DISARMAMENT EDUCATION: A CHALLENGE FOR UNIVERSITIES
L. Eudora Pettigrew, Ph.D.1
Introduction: Values of Militarism Versus the Values of Disarmament Education. The values in militarism include the use of force rather than other solutions to national and international issues, the equation of power with military capabilities, and the superior status of nations with military prowess. Militarism has also been aligned with patriarchy which suggests that violent, aggressive and violent behavior is appropriate and honored by nations. Galtung (1996) suggests that physical violence committed by males is related to sexism. Reardon (1996) suggests that militarism is related to a fear of losing control or a loss of dominance and that such concerns are also related to sexism. The association of militaristic qualities with nationalistic governments is common, and often is associated with a negative view of human nature. Militarized governments have existed for centuries; they have continued to be prominent in many countries in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
On the other hand, disarmament is defined as “the abolition, reduction of military forces and weapons “ (Concord Desk Encyclopedia, 1982). The intent of disarmament is to minimize or reduce the probability of military action or to prevent a defeated military aggressor from acquiring new weaponry, from disturbing the peace, from conducting wars and supporting conflicts between peoples and nation states. An early example of a ban on weapons was promulgated in 1139 by Pope Innocent II who objected to the use of crossbows being used between Christian factions. Proclamations by Popes were, at that time, considered laws for the known Christian world, but the ban by Pope Innocent Ii was not supported by Christian nations; the crossbow, as a major weapon, was continually used by warring Christian nations for three hundred more years, throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, three centuries after the proclamation by Pope Innocent II (Concord Desk Encyclopedia, 1982).
In the twentieth century, international concerns and agreements about the use and/or misuse of weapons have been presented in the Hague Peace Conference in 1907, in the 1925 Geneva Protocol following World War I and in the 1972 UN Convention on the Prohibition and Destruction of Bacteriological Weapons. The intent of the above policies was to focus on the limitation of arms, or on world disarmament or the possibility of increasing efforts to effect arms control (Pettigrew, 2008). Both the United Nations (UN) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESC), have advocated for disarmament, arms control and peace, but the exact opposite effect has occurred. The development and sale of arms are reported to have increased rather than decreased. Kerstin Vignard (1001) states, “At the beginning of a new century, we are facing crises on several disarmament and arms control fronts. Weapons, from small arms to nuclear warheads, seem to be proliferating at increasing rates around the globe.”
There are several issues that have contributed to the increased development and sales of arms on a worldwide basis. They include a lack of adequate inspection policies and procedures, diversification in the design and production of weapons, –different weapon parts have been contracted out to different companies in several countries, making it difficult to trace the total weapon development process, and perhaps most serious, national disagreements with disarmament policies. Perelman (2001) states,
“There are two main sources of opposition to the idea of disarmament. The first is the economic-institutional-structural system that promotes militarism and a belief in the threat or use of violent force as the only way to address conflict; the second is an emotional psychological response to the removal of defenses which renders us vulnerable to enemies. Both are perceived as taking away something valuable without offering a satisfactory replacement. . . .”
Perelman’s thesis attributes the continued development of the multi-billion weapons industry with political goals, with acquisition of natural resource goals, with violence, threats from “enemies” or “terrorists” to a country’s well being, economic as well as political. Disarmament, which is the reduction or removal of weapons which are available for self-defense, is in opposition to the above concepts.
Continued military conflicts in Africa, in southern Asia and in the Middle East have not contributed to realizing the goals of disarmament as promulgated by the UN. Disagreements about the meaning, time, preparation and conduction of disarmament plans within the membership of the UN Security Council, particularly those nations with the most power who are commonly called P-5, –the US, the Soviet Union, the Peoples Republic of China, the United Kingdom and France, –and between nations represented on the Security Council in general, have resulted in a lack of agreements in the United Nations about disarmament worldwide and have, in a negative manner, been supportive of the increased spending for military contracts around the world. For example, from Winter 2001 through Summer 2004, the US military budget increased more than 25 percent–from $310 billion per year to over $420 billion per year. The latter figures include the cost of armaments in the invasion and overthrow of governments, or the military occupation of two nations by the US, –Afghanistan and Iraq (Hartung, 2004). The significant increase in military spending appears to be related to the acquisition or control of natural resources, particularly in less well developed countries, i.e. Africa, and some countries in the Far East. Thus, present day conflict with its accompanying increase in militarism is apparently the result of economic control of the development and expansion of worldwide natural resources. The latter reasons for conflict and militarism are significantly different from earlier conflicts about political ideologies, –democracy vs. communism during the Cold War, or religious, ethnic, linguistic or other reasons for assumptions of sovereignty. Effective peacemaking policies to be developed and approved by the UN are subject to the goals of the dominant countries on the UN Security Council, the P-5. The P-5 can effectively veto any action of the Security Council, because of national interests or goals, making it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve effective solutions to complex world problems.
By 2008, the arms sales agenda had moved forward with an emphasis on provision of small arms to developing countries and the increase in the availability and sale of nuclear fuel to India as well as technology that presumably will allow India to engage in and profit from nuclear trade. It should be noted that India is one of three countries that have not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Under the latter conditions, India is not bound to adhere to nuclear disarmament which may contribute to global concerns about making sure that access to nuclear fuel is only related to countries that adhere to global nonproliferation and disarmament tenets. Thus , the sale of nuclear fuel which is available to power nuclear reactors for energy, could possibly allow India to use its own supplies of uranium to develop military weapons. If such occurs, then the end result could be an arms race between India and its neighbors in southeast Asia. In essence, the effects of war, conflict and violence through the use of weaponry have been and continue to be costly in terms of monies, but are also costly to the human spirit and continued human development. Disarmament education is vital to continued human development.
Issues Pertinent to the Development of Disarmament Education. While world peace continues to be a goal at least verbally, for many people, a lasting and durable world peace requires that the world population receive education designed to unite their common interests and goals and promote creative planning that appreciates, respects and embraces the commonality of all human life. Disarmament education is crucial to the achievement of the above goals.
It is assumed that universities have the best opportunities to provide disarmament education, instruction and research. Universities transmit and disseminate knowledge from one generation to the next, –to their students, their surrounding communities and ultimately to the world. Teaching links the past and the present and can provide the direction for instructional content and scholarly research about disarmament and its relationship to world peace. Prior and continued university research conducted on issues such as education, health, economic development, environmental concerns as well as other issues has often provided directions for planning by political decision making bodies and the leaders of nations. Therefore, it is probable that university research and teaching about the effects of the development and sales of arms in contrast to policies and practices of disarmament can increase knowledge about the continued disastrous impact–political, economic, societal–of the arms race on the world’s population.
Disarmament education, including research and instruction should identify legislative policies that will result in the reduction and eventual elimination of arms development and sales. Disarmament education should focus on behaviors that limit military forces and instead, emphasize peace keeping and diplomacy. Disarmament education requires accurate information about the funding needed from nations’ budgetary resources for the development and eventual cost of weapons in contrast to the budgetary needs of nations’ populace. Disarmament education should also include accurate information about the terms, “enemies”, “rogue nations” and “terrorists” that are sometimes used to stimulate fear and insecurity in people resulting in an increased level of production and sale of weapons. Universities have the obligation, the knowledge–much of the research on the development of weaponry is conducted by university faculty–and the resources to provide disarmament education that may eventually contribute to the reduction of the incidence of war, violence and conflict. The participation of universities in the development of instruction and research on the topics involved in disarmament education is pertinent to the hope for world peace.
Development of Curricula, Research and Instruction for Disarmament Education. Most university academic programs that have been developed about disarmament have been directed towards the concerns about nuclear proliferation. However, it is probable that the continued proliferation of small arms, particularly in developing countries, is the most significant issue for many nations. Since the end of World War II, small arms have been used in more than 150 wars, military actions, invasions, incursions, etc., to massacre more than forty million people, most of them women and children. Destruction of agricultural land and homes, the rapes of women and children have been and continue to be documented in countries such as Rwanda, Sudan, Bosnia, and other locations on the globe. Small arms have been and continue to be the principal weapons used in these wars and conflicts. These military actions have not only destroyed lives, they have also prevented the development of natural resources for economic stability for the residents of the above countries as well as other countries. Civil wars are not the only events that influence the continued production and sale of arms, particularly conventional weapons. Profit making by small arms traders fosters their continued operations as free agents in the sales of arms in regions/countries where there are few, if any, constraints on the production and/or sales of conventional weapons and little, if any enforcement of any laws that may exist on the production and sale of arms. If nations that expend more than ten billion dollars annually for military uses would expend a significant portion of those funds to increase the economic viability of developing countries in the areas of healthcare, education and nutrition, rather than assisting arms producers to continue to provide weapons to opposing groups in those nations, the aggregate of such changes in government policy and practices might decrease the incidence of war, violence and poverty.
With fiscal as well as moral support, universities could possibly become full partners with the United Nations for the development of disarmament education curricula and research devoted to the achievement of world peace. Research and coursework on disarmament as well as on conflict resolution and the achievement of peace, could be directed to prevent conflict. It is much more logical and rational to prevent tensions between and among population groups and/or nation states from escalating into open conflict rather than to wait until war has occurred. Such an approach might have been much more effective in containing the continuing Palestinian/Israeli conflict if, when a large deposit of natural gas was discovered off the Gaza Strip in Palestine and which, if effectively developed for worldwide sales, countries would have provided significant economic development for Palestine and its people. Instead, following the announcement of the discovery of deposits of natural gas, there were no reported attempts made by universities or any other institution, political or otherwise, to begin discussions between the governments of Israel and Palestine about how both countries could benefit from the discovery of these valuable natural resources. Additional information about deposits of natural gas and oil has been reported as existent in Kosovo as well as in Iran. One cannot help but wonder if the continued violence between Israel and Palestine, the threats directed towards Iran and the continued unrest in Kosovo are related to the presence of these valuable energy deposits. The real issues in these conflicts and agreements are probably more related to control of the reported natural energy resources.
There are some issues in institutions of higher education that may prove difficult to overcome in relation to the development of curricula on disarmament. Even if funding is available for the development of disarmament education curricula, there are many problems to be overcome before the institutionalization of such curricula. Change, in general, in institutions of higher education is Byzantine and in academic issues, often glacial. New academic programs of study are almost always viewed with suspicion by the most powerful faculty members at an institution of higher education since the latter faculty members are also usually the most well respected spokespersons for the academic legislative body sometimes called an Academic Senate or Academic Council. New proposed programs are often seen as resulting in the reduction of the amount of resources available for traditional programs; such resources include faculty positions, office space, laboratories, library materials, non-academic staff, classroom space, funds for travel and of course technology which is the fastest growing expense in universities.
To overcome some of the above barriers, it is perhaps best for the development of curriculum and research in the many topics that comprise disarmament education, that tenured and distinguished faculty take on the leadership of fostering such academic programs. They have little to lose by being responsible for what is often considered a risky task–starting new academic programs. Junior faculty who are awaiting the blessing of tenure, promotion and salary increases cannot afford such risks and may be very reluctant to be foremost in the task of adding new coursework/programs or even modules of possibly controversial coursework. Disarmament education may be controversial at a university if research dollars have been received by faculty at the university to develop or test weapons. But it is possible that senior distinguished faculty can foster the development of Centers or Institutes devoted to disarmament education; most often, such units are funded by “soft monies” or grants, and may not always be considered as legitimate academic programs for traditional faculty. A Center or Institute funded with external monies may promote the final development of academic programs in disarmament education as part of the regular curriculum at the university, but the development of such an academic operation should be handled with diplomacy by the university administration which must always be conscious of campus politics as well as political and funding nuances beyond the university setting.
Core Curriculum for Disarmament Education. There are several academic topics which could serve as the core of curriculum or disarmament education; they include worldwide population and the relationship of such to world resources, preventive diplomacy, democratization and ethnic, gender, racial and religious hatreds.
A brief discussion of each of the latter topics is presented below.
A. Population Needs: Population reports in 1999 indicated that the six billionth person had been born in October, probably in Africa or Asia. 2008 population reports indicate that even though overall population growths are declining, the highest birth rates are in developing countries which have the least capability to provide housing, health services, education, jobs and other support systems. In addition, access to safe drinking water, and sanitation is reported to not be available to a significant proportion of the worlds’ population and more than one billion people are unemployed or underemployed and therefore not earning a living wage. Africa has the fastest growing population, but only sixty percent are reported to have access to jobs that provide a living wage. Estimates of world population growth predict a decline in all regions, however birthrates are expected to continue to grow, though at a lesser rate, in Sub-Saharan Africa. If such population growth continues in some world regions, what will have to be eliminated in terms of species and ecosystems to accommodate food production? Will there be a need to eliminate more natural environments so as to increase agricultural production for food sources or to provide more space or housing? What will be the costs in health and education needs? Will inter and intra societal wars, conflicts and violence increase? Will water shortages increase over present levels of available sources of fresh water?