The Need for New Ethics in the 21st Century
By Dr. Oscar Arias
With an Introduction by Cora Weiss, International Representative, Peace Action; Vice President, International Peace Bureau
Both you and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. went to Boston University. Both of you recognized and protested the role that militarism plays in contributing to poverty and preventing peace. And both of you earned the highest accolade the world can pay to a peacemaker, the Nobel Peace Prize.
You both challenged governments that put arms sales above allocations for health and education. You both challenged Washington's war policies. You, Dr. Arias, who believe that "poverty is the enemy of humanity," took on the U.S. for its war policy in Central America.
Following your extraordinary election as president of Costa Rica and upon learning that President Reagan was pressing Congress to approve $100 million to aid the Contras in Nicaragua, you said, "If I were Mr. Reagan, I would give the money to Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Costa Rica for economic aid, not military aid to the Contras."
Under your photo in the yearbook in your first year of law school, it says, "I'm studying to be president." Few people plan so successfully. But Washington, the CIA, and the Republican Party had different plans and were actively supporting your opponent. They didn't know how desperately people wanted peace, and your platform not to let Costa Rica be used as a sanctuary for the Contras and to initiate negotiations to end the region's conflicts in pursuit of peace earned you the presidency and world attention.
You campaigned in support of Costa Rica's welfare state, and the IMF and World Bank raised more than eyebrows. On the eve of the election you declared that, "We were right when we preferred a welfare state to a garrison state." You were pledged to peace, neutrality, and negotiations, and said that the solution to the problems in the area was dialogue.
Now most folks who get prizes, including the Nobel Peace Prize, go home and rest on their laurels.
You don't have to continue to remind us that there are over one-half billion loose weapons being recycled around the world.
You don't have to continue to remind us that assault rifles, hand grenades, pistols, revolvers, carbines — so-called light weapons — are responsible for 90 percent of the casualties the world over.
You don't have to fly from capital to capital, mobilizing Nobel laureates and foreign ministers to support an international code of conduct to restrict the sale of weapons.
But you do continue.
You are the first to say that peace is a process that never ends. We would never have an International Code of Conduct, a case against "the commerce of death," soon to be presented to the United Nations as a convention on the arms trade, if Dr. Arias had not developed a working relationship with other Nobel Peace Prize winners, including civil society organizations around the world.
When Dr. Arias received his Nobel Prize money, he immediately announced the creation of the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress, which has succeeded in securing the constitutional abolition of the Panamanian armed forces and will secure the disbandment of the Haitian army in three years time. They are introducing demilitarization to Africa's agenda for the next century.
There are too few voices of reason in this world, too few people of passion about peace, hardly any moral authorities with a practical vision of peace. Your own country of Costa Rica is a living demonstration that peace is not just desirable, it is profitable.
This is a wonderful opportunity to apply Dr. Arias's principles of de-militarization and peace to three more issues that beg for his attention.
• The expansion of NATO, to be voted by the US Senate in February, creates a new arms market in Eastern and Central Europe worth $35 billion. This misguided creation of a military fortress in Europe needs your attention, everyone's attention.
• Secondly, demilitarization must include dismantling and destruction of nuclear weapons and no designing new ones.
• And finally, we are coming to the end of the bloodiest and most war-filled century in the history of humanity. It is time to launch a century of peace and to put war on the table for de-legitimization.
Wars are no longer soldiers fighting soldiers, states sending armies into battlefields to face other armies. Civilians are casualties of armed conflict. Women are targeted in market places. Rape is a weapon of war, and rapists are treated with impunity.
Dr. Arias, if you hadn't started us on the road to peace, on the demand for demilitarization, we wouldn't be clamoring for the next logical step. Billions will thank you for pointing the way to the abolition of war.
The Need for New Ethics in the 21st Century
It is a great honor to be here today to receive the Global Citizen Award.
I speak before you today as a firm believer in peace and dialogue. When I became President of Costa Rica in 1986, three countries of my region were engulfed in violent conflict. I was determined to put an end to the gunfire that was killing not only combatants, but also hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, so I called upon the other Central American heads of state to come together in a spirit of open dialogue to resolve our problems. What I learned in those intense meetings, my friends, is that dialogue can work miracles.
That is why I established the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress with the proceeds of the Nobel Prize for Peace: to carry out concrete projects that will prevent the resurgence of armed conflict and to educate the world to respect the power of words.
I come from a country that abolished its army in 1948. Since then, Costa Rica has focused on building a democratic welfare state and has achieved levels of human development envied by the rest of Latin America. Following the return of democratic rule to Panama in 1989 and to Haiti in 1994, I encouraged those countries' leaders to consider the benefits of complete demilitarization. Today, Costa Rica and Panama have the safest border in the world, as neither country has an army. Haiti, the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, plagued historically by an oppressive military that has carried out 25 coup d'états since independence, is now an army-less nation. The abolition of national armed forces is a viable option for many countries.
The last ten years have witnessed the independence of many small nations. We must encourage them to build their democracies on the basis of disarmament. I recently visited Slovenia, which gained its independence in 1991 and has a population of under two million. During my visit, President Milan Kucan expressed to me his worries regarding the protection of his country's national security. He is being pressured by the European nations to join NATO. If he chooses not to, he feels that his only other option would be to arm his country. His country has a third option — to declare peace with its neighbors, Italy, Austria, Croatia, and Hungary, with whom Slovenia has traditionally enjoyed good relations. Not only Slovenia but also the Baltic states should consider complete demilitarization in order to free resources for development.
Both individual nations and the international community must take concrete steps toward demilitarization. This May in New York, I joined seven other Nobel Peace laureates to present publicly an International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers. All arms-exporting nations must agree on certain criteria to guide weapons sales.
At the same time, I advocate preventive diplomacy among arms-purchasing nations through regional disarmament talks in order to gradually reduce defense spending. Earlier this year, I proposed that all Latin American and Caribbean governments agree to a two-year moratorium on the purchase of high-technology weapons, and the majority of them have agreed to the moratorium.
I firmly believe that demilitarization is a crucial step toward reducing poverty in many nations. Many developing countries continue to be burdened by high percentages of their population living in misery. Nearly one billion people are illiterate, more than one billion lack access to potable water, and 1.3 billion earn less than $1 a day. Who can deny that demilitarization is an investment in humanity?
Violence and war have been all too commonplace in this century, and the victims of this violence are mostly civilian. Who can forget the massacres of millions in the Russian Revolution, the Holocaust, Japan, Cambodia, and Rwanda?
The leaders of the twenty-first century will have to understand that humanity cannot survive if it follows the ethics of the twentieth century. The twentieth century was marked by cynicism, hypocrisy, selfishness, greed, and the desire to please all without changing the status quo. Our lack of ethics has led to apathy, apathy to inaction, and our inaction is simply immoral.
Just last month, the Interaction Council presented a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities. It is hoped that in 1998, fifty years after the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it will also adopt the complementary Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities.
A vision of human obligations is new only to some regions of the world. Many societies have traditionally conceived of human relations in terms of obligations rather than rights. This is generally true, for instance, in much of Eastern thought.
The concept of human obligations also serves to balance the notions of freedom and responsibility. The more freedom we enjoy, the greater the responsibility we bear toward others as well as ourselves. The more talents we possess, the bigger the responsibility we have to develop them to their fullest capacity.
Unrestricted freedom is as dangerous as imposed social responsibility. Great social injustices have resulted from extreme economic freedom and capitalist greed, while at the same time cruel oppression of people's basic liberties has been justified in the name of communist ideals and the common good.
Either extreme is undesirable. At present, with the disappearance of the East-West conflict and the end of the Cold War, with the failure of Marxist experiments and the gradual humanization of capitalism, humanity seems closer to the desired balance between freedom and responsibility.
The initiative to draft a Universal Declaration of Human Obligations is not only a way of balancing freedom with responsibility but also a means of reconciling ideologies and political views that were deemed antagonistic in the past.
Throughout the millennia, prophets, saints, and sages have implored us to take our responsibilities seriously. In our century, for example, Mahatma Gandhi preached on the seven social sins:
1. Politics without principles
2. Commerce without morality
3. Wealth without work
4. Education without character
5. Science without humanity
6. Pleasure without conscience
7. Worship without sacrifice
The world cannot change without a transformation in human consciousness, and that transformation can only happen if we each assume certain obligations.
• If we want to be at peace with our fellow humans, and if we seek peace among nations, then we must start by developing inner peace.
• If we want to enjoy sustainable human development, we must be prepared to adapt our lifestyles to sustainable patterns of living.
• If we want to enjoy emotional security, we must remember that people should be valued based on who they are, not what they have. Real emotional security depends on our ability to give and receive love.
We have an obligation to develop our physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual capacities to their fullest.
There is a need for a new ethics. Politics makes no sense if it is not accompanied by responsibility and morality. The twenty-first century is going to be a peaceful one the day human beings become more important than arms.
Being global citizens means that no individual or nation can seek isolation from the plight of others. We must find the moral courage to work to overcome poverty, save the environment, and build a brighter future for the generations to come.
Ikeda Center for Peace, Learning, and Dialogue