eace
imagine this sc en e: a sea of people as far as the eye can see, all sitting silently, peacefully, filling the temple grounds for a very spe- cial ceremony. It is March 15, 2002 in war'torn Sri Lanka, and the celebration is Peace Samadhi Day, one of the largest meditations for peace in world history. 1 The event has been organized by Sarvodaya Shramadana, a grassroots movement based on Mahatma Gandhi’s principles of self reliance. Founded in 1958, Sarvodaya has a long' standing commitment to peace advocacy, with outreach programs in fifteen thousand villages. The purpose of the event is linking up villages from each side of the conflict to rebuild each others’ homes and temples. Within each village a local team has been coordinating daily, weekly, and monthly mass-meditation programs in prepara' tion for the big event. Sarvodaya’s founder, Dr. A. T. Ariyaratne, called for the mass meditation to change the country’s “psychosphere” and deepen people’s desire to bring an end to war.
In another scene closer to home, a circle of people meditate qui- etly in a threatened grove of coast redwoods in California, adding a calm presence to the trees with their soft breathing. They are holding the peace in a tense showdown between corporate timber executives and citizen tree protectors. The people in this circle are
modern ecosattvas, dedicated to protecting life and easing environ- mental suffering. The old-growth giants are hundreds of years old; their wood brings a handsome profit in the global market. The struggle over these trees is a conflict in values of major proportion with no obvious resolution in sight. Like Sri Ariyaratne, the California demonstrators hope to change the psychosphere of the conflict surrounding the redwoods by bringing attention to the remarkable gift of the trees.
These stories strike me as both inspirational and extraordinary, touchstones for the imagination in taking up the practice of peace on the green path. Peace is a complicated term, overlain with idealistic hope, conflicting agendas, and challenging diplomacy. Approaches to peace vary from spiritual to political, global to personal. Peace and the environment are not often addressed in the same conversations. Peace activists typically focus on different priorities than do environmental activists. Peace negotiators deal with different laws and customs than environmental problem solvers. Yet both share the goals of stability and support for healthy human and environmental systems.
Working toward peace is congruent with the principles described in the first two chapters of this book—reducing harm and being with the suffering. I believe that peace work is an important focus for the green practice path, providing a necessary complement to working with energy and desire. As with these two other practice arenas, the opportunities are endless and the work is both internal and external. The more you learn about peacemaking in yourself the more helpful you can be in offering that knowledge to others dealing with environmental conflict. The more experience you gain in reducing harm to the earth, the less harm you will inflict on yourself
Anger has not always been the most effective tool in addressing environmental abuse. It quickly turns to self-righteousness, and sides become polarized in self-defense. Moral outrage is certainly justified as a response to the terrible decimations of whole ecosystems and
i 3 8
Practicing Peace
the many beautiful creatures within them. How can so much killing be acceptable ? How can we not fight back ? And yet anger itself is exhausting; it generates so much stress on the body and mind. In the aftermath of anger comes discouragement, depression, helplessness— a weary frustration that nothing can be made right. These states of mind are the territory of peacemaking, the motivation for learning how to find a well of calm that can sustain you on the green path when you encounter conflict and violence.
PEACE, CONFLICT, AND ENVIRONMENT
The turn into the twenty-first century marked a number of shifts in global politics and economics, with significantly heightened emphasis on security of all kinds—national security, food security, climate security. Behind these concerns lie very real insecurities that human beings will not be able to get enough of what we need to survive. If we look at conflict around the world today, it can often he linked to increasing concern for securing necessary resources such as oil. The long struggle in Iraq is centered in an oil-rich zone; Nigeria, Burma, and Chechnya, to name just a few others, have also suffered violence over oil development and production.
In his book Resource Wars, peace studies scholar Michael Klare describes three key features of such resource conflicts today. First, there is an escalating demand worldwide for raw materials of all kinds as the global population continues to rise. With more people, there is more need for shelter, food, energy, and water. This demand is further accelerated by increasing rates of consumption, already high in developed countries and growing steadily in developing countries, especially India and China. Add to this the spread of industrialization, and the soaring production of goods creates a seemingly insatiable demand for resources. Second, we are, in fact, running out of some things. Fisheries, forests, and fossil fuels are all in decline, and
T 9
certain minerals have become so rare as to be quite costly. A number of studies estimate we are near peak oil availability, and water supplies are in significant shortage in many places around the earth. Third, many key resources lie in contested border areas or offshore economic zones, raising the potential for dispute between nations. Upstream states take the water they need to the aggravation of downstream states. Already we are seeing contests over who will get the mineral resources made accessible by the melting of the Arctic ice sheet. Klare’s point is that all these stressors present new sources of competition, friction, and conflict. And each factor tends to reinforce the destabilizing aspects of the others.
While many resource conflicts are resolved through diplomacy and negotiation, some unravel to the point of violence and war. War, from whatever causes, always takes a toll on the environment. In Cambodia, agricultural fields still lie fallow because of the density of leftover land mines. In Vietnam, bomb-sized craters have become mosquito breeding grounds, carrying disease into war-damaged areas. Militaries and their leaders have chosen scorched-earth policies as part of their war tactics in Iraq and Colombia, destroying forest cover or crop fields by bombs or chemical spraying. Militaries themselves are some of the biggest users of resources, especially oil. A single B52 bomber uses over three thousand gallons of fuel in a single hour; worldwide, nearly one quarter of all jet fuel is used by the military. 2 Lands damaged by war take time to heal; long-lasting insults may alter land productivity permanently. The soils of Iraq, for example, will be contaminated with depleted uranium of used ammunition for a very long time.
Recognizing the costly environmental impacts of conflict, some are suggesting the alternative: using the environment in a peacemaking role. When two conflicting parties view their environmental problems in isolation, they often ignore the complex ecosystem relationships that cross their borders. Japan, for instance, is downwind of China’s acres and acres of air-polluting factories. Address-
ing environmental issues can build peaceful relations, because these discussions require a long-term perspective and local engagement in the peacemaking process. Through the process of building political relations that are less polarizing, it is possible to transform conflict into cooperation.
Environmental peacemaking initiatives to date aim either to prevent conflict or create a sustainable mechanism for peace. Many conflicts arise from challenges over local resource use or misuse as well as inadequate capacity at the institutional level. The most direct form of environmental peacemaking may be preventative, taking action to build capacity and relieve resource pressures before conflict arises. In conflicts where a specific environmental challenge has been identified as a contributing cause, the peace-building process can focus on shared environmental goals. Even where governments are locked in a history of hostile relations, they are sometimes willing to have dialogue around maintaining their life-support systems. In certain entrenched situations such as the dry region of Israel and Palestine, the management of water resources is a necessary condition for sustainable peace. If water needs and allocation mechanisms are not resolved, disputes will continue.
Some of the most hopeful initiatives in transboundary conservation are the creation of peace parks such as Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park on the U.S-Canadian border. Established in 1932, Waterton is seen as a model for peace and cooperation; similar parks are being proposed for the Kashmir border area between India and Pakistan as well as in West Africa and Indochina. In the Kuril Islands, long disputed between Japan and Russia, the beautiful red-crowned crane and other endangered species would gain much-needed protection from the creation of an international peace park. Such efforts at environmental peacekeeping have surged since the beginning of the twenty-first century. As of 2003 over 818 countries have become involved in 188 initiatives for environmental peace. This is, indeed, a promising sign, though many negotiations are still in progress.
DEFINING PEACE
“Peace,” like “energy,” is one of those words that sets off a chain of associations in the mind, and these can vary tremendously from one context to another. The original meaning of pacem or pax, the Latin word for peace, is an agreement achieved by contract or agreement. In this sense, it means that the conflict is resolved and the parties have agreed to certain rules or behaviors they will abide by in order to maintain the peace. These days such agreements pertain to whole nations and regions, making peace agreements more complex than ever. Peace treaties run for many pages and often take years of diplo- macy before agreements are reached.
In his thoughtful collection of essays, Peace: Research, Eduction, Action (1975), the Norwegian peace scholar Johan Galtung suggests several concepts that may be useful in looking at environmental peacemaking. He defines “negative peace” as the absence of vio- lence between groups and “positive peace” as proactive cooperation and efforts toward social justice. If we apply these terms to environmental peace relations, “negative” or benign peace would be the absence of violence toward ecosystems, landscapes, plants, and animals. “Positive” peace would be marked by efforts toward sustainability and a commitment to just and respectful relations with other beings. Examples of “benign peace” might be wildlife refuges or protected areas with limited human access. Proactive peace might be seen in the efforts of organic farmers to promote healthy soils and agricultural ecosystems.
We can also look at the distinction between direct violence and structural violence, which are the opposite of peace. Clear-cutting, acid rain, bottom trawling, and damming of rivers all cause direct violence to the earth. Trees, fish, lakes, rivers, and the ten thousand beings that dwell in, on, and around them are killed, crippled, and starved by these actions. Extreme violence such as the decimation
Practicing Peace
of centuries-old cedars and redwoods could be likened to a holocaust, a scale of violence of frightening and awesome proportions. This is painful to think about; it is devastating to witness. Structural violence is less obvious, though the effects may be even more widespread. Economic policies, infrastructure, and trade can encourage erosion of ecosystem stability. Freeways may encroach on cougar habitat to improve transport. Soybean fields are replacing rainforests to fulfill biofuel development strategies. Migratory bird wetlands degrade from sewage treatment-plant runoff Much of the structural violence that affects earth systems may not have been intended, hut in many cases, little thought has been given to its prevention either.
Some political scientists have tried to define peace in terms of environmental security, extending the deep concern for national security that has marked the recent fear-based policies of the United States. “Security” derives from the Latin word securus, meaning “without sorrow or worries.” Environmental security redefines security to focus on environmental threats to planetary well-being. Advocates for the concept point out the obvious link between ecosystem degradation and nation-state health. But some of these conversations have generated concern that environmental protection could become militarized, and this approach would further reinforce the reigning paradigm of human domination over the earth. Poor countries tend to view environmental security as a “rich country” agenda, a way to protect and sequester natural resources for the use of those wealthy or powerful enough to enforce this agenda. Casting environmental problems in security terms may block more cooperative approaches based in peacekeeping.
Understanding peace work from an environmental perspective means building on the extensive peace-building efforts that are already under way in many parts of the world. Such efforts are no longer solely the domain of national diplomats. International finance institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund are key players in determining economic packages that can either mitigate or increase environmental destruction. SmalFarms traders and private militaries also carry strong influence in shaping the nature oflocal conflicts. Global military spending is one of the most lucrative businesses on the planet right now, exceeding $1.2 trillion in 2006. The United States leads the world in weapons spend- ing, accounting for 46 percent of this total. The United States is the top supplier of global arms, providing 63 percent of small arms to nations involved in conflict or defense. 3
Non-state actors also play important roles in conflict resolution and peace-building. Among these are 60,000 major transnational corporations (TNCs), such as Shell Oil and Coca Cola; 3,800 international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), such as Amnesty International and the Nature Conservancy; 10,000 nationally based NGOs, some with considerable international influence; and, not least of all, 230 intergovernmental organizations including the United Nations. 4 From an environmental peacekeeping perspective, this shift of influence is good news. Pressure can be placed on TNCs to withdraw from “conflict trade” in lucrative resources such as diamonds and timber that finance wars. INGOs and NGOs can work together to support alternative peacekeeping models and bring local players to the table. Citizens in distant states can offer support to these efforts through the organizational campaigns of the NGOs. Often the role of NGOs has been to provide humanitarian assistance for people caught in the cross-fires of the conflicts. But increasingly, environmental groups are stepping in to protect indigenous tribes and their lands as well as the ecosystems under assault in war zones.
PERSONAL PEACE PRACTICE
Practicing peace as part of the green path can take many forms. As with the practices of understanding energy and working with de-
Practicing Peace
sire, the opportunities are endless, arising continuously in all man- ner of contexts. If you offer this practice your full intention you will find that peacemaking and peacekeeping are part of what we do every day to support stability in our lives. We cannot function well under conditions of chaos and conflict; some measure of peace and equilibrium is necessary for life to flourish. But it is remarkable how much of our life energy is spent in sparring with ourselves or others, or being fearful of attack, or cleaning up the aftermath of conflict. Working toward peace is something we cultivate with persistent effort, learning our way into the practice. Peace with others, peace with the earth, peace within our hearts—each of these can reinforce our motivation to keep peacemaking at the center of the green prac- tice path.
We can approach the practice of peace in a systematic way, ob- serving our own behaviors and thoughts as we deepen our attention to peacemaking. I find it helpful to think in terms of body, speech, and mind as major arenas of effort. Peace work with the body is a form of caretaking of the most intimate environment we inhabit, our own flesh and blood. Each person has their own triggers of conflict, their own expressions of resistance. It is important to honor the his- tory of your own experience and how that experience has been recorded in the memory cells of the body. You might try making a map of your own conflict history to see what it can tell you. Contemplative practices can increase awareness of internal fighting or defense reactions and also entrain new patterns that calm the body. Tai chi and yoga, for example, can literally change your neural and hormonal flow patterns. Meditation and prayer also calm the body through stillness and centering. As these forms of peace-building become familiar in the social landscape, more environmentalists are coming to see the long-term benefits of contemplative body practice.
Engrained speech habits also benefit from committing to peace work. Environmentalists, unfortunately, have a reputation for self- righteous blaming and poor listening. We seem to be so anxious to
be heard that we are impatient with hearing others’ perspectives. It is too easy to lash out at the parties responsible for causing environmental suffering. “Right speech” is one of the spokes in the wheel of the Buddhist Eightfold Path. It means not lying, not gossiping, not slandering, and not putting others down to puff yourself up. It means not participating in oppressive speech that silences others’ voices. Practicing right speech is a practice in humility, a real effort to remember that your words are only one point of view. Harsh or thoughtless words so easily derail the peacemaking process. This is very sobering. The slow cultivation of cooperative relationships is a fragile thing that thrives best on kind speech.
Peace-building in the mind is perhaps the most challenging practice in terms of peace work. We believe our thoughts are invisible to others because we think them within the privacy of our own minds. But thoughts guide speech and behavior, reflecting a lifetime of conditioning that we only partially understand. Fighting thoughts displace peace-building thoughts because they so quickly mobilize the attack-and-defend system. If you are working to save something that matters dearly to you, you may be using fighting thoughts to keep yourself energized. But fighting thoughts need enemies to blame and wrongs to be righted. It can be pretty limiting and draining to rely on fighting thoughts for momentum. I am recommending peacebuilding practice for the mind as a long-term investment in an approach that is ultimately more sustainable.
It has taken me some time to come to this conclusion. I grew up in a culture of argument; whatever the issue, everyone in my family wanted to prove they were right, and others were therefore wrong. We did not seem to be able to have a reasonable discussion with different points of view. Our household was characterized by constant competition for power based on who could win the most arguments. Family order, personality, and gender dynamics all played into this, but no matter how much my mother tried to teach us about social
justice, we persisted in our put'downs. These constant battles drove me out into the woods behind our house where I sought silence and refuge. The trees, the beautiful yogis of the forest, became my teach' ers of peace practice.
Turning to nature as practice partner comes easily for many on the green path. If you find pleasure in hiking, camping, canoeing, or any of the many ways of being in nature, you likely have had some moments of profound peace outside. The big sky bright with stars, the full moon rising in the clouds, the deep quiet of snow in the woods. We receive these gifts and they help us remember that peace exists; it is part of our world already. (This is not to say that nature is always calm; we know that storms come, tempests blow, trees fall and crack into a million splinters.) And peace in nature is found not only in wild areas. Walking by the fields on the edge of town or quietly appreciating the backyard tree—these, too, are por- tals to peace practice.
Meditation teachers encourage us to find this place of peace in ourselves through conscious breathing. When we are upset or filled with conflict, our ch i is flying everywhere, looking for something to hit or running to get out of a situation. If we stop for a moment and concentrate on our breathing, we bring our awareness back to the body and return home. If the anger cannot be calmed in a few breaths, we can try walking meditation, aligning the breath with our steps, letting the earth support us. These simple breathing practices are very grounding. They stop the conflict from escalating; they allow us to be present with ourselves and to find a touchstone of reassurance in the solid ground. Maha Ghosananda, sometimes called the Gandhi of Cambodia, explained that “making peace must be done every day. It is like walking. You have to make every step. Ifyou forget a step, then you fall down ... If we protect the world, we protect ourselves. If we harm the world, we harm ourselves. We are in the same boat. Therefore, we must take care of the boat.” 5
MUTUAL LIVING TOGETHER
Peace studies scholars in Japan have written extensively about living together peacefully, something they call kyosei. This word was first introduced in the field of biology to describe symbiosis in plants and animals. But it has been taken up by the social sciences and by philosophers to address more generally the conditions for peaceful coexistence. One of the early models of kyosei was based on toleration, in which social groups maintain their own cultural values and traditions and respectfully recognize those of other social groups. This model was critiqued for being too separatist and oriented mostly toward keeping Japanese values intact and protected from outside influence. A more recent model of kyosei interprets living together as a conversation where parties enter into a common forum of conviviality. The idea is simply to enjoy the natural play of agreement, disagreement, controversy, and competition in everyday interaction of society. A third model takes this concept even further to achieve commonly shared goals such as ecological sustainability and social justice. The Japanese speak of kyosei between humanity and the natural environment, imagining peaceful coexistence filled with dynamic exchange. In Japan, kyosei as a word is much in vogue and is being used widely to reframe values discussions in many contexts, from academic disciplines to environmental planning. 6
The international peace negotiator William Ury has written extensively about the peacemaking process as a careful dance between sides. In his book Getting to Peace (1999), he recommends the role of a “third side”; this is a party outside the immediate conflict but with a vested interest in a peaceful outcome. The third-side party can clarify differences, provide protection to threatened parties, and educate where knowledge is needed. Someone with green path sensibilities can draw on the practices suggested in earlier chapters of this book to help stabilize conflict or cultivate convivial living together.
Ury describes ten roles, all of which apply to environmental situa-
well-suited for the green
practice path.
The first is the bridge builder, who works to prevent conflict by strengthening fragile relations in the human and ecological web. This strengthening might be accomplished through regulatory agreements or round-table discussions that bring people together to find mutually workable solutions to environmental problems. The third- side party can help facilitate understanding across divergent points ofview. Where conflicts have escalated and relations are damaged, a green path practitioner might be drawn to the role of healer. A third side party with a commitment to peacekeeping and compassionate action can be a valuable asset in moving a situation forward to resolution. You can use your skills in relational thinking to analyze the causes and conditions of the conflict and work to heal brokenness and damage. The role of healer may take considerable diplomacy and patience depending on the degree of injury. The healer helps conflicting parties understand each others’ positions and find a better solution to the problems at hand.
Where environmental conflict has become entrenched and resolution is not in sight, taking a third-side peacekeeping role requires more courage. The massive gold-mining operations in Indonesia, for example, are firmly protected by the national military to squelch local conflict. The history of assault on the land and people in that context is so deeply ingrained that it will not be easy to resolve. Healing is not possible until the injury-making stops. Here a green path practitioner might serve in the role of witness, making the public aware of what is happening to plants and animals under attack. Bringing others’ attention to the problem exposes harmful behavior, which can then generate public pressure for change. Rather than polarizing an already tense situation further, the witness acts with respect toward all parties, hearing witness without accusation, reporting facts without condemnation.
tions. Three of these roles are particularly
Whatever your role in environmental peacekeeping, it is crucial to think of yourself as an active agent in Indra’s Net. What you do really matters. Maha Ghosananda spoke ofthis as broadcasting mental waves of peace from your personal radio station. If we have peaceful mental waves, then they go out beyond us, touching the hearts of other beings. Thich Nhat Hanh suggests that we plant seeds of joy and peace. You don’t know exactly how and when they will sprout, but you water them with your hope and kindness and take good care of them when they manifest as peaceful activity in the world. Every moment we have the opportunity to broadcast waves of peace. Every moment we can choose to plant seeds of joy. Intention is very important in this practice. In the ancient tradition oigathas, or meditation poems, Zen teacher Robert Aitken expresses his intention in this way:
Hearing the crickets at night I vow with all beings to fmd my place in the harmony crickets enjoy with the stars. 7
If you recite such a vow of intention each day, you will deepen your commitment to peacemaking and gain strength for the challenges on the green practice path.
Important seeds of peace were planted in the first efforts to write an international Earth Charter. With remarkable courage and determination, Mikhail Gorbachev and a team of representatives from countries around the world sat down to craft a list of principles that could guide the world in caring for the earth. It was an ambitious undertaking. The charter went through draft after draft, a ten-year conversation that exposed and reflected many diverse perspectives, not always reconcilable. But the committee members stayed with the process, struggling over appropriate concepts and
Practicing Peace
wording, thinking always of how to sustain the earth for all life. The final version of the Earth Charter recognizes peace and justice as necessary for ecological well-being. It urges citizens of the world to
• promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace
• encourage and support mutual understanding, solidarity, and cooperation among all peoples and within and among nations
• implement comprehensive strategies to prevent violent conflict and use collaborative problem-solving to manage and resolve environmental conflicts. 8
In early September 2001, the year before the charter was brought to the United Nations for approval, we held a day of festivities in northern Vermont to celebrate its completion. Over a thousand people gathered at Shelburne Farms, walking in silence across the hills as one body flowing peacefully together. The inspiring words of the charter were written on colorful banners and strung along the entry path. We sang, we listened, we danced together in the spirit of kyosei and the Earth Charter. Children and artists from all over the state brought handmade books of prayers for the earth, each one full of heart and genuine desire for peace. One by one they were placed in a large wooden ark, beautifully handcrafted and painted for the journey. The prayers were blessed by all the big and small people who came together that day. Eventually all those seeds of peace made their way to the United Nations, where thousands of people saw the children’s books and read their prayers. It was a moving testimony for the charter s own call for the way forward on our mutual green path:
Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life. 9
Desire for peace in our hearts and peace with all beings is a com' pelling call. I believe this call is bringing many people to the green practice path. The work we are engaged in is hard work, but it is real work; it is the work that is to be done. Practicing together we can help each other through the difficulties and give thanks for the moments of contentment. And most of all, we can pass the green spark on, so there will be others following in our footsteps. This is not an impossible vision; it is our journey to well-being.