DISCOURSE: SOCIAL ECOLOGY.......A NEW MORALITY.
COMMUNITIES IN CONFLICT
JULY 2010
in honour of Kim Phuc, and Nick Ut.
www.kimfoundation.com
In 2010, it remains a shock to be confronted with the extent of the communities in conflict across the globe. It seems
that it is easier to fight than to talk.
We have to consider that 'Communities' in practice can be problematic. There is overwhelming evidence that
families, villagers, tribes, nations, over time have asserted their social bonds and loyalties to establish their
common rights and claims against others. Human tribes throughout time seem to have taken delight in attacking,
mutilating, enslaving, torturing their neighbours. One such act is captured by Nick Ut's photo above, revealing
children trying to cope with napalm burns by tearing off their clothes.
How we think of ourselves, our family, and local communities, varies from culture to culture. But often the members
of local families and communities closely identify with each other in opposition to what are perceived as other ‘alien’
communities. ‘Tribes’ come into existence. All individuals within the tribe are encouraged to act and interact for the
benefit of the tribe: it is the loyalty and responsibility of each member to foster the interests of the tribe, and to take
action against other tribes. Problems develop when these feelings of interdependence are limited to your ‘tribe’ so
that all other groups are seen as outsiders, as 'foreigners', and conflicts follow.
I have to accept that many notions of ‘community’, interdependence, social bonds, social networks are
problematic. They do lead to conflicts between different communities. It is clear that different communities and
tribes and sects across the world are determined to settle old scores and to claim rights and privileges, as well as
land, from each other. It is of little significance that they may live in the same town, region, country, and have done
so for decades, even centuries: as for example, in Israel,Palestine, Ireland, Iraq, Nepal, China, Somalia, Ethiopia,
Uganda. The situation in Haiti, January 2010, under the lens of the world's media, reveals that even in cases of
catastrophe, following the earthquake on January 12, distressed local communities spend time in conflict, attacking
each other, looting and rioting as well as working together to rescue each other; and Aid workers from 'old enemies'
such as the USA and France and Dominica, are suspected of trying to take over, or take advantage in such times of
distress.
The economic and financial analyses of global societies have revealed that today the world is controlled by an elite
of multi-millionaires and that most societies across the globe are subject to gross inequalities, and individuals are
self interested. Richard Wilkinson of the Equality Trust, and Toby Quantrill of Fairtrade, argue that
inequality drives status competition, and the pressure to consume. Inequality makes money even more important
socially as a marker of rank and self worth. Their researches indicate that community life is weaker in unequal
societies --- people distrust each other; are more violent; more self interested, out for themselves,less concerned
with the public good. It is proposed by the Equality Trust that these behaviours render unequal societies self-
perpetuating! Whereas to achieve sustainability, more equal societies are needed. People are required to act for
the social good as never before. More equal societies are public-spirited, and recycle more; and are more
concerned that their governments comply with international environmental agreements. Further, more equal rich
countries give more to foreign aid, and act for peace. These proposals indicate that a social ecology, according to
which we measure and counteract the impacts of human communities upon their societies, and natural
environments, will lead us to a new morality.
It is time to adopt a more inclusive and equal way of thinking and behaving: to think and act globally as well as
locally. Of course, achieving all of this is easier said than done. Whilst it is easy to identify with your family and
neighbors, history tells us that it is difficult to have the same feelings about everyone in the world. It is easier to
think locally, than to act globally. What is more, given that an elite minority control all the riches of the world, they
may not want to act for the social good, without a struggle. But if we are to have 'communities at peace', our
concept of community must be global as well as local. For example, if you are living in a relatively prosperous
community, living on $80 a day, you should not be surprised when migrants, living on $1 a day, from absolutely poor
communities begin to move and settle amongst you. This is happening on a larger scale - In the USA, in Arizona
many families are coming from Mexico; in the UK, thousands of farm workers and families are moving into East
Anglia, the West Midlands, from Poland; in the EU, migrants from Pakistan, Ethiopia, Sudan, Albania are moving
overland to settle.
These migrations have led to increasing claims about national identity, the identification of illegal immigrants, and
demands for stricter laws and police enforcement. These demands, too often, have become linked with assertions
that these immigrants are criminals, and disrupt societies. In Greece, any disruption of local societies such as rising
crime is blamed on the Albanians, the Pakistanis, and the Africans.
If we are to have 'communities at peace', there is no substitute for international cooperation between homelands
and home communities: local and global. It is clear that many families are migrating from Mexico in to Arizona, or via
Arizona to other states. But does this make them all 'illegals'? Most of these families will be looking for a better life. It
is important for the various authorities and communities to talk to each other, and welcome each other - not
persecute nor harass, as has happened in the past in countries where the term 'immigrant' was a term of abuse.
Gareth Evans, recently President of the International Crisis Group [www.crisisgroup.org.]
called for Conflict Prevention in February 2007.He wants to promote the need to think and act globally, and the
collective responsibility for protection. He identified ten key lessons.
Lesson 1. Conflict prevention effort does make a difference.
Lesson 2: The Best Way to Stop Wars is Not to Start Them
Lesson 3. Conflict is cyclical: the trick is to stop the wheel turning.
One of the things we now understand most clearly about conflict is that the countries and regions most likely to
lapse into it are those that have been there before
Lesson 4. One size analysis doesn’t fit all: every conflict is different.
To understand how to prevent - and resolve - conflict it is necessary to understand what causes it, and one of the
products of the much enhanced focus on conflict prevention is much more academic and institutional analysis than
we have ever had before on what generates conflict.
Lesson 5. Conflict prevention requires complex strategies: one-dimensional fixes rarely work
Lesson 6. Conflict prevention requires effective institutional structures.
Lesson 7. Conflict prevention requires application of resources.
Lesson 8: recognize that there is no substitute for cooperative internationalism.
Lesson 9. Conflict prevention requires the mobilization of political will.
This is the bottom line in just about every area of public policy: unless the relevant decision makers, at the national
or international level, want something to happen it won’t.
Lesson 10: recognize there is no substitute for leadership
Of all the lessons we have learned about conflict prevention the need for good leadership is probably the single
most obvious and the single most important. But it remains the hardest of all to get right. And maybe at the end of
the day, the responsibility for getting it right – in voting democracies like ours at least – is something that we cannot
pretend belongs to anyone but ourselves as ordinary, individual citizens.
If these lessons are to be applied, I suggest, that other lessons have to be learnt. We must all accept that we are
interdependent. We must learn that international cooperation is possible, and essential. We must learn that all
humans are capable of resolving differences by talk, not by killing each other. We must learn that what happened in
the past cannot be used as a justification for war today. We must learn that the past provides history, language,
culture, which is to be celebrated as part of a multicultural society: unity in diversity.
CrisisWatch N°83, 1 July 2010
Four actual or potential conflict situations around the world deteriorated and none improved in June 2010,
according to the new issue of the International Crisis Group's monthly bulletin CrisisWatch, released today.
In Kyrgyzstan large-scale violence between ethnic Kyrgyz and Uzbeks tore through the south of the country. Over
200 people have been officially reported killed and hundreds of thousands displaced by the fighting, the immediate
spark for which is not yet clear. The country's provisional government was unable to control the situation and failed
in its efforts to secure an international military intervention.
An uneasy calm has now descended over the area and the 27 June constitutional referendum was conducted
peacefully. However, there remains significant potential for the violence to reignite unless effective security
measures and a reconciliation process are promptly put in place.
Turkey's Kurdish PKK insurgents intensified their attacks in the country after calling off their 14-month unilateral
ceasefire in early June. The violence reached its peak in the middle of the month when at least 40 soldiers and
militants were killed in clashes in the country's south-east. The Turkish military responded with a land and air
offensive against PKK bases in northern Iraq. The renewed clashes highlight the faltering of Prime Minister
Erdogan's Kurdish "opening" policy and represent a significant deterioration in the government's relations with the
Kurdish population.
In Burundi presidential elections took place amid escalating violence, with several people killed in a series of
grenade attacks and shootings over the month. Opposition candidates boycotted the poll and labelled the re-
election of President Nkurunziza - with over 90 per cent of the vote - a sham. With the opposition also set to boycott
parliamentary polls scheduled for late July, growing tensions risk endangering Burundi's fragile democracy and
undermining progress made since the end of the country's brutal civil war.
June also saw rising tensions in neighbouring Rwanda ahead of presidential elections planned for August. The
government denies involvement in recent attacks on high-profile critics, including the shooting of a former army
chief in South Africa and the murder of a journalist in Kigali. But the events point to an atmosphere of repression
that appears to have deepened in recent months.
June 2010 TRENDS
Deteriorated Situations
Burundi, Kyrgyzstan, Rwanda, Turkey
Improved Situations
-
Unchanged Situations
Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Armenia/Turkey, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Basque Country (Spain), Belarus, Bolivia,
Bosnia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chechnya (Russia), Colombia, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-
Bissau, Haiti, India (non-Kashmir), Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories, Kashmir,
Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Lebanon, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mauritania, Moldova, Morocco, Myanmar/Burma,
Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan), Nepal, Nigeria, North Caucasus (non-Chechnya), Northern Ireland, North Korea,
Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Serbia, Somalia, Somaliland, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-
Leste, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe
July 2010 Trends
Conflict Risk Alerts
-
Conflict Resolution Opportunity
-
Kalmyk citizens in Russia [www.EarthAction.com]
"Is the world paying any attention to the hate-crimes in Russia against non-Slavic peoples, even those who
are Russian citizens?"
I have not seen any news in the American press about the recent murders of Kalymk people
(Citizens of Russia from the Kalmyk republic in the south).
On April 21st, Kalmyk young people bravely began acts of civil disobedience to tell the world what is happening.
Andrey Boskhomdzhiev is a Russian Kalmyk, a graduate student in Massachusetts, and follows the news from
home as well as from official Russian websites. The most recent murder of a Kalmyk young man, Dolgan Nikeev,
has been acknowledged by the government on its website in Russian.
In the recent series of attacks, Russian Nazis celebrated Hitler’s birthday with a crime spree. According to
Russian news sources, several people were killed in the attacks on April 20 2010. Among them was Dolgan Nikeev,
a Russian citizen, a Kalmyk 22-year old student at Moscow University. He was stabbed to death and his Kalmyk
friend was also seriously injured. The other person wounded was an Arab who was attacked by 10 people with
knives. He is in critical condition. Earlier Russian news acknowledged one more case, the murder of a 16 year old
Kalmyk, a first-year college student in Moscow. He was stabbed by Russian nationalists on January 12, 2009.
Although it is not the first case of attacks on Kalmyks, the official news has admitted and issued statements to the
press only for two cases (other one on March 23 2008 when 24 -year Kalmyk girl was stabbed to death in
Moscow). Other cases were never published or admitted, among them the murder of my cousin on the Moscow
subway in 2007. There is a high increase in racism in Russia lately. You can contact me, Andrey
Boskhomdzhiev, for more information at this email: aboskhom@larp.umass.edu
CIVIL WAR
Three Case Studies of Civil disorder
Civil War involves communities in conflict in the same country. Such conflicts do not occur at random, but are the
result of historical factors, some of which may go back several hundred years. This does not mean that the civil
wars between the communities go on all the time: Far from it.
………… Barbara Walter, a scholar at the University of California at San
Diego, has a different take.
"The argument you usually read is that these people just hate each
other," says Walter, a political scientist. "That is an easy and
intuitive argument to make, but I actually think it is wrong."
When you look at civil wars closely, Walter says, what you find is that
the adversaries have actually spent the vast majority of their history
not fighting one another. Violence is the exception, not the norm.
This turns the puzzle on its head -- instead of asking why adversaries
in civil wars do not reach peaceful settlements, it makes more sense to
ask what makes them fight.
Northern Ireland: the plantation of Ulster
Studies of civil conflict seem to differ as to the significance of ‘history’ as a factor in civil wars. Northern Ireland is
an example of a civil war whose roots go back several hundred years to the conquest of Ireland by the English
during the 16th century. Elizabeth 1, in particular, did not want Ireland to become a base for the Spanish nor the
French. Ulster was a province of Ireland, where families and tribes had been most resistant to armed conquest by
the English. So in 1601, when the Earls of Ulster were defeated and fled, the English crown, first under Elizabeth,
and then James 1, in 1607, dispossessed the Irish Catholic farmers and land owners, and ‘planted’ on their lands
Protestant and Presbyterian families from England and Scotland. Such actions were intended to bring peace to the
province, but in fact set up the animosities between English, Scots, and Irish; Catholic, Protestant [Anglican], and
Presbyterian; and landowners and farmers; and later, the Unionists, the Loyalists, and the Nationalists; that were
the basis of the ‘Troubles’ after 1921:[It is forgotten that there had been troubles in Ireland for many decades, while
Ireland was occupied by the English/British until 1921.There had been many Anglo-Irish wars, conflicts, skirmishes.]
The Anglo-Irish peace treaty of 1921 recognised the rights of the Catholic majority to set up the Irish Free State with
its own parliament; and the rights of the Protestant majority to set up Northern Ireland as a self governing province
with it’s own parliament. Given the history of Northern Ireland, the British government was obliged to protect the
Unionist, protestant majority. But, at the same time, there was a Catholic, nationalist minority,in the province, who
were hoping for liberation and union with the Catholic majority of the Irish Free State, Eire. Such a nationalist
minority was not interested in the rights of the Protestant communities, and focused on campaigns for unity with
Ireland and the 'Brits Out'!
'The Troubles' consisted of about 30 years of repeated acts of intense violence between the communities of
Northern Ireland: nationalist community (principally Roman Catholic] and unionist community (principally
Protestant.] The conflict was caused by the disputed status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom and the
domination of the minority nationalist community, and discrimination against them, by the unionist majority, with the
support of the British Army. The violence was characterised by the armed campaigns of paramilitary groups
including the Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign of 1969–1997, which was aimed at the end of British rule
in Northern Ireland and the creation of a new,"all-Ireland", Irish Republic; and the Ulster Volunteer Force, formed in
May 1966 in response to the perceived erosion of both the British character and unionist domination of Northern
Ireland. The state security forces — the British Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary — were also involved in the
violence. The British government's point of view was that its forces were neutral in the conflict, trying to uphold law
and order in Northern Ireland, and the right of the people of Northern Ireland to democratic self-determination. Irish
republicans , however, regarded the state forces as "combatants in the conflict, using collusion between the state
forces and the loyalist paramilitaries as proof of this.
[The "Ballast" investigation by the Police Ombudsman in 2000 did confirm that British forces, and,in particular, the
RUC, did collude with loyalist paramilitaries; were involved in murder; and did obstruct the course of justice].
Although the extent to which such collusion occurred is still hotly disputed, with Unionists claiming that reports of
collusion are either false or highly exaggerated and that there were also instances of collusion between the
authorities in the Republic of Ireland and Republican paramilitaries.[http://wikipedia.org]
As the years passed, republicans came to place increasing emphasis on diplomacy rather than the weapons of war.
In the early phases of the conflict, foreigners provided guns; in the latter stages, foreigners, such as Martti
Ahtisaari, and the former ANC secretary general Cyril Ramaphosa, helped in the arms decommissioning process. In
1997 an Independent International Commission on Decommissioning was established. The first acts of
decommissioning took place by the Loyalist Volunteer Force in December 1998:and later, by the Ulster Volunteer
Force and the Red Hand Commando in June 2009. The Ulster Defence Association,UDA, has until January 2010 -
reminding us that for some groups, the 'troubles' are not yet over. January 6th. 2010. The UDA have declared the
decommissioning of their weapons. The IICD has confirmed. The UDA had declared a ceasefire in 1994. During the
Troubles, the UDA and the Ulster Freedom Fighters were notorious for their complicity with the British Army and the
Royal Ulster Constabulary. It has taken 16 years to decommission their weapons! February 9th 2010 is the final day
for decommissioning. February 8th........Irish National Liberation Army handed in their weapons.
Martti Ahtisaari was one of a group of international figures drafted into Belfast along with former US Senator George
Mitchell, who was despatched by President Bill Clinton to provide a broader dimension. Mr Clinton, originally reviled
in the UK for giving a US visa to Gerry Adams, came to be viewed as much more even-handed, establishing
relations with both republicans and Unionists as he acknowledged the complexities of the problem. Mr Mitchell
himself had problems with one of the leaders of the Protestants, the Rev Ian Paisley - remembering how he was
shocked and made extremely uncomfortable by the noisy commotions the loyalist leader could cause. "I was
accustomed to rough and tumble political debate," Mr Mitchell related. "But I'd never experienced anything like this."
After years of exhaustive talks, Mr Mitchell's chairmanship produced the landmark 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a
breakthrough widely viewed as demonstrating the value of outside involvement.
The Troubles were brought to an uneasy end by a peace process which included the declaration of ceasefires by
most paramilitary organisations and the promise to completely decommission their weapons, and the reform of the
police and the corresponding withdrawal of Army troops from the streets and from sensitive border areas such as
South Armagh and Fermanagh as agreed by the signatories to the Belfast Agreement (commonly known as the
"Good Friday Agreement]. This reiterated the long-held British position, which had never before been fully
acknowledged by successive Irish governments, that Northern Ireland will remain within the United Kingdom until a
majority votes otherwise. On the other hand, the British Government recognised for the first time, as part of the
agreement, the so-called, "Irish dimension": the principle that the people of Ireland as a whole, have the right,
without any outside interference, to solve the issues between North and South by mutual consent. The latter
statement was key to winning support for the agreement from nationalists and republicans. It also established a
devolved power-sharing government within Northern Ireland (which had been suspended from 14 October 2002
until 8 May 2007), where the government must consist of both unionist and nationalist parties.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The.Troubles /2007].This government is currently taking the final steps to secure
devolution, with the enactment of the Justice Bill, Dec 2009, according to which the administration of Justice and
policing will take place in Belfast, not Westminster. It would be foolish not to recognise that many citizens of Northern
Ireland remain 'uncertain' about the Justice Bill. Ironically, the passage of this bill has been jeopardised not by acts
of terrorism, but by the consequences of disagreements concerning the 'parades' and the timing of the
implementation of the Justice Bill. Peter Robinson has stepped down from his role as First Minister, which has
effectively put the Justice and policing legislation 'on hold' !
Uncovering the ‘root causes of conflict’ is no straightforward matter. David Trimble notes the interdependence of
the two communities in Northern Ireland stating that peace can only be obtained when violence ceases:
“But both communities must leave it behind, because both created it. Each thought it had good reason to fear the
other. As Namier says, the irrational is not necessarily unreasonable. Ulster Unionists, fearful of being isolated on
the island, built a solid house, but it was a cold house for catholics. And northern nationalists, although they had a
roof over their heads, seemed to us as if they meant to burn the house down. None of us are entirely innocent “.
http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1998/trimble-lecture.html
May 2007 witnessed the Rev. Ian Paisley, and Gerry Adams – talking together, agreeing, and signing a declaration
of agreement to work together to share power and re-open Stormont. Once an IRA commander, Mr McGuinness's
career took a highly dramatic turn when in 2008 he and the Rev.Ian Paisley took office together at the head of an
historic new Belfast administration. The fact that they did so was regarded as astonishing; so too was the way they
found, right from the start, of working together in the most affable manner. As Mr McGuinness put it : "In the course
of the last three months there hasn't been an angry word between us."…settlement by talking after 400
years.
But January 23rd. 2010 has been marked by a breakdown : the debates about the Justice Bill have been
interrupted between the catholics and the protestants. The Justice Bill is the final step in the process of devolution -
the maintenance of law and order. It is intended that Catholics and Protestants work together as police officers and
lawyers and judges. However, it is becoming clear that Nationalists, like Adams and McGuinness, while insisting on
the devolution of Justice to Belfast, are increasingly nervous about these systems being operated in conjunction
with the Unionists, like Peter Robinson. And vice-versa. Acts of terrorism continue. The Unionists observe Catholic
police officers shot by Catholic militants! January 27th: The breakdown is so serious, that the prime ministers of
England and Ireland have stepped in to lead the talks.
We have to note that the objectives of the fervent nationalist minority, primarily unity with Ireland, are as far away as
ever, and will continue to inspire rebellion and revolt. The Ulster Unionists still want union with the UK. Peace
requires compromise and debate and recognition of the circumstances of 'today' not yesterday. The Good Friday
agreement is being challenged. It is significant that on February 5th a deal was agreed. After 14 days of
negotiation, the devolution of justice and policing to Belfast will take place on April 12th 2010... Settlement by
talking.
The transfer of justice and police powers took place on April 12. But the transfer was welcomed by a bomb
explosion set off by the REAL IRA, to attack the MI5 headquarters in County Down. There is now the prospect that
Catholic terrorist groups will target their assaults at Catholic government groups! Senior police officers believe
rival factions in the Real IRA and Continuity IRA have increased co-operation and stepped up recruitment. Not only
have the numbers involved in dissident groups increased, so too has the level of technical skills and co-operation.
Senior police sources told the BBC, April 23 2010, that there is evidence of increasing communication and co-
operation between dissident factions, working together on logistics, weapons, planning and carrying out attacks,
and that has increased the threat they pose. Dissidents have carried out 10 attacks this year, but the police have
prevented many more potential attacks.
The MI5 attack also demonstrated improved technical ability that is causing concern in security circles. Security
sources believe dissident bomb makers in the border area have now perfected their techniques after a period of
research and development, and are supplying other dissidents with "ready to use packages". Police sources
describe the south Armagh and north Louth area as the "crucible" of dissident republican bomb making. There is
not a centralised "engineering department" like the Provisional IRA operated during the troubles, and the police
don't know how many bomb makers are involved. The threat is now regarded as the most severe since a Real IRA
bombing campaign in 1997-1998, when 29 people were killed in the attack in Omagh in August 1998.
The threat against individual police officers also remains high. The vast majority of the 50 or so dissident
"operations" disrupted this year involved plans for attacks on officers, and dissidents are said to be increasingly
targeting officers on duty in a bid to make it impossible for them to operate on the streets in some areas. April 23: a
bomb exploded outside the police station in Newtownhamilton. We have to confront the complexities of community
politics: the Nationalists fighting/bombing each other!
The transfer of justice and police powers were tested, July 11 2010.
Marches and Parades during the week of the Twelth 2010 led to violence and riots, and reconciliation!
The 'Twelfth' is the annual high-point of the Protestant Order's parading calendar. The marches commemorate
Prince William of Orange's 1690 Battle of the Boyne victory over Catholic King James II. Power sharing has been
based on settlement by talking. But it has not stopped the different communities demanding their rights to
commemorate their history by marches and parades
About 200 people threw petrol bombs, stones and bottles at police during trouble in Belfast. Three police officers
were shot during violence in north Belfast on the eve of the annual Twelfth parades. A total of 27 officers were
injured during disturbances - 14 in the New Lodge area of north Belfast and 13 at Broadway in west Belfast. The
BBC reported that trouble began at about 2345 BST on Sunday, July 11th. 2010. Police used water cannon and
fired baton rounds at the nationalist rioters. During the rioting, at least one car was hijacked and set alight.
It happened as police formed lines to separate those in the nationalist Broadway area from people attending
traditional loyalist eleventh night bonfires on the nearby Donegall Road. The trouble in the New Lodge in north
Belfast was described as "sustained". There was also sustained rioting in the Broadway area last weekend. The
police said that trouble had been "orchestrated", with Sinn Fein blaming dissident republicans.
NI Justice Minister David Ford, recently appointed as the final step of the power sharing settlement, said the
violence must not be allowed to undermine political progress. Two Men have been arrested by police investigating a
shooting in which three police officers were shot in north Belfast on 12 July.
Hundreds demand end to Ardoyne riots. On the 15th July hundreds of people attended a protest in the
Ardoyne area of north Belfast over the recent rioting. They were demanding an end to the violence which began on
Monday 12th July and broke out again on the next two nights. There have been four consecutive nights of rioting in
north Belfast. The Ardoyne demonstrators wanted reconciliation and peace!
UK: Bradford, West Yorkshire.
1950-1970: Immigrants from India and
Pakistan and Bangladesh
A colleague, Dr. Connie Marsh, remembers the
arrival of large groups of men from Pakistan and
Bangladesh among the predominantly white working
class communities of Bradford in West Yorkshire
during the 1950’s and 1960’s. ‘My own father was
the beneficiary of the new influx of manual labour
which enabled him to maintain the production of the
textile mill he managed. It was a sharp learning curve
for him, as it was for us all, with no knowledge of the
culture, religion and language of these new workers.
He struggled to deal with the different customs, yet
was acutely aware of the necessity for their labour.
This first influx of migrants came alone. Men cast adrift in an alien environment without the support of the women on
whom they had relied for most domestic tasks. Stories of their attempts to deal with the practicalities of their new life
spread rapidly throughout the neighborhoods. Rumors that they ‘ate cat food’, used one bed in rotation as those
working night shifts vacated it for the day shift, and that ‘they would capture young girls to sell them into slavery’,
fuelled mistrust and fear of the unknown and the different.
Any notions of integration were not on anyone’s agenda. It was recognised that the newcomers were there for their
economic advantages ensuring the survival of their families at ‘home’. It was not recognised that they were part of
the rescue of the Yorkshire textile industries. The traditional Yorkshire communities did not find tolerance and
acceptance of difference an easy prospect. The lines between the different ‘tribes’ were clearly drawn and were not
to be crossed!
As the years passed both communities inevitably changed and began to accommodate each other to some extent.
As the workers established themselves, they were able to bring their families to join them. The arrival of women and
children made a large impact on the situation. Children from the different communities met each other in school;
mothers met each other at the school gate, in the local clinics, hospitals and play groups. The ‘threat’ of large
groups of single men subsided as families presented different kinds of challenges.
As the newcomers settled into their new environment they learned how to survive, buying businesses, working long
hours, sharing resources and support within their communities. They also learned how to use the National Health
Service and the Department of Social Security. Their expectation of equal treatment turned into the reality of racism,
discrimination and disadvantage. The local white communities did not consider these South Asians as the saviours
of the textile industry, more as a burden on ‘their’ welfare system.’
The people from Pakistan and Bangladesh came during the 1950’s-1960’s. The period of greatest dislocation would
have been during this time. For over 50 years, the 'white' and the 'black' communities have lived apart, in all
senses. Their social relations tempered by racism. The time of riot and violence has not been until recently,
between settled communities. The growth of the British National Party and the National Front and Combat 18 in
Bradford, Oldham, and Burnley has epitomized the fascist and racist ideologies present in the local communities.
underpinning the politics of conflict.
It was not until 2001 that violence openly erupted on the streets of Bradford. These events indicate that, as in
Northern Ireland, when different communities feel threatened, they will react accordingly. In Bradford, in the district
of Manningham, there lived a large number of families whose origins were from Pakistan and Bangladesh and
Northern India: including Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus. The locals refer to it as ‘Bradistan’. This population consists of
the original migrants, all Colonial British citizens, and their families and grandchildren. The children and
grandchildren are British by birth, fluent English speakers, and had been educated and trained in Bradford. Many of
them are determined to fight discrimination, and this includes facing up to the National Front and the British National
Party, and Combat 18, and the local police forces, when they act as agents of racism!
THE BRADFORD 'RIOT' OF 2001: A PRELIMINARY
ANALYSIS
Paul Bagguley and Yasmin Hussain,
University of Leeds, 2003
'It was all rumours': views of why the 'riots' happened.
The Bradford 'riot' over the weekend of 7th-8th July was
reputedly the worst on mainland Britain for twenty years.
On the night of 9th July, there was a riot involving 200
Whites in Bradford. An Indian takeaway, and a Pizza
takeaway also owned by a South Asian family were
attacked. These were widely seen as 'reprisals' for the
weekend’s 'riot'.
(YEP 10.7.01.)
The original disturbances in Bradford started in the city centre in mid-afternoon after an anti-racist demonstration
against a proposed NF rally, which the Home Secretary had already banned. Police cornered a group of anti-racist
demonstrators at Centenary Square. Some recognised NF members appeared but did not attempt to march.
Violence started after a group of White youths, suspected NF members, made racially abusive
comments, and attacked a 21-year-old Asian man (this was only reported in some newspapers) (DE 9.7.01, YP.
9.7.01).
There were other relevant background factors in the Bradford outbreak. The city’s annual multi-cultural festival was
due to reach its culmination that Saturday, but the mere threat or suspicion that the NF might turn up despite the
ban prompted festival organisers to cancel the closing day's festivities. In response, anti-fascist groups including
Bradford trades union council and the Anti-Nazi League leafleted Friday night's Centenary Square concert inviting
the multiracial crowd to a peaceful gathering in the same place next day. To underline the peaceful intent,
participants were even encouraged to turn up in fancy dress or carnival costumes (and some did). The Saturday
crowd in the square was about 40 to 50 per cent White, included a small proportion of African-Caribbean’s, but
mainly South Asians. The latter group included Sikhs and Hindus, community elders and young women, but most
were men. This is important, as when the 'riot' developed, and the crowd was moved on, it changed composition
into being almost entirely South Asian men.
Police, including dog handlers and mounted officers, effectively sealed off one side of the square and began forcing
the crowd out of the city centre uphill in the general direction of Manningham. The stone throwing towards the
police broke out in the Sunbridge road area and from late afternoon 'rioting' was well under way.
However, most people we have interviewed, including eye-witnesses felt there was more substance to the rumours,
and they located the immediate cause of the riot around certain events in the city centre. In particular some pointed
out the need for the community to defend itself in the light of the recent events in Oldham:
… it was to do with the National Front march and I think they were allowed permission to march through Bradford
and I think the Anti-Nazi Group, they objected to it and held a demonstration down in Centenary Square and I think it
was both sided really. There was word that there was some National Front members, because the march was
cancelled or shouldn’t have been allowed or wouldn’t have been allowed, some of them were already in Bradford in
pubs etc. (Zahida Ali, 31)
Right, well it was all to do with the march that, err, the Nazi movement wanted to do and I think was most people they
were scared of what happened in Oldham because they were all in suburban areas and they attacked people in
their homes and so I think everyone was scared and they wanted to defend themselves. But what they did they
didn’t go the right way about it but I think the intentions at the beginning weren’t bad.
They were just trying to defend themselves of what happened in Oldham so it shouldn’t have really happened, but I
think that is why it happened. The march of the NF group. (Kamran Ahmad (age 19) and Omar Akhbar (age 20))
I think that week there were rumours that the National Front were coming to Bradford and I think all that week youth
workers were talking of holding this kind of meeting, in the centre of town in Centenary Square. (Alisah Khaleeq, 38)
Well there talk of the National Front coming down and so all the Asians got to together to fight them off basically and
not let them take over. (Ibrar Khan, 18)
In substance the 'riots' were more ethnically homogenous. In Bradford on 7th of July 2001 what started as a multi-
ethnic event became almost entirely an event involving Pakistani men. What the riots are expressing are new modes
of 'racialisation' (Miles, 1989) on the one hand and new ethnic identities on the other. The old racialisation of
Britain's ethnic minorities, crudely put, saw African-Caribbeans as 'having problems', whilst South Asian's 'have
culture'. The new racialisation is rapidly pathologising the South Asian communities of northern England. Discourses
of gang-culture, forced marriages, drug abuse, inter-generational conflict, resistance to integrating and speaking
English and being Muslim are all routinely mobilised to explain away racism and justify dubious policies. Post
September 11th they have increasingly been constructed as the new 'Enemy Within'. In contrast to how others see
them, second and third generation South Asians, as we have seen from our interviews, are constructing new
identities, differentiating themselves from their parents, yet continuing to be Muslim/Pakistani/Kashmiri and British.
Lord Hattersley - who was also a Labour shadow home secretary - told BBC Radio 4's World at One Programme
that the causes of crime, in this case, were "alienation and deprivation".
"These young Muslim men ... believe they are being neglected, they believe they are being ignored," he said.
"They believe their legitimate claims are not being heard, they believe that the economic opportunities that the rest
of society enjoys are not being provided for them."
The race report [2001] commissioned to investigate the unrest, on the other hand, says: “The current Bradford
scenario is one in which many white people feel that their needs are neglected because they regard the minority
ethnic communities as being prioritised for more favourable public assistance; some people assert that the Muslims,
in particular the Pakistanis, get everything at their expense.”
The report also goes on to speak of “racism and ‘Islamaphobia’... resulting in harassment, discrimination and
exclusion.”
Thus all communities, in and around Manningham, feel that they are at a disadvantage and blame the other for that
situation. The polarization of communities heightens the tribal responses which lead to conflict. Over time as long as
tribal divisions are the norm, misunderstanding and conflict will follow. In Bradford ironically the various communities
had as much in common, as differences. For example, they were all working class, labouring in the woollen and
steel industries on poor wages. They were all living in sub standard houses. They could have cooperated to resolve
their differences and to further the economic development of the area rather than attack each other. The recent
disturbances between local communities in the area are not about the original immigration but about social
injustices as perceived by these communities and stirred up by local political parties of the right and the left.
The migrants were needed by the UK economy to maintain production, they needed to come to the UK because of
the economic disparities between the first and ‘third’ world. They were working in jobs which British workers were
refusing to take. The establishment of social justice calls for inclusion of all these elements in any judgment of
‘fairness’.
Similarly the white British working class communities have long been exploited by employers. Educational and social
opportunities are not fairly distributed. All communities suffer in different ways from such inequities and it is these
inequities which need to be changed.
Fiji: A Paradise in conflict!
Community conflict often arises in the face of lack of access
to political power, and the minority will take action against a
domineering majority. Fiji is a democratic country which has
been riddled with political conflict, rooted in the mistrust of one
community of another. It is an example,also, of a country where
democracy, representation and voting are not seen as
securing the rights of the citizens.
Dr. Connie Marsh worked for a number of years in Fiji. She
reports of tensions,conflict, and coups. Fiji is set in the South
Pacific, and is viewed as a tourist paradise. It is made up of
322 islands, the largest of which are Viti Levu, and Vanua Levu.
The main town is Suva on Viti Levu. Fiji receives 500,000 visitors a year, to add to its own population of 900,000.
Tourism is a major industry. One would think that ‘peace and tranquility’ was essential to
the prosperity of such a tourist paradise. But the government has been subject to four military coups since 1987!
two in 1987;one in 2000; and another in 2006-07.
Fiji volunteered to be a British colony in 1874. It was granted independence in 1970, under the crown.
It declared itself a Republic in 1987. Since then there has been continual community conflict between the native
Fijians and the Indian Fijians. The roots of this conflict can be traced to British colonialism, ironically in this instance
attempting to adopt a more ‘liberal’ policy. Fiji seceded to Britain voluntarily in 1874. Britain accepted on condition
that Fiji governed itself and financed itself. This arrangement meant that the Governor Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon
had to find ways for Fiji to make money. The development of Sugar plantations provided such an opportunity. In an
effort to avoid the exploitation and difficulties caused in other British controlled countries, however, Gordon
attempted to safeguard the rights of Fijians by making it unlawful for Fijian land to be sold and arranged for workers
to be imported from India. In 1876 the British Colonial Office organized the shipment of workers from India on an
indenture system. This required workers to work on the sugar plantations for five years. They would then be able
either to remain in Fiji or to return to India at the expense of the British Government. Needless to say the conditions
for such indentured workers were appalling. Indeed it is difficult to see the difference between their situation and
that of slavery. Workers were paid little and lived together in cramped, unhygienic and primitive conditions, any
hopes they may have had of saving money and supporting families in India were soon dashed. After the 5 years of
indenture, workers were given a certificate of residence but the promised return passage was delayed for a further
five years following the end of the indenture.
The development of the Indian community in Fiji could be seen as a graphic illustration of the benefits of hard work,
education and diligence. Against tremendous odds Fijian Indians managed to gain relative economic and political
power under British rule, until the coups following the declaration of a Republic in 1987 when the rifts between the
Fijian and Indian communities erupted into violence. The two military coups in 1987 triggered major emigration of
Indian families out of Fiji, following the expulsion of all Indian members of Parliament and the Government.
Long-standing economic and political tensions between the native Fijian majority (51% of population), and the
Indian minority (44%) came to a head again on May 19, 2000, when a small group of armed men stormed Fiji’s
parliament and took ethnic-Indian Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, elected in 1999, and 30 members of his
cabinet, hostage. The coup leader, businessman George Speight, declared himself interim prime minister and
demanded the ousting of the president and the removal of the 1997 Constitution, which had allowed ethnic Indians
to hold the post of Prime Minister. The military, led by Commodore Frank Bainimarama, declared martial law on May
29, obtained the resignation of President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara and scrapped the 1997 Constitution. Speight
claims to be the voice of native Fijians, whose traditional monopoly on land ownership was seen to be threatened by
land reform measures supported by Chaudhry. There was some looting of Indian-owned shops and beating of
Indians in the days after the coup. The standoff between the two contingents continued and the United States,
Australia, and New Zealand have all threatened sanctions, and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed
concern and sent his Special Envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello, to the island. 2001 saw new elections and a new
government.
In 2005, amid much controversy, the Qarase government proposed a Reconciliation and Unity Commission with
power to recommend compensation for victims of the 2000 coup, and amnesty for its perpetrators. However, the
military strongly opposed this bill,especially the army's commander, Frank Bainimarama. He agreed with detractors
who said that it was a sham to grant amnesty to supporters of the present government who played roles in the coup.
His attack on the legislation, which continued unremittingly throughout May and into June and July, further strained
his already tense relationship with the government. In late November 2006 and early December 2006, Bainimarama
was instrumental in the 2006 Fijian coup d'état. Bainimarama handed down a list of demands to Qarase after a bill
was put forward to parliament, part of which would have offered pardons to participants in the 2000 coup attempt.
He gave Qarase an ultimatum date of 4 December to accede to these demands or to resign from his post. Qarase
adamantly refused to either concede or resign and on 5 December , President Ratu Josefa Iloilo, was said to have
signed a legal order dissolving Parliament after meeting with Bainimarama.
On January 4 2007 , the military announced that it was restoring executive power to President Iloilo, who made a
broadcast endorsing the actions of the military. The next day, Iloilo named Bainimarama as the interim Prime
Minister, indicating that the Military was still effectively in control.
This government was declared illegal by the Fiji Court of Appeal on April 9th. 2009. Bainimarama was
ordered by the Court to give up power to President Iloilo, leaving the way clear for new elections. The order
was obeyed, effectively leaving Fiji without a government. Bainimarama assumed his role as the leader of
the military! But on April 10th he was declared Prime Minister again by President Iloilo. The Pacific Island
Forum of 16 nations demanded that Fiji call elections by May 1 2009. Fiji's refusal has led to their exclusion from
the Forum, and their exclusion from all development grants.
It has been reported that on July 22, the government of prime minister Bainimarama has moved against the leaders
of the Methodist Church in Fiji, arresting them all. At the same time the police have arrested groups of freemasons
for witchcraft. Since April, President Iloilo and his prime minister have suspended the constitution, detained
opponents [ or at least those that are perceived as opponents], and suppressed freedom of speech.
In September 2009, the Commonwealth of Nations [a group of 53 British former colonies, dependencies, and
territories] suspended Fiji on the grounds of the rejection of democracy, and the refusal to hold elections. Fiji will be
excluded from all activities of the Commonwealth.
On November 3 2009 the prime minister took retaliatory action - banning the envoys of New Zealand and Australia,
after these governments had blocked Fiji's invitation to invite lawyers from Sri Lanka to adjudicate in the courts.
Press curtailed
There is likely to be little, if any, public dissent against the country's new order, but under emergency measures
military censors have moved in to stop the press publishing stories that could cause "disorder" or "promote
disaffection or public alarm."
Sweeping new media controls announced by the military government of Fiji in April 2010 have drawn
howls of protest from international media groups.
The decree provides for five-year jail sentences for journalists, heavy fines, and limits to foreign media ownership.
Editors of the Fiji Times and other journalists have been expelled repeatedly since Commodore Frank Bainimarama
took power in a 2006 coup.
The draft decree allows for government officers to enter news rooms and media offices to seize any documentation,
materials or equipment, even where no formal complaint has been laid.
In New Zealand, the Newspaper Publishers' Association chief executive and NZ Media Freedom Committee
secretary Tim Pankhurst said the new media decree is aimed at totally muzzling an already repressed media.
"Soldiers overseeing the media is a characteristic of a dictatorship," Mr Pankhurst said.
Fiji Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum said all media outlets must pledge allegiance to Fiji. He said the decree -
announced on Wednesday and now subject to three days of compulsory consultations - would establish a media
code of standards in ethics and practice.
Who benefits?
Both communities see themselves as victims and each side documents the disadvantages they face compared with
the other group. The consequence has been the virtual collapse of the main industry on the island – tourism. The
rise in unemployment and poverty has developed into a situation in which there are no winners, everyone loses.
The beautiful island ‘paradise’ suffers from rising crime rates, residents lock themselves behind iron gates, fences
and burglar-proof bars. Attempts at constitutional change flounder on the burden of racist ideologies – Fijians
proclaim their right to keep ‘Fiji for the Fijians”, Fijian Indians are seen as outsiders and migrants. Yet this is now the
third and fourth generations to be born, live and die in Fiji. Many have little or no actual contact with India apart, of
course, from their language, culture and identity.
The need which Fijian Indians feel to retain their difference prevents them from recognizing any value in the Fijian
culture. Similarly ethnic Fijians are so busy fighting to retain their own difference that they lose the opportunity to
benefit from the Indian influence. If ethnic Fijians and Fijian Indians recognize their interdependence, the
differences between the groups could become assets upon which both communities could build. It could lead them
to recognize that although they may not like each other, they are nevertheless totally interdependent. They have
lived together for many generations and their coexistence informs their whole way of life. In Fiji there was political
democracy. Yet there is also widespread discrimination which generated a political coup and continuing feelings of
discontent. There is poverty in Fiji and a lack of educational opportunities which severely curtails the freedom of
many to escape their disadvantage. Ethnic divisions impacted on the political unrest between natives and Indians
who have now lived in Fiji for many generations. The link between levels of poverty and levels of freedom is
particularly clear when subsistence and survival are problematic, individual choices are inevitably limited. The illegal
military government of Fiji has not resolved the situation, which is now worse with all development aid being
stopped by the Pacific Island Forum.
[for analysis of other conflicts, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel: go to www.crisisgroup.org/home ]
The extent of communities in conflict indicate
The significance of colonialism in disrupting the native peoples;
The persistence of racial/sectarian prejudices from one generation to another, and the politics of
racism and sectarianism;
The separatism of communities, whereby they do not share power, nor communicate on neighbourhood
matters; they only defend themselves against attack and maintain prejudices;
that communities dream that others go away, or had never come, and that they live in 'times past';
If you are one of ‘us’ you are worthy and to be protected; if you are one of ‘them’, you are worthless and
to be killed;
The links between deprivation and discrimination, which lead communities to blame each other for their
disadvantages, rather than seek to resolve them together;
The roles of security forces in heightening civil disorder;
That violence resolves nothing, heightens animosity, perpetuates demands for revenge;
The importance of ‘third parties’ to initiate and promote ‘talk’.
The most vicious conflicts are resolved,sooner or later, by 'talk' not by the 'gun'.
HOW TO KEEP THE PEACE?
A NEW MORALITY
Social ecology and social freedom, dependence and interdependence, are about humans living at peace with
others and their environments. The issues are about how to keep the peace? How to keep talking? How to negotiate
about the future, not the past? Some of the key players in this quest have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
What do they think are the conditions for ‘living in peace’?
John Hume, leader of social democracy in Northern Ireland, pointed out that:
All conflict is about difference, whether the difference is race,religion or nationality The European visionaries
decided that difference is not a threat, difference is natural. Difference is the essence of humanity. Difference is an
accident of birth and it should therefore never be the source of hatred or conflict. The answer to difference is
to respect it. Therein lies a most fundamental principle of peace - respect for diversity.
Mikhail Gorbachev, once President of the USSR, reminded us of ancient definitions of peace:
"peace" as a "commune" - the traditional cell of Russian peasant life. I saw in that definition the people's profound
understanding of peace as harmony, concord, mutual help, and cooperation. This understanding is embodied in the
canons of world religions and in the works of philosophers from antiquity to our time? Let me add another one to
them. Peace "propagates wealth and justice, which constitute the prosperity of nations;" a peace which is "just a
respite from wars ...is not worthy of the name;" peace implies "general counsel". ? Today, peace means the ascent
from simple coexistence to cooperation and common creativity among countries and nations.
Peace is movement towards ‘globality’ and universality of civilization. Peace is not unity in similarity but unity in
diversity, in the comparison and conciliation of differences.
Dalai Lama, a religious leader, also emphasized the commonality of the human condition:
I believe all suffering is caused by ignorance. People inflict pain on others in the selfish pursuit of their happiness or
satisfaction. Yet true happiness comes from a sense of inner peace and cultivation of altruism, of love and
compassion and elimination of ignorance, selfishness and greed. We need to cultivate a universal responsibility for
one another and the planet we share. Although I have found my own Buddhist religion helpful in generating love and
compassion, even for those we consider our enemies, I am convinced that everyone can develop a good heart and
a sense of universal responsibility with or without religion.
Aung San Sui Kyi, a political leader in Burma, also emphasized the need to recognize our interdependence:-
"To live the full life, one must have the courage to bear the responsibility of the needs of others; one must want to
bear this responsibility."
These peace-makers all emphasize the central elements of a peaceful world which encapsulate many of the
elements of ‘social ecology’ and ‘social freedom’ that we are working to define:
The need to recognize the interdependence of all,
The need for everyone to be free in order for anyone to be free
The need to accept diversity, and be aware of similarities.
These leaders are emphasising the necessity to think and act globally. It is not good enough to bond with your
family and tribe for this can lead to individualism, tribalism, sectarianism, nationalism, and constant conflict.
The concepts of social ecology and social freedom require us to think and act for global communities: human,
animal, and plant. We may think ‘local’, but we must act ‘global’. We have to acknowledge that changes on the other
side of the world have impacts on our locality.
For example,
Changes in climate are expected to have major negative consequences in certain parts of the world. Some societies
are likely to see significant drops in food production, with increased temperatures possibly accelerating grain
sterility, shifts in rainfall patterns accelerating erosion and desertification and rendering land infertile, sea-level
increases and flows inundating farmlands and disrupting fish populations, and extreme weather events disturbing
agricultural processes. Water scarcity also may increase with shifts in rainfall, while disease may spread with
increased temperatures.[www.crisisgroup.org]
There is unsurprising consensus that climate change will have disproportionately harmful socio-economic effects on
developing countries, even though they have contributed to it least.[www.ipcc.ch – the intergovernmental panel on
climate change at the United Nations.
Developing countries are particularly vulnerable because of their tropical geography; their high birth rates, heavy
dependence on agriculture and rapid urbanisation; and their weak infrastructures and lack of resources. The Stern
report and other studies have suggested that climate-induced scarcities – of food, water and health – will increase
poverty, affect migration patterns and potentially lead to or exacerbate deadly conflict.[www.hm-treasury.gov.uk]
It is clear that there is a need to re-think our attitudes towards our global environment. But we must also alter our
ideas about profit and poverty. Anthony Browne in an article in the New Statesman Aug 2002 states that:
"The World Summit on Sustainable Development…is the culmination of a new theory sweeping charities, national
governments, the UN., and at least the press releases of the World Bank: fighting poverty and saving the
environment are in fact the same battle… the summit is about how we can reduce poverty and save nature at the
same time. This theory is not just that it is desirable to do both at the same time…but rather that you have to do
both at the same time, that you can’t do one without the other. It turns the old theory of trade-offs between
development and the environment on its head; they are now part of the same bargain."
The discourse of social ecology implies a new morality. The evidence presented about communities in conflict
reveals that we are not talking about how people act now. We are talking about how they should act in the future. All
of this is implicit in the ‘Green movement’. Such aims are pursued by the Peace movement as expressed by the
‘Seeds of Peace’; by conflict prevention agencies such as Crisis Group, Amnesty International, Human Rights
Watch, and the United Nations; by development groups such as Greenpeace, Oxfam.
It involves a revolution in our mind set and cultural filters.
The opening address of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in the summer of 2002
by Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa, eloquently summarized the nature of the changes needed if we are
to achieve sustainability. He stated that
"a global human society….characterized by islands of wealth, surrounded by a sea of poverty is unsustainable.
…for the first time in human history, society has the capacity, the knowledge and the resources to eradicate
poverty" (http://www.un.org/events/wssd/statements/openingsaE.htm)
He called for a ‘seed’ change in our attitudes.
"We do not accept that human society should be constructed on the basis of the savage principle of the survival of
the fittest." (http://www.un.org/events/wssd/statements/openingsaE.htm)
The demands that such interdependence places on individuals, communities and societies should form the basis of
family socialization, of the school curriculum, of religious teachings, political pronouncements and inform media
reactions to events. These demands are for
tolerance of difference,
appreciation of the advantages of cultural and linguistic diversity,
respect for the rights and property of others,
responsibility for contributing to communal economic and social well-being.
In my view, this underlines the significance of a ‘multi-cultural’ approach. There is no point in seeking the uniformity
of communities nor the ideology of a national identity. There is point in promoting the diversity of communities, and
getting to know and understand each other by dialogue and social and cultural exchange.
It is the emphasis on the reality of our interdependence which needs recognition. It is a social fact. Denial of such
reality is the root cause of the conflict we have witnessed in so many different parts of the world which has brought
communities and individuals into opposition with each other. It is clear that the allocation of resources throughout
the world is unfair. There is injustice, inequality and disadvantage. Social freedom requires that we all address
those issues together rather than focusing on our differences in opposition to other groups.
I accept that the delusion of individuality and difference is deep within our socialization, education and philosophies
and were previously emphasised by the scientific paradigm, emphasizing the separateness of individual human
beings within which the boundaries of ‘self’ and ‘others’ are clearly fixed.
The next phase of the development of our understanding of our world contained in the quantum revolution will
change this emphasis to one in which the boundaries are less clear and the interdependence of our universe will
become more and more apparent: that we are particles and waves.
How naïve to believe that ‘I’ am independent of ‘others’, and dependent on others to work for me, to clean me and
my house, to look after me , to give me their monies, so as to keep ‘me’ well and prosperous! This is the ethic of the
slave master; of the capitalist. This is not ‘social freedom’, it is ‘social slavery’.
send comments to hmr@kelvynrichards.com
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
