Sustainable Development: A Critique

Many development theories and models have come our way to attempt to mitigate and eventually eradicate poverty and inequities in the human world. In 1987, another concept was put forward. Sustainable development was coined in the Brudntland report, Our Common Future. It says that sustainable development makes our world meet the present needs but not compromising in the process the needs of the future. It has emphasis on the environmental consideration of development process.

Now it is agreed that development is a holistic transformation, not just economic, political, or social aspects but which includes environmental.

Sustainable development sounds and looks good and promising. It is able to charm the hard critics of economic development and environmentalists. In fact, it has been appropriated by transnational corporations, governments, and civil society groups in their discourses to further their interests. It becomes a tool to retain the status quo of those in power by masking their enterprises and actions as legitimate and within a development framework that is generally accepted.

As individuals, sustainable development does not come to this level. It seems that its domain is in the drawing board and meeting tables of CEOs and Heads of States who decide for major activities and projects. It does not come permeate our everyday lives where decisions are also made. As a matter a fact, it does not go down to the level of those who can’t make a decision for themselves because they don’t have the power to decide or they allow others to decide for themselves.

Sustainable development seems to be another model which legitimizes some interests – the elite. Of course, they want anything to be sustained because they reap the benefits of the present and the future projects.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): More of Public Relations than Noble Intentions

Before, business and non-profits differ in many ways as if they were in the different worlds. Business is concerned with making profits while non-profit is concerned with making a positive impact in society. Now, the two see each other as partners. Their paths of engagement have converged.

This convergence has led many corporations to do Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). It allows them to invest in social, cultural and environmental programs and activities to make a positive impact on society. However, skeptics of CSR would say that this move of corporations is just propaganda and public relations (PR) to enhance and promote their brand, thus furthering their profit.

Many of these CSR programs and activities do not have a development framework on the communities they intend to help. They are also most of the time stand alone projects. Their activities, although noble and helpful, are mostly dole-out and temporary. This kind of outreach often causes harm than good in the long run.

For example, a local government has implemented a low-cost housing project where it charges a minimal monthly payment for the beneficiaries to make the project sustainable. Then, a multinational corporation has decided to build houses for free for some urban poor residents. The beneficiaries of the local government’s project started to be delinquent with their payment because they compared themselves with those recipients of those free houses. The CSR of the corporation has killed the initiative and project of the local government which has a vision of low-cost and affordable housing for the city residents in sustainable manner.

Pedagogy of Peace Education

This entry presents the conceptual exploration and pedagogy of peace education. Can peace be studied? Can peace be shared?

To begin, it makes a distinction between peace studies and peace education. Peace studies, on one hand, is a discipline in colleges probably in political science or international relations that analyzes conflicts to better understand them and find ways to resolve them. Peace education, on the other hand, touches on the inclinations and aspirations of people to live in peace by presenting them the skills necessary to build a culture of peace.

Both peace studies and education attempt to address the various forms of violence in their context; physical, psychological, environmental, and domestic.

Education, per se, can be formal, non-formal, and informal. The difference among the three lies in the form where learner gets knowledge. Structured instruction is formal, unstructured is non-formal, and informal education is learning from the books, TV, plays, etc. Peace education puts special content and focus on peace to the different instructions of education.

Although peace studies can not cause peace instantly, peace education can change attitudes and behaviors of people over time. And we know that behavioral change is necessary to transform the world into a peaceful one where people are able to live with others comfortably and decently.

In Freire’s pedagogy, the banking concept of education is constraining the creative power of students. Problem-posing education is the key to liberation and humanization. It empowers the students to think critically in dialogue with the world. Peace education can take this pedagogy to be liberating and humanizing for the people and world.

Now, in what direction is our education going? The State and business sector have privileged some disciplines, not based on people's and global needs but demand of capitalist development. Like for example, sciences, economics, information technology, and health sciences are the most in demand careers in the world today. Is this the way to go? How about peace? Very few universities and colleges offer this field of study, although there is a great need of it in the world.

Gender Dimension and Analysis of Peace and Conflict

Gender Analysis is essential to assess and understand the structure of context, relationships, and factors of a certain topic of interest. It describes what is observed in power relations.

Sex and gender are two different things. Sex refers to the differences in biological attributes of men and women. Gender is a social and cultural construct which is learned and changeable. This construct is identified as masculinity and femininity. Arising from this construct are the gender roles expected to masculine and feminine. These gender roles are shaped by ethnicity, generation, class, and religion.

The development of gender as a field of study could be traced from its political struggle. The first wave began in the French Revolution with its declaration of the rights of man (excluding woman). Then in the 20th century, the first feminist movement in England clamored for the right of women to vote. The second wave commenced in the establishment of United Nations in 1945. The civil rights movement in the US in the 60s was also part of this. The third wave took its root in the UN international conferences on women in Mexico (1975), Copenhagen (1980), Nairobi (1985), Vienna (1993), Beijing (1995) and other conferences and documents.

There are two differing positions in the interpretation of gender. The first one is the essentialist position. It basically views gender based on the stable and immutable qualities and underlying factors. For the essentialists, gender identity remains unchangeable. The second position is the constructionism. It views gender identity as a result of perceptions of gender rather than innate qualities.

Women are oftentimes projected as victims of conflict and violence, such as rape, domestic violence, and abduction. This may not always be so. Women can also be perpetrators and peace leaders.

Although there is now an opening up of spaces for women to participate in the public sphere, this remains limited. Representation in the public arena such as political and public domains does not guarantee an improvement in the plight of women.

If peace can not be achieved without the equal participation of men and women, then peace remains an elusive and utopian dream – almost unattainable. I think we should be careful in attaching peace to a very difficult endeavor because it will make peace a victim of our doing.

Conflict Mediation: People behind the Process

The US envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, will be shuttling back and forth to Israel and West Bank for the indirect peace talks in the Middle East. He is one of the more popular conflict mediators nowadays. He is tasked to resume peace talks between Israel and Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

Conflict mediation is a complex task. Very few people are up to the challenge of getting into the fray between two warring parties who have deep-seated and historical anger and aversion towards the other party.

Let us take a look at the complex case of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

The conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh region between Armenia and Azerbaijan has a historically interesting and complex story, although the story has yet to reach culmination. Both countries are claiming the disputed region, while Nagorno-Karabakh itself has declared independence from Azerbaijan and Armenia. Its independence has yet to be recognized by other states.

The Azerbaijan wanted its territorial integrity intact with Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia has interest in the region since majority of the population of Nagorno-Kabarakh region are Armenians. Other surrounding states and not so near state, such as, Turkey, Russia and United States, have interests too in the region for various and vested reasons. For one, oil wealth in the region makes the conflict more complicated and intense.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) lead by its Minsk group has been tasked to do the mediation efforts since 1992. Various approaches and plans have been proposed to try to settle the conflict.

A practitioner who was involved in the mediation processes talked about the lessons learned in the mediation efforts. It was a great opportunity for us to listen to a practitioner doing actual negotiation and mediation process. He mentioned about the mediators, at times, are the only ones who want to settle the conflict. The two parties involved in the conflict do look into each other’s eyes with mistrust or do not look at each other’s eyes at all. Oftentimes they are not prepared to the mediation efforts initiated by third-party or foreign entities. I could imagine how frustrating it must have been for mediators like him. But he did not touch on that personal side of him. I wondered where he got his motivation to pursue the mediation process in spite of the obstacles. He could have talked about his strong motivation to pursue mediation of these two stubborn sides.

I wonder what it is in for a mediator to undergo such stressful and dangerous process of peacebuilding through conflict mediation. Is it the challenge of the complexities of mediation? Is it the desire to end the violence that kills and destroys lives? Is it the prestige of being a mediator and pursuit of recognition of awards such as Nobel? I can only speculate, but what is it really?

Why some mediators are successful and some are not? I wish George Mitchell the best in his Middle East mission!