for someone of my generation to think that an entire new generation of human beings is coming to maturity without an ever present terror of nuclear catastrophe.”[39] He went on to warn against the dangers of allowing ignorance and complacency about disarmament issues to take root among the younger generation.
Indeed, should this happen, no amount of treaty language will be enough to solidify a genuine trend toward peace. In that sense, I think that we need to actively incorporate disarmament and nonproliferation into school education.
One of the recommendations in the Secretary-General’s report calls for participatory lesson plans based on “case studies that encourage students to think critically and to undertake specific follow-up actions to bring about positive global change.”[40] It also recommends adding peace studies programs to college and university curricula.
Complementing school education are efforts to raise awareness in every part of society. For our part, the SGI will persevere in activities to promote disarmament and nonproliferation education. In this, we draw courage from the declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons issued by the Soka Gakkai’s second president, Josei Toda (1900–58), which he declared was foremost among his instructions to his successors.[41]
The year 2005 is the seventy-fifth anniversary of the founding of the Soka Gakkai. From the beginning, the Soka Gakkai has been consistently dedicated to building a peaceful society through education, as symbolized by its inception as the Soka Kyoiku Gakkai (Society for Value-Creating Education) and the fact that its first and second presidents, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi and Josei Toda, were educators.
This unchanged commitment propels our engagement in activities to support the two international frameworks launched this year, the World Programme for Human Rights Education and the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development.
Humanity’s eternal victory
In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm the fundamental spirit of the SGI as we celebrate our thirtieth anniversary.
Over these three decades, individual SGI members have made steady, tireless efforts, based on their Buddhist faith and as responsible citizens, to offer hope and build trust in their respective societies. These efforts have enabled the SGI’s global network of humanism to expand from 51 countries and territories to 190.
The spirit underlying our actions is encapsulated in the purposes and principles of the SGI Charter adopted ten years ago, in particular the following undertakings:
SGI shall contribute to peace, culture and education for the happiness and welfare of all humanity based on Buddhist respect for the sanctity of life.
SGI shall contribute to the promotion of education, in pursuit of truth as well as the development of scholarship, to enable all people to cultivate their individual character and enjoy fulfilling and happy lives.
SGI shall respect cultural diversity and promote cultural exchange, thereby creating an international society of mutual understanding and harmony.
Rooted in this commitment to peace, culture and education, SGI members everywhere continue to engage in earnest dialogue—in our families, our communities, our societies. In this way we seek to generate a global tide of peace and creative coexistence.
We draw inspiration from the unshakeable faith Presidents Makiguchi and Toda placed in the power of education to unite humankind in its goodness—that this is the sure and certain path to humanity’s eternal victory. Engraving in our hearts the profound spirit of our mentors, we reaffirm our determination to swell the currents of solidarity among awakened citizens, sharing and spreading a dynamic commitment to peace and humanism.
Inner Transformation: Creating a Global Groundswell for Peace
In recent years, international society has been convulsed by new threats and divisive debate over how best to respond to them. We cannot turn a blind eye; at the same time, however, it is clear that an exclusive reliance on military force will not bring about a fundamental solution. There is also the impact on people’s hearts and minds: the failure of military action to produce a clear prospect for peace has left many with feelings of powerlessness and dread.
At best, attempts to break an impasse through military force or other forms of hard power respond to the symptoms of conflict; to the degree they plant further seeds of hatred they can in fact deepen and entrench antagonisms. I believe that no actions will gain the wholehearted support of people or bring about lasting stability and peace without an acute awareness of the humanity of others. What is needed is the spirit and practice of self-mastery—which I consider to be the very essence of civilization.
There appears to be a progressive erosion of people’s understanding of what it means to be human—how we define ourselves and how we relate to those different from us. Self requires the existence of other. It is by recognizing that which is different from and external to ourselves that we are inspired to exercise the self-mastery that brings our humanity to fruition. To lose sight of the other is thus to undermine our full experience of self.
A Call for Inner Transformation
In September 1957, my mentor Josei Toda issued a declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. In it he condemned them as an “absolute evil,” a threat to the collective right of humankind to exist. He stressed the importance of confronting and eliminating the fundamental evil that lies hidden in the depths of people’s lives—the urge to manipulate and exploit others for our own benefit. It is this deep-rooted impulse that allows people to use weapons that instantly reduce so many lives to smoking ashes.
Toda’s appeal demonstrates a remarkable insight; it signifies the transformation of our inner lives, the revival of a concrete and vivid awareness of the existence of others. The historic challenge of abolishing nuclear weapons begins with the actions we initiate within our own lives.
Ultimately, the key lies in reestablishing a raw sense of reality, which can breathe new life into this stifling virtual world. If we could but learn to feel the wound and shock of others’ pain as our own … I believe that such awareness and sensitivity represents the single greatest deterrent to war.
This concern is central to Buddhism; indeed, Shakyamuni’s decision to dedicate himself to seeking truth was motivated by his confrontation with the four human sufferings—birth, aging, sickness and death. For Shakyamuni this meant not only the direct impact of suffering on people’s lives but the deep-rooted indifference, arrogance and discriminatory consciousness that prevent us from feeling others’ pain as our own.
Contemporary civilization has averted its eyes from death, seeking to make it “someone else’s problem.” This collective turning away from personal confrontation with death has fundamentally weakened restraints against violence. This is the deeper meaning of my mentor’s call for the abolition of nuclear weapons—the most horrific manifestation of a civilization that treats death as someone else’s problem.
Just as there is no unhappiness strictly limited to others, happiness cannot be hoarded or kept to ourselves. We are faced with the challenge and opportunity to overcome our narrow egotism, to recognize ourselves in others as we sense others within us, and to experience the highest fulfillment as we mutually illuminate each other with the inner brilliance of our lives.
Strengthening the UN
Despite persistent questions about the effectiveness of—or even the need for—the UN, it remains the only body that can truly serve as a foundation for and give legitimacy to international cooperation. It should be strengthened and made more effective.
The Iraq crisis highlighted its inability to function adequately when there is serious division in the Security Council. To remedy this, the General Assembly should be strengthened and empowered; the practice of holding emergency special sessions should be encouraged. This will provide a broader basis for making the difficult decisions needed to meet emerging threats to peace.
We also need to coordinate and integrate the strategies and activities of the UN agencies that provide support—from humanitarian relief to post-conflict peace-building—for people and societies caught up in violent conflict. To this end, I advocate the creation of a “peace rehabilitation council.”
I would also like to call for a “UN people’s forum,” a gathering of the representatives of NGOs and civil society, perhaps to mark the UN’s sixtieth anniversary in 2005.
It is crucial to foster a global environment in which conflict is resolved through the rule of law rather than resort to force. The recently established International Criminal Court (ICC), in helping sever the cycles of hatred and violence that drive conflict and terror, must be central to this process. We should not underestimate the deterrent potential of trying crimes of terrorism in an international judicial venue such as the ICC.
Nuclear Abolition
It is time to shift emphasis from nuclear nonproliferation to actual reduction and abolition. I have repeatedly called for the earliest entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Global public opinion must be mobilized to encourage the remaining states whose ratification is required for it to enter into force. Nothing would do more to create a stable system for nonproliferation than for the five declared nuclear-weapon states to make good on their long-standing commitment to disarm. I urge them to take the lead in drawing up a concrete timetable for nuclear abolition.
Regarding fears about North Korea’s weapons programs, it is important that each country take a positive approach to developing the framework for multilateral dialogue that has finally emerged out of the six-party talks. These talks should be given permanent standing; one goal should be establishing a Northeast Asian nuclear-free zone.
Expanding and Enhancing Human Security
I am encouraged by the stress recently given to empowerment as a key to human security. This resonates with my own conviction that the struggle to contribute to society by taking action for the sake of others is the indestructible foundation for peace.
Education must be the focus of human security. Literacy opens the door to knowledge, empowering people to develop their abilities and fulfill their potential. Raising literacy rates among women and increasing girls’ access to primary education improves the lives not only of women themselves but also of their families and communities. To help achieve universal primary education, I believe there is a role for a “global primary education fund.”
Human rights education, which can help transform the feelings of hostility and prejudice that simmer below the surface in many societies, is essential to building a world without war. I wholeheartedly welcome the second Decade for Human Rights Education to begin on January 1, 2005, and urge a particular focus on children. Efforts to educate and empower people at the grassroots level can set in motion limitless waves of transformation.
Eliminating the word “misery” from the human lexicon was Josei Toda’s fervent wish. Embracing that proud mission, the SGI will continue to forge solidarity among the world’s citizens as the basis for a robust and enduring culture of peace. Peace is not something far removed from our everyday lives. It is a matter of each of us planting and cultivating the seeds of peace within the reality of daily life. I am certain that herein lies the most reliable path to lasting peace.
Inner Transformation: Creating a Global Groundswell for Peace
by Daisaku Ikeda President, Soka Gakkai International January 26, 2004
Commemorating the twenty-ninth anniversary of the founding of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI), I would like to take this opportunity to offer some perspectives and proposals that might further the search for global peace.
In the opening years of the twenty-first century, international society has been convulsed by the emergence of new threats and by divisive debate over how best to respond to them. Since the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in the United States, there has been an ongoing incidence of indiscriminate violence, which has devastated the lives of large numbers of ordinary citizens around the world. At the same time, there is growing anxiety over the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and other weapons of mass destruction.
The issue of inspections to determine the extent, if any, of Iraq’s possession of such weapons was a major focus of global concern and controversy last year. In March, with world opinion divided over the rights and wrongs of the use of force against Iraq, whose government had for twelve years failed to implement in good faith the numerous resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, the United States and the United Kingdom made the decision to launch a military invasion. The overwhelming superiority of the coalition forces brought about the collapse of the Hussein regime after only twenty-one days of formal engagement. Since then, however, the United States and allied forces occupying and administering Iraq have come under constant attack, as have the offices of the United Nations. This has raised doubts about the prospects for rebuilding Iraq and bringing stability to the Middle East.
A similar state of disorder is evident in Afghanistan, which was the scene of military action designed to extirpate the Al Qaeda terror organization. While a constitution was finally adopted in January of this year, attacks from what are thought to be the remnants of the Taliban regime persist, and there is danger that the security situation will further deteriorate.
The international community cannot and must not turn a blind eye to these new threats. Although it must demonstrate a firm resolve, recent events make it evident that an exclusive reliance on military force will not bring about a fundamental solution.
In addition to the challenges of reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan, the question of peace between the Israelis and Palestinians remains a paramount concern, as does that of North Korea’s nuclear weapons development program. The outlook for all of these issues is clouded in uncertainty.
Parallel with the concrete threat of war and conflict, we need to focus on the equally critical issue of the impact this state of affairs is having on the hearts and minds of people worldwide. The signal failure of military action to produce a clear prospect for peace has left many people with suffocating feelings of powerlessness and dread.
It may sometimes be possible to break an impasse through the use of military force or other forms of “hard power.” At best, however, such action can only respond to the symptoms of conflict; to the degree it plants further seeds of hatred in regions already torn by strife, it can deepen and entrench antagonisms. This is a concern I share with many people of conscience and indeed, this dire possibility is becoming manifest in many places around the globe. It is for this reason that in my last two proposals I have stressed the need for a spirit of self-mastery and restraint on the part of those who possess and wield the tools of hard power. This is essential if the exercise of such power is to bring about any result other than to deepen the cycles of hatred and revenge. At the same time, I have urged a united response by the international community—one that centrally includes the use of soft power.
No efforts will gain the wholehearted support of people or succeed in bringing about lasting stability and peace without a spirit of self-mastery based on an acute awareness of the humanity of others—something that I consider to be the very essence of civilization.
The sharp divisions that opened up in the international community regarding the legitimacy of military operations against Iraq have yet to heal. It is vital that all parties reflect on their failings in the recent past and find a renewed commitment to constructive dialogue. All should join in the search for the kind of approach that will constitute not symptomatic treatment but fundamental cure.
What must be done to forestall the risk, inherent in the essential asymmetry of a “war” against terrorism, that it will become a deadly quagmire? Since it is probably unrealistic to expect self-restraint on the part of the terrorists, those who oppose them must put priority on the exercise of self-mastery—a quality that grows from the effort to consider and understand the position of the “other.” This effort must take precedence over the use of hard power. Equally essential are the courage and vision to address the underlying conditions of poverty and injustice that are enabling factors in terrorism.
Only in this way can we express genuine proof of civilization. What is needed is not simply to repeat universal principles—that freedom and democracy are the fruits of civilization, for example. Our words need to be grounded in the spirit of self-mastery—the willingness to learn from the example of others and correct our behavior accordingly. They need to embody the kind of soft power that can persuade, “co-opt rather than coerce” in Joseph Nye’s phrase (Paradox 9). And unless they are put into a concrete form that can be readily appreciated by the world’s citizens, the loftiest expressions of ideals will remain void of content, mere empty rhetoric. This is a concern that I simply cannot dismiss.
Here I would like to consider the issue of peace from a perspective somewhat different from that of political or even military responses (my proposals for the past two years attempted to clarify a basic stance toward those questions). Specifically, I believe there is a kind of progressive “root-rot” eating away at the depths of people’s understanding of what it means to be human—how we define ourselves and how we relate to those different from us. In a world trapped in cycles of terrorism and military reprisal, I feel it is vital to put the scalpel to the corrupt roots from which the spiritual malaise of our era stems. Only by mustering the courage to do this will we be able to breathe again the liberating winds of hope.
This is, of course, an issue that has been an integral part of the spiritual history of humanity ever since such great teachers as Shakyamuni and Socrates, whose philosophies of self-reliance and self-knowledge ultimately depend on engagement and dialogue with the other. It is not, however, my intention to examine this in the abstract. Rather, I would like to consider it in terms of an issue that is concrete, close to home and amenable to change through a subtle shift in attitude—namely, the problems facing young people and the role of education.
“Freedom and Discipline”
In this connection, I am reminded of a book I read in my youth. Born in 1928, my early years were shaped by the drama and chaos surrounding Japan’s defeat in World War II, which overnight brought a complete overturning of established values. People felt liberated from the long dark wartime era, from the cruel and oppressive tyranny of the military government, from the horrors of war itself. Such words as freedom and democracy, as articulated by the Allied Occupation, shone with a freshness and brilliance unimaginable today.
It was against this background that I read Jiyu to kiritsu (Freedom and Discipline) by Kiyoshi Ikeda (1903–1990), at the time professor of English literature at Keio University. In the 1920s, he spent eight years studying at an English public school and at Cambridge University, and another three at the University of Heidelberg in Germany. Based on this experience he came to the conclusion, so compellingly portrayed in this book, that the appreciation of freedom required for a healthy democracy is not possible without strict training and personal development in the critical period of youth that corresponds to the English public school years. Without such an experience of discipline, he maintained, freedom would degenerate into self-indulgent license.
Professor Ikeda’s book does not, it should be pointed out, deal with the underside of the political culture that gave birth to parliamentary democracy, notably racial and class prejudice and the exploitation of colonialism. And yet, for people of my generation in postwar Japan, amidst an overwhelming rejection of militarism and fascism—and a daily struggle to secure enough to eat—the words freedom and democracy shone like a star of hope, promising a better, brighter future. I therefore remember Freedom and Discipline as a book that seemed to contain the condensed essence of Anglo-Saxon democracy.
The book recounts the following episode:
I had the chance to speak to a man who specialized in training police dogs for the city of Frankfurt, Germany. It was his policy that if he wasn’t feeling well or had some matter that was weighing on his mind, he would cancel the day’s training. At times like that, there would be the risk that, during the training session, something could cause him to get angry in earnest. During the process of training, it may be necessary to scold a dog; physical punishment may even be required at times. But if one gives in to real anger even once, that will be the end of any hope of training that dog. This is because the dog will have contempt for the trainer. Even a dog won’t accept training from someone for whom he has contempt. (119)
The one being trained is in a sense a mirror in which the one doing the training is reflected, an indispensable partner. Professor Ikeda compared this to the forging and fostering of character through education, going so far as to state, “This was, in nearly three years studying in Germany, the one and only thing I was, with my limited talents, able to learn” (119).
I believe the reason I remember so well this episode from a book read long ago is this: For the trainer, the police dog represents the distinct, undeniable presence of an “other” who does not bend easily to one’s will but rather offers resistance; the trainer had learned that when his self-mastery was in doubt, there was a danger he would lose the ability to respect the dog as other, and the dog would in turn respond with contempt.
This truth, which applies even to the attempt to train a police dog, of course pertains with far greater subtlety and depth of meaning in the case of interactions between and among humans. “After teaching for almost twenty years, I find that I have yet to master even this most self-evident principle” (119). Professor Ikeda’s words are best read as the honest and frank confession of an excellent educator.
Self requires the existence of other. We cannot engage with others in an effective and productive manner if we lack the inner tension, the will and spiritual energy to guide and control our emotions. It is by recognizing that which is different from and external to ourselves, sensing the resistance it offers, that we are inspired to exercise the self-mastery that brings our humanity to fruition. To lose sight of the other is thus to undermine our full experience of self.
In the absence of “other”
Looking at the conditions surrounding young people in Japan more than half a century after Professor Ikeda wrote Freedom and Discipline, one has to wonder to just what extent his call for a healthy tension in education has been fulfilled. (And here I use education in the broadest sense of the term, not limited to such formal settings as schools but to include the family and society at large.)
In recent years, the behavior of some young people has seemed completely out of sync with conventional understandings of “common sense” and has become an object of consternation. But the acting out of these young people should be seen as symptomatic of the erosion of the educative function of society as a whole, and of a pervasive loss of the spiritual tautness that is born from the distinct encounter of self and other.
I think the self-destructive behavior of young people can best be understood as a dire warning about the general health of society. Their greater sensitivity renders them more vulnerable to the toxins of modern life, similar to the canaries traditionally placed in coal mines whose distress would indicate the presence of poisonous gases.
At one time it was said that the two defining images of postwar Japan were spoiled children overindulged by their parents and sites of natural beauty despoiled by litter. This sardonic observation captures the flaccid spiritual conditions that have prevailed under postwar democracy, in which people skirt the trials of an open engagement with either the natural world or their fellow humans. As Freedom and Discipline illustrates, character is something that can only be forged within the context of the inner tension provoked by the encounter of self and other, which I would construe to include the natural environment. Japan’s increasing prosperity appears to have obscured this.
Prof. Nobuo Masataka of Kyoto University has coined the phrase “at-home-ism” to describe the symptoms of the inability to distinguish between self and other, and by extension between the private and the public realms (Keitai 57). This syndrome, sadly common in Japanese young people today, manifests itself as either withdrawal into private space or unselfconscious brazenness in public. If one is satisfied to act at all times and in all places as if “at home,” there is little opportunity to learn the minimal sense of etiquette and public-spiritedness that gives concrete shape to self-mastery. Self-mastery is something that can only be attained through a sustained effort of the will.
A flat, featureless society in which we meet no real resistance, in which there is no distinct response from the presence of the other, is one that, while it may appear free, is in fact not. There is something suffocating and claustrophobic about such a society where—as the author and lyricist Yu Aku put it, “whatever we have and however free we are to do as we like, what we are left with amounts to nothing at all” (11). The sense of frustration that lurks constantly in the background of our apparent affluence and freedom signals the spiritual ensnarement of which people are finally beginning to become aware.
A journalist of my acquaintance noted with some surprise that the popular annual guide to new terms and concepts in use in Japanese society, Imidas, came this year with a companion volume, “What To Do in Different Situations—Fifty-five Lessons in Manners for Today’s World.” This comprises step-by-step guidelines for everyday behavior—from the most basic table manners to the proper etiquette for weddings, funerals and other ceremonial occasions. This journalist found it symbolic of the needs of the era that an entire volume should be dedicated to such matters. Most of the knowledge contained in it would, just a few decades ago, have been something one naturally absorbed through interactions in the family or local community, and I agree that it does indeed seem indicative of the state of society that it should require spelling out in such detail.
My reason for examining Japanese social mores is this: I firmly believe that the contradictions and pathology that can be seen there share deep roots with the larger pathology of contemporary civilization—the chain reactions of violence that show no sign of abating. Whether on the micro or the macro level, to lose sight of the other is to become profoundly desensitized to human feeling, and it is this that underlies the apathy and cynicism so prevalent in contemporary society.
As I sought to warn in my proposal of two years ago, there is a profound continuity between the malaise that we see infecting the hearts of so many young people and the cool disengagement of modern, high-tech warfare. In particular, I am concerned about the numbing impact of a kind of conflict in which one side experiences virtually no casualties while the other is devastated to an unknown, yet clearly enormous, extent.
The United States’ experiment in bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq is facing severe trials in the form of continuing violence and disruption. One has to wonder how earnestly the question was posed as to what meaning and appeal the “universal principles” of the West would have for people whose ethics and values have grown out of a quite different set of religious principles, in this case Islam. Was there, in other words, a full and respectful cognizance of the Iraqi people as “other”?
This question, so large in its implications, can in fact be tackled in the immediacy of our daily lives. It is here that we can take the first, crucial step. However seemingly small, this step is not a detour but actually advances the grand undertaking of redefining the course and direction of civilization.
First, immediate steps
In March of last year, UN Under-Secretary-General Anwarul K. Chowdhury was the keynote speaker at the Soka University and Soka Women’s College commencement ceremony. On that occasion, he compared the departure of the graduates on their careers with humanity’s departure on the adventure of world peace in the twenty-first century.
At the start of this year, I received a New Year’s message from Mr. Chowdhury in which he stressed the importance of the home and family in building world peace. Expressing his support for my view that a family that interacts openly with society will produce individuals who are independent and creative, able to face hardships, he wrote, “If the message of a culture of peace and the values of tolerance, understanding and respect for diversity is inculcated in the children from an early stage by their families, I believe that in the coming decades the world will experience a distinct change for the better in our conflict- and violence-ridden societies.”
This statement takes on added significance in light of the fact that these are the words of someone committed to working for peace from the global perspective of the UN. I believe it reflects Mr. Chowdhury’s understanding that, whatever hard-power emergency response may at times be necessary, the soft-power approach that touches the core of human beings is paramount; that without cultivating the spiritual dimension the goal of lasting peace will remain distant; and that the family—the smallest and perhaps earliest human community—is where this crucial work must be undertaken.
In a way, I believe this same understanding is reflected in the words of Katsuhiko Oku, the Japanese diplomat who was killed in the line of duty in Iraq last year. In a series of articles entitled “Iraku dayori (Letter from Iraq),” he describes the severe challenges facing that country. However, he writes, “There is hope; it is to be found in the brightly shining eyes of the children. When I look at the sparkling eyes of the children of Iraq, I feel certain that things will work out for this country.”
In conflict-torn countries such as Iraq, the mistrust and hatred that fill the eyes of so many adults can provoke a sense of despair. But even then the shining eyes of children seem to shed a ray of hope into situations that condense the most intractable aspects of human history. It is for this reason that we must focus with renewed determination on education in the broadest sense—all the places and occasions where young people are fostered, where their spirits are energized and enlivened.
Here I am reminded of the words of my mentor, the second president of the Soka Gakkai, Josei Toda (1900—1958), whose limitless love for young people spurred him to make this impassioned call:
Our struggle is one that requires that we love all living beings. Yet there are so many young people who are incapable of loving their own parents. How can they be expected to care about perfect strangers? The effort to overcome the coldness and indifference in our own lives and attain the same state of compassion as the Buddha is the essence of human revolution. (Zenshu vol.1: 58)
Love and compassion for all living beings is the ultimate message of Buddhism. Yet the compassion that is at the core of a universal love for humankind will remain an empty, unrealized ideal unless we can take that first, immediate step—exemplified here by the simple act of loving one’s parents. “Dig beneath your feet, there you will find a spring.” As this saying indicates, the consistent, daily effort to take that one step, while it may seem insignificant, is in fact all-encompassing.
In this context, the single step is for both parent and child to build on the foundation of their existing emotional attachments, recognizing each other as distinct and independent individuals, interacting frankly on the basis of their mutual “otherness.” In this way, they can provide each other with an opportunity to forge and foster each other. This makes the home a point of departure from which we take that first step out into the community and toward public spiritedness. The path from there leads to larger values, such as a healthy love of country and a universal love for all humanity.
The spirit of the world today is in retreat and regression, almost a kind of meltdown. And this is why the global questions of peace must be rethought from the perspective of the immediate reality of our lives. At the very least, any attempt to deal with these large problems that does not take such immediate realities into full consideration will not constitute a fundamental response. I therefore believe strongly in the value of each of us initiating action, taking that first step, from where we are standing right now.
Human Revolution
It was Josei Toda who first used the expression “human revolution” to describe the process of inner reformation that drives a process of positive transformation of one’s circumstances and environment. What Toda was giving expression to is the Buddhist ideal of “enlightenment”—a concept that has rarely been put in such concrete and accessible terms.
For Toda, this internal revolution was also the only way to bring about lasting social reform. He asserted that the only way to make any progress in eradicating widespread social evil and realize peace is for each individual human being to revolutionize their own inner nature. The essential foundation must be an inner transformation taking place in the lives of each human being and steadily expanding through society.
De-clawing the demonic impulse
Here I would like to examine my mentor Josei Toda’s declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons, which he issued in September 1957 and which is his enduring message to humankind. At the time, the Cold War was growing ever more intense; the United States and the Soviet Union were leading the rush to conduct nuclear tests in a desperate effort to make these weapons even more effective.
Toda’s declaration was issued just seven months before his death, during a brief respite in his final illness. To write it, he summoned the whole of his life force, pouring into it the entirety of his being. In it he condemned nuclear weapons as an “absolute evil,” a threat to the collective right of humankind to exist, and bequeathed the mission of working for their abolition to young people.
Today a global movement calling for a ban on the testing of atomic or nuclear weapons has arisen. It is my wish to go further; I want to expose and remove the claws that lie hidden in the depths of such weapons. I wish to declare that anyone who uses nuclear weapons, whichever country they might be from, whether they are victors or losers, should be sentenced to death. This is because we, the ordinary citizens of the world, have a right to live. Whoever threatens that right is a devil, a Satan, a monster. (Zenshu vol.4: 565)
Toda’s reference to the death penalty was his way of stressing the overwhelming imperative for young people to engage in an all-out spiritual struggle for the abolition of these apocalyptic and, indeed, demonic weapons; it should not be construed literally. Rather, he was stressing the importance of confronting and eliminating the fundamental evil that lies hidden in the depths of people’s lives. In Buddhist terms this refers to the urge to manipulate and exploit others for our own benefit. It is this deep-rooted impulse that allows people to use, without apparent qualm, weapons that instantly reduce so many lives to smoking ashes.
Toda’s declaration sought to expose the fallacy of the theory of nuclear deterrence that was used to justify nuclear weapons as a necessary evil. This forceful warning against the total disregard for life that lies at the heart of such theories retains its significance and impact undiminished to this day. Of particular contemporary relevance is his focus, looking past political or military ideology, on the most fundamental dimension of the inner life of humanity.
The striking phrase “to remove the claws” demonstrates a remarkable perspective, discernment and insight. It signifies the transformation of our inner lives, of the destructive impulse in us all. This means reviving a concrete and vivid awareness of the existence of others, and developing the spirit of self-mastery, the ability to control our impulses and desires within the context of that awareness. This, I believe, is the true import of his statement. Ultimately it is not something outside ourselves that must be de-clawed: the grand historic challenge of abolishing nuclear weapons begins with the actions we initiate within our own lives.
From the start of the industrial revolution, modern civilization has been on a trajectory of fevered advance, served by the tools of scientific rationalism. The driving force has been the untrammeled pursuit of desire, the limitless inflation of the superficial self. Nothing manifests this more fiercely than nuclear weapons, which embody the willingness to hold the right to live of all people on Earth hostage to the predominance and security concerns of certain countries. They epitomize a civilization dedicated to the service of desire, born of the fusion of technological development and military objectives.
How can this be resisted and transformed? I believe that the key lies in fostering a genuine awareness of others, which in turn forms the basis for the development of such virtues as public consciousness and public spiritedness.
Identity and community
One hundred years ago, when the world was in the thrall of imperialism and colonialism, the founding president of the Soka Gakkai, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871–1944), described these forces as “national egotism.” He also declared, “The state does not exist apart from the individual: the purpose of the state is to fulfill the aspirations that are the content of the hearts of individuals” (27). He further asserted that the ultimate objective of both individual lives and states must be “the way of humanity” or humanitarianism, something that can only be realized in actions whose aim is not limited to one’s own happiness but includes the happiness of others (30).
In his philosophy of education, Makiguchi expresses a strong sympathy with the American thinker John Dewey (1859–1952), and in this context, Dewey’s ideas about the nature of a public identity as the basis for democracy are of interest. In The Public and Its Problems, Dewey quotes W. H. Hudson’s description of life in a village in Wiltshire (England).
Each house has its center of human life with life of bird and beast, and the centers were in touch with one another, connected like a row of children linked together by their hands. … I imagined the case of a cottager at one end of the village occupied in chopping up a tough piece of wood or stump and accidentally letting fall his heavy sharp axe on to his foot, inflicting a grievous wound. The tidings of the accident would fly from mouth to mouth to the other extremity of the village, a mile distant; not only would each villager quickly know of it, but have at the same time a vivid mental image of his fellow villager at the moment of his misadventure, the sharp glittering axe falling on to his foot, the red blood flowing from the wound; and he would at the same time feel the wound in his own foot and the shock to his system. (40–41)
The disaster that has befallen one of their fellows is not simply known as fact by the villagers, it is felt and experienced as a shared and personal pain. This vital sensitivity and awareness of life is the core of a public identity. It is this overwhelming sense of reality that leaves such a strong impression.
In a small community such as this not only humans but also animal life and even insentient nature retain the distinct outlines of their separateness and “otherness” while at the same time being intimately connected and bound to each other within the framework of shared destiny. It is only by entering into and participating in the community that people can achieve a solid sense of identity, positioning and giving meaning to their own life and death within a greater whole.
Dewey declares, “With such a condition of intimacy, the state is an impertinence” (41).
This is perhaps reminiscent of two characters in the works of Tolstoy who are said to be semiautobiographical—Olenin in The Cossacks and Levin in Anna Karenina—urban intellectuals who happen upon experiences very close to revelation in which their souls are elevated and merge with the life of all beings. (But this should not be mistaken for
a call, along the lines of Rousseau (235), for a “return to nature” which was the subject of Voltaire’s jibe: “When I read your works, I feel like walking on all fours.” As the fact that Rousseau went on to construct a social theory of popular sovereignty proves, it is impossible to eliminate all that is artificial and truly return to nature.)
What Dewey was examining in his book was the nature of public virtue and public interest in the years after World War I, as the masses started to gain full entry into the political process. He was tackling the question of how—in a world in which villages and other small-scale communities had been dismantled in the process of creating the modern state—to effect the transformation from a “Great Society” (great only in its scale) to a “Great Community” whose constituents identify themselves as members of a “Public.” And as Dewey indicates, it is difficult if not impossible to create this Great Community in the absence of some means of preserving and transmitting the core sense of identity that is the basis of public virtue and public interest in small communities.
Dewey saw the mass media as playing a key role in forming the Great Community. I am afraid, however, that it takes little consideration to answer the question of whether the media has fully or adequately played such a role in the years since Dewey set out these ideas. While responsibility for this cannot be laid entirely at the feet of the media, I personally feel that a cynical indifference to others has become far more pervasive than it was in his time. The challenge Dewey defined for us has remained unmet and, if anything, the problem has been received by our age in exacerbated form.
Indeed, it has been further accelerated by two major currents of our age: globalization and virtualization, the intertwined trends that are driving postindustrial societies. There has been a reaction against globalization in recent years sparked in large part by the lopsided benefits accruing to its central proponent, the United States. The spread and penetration of information networks, meanwhile, shows no sign of slowing; it is far too early to pass judgment on the final balance of the benefits and drawbacks, the positive and negative aspects of this complex and far-reaching phenomenon. Even so, the virtual representation of reality is clearly at the heart of the information society, and it is the implications of this that I would like to examine next.
The disconnect of virtual reality
Rapidly evolving information technology is heir to the core values of modernization and uses the appeal of convenience and efficiency to both sate and stimulate desire. One result has been the weakening of the frameworks—family, community, workplace, school, state—from which society has conventionally been configured. Physical distances that separate people have lost meaning through the creation of global networks; events on the other side of the globe enter our lives instantaneously through the medium of computers and television. This has brought a vast and largely beneficial expansion of freedom of action and of choice relative to goods and services, hobbies and interests, employment and residence. Choice is increasingly being extended to family composition and even citizenship.
We must also be aware, however, of the pitfalls of the virtualization on which so much of this new freedom hinges.
The spread of the Internet has meant that the way in which information and wealth are generated, conveyed and experienced has become increasingly virtual. In a sense, of course, information is by its nature virtual. The original function of money, meanwhile, was as a token of exchange for goods and services produced by actual economic activities. To the extent, however, that it is detached from such activities and becomes the object of speculation, desires are amplified without limit and the resistance and stability that are the special qualities of reality are lost. The result is cycles of unbridled greed as the quest for money generates further desire. This is the addictive allure of virtual wealth.
The only effective counterbalance is to keep firmly in view the fact that virtual information and wealth, while they can supplement and enhance our experience of reality, cannot replace it. Computers and communications technologies can never be a substitute for the actual human contact of dialogue, the face-to-face interaction of meetings and classroom instruction, for example. And as the hero of Defoe’s novel Robinson Crusoe discovers on his uninhabited desert island, money is no substitute for goods or services, much less for human companionship.
Virtual reality is fundamentally incompatible with an uncomfortable, even painful—yet essential—aspect of human experience: the way our encounters with others force us to face and confront ourselves, and the inner struggle that this sparks. Buddhism speaks of the twin sufferings of being forced to part from those we love and to be in the company of those we hate. Efficiency and convenience are frequently interpreted to mean the avoidance of such struggles. There is a certain irony in the fact that these measures of ease actually render modern life an inhospitable environment for developing self-mastery and a concomitant interest in the public good.
Though contemporary society is heavily dependent on communications and information technology, it is nonetheless composed of and supported by the activities of people. The ideal of the age may be a network of “free individuals” who have broken the bonds of traditional ties and encumbrances. To be genuinely free, however, they must be self-standing, disciplined and grounded in reality; they must be able to render clear judgments without being carried away by the torrents of information that wash around them. But these are the hardest qualities to develop in a virtualized society that provides scant opportunity for the training and tempering of individuals. How can this dilemma be resolved?
The answer, I believe, lies close to home but requires that we take a different, perhaps counterintuitive approach. It is the raw sense of reality, the unmediated responsiveness to living and to pain, that can breathe new life into this stifling virtual world. If we could but learn, like Dewey’s Wiltshire villagers, to feel the wound and shock of others’ pain as our own. …
I even believe that such awareness and sensitivity represents the single greatest deterrent to war.
Encountering reality
King Ashoka, known as the unifier of ancient India, began the inner drama that radically reoriented his life toward peace after witnessing the enormous horror and death wrought by war (Sadakata). This inner revolution, which transformed the remainder of his long reign, occurred because his life was receptive to the reality of the suffering his decision to invade a neighboring country had caused. I believe that each of us can, in our immediate surroundings and intimate relations, find similar opportunities to exercise and develop the possibilities of empathetic connection to the sufferings of others.
Unless there is sadness, there can be no joy. Unless there is suffering, there can be no happiness. On this point, the observations of Masahiro Morioka, professor of human sciences at Osaka Prefecture University, about the underlying pathology of contemporary civilization are of great interest. “The ‘painless civilization,’” he writes, “is one permeated by structures and mechanisms designed to enable people to avoid suffering and pursue pleasure.” Because this kind of civilization is so geared to the avoidance of suffering, he continues, it actually robs us of the possibility of experiencing the joys of life itself. “As a result, we end up living empty lives, surrounded by money and things but devoid of deep joy” (“Ron’en”).
In such a society, it is awareness of and responsibility toward others that is lost. To quote Professor Morioka again: “Those who have most successfully anesthetized themselves against their own pain are least able to feel the pain of others. They are unable to hear the cries of others and will disregard them without even noticing they have done so” (Mutsu 33). He also writes: “When they find themselves in conflict with others, because they make no attempt to alter their own frame of reference, there is no genuine dialogue. They continue to assert themselves even if it means pushing others aside” (14).
To live this way is to live under the sway of what Buddhism refers to as the demonic impulse to use and bend others to one’s will. Professor Morioka looks to the power of life itself, which can change people from within, for the source of energy to break this impasse. He calls for the rejuvenation of natural human vitality as the most urgent priority.
The issue that Professor Morioka defines is a central concern in Buddhism and is symbolized in the “four encounters” that are traditionally said to have motivated Shakyamuni to abandon earthly attachments and dedicate himself to seeking truth. As is well known, the man who would become known to the world as the Buddha was born as a prince of the Shakya clan in ancient India. He lived a life of comfort, lacking for nothing, until one day a great doubt arose within him:
While I was born wealthy and extremely gentle and kind, as you can see, [one day] the following thought occurred to me. In their foolishness, common mortals—even though they themselves will age and cannot avoid aging—when they see others aging and falling into decline, ponder it, are distressed by it, and feel shame and hate—all without ever thinking of it as their own problem. In their foolishness, common mortals—even though they themselves will fall ill and cannot avoid illness —when they see others who are ill, ponder it, are distressed by it, and feel shame and hate—all without ever thinking of it as their own problem. In their foolishness, common mortals—even though they themselves will die and cannot avoid dying—when they see others dying, ponder it, are distressed by it, and feel shame and hate-all without ever thinking of it as their own problem. (Nakamura 156–57)
Buddhist tradition holds that Shakyamuni’s decision to seek the truth was motivated by his confrontation with the reality of human suffering—the “four sufferings” of birth, aging, sickness and death, which are intrinsic to human existence. For Shakyamuni this meant not only the direct impact of these sufferings on people’s lives but, and perhaps even more fundamentally, the deep-rooted indifference, arrogance and discriminatory consciousness that prevent us from feeling others’ pain as our own. This is what the repeated phrase, “all without ever thinking of it as their own problem,” warns us against.
Thus the starting point for the Buddhist worldview is Shakyamuni’s insistence that real happiness—joy that springs from the very depths of life—can be experienced only when we resist the impulse to turn away from the suffering of others and instead challenge it as our own. Such happiness lives and breathes only when we take suffering as an opportunity to forge and temper our inner life, and commit to the hard yet rewarding mission of working for the happiness of both ourselves and others.
Contemporary civilization, determined to avoid all pain, has tried to ignore death. Rather than facing the inevitable sufferings of life and death, we try to manage and control them with biotechnology and cutting-edge medical therapies. Such efforts, of great value in themselves, have often come at the expense of the even more crucial work of developing modes of human and social existence that will enable people to successfully confront these sufferings and to enjoy truly fulfilling lives.
In averting its eyes from death, our civilization attempts to externalize death, making it “someone else’s problem,” numbing people to the pain and suffering of others. I cannot help but feel that humanity’s collective turning away from personal confrontation with death has fundamentally weakened restraints against violence. The result has been the mass slaughter of two world wars and countless regional conflicts that made the past century an era of “megadeath.”
This is the deeper meaning of Josei Toda’s call for the abolition of nuclear weapons and his determination to “de-claw” the forces lying behind their creation. Nuclear weapons are the most horrific manifestation of a civilization that treats death as someone else’s problem. By damning them in the strongest possible terms, Toda was putting the knife to the darkest aspects of modern civilization in order to transform it.
Just as there can be no unhappiness that is strictly limited to others, happiness is not something that we can hoard or keep to ourselves. We are faced with the challenge and opportunity to overcome our narrow egotism, to recognize ourselves in others as we sense others within us, and to experience the highest fulfillment as we mutually illuminate each other with the inner brilliance of our lives. It is to this challenge that the members of the SGI, as practitioners of Buddhism, are determined to rise.
A movement for people’s empowerment
Next I would like to discuss specific measures aimed at building a global society of peace and coexistence as we move toward 2005—a year of multiple significance in that it marks the sixtieth anniversary of the end of World War II, of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and of the establishment of the United Nations. I would like to make proposals in the following three areas: 1) the strengthening and reform of the UN; 2) nuclear disarmament and progress toward abolition; and 3) the expansion and enhancement of human security.
In addition to the debate over the use of military force, the Iraq crisis highlighted the UN’s inability to function adequately when there is serious division among the Security Council members. Amidst deepening concern about this situation, the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change was launched at UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s initiative, and its first meeting was held in December 2003. It is mandated to: examine the current challenges to peace and security; consider the contribution that collective action can make in addressing these challenges; review the functioning of the major organs of the UN and the relationship between them; and recommend ways of strengthening the UN through reform of its institutions and processes. The results of its deliberations are to be reported back to the Secretary-General in December before the end of the UN General Assembly’s regular session.
The chairperson of the panel is the former prime minister of Thailand, Anand Panyarachun. In October 2000, we met in Tokyo and discussed the prospects for the UN in the twenty-first century. Pointing out its inevitable limitations as a collective body of sovereign states, he observed that the organization was effective to the exact degree that its member states wished it to be so. He stressed, however, that its existence should be welcomed as a source of hope as it was undeniably making the world a better place. I fully share his view.
There are, in certain quarters, persistent questions about the effectiveness or even necessity of the UN. Some aspects of the organization as it stands may indeed be incompatible with the realities of today’s world. But with 191 member states, there is no organization more universal than the UN; it is the only body that can truly serve as a foundation for and give legitimacy to international cooperation. In the absence of a realistic alternative, the best course is to strengthen it and make it more effective. The SGI has sought to do this by generating grassroots support for the UN on a global scale.
In order fully to learn and reflect the lessons of the Iraq crisis, it will be necessary to develop new systems and procedures that can be invoked when the international community again faces difficult decisions. But whatever form these take, it is clear that the UN must continue to be the pivot for international solidarity.
1) United Nations reform
I would like to put forward two proposals for institutional reform of the UN along with ideas for creating a more positive environment for its effective functioning.
First, the authority of the General Assembly needs to be enhanced as the focus of efforts to strengthen the UN.
In the UN Charter, the Security Council is given primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security; it is the only organ whose decisions are legally binding on member states (Articles 24–25). In actuality, however, the veto power granted only to the five permanent members prevents the Council from fulfilling its function when agreement cannot be reached.
In order to overcome the Security Council’s limitations, it is essential to empower the General Assembly through strengthening both its structures and practices.
The UN Charter stipulates that the General Assembly’s responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security is subordinate to that of the Security Council. But as a global forum for dialogue open to all member states, the General Assembly is uniquely representative of the members’ views. There is a body of precedent for the General Assembly meeting in emergency special session and making recommendations to member states when the Security Council fails to fulfill its primary responsibility due, for example, to the exercise of the veto. This process was established by the “Uniting for Peace” resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 1950, which enables emergency special sessions to be called by a vote of any nine members of the Security Council, or by a majority of the UN member states.
In the twenty-first century, the UN must be capable of fully representing and reflecting the views of the international community in searching for the most appropriate means of resolving problems. The practice of holding emergency special sessions of the General Assembly should be encouraged, and routes established by which their deliberations can be fed back to the Security Council—particularly when it is deadlocked on a matter involving coercive measures. This will provide a broader basis for making the difficult decisions needed to meet the new types of threat to peace that have emerged in recent years. In December 2003, the General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution calling for steps to “increase the body’s efficiency and effectiveness and to raise the level of its visibility, so that its decisions might have greater impact” (A/RES/58/126).
The strength and authority of the UN lie in its ability to build consensus within the international community. While measures to counter threats to peace and security must be effective, even more crucially they must be seen as having legitimacy, which is in turn the basis for soft power.
My second proposal for institutional reform concerns the need to coordinate and integrate the strategies and activities of the UN agencies that provide different forms of support for people and societies caught up in violent conflict. This must cover the entire process from the start of conflict to post-conflict peace-building activities.
Recently, the lack of continuity of relief activities in conflict situations has been identified as a serious problem. The need to eliminate such gaps is stressed in Human Security Now, the final report of the Commission on Human Security issued in May 2003. It states, “With a focus on protecting people rather than adhering to institutional mandates, the current compartmentalization among the numerous uncoordinated actors should be overcome” (134).
This report also maintains that all actors must work under a unified leadership and focus on the needs of people and societies afflicted by the ravages of conflict. “The responsibility to protect people in conflict should be complemented by a responsibility to rebuild, particularly after an international military intervention. The measure of success is not the cessation of conflict-it is the quality of the peace that is left behind” (136).
There is an increasingly urgent need to develop a comprehensive framework for relief activities to respond to conflicts of an ever more complex nature. I believe that a body should be created within the UN to take effective international leadership for this particular challenge. Specifically, the Trusteeship Council, which has suspended operations, could be reconstituted as a “peace rehabilitation council” to assume this responsibility. This builds on an idea I discussed in my 1995 proposal, where I suggested that the Trusteeship Council be given a new role in protecting cultural and ethnic diversity in areas of conflict, working closely with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Incorporating some of those functions, this peace rehabilitation council could assume primary responsibility for promoting and coordinating the whole range of activities from humanitarian relief to post-conflict peace-building. As it carries out its mandate, it should maintain continuous communication with all affected countries. Also, to ensure a high level of transparency and credibility, regular progress reports should be made to all concerned parties.
In order to strengthen the UN, popular engagement and support are essential—at least as important as the efforts of member states. The world body has been strapped by financial constraints for many years, and support in a wide range of areas is required.
There have, of course, been positive developments. The Secretary-General’s Panel of Eminent Persons on Civil Society and UN Relationships, for example, was formed in February 2003. Chaired by former President of Brazil Fernando Enrique Cardoso and committed to an “open, transparent and consultative process,” it is working to compile a report on how to make the interaction between civil society and the UN more meaningful.
Welcoming these developments, I believe they could be further encouraged by a “UN people’s forum,” a gathering of the representatives of NGOs and civil society, perhaps on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the UN’s establishment in 2005. Following up on the work of the Millennium NGO Forum held in 2000, this would help strengthen the capacity of the UN to contribute to peace in the new era.
The Boston Research Center for the 21st Century (BRC), an international peace institute which I founded in 1993, supported the UN during its fiftieth anniversary in 1995 by conducting a series of dialogues on the recommendations of the Commission on Global Governance. The publication of these dialogues as a book entitled A People’s Response to Our Global Neighborhood was followed by two seminars at the UN specifically exploring the commission’s idea for a civil society forum. The SGI and its affiliated institutions are committed to building a global people’s solidarity, supporting the UN through activities such as collaborative research and the sponsoring of symposiums and public forums.
Complementing these suggestions for UN reform, I would also like to stress the importance of fostering a global environment in which conflict is resolved through the rule of law as a central countermeasure to terrorism.
Important steps in this direction have already been taken. For example, the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) was brought into being within the UN on the basis of Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted in September 2001, and the Counter-Terrorism Action Group was created for the purpose of aiding the CTC’s activities during the G8 Summit held in Evian, France, in June 2003.
Counter-Terrorism
The Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) was established in September 2001 to monitor the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1373, which calls on member states to fight terrorism and encourages them to cooperate in preventing and suppressing the financing and support of terrorism, as well as strengthening their judicial frameworks to take action against the perpetrators of such acts.
The Counter-Terrorism Action Group (CTAG) is a G-8 initiative to expand and coordinate training and assistance, focusing especially on financial aid, for countries with “the will but not the skill” to combat terror, especially in the following critical areas:
• Terrorist financing; • Customs and immigration controls; • Illegal arms trafficking; and • Police and law enforcement.
The prevention of terrorism requires improving the function and efficacy of the judicial systems of each country. Committed international cooperation is essential in supporting national efforts, and the bodies described above can play a key role. It is crucially important to create, through an international network of cooperation and with an emphasis on preventive measures, the conditions in which terrorism is forestalled and eliminated.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) needs to be central to this process. Officially launched by the swearing-in of its judges in March 2003, the ICC is the first permanent international criminal court established to try individuals for war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity. It is important to increase the number of states participating in the ICC and encourage its effective functioning.
The ICC can help sever the cycles of hatred and violence that drive conflict and terror. It can contribute to establishing a culture of resolving conflicts through recourse to law rather than resort to force. Universality and credibility are crucial to the effectiveness of the court, and in this sense also the broadest possible participation is called for. In our capacity as an NGO, the SGI will strive to develop broad-based global support for the ICC through various activities to raise public awareness of its existence and the potential it offers.
In the wake of the shocking August 2003 terrorist attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad, the Security Council adopted a resolution expressing strong condemnation of terror against UN personnel and humanitarian relief workers in zones of conflict, identifying these acts as war crimes. The principle should be established for trying heinous crimes of terrorism in an international judicial venue such as the ICC. We should not underestimate the deterrent potential of such measures.
Also in this connection it is necessary to reinforce International Humanitarian Law, which was developed to define the legally acceptable behavior of combatants in wartime. This is needed to respond to new types of conflict, such as civil wars that spill over international borders, and to ensure that counter-terrorism measures are conducted in accord with the spirit of humanitarian law.
International Humanitarian Law
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is the body of rules which, in wartime, protects people who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities. Its central purpose is to limit and prevent human suffering in times of armed conflict. The rules are to be observed not only by governments and their armed forces, but also by armed opposition groups and any other parties to a conflict. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977 are the principal instruments of humanitarian law. Among the areas covered are protection of civilian populations and treatment of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, as well as prisoners of war.
2) Nuclear disarmament and abolition
Here I would like to discuss the prospects for reducing and ultimately eliminating the world’s nuclear arsenals.
In December 2003, the government of Iran signed an additional protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) granting its inspectors broader rights of access. In the same month, Libya agreed to dismantle its programs to develop and manufacture weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. It also agreed to accept an international inspection team immediately.
While such news represents enormous progress in nuclear non-proliferation, eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons entirely from the world unfortunately remains a distant prospect. I am convinced that to achieve any lasting breakthrough, it will be vital to shift emphasis from non-proliferation—the main focus in recent years—to reduction and eventual abolition.
Of course, bolstering non-proliferation regimes is still a prerequisite for any progress in nuclear disarmament. This is why I have repeatedly called for the earliest possible entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), whose text was finalized in 1996. An international monitoring system is being developed under the CTBT’s verification regime, and it is said that once this is fully operational it will no longer be possible to conceal nuclear tests.
CTBT verification regime
The CTBT verification regime is designed to monitor compliance with the CTBT, and consists of:
• An international monitoring system (IMS) • A consultation and clarification process • On-site inspections • Confidence-building measures
The IMS comprises a network of 321 monitoring stations and 16 radionuclide laboratories, of which 83 were operational by the end of 2003. They monitor the earth for evidence of nuclear explosions in all environments. The system uses four verification methods: seismic, hydroacoustic and infrasound stations to monitor underground, underwater and atmosphere environments, respectively, and radionuclide stations to detect radioactive debris from atmospheric explosions or vented by underground or underwater nuclear explosions. Once established, IMS stations transmit data via a global communications infrastructure to the International Data Centre, where the data is analyzed .
More than seven years have passed since the CTBT was adopted. While the treaty languishes awaiting entry into force, fears of moves to resume nuclear testing have grown. Last year, for example, the U.S. government allocated funds for research on low-yield and powerful earth-penetrating nuclear weapons.
In July 2003 the CTBT was ratified by Algeria, one of the states whose ratification is required for it to enter into force. International public opinion must be mobilized to ensure that the remaining twelve such states, which include the United States, ratify as soon as possible.
On a related matter, there is a need to formalize into a global system the Negative Security Assurance pledges under which countries that possess nuclear weapons have undertaken not to use them against non-nuclear-weapon states.
CTBT Ratification
The CTBT bans any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion in any environment. To enter into force, the CTBT must be signed and ratified by the 44 states that formally participated in the work of the 1996 session of the Conference on Disarmament and that possess nuclear power or research reactors: these are known as the Annex 2 states.
Thus far, 41 of the 44 Annex 2 states have signed the CTBT, and 32 have ratified it. The nine Annex 2 states that have signed but not ratified are: China, Colombia, Congo, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, the United States of America and Viet Nam. Three Annex 2 states have neither signed nor ratified: India, North Korea and Pakistan.
Steps such as these, taken in earnest, embody the spirit of self-mastery I mentioned earlier as constituting the essence of civilized behavior. Demonstrating this spirit in a way that people everywhere can understand and appreciate would be the most powerful deterrent to war and terrorism. And nothing would do more to create a stable system for non-proliferation, and boost the credibility and effectiveness of nuclear disarmament treaties, than for those countries that have nuclear weapons to make good on their long-standing commitment to disarm.
The primary objective of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. We cannot, however, overlook the fact that the NPT has more signatories than any other nuclear-arms-related treaty for the very reason that its text specifically requires nations to pursue negotiations in good faith toward the elimination of their nuclear arsenals (Article VI).
In 1995, on the occasion of the decision to extend the treaty indefinitely, documents entitled “Strengthening the Review Process for the Treaty” and “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament” were adopted (A/57/387). This strengthening of the framework for disarmament must be understood as a manifestation of the powerful will of the international community.
In my proposal last year, I suggested that as 2005, when the next NPT Review Conference is scheduled, marks the sixtieth anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a special session of the UN General Assembly dedicated to the abolition of nuclear weapons should be convened and attended by heads of state and government. I also urged discussion on the formation of a new specialized agency within the UN mandated to address the issue of nuclear disarmament.
The final document adopted by the 2000 NPT Review Conference includes the “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals” (NPT/CONF.2000/28). This document also calls for the “engagement as soon as appropriate of all the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons.” The gravity of these commitments must be borne in mind and all efforts made to realize them.
The first step must be for the five declared nuclear-weapon states—who are also the five permanent members of the Security Council—to fulfill their responsibility to all parties to the NPT by initiating negotiations in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament. I am confident that agreement by these five powers to begin negotiations ahead of the 2005 NPT Review Conference, or the special session of the General Assembly that I am proposing, would offer a lifeline, a way of breaking the current impasse. I urge them most strongly to start drawing up a concrete timetable for nuclear abolition.
Here I would like to comment on efforts to address fears that North Korea is developing nuclear weapons, which have heightened since December 2002 when it announced the decision to reactivate its nuclear facilities. Talks were held in Beijing in August 2003 among six nations: the United States, Russia, China, South Korea, North Korea and Japan.
Although no concrete progress was made, the parties did reach consensus on a number of points, as shown in the summary issued by the host country China, including to “solve the nuclear problem peacefully through dialogue, to maintain peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, and to pave the way for permanent peace,” and “not to take actions that could escalate the situation in the process of resolving the issue peacefully” (MOFA).
Attempts to hold further talks stalled, and although in January of this year North Korea moved to accept an unofficial U.S. delegation and allow inspection of its nuclear facilities, little substantive progress has been achieved. For Japan, the issue of the abduction of Japanese nationals by North Korean operatives in the past is not something that can be skirted or ignored. However, it is important that each country take a positive approach to developing the framework for multilateral dialogue that has finally emerged, adhering closely to the spirit of the above summary.
For my part, as well as hoping for an early start to a second round of the six-party talks, I believe we should be looking to institute a formal framework for such talks, as a robust vehicle for confidence-building measures on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia. As a long-term goal we should aim toward the establishment of a regional body—a Northeast Asian Union—with the more immediate objective of creating a Northeast Asian nuclear-free zone.
3) Human security
The third challenge I would like to address is that of expanding and enhancing human security.
Human security is a concept that has emerged in recent years from the effort to rethink established notions of security. It is a new approach centered on security for people rather than states. It addresses not only the threats posed by direct forms of violence such as war, terrorism and crime, but also poverty and environmental pollution, violation of human rights, discrimination and lack of access to education and sanitation. These are all issues that seriously impact the safety and dignity of human beings.
In his New Year’s message, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned that the war in Iraq had distracted the world from addressing threats that kill “millions and millions of people every year” such as extreme poverty and hunger, unsafe drinking water, environmental degradation and infectious disease. He appealed to world leaders to make 2004 “the year when we begin to turn the tide” (SG/SM/9095).
Since the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) first outlined the basic concept of human security in 1994, recognition of its importance has been growing steadily. The year 2001 saw the formation of the Commission on Human Security, whose report Human Security Now: Protecting and Empowering People I referenced earlier. Reviewing the evolution of the concept, the report defines human security as “protecting fundamental freedoms—freedoms that are the essence of life” and “protecting people from critical and pervasive threats and situations” (4).
What I find striking about the report is that it identifies empowerment, together with protection, as one of the two keys to the realization of human security. It stresses the importance of developing the innate strengths and abilities of human beings, empowering them to find their own happiness as they contribute to society:
People’s ability to act on their own behalf—and on behalf of others—is the second key to human security. Fostering that ability differentiates human security from state security, from humanitarian work and even from much development work. Empowerment is important because people develop their potential as individuals and as communities. (11)
This resonates with my own conviction that the struggle to create something of new and positive value within society by taking action for the sake of others forms the indestructible foundation for peace.
As I have stressed on many occasions, including the earlier part of this proposal, I believe that education must be the focus of efforts to extend human security. In the world today 860 million adults are said to be illiterate, and 121 million children have no access to school (A/RES/56/116). The Education for All campaign, spearheaded by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), aims to realize universal basic education with concrete benchmarks for achievement. Last year was also the start of the United Nations Literacy Decade (2003–2012).
Education for All: Gender Equality
The Dakar Framework for Action and the Millennium Declaration, both adopted in 2000, established gender equality goals to which all states are committed: eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary schooling by 2005; achieving gender equality by 2015.
Progress has been made particularly at primary level, where the ratio of girls to boys enrolled improved from 88% to 94% between 1990 and 2000. In the three regions where gender inequalities are greatest—sub-Saharan Africa, the Arab States and South and West Asia—disparities have eased substantially.
But many countries, despite great efforts, have made little progress. On the basis of past rates of change, 60% of the 128 countries for which data are available are likely to miss reaching gender parity at primary and secondary levels by 2005, and 40% are at risk of not achieving gender parity either at primary or secondary level or at both, even by 2015.
Literacy opens the door to knowledge, empowering people to develop their innate abilities and fulfill their potential. Raising literacy rates among women, who account for two-thirds of the illiterate, and providing girls with greater access to primary education would undoubtedly prove powerful in improving the lives not only of women but also of their families and communities.
The State of the World’s Children 2004, released by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in December 2003, warns that none of the world’s development objectives can be achieved without progress in girls’ education, and calls for urgent reform of international development efforts. Lack of funding has caused many countries to fall behind in the drive for universal primary education, and this is an obstacle that needs to be eliminated through international cooperation.
According to estimates by the UN and the World Bank, the target of realizing primary education for all by the year 2015 could be achieved if just four days’ worth of the world’s annual military expenditure were diverted to education every year (Human Security 117–18).
Universal primary education is one of the UN’s eight Millennium Development Goals (UNDP). To help us move closer to it, I believe there is a definite role for a “global primary education fund” as a focus for greater international funding cooperation.
Like these initiatives to ensure a basic education for all, human rights education is a cornerstone of the drive to build a world without war.
My friend and co-author the late Norman Cousins (1915–1990) wrote in his book Human Options, “A casual attitude toward human hurt and pain is the surest sign of educational failure” (30). As this wise American journalist and activist warned, the price of our collective failures in the endeavor of education in the broadest sense of the term is resentment and the potential for conflict. In many societies tensions simmer below the surface, ready to erupt into outright violence, especially when exacerbated by economic downturn and rising unemployment. To successfully eliminate violent conflict from the world and build a basis for peaceful coexistence, we need to transform these underlying feelings of hostility and prejudice.
It was with this in mind that I called for a Decade of Human Rights Education for Peace to follow on from the UN Decade of Human Rights Education (1995–2004), in a message addressed to the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held in Durban, South Africa, three years ago. Last August the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights issued a recommendation calling for the General Assembly to proclaim a second Decade for Human Rights Education to begin on January 1, 2005 (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/L.14). I wholeheartedly welcome this initiative, and urge that implementation be focused particularly on children, who are the protagonists of the future. At the same time, I believe that the larger goal of building a global society of peace and coexistence must be kept firmly in sight.
For its part, the SGI will continue to support the activities of the UN, and work in partnership with other NGOs to do whatever we can to promote peace education and human rights education across the globe.
The year 2004 is the International Year to Commemorate the Struggle against Slavery and its Abolition. This surely makes it the ideal opportunity to learn critical lessons from the past, and build the foundations for overcoming racism and intolerance. The crucial importance of human rights education is underlined by numerous examples in recent years of mass media stirring up hatred against people of a specific nationality or ethnic group, and a proliferation of “hate” websites attacking people for their ethnicity, culture or creed. This is exacerbated by the rapid growth of the information society, which has fueled fears that it may become a breeding ground for conflict and hate crimes.
In December 2003 the UN convened the first World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva, Switzerland. As well as discussing the growing gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” of information, the so-called digital divide, the summit was an important opportunity to examine many aspects of the information society, including the kinds of abuse cited above. The Declaration of Principles adopted by the summit, while acknowledging freedom of the press and media independence as indispensable, called for the responsible use and treatment of information “in accordance with the highest ethical and professional standards” (8). It is my hope that there will be further in-depth discussion of the ethical issues surrounding emerging technologies in advance of the second information summit next year in Tunisia.
Planting the seeds of peace
Making progress on the wide-ranging challenges of human security will require bold, innovative ideas and sustained effort. To this end, I hope that the world’s diverse societies will engage in the kind of “humanitarian competition” envisaged by Tsunesaburo Makiguchi—to vie with each other to make the greatest and most lasting contribution to human happiness. Here we can take inspiration from Thailand, for example, which has recently established a Ministry of Social Development and Human Security.
In this connection I would also strongly advocate the sharing of knowledge and best practices through such initiatives as organizing technical exchanges and providing skilled personnel to help realize human security on a global scale. And most importantly, I believe such activities will achieve most when not confined to the governmental level, but when sustained by grassroots understanding and action.
A crucial foundation for such action is the opportunity to learn about the issues facing our world in a way that enables people to grapple with them as a personal concern. Efforts to educate and empower people at the grassroots level can set in motion waves of transformation that know no bounds. Based on this belief, the SGI has organized exhibitions and other public information activities in support of UN disarmament and human rights campaigns, and of international conferences such as the Earth Summits. Among the issues explored have been nuclear disarmament, human rights and sustainable development.
Sustainable Development
In 1987, the Brundtland Report, “Our Common Future,” published by an international group of politicians and experts on environment and development, defined sustainable development as that which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”
After two “Earth Summits,” the Rio Conference on the Environment and Development in 1992 and the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, sustainable development is now a widely used term, but progress towards actualizing it has been slow. Sustainable development is seen as having three “pillars”—economic and social development and environmental protection. The years 2005 to 2014 have been designated as the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, following a proposal initiated by SGI representatives in Japan.
Last year, as part of our peace education program, an exhibition on the life and ideas of Linus Pauling (1901–1994; Nobel Laureate for both Peace and Chemistry) was organized at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris and the European Headquarters of the UN in Geneva. In February, SGI-USA will organize an exhibition entitled “Building a Culture of Peace for the Children of the World” at the UN Headquarters in New York.
Eliminating the word “misery” from the human lexicon was the fervent wish of my mentor, Josei Toda. The Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research, which I founded to respond to his vision, has been deeply involved in projects to promote human security and global governance, and building a peace research network worldwide.
I am currently engaged in a dialogue with peace scholar Dr. Elise Boulding, who has long advocated a culture of peace as the foundation for human life in the twenty-first century. In the course of our exchanges, Dr. Boulding has noted that human beings do not exist solely in the present; a short-term perspective makes us vulnerable to being overwhelmed by present events. To maintain hope, we must take constructive action with a long-term view.
Looking far into the future, President Toda predicted that the Soka Gakkai would become a profound and inexhaustible source of hope and inspiration for all humankind. Embracing that proud mission as we look forward to the thirtieth anniversary of the founding of the SGI in 2005, we will continue to forge solidarity among the world’s citizens as the basis for a robust and enduring culture of peace.
Empowerment of the people, by the people and for the people—individuals taking initiative to realize their infinite potential as they contribute to society—is the basis for the SGI’s movement of human revolution.
In January 1975, when people assembled from all over the world to launch the SGI, I called on that diverse gathering: rather than seeking to bring your own lives to bloom, devote yourselves to planting the seeds of peace throughout the world. And I vowed to do the same.
My conviction remains firm today. Peace is not some abstract concept far removed from our everyday lives. It is a question of how each one of us plants and cultivates the seeds of peace in the reality of daily living, in the depths of our being, throughout our lives. I am certain that herein lies the most reliable path to lasting peace.
List of Works Consulted
BOOKS
Boston Research Center for the 21st Century. A People’s Response to Our Global Neighborhood: Dialogues on the Report of The Commission on Global Governance. Boston: Boston Research Center for the 21st Century, 1995.
Cousins, Norman. Human Options. New York: W&W Norton & Company, Inc., 1981.
Dewey, John. The Public and its Problems. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1927.
Ikeda, Daisaku. A Global Ethic of Coexistence: Toward a “Life-Sized” Paradigm for Our Age–2003 Peace Proposal. Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 2003.
—. The Humanism of the Middle Way: Dawn of a Global Civilization-2002 Peace Proposal. Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 2002.
—. “Mahayana Buddhism and Twenty-first-Century Civilization.” A New Humanism: The University Addresses of Daisaku Ikeda. New York: Weatherhill, 1993.
Ikeda, Kiyoshi. Jiyu to kiritsu [Freedom and Discipline]. 1949. Tokyo: Iwanamishoten, 2003.
Makiguchi, Tsunesaburo. Jinsei chirigaku [The Geography of Human Life]. Vol. 5. Tokyo: Seikyo Shimbunsha, 1980. See also: Makiguchi Tsunesaburo zenshu [Complete Works of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi]. Vol. 2. Tokyo: Daisanbunmeisha, 1996. Cf.: Makiguchi, Tsunesaburo. A Geography of Human Life. Trans. Katsusuke Hori et al. Ed. Dayle M. Bethel. San Francisco: Caddo Gap, 2002.
Masataka, Nobuo. Keitai wo motta saru [Monkeys with Cellular Phones]. Tokyo: Chuokoronsha, 2003.
Nakamura, Hajime. Gotama budda 1 [Gautama Buddha Vol. 1]. Tokyo: Kabushikigaisha Shunjusha, 1992. Cf.: The Book of the Gradual Sayings. Vol. 1. Trans. F. L. Woodward. Translation Series, No. 22. 1932. Oxford: The Pali Text Society, 2000. 128-29.
Nye, Joseph S., Jr. The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone. New York: Oxford UP, 1952. Dr. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, is former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. “Lettre à Rey, le 9 mai 1762.” Correspondance complète de Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Vol. X. Banbury: The Voltaire Foundation, 1972.
Sadakata, Akira. Ashokao den [The Edicts of King Ashoka]. Kyoto: Hozokan, 1982.
The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism. The English Buddhist Dictionary Committee. Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 2002.
Toda, Josei. Toda Josei zenshu [Complete Works of Josei Toda]. Vol. 1, 4. Tokyo: Seikyo Shimbunsha, 1981.
What To Do in Different Situations-Fifty-five Lessons in Manners for Today’s World [Jp. title, Konna toki dosuru? Saishin mana 55]. Imidas 2004. Tokyo: Shueisha, 2004.
Aku, Yu. “Fudangi no famiri” [The Family in Casual Attire]. Bungeishunju Dec. 2003, extra edition: 10-11.
Chowdhury, Anwarul. “Culture of Peace: Beacon of Hope for the New Millennium.” Statement at the Commencement Ceremony of Soka University. Tokyo, 19 Mar. 2003. Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States. <http://www.un.org/ special-rep/ohrlls/ohrlls/hr%20statement%20culture%20of%20peace%20 Soka%20university.htm>.
“‘Culture of Peace’ exhibit at UN shows role of both ordinary and renowned peacebuilders.” UN News Centre. 4 Feb. 2004. <http://www0.un.org/apps/news/ story.asp?NewsID=9667&Cr=peace&Cr1=security>.
Morioka, Masahiro. “Ron’en–Seimei no yorokobi wo torimodosu tameni zetsubo kuguri ajiwaeru aratana sekai” [To Revive the Joy of Life]. Tokyo: Seikyo Shimbun, 1 Jan. 2004.
Oku, Katsuhiko. “Iraku no yorokobu kodomotachi” [The Cheerful Children of Iraq]. Iraku dayori [Letter from Iraq] series. 15 Jan. 2004 <http://www.mofa.go.jp/ mofaj/annai/staff/iraq/20030514.html>.
“UNICEF Says Getting More Girls into School is First Step to Reaching Global Development Goals.” News Release. United States Fund for UNICEF. 11 Dec. 2003. <http://www.unicefusa.org/_education/release_121103.html>.
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization. “An Overview of the Verification Regime.” 16 Jan. 2004 <http://www.ctbto.org/verification/overview.html>.
Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. NPT/CONF.2005/PC.I/21. New York, 8-19 Apr. 2002. See also: Non-Proliferation Treaty. UN & Disarmament. <http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/npt/2005/index%20ver3.html>.
Thailand. Songkhla Provincial Social Development and Welfare Office. Responsibilities and Duties of the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security. <http://www.songkhla.m–society.go.th/resp_eng.pdf>.
—. 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaties on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Final Document. NPT/CONF.2000/28.
—. Charter.
—. Economic and Social Council. “Specific Human Rights Issues.” E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/L.14. Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. 6 Aug. 2003. <http://www.unhchr.ch/ Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/f10c8bf7e027500ec1256d80002e0786?Opendocument>.
—. General Assembly. “Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly.” Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. A/RES/58/126. New York: United Nations. 19 Dec. 2003. See also: Press Release GA10222. 19 Dec. 2003. <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/ga10222.doc.htm>.
—. —. Uniting for Peace. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. A/RES/377(V)A. New York: United Nations. 3 Nov. 1950.
—. —. “World Summit on the Information Society.” Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. A/RES/56/183. 31 Jan. 2003. See also: Basic Information: About WSIS. Home page. <http://www.itu.int/wsis/basic/about.html>.
—. “Secretary-General Names High-Level Panel to Study Global Security Threats, and Recommend Necessary Changes.” Press Release. SG/A/857. New York: United Nations. 4 Nov. 2003. <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sga857.doc.htm>.
—. “Secretary-General’s Message for New Year, 2004.” Press Release. SG/SM/9095. New York: United Nations. 24 Dec. 2003. <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sgsm9095.doc.htm>.
—. Security Council. Counter-Terrorism Committee. Resolution 1373 (2001). Resolution adopted by the Security Council. S/RES/1373. New York: United Nations. 28 Sep. 2001. <http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committee/1373/mandate.html>.
—. —. Protection of United Nations personnel, associated personnel and humanitarian personnel in conflict zones. Resolution 1502 (2003). Resolution adopted by the Security Council. S/RES/1502. New York: United Nations. 26 Aug. 2003. See also: Press Release SC/7856. 26 Aug. 2003. <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/ Sc7856.p2.doc.htm>.
—. —. Resolution 1441 (2002). Resolution adopted by the Security Council. S/RES/1441. New York: United Nations. 8 Nov. 2002.
—. “Strengthening of the United Nations: An Agenda for Further Change.” Report of the Secretary-General. A/57/387. New York: United Nations. 9 Sep. 2002.
UNESCO. “Message from the Director-General of UNESCO on the occasion of the International Year to Commemorate the Struggle against Slavery and its Aboliton (2004).” 24 Dec. 2003. <http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php@URL_ID=17528&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html>.
—. United Nations Literacy Decade: Education for All. A/RES/56/116. New York: United Nations. 18 Jan. 2002. <http://portal.unesco.org/education/ev.php?URL_ID=11559&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201&reload=1042733928>.
Boston Research Center for the 21st Century (BRC). Founded in 1993, BRC serves as a conference center, publisher and forum for dialogue on topics such as nonviolence, human rights, economic justice and environmental ethics. <http://www.brc.org/>.
Commission on Human Security. Human Security Now. New York: Commission on Human Security, 2003. <http://www.humansecurity–chs.org/finalreport/FinalReport.pdf>.The Commission on Human Security was established in January 2001 through the initiative of the government of Japan and in response to the UN Secretary-General’s call at the 2000 Millennium Summit for a world “free of want” and “free of fear.”
Soka University and Soka Women’s College. Founded by Daisaku Ikeda in 1971 and 1985, respectively, Soka University and Soka Women’s College are part of the Soka (value-creation) education system that ranges from kindergarten to university level. <http://www.soka.ac.jp/>.
Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research. “Human Security and Global Governance: Prospectus for an International Collaborative Research Project.” HUGG Prospectus. 17 Jan. 2004. Founded in 1996 and based in Tokyo and Honolulu, the institute brings together peace researchers, policymakers, media and community leaders focused on such issues as peace, sustainable development, human rights and global governance. <http://www.toda.org/>.
A Global Ethic of Coexistence: Toward a “Life-Sized” Paradigm for Our Age
The high hopes with which we greeted the start of the twenty-first century seem to have been replaced with a sense of frustration and hopelessness. Although the two key themes of the new century need to be the culture of peace and dialogue among civilizations, it appears we have yet to free ourselves from the negative legacy of the war- and violence-ridden twentieth century. The gap between the power of technology and the ethical standards needed to control this power seems to be widening irrevocably. Most disturbing is the sense that the world is turning its back on dialogue—the willingness to engage and talk that affirms the vitality of the human spirit.
I have consistently asserted that the mission of the SGI is a spiritual battle against those forces in the world—violence, authority, materialism—that violate human dignity. Specifically, the essence of this battle lies in never losing faith in the power of words, in remaining committed to dialogue under any circumstance. Our resolve is most severely tested when we are confronted with the type of adversary that prefers violence to discussion. Nevertheless, we must not be silent: We must exert all our strength of the spirit to press forward with dialogue.
The “War on Terrorism”
Recent disquieting developments involving Iraq and North Korea are evidently linked to the “war on terrorism.” Naturally, the atrocities of indiscriminate terrorism must not be tolerated. Yet we have the choice between a “hard” and “soft” power response; and a single-minded reliance on hard power demonstrates a sad failure of imagination. To become trapped in cycles of hatred and retaliation is to allow ourselves to be dragged down to the level of the terrorists.
Have we escaped the nightmares of violence and war committed in the name of ideology throughout the twentieth century just to find ourselves in the grasp of another nightmare today?
I feel I must express my concern about the hard-line stance of the United States, which has advocated preemptive strikes against potential terrorist threats. Needless to say, terrorism is absolutely unacceptable: Emergency response with armed force may even be necessary to combat it in certain cases. Even in such cases, those who possess hard power must exercise moderation and self-control—the very fount of soft power.
A strong impetus toward hard power is provided by economic globalization. In its present form, globalization gives rise to societies characterized by a grotesque disparity of income where scant attention is paid to the needs of “losers.” This deterioration of care for others signals a loss of self-control and moral leadership.
A “Life-Sized” Paradigm
The way forward, I believe, lies in developing a “life-sized paradigm” by which to understand our world and where we stand in it. By “life-sized” I am referring to a way of thinking that never deviates from the human scale—a humane sensitivity to life as a whole and also to the details of everyday human existence.
When we examine modern civilization from the perspective of our true human proportion, what we see is that our intellectual capacities have become grossly distended, and our sensual and affective capacities atrophied. This imbalance takes the form of a dulling of our natural responsiveness to life and the realities of daily living. We must view contemporary, high-tech warfare from a life-sized perspective to appreciate the horror of such truly bizarre forms of war as million-dollar missiles flying over the heads of people subsisting on one or perhaps two dollars per day.
This can but spur us to a deepened awareness, inspire in us a process of constantly reconfirming our recognition of who we are and what we are doing. We need to restore our sensitivity to life itself, our palpable awareness of the realities of daily living; and here, I believe, women have an especially important role to play. I have for some time expressed my view that the twenty-first century must be a century of women.
Human Security in the 21st Century
In addressing these challenges, I would like to stress the centrality of the concept of human security, focusing on three major themes: disarmament, development and education.
Regarding the problems of disarmament and weapons of mass destruction, I would like to make the following specific proposals:
For India, Israel and Pakistan to follow Cuba in acceding to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and for North Korea to renew its participation;For North Korea to declare nuclear-weapon-free status, reciprocated by security assurances from the nuclear-weapon states;
For the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Northeast Asia;
For the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) to enter into force provisionally, and for the launch of a system of international monitoring of nuclear tests;For a special session of the UN General Assembly to be dedicated to the cause of nuclear abolition, and the establishment at the UN of a new specialized agency dedicated to ensuring nuclear disarmament;
For the negotiation of a nuclear disarmament treaty as a step toward a treaty for the comprehensive ban of all nuclear weapons, whereby the nuclear-weapon states fulfill their “unequivocal undertaking” to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
The second aspect of promoting human security is to confront the obscene threat to human dignity posed by poverty and starvation.
In this regard, I would like especially to stress the Millennium Development Goals. I propose that world summits be held every other year until 2015 to ensure that the world’s heads of state and government are thoroughly informed of progress toward these goals. The SGI welcomes the decision by the World Summit on Sustainable Development last year to create a World Solidarity Fund, and thoroughly endorses the goals of the Millennium Campaign. Regarding the pressing issues of water resources, I call on Japan to play a more active role, taking full account of its experience in this field.
The third challenge for human security is that of creating a global society in which all people have access to education.
This year marks the start of the UN Literacy Decade (2003–2012) as part of ongoing efforts to promote the campaign of “Education for All.” In December 2002, meanwhile, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution formally proclaiming a Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, originally proposed by the SGI, to promote efforts to build a sustainable global society.
We are committed to provide maximum support toward assuring the success of these decades for literacy and sustainability education. Environmental education, like peace education and human rights education, must be at the heart of a new vision of humanistic education, education that empowers people in their active quest for happiness and a better future. By promoting this kind of education, we can establish the foundations for a new era of hope in the twenty-first century.
The Power of Each Individual
In finding solutions to environmental problems and the myriad other issues facing our world, what is most essential is that each individual embrace a sense of responsibility and proactive commitment. It is always individuals of conviction, courage and passion who have overcome the seemingly impossible to set in motion the forces of historical change. Pervasive feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness are the fundamental evils confronting contemporary society. To combat them, we need to find a new theorem for peace: We must awaken to the fact that the inner determination within each individual’s life contains the power to change the world.
We cannot remain passive in the face of the severity of the reality that confronts us. Rather, we should open ourselves to the limitless power that is created when awakened people unite and act together. It is in proving this truth that humanity in the twenty-first century can fulfill its mission.
A Global Ethic of Coexistence: Toward a “Life-Sized” Paradigm for Our Age
by Daisaku Ikeda President, Soka Gakkai International January 26, 2003
I would like to offer some thoughts and observations on the occasion of the twenty-eighth SGI Day —January 26, the anniversary of the establishment of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI).
We are now three years into the twenty-first century, an age in which we believe the key themes need to be the culture of peace and dialogue among civilizations. In marked contrast to these ideals of peace and dialogue, however, the world is beset with a sense of looming crisis, with escalating dangers in such flash points as the Middle East and Northeast Asia.
Far from freeing ourselves from the negative legacy of the war- and violence-ridden twentieth century, we see these threatening trends continuing to accelerate and expand. The high hopes with which we greeted the new century have faded, replaced with an all-too-prevalent sense of frustration and hopelessness. Most disturbing is the feeling that the world appears to be turning its back on dialogue—the willingness to engage and talk that affirms the vitality of the human spirit.
As the world holds its breath, the vast majority of people yearn for a peaceful settlement to the Iraqi crisis. Yet for some reason a U.S.-led attack is portrayed as inevitable. With respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is at the heart of Middle East tensions, suicide bombings and military countermeasures have been escalating since the start of the year in a vicious cycle of force against force.
Added to this is the recent dramatic escalation of tensions surrounding North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea). A détente had been developing on the Korean Peninsula for several years encouraged by the “Sunshine Policy” of outgoing Korean president Kim Dae Jung. This was instantly dashed when Pyongyang announced, in an apparent act of brinkmanship, its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the safeguard accord with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and signaled the resumption of its weapons program.
A critical gap
These developments remind me of Dr. Arnold Toynbee’s apocalyptic warning to humankind expressed in our dialogue thirty years ago:
The most alarming feature of present-day society is that the power conferred by technology has recently increased to an unprecedented degree at an unprecedented rate, while the average level of the moral—or immoral—behavior of the human beings who now wield this vastly increased power has remained stationary, or may actually have declined.
We are aware of this widening gap between power and ethical standards of behavior. The gap has been dramatized in the discovery of the technique for atomic fission. …
It is hard to see how, in the atomic age, mankind can avoid committing mass-suicide if it does not raise the average level of its behavior to the level actually attained by the Buddha and by Saint Francis of Assisi. (330)
Dr. Toynbee maintained that the ethical standard—the power of the spirit fully committed to nonviolence embodied by these rare religious giants—cannot remain as unattainable “counsels of perfection” (330) but must be brought to bear on controlling the monstrous products of modern technology such as nuclear weapons. Based on his reading of history, however, he was pessimistic about our ability to do this. What hope he had, he pinned on the possibility of a revolution in religion, which might improve the world through a rapid and wide-reaching transformation of people’s hearts and minds.
We must bear in mind the words of this great scholar as the crises of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction become aggravated today.
I have consistently asserted that the mission of the SGI in society is to employ the spirit that wells from the very depths of life to do battle with those forces in the world—violence, authority, materialism—that continue to violate human dignity. In concrete terms, the essence of this spiritual battle lies in never losing faith in the power of words, in remaining committed to dialogue under any circumstance.
This is much more difficult than it sounds, for sooner or later we will be confronted with the type of adversary that prefers violence to discussion, the kind of evil that denies the language which constitutes the core of our humanity. It is then that our commitment to dialogue is most severely tested and its true worth proven.
Eichmann’s silence
I am reminded of the chilling example of Adolf Eichmann, the former SS lieutenant colonel who played a pivotal role in the horrors of the Holocaust. After the war, he was captured in Argentina and clandestinely flown to Jerusalem by Israeli intelligence agents. After a trial that held the world’s attention, he was hanged in 1962. Though responsible for orchestrating appalling atrocities, Eichmann asserted in court that he was simply doing his duty as a cog in the Nazi machine, that he was only following orders.
A recent Japanese play by Masakazu Yamazaki revolves around the interaction between Eichmann and Peter Malkin, the Israeli secret agent who masterminded the arrest. The theme focuses on whether Eichmann can be induced to express remorse for his deeds.
Even at the expense of violating the rules, Malkin attempts to persuade Eichmann to account for his crimes by appealing to his sense of justice. In the play, Malkin pleads with Eichmann: “I want words. Give me your words. Please” (337). But Eichmann never once utters words of remorse.
The drama identifies a key difference between evil and justice. Evil does not require that those it destroys understand its nature, whereas justice cannot function without being understood. Justice consists of explanation. It is the need to understand evil people and evil itself, to explain why they exist.
Explanation and understanding are made possible through the power of words. Without them, justice and good are impossible. The character of Malkin, at a loss before Eichmann’s rejection of words and dialogue, embodies how difficult it is to engage in and not abandon the spiritual battle to the end.
But these difficulties—which made even Toynbee pessimistic of our prospects—must not be allowed to stifle our spirituality, no matter the oppressive weight with which they bear down on us. We must not be silent. Permitting good to be silenced plays into the hands of evil. If indeed we are Homo loquens—man made human by the capacity for speech—we must not give up the effort of dialogue regardless of the magnitude of the crisis.
Let us continue the work of pricking holes in the shrouds of darkness, always focusing on the long term and rising above the emotions of the trying moment. We must exert all our strength of the spirit to press forward with dialogue.
We should do so in the conviction voiced so vividly by Hemingway in The Old Man and the Sea: “[M]an is not made for defeat. A man can be destroyed but not defeated” (96).
The “war on terrorism”
It is apparent that the disquieting developments involving Iraq and North Korea are directly and indirectly linked to the “war on terrorism” launched after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in the United States.
With the destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the terrorist network seems to have been expelled from that country. But it is far from being eradicated, and its links to attacks in Indonesia, Russia, Kenya and elsewhere have been suspected if not confirmed. A war waged against a borderless entity lacking the defined structure of a sovereign state could drag on forever.
What kind of leadership is required in such a volatile and explosive situation?
Hopefully, Japan will do more than just follow the lead of the United States and will take autonomous measures in line with its alliance commitments. I think that Japan’s post-Cold War diplomacy has now reached a crucial moment: Its capacity for independent and responsible decision-making will be tested by how it responds to the immediate issues of Iraq and North Korea as well as to the broader challenge of contributing with China and our other neighbors in Northeast Asia to peace and stability in the region.
For better or worse, however, the initiative for resolving the present emergency is in the hands of the United States, the world’s only superpower whose economic and military might is without parallel in history. Therefore, I must express my concern, shared by many observers around the world, about the United States’ hard-line stance, under which it has defined the struggle against terrorism as a new kind of war and advocated preemptive strikes against potential terrorist threats.
Without question, the September 11 attacks were a profoundly shocking event, drawing the sympathy of the international community for the United States. This was proven by the NATO governments’ decision to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which defines an armed attack on one member of the alliance as an attack on them all. This measure was never taken even during the Cold War.
Nevertheless, the U.S. with the United Kingdom as its only substantive military ally plunged into the attack on Afghanistan, disregarding the call for broad international cooperation. The “success” of that venture seems to have encouraged the U.S. to turn its back on the principle of international cooperation and further inclined it to unilateralism. This trend had already been in place for several years, as evidenced by the U.S. rejection of the Kyoto Protocol against global warming, the unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the refusal to participate in the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the decision not to ratify the International Criminal Court (ICC). There has been growing criticism of this tendency both inside and outside the U.S.
National strength in the 21st century
Dr. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., the former assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs and dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, is one of the concerned experts who warn against these trends.
Dr. Nye, whom I have had the pleasure to meet on a number of occasions, considers that national strength consists of two elements which should complement each other: hard power, taking forms such as economic and military might; and soft power, i.e., values and culture, the ability to lead other countries to seek what one seeks and the ability to “co-opt rather than coerce.” He maintains that military force is part of the response to terrorism. More importantly, however, it will require diligent efforts and long-term perseverance, as well as close cooperation with citizens of other countries, to eliminate terrorist attacks (Paradox 9; “Gurobaru” 16).
He also states in The Paradox of American Power:
Power in the twenty-first century will rest on a mix of hard and soft resources. … Our greatest mistake in such a world would be to fall into a one-dimensional analysis and to believe that investing in military power alone will ensure our strength. (12)
His arguments are convincing to all who wrestle with the thorny question of the continuing incidence of terrorist outrages.
Terrorism is absolutely unacceptable. It may even be that emergency response with armed force is necessary to combat it in certain cases—it cannot be denied that such a resolute attitude can have a deterrent effect. To use Max Weber’s terms, total rejection of military force may be possible as a personal “ethic of ultimate ends” but is not necessarily realistic as an “ethic of responsibility,” an option in the political arena (120). In Dr. Nye’s case, this can be seen by the fact that he once held an important position at the Pentagon.
Max Weber’s “Politics as a Vocation”
In 1918, Max Weber delivered a lecture at the University of Munich. His theme, “Politics as a Vocation,” was deeply relevant to his audience as well as to the times—young students looking to an uncertain future following Germany’s defeat in World War I. Central to the lecture is the distinction between an “ethic of ultimate ends” and an “ethic of responsibility.” Weber uses this distinction to assert that while ethics and morality must play a part in politics, there is danger in moral absolutism that ignores the concrete consequences of decisions made in the political realm. Weber’s assertions are rooted in a pessimistic view of politics and the state—”The decisive means for politics is violence.” Likewise, a state is defined as “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitmate use of physical force within a given territory.”
I believe that for hard power, military power in particular, to produce any concrete results without plummeting into a cycle of hatred and retaliation, those who possess it must exercise moderation and self-control—the very fount of soft power—and continue to display these qualities even if its use is absolutely impelled by circumstances.
The Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset (1883–1955) defined civilization as “nothing else than the attempt to reduce force to being the ultima ratio [last resort]” (Revolt 75). What is referred to as civilization here is a quality of inner self-control made manifest.
From this perspective, it is inevitable that there will be questioning of the gap between U.S. unilateral actions and the universal ideals which it professes. Freedom, human rights and democracy, as Dr. Nye points out, are the essence of soft power and hold the potential to further expand the country’s magnetism as the information age advances.
I believe that it is in the U.S.’s best interests, as well as the world’s, for the sole superpower to exercise genuine self-control.
With regard to the looming Iraq crisis, a dictatorship armed with weapons of mass destruction is indeed a hideous and formidable prospect. Yet attempts to prevent this grave eventuality will only gain the heartfelt support of the world’s people when the U.S. honestly acknowledges its status as possessor of the world’s largest stockpiles of such weapons. Self-control in a tangible form must be demonstrated—for example, by the willingness to support and participate in a universal monitoring system to contain the threat or through concrete steps and procedures for disarmament with the goal of eventual abolition. Such efforts are indispensable to ensuring moral persuasiveness.
Treasures of the heart
A strong impetus toward hard power is provided by globalization, where the rules seem to be heavily weighted in favor of the U.S. Under the slogan of liberalization and deregulation, globalization has become conspicuously slanted toward money capitalism and high finance. Economic liberalization breeds uncertainty. High-risk, high-return competition creates a handful of “winners” and a large majority of “losers.” Even the winners’ positions are not stable, as they must continue competing until, theoretically, they become the “last man standing.” Thus, the relentless globalization of markets, in the absence of a safety net, tends inevitably to become a winner-takes-all money game.
In societies where a grotesque disparity of income and inequality prevails—where, for example, the top one percent of the population controls nearly half the national wealth—scant attention is paid to the needs of “losers,” either at home or overseas. The deterioration of care for others—those we consider removed from ourselves—signals a loss of self-control and moral leadership.
Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel laureate in economic science, traveled to numerous countries and regions that were adversely affected by globalization and examined their problems while he was the senior vice president of the World Bank. He warns as follows in Globalization and Its Discontents:
Modern high-tech warfare is designed to remove physical contact: dropping bombs from 50,000 feet ensures that one does not “feel” what one does. Modern economic management is similar: from one’s luxury hotel, one can callously impose policies about which one would think twice if one knew the people whose lives one was destroying. (24)
Money, it must be remembered, is a means, not an end. Of course it plays an intrinsic role in facilitating economic activity—creating goods and services, fostering production and investment—but its function should be in a supporting, not a principal, role. The end must be people’s lives. The problem is that money has come to be seen as an end in itself.
In the teachings of Nichiren, the thirteenth-century Buddhist sage whose teachings inspire the activities of the SGI, we find this passage: “More valuable than treasures in a storehouse are the treasures of the body, and the treasures of the heart are the most valuable of all” (Nichiren, Writings 851).
Sensitivity to others’ lives, death, pain and suffering, or “the treasures of the heart,” is being eroded as the human being is trivialized. In an age dominated by globalization, it is the “winners” rather than “losers” who are most deeply infected by this pathological insensitivity to life. This is by no means limited to America.
I consider myself privileged to count the eminent economist John Kenneth Galbraith among my friends. Dr. Galbraith was an early voice warning against the excesses of the Internet “bubble,” and we owe it to ourselves to heed his call for a fundamental rethinking of our core values:
Economics, the total of goods and services provided, is not the only guide or measure of success. From now on success should be measured more in the various enjoyments of life and the degree of genuine happiness these produce. (27)
The United States is an immensely broad-minded, embracing country. But there is widespread concern that the tremendous shock of the September 11 attacks has shifted the country’s focus away from explanation, understanding and consensus through dialogue, and toward coercive hard power.
The atrocities of indiscriminate terrorism must not be tolerated. Yet a single-minded reliance on hard power in response to terrorism demonstrates a sad failure of imagination. To allow ourselves to be trapped in cycles of hatred and retaliation is to allow ourselves to be dragged down to the level of the terrorists. It is to lose sight of what Ortega y Gasset defined as civilization and to slide back toward barbarism. In the worst case, it could provoke cataclysmic division in our world.
Have we escaped the nightmares of violence and war committed in the name of ideology throughout the twentieth century just to find ourselves in the grasp of another, equally insidious nightmare today?
A “life-sized” paradigm
The way forward, I believe, lies in developing a life-sized paradigm by which to understand our world and where we stand in it. By “life-sized” here I am referring to a way of thinking that never deviates from the human scale. It is simultaneously a humane sensitivity to life as a whole and also to the details of everyday human existence. I believe it is an approach that is urgently required in response to the challenges of our age.
Physically, the individual human being is a small, even insignificant presence in the natural world. Even if humankind were to bring extinction upon itself, the impact from the perspective of the history of life on Earth would be trivial at most.
In the words of Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), “Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature; but he is a thinking reed.” He goes on to assert: “I shall have no more if I possess worlds. By space the universe encompasses and swallows me up like an atom; by thought, I comprehend the world” (233–34).
“Comprehend,” like the French comprendre, includes the meanings to encompass and enfold as well as to understand and appreciate. Thus “thought” is not used in a narrow, Cartesian sense—an intellectual activity that reduces everything to quantifiable components. Rather, it embraces the qualitative virtues of human sensitivity as well as the holistic activities of life through both a “mathematical” and an “intuitive” mind, engaging one’s entire being (171). It is along these lines that Pascal sought to clarify those modes of thought that would serve as the basis for human dignity.
This shares a deep commonality with the teachings of Buddhism, which stress the proper balance among what are referred to as the “six sense organs” (Jpn rokkon, Skt sad indriyani), i.e., the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch as well as the faculty of the intellect. In the Mahayana tradition, the structures of consciousness, including realms typically referred to as the subconscious and beyond, are explored in their full complexity. For present purposes, however, it is enough to note that Buddhism views the balanced functioning of the six sense organs as essential to the full and healthy workings of our life activities.
Mahayana Buddhism
Mahayana Buddhism developed at the end of the first century b.c.e. as a reaction to the perceived conservatism and rigidity of the established Buddhist schools. Adherents of the new movement, which included laypersons as well as clergy, were critical of the established schools for having become elitist and aloof from the common people, losing the original Buddhist spirit of working among the people for their salvation. The new movement emphasized altruistic practice—called bodhisattva practice—as the means to enlightenment for oneself and others. Its adherents called it Mahayana, “large vehicle,” signifying this expanded scope of concern for the salvation of all beings. They saw the established schools as being concerned primarily with personal awakening and called these schools Hinayana (lower or lesser vehicle).
This points to the idea “by thought, I comprehend the world,” which served for Pascal as the basis for affirming human dignity. In the Buddhist tradition, this is expressed in the following phrase: “The eighty-four thousand teachings are the diary of one’s own life” (Nichiren, Zenshu 563). In other words, the manifold teachings of Buddhism (traditionally said to number eighty-four thousand) are all a detailed account of the inner life of a single individual. To me, this is a magnificent expression of what I have referred to as a life-sized paradigm.
What are the full dimensions and breadth of this paradigm? What norms of behavior—the ethical standards and average level of behavior Toynbee was discussing above—are to be derived from it?
Toward clarifying this, let me quote again from the writings of Nichiren: “Everything that is contained within this body of ours is modeled after heaven and earth. The inhaling and exhaling of breath through our nose is like wind that wafts through the mountains and valleys; the inhaling and exhaling of breath through our mouth is like the winds that course through the open skies. Our eyes are like the sun and the moon; their opening and closing is like day and night. The hair on our heads is like the stars; our eyebrows are like the northern dipper. Our blood flow is like rivers and streams, and our bones are like gems and stones. Our skin and our flesh are like the earth and soil, and the fine hairs on our body are the grasses and forests that cover the earth. The five major organs correspond to the five planets in the sky and the five sacred mountains on the earth” (Zenshu 567).
While some of these comparisons may seem somewhat stretched to our modern sensibility, this passage in fact describes what we would now term an ecosystem. The phrase “modeled after” evokes the intimate, inseparable and interdependent relationship between humans, nature and the cosmos. Specifically, this passage suggests that to the extent that humans are a “reed,” they can never exist outside a framework of interdependence and interrelation. This can even be read as a warning that when we harm the ecosystem, introducing, for example plutonium or other poisons into it, the negative impact of our actions will eventually return to us in clear and harsh form.
When Ortega y Gasset stated, “I am myself plus my circumstance, and if I do not save it, I cannot save myself” (Meditations 45), or when D. H. Lawrence (1885–1930) declared on his deathbed, “Start with the sun, and the rest will slowly, slowly happen” (104), they were giving voice to an imperative that we all must heed, namely, that there is no “self” without “other,” no humanity without nature.
It was in this same sense that the founding president of the Soka Gakkai, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871–1943), made this prescient statement in his 1903 work Jinsei chirigaku (The Geography of Human Life): “Such noble sentiments as compassion, goodwill, friendship, kindness, earnestness and simplicity cannot be successfully fostered except within the local community” (1: 25; Geography 21).
An ethic of coexistence
I choose to use the phrase “an ethic of coexistence”—which was the central theme in a lecture I delivered at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in 1992—to express the ethical norm that links these statements. This is an ethos that seeks to bring harmony from conflict, unity from rupture, that is based more on “us” than “me.” It signals a spirit that seeks to encourage mutual flourishing and mutually supportive relationships among humans and between humans and nature. It is my belief that by making this ethic of coexistence the shared spirit of our age, we can find the certain means to close the “gap between power and ethical standards of behavior” that was of such deep concern to Dr. Toynbee.
From this perspective, it is hard not to find current trends deeply disturbing. The focus of attention appears to be exclusively on “power”—whether this takes the form of nuclear or of biological weapons—with virtually no attention paid to the more fundamental questions of ethics and values. But weapons of mass destruction have come into existence through the workings of the human heart: Our only hope, then, of reducing or eliminating the terrors they entail must lie squarely in the inner reformation of our lives. Only by taking larger social factors into account can we have any hope of containing, much less abolishing, these terrible weapons.
As Stiglitz notes, “Caring about the environment, making sure the poor have a say in decisions that affect them, promoting democracy and fair trade are necessary if the potential benefits of globalization are to be achieved” (216). All of these actions would, of course, contribute to eliminating the long-term causes of terrorism. And none of them, in my view, can be realized without an ethic of coexistence.
In an age dominated by brute force and the arrogant bark of commands, talk of an ethic of coexistence may strike some as empty rhetoric. But I do not think we can dismiss the words of former U.S. secretary of labor Robert Reich as such. “The deepest anxieties of this prosperous age,” he writes, “concern the erosion of our families, the fragmenting of our communities, and the challenge of keeping our own integrity intact. These anxieties are no less part and parcel of the emerging economy than are its enormous benefits: the wealth, the innovation, the new chances and choices” (4). (Reich resigned after a phone call from his son expressing loneliness at the absence of his extremely occupied father.)
The new economy has certainly expanded the scope of personal freedom and choice, creating opportunities for people of talent and determination to amass vast fortunes. At the same time, the rapidly spreading waves of electronic communication now effortlessly transcend the frameworks of state sovereignty. Ultimately, new modes of communication may bring about the deterioration and even disintegration of traditional forms of social organization such as corporations and schools, local communities and even families. With the increasing weight accorded to the individual, the sense of belonging and place which supports that individual is being dismantled, generating a deepening sense of identity crisis.
Reich does not reject the new economy or the evolving Internet society. But he is deeply concerned with the question of how to realize a more balanced way of life, in which people are never subjugated to or become the tools of their own technology. The goal toward which he is working could be called a “Net-based society with a human face” following Stiglitz’s call for globalization with a human face.
The real question is whether the changes we are experiencing represent the advancement of human happiness, whether we will be able to savor the actual experience of happiness if we passively allow these trends to take their natural course. Sharing the concerns expressed by Reich, one cannot look to the future with unbridled optimism.
A somber recognition
The fundamental problem highlighted by Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859)—”in democratic times what is most unstable, in the midst of the instability of everything, is the heart of man” (188)—has yet to be addressed effectively. Furthermore, the critical condition of the global environment today stands as a strict admonishment.
We must never forget our true, human proportion—the fact that, within the larger context of the ecosystem, we are but “a reed, the most feeble thing in nature.” If we lose sight of this reality, we may find ourselves following the mammoth down the sudden path of extinction.
Our natural sense of human dignity revolts with outrage at grotesque departures from a life-sized paradigm.
As protagonists of an ethic of coexistence we respond with a sharp sense of crisis to the gross maldistribution of wealth in our world. It is estimated, for example, that the income of the most wealthy one percent of the world’s inhabitants is equivalent to the total income of the poorest fifty-seven percent. At the same time, if the per capita energy consumption of developing countries were to rise to even half that of the advanced industrial economies, the energy reserves of this finite planet would soon be exhausted (UNDP, Report 19).
How can we then stand idly by as efforts to prevent global warming, such as the Kyoto Protocol, are eviscerated? How can we possibly remain unconcerned by truly bizarre forms of modern warfare—where million-dollar missiles fly over the heads of people subsisting on one or perhaps two dollars per day?
At the start of the last century, the American psychologist and philosopher William James (1842–1910) brought a life-sized paradigm to bear on the question of countering militarism. He called for the “moral equivalent of war”—forms of public service and contribution by which the “military ideals of hardihood and discipline would be wrought into the growing fiber” of the people (171).
The Moral Equivalent of War
In 1906, William James wrote an essay, “The Moral Equivalent of War,” in which he explored the psychological underpinnings of war and violence in human society. While starkly declaring that “history is a bath of blood,” and identifying himself as a pacifist, James refuses to dwell on the “bestial side of the war-régime.” Rather, he focuses on the “higher aspects of militarist sentiment” such as patriotism and romance. His reasoning for this is rooted in this understanding of psychological movitation. “Pacifists ought to enter more deeply into the esthetical moral point of view of their opponents. … So long as anti-militarists propose no substitutes for the disciplinary function of war, no moral equivalent of war, … so long they fail to realize the full inwardness of the situation.” Specifically, he recommends demanding forms of service that would train young people so that they would “come back to society with healthier sympathies and soberer ideas.” Society would thus benefit from “toughness without callousness, authority with as little criminal cruelty as possible, painful work done cheerily. … ”
In any era, war is filled with horror. But in contemporary, high-tech warfare, there is no room for this life-sized way of thinking even to start to enter into the picture.
It is with a sense of somber recognition that we are spurred to a deepened awareness. It is the process of constantly reconfirming our recognition and awareness of who we are and what we are doing that gives rise to forms of self-control and self-mastery, which alone would guarantee the moral leadership of the strong and the victorious. This is the hope that I fervently embrace with regard to the world’s lone superpower, the United States.
Restoring the balance
When we examine the uneven surface of modern techno-scientific civilization from the perspective of this life-sized paradigm, what we see is that the balance between the “six sense organs” mentioned earlier has been lost: Human beings’ intellectual capacities have become grossly distended, and their sensual and affective capacities atrophied.
As we have seen, this imbalance always takes the form of a dulling of our natural responsiveness to life and the realities of daily living. This natural sensitivity characterizes the world’s ordinary citizens and is the basis of our universal humanity. The historian Jules Michelet (1798–1874) expressed this when he concluded from a thorough reading of human history, in particular religious and spiritual history, that “man in all ages, thought, felt, and loved in the same way” (8).
The answer is to restore our sensitivity to life itself, our palpable awareness of the realities of daily living; and here, I believe, women have an especially important role to play. While men tend to become captive to their distended intellectualizations and abstractions, in all eras women have remained more firmly rooted in the rhythms of the natural ecosystem.
Ortega y Gasset described the runaway excesses of modern civilization as follows: “ … the hero goes forward, impetuous and straight as an arrow, towards a glorious goal.” At the same time, he intimated that what awaits the achievement of that goal is nothing other than the global environmental crisis we face. “Circumstance! Circum stantia!” he wrote. “That is, the mute things which are all around us” (Meditations 41). He was a person of vision who saw that while the natural environment may be silent and reserved, it has a vast depth, power and capacity that mocks the small ingenuity of human endeavor.
Unless we actively lend our ears to this call, we will not be able to locate the horizons of a new civilization. It was this insight that caused Ortega y Gasset to use the analogy of a “maiden” to describe the power, capacity and depth of nature. Just as it was “the feminine” that saved Faust’s soul from destruction, today, as our once glorious goal of material progress has faded, it is increasingly clear that our only hope of survival is by discovering ways of coexisting with the natural environment.
Eleanor Roosevelt (1884–1962), who played a key role in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose fifty-fifth anniversary is marked this year, has left us with these memorable words: “Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home. … Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.”
In the home, the focal point of human relations, and in the ordinary face-to-face interactions of daily life—it is here that a rich awareness and sensitivity to human rights, supported by a sense of the realities of life, is fostered. And, needless to say, no one plays a greater role in this process than women. It is for all these reasons that I have for some time expressed my view that the twenty-first century must be a century of women.
In a book whose Japanese version was completed at the end of last year, I discussed the contribution of women with my coauthor, the futurist Dr. Hazel Henderson. She described her motivation for becoming involved in the environmental movement in New York City in the mid-1960s this way: “Most of us who started to work on the ‘Citizens for Clean Air’ campaign were mothers. Since we knew what a big task bringing children up is, we were anxious for our children to have the best futures possible” (254–55).
The best futures possible … Dr. Henderson recalls that it was this life-sized, human-scaled approach, this commitment to children, that enabled the movement to gain widespread support and change seemingly intractable realities.
It truly appears that women are more adept at the quiet art of one-to-one dialogue. For it is in the exchanges and interactions of daily life—like the steady rhythm of the sun, rising and lighting each day—that new awareness is formed and genuine and lasting value is created. This gradual process of transformation amidst the continuity and consistency of daily life stands in stark contrast to the violent upheaval of revolution.
James D. Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, has stated that the true gauge of success for development projects is not to be found in numerical data or statistics but “in the smiles of children” (278). This is a perspective I find resonant with Dr. Henderson’s.
Dr. Henderson has also called for a shift to what she calls a “love economy” in which the real indicators will be measures of human happiness rather than simply gross national product. This proposal arose from her direct perception of the fact that that which is correct in theory does not necessarily produce the desired result in society.
The importance of this kind of life-sized approach, supported by women’s authentic sense of the realities of daily life, has in recent years been recognized not only in the realm of economics but also in other fields such as peace and security. In 2000, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a groundbreaking resolution that urged member states to ensure increased representation of women at all decision-making levels for the prevention, management and resolution of conflict. This direction was further confirmed by the outcome document of the twenty-third Special Session of the UN General Assembly, “Women 2000: Gender Equality, Development and Peace for the Twenty-first Century” (UNGA, Further Actions). These measures are only fitting in light of the enormous suffering endured by women as a result of armed conflict.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated that “the best strategy for conflict prevention is to expand the role of women as peacemakers” (Address). I sincerely believe that if this awareness can be fully established as the consensus of international society, we can move beyond mere conflict prevention and the easing of tensions. Rather, we can actually effect a lasting transformation from the present culture of war to a new culture of peace.
Human security in the 21st century
Next, I would like to discuss some of the specific policies that are needed if we are to make the global society of the twenty-first century one that is dedicated to the welfare of individuals, the world’s “ordinary citizens.”
Many of these policies should be developed at the UN or through the medium of the UN. Before that, however, we need to be concerned about an erosion of the very basis of the UN system: Its ability to function as the only truly universal forum for international cooperation is undermined in direct proportion to burgeoning American unilateralism.
It has only been for a short time—only since the end of the Cold War, throughout which the UN often seemed paralyzed by the exercise of veto powers by the permanent members of the Security Council—that the UN has taken center stage and begun to fulfill its true potential. The UN has yet, however, to find the right balance between the Kantian ideal of lasting peace for all humankind and Hobbesian clashes of sovereign states, leaving it vulnerable to the power struggles of major global players such as the U.S. Its ongoing challenge is to function as an effective voice advancing the concerns and aspirations of the world’s peoples.
Hobbes and Kant
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), renowned as one of great Enlightenment thinkers, sought to establish a clear philosophical basis for moral action in the real world. In 1795, he wrote Perpetual Peace—A Philosophical Essay, in which he offered concrete ideas for establishing peace among nations.
It contains six preliminary articles and three definitive articles as requirements for the lasting peace of humankind. Written more than two hundred years ago, this essay anticipated many elements of contemporary peace philosophy, such as the need for international cooperation among nations, and the centrality of democracy and human rights as a basis for peace.
In contrast to Kant’s idealism, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), who examined the necessary function of power in the world, is considered a representative of the “realist” school of political philosophy. He argued that individuals and nations were selfishly motivated and that countries were in a constant battle for power and wealth. His masterpiece, Leviathan, was published in 1651.
With no other organization capable of acting as a substitute, concerted efforts must be made to strengthen the UN system. Respect for minority views, listening equally to the voices of the disempowered—these are the prerequisites for democracy, so strengthening the UN is surely the choice that accords with the universal principles advocated by the U.S.
Here I would like to stress again the centrality of the concept of human security which has been developed in various forums over the last ten years or so.
The Commission on Human Security (CHS) was launched in June 2001. This commission is preparing a report on ways to promote public understanding of the concept of human security and to ensure that human security becomes a universal operational tool for policy formulation and implementation throughout international society. The commission’s report is slated for publication in June this year.
A group of thirty-six researchers working in the field of human security has been discussing these issues, and the fruits of their work have been brought together as an open letter on human security to the chairs of the CHS. This report concentrates on four viewpoints: the need to focus on day-to-day insecurities; the need to focus on the most vulnerable segments of society; the need to respect diversity; and the need to encourage reciprocity. It calls for attention to be paid to the problems arising from militarism and globalization as threats to human security (Mushakoji 187–98). These are all concepts that I have stressed for many years, and I strongly endorse this research.
Commission on Human Security
The Commission seeks through research and consultations to find comprehensive and integrated ways to protect the security of communities and individuals facing extreme situations such as violent conflict, poverty, infectious diseases, discrimination, displacement and persecution. Its studies focus on the links between human security and development, recognizing the need for development efforts to coincide with those of conflict resolution. Co-chaired by Sadako Ogata, former UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and Amartya Sen, Nobel laureate in economics, the commission includes ten individuals responding to the UN secretary-general’s call in 2000 to advance the twin goals of “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear.”
Its goals are to promote public understanding of human security imperatives, to develop the human security concept as an operational tool for policymaking and implementation, and to propose a concrete action program to address critical and pervasive threats to human security. The commission aims at issuing its final report in 2003, integrating all its research efforts and proposing a concrete plan of action for the international community.
Weapons of mass destruction
The first point I would like to examine from the perspective of human security is the problem of weapons of mass destruction, which is at the heart of the Iraqi and North Korean crises. In this regard, I would like to discuss policies aiming to prevent the proliferation and encourage the reduction and eventual abolition of nuclear arms, as the dangers posed by these weapons threaten to spin out of control.
The American scientific periodical Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced at the end of last year that the minute hand of the “Doomsday Clock” it publishes had advanced to seven minutes to midnight. The periodical cited numerous reasons for this, including: the abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which has until now been the foundation of nuclear arms limitation between the U.S. and Russia; the conflict between India and Pakistan, both nuclear-weapon states; increasing concerns about the control and management of fissile materials; and the existence of terrorist groups aiming to acquire nuclear weapons.
Recently, the situation has been aggravated as North Korea has announced not only that it is reactivating nuclear facilities but also that it is withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).
If these conditions continue, not only would the framework of nuclear non-proliferation, revolving around the NPT, be shaken to its roots, but there would also inevitably be the prospect of unstoppable military escalation. Serious shadows would be cast over the prospects for control of other weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological arms.
The report of the first session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, held last April, called: (1) for the promotion of measures to ensure that the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) enters into force; (2) for Cuba, Israel, India and Pakistan to accede unconditionally to the NPT; and (3) for North Korea to observe the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (12–16).
Of the four named countries, Cuba, in October 2002, announced its intention to join the NPT and ratify the Treaty of Tlatelolco (the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean). It is vital to the cause of peace that the other three countries (India, Israel and Pakistan) accede to the NPT with all haste and that North Korea renew its participation. Realistically, this can only happen if the international community works together to support and encourage effective confidence-building efforts in the regions concerned.
Regarding the question of North Korea’s nuclear weapons development program, it is strongly to be hoped that North Korea will follow the path taken by Cuba—namely, to press ahead with participation in a regional non-nuclear framework as a guarantee of regional security, while remaining within the NPT framework.
A nuclear-weapon-free northern hemisphere
I have consistently called for the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Northeast Asia. In this region, we can already look to the 1992 joint declaration of a nuclear-weapon-free Korean Peninsula, as well as Mongolia’s declaration of nuclear-weapon-free status of the same year, and Japan’s three non-nuclear principles (not possessing, not producing and not permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons into Japan).
Based on such declarations, I think we should now seek a UN-sponsored Northeast Asia peace conference, with North Korean participation, to investigate the future establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in this region and to pursue regional confidence-building initiatives.
At present, the only regional security framework in which North Korea participates is the ASEAN Regional Forum. I think there would be considerable significance in a discussion focusing specifically on Northeast Asia that includes broader UN participation.
By the end of the twentieth century, almost all of the southern hemisphere was covered by nuclear-weapon-free agreements. These agreements have aimed to ensure the security of individual countries not through the possession of nuclear arms but through the fact of not possessing them. They have contributed not only to the benefit of each country involved but also to the security of the entire planet. This surely is powerful evidence that such measures are a realistic political option.
This being the case, I would like to strongly propose that one of the challenges the international community should embrace in the twenty-first century is to extend such nuclear-free initiatives to cover the northern hemisphere as well. Proposals for the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones in Central Asia and the Middle East have already been laid out. I believe that the time has come for us to embark on specific measures in this regard in Northeast Asia as well.
Even if time were needed before such a nuclear-weapon-free zone could be declared, an option available to North Korea is to emulate Mongolia in declaring its nuclear-weapon-free status. The declaration by Mongolia was welcomed by the UN General Assembly. The five nuclear-weapon states in 1995 reaffirmed their Negative Security Assurance (that non-nuclear-weapon states party to the NPT would not be subject to nuclear attack) with regard to Mongolia. If North Korea could be assured a similar response, I believe the path toward the declaration of nuclear-weapon-free status would be cleared.
The other core element of nuclear arms limitation, together with the NPT, is the CTBT. Regrettably, the CTBT has still not entered into force more than six years after it was adopted in 1996.
A proposal has been floated whereby the treaty would provisionally enter into force when a certain number of states have ratified it, at which point the system of international monitoring of nuclear tests would begin (Miyamoto 128). To prevent any further loss of momentum toward nuclear disarmament, I believe this proposal should be given all possible consideration.
Disarmament “in good faith”
Heading toward the 2005 NPT review conference, one issue that is essential in ensuring the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is the control of ballistic missiles. I would like to call for the International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (ICOC), adopted in November 2002, to be given legally binding status.
At the same time as strengthening the formal framework for nuclear arms non-proliferation, I would also like to strongly advocate to the nuclear-weapon states that they make specific efforts to open the path toward the reduction and elimination of nuclear arms. This would be an expression of the spirit of self-control that I earlier posited as the very heart of civilized behavior.
The ICOC
The International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (ICOC) is the first political agreement specifically designed to tackle the proliferation of ballistic missiles that could be used to deliver weapons of mass destruction. Its principles, commitments and confidence-building measures are designed to promote greater transparency on the development and testing of powerful weapons and space launch vehicles that could be used for this purpose. A voluntary, non-legally binding instrument, the Code of Conduct was adopted at The Hague on November 25, 2002, by 92 countries.
In view of the fact that 2005 also marks the sixtieth anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I propose that a special session of the UN General Assembly, attended by the world’s heads of state and government, be dedicated to the cause of nuclear abolition.
Not since the Third UN Special Session on Disarmament fifteen years ago has there been an opportunity for a truly global discussion of the problem of nuclear abolition.
In May of last year, the U.S.-Russia Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (the Moscow Treaty) was agreed upon as the replacement for the ABM Treaty. This bilateral agreement is now the only international framework for disarmament; there is no broader multilateral treaty in existence that would promote concrete reductions in the world’s nuclear arsenals.
Surely it is time for us to take earnest and concrete steps to realize a world without nuclear weapons in this new century. We must confront head-on this issue on which the fate of all humanity hangs.
I have for some time been calling for the adoption of a treaty for the comprehensive ban of all nuclear weapons. As a first step toward this, I would like to urge the nuclear-weapon states to use such a special session to make progress toward negotiating a nuclear disarmament treaty. This would be a fulfillment of the “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament” (14) made in the final document of the 2000 NPT review conference three years ago.
Further, I would encourage this special session to discuss the establishment at the UN of a new specialized agency dedicated to ensuring the strict and effective implementation of the nuclear disarmament pledged in Article VI of the NPT back in 1968: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
The Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research is a body that takes its inspiration from the dedication to peace of Josei Toda (1900–1958), second president of the Soka Gakkai, who declared that nuclear weapons are an absolute evil, threatening the right to life of all humanity. During the lead-up to the NPT review conference in 2005, the Toda Institute will be involved in a research project, in cooperation with other research institutes from around the world, in support of nuclear disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons.
The Millennium Development Goals
The second aspect of ensuring human security for all is to confront the obscene threat to human dignity posed by poverty and starvation.
According to a report by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the number of people around the world who have to survive on less than two dollars a day is 2.8 billion, with 1.2 billion forced to subsist on less than one dollar a day. The number of people suffering from malnutrition is thought to exceed 800 million (17–21). It is imperative that the international community take determined steps to remedy this intolerable situation.
In the UN’s Millennium Declaration, adopted three years ago, the world’s leaders pledged themselves to action on this subject: “We will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty.”
The UN Millennium Project contains numerous goals to be achieved by the year 2015. These consist of eight core goals divided into eighteen specific, concrete targets, including halving the proportion of people living on less than one dollar a day and halving the proportion of people living in hunger. These goals were distilled from the various international conferences held during the 1990s as well as the UN Millennium Summit in 2000. Together they are referred to as the Millennium Development Goals.
Millennium Development Goals
The Millennium Development Goals grew out of the agreements and resolutions of world conferences organized by the United Nations in the past decade. The eight goals list 18 targets and 48 indicators.
1) Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger—Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day and the proportion of people who suffer from hunger. 2) Achieve universal primary education—Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling. 3) Promote gender equality and empower women—Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005 and in all levels of education no later than 2015. 4) Reduce child mortality—Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate. 5) Improve maternal health—Reduce by three-quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio. 6) Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases—To have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and the incidence of malaria and other major diseases. 7) Ensure environmental sustainability—Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources. Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water. To have achieved, by 2020, a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers. 8) Develop a global partnership for development—Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, nondiscriminatory trading and financial system that includes a commitment to good governance, development and poverty reduction—both nationally and internationally.
The cooperation of all countries will be required if the Millennium Development Goals are to be achieved. Further, this will serve as a powerful symbol of the unity of the international community.
However, at the present pace, thirty-three countries, between them representing more than one-fourth of the world’s population, will be unable to achieve even half of the targets. UNDP has issued a report that powerfully concludes: “Without a dramatic turnaround there is a real possibility that a generation from now, world leaders will be setting the same targets again” (Report 2).
In my peace proposal three years ago, I called for the implementation of a program equivalent to a “Global Marshall Plan.” The original Marshall Plan after World War II, on which this idea was based, is a successful example of victors giving concrete form to the power of self-control. We deeply need to work to embody this same spirit of self-control on a global scale now.
A solidarity response
In that sense, I welcome the decision by the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) last year to create a World Solidarity Fund (UNDP Release). This idea was included in the WSSD action plan, the Global Implementation Document, and was officially approved by the UN General Assembly in December 2002. It will create the first fund to specifically target the eradication of poverty and promote social and human development. Like the Global Environment Facility (GEF, created after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit), it is significant as a fund established as the outcome of a global summit.
The UN, too, is issuing an annual Report of the Secretary-General covering progress toward achieving the Millennium Development Goals. In this regard, I would like to propose that world summits be held periodically toward the year 2015 in order to ensure that the world’s heads of state and government are thoroughly informed of the content of these reports and to further strengthen international cooperation in this regard. Every second year might be an appropriate timing for such meetings.
World Solidarity Fund
By unanimous approval of governments at the WSSD and, later, adoption by the UN General Assembly, the World Solidarity Fund was launched in December 2002 to collect donations and voluntary contributions for poverty eradication and the development needs of the most deprived regions in various parts of the world. It is modeled on the National Solidarity Fund, which helped significantly reduce poverty in Tunisia, according to Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. In a statement about the World Solidarity Fund, UNDP Administrator Mark Malloch Brown anticipates the fund will be an important tool in building local capacities to meet development challenges and an “instrument of world solidarity as we move to implement the Millennium Development Goals, especially the overarching goal of halving poverty by 2015”.
This would enable world leaders to gather together before the start of the UN General Assembly, creating a forum for them to focus on the peace and well-being of humanity in the twenty-first century. I think this would be a forward-looking, hope-filled development. Such summits would not have to be held only at UN headquarters in New York: In fact, I think it would be preferable that they take place in those parts of the world most severely beset by poverty and starvation.
To strengthen the frameworks of international cooperation in this way, it will be essential to have the deep-rooted support and involvement of the people of the world. The UN has launched the Millennium Campaign aiming to create an environment in which people can expand their personal awareness of the Millennium Development Goals and whereby various organizations and entities can cooperate toward their achievement.
The SGI thoroughly endorses the goals of this campaign and will wholeheartedly embark on activities to spread awareness at the grassroots level, in forms such as exhibitions and seminars focusing on related issues. We are also keen to contribute to the creation of a global network of academics and researchers, especially through the activities of the Boston Research Center for the 21st Century (BRC). Last year, for example, the BRC published Subverting Greed: Religious Perspectives on the Global Economy (Knitter et al), which explores the prospects for global economic justice.
In addition to poverty and starvation, one of the most pressing issues we face is that of water resources. At present, forty percent of the world’s population faces a shortage of water, with 1.1 billion people lacking access to safe drinking water. Some 2.5 billion lack access to basic sanitation. It is estimated that more than 5 million die from water-related diseases every year, ten times the number of people killed in wars, on average, each year. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated: “No single measure would do more to reduce disease and save lives in the developing world than bringing safe water and sanitation to all” (60). This is indeed an urgent task.
This year, 2003, has been designated by the UN as the International Year of Freshwater. The 3rd World Water Forum will be held in Japan in March. I feel that Japan, as the host country of this event, should play an active role in areas such as technological support and the provision of skilled personnel.
The global water problem was one of the core themes of the WSSD last year, where Japan and the United States announced a joint initiative called “Clean Water for People.” In the past, Japan has been actively engaged in this field, helping provide more than 40 million people around the world with access to safe drinking water and sanitation. Making full use of this experience, I hope that Japan will demonstrate meaningful leadership in the field of water resources.
The Threat of Water Poverty
Water poverty is a dire threat confronting the planet, exacerbated by growth of the global population. Lester Brown, in his book, Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth, details the extent of the problem. One visible manifestation of the threat is that several of the world’s major rivers—the Nile, China’s Yellow River and the Colorado among others—now either run dry for part of the year, failing to reach the sea, or have very little water left when they get there. The development of diesel and electrical pumps has made the overpumping of aquifers commonplace. Water tables in every continent are falling as aquifers are depleted, to provide water for irrigation. As water scarcity increases, one likely but largely unrecognized consequences is that world food production will decline. Once a localized problem, water scarcity is thus increasingly an issue of global consequence and concern.
Education for All
Along with disarmament and development, the third challenge for human security is that of creating a global society in which all people have access to education. Education not only enables us to live fulfilled lives; it is also the bedrock foundation of any effort to build a culture of peace. In entrenched, multigenerational conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian problem, the only viable hope for solution lies in a sustained program of education for the young.
At the World Conference on Education for All held in Thailand in 1990, it was resolved that the provision of basic education to all people was a core goal for international society. Since that resolution, there has been progress in raising the proportion of children of primary school age enrolled in education. Nevertheless, even today more than 100 million children are denied access to primary education, and nearly 1 billion adults, two-thirds of them women, are illiterate.
These problems were highlighted at the special session of the UN General Assembly on Children in May last year and at the G8 Summit in June. The goals of securing universal basic education and equal education for girls were strongly reaffirmed at these meetings.
To promote these aims, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is coordinating a campaign under the title “Education for All.” In addition, this year marks the start of the United Nations Literacy Decade (2003–2012).
This target of Education for All is in line with the thinking of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, the first president of the Soka Gakkai and the founder of value-creating education. Indeed, Makiguchi dedicated his life to enabling individuals and society to truly benefit from education. As I have referred to many times over the years in these proposals, in Jinseichirigaku (The Geography of Human Life) Makiguchi urged international society to enter an age of “humanitarian competition,” where the aim is to cultivate the spirit of global citizenship and strive for the mutual happiness and benefit of self and other (2: 398–401). At the same time, Makiguchi himself was one of the pioneers of the effort to extend the scope of humanistic education in Japan through the education of women and the establishment of lifetime education. He promoted correspondence courses for women during the turbulent years of the Russo-Japanese War (1904–05) and, on numerous occasions, proposed a half-day education system where students would engage in formal study for half the day and have access to practical experience in the workplace during the other, emphasizing the importance of building a society centered on lifetime learning (Soka 6: 207–32; Shiohara 252–59).
Makiguchi’s Half-Day Education
The premise of Makiguchi’s pedagogy is that the purpose of education is happiness. He believed that education is not preparation for life but rather a lifelong enterprise of self-development. One of his ideas was a system of half-day education whereby people would study half day and work the other; this would start at a young age and continue into adulthood. The idea was conceived at a time when college graduates in Japan had difficulty finding jobs. At the same time, having to be trained from beginning at their work places limited their productivity. Many youth, moreover, were becoming apathetic and losing interest in working, and this was creating social problems. Makiguchi believed that young people needed to experience being a part of society from a young age and that a sense of connection to and appreciation for the local community was central to the development of the altruistic spirit that education should seek to foster.
Josei Toda, the second president and also an educator, was likewise involved in distance learning, while I myself, in line with the spirit of these two great predecessors, have promoted a distance learning program from the initial planning stages of Soka University. Soka University’s Division of Correspondence Education became a reality in 1976 and now has one of the largest enrollments in Japan as well as the highest graduation rate.
Building on the traditions established since the time of Makiguchi, the SGI has consistently been active in efforts to promote basic education. For example, youth members in Japan have regularly supported UNESCO’s literacy campaigns in various countries of the world.
To name just one example of our worldwide activities in this regard, volunteers from the educators division of Brazil SGI have, since 1987, offered literacy education for a wide cross section of age ranges (Ivamoto). These efforts have been officially accredited by the Brazilian Ministry of Education.
The power of each individual
Alongside literacy education, which aims to enhance basic reading and writing skills, in recent years there has been growing awareness of the need for a new form of humanistic education, education that encourages creative coexistence with the natural environment and which fosters a culture of peace.
Recognizing this, we in the SGI proposed the designation of a Decade of Education for Sustainable Development during the preparatory process for the WSSD. This proposal, aimed at promoting education for the sake of building a sustainable global society, was also incorporated in the summit’s action plan. In December 2002, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution formally proclaiming the decade, which will start in the year 2005.
Environmental education, like peace education and human rights education, must be at the heart of a new vision of humanistic education. By promoting the kind of education that empowers all people in their active quest for happiness and a better future, we can establish the foundations for a new era of hope in the twenty-first century.
The SGI has for many years been engaged in awareness-building activities about environmental issues. An exhibition on the environment and development, for example, was launched at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and has since been shown in numerous venues around the world. We are determined to continue to promote environmental education on a global scale.
We are committed to assuring the success of these decades for literacy and sustainability education, providing maximum support in cooperation with relevant UN agencies and NGO partners.
I believe that a pillar of environmental education must be the Earth Charter, which was drafted through the efforts of the Earth Council and for which we have consistently provided support. The Earth Charter reads, in part:
As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles. This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility.
In finding solutions to environmental problems and the myriad other issues facing our world, what is most essential is that each individual embrace this sense of responsibility and proactive commitment.
In 2002, the SGI cooperated in the production by the Earth Council of the documentary, A Quiet Revolution. This film spotlights the human drama of individuals around the world who have taken action to address environmental issues: citizens confronting a chronic water shortage in Nimi village in India, taking action to deal with the pollution of Zemplinska Sirava Lake in Slovakia and combating desertification in Kenya. This is striking proof that each individual has the ability to make a difference.
In any age it is individuals of indomitable conviction, courage and passion who have overcome the seemingly impossible to set in motion the forces of historical change.
But society today is pervaded by a sense of powerlessness—”What can I, a single individual, hope to achieve?”—and hopelessness—”Whatever I do, nothing will change … ” Doubts gnaw away at our hearts. Even the bravest lose hope faced with reality, and our world closes in upon us. This, surely, is the fundamental evil of our times.
In my dialogue with Dr. David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, the empowerment of the individual became one of our central themes. He suggested we need to extrapolate from Einstein’s theory of relativity to find a new theorem for peace. Just as science revealed the enormous amount of energy contained within even a single particle of matter, we must now awaken to the fact that the inner determination within each individual’s life at every moment contains the power to change the world (271).
I am convinced that the movement for human revolution pursued by the members of the SGI offers one proof of this theorem.
We cannot remain passive in the face of these severe realities. Rather, we should open ourselves to the limitless power, the unstoppable dynamic of change, that is created when awakened people unite and act together. It is in proving this truth that humanity in the twenty-first century can fulfill its mission.
List of Works Consulted
BOOKS
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Faust: A Tragedy. Trans. Walter Arndt. Ed. Cyrus Hamlin. New York: Norton, 1976. Hemingway, Ernest. The Old Man and the Sea. London: Camelot, 1957.
Henderson, Hazel and Daisaku Ikeda. Chikyu taidan: Kagayaku josei no seiki e [A Global Dialogue: For a Brilliant Century of Women]. Tokyo: Shufunotomosha, 2003.
Ikeda, Daisaku. A Lasting Peace: Collected Addresses of Daisaku Ikeda. Vol. 1. New York: Weatherhill, 1981.
——. “An Ethos of Symbiosis.” A New Humanism: The University Addresses of Daisaku Ikeda. New York: Weatherhill, 1996. 140–50.
James, William. Essays in Religion and Morality. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1982.
Knitter, Paul F. and Chandra Muzaffar, ed. Subverting Greed: Religious Perspectives on the Global Economy. New York: Orbis, 2002. Published in association with Boston Research Center for the 21st Century.
Krieger, David and Daisaku Ikeda. Kibo no sentaku [Choose Hope]. Tokyo: Kawadeshoboshinsha, 2001. See also: Krieger, David and Daisaku Ikeda. Choose Hope: Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age. Trans. Richard L. Gage. Santa Monica: Middleway, 2002.
Lawrence, D. H. Apocalypse. London: Heinemann, 1931.
Makiguchi, Tsunesaburo. Jinsei chirigaku [The Geography of Human Life]. Makiguchi Tsunesaburo zenshu [Complete Works of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi]. Vols. 1–2. Tokyo: Daisan Bunmeisha, 1983. See also: Makiguchi, Tsunesaburo. A Geography of Human Life. Trans. Katsusuke Hori et al. Ed. Dayle M. Bethel. San Francisco: Caddo Gap, 2002.
——. Soka kyoikugaku taikei [The System of Value-Creating Pedagogy]. Makiguchi Tsunesaburo zenshu [Complete Works of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi]. Vols. 5–6. Tokyo: Daisan Bunmeisha, 1983. See also: Makiguchi, Tsunesaburo. Education for Creative Living: Ideas and Proposals of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi. Trans. Alfred Birnbaum. Ed. Dayle M. Bethel. Ames: Iowa State UP, 1989.
Michelet, Jules. The Bible of Humanity. Trans. Vincenzo Calfa. New York: J. W. Bouton, 1877. See also: Michelet, Jules. La Bible de l’humanité. Paris: F. Chamerot, 1864.
Nichiren. The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin. Trans. and ed. Gosho Translation Committee. Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 1999.
——. Nichiren Daishonin gosho zenshu [The Complete Works of Nichiren Daishonin]. Ed. Nichiko Hori. Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 1952.
Nye, Joseph S., Jr. The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone. New York: Oxford UP, 2002.
Ortega y Gasset, José. The Revolt of the Masses. Authorized trans. New York: Norton, 1957.
——. Meditations on Quixote. Trans. Evelyn Rugg and Diego Marín. New York: Norton, 1961.
Pascal, Blaise. Pensées. Trans. W. F. Trotter. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 1952. Reich, Robert B. The Future of Success. New York: Knopf, 2001.
Stiglitz, Joseph E. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: Norton, 2002.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Vol. 2. 1839. Trans. Henry Reeve. Rev. Francis Bowen. Ed. Phillips Bradley. New York: Vintage, 1990.
Toynbee, Arnold and Daisaku Ikeda. Choose Life: A Dialogue. 1976. New York: Oxford UP, 1989.
Weber, Max. “Politics as a Vocation.” Essays in Sociology. Trans. and ed. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford UP, 1946.
Miyamoto, Yuji. “Beikoku no ‘ikkokushugi’ to Nihon no kakugunshuku seisaku” [American Unilateralism and Japanese Nuclear Disarmament Policy]. Ronza Apr. 2002: 120–29.
Mushakoji, Kinhide, ed. and trans. “Ningen anzen hosho nitsuiteno kokaishokan” [Open Letter on Human Security]. Sekai May 2002: 187–98.
Nye, Joseph S. “Gurobaru johokajidai ni koso towareru gaiko no chikara” [Diplomatic Capacities Are Called into Sharp Question in a Global Information Age]. Gaiko Forum Jan. 2002: 15–16.
Shiohara, Masayuki. “Makiguchi Tsunesaburo wa joshi kyoiku no senkakusha datta” [Tsunesaburo Makiguchi Was a Pioneer of Women’s Education]. Ushio Jun. 2001: 252–59.
Wolfensohn, James D. “Hinkon towa arayuru kikai to songen ga ubawarerukoto” [Poverty Robs People of Opportunity and Dignity]. Sekai Jan. 2002: 275–81.
Yamazaki, Masakazu. “Kotoba—Aihiman o toraeta otoko” [Words: The Man Who Captured Eichmann]. Chuokoron Aug. 2002: 292–342.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS
ABM: Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems. 26 May 1972. U.S. Department of State. 27 Feb. 2003 <http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/abm/abm2.html>.
Annan, Kofi. We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century. New York: United Nations, 2000. ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 19 Jan. 2003 <http://www.dfat.gov.au/arf/arfintro.html>.
ICOC: Draft International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation. Plenary Meeting of the Missile Technology Control Regime. Sep. 2001. Press Release. SIPRI Projects. 27 Feb. 2003 <http://projects.sipri.se/expcon/drafticoc.htm>.
Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. 19 Feb. 1992. Federation of American Scientists. 20 Jan. 2003 <http://www.fas.org/news/dprk/1992/920219-D4129.htm>.
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Kyoto [Japan]. 11 Dec. 1997. UNFCCC. 3 Mar. 2003 <http://unfccc.int/resource/convkp.html>.
Mongolia’s NWFS: “Mongolia’s International Security and Nuclear-weapon-free Status (NWFS).” United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament. 19 Jan. 2003 <http://disarmament.un.org./rcpd/mongolia.htm>.
NPT: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1968). U.N.T.S. No. 10485, vol. 729, pp. 169–75. International Atomic Energy Agency. 26 Feb. 2003 <http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Documents/Legal/npttext.shtml>. Roosevelt, Eleanor. “In Your Hands: A Guide for Community Action for the Tenth Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, New York. 27 Mar. 1958. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Anniversary. 19 Feb. 2003 <http://www.udhr.org/history/inyour.htm>.
United Nations. 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Final Document. NPT/CONF.2000/28.
——. “Environment and Sustainable Development: Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21.” A/57/532/Add.1. New York: United Nations, 12 Dec. 2002.
——. General Assembly. A World Fit for Children. Document adopted by the General Assembly Annexed to the Resolution. A/RES/S-27/2. New York: United Nations, 10 May 2002.
——.—– –. Further Actions and Initiatives to Implement the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. A/RES/S-23/3. New York: United Nations, 16 Nov. 2000.
——. ——. Resolution United Nations Literacy Decade. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. A/RES/56/116. New York: United Nations, 19 Dec. 2001.
——.—– –. Resolution Proclaiming 2003 International Year of Freshwater. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. A/RES/55/196. New York: United Nations, 19 Dec. 2000.
——. “Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration.” Report of the Secretary-General. A/57/270. New York: United Nations, 31 Jul. 2002.
——. “International Year of Freshwater 2003.” Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Division of Sustainable Development. United Nations. 19 Jan. 2003 <http://www.un.org/events/water/brochure.htm>.
——. “Secretary-General, In Address to ‘Women 2000’ Special Session, Says Future of Planet Depends upon Women.” Press Release. SG/SM/7430 WOM/1203. New York: United Nations. 5 Jun. 2000.
——. Security Council. Resolution 1325 (2000). Resolution adopted by the Security Council. S/RES/1325. New York: United Nations, 31 Oct. 2000.
——. Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. NPT/CONF.2005/PC.I/21. New York, 8–19 Apr. 2002.
The Humanism of the Middle Way: Dawn of a Global Civilization
It was particularly bitter that 2001, the first year of the new century, was marred by the tragic September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. This incident was diametrically opposed to the spirit of dialogue, tolerance and coexistence that so many people have been seeking.
Yet to permit this incident to impact us in a lasting and negative way would be to play into the perpetrators” hands. The goal of terrorism is to thrust people into chaos and confusion, to fan fear and mistrust; it is vital that we never succumb to these emotions. We must rather bring forth the power of the human spirit in even greater measure, surpassing and exceeding the magnitude of the threat that faces us.
Many people have been pondering the question of whether any form of dialogue or engagement is possible with those who remain hidden behind the veil of anonymity. What can people of good will do, how are they to respond to ruthless, cold-blooded acts of evil?
One thing is certain: reprisal invites reprisal. Any act of vengeance will inevitably provoke a response, and the cycle will continue without end. This is the lesson, rooted in the depths of human nature, which has been learned at the cost of untold suffering and bloodshed.
I repeat my absolute opposition to all forms of violence, terror and retaliation. All violence is an affront to human dignity. But transforming the course of human history will require of each individual a truly profound inner resolution, an existential determination to seek one”s fundamental, inherent humanity and to transform one”s entire being—an endeavor that we in the SGI call human revolution.
Crucial to this process is an awareness of the existence of others—to have what might be called an internalized other. It is only through intense spiritual interaction that humans grow and mature. An inner, spiritual dialogue is a necessary prerequisite for any attempt at external dialogue.
In the light of what I call the humanism of the Middle Way, before us suddenly opens the great way of dialogue, the capacity to transcend differences and share innermost sentiments with any and all people. This conviction has been the guiding principle for my own actions.
Without dialogue, humans are fated to walk in the darkness of their own dogmatic self-righteousness. Dialogue is the lamp by which we dispel that darkness, lighting for each other our steps and the path ahead.
Strengthening International Law
It is crucial that we aim for the creation of a universal system that will prevent, suppress, and, where necessary, punish any act of terror. By strengthening the structures and systems of international law, international police work, and the international judiciary, it should be possible to build a comprehensive and coordinated response to terror. In this effort, the UN must be accorded a central role. In this regard, I would specifically like to propose the following measures:
The adoption of a comprehensive treaty for the prevention of terrorism, complementing existing conventions.
The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a means of replacing solutions based on force with solutions rooted in law.
Long-term Preventive Measures
It is vital that steps be taken from a long-term perspective to eliminate the root causes of terrorism. In this regard, I would like to suggest measures centered on three themes: human rights, poverty alleviation and disarmament.
Human rights education can play a particularly crucial role in preventing acts of violence and terror, which have their origin in the workings of the human heart. My proposal is for the establishment of a Decade of Human Rights Education for Peace to follow up on the work of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education.
With regard to poverty, I repeat my call for implementing the equivalent of a global Marshall Plan in which monies freed by debt relief to the most heavily indebted poor countries would be applied to poverty alleviation, education, health care and medical treatment, as well as to enhancing social infrastructure.
Encouraging disarmament is a crucial step in establishing institutional measures to prevent the worsening of conflicts. I strongly urge consideration of reform of the consensus rules by which the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament operates, so that veto by one country is no longer possible.
The adoption of a treaty for a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapons continues to be a goal of SGI members around the world.
All countries should ratify the landmines treaty, and a full ban on the export of landmines should be implemented immediately. Systems of cooperative action to promote demining and provide support to the victims of landmines are also crucial.
Protecting the Global Environment
In August 2002, the World Summit on Sustainable Development will be held in Johannesburg, South Africa. We must make a strong, fresh determination to arrive at bold, original and thoroughgoing initiatives, and to make the conference the point of departure for new action for the sake of the human future. Here I would like to propose several ideas that I feel could help strengthen the framework of international cooperation to protect the environment.
The appointment of a UN High Commissioner for the Environment who would coordinate the activities of various agencies and lead efforts toward resolving global environmental issues.
The phased consolidation of the secretariats overseeing the implementation of various environmental treaties, with monies saved pooled into a “”Global Green Fund.””
Intensified efforts to develop renewable energy sources and the adoption of an international treaty for the promotion of renewable energy.
I would also like to add my renewed support for the Earth Charter, as a comprehensive statement of the norms and values essential to effective global governance and a guideline for humanity in the twenty-first century.
Children’s Summit
With regard to the upcoming UN Special Session on Children, I strongly urge the ratification by all countries of the two optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These protocols are designed to protect children from those actions that most grievously abuse their rights—the use of children as soldiers and their sale or use in prostitution.
In addition, consideration should be given to the drafting and adoption of a world charter on education, which would set forth a vision for education in the twenty-first century based on prioritizing the lifelong happiness of the learner as the true goal of education. It would also express a moral commitment to implementing peace education and education for global citizenship on a worldwide scale.
Building the Foundations of Peace in Asia
Realizing lasting peace in Asia is not a matter of any one country taking the lead. Rather, it is a matter of building multilayered networks of friendship and trust between and among the peoples of each country. Among the activities slated for this year is the Japan-China-Republic of Korea Young Leaders Exchange Program.
I believe we should encourage this kind of exchange throughout Asia in order to provide wider opportunities for members of the rising generation, in particular for young women, to establish bonds of friendship that transcend national boundaries.
I would like to see a joint research project that will build the foundations for a shared understanding of the recent history of Asia. The cumulative impact of a dialogue-centered effort to create a common understanding of our shared history is indispensable to future prospects for peace in Asia.
Dialogue, trust and collaboration—these are the foundations on which the global civilization of the twenty-first century is to be built. This year, under the theme of expanding dialogue, the members of the SGI are determined to work to further spread the solidarity of humanism in order to build a world of peace and coexistence.
The Humanism of the Middle Way: Dawn of a Global Civilization
by Daisaku Ikeda President, Soka Gakkai International January 26, 2002
Humanity last year was confrontedwith an extremely grave challenge to the effort to set off in an entirely new direction–the quest to part ways with the war and violence of the previous century. The September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States were a truly unprecedented act of mass murder, robbing thousands of innocent people of their lives. No cause or grievance can possibly justify such wanton destruction of human life.
It was particularly bitter that 2001, the first year of the new century, designated by the United Nations as the Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations, should be marred by an incident diametrically opposed to the spirit of dialogue, of tolerance and coexistence. Further, despite the magnitude of the damage inflicted, no statement has ever been issued acknowledging guilt for the crime. The anonymous and cowardly nature of this act threatens to undermine humanity at its core. It is an assault and affront that tramples the world’s aspirations to dialogue among civilizations.
This crime has had a profound psychological impact on the people of the world. The historian Arthur Schlesinger described the United States after September 11 as a society filled with apprehension and anxiety, and many observers believe that the world will never be the same after that day.
A dark millennial mood permeated the consciousness not only of the United States but of the entire world. The social disruption wrought by the collapse of the enormous Twin Towers and the subsequent anthrax bioterror has been described in truly apocalyptic terms. In Japan, however, a curiously detached attitude has prevailed despite the fact that there were twenty-four Japanese nationals among the victims. But even here recent opinion polls show a steadily increasing sense of insecurity.
Although the U.S.- and U.K.-led military action in Afghanistan appears to have brought some short-term resolution, the attacks have left deep scars on human society, including massive economic losses. To permit this incident to impact us in a lasting and negative way, however, would be to play into the perpetrators’ hands. Since the goal of terrorism is to thrust people into the chaos of distress and confusion–to fan fear and mistrust–it is vital that we never succumb to these emotions. We must bring forth the power of the human spirit in even greater measure, surpassing the magnitude of the threat that faces us.
As the old saying goes, the darker the night, the nearer the dawn. But the door to a new era will not open of its own accord. Everything depends on us, our capacity to face head-on the full implications of this tragedy, to rise undefeated from it, and to seize upon it as an unparalleled opportunity to transform the direction of human history.
Now is the time to renew our sense of hope and pride as we tackle this enormously difficult task. As the German literary giant Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) once put it, ” … man, through faith and hearty courage, will come off victor in the most difficult enterprises” (Eckermann 378).
Dimensions of the moral dilemma
The noble intent behind the Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations has been cruelly mocked by this heinous crime. To keep the attack from becoming the cause for a clash or even war between civilizations, we must never lose sight of the fact that it was, first and finally, a criminal act. I have consistently urged that the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose role and merits I deal with later in this proposal, be established and commence functioning at the earliest possible date. Terrorism is a crime that must be judged and punished before the law, and it is imperative that we take all measures to enhance the rule of law globally.
Such countermeasures alone are obviously not enough. Preventing and deterring future terrorist attacks requires strengthening international law and developing an effective international system of law enforcement.
In addition to strengthening deterrence systems, it is necessary to address and remedy the fundamental causes and conditions that serve as a breeding ground for terror. These have been discussed and analyzed at length since the attacks, and in this sense it is a welcome development that a framework of international cooperation is finally beginning to take shape to support the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
How, though, are we to meet the threat of fanatical terrorists who so clearly believe that all talk is useless? Is any form of dialogue or engagement, much less negotiation, possible with those who remain hidden behind the veil of anonymity? These questions hover in the minds of people all over the world. This is the fundamental challenge to which we must turn our unflinching gaze, the core of the crisis we must resolve.
The fact that views are deeply divided even among Nobel Peace laureates underscores the complexity of what we now face.
In December of last year, the Nobel Peace Prize Centennial Symposium was held in Norway. The central focus of debate concerned the appropriateness of military strikes as a response to terrorism. While there was general agreement that military action alone cannot eradicate terrorism, there were significant differences in the participants’ views on the use of force.
Without a persistent effort to fill and transcend the divide that has arisen even among those moved by a lofty dedication to peace, we cannot hope to make the twenty-first century an era of genuine peace.
What can people of goodwill do, and how are they to respond to ruthless, cold-blooded acts of evil? Sentiments of confusion, powerlessness, and inner conflict are experienced in direct proportion to the strength of one’s desire to believe in the innate goodness of human beings.
For example, Elie Wiesel, who in his youth survived the unspeakable horrors of a Nazi concentration camp to become a writer of enormous expressive power, commented after the attacks: “The spirit is powerful, but it is powerless in the face of violence. A terrorist with a single machine gun is stronger than a hundred poets and philosophers. The terrorists have proved it” (trans.).
The spirit is powerful, but it is powerless in the face of violence. … Wiesel’s own life offers potent proof of the irony and paradox of these words. Despite living through the inconceivable atrocity of Nazi violence, he has continued to wield his pen in pursuit of peace–an act of supreme faith in the power of the human spirit. It is symbolic of the distressing and problematic nature of our situation that even this individual felt compelled to support the U.S. resort to armed force.
Amartya Sen of Cambridge University, a Nobel laureate in economics (1998), is renowned for his profound understanding of the problems of developing-world poverty that provide one background to terror. He commented: “The use of armed force, viewed in isolation, cannot be considered appropriate. But when we think of what happened on September 11, the need for some form of response can certainly be understood. If it goes unpunished, terrorism will simply continue” (trans.).
It should be noted how he stressed the need for some form of response while carefully avoiding explicit reference to the use of military force or reprisal. The scale of this difficult challenge is set in relief by Sen’s careful and restrained choice of words.
Breaking the cycle of reprisal
Here is to be found the essence of the darkness that envelops our times. We must call on truly profound sources of spiritual strength if we are to make out the dawn through this otherwise impenetrable gloom.
Vengeance invites vengeance. Any act of reprisal will inevitably provoke a response, and the cycle will continue without end. This is the lesson, rooted in the depths of human nature, that has been learned at the cost of untold suffering and bloodshed.
How can we break such an entrenched and seemingly intractable cycle? This question bears down upon us with urgency and weight to the precise degree that we abandon the relative comfort of the bystander, putting ourselves in the place of those directly affected. Calls to forego vengeance will ring hollow, lacking the power to reach or move people’s hearts, if they are not made as part of an all-out effort to confront an issue whose roots are sunk in the most primordial human emotions. We need only remember the enduring and universal appeal of tales of vengeance such as The Count of Monte Cristo and The Revenge of the Forty-seven Ronin.
This entails a truly massive effort, a paradigm shift in human morality on the same scale as that to which Jesus exhorted his followers: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt.5:38–39). Any call to renounce retaliation must be supported by a set of sharply refined moral standards, as was the case with Tolstoy’s single-minded quest for nonviolence and nonresistance (a quest subjected to Lenin’s fierce critique) (202–09).
Tolstoy and Nonviolence
Consistent throughout many of the novels, short stories, plays and essays of Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) are themes of social reform and moral philosophy. His lifelong diary describes interlacing periods of overwhelming joy and intense self reflection. At the time of writing the novel Anna Karenina (1873–76), he experienced a deeply spiritual crisis that led him to reject religious orthodoxy and conceive his belief in love of humanity as a religious message. In later writings he developed this theme into a framework of principles for his doctrine of passive resistance to evil and all its forms of violence. This had an arguably significant influence on the social upheavals of pre-1917 Russia and is an acknowledged progenitor of the idea of nonviolent protest movements. Tolstoy was unrelenting in his passionate commentaries against both church and state—for which he was excommunicated by the church and, to the consternation of the state, gained greater popularity with the public. He wrote a scathingly critical commentary, “I Cannot Be Silent” (1908), decrying the state execution of untold numbers of people. That same year, V. I. Lenin (1870–1924) published a short polemic in which he derided Tolstoy’s ideas as a “mirror of the weakness, the shortcomings of our peasant revolt” (207).
To effectively renounce revenge, we must have confront–directly or in the scrupulous intensity of empathetic imagination–these weighty and seemingly insoluble questions.
If we are to free ourselves from the vicious spiral of revenge and truly conquer the urge for retribution–feelings that are all too human–we must first undergo a spiritual odyssey of anguished inner conflict, reflection and renewal in the depths of our being, of the kind that Tolstoy experienced. Only then will we be truly qualified to speak out. It is this that moves me so deeply in the words of those who, having confronted the horror of indiscriminate terrorist attack, have arrived at their own ineluctable conclusion through a process of heartrending contemplation.
Let me here reiterate my absolute opposition to all forms of violence, terror and retaliation, from the intimate violence of bullying and domestic abuse to the mega violence of war. All violence is an unacceptable affront to human dignity.But it is not enough simply to offer a shallow, emotional critique of military action or to call blithely for talk. For this is to stand helpless before the abyss of seething hatred that threatens to swallow us with its fury.
Altering the course of human history–throughout which “peace” has been but an interlude between wars–will require of each individual a profound inner resolution, a truly existential determination to seek their fundamental, inherent humanity and to transform their entire being. In the SGI we call this ceaseless struggle for inner renewal “human revolution.” It is the steadfast effort to construct “the defenses of peace” within our own hearts and minds as proclaimed in the Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Indeed, the shock wrought by the terrorist acts was so great as to place this imperative before all people.
The pathology of the absent other
The psychic map that we first glimpsed through the blinding dust of the collapsing Twin Towers was one completely devoid of any sense of humanity, any recognition of the humanity of the thousands of victims it consumed.
Writing about a band of terrorists operating in the last years of czarist Russia, Albert Camus (1913–60) called them “gentle-hearted murderers (les meurtriers délicats),” and described their profoundly conflicted psychology that considered murder “necessary and inexcusable” (169).
Camus and the Revolutionary Impulse
The French writer and philosopher’s L’Homme révolté (1951) has been described as one of the first contemporary views to look deeply into the revolutionary impulse and its implications for social existence. In it, Camus traces the act of rebellion in response to social and political conditions across eighteenth- through twentieth-century Europe. He examines the contradictions within the revolutionary impulse between the spirit of rebellion and the spirit of compassion. “It is possible,” he writes of the “gentle-hearted murderers,” “to believe that they too, while recognizing the inevitability of violence, nevertheless admitted to themselves that it is unjustifiable. Necessary and inexcusable– that is how murder appeared to them.” He was critical of those who, confronted with this contradiction, chose to resolve it “by ignoring one of the terms of the dilemma. They are content, in the name of formal principles, to find all direct violence inexcusable and then to sanction that diffuse form of violence which takes place on the scale of world history. Or they will console themselves, in the name of history, with the thought that violence is necessary, and will add murder to murder, to the point of making of history nothing but a continuous violation of everything in man which protests against injustice.”
Necessary and inexcusable. … This expresses an acute sensitivity to life, an awareness of its preciousness. It demonstrates a willingness to confront those contradictions and dilemmas that are an inevitable aspect of the attempt to live in a fully human manner. For the terrorists in Camus’ essay, this sensibility brought some degree of restraint–keeping them, for example, from bombing a despot’s carriage because two innocent children were riding in it with him. It is hard to imagine that those who planned and executed the September 11 attacks possessed any such awareness of the value of life. They appear to have been motivated by purely narcissistic self-absorption, with no evidence of reflection.
Soon after September 11, I discussed these issues with Rector Victor Antonovich Sadovnichy of Moscow State University. Concurring fully with his view that morality and ethics live only in the heart of the individual, I offered my own perspective that the pathology of indiscriminate terrorism lies in the complete obliteration of the individual. At the root of this, I noted, is the absence of an “internalized other.” Because the minds of terrorists are so obsessed with an objectified “enemy,” there is no room for individual “others” in all their infinite variation–even the fundamental distinction between soldier and civilian is not recognized. If there is any consciousness of the other, it is a vague, virtual image at best. It is this utter and complete numbness to the suffering, sorrow, pain and grief of their fellow humans that enables terrorists to commit acts of such brutality (170–71).
It is the nature of human beings that the “self” can develop only through awareness of others; we grow into selfhood in their gaze. Intense spiritual interaction–including that marked by conflict–is essential if we are to grow, mature and become truly human.
Without this process, individuals cannot develop beyond egotistic, self-absorbed infantilism, a condition in polar contrast to Karl Jaspers’ (1883–1969) insight about learning to talk with each other: “We want to accept the other, to try to see things from the other’s point of view. … To get at the truth, an opponent is more important than one who agrees with us” (12). Self-centered narcissism is the cradle in which rancor and violence are nurtured.
In the darkness in which our civilization has been immersed since September 11, we sense an eerie absence, a spiritual landscape in which people are failing to recognize the humanity of the other. It is far from easy to engage in meaningful dialogue in this climate, for it is the consciousness of an internalized other within the self that gives life to dialogue. An inner, spiritual dialogue is a necessary prerequisite for any attempt at external dialogue. Unless such attempts are preceded and supported by inner dialogue, we may find ourselves reverting to mere monologue and onesided assertions. In its most advanced state, the pathology of the absent other converts language and speech into just another form of violence.
War: defeat of the human spirit
Struggling to find appropriate measures to respond to terrorism, we can ill afford to regard this dehumanization as something limited to the perpetrators of terror.
I have, of course, no intention of condoning terrorism in any form. To succumb before the craven acts of terrorists or to compromise with them in any way only encourages the escalation of evil. A firm, unyielding stance is necessary to any effort to stop terrorism: indeed, some countermeasures may be necessary.
But surely a massive, sustained and one-sided bombing campaign relying on total command of the air goes beyond the bounds of countermeasures. It seems certain to leave ominous scars that will require attention in the future.
Without doubt, the collapse of the Taliban revealed a terrorist network whose scope exceeded most peoples imagination and which had used its enormous financial resources to seize control of the country of Afghanistan. As a result, the world has been forced to grapple with the grave question of whether any response that completely excluded the use of military force could possibly have dealt with this threat. The complexity of these problems makes it clear that there is no simple solution, no Alexander’s sword to slice this Gordian knot. It is my conviction that they can only be addressed through direct and unflinching engagement in a relentless inner quest of the spirit such as we see in the case of Tolstoy.
I am deeply concerned by the dehumanizing nature of aerial bombardment. While one side experiences virtually no casualties, the other is devastated to an unknown, yet clearly enormous, degree. One cannot but fear the extent to which this approach provokes numbed insensitivity to the human experience of living and dying, pushing the spiritual dimension far out of sight. The use of such weapons as cluster bombs and massively powerful Daisy Cutters can only worsen the pathological process of dehumanization.
Here I am reminded of an essay by the respected Japanese critic Hideo Kobayashi (1902–83). Writing during WorldWar II, he quoted a passage from the German general Hans von Seeckt (1866–1936) concerning his memories of his service in the battlefields of World War I in Europe:
“Carefully observing how the Russian troops, known for their courage, fled in pathetic confusion like a panic-stricken herd as they were thrown into terror by the ferocious rain of our precise howitzers, I found myself hoping that they would escape these hellish flames as soon as possible.
Even we would not know how to defend against such fierce shelling. I felt dismayed, shuddering with horror at the miserable defeat of the human spirit, at a time when I should have been proud of our victory” (qtd. in Kobayashi 437) . Kobayashi described von Seeckt’s experience as “the intolerable degradation of war” (437).
Kobayashi described von Seeckt’s experience as “the intolerable degradation of war” (437).
With modern warfare and state-of-the-art weapons, there is no opportunity to see or even imagine how the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, like their Russian counterparts of the past, might have run in a futile effort to escape destruction. Do we still possess enough imagination, enough sensitivity to life, to appreciate in some measure what von Seeckt meant by a “miserable defeat of the human spirit”?
Nor is this limited to military personnel. In a New Year’s television program in Japan, a member of Médecins SansFrontières criticized politicians for remaining too far removed from the consequences of their own decisions. Would it be too much to hope that a clear awareness of battlefield realities might have some deterrent effect and lead to a more flexible response to terrorism? Would such a hope be censured as Tolstoyan naivety?
The real enemy
In a sense, the dulling and numbing of our collective sensitivity to life itself is even more ominous than the cycle of violence created by terrorism and military action waged in response to it. In contemporary warfare, overshadowed by the demonic threat of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, the workings of the human will and spirit are thoroughly marginalized. The human element has virtually no role to play, either for victor or for vanquished.
What von Seeckt experienced as the “intolerable degradation of war”–the process of blinding ourselves to the humanity of those we harm and kill–has been brought to completion.
It would seem that, at least within Afghanistan, the terrorist network has been almost completely destroyed. But should the sense of triumph produced by its successful eradication be nothing more than an emotional sense of vengeance fulfilled–a sense diametrically opposed to all human virtues–the cycles of retaliation and hatred would only deepen.
My point is not to convey a complacent and unconstructive opinion that places equal blame on acts of terrorism and the response to them. Rather, I think, we need to ask ourselves deeper questions: What is the true danger? What are the real enemies?
The real enemies are, I believe, poverty, hatred and, most formidable of all, the dehumanization that exerts a demonic dominion over contemporary society.
Carl Jung (1875–1961) voiced his concern over this disease of the psyche as follows:
“A million zeros joined together do not, unfortunately, add up to one. Ultimately everything depends on the quality of the individual, but our fatally short-sighted age thinks only in terms of large numbers and mass organizations … ” (275).
The fight against poverty, hatred and dehumanization may seem a circuitous route to the eradication of terrorism, requiring that much more time and effort. But I am deeply concerned that if we lose sight of these ultimate challenges, means will be confused for ends, and we will fall under the illusion that all that is required is to destroy the terrorist networks.
As the military campaign in Afghanistan wound down at the end of last year, an editorial in the Christian Science Monitor maintained, “To just capture bin Laden misses the point. It’s not the man, but the ideas he practices that must be captured, and buried in the deepest cave” (“VA Day?”).
I fully agree. If we lose that perspective, we are likely to find military responses escalating without cease, provoking, in the worst case, a full-scale clash of civilizations. The problem of terrorism is not so simple that it can be eliminated merely through the “hard power” methods of military force. Ultimately, it is rooted in a wide range of social, economic and political issues that demand a concerted response from the international community. This response must embrace the elements of “soft power”–diplomacy, language and moral suasion.
A revitalized humanity
Since the ultimate enemy is dehumanization, the ultimate solution must be a revitalization and restoration of humanity. The wellspring for this must be a philosophy of humanism.
Setting aside for the moment all the ways the idea of “humanism” has been qualified over the centuries–socialist, individualistic, existential, Christian, etc.–I would like to approach the concept from a Buddhist perspective, to discuss what I propose to call “the humanism of the Middle Way” and its potential to illuminate the darkness of the present age.
The multilayered structure of the humanism of the Middle Way is best represented in the Buddhist teachings of the “ten worlds” and their mutual possession. These give concise expression to the fundamental Buddhist perspectives on the nature of life and living. Buddhism classifies our moment-to-moment experience of life into ten categories, or “worlds.” These are, in ascending order of desirability: hell, hunger, animality, anger, humanity, rapture, learning, realization, bodhisattva and enlightenment. The world of enlightenment, or Buddhahood, is regarded as the ideal way of life, one characterized by great compassion, courage and wisdom.
While space does not permit a detailed discussion of each of the ten worlds, the key point is that they do not exist as separate, isolated realms. Rather, each world embraces and contains within it all the others. Concretely, even if the (self-)destructive world of unrelieved suffering known as hell has manifested itself in an individual’s life, the potential for the other worlds remains; any of them can become the dominant state of that individual’s life the very next moment. In this way, our life condition is never static or fixed, but continues to transform and transmute, instant by instant, without cease. This interwoven potential is what is referred to as the “mutual possession” of the ten worlds.
While each of the ten worlds might be thought of as a single “frame” encapsulating a momentary portrait of life, their mutual possession reveals the unbroken continuum of life. Different states of life become manifest, recede into latency and emerge again in a complex and multilayered dynamism. This is how Buddhism understands human experience.
Like much of Eastern thinking, Buddhism refuses to regard life as simply the object of intellectual analysis or manipulation. Rather, its goal is to enable us to activate the positive potentials that exist in the depths of our being so that we may live in a self-directed manner. In this sense it shares profound ties with the Socratic project of striving always to “live well.”
If we permit ourselves to fall into habits of mental and spiritual sloth, we will find our life condition under the sway of the negative, destructive energy that characterizes the worlds of hell, hunger, animality and anger. In contrast, the ceaseless endeavor to strengthen our will and mind brings forth the positive, compassionate energy of the worlds of bodhisattva and Buddhahood. In this way, life reveals its innate brilliance when polished. Neglected, it quickly becomes dull and tarnished.
It is thus imperative that we maintain clear focus as we continue the inner spiritual struggle to awaken the forces of good within. This ceaseless effort to polish our lives empowers us to avoid stagnation, the tendency to view present conditions as fixed and immutable. We can then exercise the self-mastery required to respond creatively to the unique problems and possibilities of each moment. It is through sustaining and ingraining this habit of struggle that the most positive and creative energy becomes established as the fundamental tenor of our lives and the basis for our life activity. As individuals, it is in this way of life marked by ceaseless striving and growth that we find the true significance of the Buddhist concept of the mutual possession of the ten worlds.
The humanism of the Middle Way
Next, I would like to explore the humanism of the Middle Way as it applies to our understanding of society and social phenomena. This is a point that I set out in detail as far back as July 1973.
“The ways of thinking prevalent in society tend to be restrictive and exclusive. Liberalism, for example, embraces restrictive concepts that oppose and contradict the idea of socialization. The same holds true with socialist and communist ideologies. Materialism rejects spiritualism, and vice versa. Even artistic principles are no exception. They all are inclined to force people and society into the molds that they claim to be ideal. Ideological ways of thinking will always entail a degree of rigid categorization. The Buddhist-based philosophy of the Soka Gakkai, however, does not require uniformity. Rather, it focuses on understanding the actual conditions of the times and, from there, extrapolating the optimal choices.
The Middle Way
The Middle Way is a Buddhist term with rich connotations. In the broadest sense it refers to the Buddha’s enlightened view of life, and also the actions or attitude associated with that view. It is a perception characterized by a transcendence of the duality that underlies most thinking. For example, Buddhism describes life as “an elusive reality that transcends both the words and concepts of existence and nonexistence. It is neither existence nor nonexistence, yet exhibits the qualities of both.” In other words, life itself is the ultimate expression of the harmony of contradictions. The wisdom arising from an enlightened view of life leads to an ability to reconcile apparently contradictory positions, to transcend the extremes of opposing views, root oneself in the profound reality of life and thus discern a path toward peace.
“This should not be mistaken for unprincipled adaptation or simply ‘going with the flow.’ This is the Middle Way; we do not attempt to ‘improve’ individuals or society by imposing preexisting ideals or forms on them. … The hallmark of our philosophy is that we are capable of encompassing even contradictory entities and bringing out the positive potentials inherent in them. This, however, in no way suggests the absence of a system of consistent, underlying principles” (Nayami 187–89).
These remarks were made at a gathering of students, and what I was trying to stress was the relativity and mutability of all things. Just as the condition of an individual’s life changes in a ceaseless flow, with various possibilities alternately becoming manifest and latent, in the same way all social phenomena are relative and subject to change. In the famous expression: “All things are transient and even the prosperous must decline” (McCullough 13).
If we fail to understand this basic truth and are attached to the idea of unchanging, universal categories, we run the risk of repeating the mistakes of the rigid ideologies that so violently dominated the twentieth century. The rise and decline of socialism, for example, was one of the great dramas of the last century. In recent years, economic liberalism, too, seems to have lost some of its luster. Both socialism and liberalism serve as excellent and ironic examples of the relative and mutable nature of all things.
The spirit of self-mastery
This is the first aspect of the humanism of the Middle Way that I want to stress: its embrace of the relativity and mutability of all things. This is why it is so important to gain an accurate understanding of the actual conditions of the times and society, resisting the urge to impose some preconceived notion of the ideal on complex human realities. This is not limited to questions of ideology, such as materialism and spiritualism. The concepts of relativity and mutability can also be seen in such questions as good and evil, happiness and unhappiness, and even war and peace.
In the clear light of the theory of the ten worlds, we see that the tormented world of hell carries within it the potential state of enlightenment. In this way, the human experiences of happiness and suffering are like intertwined strands of a single rope in constant mutual transformation.
Similarly, it is possible to discover the seeds of peace amidst the horrors of war. By the same token, a seemingly peaceful environment can be fragile and contain the seeds of disintegration when it is built on a lazy failure to distinguish between real peace and mere complacency. This would appear to be the case with contemporary Japan.
The second point I wish to stress is the importance of establishing self-mastery based on the realization of the true aspect of things. What I mean by self-mastery is the ability to be the protagonist of one’s life, maintaining genuine independence and direction amidst the kaleidoscopic evolution of phenomenal reality.
This requires an unclouded cognitive precision, achieved, as I mentioned above, by polishing one’s life so that it reflects even the most subtle changes and developments—those things that lie beneath the surface of a transient reality and cannot be fully grasped or expressed by existing language or ideational categories. In other words, we are charged with the task of establishing—through self-mastery—the kind of robust and adamantine inner world in whose light we may experience the undisguised, true nature of all things and events.
Based on this concrete appreciation of the actual realities of life, we must decide how we should live and the kind of world we wish to create. This effort represents the essence of the multilayered humanism of the Middle Way.
In my peace proposal last year, I quoted the striking words of the Japanese philosopher Arimasa Mori (1911–76) as one key to opening the way to a new era: “The world is a competition in self-mastery. It is in this sense that the political is superior to the military. In this is also to be found the true meaning of peace” (163).
This admonition applies equally to individual human beings as to whole states and societies. Just as countries have a distinctive national character, each one of us has a distinctive personality. Only when the individual or society manifests the positive aspects of their character through the exercise of self-mastery can they hope to enjoy true respect or esteem.
“Kill the will to kill”
In this connection, I would like to share an intriguing episode from the life of Shakyamuni Buddha. Someone once asked him, “We are told that life is precious. And yet all people live by killing and eating other living beings. Which living beings may we kill, and which living beings must we not kill?” To this question, which invites the kind of labyrinthine speculation one might associate with medieval Scholasticism, Shakyamuni replied, “It is enough to kill the will to kill” (qtd. in “Soft Power” 210).
Shakyamuni’s response is neither evasion nor deception. No other answer could be as accurate or correct in addressing this question. The realities of violence and killing are immensely difficult and complex. It is impossible to draw a simple and uniform line between the permissible and impermissible taking of life. It is for this reason that self mastery– the “conquest” of the inner realm in order to uproot hatred and kill the will to kill–is ultimately of greater value than the attempt to establish inflexible definitions of right and wrong. As long as the determination to master oneself remains firm and unswerving, we will be able to transcend confusion and hesitation, to face and make those difficult choices and decisions that will produce the greatest good. This, I believe, was the true intent of Shakyamuni.
Last year I was pleased to see the publication of a dialogue I conducted with the brilliant Cuban scholar, Dr. Cintio Vitier, about the life and ideas of the poet, journalist and freedom-fighter, José Martí 1853–95), known as “the apostle of Cuba.” In the dialogue, I drew a comparison between Martí and M. K. Gandhi, stating, “While Martí’s life was not characterized solely by nonviolence, in terms of his core spiritual stance, it was remarkably similar to the path which Gandhi was later to tread” (42). Dr. Vitier observed, “Martí called for something that was even more difficult than Gandhi’s civil disobedience. He sought to eliminate hatred from the inevitable violence of revolution. … With this prayerful wish, he wrote, ‘God! That this be a just war, perhaps the only important, decisive war that can liberate people–a war against hatred’” (Vitier 274; Martí 22:210).
Martí’s Life and Struggle
José Martí (1853–95), patriot, poet and essayist, became the symbol of Cuba’s struggle for independence from Spain. At the age of sixteen he founded a newspaper La Patria Libre, and was shortly afterwards sentenced to six months’ hard labor, and banished to Spain. He completed his education there and spent most of the rest of his life in exile in Guatemala, Venezuela and New York, campaigning through his writings for freedom for the Cuban people. His intensely personal style is still considered a model of Spanish prose. Bitterness and hatred are notably absent from Martí’s writings, and his core motivation was an absolute love of humanity. As he wrote in an article for a Venezuelan newspaper: “There is no pardon for acts of hatred. The dagger that you wield in the name of Liberty cuts the very heart of Liberty.” In 1890, he founded an educational center devoted to the advancement of black Cuban exiles in New York called “La Liga.” He united the Cuban exile factions in the U.S., organizing the Cuban Revolutionary Party and becoming its “delegado” or delegate (he refused to be called president). In 1895 he was killed in the first battle of the independence struggle against the Spanish army at Dos Rios.
I share Dr. Vitier’s belief that what seems like a simple choice between two alternatives on the phenomenal level is in fact supported by a deeper synthesis.
“When you are being strangled by a rope and will die as things stand, and there is no hope that the rope will come loose of its own accord, you have no choice but to tear it loose” (4:192). When Martí finally felt forced to take up arms, it was only with the deepest sense of moral repugnance. His view of revolution and war differs in its essential vector from the views of some revolutionaries, who actually welcome social evils and violence as the “midwives” of revolution. Such views have only accelerated and expanded the scope of bloodshed.
Taken to their logical conclusion, Martí’s methods, which were centered on education and culture, and his determination to conquer hatred are certain– however painful the process of trial and error–to arrive finally at a path to peace and human dignity.
For Martí and Gandhi the struggle to free people from oppression may have taken the contrasting forms of violence and nonviolence. But while the outward form may have differed dramatically, in their determination to overcome hatred—the example each demonstrated of the power of self-mastery to “kill the will to kill”—these two great souls resonated deeply.
Encompassing contradictory entities
This brings me now to the third aspect of the humanism of the Middle Way that I would like to discuss: the way that it probes the depths of the inner life of humanity until it strikes the rich vein of universal qualities shared by all people. As a result, it rejects no one, embracing all people by the simple virtue of their being human. As mentioned earlier, according to the Buddhist theory of the mutual possession of the ten worlds, within the “world” of hell there is still the latent potential for the worlds of bodhisattva and Buddhahood. The clear implication is that regardless of the situation or the behavior of the other person, it is always possible to find an opening toward an avenue of genuine communication.
In the teachings of Buddhism, we find this statement: “Freedom is to be without any impediments” (Hori 736). This illustrates Buddhism’s approach to humanity and to life itself, namely, equality and nondiscrimination. This stance never judges people or tries to force them into preestablished categories based on such factors as race, religion, class, nationality, ideology or gender.
This is what I sought to emphasize in my earlier statement that the hallmark of our philosophy is our capacity to encompass even contradictory entities and bring out the positive potentials inherent in them. In other words, to compel people to make a binary choice between apparently contradictory entities fosters discrimination where there need be none.
In the light of the humanism of the Middle Way, the rallying cry of “I am human; nothing human is foreign to me (homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto)” (qtd. and trans. Honda 104) shines with new brilliance. Before us suddenly opens the great way of dialogue, the capacity to transcend differences and share innermost sentiments with any and all people. This has been the guiding principle for my own efforts to promote what I like to describe as human diplomacy.
In the autumn of 1974, as I was preparing to make my first visit to the Soviet Union, I was asked by a number of people why I was going to a country whose ideology is openly hostile to religion. I replied simply that I was going because there are people there. This was at a time when the winds of ideological conflict were blowing fiercely.
This visit to the Soviet Union came a few months after my first visit to China. At the time, tensions between the two countries were running very high, and they had even sparked armed clashes along the Wusuli River. Yet I visited both countries over a short period of time, and was able to engage in a frank exchange of views with the top leaders of the two great communist powers. I was convinced that the prevailing state of conflict would not continue indefinitely, a belief that was borne out by subsequent events.
Six years ago in June 1996, after visiting the United States, I took the opportunity to visit Cuba, where I conferred with President Fidel Castro. At that time, Cuba’s relationship with the United States was shadowed by thick, dark clouds. But it has always been my belief that if we are truly dedicated to engaging in human diplomacy, there are no walls of difference that cannot be surmounted.
It was the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset (1883–1955) who said “Civilization is, before all, the will to live in common” (76). This can be understood as the determination to transcend differences, while respecting human and cultural diversity, in the effort to clarify and share universal human values. Where this will is maintained without compromise, the mutually stimulating and catalyzing effects of dialogue give rise to a world where differences are celebrated. Through vibrant dialogue among civilizations, a richly fertile humanism arises in which the birth-pulse of a global civilization may be felt. This is my unfailing faith.
Former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger has noted that last year’s terrorist attacks had the paradoxical effect of creating a rare opportunity to build international consensus in order to combat terror. While this is certainly true, at the same time we must recognize that each country has its own complex domestic conditions and interests, and it is far from clear how robust and enduring the present consensus will prove. But at the very least, a common awareness has developed that terror cannot be effectively countered through the efforts of any one country acting alone, and that international cooperation is indispensable.
The youth membership of SGI-USA is currently engaged in a “Victory Over Violence” campaign that seeks to raise awareness of the need to counter and overcome violence in all its forms. We must make victory over violence a global movement, and turn the struggle against violence into the blueprint for a truly global civilization.
We must never give up on the ideal of dialogue among civilizations, whatever the obstacles we may encounter.
Transforming competition from conflict to harmony
In this sense, Arimasa Mori’s call for a “competition in self-mastery” is extremely rich in its implications and suggestions.
In Jinsei chirigaku (The Geography of Human Life) written almost a century ago, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871–1944), founder and first president of the Soka Gakkai, proposed the idea of “humanitarian competition.” This can be understood as anticipating the concept of competition in self-mastery. As I mentioned in my proposal of four years ago, “humanitarian competition” is not simply a shift in the mode of competition but represents a qualitative transformation in its very nature. As Makiguchi describes it:
“There is no simple formula for this humanitarianism. Rather, all activities, whether of a political, military or economic nature, should be conducted in conformity with the principles of humanitarianism. What is important is to set aside egotistical motives, striving to protect and improve not only one’s own life, but also the lives of others. One should do things for the sake of others, because by benefiting others, we benefit ourselves. This means to engage consciously in collective life” (399).
Makiguchi’s call to “engage consciously in collective life” likewise anticipates Ortega y Gasset’s definition of civilization as “the will to live in common.” Makiguchi called for a shift away from the kind of competition that is based on conflict and in which the strong feed on the weak, to a cooperative competition of coexistence and shared flourishing in all fields, including military, political and economic. He called for the construction of a global society, a global civilization in which the happiness of self and other would be realized.
This is not an easy process, as the British historian Arnold Toynbee (1889–1975) noted: “the reception of a foreign culture is a painful as well as a hazardous undertaking … ” (81). While it is naive to expect such encounters always to proceed smoothly and without difficulty, by the same token they are not necessarily fated to end in distorting, destructive clashes. As Toynbee was able to document through his prodigious reading and research, there are innumerable instances in which such contact has had a stimulating, catalytic influence. We must make all possible efforts to assure that intercultural encounters are creative in their outcome, and never hide behind the term “clash of civilizations” as if it somehow forgives failure.
Dialogue: the lamp to dispel darkness
On this point, the words of President Seyed Mohammad Khatami of Iran, the advocate of the idea of dialogue among civilizations, are worthy of our renewed attention.
“No great culture and no great civilization has ever evolved in isolation. In other words, only those cultures and civilizations have survived that have been empowered with ‘communication,’ ‘speaking’ and ‘listening.’ In addition to ‘speaking,’ ‘dialogue’ requires ‘listening.’ … Listening is not only a passive activity; it is active. An activity which enables the listener to open his being to the world which the speaker creates or discovers. Without real listening, any dialogue is doomed to failure.”
I likewise believe that the value of dialogue is to be found in its processes, perhaps even more than in its concrete results. For the vibrant and mutually catalytic process of dialogue between individuals and between whole civilizations dynamically illustrates humanitarian competition, the competition in self-mastery.
My own meetings with leading figures and thinkers from the nations of the world are motivated by the belief that dialogue indeed has the power to unite humankind. At the same time, I am moved by the desire to try to find, through dialogue, solutions to the many problems that loom before us.
The constituent organizations of the SGI as well as SGI-affiliated research centers–the Institute of Oriental Philosophy, the Boston Research Center for the 21st Century and the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research–are actively engaged in promoting dialogue among civilizations and interfaith dialogue. In all cases, the emphasis is not on debate for its own sake or to prove the abstract superiority of a philosophical position. Rather, dialogue is directed toward focusing the collective wisdom of humankind on such concrete issues as preventing conflict, eradicating poverty and protecting the global environment.
Without dialogue, humans are fated to walk in the darkness of their own dogmatic self-righteousness. Dialogue is the lamp by which we dispel that darkness, lighting and making visible for each other our steps and the path ahead.
The great nineteenth-century Japanese philosopher and educator Fukuzawa Yukichi (1835–1901) stressed this same point when he wrote the following:
“Man is by nature a social animal. A man in isolation cannot develop his innate talents and intelligence. The community of the family does not exhaust the possibilities of human intercourse. The more social intercourse there is, the more citizens of a nation meet one another; the more human relationships broaden and their patterns evolve, so much the more will human nature become civilized and human intelligence develop” (35).
It is through interactions and mutual catalyzation that civilizations develop and mature. Those traditions that refuse interaction cannot but fall into decline. This is a principle to which human history gives ample evidence and from which even the most dominant civilizations are not exempt.
We are presently faced with a severe trial, the outcome of which will determine whether humanity will be able to greet the dawn of a global civilization in this century. I firmly believe that the paradigms of humanitarian competition and competition in self-mastery will be key in deciding that outcome.
Building international consensus and cooperation
So far, I have offered some thoughts on a more spiritual or philosophical plane on how we can respond in such a way as to transform the crisis wrought by the terrorist attacks into the occasion to build a consensus that can grow into the basis for a global civilization. I would next like to examine different legal and institutional approaches toward this same goal.
The first point I would like to emphasize is that, as a prerequisite for the prevention of terrorism, we must make the principle of “punishment before the law” the firm and united stance of the international community. Similarly, it is vital that any response to terror be based on a universal set of principles and rules that impartially judge and punish any such act regardless of its nature or motivation.
With regard to the military actions led by the U.S. and the U.K., UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated that this action should be viewed in light of the UN Security Council’s reaffirmation of the right of individual and collective self defense in accordance with the UN Charter (Statement). Even acknowledging this view, we must be aware of the fact that military action leaves important problems unresolved, creating new ones that must be dealt with in the future.
I believe that it is crucial to aim for the creation of a transparent system that is universal in its application to suppress acts of terror, regardless of the political or ideological motives of the perpetrators. Even in the case of police action (entailing the minimum use of force necessary to restrain and apprehend the criminals), locating such action within the context of a comprehensive system can prevent the situation from escalating.
It is therefore important to strengthen the structures and systems of international law, international law enforcement and the international judiciary. Together, these constitute the institutional basis for a comprehensive and coordinated response to terrorism.
The UN must play a central role in this effort. As Secretary-General Annan has stressed, the UN is uniquely positioned to help develop a broad and sustained strategy to eradicate terrorism (Address).
International law, law enforcement and judiciary
First, to strengthen international law, it is urgent that the comprehensive treaty for the prevention of international terrorism be completed and adopted. To date, twelve different international treaties and protocols against terrorism have been adopted, starting with the 1963 Tokyo Convention for the prevention of hijacking. Typically, these were drafted in response to specific crimes of terrorism, but over the years, the terrorist organizations have developed increasingly broad international networks and adopted ever more sophisticated methods, so there is now a clear need for a convention that will support more comprehensive efforts to counter terrorism.
Each of the individual antiterrorism conventions is significant as a cornerstone of international cooperation to deter and prevent such grave criminal acts. Further efforts to assure the widest possible ratification of these treaties are important, as has been stressed at various summit meetings to date.
Complementing existing conventions, the comprehensive treaty for the prevention of terrorism would be a signal of international solidarity never to permit a repeat of the recent tragic events (Measures).
Second, regarding law enforcement, I would like to promote the idea of establishing a specialized standing organization within the UN to combat international crime as the core of an international law enforcement network. This new body would carefully coordinate its efforts with those of the International Criminal Police Organization (ICPO), or Interpol, and the domestic law enforcement agencies of each country.
Further, consideration should be given to the future possibility of establishing a constabulary force under direct UN control to respond in cases when national law enforcement agencies are inadequate to the task of identifying or arresting members of criminal terrorist organizations. Police action through international cooperation would thus become established as an option to be exercised in lieu of either the use of force authorized by the Security Council (under Chapter VII of the UN Charter) or actions taken as an exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense. As such, this would contribute to a more robust and flexible system to prevent and respond to terrorism.
Third, to strengthen the international judiciary, it is vital that the International Criminal Court (ICC) be established with all possible haste. The Rome Statute to establish a permanent international court for the purpose of trying individuals who have committed genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, etc., was adopted in 1998. But it has yet to be ratified by the necessary sixty signatory states and has therefore not become binding. As a result, the court has yet to be established and begin functioning.
International Criminal Court
The idea of an international criminal court (ICC) to prosecute crimes against humanity arose after the horrors of World War II. Efforts by the United Nations to establish a permanent ICC began soon after but were delayed for decades by the Cold War and refusal of governments to accept international legal jurisdiction. With the fall of European communism, the possibility of international cooperation for such a court became genuinely possible. Further, the tragedies of “ethnic cleansing” and genocide in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals established in response, revived awareness of the need for a permanent international criminal justice system. In 1998, the United Nations convened a conference in Rome to finalize and adopt a convention on the establishment of an ICC. This court, which will have its seat in The Hague, will differ from the existing World Court, which only hears lawsuits between governments and cannot prosecute individuals. To date, 139 countries have signed the “Statute of the Court” or “Rome Statute.” Sixty countries need to ratify the Statute before it can enter into force, and the ICC will become a reality. As of April 2002, 56 countries had done so.
I have repeatedly called for the early establishment of the ICC as a means to begin supplanting the rule of force with the rule of law. This would help break the interlocking chain reactions of hatred and retribution that have brought such suffering to humankind. As such, it has the potential to effect a qualitative transformation in the way we human beings have conducted our collective affairs to date. At present, such movements as the NGO Coalition for an ICC (CICC) are working to encourage ratification, an effort to which the SGI will offer active support.
In the meantime, we should consider an ad hoc tribunal to try terrorist crimes, similar to those created by the UN Security Council for crimes of genocide and other grave offenses committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. It is crucial that we make last year’s terror attacks the occasion for establishing the principle that the crime of terrorism be brought to justice before an international judiciary.
Supporting reconstruction
Looking now at longer-term measures to prevent the recurrence of terrorism, I would like to discuss the role that Japan can play in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. In December of 2001, an interim government was established in Afghanistan. However, as a result of twenty-three years of war, some four million people have been forced to flee their homes, and most of the infrastructure that supported people’s lives has been destroyed (UNHCR Refugees). The international community is called on to provide timely humanitarian assistance and sustained support for the reconstruction effort. I believe that this is an area in which Japan should play an active and contributory role.
Historically, Japan is not burdened by a military or diplomatic legacy of colonization or invasion in the region. It has developed relations of trust with many of Afghanistan’s Central Asian neighbors, under the banner of its “Eurasian Diplomacy” and “Silk Road Diplomacy” (Bluebook 1998). Concretely, prior to the terrorist attacks, Japan brought representatives of both the Taliban and the Northern Coalition to Tokyo for talks. Japan has also played a constructive role in providing humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan. Most recently (January 21–22, 2002), Japan hosted the Ministerial Level Conference on Reconstruction Assistance to Afghanistan and made strong efforts to support the development of a reconstruction plan. In these and other ways, Japan has energetically engaged the issue. While I certainly applaud such efforts, at the same time I hope they will be ongoing, persistent and guided by a long-term vision.
One of the tragic hallmarks of the twentieth century was the large-scale uprooting of people from their homes, their uncertain flight as refugees. It is now crucial to develop comprehensive strategies to prevent and resolve the regional and ethnic conflicts that have displaced people. We must also support post-conflict reconstruction to enable people to return to their homes and live normal lives.
Support for peace-building
Many of the conflicts of recent years have resulted in what are called complex emergencies, marked by the simultaneous occurrence of armed conflict, refugee movements, famine and destruction of the natural environment. Responding to complex emergencies requires the careful coordination of multifaceted, multilevel actions. In concrete terms, Japan should become actively engaged in the UN’s peace-building initiatives that support the efforts of societies to recover from destruction and build the foundations for a stable peace. Among the many aspects of peacebuilding are: promoting reconciliation among ethnic groups; encouraging respect for human rights; disarming and facilitating the social reintegration of the members of armed groups; establishing order under the rule of law; supporting the development of democratic institutions; and rebuilding basic infrastructure. The UN has opened, on a pilot basis, peace-building offices in the Central African Republic and elsewhere (SC “Peace-Building”).
Japan has to date engaged in such efforts as the Azra and Tizin project to support the return and resettlement of Afghan refugees (Machimura). Japan should strengthen its institutional capacity to cooperate with different UN agencies in support of such projects. It should work toward establishing a system that trains people with specialized skills who can be dispatched at any time as required. Demining is an especially urgent focus at present, and this is one area in which Japan can make a substantial contribution, providing technical cooperation and assistance.
Further, as a first step toward demonstrating that we have truly learned the bitter lesson of the world’s abandonment of Afghanistan, I would like to propose that an Afghanistan peace center be established in Japan. This center would be engaged in providing up-to-date information to the world community regarding the progress of efforts toward peace and reconstruction. At the same time, it would seek to promote widespread understanding and appreciation of Afghanistan’s unique cultural heritage.
Overcoming racism and xenophobia
For a number of years now, I have expressed my strong belief that we must work together toward the goal of human security–the idea that security is more than a matter of states and the integrity of their borders, but concerns the actual lives of real people. In this regard, I would like to offer some concrete proposals for long-term measures centered on three themes: human rights, poverty eradication and disarmament.
The promotion and safeguarding of human rights is absolutely crucial. Human rights education can play a particularly vital role in uprooting the deep-seated psychological causes of violence and terror.
In August of last year, the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR), which had been called for by the UN General Assembly, was held in Durban, South Africa. At an NGO forum prior to the conference, an SGI delegation introduced my proposal for the establishment of a Decade of Human Rights Education for Peace. This would succeed and follow up the work of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995–2004). It is my belief that continuous, hands-on efforts in the field of human rights education hold the key to creating a more humane world. It would also promote the universal ideal of a “just, comprehensive and lasting peace … in which all people shall coexist and enjoy equality, justice and internationally recognized human rights and security” called for in the Conference’s final declaration.
Obviously, no one is born with racist or exclusionary ideas. It is most often the case that feelings of prejudice and discrimination—hatred for groups other than one’s own—are implanted in people’s minds in the process of growing into adulthood. From this perspective, the SGI has been working to raise popular awareness of the importance of tolerance in support of the UN Decade for Human Rights Education. Such activities have included the traveling exhibition “Toward a Century of Humanity: Human Rights in Today’s World” as well as grassroots seminars and symposiums on human rights organized throughout the world.
Last year, to encourage human rights education for children, we launched the “World Picture Books” exhibition, which brings together illustrated children’s books from 120 countries and territories. In an accessible manner, this exhibition introduces the culture and lifestyles of various regions around the world, offering an opportunity for children to experience and accept differences as an expression of the world’s diversity. Using the various events and occurrences of daily life to foster the spirit of tolerance and appreciation of others, striving always to manifest this spirit in our concrete actions, we can create a rich and robust culture of human rights.
Eradicating poverty
Another theme I would like to discuss is the need to accelerate efforts to eradicate global poverty, which must be recognized as an important underlying factor in both armed conflict and terrorism. I have repeatedly stressed the need for international cooperation to eliminate the grotesque disparity between poverty and wealth in our world–a gap that has expanded as globalization advances. It is particularly crucial that people be freed from the degrading experience of what is referred to as absolute poverty–a state in which some 1.2 billion people live. Poverty threatens and undermines human dignity on Earth.
I would like here to restate my call for the implementation of the equivalent of a global Marshall Plan in which monies freed by debt relief to the most heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs) would be applied to the alleviation of poverty, to education, health care and medical treatment, as well as to enhancing the social infrastructure.
In its 2001 annual report, The State of the World’s Children, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) cites the example of Uganda as a society where funds from debt relief were successfully redirected to education and health care for children. In the words of the report: “Changing debt liability to investment in children is the key to ending poverty.”
In May of 2001, the Third UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries adopted a Programme of Action outlining policies and measures for overcoming poverty. In July, the Communiqué of the Genoa Summit of the G8 gave priority focus to assistance to developing countries. These are signs, in my view, of a growing global commitment to ending poverty. We must look again in earnest at the measures that can be taken to realize the goal, expressed in the UN Millennium Declaration, of halving, by the year 2015, the proportion of the world’s people whose income is less than one dollar a day.
Japan played a positive role in the establishment of the UN’s Trust Fund for Human Security (Bluebook 2001) and should exercise strong leadership toward the eradication of poverty.
In terms of the institutional resources of the UN, serious consideration should be given to Secretary-General Annan’s proposal to establish a high commissioner to deal with the world’s poorest countries. The time has clearly come to take a coordinated, people-centered approach to ending poverty.
Reforming the conference on disarmament
Encouraging disarmament is an important systemic means to help prevent the escalation and spread of conflict. In recent years, there has been a heightened sense of the need to create a truly effective nonproliferation regime for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction–whose possible use by terrorists has become a matter of grave concern. As one means to create a breakthrough toward thoroughgoing and effective disarmament efforts, I strongly urge reform of the rules by which the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament (CD) operates.
Since the Conference on Disarmament evolved from the Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament established in 1960, it has undergone various changes in nomenclature and constituent membership. But throughout, it has, as the sole multilateral body for disarmament negotiations, contributed to the realization of a number of important disarmament conventions, among them the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Since the adoption of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), however, the CD has failed to produce any concrete results and at present is unable even to agree on an agenda for the next round of disarmament negotiations.
In order to get beyond this deadlock, I would like to propose a change in the consensus rule, which requires unanimous agreement among all participants to a negotiation. This rule is the single most distinctive feature of the CD; at the same time, because it gives each country an effective veto, it is the single greatest factor in its present deadlocked state.
As one reform measure, in August of last year, Japan informally proposed the partial introduction of a majority vote, whereby procedural issues could be decided by a two-thirds majority. If it is felt that “majority rules” voting is not appropriate for deciding substantive security issues, the alternative of “consensus minus one”–used by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and in which the consensus of the whole is recognized as overriding a single dissenting vote–might be considered. Unless some action is taken to reform the procedures by which the CD operates, it runs the risk of becoming irrelevant. Some measures must be taken to keep negotiations from bogging down even before they have begun. Procedures that facilitate agreement on the broad outlines of negotiating themes, with details worked out in subsequent talks, will prove far more productive.
Any effort in this direction, because it represents a major change in the standing traditions of the CD, is certain to raise objections. But the time has come, in my view, to give serious attention to the kinds of reform that will reprioritize concrete progress toward disarmament.
Preventing nuclear terror
It is essential to reenergize efforts in the field of nuclear disarmament. Since September 11, there has been increasing anxiety about the possible use of nuclear weapons by terrorists. Nobel Peace laureate (1995) Sir Joseph Rotblat of the Pugwash Conference is among those to have expressed his concern.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has adopted a resolution urging that effective steps be taken to prevent the illicit use of nuclear material and to protect various nuclear facilities against terrorist attack. At the UN, there is ongoing debate on an international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism (Measures). It is important to raise international public opinion in support of the earliest possible adoption of such a treaty.
But the nuclear threat is not limited to terrorism. Indeed, preventing the further spread of nuclear weapons and making further progress toward nuclear disarmament is literally a life-or-death issue for humankind in the twenty-first century. In December 2001, the U.S. and Russia fulfilled their obligations under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I (START I) by reducing the number of nuclear warheads to six thousand each. However, no concrete schedule for further nuclear disarmament has been established. In 2000, the sixth review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) unanimously adopted a final declaration that included an “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” It was not possible, however, to reach agreement on concrete steps toward this goal or set a time limit by which it must be achieved.
The efforts of the New Agenda Coalition, led by a group of seven nonnuclear-weapon states and supported by a network of NGOs, were crucial in pushing the nuclear-weapon states to make this “unequivocal undertaking.” In order to keep moving forward, we must further strengthen the network of global popular opinion to press the nuclear-weapon states to implement this commitment in good faith.
The second president of the Soka Gakkai, Josei Toda (1900–58), in 1957 called for the prohibition of all nuclear weapons. His call was based on the Buddhist appreciation for the sanctity of life, from which perspective nuclear weapons must be condemned as an absolute evil. As heirs to this spirit, the SGI has worked to spread and strengthen popular solidarity for nuclear abolition. These activities have included the international traveling exhibition “Nuclear Arms: Threat to Our World” and support for the Abolition 2000 signature campaign. The members of the SGI are determined to continue and accelerate their efforts toward the adoption of a treaty for the comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapons.
Eliminating landmines from the planet
Along with the question of nuclear weapons, I feel compelled to address that of landmines. As the conflict in Afghanistan has again demonstrated, landmines cause an enormous toll of death and suffering among the civilian population, particularly children, in the countries in which they have been deployed. The abolition of these inhumane weapons has been one focus of the post-Cold War world, and I have added my voice to those calling for a treaty banning them.
Through the vigorous efforts of NGOs such as the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), the historic landmines treaty became part of international law in 1999. Despite this ban, it is said that some 110 million landmines remain deployed and another 250 million are stockpiled worldwide. Needless to say, the most terrible aspect of these weapons is that their impact is not limited to the period of actual conflict; they continue to threaten lives and livelihoods long after the conflict has ended. According to one study of the period since the landmines ban went into effect, more than half of the countries in which people have been injured or killed by landmines and unexploded munitions have been technically at peace.
The landmines treaty bans not only their use but also their production, stockpiling and transfer; it further requires the destruction of existing stockpiles and in this sense is a truly groundbreaking piece of international law. But without the participation of all countries in this treaty, the number of landmine victims will continue to mount.
I strongly believe that the complete elimination of this form of inhuman weaponry is crucial. First, a full ban on the export of landmines should be implemented immediately. Then, the international community should unite behind the promotion of demining and the provision of support to the victims of landmines. This is a necessary first step toward creating a twenty-first century free from the scourge of war and truly a century of humanity.
The World Summit on Sustainable Development
Having considered human security from the perspective of human rights, poverty eradication and disarmament, I would now like to discuss the environmental issues which will have a decisive impact on the shape of the global society of the twenty-first century. June 2002 marks the tenth anniversary of the Earth Summit (World Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In August of this year, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) will be held in Johannesburg, South Africa. Convened immediately in the wake of the Cold War and amidst greatly heightened interest in environmental issues, the Rio Earth Summit was an international gathering of unprecedented scale, attended by the representatives of 183 countries and territories. It produced important results, including the signing of treaties on climate change and biodiversity, as well as the adoption of the Agenda 21 plan of action. Then UN Secretary-General Boutrous Boutrous-Ghali described the Rio Summit as “an epistemological break,” suggesting the significance of its impact on people’s awareness.
Since then, however, global environmental degradation has advanced apace as there has been little progress in implementing these agreements. Taking global warming as one example, it took nine years after the adoption of the treaty aimed at preventing climate change before agreement was finally reached in November of last year on the operational details of the Kyoto Protocol that commits signatory states to the reduction of greenhouse gases.
To be meaningful, the WSSD must bring about a transformation in behavior corresponding to the revolution in awareness of a decade ago. The WSSD will of course review the progress made over the past ten years. But even more important is the need to muster a strong, new determination, to offer new proposals and ideas, unconstrained by previous thinking, and to make the conference the point of departure for decisive action for the future.
High commissioner for the environment
Here I would like to propose three ideas for consideration by the WSSD, ideas that I feel could help enhance international cooperation. These are: 1) The establishment of the office of the UN high commissioner for the environment; 2) the phased consolidation of the secretariats overseeing the implementation of the various environmental treaties and the establishment of a global green fund; and 3) a convention for the promotion of renewable energy.
The UN High Commissioners for refugees and human rights have proven effective advocates for their respective constituencies and concerns. In the same manner, a high commissioner for the environment would be charged with coordinating the activities of various agencies, exercising strong and visible leadership toward the resolution of global environmental issues.
At present, in addition to the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the World Health Organization (WHO) and a number of other international agencies are all involved in activities related to the environment. These activities are conducted under the separate mandates of these organizations, and there is a strong need for improved information exchange and coordination guided by a shared vision.
The holder of this new post could enunciate such a vision. She or he should be accorded authority equivalent to an undersecretary-general with a mandate to issue international recommendations and advisories, convene meetings or panels of experts and eminent persons, and draft and release reports that envisage the future.
My second proposal is designed to alleviate the problems arising from having separate secretariats for each international treaty on the environment. Bringing together and eventually consolidating these should have the effect of strengthening the linkages between their activities, as well as realizing cost reduction through streamlining reporting and other procedures. Under many treaties, signatory states are required to report on the status of their activities to fulfill their treaty obligations, and the costs of preparing these reports could also be reduced. Monies saved through such cost-cutting measures could be pooled into a global green fund that would promote protection of the ecosystem, reforestation activities, etc.
The SGI has been engaged in research at its Amazon Ecological Research Center in Brazil aimed at the preservation and revitalization of the rain forest. Based on this experience, we are committed to working in all ways possible to resolve the global environmental crisis.
Promoting renewable energy sources
The third proposal I would like to offer would encourage the accelerated implementation of renewable energy and help smooth the transition away from today’s fossil fuel-dependent society. UNEP, which has been actively engaged in this issue, has stated that “accelerating the introduction of green, ‘environmentally friendly’ energy, such as solar, wind and wave power, is one of the most pressing issues facing mankind in the new millennium. … ” In March of last year, UNEP published a report on this subject, titled Natural Selection: Evolving Choices for Renewable Energy Technology and Policy.
Within the leadership of the advanced industrial economies there has been an increasing awareness of the importance of this issue. At the 2000 Kyushu-Okinawa Summit, the G8 Renewable Energy Task Force was established; it presented its final report at the 2001 Genoa Summit. Further, the joint communiqué of the Genoa Summit included this statement in the section “A Legacy for the Future”: “We will ensure that renewable energy sources are adequately considered in our national plans and encourage others to do so as well” (art. 27). This was the first time that a G8 communiqué had clearly called for the promotion of renewable energy.
In Europe, concrete planning has already begun. In September 2001, the European Union Council issued a directive on the promotion of renewable energy sources that calls for doubling the share of total energy consumption produced from renewable sources by the year 2010. At the same time, developing countries have been the site of many innovative efforts led by NGOs or as part of the UNDP’s Sustainable Rural Energy Project, which has introduced solar energy into remote villages in Bangladesh.
In this regard, I would like to propose that a convention for the promotion of renewable energy sources be considered at the WSSD as a means of consolidating and strengthening consensus on this crucial issue in both the developed and developing worlds.
Trends in Energy Use
by Source1990–99*
ENERGY SOURCE
ANNUAL RATE OF GROWTH (PERCENTAGE)
Wind power
+24.2
Solar photovoltaics
+17.3
Geothermal power (1990–98 only)
+4.3
Natural gas
+1.9
Hydroelectric power
+1.8
Oil
+0.8
Nuclear power
+0.5
Coal
-0.5
*Trends measured in varying units: installed generating capacity (megawatts or gigawatts) for wind, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear power; million tons of oil equivalent for oil, natural gas, and coal; megawatts for shipments of solar photovoltaic cells.Source: Worldwatch Institute
The Earth Charter
In connection with the WSSD, I would like here to make mention of the Earth Charter. This document, which elucidates the values and principles for a sustainable future, was developed through a drafting process guided by the Earth Charter Commission headed by Mikhail Gorbachev, president of Green Cross International, and Maurice Strong, secretary-general of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The final draft was completed in June 2000, and it is hoped that it will be officially acknowledged at the WSSD.
Within the SGI, there has been widespread support for the goals and principles of the Earth Charter; activities to promote the Earth Charter process have been organized in many countries around the world. In addition, the SGIaffiliated peace research institute, the Boston Research Center for the 21st Century (BRC), organized symposiums and publications that offered multifaceted input into the drafting process.
The Earth Charter is not limited in its concerns to environmental issues but contains important language related to social and economic justice, democracy, nonviolence and peace. In this sense, it is a comprehensive statement of the norms and values required for effective global governance. It may be considered a guideline for humanity in the twenty-first century. Only with a shared vision, and shared effort toward the realization of that vision, will we be able to greet a more hopeful future. For this reason, it is imperative that the Earth Charter be given the support and recognition of the international community.
Further, it is vital that there be ongoing grassroots efforts to raise awareness so that the Earth Charter may become the fulcrum for the common struggle of humankind. The SGI is determined to continue working with the Earth Council and other organizations to support the translation of the Earth Charter into various languages and the development of pamphlets, videos and other materials that will publicize its ideas.
We need a global consensus behind environmental education, especially aimed at the new generations who will bear the burden of the future. I understand that the WSSD is being promoted with poster and essay contests for young people. There is a similar need to develop materials that will introduce the message of the Earth Charter to children and young people in language that is easily accessible to them. With this in mind, the SGI is committed to the promotion of environmental education and the dissemination of environmental information through a wide variety of means and channels.
The Earth Charter
The Earth Charter presents a set of ethics and principles to guide humanity toward ways of living that do not forever deplete the Earth’s resources and damage its ability to sustain life. It stresses the interdependence of all life and is a call to responsible action toward social justice, peace, gender equality and sustainable patterns of consumption.
The Earth Charter is a “people’s document,” born from a five-year long process of grassroots consultation involving thousands of groups and individuals, NGOs, schools and local governments on every continent. As people begin to live by the values of the Earth Charter, it is hoped that sustainable living will become a reality. (See www.earthcharter.org)
A global alliance for children
In this connection, I would like to make several proposals related to the UN Special Session on Children to be held this May. The purpose of this meeting is to review progress toward the goals agreed upon at the 1990 World Summit for Children. Originally scheduled for last September, its postponement was forced by the terror attacks in the United States.
When societies break down, it is always children whose lives, health and best interests are sacrificed. There are some 2.1 billion children under the age of eighteen on Earth today. Of these, however, fewer than one in ten live in countries where their health and growth is afforded adequate protection. In the decade since the holding of the World Summit for Children, we have seen definite progress. It has been possible to reduce the number of children dying from preventable diseases and to increase the number able to receive basic education (UNICEF Bellamy).
Despite such advances, and perhaps because the plan of action adopted by the 1990 Summit was not given sufficient international attention, progress has been checkered. UNICEF has responded by initiating a global movement for children, calling for participation from governments, NGOs, educational institutions and the media. The Special Session on Children is being held within this context, and, as UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy has stated, its purpose is to clarify the link between healthy children today and a healthy world tomorrow.
Among the activities organized by the SGI in support of UNICEF has been the exhibition “Treasuring the Future: Children’s Rights and Realities” originally held in New York in June 1996 to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of UNICEF. Since then, this exhibition has traveled to venues throughout the United States as well as to Cape Town, South Africa. There are plans to show an updated version in New York in conjunction with the Special Session.
I call on leaders from all countries who gather for the Special Session to make this the occasion for creating a global alliance for children, based on the vow to put children first and to always give the interests of the child the top priority. As a first step toward this, I strongly urge the ratification by all countries of the two optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). These protocols are designed to protect children from those actions that most heinously abuse their rights—the use of children as soldiers and their sale or use in prostitution.
In addition, I hope that either at the Special Session or elsewhere in the near future consideration will be given to creating a world charter on education. The shared commitment of 155 countries and territories throughout the world to promote literacy and other forms of basic education was first expressed in the World Declaration on Education for All adopted in Thailand in 1990 (UNESCO). A world charter for education would develop and extend this agreement. It would encourage international cooperation to enhance the educational environment globally. It would set forth a vision for education in the twenty-first century, prioritizing the lifelong happiness of the learner as the true goal of education, putting the full resources of each society at the service of education. It would also express a moral commitment to peace education and education for global citizenship—the foundations on which human security in the twenty-first century must be built.
Net Primary school enrollment / attendance ratio 1990 and 1999
Promoting exchanges among China, South Korea and Japan
Turning now to specific regional issues, I would like to make two proposals that I feel will contribute to the long-term prospects for peace in Asia. This year, 2002, is a year of particular significance to Japan, China and the Republic of Korea (ROK), as it marks the thirtieth anniversary of the normalization of relations between China and Japan and the tenth anniversary of normalization of China-ROK relations. Additionally, South Korea and Japan are this year cohosting the soccer World Cup. These significant events have been marked by designating 2002 The Year of Japan-China-Republic of Korea National Exchange.
Efforts to increase trust received an important boost at the 1999 ASEAN+3 Summit Meeting in the Philippines, when the leaders from these three countries met. In 2000, it was decided that summits among the three should be regularized, and last year agreement was reached on the holding of regular meetings of foreign and finance ministers. In this way, an ongoing process of dialogue developed, and it was within this context that the national exchange program was established. It represents an exciting opportunity to deepen ties of mutual friendship and trust (Bluebook 2001).
The Soka Gakkai International, in particular our Japanese membership, has worked to promote grassroots exchange with China and South Korea in order to contribute to the peace of Asia. This year, the youth members of the Soka Gakkai in the Chubu region around the city of Nagoya have organized an exhibition, “The Great Leader Zhou Enlai,” commemorating the life and achievements of the late Chinese premier who was instrumental in laying the foundations for China-Japan friendship. From Nagoya, the exhibition will travel to eight venues within Japan. For my part, I am now engaged in a dialogue, which is being published in serialized form, with Dr. Cho Moon-Boo, former president of Cheju National University. In this dialogue, we are exploring the prospects for furthering friendship between Japan and the Korean Peninsula.
Building peace in Asia requires creating multilayered networks of friendship and trust among all the peoples of the region—it cannot be led by one country but must include all. By its nature, this is a time- and effort-intensive project.
Among the activities slated for this year is the Japan-China-Republic of Korea Young Leaders Exchange Program. I believe that it would be valuable to encourage this kind of exchange throughout Asia, in order to provide more opportunities for members of the rising generation, in particular for young women, to establish bonds of friendship that transcend national boundaries. For example, as a parallel event to the annual ASEAN+3 summit, various exchanges could be organized at which participants would have the opportunity to deepen their understanding of each others’ culture and history. Likewise, meetings with the national leaders participating in the summit could be organized, offering the top leaders of each country a chance to hear the directly expressed views of the region’s young women. The Soka Gakkai in Japan is planning to hold an exhibition entitled “Women and the Culture of Peace” at venues throughout Japan. It is my hope that this exhibition will provide the opportunity to deepen understanding among the women of different Asian countries.
Another proposal I would like to make is for a joint research project that will build the foundations for a shared understanding of history in Asia. Last year there was again controversy surrounding the view of history presented in Japanese textbooks. Since the 1980s, there have been repeated instances in which the way the Japanese understand history and the gap between these views and those of other Asian countries have given rise to tensions.
The impact is not limited to diplomatic relations; there is even greater cause for concern when we consider the longterm influence of the historical perspectives absorbed by children. In his 1997 book On History, Eric Hobsbawm warned of the danger of separating any historical event from its larger human context. “Historians, however microcosmic, must be for universalism … because it is the necessary condition for understanding the history of humanity, including that of any special section of humanity” (277).
Europe, where two world wars started in the last century, has in recent years seen a variety of bilateral and multilateral dialogues on history education. In 1992, an Illustrated History of Europe, jointly edited by historians from twelve European countries, was published (Delouche). While the content of the book appears to have both supporters and detractors, I believe that there is great significance in this effort to transcend a single-country perspective and discover a more universal view of history. I urge that a similar undertaking be attempted within Asia.
Advancing to expand dialogue
To examine the past with humility and honesty is to earnestly confront the future. The cumulative impact of a dialogue-centered effort to create the foundations for a shared sense of history is indispensable to the future prospects for peace—in Asia, of course, but also in the entire world.
Dialogue, trust and collaboration rooted in humanitarian competition, a competition in self-mastery—this is the basis on which a global society can be built, a global civilization for the twenty-first century.
In his book, Soka kyoikugaku taikei (The Pedagogy of Value-creating Education), Soka Gakkai founder Tsunesaburo Makiguchi called for a fundamental transformation in the way people live their lives. Decrying a passive, dependent way of life, and declaring even an active, independent way of life to be insufficient, what he called for was a consciously interactive, interdependent mode of existence (184–86). Such a way of life is centered on what we would now call empowerment, in particular the empowerment of others through instilling confidence, offering them the gifts of hope and courage. This is a value-creating and contributive way of life dedicated to realizing happiness, both for oneself and for others. This way of life, taking root among countless individuals, has the power to transform communities and indeed change the entire world, moving the tide of history in a truly creative and peaceful direction.
This year, under the theme of expanding dialogue, the members of the SGI reaffirm our determination to pursue the humanism of the Middle Way, building human solidarity as responsible citizens of our respective societies, in order to create a world of peace and harmonious coexistence.
List of Works Consulted
BOOKS
Camus, Albert. The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt. Trans. Anthony Bower. New York: Vintage-Random House, 1991.
Delouche, Frederic, ed. The Illustrated History of Europe: A Unique Portrait of Europe’s Common History. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1993.
Eckermann, Johann Peter. Conversations of Goethe with Eckermann. Trans. John Oxenford. Ed. J. K. Moorhead. London & Toronto: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.; New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1930.
Fukuzawa, Yukichi. An Outline of a Theory of Civilization. Trans. David A. Dilworth and G. Cameron Hurst. Tokyo: Sophia University, 1973.
Hobsbawm, Eric. On History. New York: The New Press, 1997.
Honda, Akira, Shigeichi Kure, Teinosuke Tanabe, Yoshiaki Tomihara and Toshiro Ueda. Seiyo koji monogatari [Stories and Fables of the West]. Tokyo: Kawadeshoboshinsha, 1958. See also: Afer, Publius Terentius. Heauton-timorumenos. Act 1, Scene 1.
Hori, Nichiko, ed. Nichiren Daishonin gosho zenshu [Complete Works of Nichiren Daishonin]. Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 1952. See also: Nichiren. The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin. Trans. and ed. Gosho Translation Committee. Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 1999.
Ikeda, Daisaku. “Nayami sakezu taido ayumo” [Advance on the Great Path without Fearing Difficulty]. Ikeda kaicho koenshu [President Ikeda Lecture Collection, Vol. 5]. Tokyo: Seikyo Shimbunsha, 1975. 178–95.
——. “The Age of Soft Power”. A New Humanism-The University Addresses of Daisaku Ikeda. New York,Tokyo: Weatherhill, 1995.
Jaspers, Karl. The Question of German Guilt. Trans. E. B. Ashton. New York: Capricorn Books, 1961.
Jung, Carl. The Undiscovered Self. Civilization in Transition. 2nd ed. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. New York: Mentor Books, 1959. 245–305.
Kobayashi, Hideo. Kobayashi Hideo zenshu [Collected Works of Hideo Kobayashi]. Vol. 7. Tokyo: Seikosha, 2001. Lenin V. I. “Leo Tolstoy as the Mirror of the Russian Revolution.” Collected Works. Trans. and ed. Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Isaacs. Vol. 15. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1963.
Makiguchi, Tsunesaburo. Jinsei chirigaku [The Geography of Human Life]. Makiguchi Tsunesaburo zenshu [Complete Works of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi]. Vol. 2. Tokyo: Daisan Bummeisha, 1996.
——. Soka kyoikugaku taikei [Pedagogy of Value-creating Education]. Makiguchi Tsunesaburo zenshu [Complete Works of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi]. Vol. 5. Tokyo: Daisan Bummeisha, 1997.
Martí, José. Obras completas de José Martí [Complete Works of José Martí]. 25 Vols. Havana: Editorial Nacional de Cuba, 1963–65.
Mori, Arimasa. Kigi wa hikari o abite [Trees Bathing in Light]. Tokyo: Chikumashobo, 1972. McCullough, Helen Craig, trans. The Tale of the Heike. California: Stanford University Press, 1988.
Ortega y Gasset, José. The Revolt of the Masses. Authorized trans. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1960. Toynbee, Arnold J. The World and the West. London: Oxford University Press, 1953.
Vitier, Cintio, and Daisaku Ikeda. Karibu no taiyo, seigi no uta; Kyuba no shito Hose Maruti o kataru [The Sun of the Caribbean, Songs of Justice: Dialogue on José Martí, the Apostle of Cuba]. Tokyo: Ushio Shuppansha, 2001.
PERIODICALS AND OTHER MEDIA
Cho, Moon-Boo and Daisaku Ikeda. “Heiwa to kyoiku no takara no hashi” [The Bejeweled Bridge of Peace and Education]. Todai 1 Oct.+, 2001. This is a monthly education magazine.
“Heiwa no seiki wa kizukeruka. Nobel heiwasho jushosha ni kiku” [Can We Create a Century of Peace? Interviewing the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates]. Nihon Hoso Kyokai TV. Tokyo. 31 Dec. 2001.
Kissinger, Henry. “Power balance transcended, not ended.” The Daily Yomiuri 7 Dec. 2001.
Rotblat, Joseph. Letter. Times 15 Sep. 2001. <http://www.pugwash.org/september11/letter–rotblat.htm>. Sadovnichy,Victor Antonovich and Daisaku Ikeda. “Niju-isseiki o mitsumete—daigaku to shakai” [Focus on the Twenty-first Century—Dialogue on Society and the University]. Ushio 1 Nov. 2001.
——. Address. UN General Assembly. New York, UN Headquarters. 1 Oct. 2001.
European Parliament and the Council. Directive on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. DIRECTIVE 2001/77/EC. 27 Sep. 2001.
Khatami, Seyed Mohammad. Speech. 30th Session of UNESCO’s General Conference. UNESCO Headquarters, Paris. 29 Oct. 1999.
United Nations. “2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.” Final Document. NPT/CONF.2000/28. New York, 24 Apr.-19 May 2000. <http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/finaldoc.html>.
——. “Measures to eliminate international terrorism.” Report of the Sixth Committee. A/56/593. 27 Nov. 2001. See also: Summaries of the work of the Sixth Committee. 19 Feb. 2002. Agenda item 166. <http://www.un.org/law/cod/sixth/56/summary.htm>.
——. “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict” and “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.” A/RES/54/263. New York, 25 May 2000. See also: <http://www.unicef.org/crc/oppro.htm>.
——. “Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.” <http://www.un.org/law/icc/index.html>. See also: “Establishment of the International Criminal Court.” A/Res/55/155. 19 Jan. 2001.
——. “Statement by Boutros Boutros-Ghali.” Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. A.CONF.151/26. Rio de Janeiro: 28 Sep. 1992. <http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-4.htm>.
——. “Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination and the convening of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.” Resolution adopted by the General Assembly.
BRC. “Earth Charter.” <http://www.brc21.org/earth.html>. Founded in 1993, BRC serves as a conference center, publisher and forum for dialogue on topics such as nonviolence, human rights, economic justice and environmental ethics.
Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research. Based in Tokyo and Honolulu. Founded in 1996, it brings together peace researchers, policy makers, media and community leaders focused on such issues as peace, sustainable development, human rights and global governance. <http://www.toda.org/>.
