Oct 13, 2016




"The Biafran Humanitarian Crisis."

A new book by my former PhD student. Dr Arua Omaka (now lecturer at Federal University, Ndufu Alike, Ikwo, Nigeria).

The Nigeria-Biafra War been described as one of the most significant global humanitarian crisis in the post-Second World War era. Little has been written about this crisis. It has largely been forgotten even as the world deals with comparable humanitarian crisis in Syria and other parts of the world.

Dr. Omaka offers an engaging account in his book. A must-read for anyone interested in African studies and Global Peace and Conflicts studies.

Revisiting Biafra: War and Humanitarian Crisis

Sep 17, 2016

What is the future of human rights? My hope is that as the world becomes more sensitive to human rights violations, we will see less and less of the most extreme and egregious abuses and violations of the past centuries – mass atrocities such as genocide, massacres and ethnic cleansing.

But that will not mean that the struggles for human rights will be easier or less urgent. Human rights are not just about violations but also about the legacies of violations. Human rights are intrinsically tied to questions of social justice and binding inclusive communities. So, the future of human rights that I see is one in which history and our understanding of the past will pay a much bigger role. Where we will have to pay as much attention to the legacies of past violations as we do to active violations.


The Future of Human Rights

Jun 7, 2016

Speaking on the topic: "Truth, Justice and Reconciliation: Re-imagining Human Rights in Post-Conflict Peacebuilding" at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Lund, Sweden
Truth, Justice and Reconciliation: Re-imagining Human Right in Post-Conflict Peacebuilding

Abstract
There is an assumed tension between human rights and peacebuilding. Although human rights advocates and conflict resolution specialists share the common aim of building stable societies based on the rule of law, they often disagree on method. Conflict resolvers are characterized as willing to compromise rights and ignore abuses in order to secure political agreement. Human rights advocates, on the other hand, are seen as idealistic and uncompromising in seeking redress for violations, even at the cost of prolonging conflict and human suffering. This tension between the principles of human rights and the pragmatics of peacebuilding is most evident in the work of national Truth and Reconciliation Commissions established in post-conflict societies. Since the establishment of the South African TRC in 1994, there has been a proliferation of TRCs as a mechanism of transitional justice. Charged with uncovering the truth about abuses, providing justice to victims and fostering national reconciliation, most TRCs have taken up human rights and peacebuilding tasks. How have TRCs sought to balance their human rights and peacebuilding mandates? Focusing on the work of TRCs in four post-conflict countries – South Africa, Rwanda, Peru and Morocco - this paper explores the relationship between human rights, justice and national reconciliation. It makes the case for a pragmatic yet principled model of Truth and Reconciliation that integrates human rights and conflict-prevention strategies.


Public Talk: Truth, Justice and Reconciliation

May 17, 2016

No Development in Africa without Positive Impact on Ordinary People

Keynote talk at the 2016 Covenant University-International Conference on African Development Issues (CU-ICADI) held at the African Leadership Development Centre on the university campus at Ota, Nigeria.


Africa would not be said to have developed if the indices of development do not reflect a positive change in the life of the ordinary people, a Professor of Global Human Rights and Peace Studies at McMaster University, Canada, Professor Bonny Ibhawoh, has said.
He made this assertion while discussing the speech of the Keynote Speaker, Professor Joy Ogwu, on the opening day of the 2016 Covenant University-International Conference on African Development Issues (CU-ICADI) held at the African Leadership Development Centre on the university campus at Ota, Ogun State.

Ibhawoh, who highlighted the key points raised by Ogwu as Collective Responsibility, Sustainable Development, Continuity in Government, Corruption, Nexus between Security and Development and Inclusive Development, said “the fundamental definition of development is the objective improvement on the life of the ordinary people. Until the kind of growth we see in this country (and Africa) reflects the definition of development I think things will continue to remain the same”.

Acknowledging that, by all measurable standards the Nigerian economy has grown in the past few years and even surpassed that of South Africa as the largest economy in Africa, Ibhawoh, who is also Associate Vice-President (Research) at McMaster University, emphasized on sustainable development.

The key question to ask, according to him, is how far does development brings succour to the ordinary people. “Until we can answer that question in the affirmative, I think all this talk about inclusivity is a ruse, and this is buttressed by what the former President of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere, said, that the African poor cannot eat the GDP (Gross Domestic Product),” he said.

In collective responsibility, he averred, lies the prosperity of Nigeria and indeed all African countries, while echoing Ogwu’s assertion that African people must fashion out indigenous and organic responses to the challenge of development in Africa.

“When I came into the campus, I was told that earlier in the day (Sunday) some 50 to 60, 000 people had been on this campus for a church service, and I wondered how come it is so calm, so clean there is no garbage in the streets, everything has been taken care of. I was told that much of the cleaning of this campus is done by the people themselves, people who clean and tidy up because they share a sense of collective responsibility.

“And that got me thinking; imagine if that same sense of collective responsibility were replicated at the national level; that everyone is able to contribute a little bit; if I cannot pay a thousand naira as tithe, I will sweep the street; if I cannot pay a thousand naira as taxes, I will do my little part in my community. I think that is a development model we should follow,” said Ibhawoh.

On continuity in government, Ibhawoh said it is crucial to national development as African nations cannot continue to take one step forward and three steps backward, adding that one cannot build a scaffold on the foundation of discontinuity.

“There has to be parameters for progress,” he said. “The concept of prebendalism is the most analytical attempt to dissect the endemic problem of corruption in Africa. The same Nigerian that embezzles states funds wouldn’t do that as secretary of a community association; those funds are considered sacred.

“We talk about government building roads, building bridges, whereas the emphasis in the United States is on tax payers building infrastructures, it is about people having responsibility in their own governance.”

Ibhawoh, who expressed concern that African nations do not pay enough attention to security, stressed the need for countries to give priority to security on their development agenda since there is a nexus between development and security.

McMaster University, he revealed, has a Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies and what the Centre does is to proactively think about building peace in the society, such that even before conflicts erupt there are measures put in place to arrest potential conflicts.

He said: “In our country (Nigeria), it seems just as we are dealing with one conflict another one erupts; the Niger Delta militants, Boko Haram or farmers and herders. My thinking is that rather than respond to these security issues when they erupt, why don’t we create a body that acts proactively, a gathering of lawyers, scientists, thinking about peace retention, and peace resolution.

“In South Africa at the end of apartheid, one of the things former President Nelson Mandela got right is that he put in place the Truth and Reconciliation Commission because he realized that unless the conflicts caused by apartheid are dealt with in a peaceful manner the country won’t move forward.”

Speaking on the issue of gender equality and inclusive development, Ibhawoh urged African nations to involve women in governance, politics and business because in the words of Nyerere, “No person can run on one foot”.

An African nation that does not empower its women, he said, is like a football team going to a competition with six players when everybody has his first 11. He cited Rwanda as example of an African nation that realizes the importance of women in nation building.

“In Rwanda, 60 per cent of the Rwanda legislatures are women. Rwanda ranks higher than the United States, higher than Denmark, higher than Canada in women participation in the legislature, which is what I call progress,” he said.

Ibhawoh, in conclusion, reiterated that “nobody can write our script for us, we Africans must find solutions to our challenges”.

No Development in Africa without Positive Impact on Ordinary People

Apr 21, 2016



In the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report for 2015, an annual ranking of the world's most equal countries for men and women, the small African country, Rwanda, ranked 6th globally, ahead of the United states, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany and Denmark.

Rwanda has been described as “the best place to be a women in Africa.” Women constitute 63 percent of the membership of the Rwandan parliament. That means that there are more women than men involved in the legislative process. I would add that it is one of the best places to be a woman anywhere in the world.

How did Rwanda manage to rank so highly? After the horrific genocide of 1999 that devastated and traumatized the country, the Rwandan government put in place a comprehensive set of laws to promote women’s participation in the political, social and economic life of the country. This was seen as critical to the process of national reconstruction and healing. The laws enacted have facilitated women’s participation in local politics, given women the right to inherit land, share the assets of a marriage and obtain credit. As many girls as boys receive primary and secondary education, maternal mortality is lower and the birth rate is falling.

This achievement is the result of a comprehensive program of national reconciliation and re-integration put in place after the genocide. It included the establishment of a National Unity and Reconciliation Commission whose mandate is to “organize national public debates aimed at promoting reconciliation, foster tolerance and a culture of peace and human rights, and denounce any ideas aimed at disunity."

The Commission is also tasked with educating Rwandese on their rights and the rights of others, draft laws to foster reconciliation and monitor whether authorities and the people in general "respect and observe the policy of national unity and reconciliation." While not all the lofty goals of national reconciliation and human rights protection have been achieved, Rwanda has made significant progress in the key area of empowering its women and girl-children.

The simple lesson here is that empowering women and protecting women’s rights is a matter of commitment and political will, more than anything else. Where there is political will, the familiar arguments of resource limitation and cultural tradition often used as excuse to resist changes aimed at empowering women can be surmounted. That Rwanda, a resource limited and traditionally conservative society, has managed to uplift its women to unprecedented levels, only two decades after genocide, is a valuable lesson for the rest of the world.

Empowering Women and the Nation: Lessons from Rwanda

Mar 22, 2016



Recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Belgium have prompted questions about how ordinary citizens should respond to terrorism. Fear, anger, anxiety? I recently received an e-mail from a former student asking precisely this question. I have posted our redacted exchange below with her permission.

Good evening Dr. Ibhawoh,

My name is XXX and I was part of the ARTSCI 1C06 Inquiry class that you taught last year along with Dr. XXX.

I was recently prompted by a family member to sign an online petition to "Stop resettling 25,000 Syrian refugees in Canada" and was very deeply unsettled upon reading the petition goals and justification. The recent attacks in Paris have also set the internet up in flames and I find myself at a loss as to how to respond rationally to widespread fear, as petitions like this gain over 20 thousand signatures.

I realize this is quite unconventional but I was wondering if you could direct me to any reliable resources/individuals/organizations that might help me try and start to understand the complexity of the refugee crisis? I am quite upset by some of the reactionary actions that people have taken and feel altogether disoriented as to how to proceed to discuss these very important problems.

I would very much appreciate any guidance you can provide.

Sincerely,
XXX

MY RESPONSE

Hello XXX

The terrorist attacks in Paris (and Belgium) are heartbreaking but they are not isolated events. There have also been recent similar mass terrorist attacks in many other counties - Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, the list goes on. Russian and Somalian aircrafts have also been subject to terrorist attacks. Terrorism is a global problem that requires a global solution. How does the world respond to these mindless attacks on civilians? Here is what I think.

First, we should condemn them and stand firmly against all forms of terrorism. In an age of terror, we must also be vigilant and proactive about stopping those who seek to inflict pain and suffering on innocent people in the name of ideology or religion. On this question, there can be no sitting on the fence.

The other instinctive response is to take a hard line against all migrants and refugees from Syria and other conflicted countries. However, it is important to remember that most of these refugees are themselves victims of these atrocities. An estimated 250,000 people have been killed since the start of the Syrian conflict. A vast majority of these have been Muslims who dared to disagree with the extremist Islamist jihadists. Many of them are also women and children who have lost their husbands/fathers in the war.

Refugees from war affected regions must be carefully screened to ensure that those seeking asylum are legitimate refugees and not terrorists trying to sneak in. But we cannot shut the door on everyone who needs help, especially the children. One of the themes we discussed in our Global Challenges class is the fallacy of judging individuals by stereotypes. Rather we should strive to "fracture simplistic binaries."

We need to be careful about who we let in but we cannot and should not turn our backs on legitimate Syrian refugees. Canada has historically been a place of refugees for those fleeing wars and famine such as the Irish, Poles and Ukrainians. We have an obligation to continue with this noble tradition which has saved so many lives in the past and served our nation well.

If you would like to know more about these matters, I would suggest you subscribe to the mailing list of human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch mailing list. AI and HRW have human rights expert and researchers who think through these matters carefully before taking a position.

Best wishes
  
BI

How Should we Respond to Terrorism?

Jan 15, 2016


 

I have been thinking a lot about pacifism lately. In the decades since the anti-war peace movements of the 1960s and 70s, peacemaking has come to be seen as synonymous with absolute pacifism or what some describe as anarchic pacifism. Absolute pacism is the opposition to violence under any circumstance even in defense of self and others. For religious and moral reasons there will always be those who subscribe to absolute pacifism and oppose any form of violence; those who believe that war should never be conducted, even in the justified pursuit of peace. For the absolute pacifists, there can be no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war.

For the absolute pacifists who subscribes to the unconditional rejection of all forms of warfare, there are no just wars; all wars are unjust. This moral position will continue to have a place even in a dangerously conflicted world. When people think about peace movements, they invariably think about absolute pacifists and it becomes easy to dismiss the movement as idealist and utopian, even irrational, offering no real world solutions.

But pacifism covers a spectrum of views. At its most basic level, pacifism is the opposition to war and violence. In a complex and conflicted world such as ours, strategies for peacemaking need not be limited to absolute pacifism. There is a place for pragmatic pacifism.

Many of today’s pacifists are what can be described a pragmatic pacifists who subscribe to Just War theory. Pragmatic pacifists believe that domestic and international disputes can and should be resolved peacefully. If institutions of the military and instruments war must be used, they should be used as a last resort and only in defense of self and others. They reject the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals.

The pragmatic pacifist believes that if the foe is willing to egregiously hurt others, then it is justified to respond with force. True, some believe that those who subscribe to any use of force are really not pacifists at all, but that is a matter for debate.

I would suggest that peacemaking in today’s conflicted world requires a pragmatic pacifism. Within pragmatic pacifism there is room for humanitarian intervention. The foundational premise of the post-Second World war universal human rights regime, drawn from the lessons of the Holocaust, is that we can no longer allow the excuse of state sovereignty to be used to justify gross human rights violations.

No longer can oppressive dictatorships be allowed to massacre their citizens on the perverted argument that posits: “These are our own people, we can do with then whatever we want.” Universal human rights is the right to meddle in the business of other nations. Backed by the provisions of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the emerging doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the international community now has an obligation and the legal framework to intervene to protect victims of gross human rights violations wherever they may be.

Within these international legal frameworks, UN Peacekeeping missions involved in humanitarian interventions in conflict situations have the mandate to stop hostilities, protect civilians, restore order and enforce peace. Only when law, order and security are restored (sometimes through the use of force) can peacebuilding initiatives be put in place.

It is true that the principle of humanitarian intervention can and has been politicized, sometimes used as an pretext in big power politics to undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of less powerful states. But we have also seen military humanitarian intervention put to good use such as the case of NATO intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia Herzegovina in the late 1990s which stopped ethnic cleansing and an impeding genocide.

One of the great tragedies of the Rwandan Genocide was that Roméo Dallaire, the Canadian General who led the UN peacekeeping force in that country on the eve of the genocide could not convince his superiors at the UN secretariat to change the mandate of the force to allow for active military intervention to stop the genocide.

In his compelling and poignant [poin-yant] account of the Genocide, Shake Hands with the Devil, Dellaire points out that it was clear to him and his colleagues in the UN Peacekeeping force that Hutu extremists were making elaborate plans to massacre Tutsi civilians. Prompt and decisive intervention by the international community, some of simple as jamming radios stations broadcasting hate propaganda, may have prevented the genocide and saved thousands of lives. But in that case, as in the Cambodian Genocide two decades earlier, the apathy and indecisiveness of the international community allowed the massacre of a million people.

What are the guarantees that pragmatic pacifism can provide the solutions to conflict in our deeply divided world? Simply, there are no guarantees. But what are the alternatives to peace? The appeal of pragmatic pacifism is that it recognizes that just wars may sometimes be waged in self-defense or the pursuit of peace, and it yet offers the hope of avoiding the scourge and devastation of war.

The US President Ronald Regan, more pragmatist than pacifist himself, faced similar questions when he initiated nuclear disarmament talks with the Soviet Union in the1980s. He was confronted by critics and sceptics who worried that the Soviets could not be trusted to keep their own end of the agreements, and warned that disarmament talks would undermine US security and strategic geopolitical interest. In response, Reagan famously stated: “Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means.” Despite the gloomy predictions of the skeptics, Reagan pushed on with the nuclear disarmament talks, setting the tone for de-escalating US-Soviet tensions and ultimately, ending the Cold War.

It is ironic that a bi-polar Cold War world of superpowers, nuclear proliferation and the threat of mutually assured destruction now seem more stable than a fragmented unipolar world. The end of the Cold War was expected to usher an era of unmitigated world peace.

This clearly has not happened. Angry voices of war and fear have drowned out the voices of hope and peace.

Our conflicted world needs more voices of peace, now more than ever before.

A Case for Pragmatic Pacifism

Nov 15, 2015


In our 24 hour news media circle, it is difficult to escape the stark and often depressing reality that we live in troubled times. One gets the impression that the world is caving it around us. A combination of domestic social disruptions and global political upheavals pose serious threats to the stability of local communities, the integrity of states and a fragile international order.

In the Middle East, the promise of an Arab spring has not only failed to materialize but has, in some countries, ushered a dark age of brutality and human misery. The fall of long standing dictatorships has triggered political instability and upheaval from Libya to Yemen. In Syria, a protracted civil war rages - a situation made worse by the role of extremist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. An estimated 250,000 Syrians (a quarter of a million people) have lost their lives since the start of the conflict.

We must remind ourselves that these are not just numbers. 250,000 lives is about half the entire population of my city, Hamilton. In pondering this figure I am reminded of that quote by Stalin: “The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of millions, a statistic.” It is cynical but also sadly true. At some point, we lose count and the shock value disappear. Lost lives become simply numbers.

The disheartening images of thousands of Syrian refugees streaming into Europe and living under squalid conditions reflect the international repercussions of this conflict. Who can forget the heart-wrenching image of the three-year-old Syrian boy, Aylan Kurdi, whose little body was washed up on a beach in Turkey only a few weeks ago? His family was making a final, desperate attempt to flee the war in Syria to join relatives in Canada. Migration charities say that as many as 20,000 people may have died at sea trying to reach Europe in the last two decades.

In a sign of how troubled the Middle East has become, the Israeli-Palestinian issue, long considered the central peace and security question in the region, seem to have taken a back seat in the face of more urgent and grave threats to regional and global security.

In Ukraine, local identity politics and big-power geo-politics have triggered a civil war that threatens the post-Cold War peace and stability in Eastern Europe. In Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir, Taliban militants continue a long-running insurgency that has resulted in the loss of thousands of lives.

In North Africa, the new nation of South Sudan remains embroiled in conflict and in West Africa, the militant Islamist group Boko Haram has unleashed terror and indiscriminate violence against civilians, including innocent school girls.

In Asia, the nuclear threat posed by North Korea remains unresolved while the territorial ambitions of a resurgent China raises political tensions and new security concerns in the region. From Myanmar and Thailand in Asia to Columbia in South America, states and societies remain embroiled in internal conflicts and militant insurgencies that adversely affect the daily lives of ordinary people.

Even in the relatively stable Western democracies tensions simmer just beneath the surface. In Europe irregular migration of refugees fleeing wars in the Middle East and North Africa has given rise to a resurgent xenophobia and the dawn of new right-wing extremisms. In the United States, the civil rights legacy on Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in his struggle for inclusion and against racial injustices has found new voices in the Black Lives Matters movement.

In Canada, Australia and New Zealand, indigenous people continue to struggle against the legacies of historical marginalization and for socio-economic inclusion. In Canada, the Idle No More Movement and the recently released Report of the Residential School Truth and Reconciliation Commission paint a picture of continued alienation and exclusion of indigenous communities that challenges the country to confront and address a historical injustice perpetrated against some citizens.

It is ironic that a bi-polar Cold War world of superpowers, nuclear proliferation and the threat of mutually assured destruction now seem far more stable than a fragmented unipolar world. The end of the Cold War was expected to usher an era of unmitigated world peace. Now, we know better. Our world remains deeply troubled and conflicted. The quest for global peace remains as relevant today as it was at the height of the Cold War.

Our Troubled and Conflicted World

Nov 14, 2015


The spate of terrorist attacks from Paris to Turkey, Lebanon to Nigeria demands our collective reflection on the price of peace.

The Institute for Economics and Peace, an policy think-tank, issues an annual Global Peace Index (GPI) that uses a variety of indicators to score and rank peacefulness in 162 countries around the world. In its latest report, the Institute stated that while the overall number of wars being waged around the world is declining, the world has become much less peaceful.

In fact, such peacelessness cost the global economy about thirteen hundred dollars ($1,350) per person last year. What is the value of peace? In 2012 the Institute for Economics and Peace estimated that world peace was worth $9.4 trillion. A year later, that number had grown to $9.8 trillion—or 11.3 percent of global GDP (I like to recite these numbers because they get the attention of those bean counters obsessed with quantitative measurements). Numbers and dollars signs also grabs the attention of politicians and policymakers.

So, how exactly do wars and peace decline at the same time? How can we have fewer wars, but less peace? The post-Cold War period has seen a spike in internal conflicts and civil wars, but overall conflicts between nations and state militaries are becoming less frequent. However, global peacefulness has been falling for the past seven years, and over 500 million people currently live in countries at risk for further declines in peacefulness in the short-term. 

This is principally because War is no longer the preserve of national armies and sovereign powers. Non state actors increasing have the capacity to engage in armed conflict thereby reducing overall peacefulness around the world. This takes the form of domestic terrorism, insurgencies, rebellions, revolts and uprisings.

In other words, we have fewer wars and less peace today because conflict has become democratized. It is easier today for non-state actors such as militant insurgent groups with no fixed addresses to unleash wide scale violence than at the height of the Cold War. Today, the weapons of mass destructions are not confined to state armories. They are also in the hands of terrorists, insurgents and unregulated militias who have less qualms about deploying these weapons. 

We need to think of peace not simply in terms of pressuring governments to avoid war but also in terms of good governance, mass education, economic and social reforms to address the alienations and hopelessness that drive so many young people into the hands of crazed Islamist terrorists.

What is the price of Peace?

Nov 13, 2015


Amidst the rise of Nazism in Germany in 1939 and Hitler’s aggressive militarization that foreshadowed the Second World War, Mahatma Gandhi, the pacifist leader of the non-violent movement against British rule in India wrote a letter to Adolf Hitler. It was a short and simple letter, just 12 lines; 126 words in all.

Dear Friend, Friends have been urging me to write to you for the sake of humanity. But I have resisted their request, because of the feeling that any letter from me would be an impertinence. Something tells me that I must not calculate and that I must make my appeal for whatever it may be worth. It is quite clear that you are today the one person in the world who can prevent a war which may reduce humanity to the savage state. Must you pay the price for an object however worthy it may appear to you to be? Will you listen to the appeal of one who has deliberately shunned the method of war, not without considerable success? Any way, I anticipate your forgiveness, if I have erred in writing to you. I remain, Your sincere friend, - Signed - M.K.Gandhi

Later in December 1940 with the outbreak of war, Gandhi sent another slightly longer letter to Hitler. In it, he once again urged Hitler to heed the appeals for peace coming from millions of voices around the world. 

He stated: “We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents. But your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave no room for doubt that many of your acts are monstrous and unbecoming of human dignity… Such are your humiliation of Czechoslovakia, the rape of Poland and the swallowing of Denmark. I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading humanity. Hence we cannot possibly wish success to your arms.” 

Gandhi went on in the letter to explain the philosophy behind his non-violent resistance to British rule in India stating, “We have found in non-violence a force which, if organized, can without doubt match itself against a combination of all the most violent forces in the world.”

Gandhi never received an acknowledgement or reply from Hitler and it is unclear today whether his letters even reached Hitler. Some historians of the period have speculated that senior Nazi officials would have found the letter imprudent and might have been unwilling to pass it on the Fuhrer. Others theorize that Hitler would have been highly offended by Gandhi’s letters and not taken them seriously. Hitler proceeded with his war. World War II would turn out to be the deadliest military conflict in history with over 60 million people killed. 

Students and scholars of peace have long asked: Was Gandhi naïve? Did he really expect this letters to have an impact on Nazism or Hitler’s vision of the Third Reich? Were his letters to Hitler a waste of time? Did they amount to appeasement as some have suggested? 

Hindsight, they say, is 20/20 and half a century later, it is easy to speculate as to what should have been the right course of action. True, Gandhi’s letters were ineffectual. But were they a waste of time? I think not. 

As a leading moral voice of his era, Gandhi felt an obligation to his conscience and the world, to make an appeal for peace irrespective of the odds of success. Ultimately, peacemaking is about pragmatic risk-taking and Gandhi took his risks for the sake of peace. Given the unspeakable horror and brutality of terrorism and war that afflicts many countries today, our world is in depsrate need of a new generation of risk takers for peace. 

A Peacemaker's Appeal: Gandhi's Letter to Hitler

 
GIAZILO © 2015 Templateism.com