This article was downloaded by: [Laurentian University]On: 05 October 2014, At: 03:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Peace EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjpe20

Building a global community for aculture of peace: the Hague appealfor peace global campaign for peaceeducation (1999–2006)Werner Wintersteiner aa Centre for Peace Research and Peace Education , KlagenfurtUniversity , Klagenfurt , AustriaPublished online: 16 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Werner Wintersteiner (2013) Building a global community for a culture ofpeace: the Hague appeal for peace global campaign for peace education (1999–2006), Journal ofPeace Education, 10:2, 138-156, DOI: 10.1080/17400201.2013.790250

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2013.790250

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Building a global community for a culture of peace: the Hagueappeal for peace global campaign for peace education (1999–2006)

Werner Wintersteiner

Centre for Peace Research and Peace Education, Klagenfurt University, Klagenfurt, Austria

This paper is about the early history of the Hague Appeal for Peace GlobalCampaign for peace education (HAP/GCPE), an ambitious attempt to create aglobal movement of peace educators to advance and disseminate peace educationin their own localities and engage when possible in transnational cooperation.This Campaign has developed outstanding activities, including pilot projects inpeace education in four post-conflict regions and has published three usefulbooks between 2000 and 2005. In 2006, this phase as a project of HAP endedwhen the GCPE was transferred first to Peace Boat and later to other organiza-tions. This is the period described and discussed in this article. Thus, I make adistinction between the HAP Campaign and the Campaign as such. Today, theCampaign is lead from the joint headquarters of the International Institute onPeace Education and the National Peace Academy, a US institution founded in2009. Its activities and those of hundreds of other peace educators throughout theworld are reported in a regular newsletter of the GCPE. While the original advi-sory group no longer functions as such, a number of its members, in conjunctionwith other networks, continue to engage in common activities. This paper relatesthe origins and the philosophy of the Campaign, enumerates and assesses itsachievements, and discusses the lessons we can learn from this experience forfuture efforts in order to develop and disseminate peace education.1

Keywords: peace education; hague appeal for Peace; international education;global education

Nowadays, peace education has, from a general point of view, to face three majorchallenges: recognition at a political level, a deeper connection with the discoursesof the academic world, and integration in a international/global peace movement.Recognition at a political level means two things: first, that peace education be rec-ognized as an indispensable part of any education at all levels, be integrated intothe formal school system, and that funds are provided for academic peace educationresearch and teacher training; second, that peace education be recognized (and used)as a tool to overcome war and group violence, as an important resource for a last-ing peace. This, in turn, requires a better integration of peace education approachesinto the discourses of peace research on one hand and educational research on theother, and vice versa. Peace education has always been more than just peace activ-ism and must develop its own academic standards. This again would also improvethe capacity of peace educators to support their fellow educators as well as thepeace movements professionally (see Wintersteiner 2010).

Corresponding author. Email: werner.wintersteiner@aau.at

Journal of Peace Education, 2013Vol. 10, No. 2, 138–156, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2013.790250

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

In order to make a difference in these domains, it may be useful to study theexperience of the contemporary peace education movement that emerged at the endof the last century and developed its main activities in the first five years of thenew century – the Hague Appeal for Peace Global Campaign for Peace Education(HAP/GCPE). This paper retraces some crucial moments of the history of thismovement. It is written from the perspective of a European peace educator involvedin its activities almost from the beginning. His sources are official documents aswell as private notes, emails, and consultations of the main actors of theCampaign.

1. What is/was the HAP GCPE?

The HAP/GCPE was not a peace education program, but rather a network of peaceeducators from all over the world with an aim to legitimize peace education andpromote its integration into general educational practice, and thus, incite theformation of new peace education initiatives in many parts of the globe as well asto advocate the integration of peace education into national curricula as the agreedobligations of UNESCO member states. It deployed its main activities as part ofthe HAP movement, at the very beginning of the new century, between 1999 and2006.

1.1. The philosophy and the preparative stage

The GCPE was a result, and maybe the most convincing one of the HAP move-ment. At the same time, it was a powerful tool to promote the agenda of the HAP.

After several years of preparation, in 1999, at the centenary of the historicHague Peace Conference 1899 and the establishment of the Permanent Court ofArbitration, a huge gathering of 10,000 peace activists from all parts of the worldtook place in The Hague, The Netherlands. It was organized by an internationalcommittee of nongovernmental organizations inspired and directed by Cora Weiss,a very experienced peace activist from New York, and then (vice-) president of theInternational Peace Bureau (IPB).2 (See Weiss 2010)

The HAP was, from its beginnings, more than a conference. The HAP move-ment was not intended to be limited to a single activity; its aim was a renewal ofthe international peace movement. As a result of the lobbying of peace educatorslike Magnus Haavelsrud and especially, Betty A. Reardon, peace education becamea central part of the HAP movement. HAP defined itself as a ‘growing communityof people all over the world who are tired of war, violence, and injustice’(Conference program, 6). Thus, it was meant as a forum and a network for indepen-dent initiatives like International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), Interna-tional Criminal Court – Global Ratification Campaign, International Campaign toBan Landmines, Campaigns to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Global Action to PreventWar, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, and others. Unlike theseinitiatives, peace education was not backed by any strong international initiative ororganization.

The philosophy of the HAP movement and basic document of the conferencewas formulated as The Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice for the 21st Century, aset of 50 (still very significant) policy recommendations to achieve global peaceand justice organized in four strands (The Hague Agenda 1999b):

Journal of Peace Education 139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

• The Root Causes of War and a Culture of Peace.• International Humanitarian and International Human Rights Law andInstitutions.

• Prevention, Resolution, and Transformation of Violent Conflict.• Disarmament and Human Security.

This ambitious text was intended as a global citizen’s agenda for peace andjustice whose authority grew enormously when the Hague Agenda became anofficial UN document, UN Ref. A/54/98. As a main means for achieving theserecommendations, a series of civil society campaigns were supported, newlyproposed, or started. Among these new ones, the GCPE, launched at the HagueCivil Society was probably the most important one. Lacking structure, GCPE wasdirectly managed by the HAP headquarters. It was the first time that a broadly rep-resentative international peace conference and a concerted international peace move-ment had put peace education so much and so clearly in the center of the strugglefor social change towards peace deeming that broad-scale public education wasrequired for the implementation of all the Agenda’s policy proposals. Even if it wasoriginally not planned, the main activities of the HAP movement after the confer-ence were educational activities; its most developed initiative was the GCPE – asuccess of the indefatigable lobbying of the peace education community.3

In the Hague Agenda, already education for peace played an important role.Unlike many similar appeals, be it from the UN, from peace researchers or fromthe civil society, peace education is understood here as an indispensable tool forachieving sustainable political peace. The first of the 50 recommendations is entitled‘Educate for Peace, Human Rights, and Democracy.’ The text, in detail, reads (TheHague Appeal for Peace 1999b):

In order to combat the culture of violence that pervades our society, the coming gener-ation deserves a radically different education – one that does not glorify war but edu-cates for peace, nonviolence and international cooperation. The HAP has launched aworld-wide campaign to empower people at all levels with the peacemaking skills ofmediation, conflict transformation, consensus-building and non-violent social change.

This campaign:

• Insists that peace education be made compulsory at all levels of the educationsystem.

• Demands that education ministries systematically implement peace educationinitiatives at a local and national level.

• Calls on development assistance agencies to promote peace education as acomponent of their teacher training and materials production.’

It was at the same Hague conference that a workshop and a panel on peace edu-cation were held. The plan: to create an international movement of peace educators,a GCPE. The goal: to initiate a quantum leap in mainstreaming peace education inall countries at all levels of the educational system. The initiating actor was BettyReardon, professor for peace education, Teachers College, Columbia University,New York, who for the first time developed the idea of a global campaign.

140 W. Wintersteiner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

This special session of the HAP Conference, ‘Studying Peace: Founding andLaunching A Global Campaign for Education Towards a Culture of Peace,’ orga-nized by Magnus Haavelsrud from Norway, assembled outstanding personalities,most of them involved in peace education projects, like Archbishop Desmond Tutu,Johan Galtung, one of the founders of modern peace research, Takehito Ito (Japan),and well-known peace education ‘veterans’ like Toh Swee-Hin (Canada) and initia-tor Betty A. Reardon. The panel was followed by a strategy session chaired byBetty Reardon (The Hague Appeal for Peace 1999a).

The network that emerged from this initiative has carried out many activitiesbetween 2000 and 2005, including pilot projects in peace education in four post-conflict regions. Further, the network developed a manual with a rationale for peaceeducation published in several languages.

The campaign had two major goals which made it unique among many otherattempts of an international organization of peace educators4:

(1) Creating civil and political support for peace education at all levels of educa-tion;

(2) Educating teachers to teach for peace.

In order to achieve its goals, the HAP organized regular global meetings of acore group of the GCPE, started a partnership with the Department for Disarma-ment Affairs (DDA) of the UN in New York, and established contacts with variousfoundations and organizations, namely, the Fundación Cultura de Paz of FedericoMayor, the ex-director of UNESCO.

In 2006, this period ended officially when the HAP GCPE was not formallydissolved but started cooperation with Peace Boat which lead – for a shortmoment – to the handover of the peace education activities to this organization,and then, later to the Peace Education Center at Teachers College, ColumbiaUniversity, and eventually to the US National Peace Academy. Today, there is aregular newsletter of the GCPE with more than 4000 subscribers and a new Cam-paign Website.5 However, there are no more common projects of the members ofthe GCPE network.

1.2. Main activities

The early history of the Campaign can be divided into three periods:

(1) The starting phase: conception and preparation (1999–2000): The outlineof the Campaign, as conceived by Betty Reardon, and preparatory meetingsin Geneva and The Hague, organized by Cora Weiss.

(2) The establishment: laying the ground (2001–2002): The establishment ofthe Campaign, Alicia Cabezudo as the ‘educator in residence,’ the manual asthe basic document that offers orientation and provides a common identity;the start of the pilot projects; the installation of the Advisory Board.

(3) New horizons: structures and strategy (2003–2005/2006): Partnershipprojects give the Campaign a profile and bring new experiences. TheAdvisory Board becomes a proper ‘institution’ and develops its structure:steering committee and chair. The Campaign adopts a two-year plan;translation of the manual; creation of an electronic newsletter.

Journal of Peace Education 141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

1.2.1. The starting phase: conception and preparation (1999–2000)

Since there was a very positive echo to her appeal from the peace education com-munity, Betty Reardon drafted, immediately after the Hague conference, the missionstatement and the working plan of the so-called ‘GCPE.’ This is the original textproposal that later became the official statement of the campaign6:

A culture of peace will be achieved when citizens of the world understand globalproblems, have the skills to resolve conflict constructively; know and live by interna-tional standards of human rights, gender and racial equality; appreciate cultural diver-sity; and respect the integrity of the Earth. Such learning cannot be achieved withoutintentional, sustained and systematic education for peace.

The urgency and necessity of such education was acknowledged by the memberstates of UNESCO in 1974 and reaffirmed in the Integrated Framework of Action onEducation for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy in 1995. Yet, few educationalinstitutions have undertaken such action. It is time to call upon ministries ofeducation, educational institutions and policy makers to fulfill the commitments.[…]

The reference to the UNESCO documents is a consequence of Reardon’s familiaritywith the purpose and international policy significant of the Recommendation andthe Framework. The Global Campaign was, in her eyes, the next logical step, giventhe fact that international agreements provide direction and legitimization for sub-stantial curricula changes, but such statements alone do not suffice. The Campaignwas planned to identify social actors to implement the requisite changes and tocreate a network among them. The need for a transformational peace pedagogy,standard setting, implementation, and research are also mirrored in the GlobalCampaign.

Beyond this long-range goal, Betty Reardon defined the aims of the Campaignin four levels:

(1) Advocacy: ‘Lobbying Ministries and Boards of Education to initiate univer-sal peace education on the basis of the commitment undertaken in the Decla-ration accompanying the Framework.’

(2) Research and curriculum development: ‘Aggregating and assessing currentlyavailable human and material resources to facilitate rapid initiation of theintroduction of peace education throughout the education systems of theworld.’

(3) In-service training: ‘Initiate in-service courses and workshops to preparepracticing teachers in the use of existing materials and methods.’

(4) International networking: ‘Set up mechanisms for national, regional and glo-bal networking, especially of relevant educational organizations that have thecapacity to reach large audiences.’

The original idea was to stimulate local measures where efforts can be executedmost expediently. International networking was considered a tool to encourage andenhance local activities. However, very soon it became clear that this general actionplan, as an appeal to all educational institutions, was not sufficient. Consequently,there were two further short-term goals identified:

142 W. Wintersteiner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

(1) An international ‘task force’ composed of peace educators of all regions ofthe world who are capable to establish regional and local networks to workfor the aim of the Campaign. For this purpose, an International AdvisoryBoard of the GCPE was established.

(2) A globally applicable manual that describes clearly the aims, the rationale,and the methodology of peace education drawing from the experience of theinternational peace education community.

In November 1999, the GCPE organized a kick-off meeting in New York City.This event attracted around 80 peace educators, including representatives of UNE-SCO and UNICEF, as well as Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury of the Bangla-desh Mission to the UN. The motto of the HAP also became the slogan of thismeeting: No peace without peace education!7

1.2.2. Phase II: The establishment – laying the ground (2001–2002)

The next two years, 2001 and 2002, were the periods of the elaboration of theGCPE resource book, and the planning and carrying out of the disarmament educa-tion program in four post-war countries.

As a first step, The GCPE employed Prof. Alicia Cabezudo, Chair in HumanRights Education at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina, a founding memberof the GCPE, as ‘educator in residence’. Her task was to develop together withBetty Reardon a globally applicable teacher’s manual on peace education. Since theCampaign was only a loose network organized by the office of the Hague Appeal,but lacked its own structure, the newly created Center for Peace Education atTeachers College, Columbia University, served as the official organization of thecampaign.

Manual ‘learning to abolish war’. The main learning resource of the Campaign,Learning to Abolish War,8 is composed of three volumes: the first one delivers arationale for peace education, the second one contains sample learning units, whilethe third one offers a model for a teacher training course and resources (bibliogra-phy, addresses, internet resources etc.). The conceptual framework for the wholemanual are the four strands of the HAP Agenda Culture of Peace, Human RightsLaw, Prevention, Resolution and Transformation of Violent Conflict,and Disarma-ment and Human Security (see Reardon and Cabezudo 2002, vol.1, 24). The differ-ence between this handbook and many others is that the manual does not limit itsgoal to education for ‘understanding each other,’ ‘nonviolent personal behavior,’‘global awareness,’ or readiness for engaging in social projects. Instead, its authorsare very clear about the social purpose and the ultimate goal of peace education,namely, ‘the elimination of social injustice, the renunciation of violence, and theabolition of war’ (Reardon and Cabezudo 2002, vol.1, 17). Thus, the politicaldimension and the interpersonal dimension are systematically connected. Thisapproach could be characterized as transformative education, an education whichempowers and enables learners to understand and to work for fundamental, societal,and cultural changes towards a culture of peace. This book, written by a group ofgraduate students of Teachers College, Columbia University, and a peace educatorfrom the global North together with one from the global South, characterizes peaceeducation as ‘fundamental, global, and culturally specific’ (Reardon and Cabezudo,

Journal of Peace Education 143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

2002, vol.1, 16–17). In the introduction, the authors frankly describe the limits oftheir endeavor in terms of both cultural and political representativeness, but alwaysinsisting that a universal and culturally sensitive approach can be combined: Theconcept, the teaching units and the teacher training, is meant to offer a generaldesign that can, with appropriate cultural and substantive changes, be adapted byalmost anyone working with the Campaign. In fact, it is a well-written, still veryvaluable orientation for peace educators at a global level. Its approach is meant tobe universal without neglecting cultural differences. This corresponds with the factthat the sources cited and the material used for illustration focus on different UNdocuments, thus, drawing from representative international documents. Moreover,the book had also an international impact with translations into four other (world)languages.9

The so-called ‘Book IV’ of the HAP GCPE, Peace Lessons from around theworld, is a collection of 16 lessons from Albania, Cambodia, Philippines, Kenya,India, Nepal, US, Spain, and South Africa, also based on the Hague Agenda forPeace. It was only published a few years later in 2004. As far as I can judge, thisbook had less impact than the package of the three first books. One reason may bethat it was produced relatively close to the end of the first period of the GlobalCampaign. Thus, it could not become – as originally planned – a starting point fora permanent process of collecting and editing new lessons.10 Another reason lies,probably, in the nature of this material itself. While the strength of the Global Cam-paign and its international diversity is brought to bear and is very valuable, theexamples are too different in their approach and in their underlying (implicit) con-cepts of peace education to really form a unit. Given the fact that it collects exam-ples from all over the world without really delivering information and deeperinsight in the very different situations of diverse regions, it may seduce some not soexperienced teachers to exoticism.

Disarmament education projects. The most interesting and most prestigious projectof the HAP in cooperation with the Global Campaign was carried out in partnershipwith the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs (Michael Cassandra,Chief of the Monitoring, Database and Information Branch of the UN DDA). Theidea proposed by Alicia Cabezudo, the ‘educator in residence,’ was to support anddeepen the disarmament process in four selected countries – Albania, Cambodia,Niger, and Peru – by providing specially designed disarmament education programs.In these countries, ‘Weapons for Development’ (WfD) had been initiated or werealready completed. WfD is a strategy for microdisarmament in which weapons arecollected in exchange for development goods and services.11 ‘This was a uniqueundertaking on two counts. The UN Department for Disarmament Affairs employedpeace education to enhance its disarmament work and collaborated, as equal part-ners, with a civil society organization.’ (Burkes 2005, 19) Betty J. Burkes, theHague Appeal’s Pedagogical Coordinator, responsible as the director of the projectcomments:

While the focus of the Project was on disarmament, the overall objective was tochange the mindsets of young people so they might imagine the possibility of non-destructive relationships in conflict situations. The idea was to help equip people withthe skill and inclination to make different choices, to choose alternative ways toresolve differences and maintain a personal engagement in communal security. Peaceeducation, rooted in constructive ways of relating, provided a tool chest of values and

144 W. Wintersteiner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

methods with which to explore the root causes of violence and a participatory processfor understanding the world and the human attitudes and behaviors that disrupt stabil-ity and threaten security. (Burkes 2005, 22)

While the GCPE provided guidance, initial training resources, and the philosophicaland educational framework for the project, the development of the training and cur-riculum was left very much in the hands of the local partners and their school andcommunity colleagues. The projects were based in Kampong Chhnang, Cambodia;Gramsh and Shkodra, Albania; and N’Guigmi, Niger and Lima, Peru; but in eachcountry, the projects had a nation-wide impact.

For example, the Albanian project has translated the international HAP manual,Learning to Abolish War into Albanian, and has produced a teacher’s manual, ayouth manual, three booklets, and more than 20 school newspapers. The Albanianproject leaders have also contributed a chapter to an official manual on cross- andextra-curricular activities. As a result of the project, peace and disarmament educa-tion is an official part of the national curricula for cross- and extra-curricular activi-ties.12

The process, the results of this two-year collaboration and the lessons learnedfrom it are reported in the book, Peace and Disarmament Education. ChangingMindsets to Reduce Violence and Sustain the Removal of Small Arms (Levitas2005). Thus, I do not enter in a detailed discussion of the achievements, problems,and consequences of the project. I simply raise awareness of the strategic functionof these projects in the overall strategy of the GCPE:

• To demonstrate the role of a culture of peace: that physical disarmament mustbe complemented and sustained by a mental disarmament process, and, conse-quently, that peace education matters for any serious peace process.

• To implement long-term and structural changes, including measures to estab-lish peace education elements in the national curricula and/or teacher trainingprograms.

• To cooperate, as an NGO, successfully with a UN department and hopefullyto make a difference also inside of the UN.

The International global advisory committee. Due to the lack of funding, it tookalmost two years after the foundation of the Campaign, in May 2001, that a GlobalAdvisory Committee of the HAP/GCPE could be established to hold its first gather-ing. The meeting was held at Teachers College, Columbia University, organized byTeachers College Peace Education Center and sponsored by the HAP. The AdvisoryCommittee included originally 14 persons coming from 11 countries (includingNorth- and South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia). Later, the group wasenlarged to 24 people.

The purpose of the consultation was ‘a review of the concrete accomplishmentseach of us has been able to achieve in the two years since the Campaign waslaunched […] to synergize each other’s efforts and to extend what has been done atregional levels, […] to strengthen the advocacy arm of the Campaign’ as well as‘to develop an all-purpose design for the training of teacher trainers.’ But, the mostimportant part of the program was the constitution of the Advisory Board whichfunctioned for almost four years, not only as an advisory group for the GCPE

Journal of Peace Education 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

projects but also as a ‘task force,’ to carry out the GCPE agenda on a national orlocal level which was the original idea of the campaign.

The second strategic meeting of the GCPE was held one year later in November2002, during a conference, ‘Integrating Peace Education Into Curricula & Commu-nities Worldwide,’ again at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York. Onehighlight was a speech given by Federico Mayor, ex-Director-General of UNESCO,proof that the GCPE had enlarged its list of allies and sponsors.

At this meeting, the Advisory Committee elected two coordinators, Adina Shap-iro (Israel) and Ghassan Abdullah (Palestine), the two co-directors of the peaceorganization, The Middle East Children's Association (MECA). This was a sign ofthe growing impact of the Advisory Group inside the GCPE architecture. In 2003,at a meeting in Hamburg, Germany, ‘consolidating and intensifying the internalstructure of the GCPE’ was ranked among the first priorities of the next period ofthe campaign (see below). This meant that the first most important step was thereinforcement of the Advisory Committee; however, the very role of the committeewas never clarified. One reason might be that some members had a more-structurednotion and others a more ‘organic’ concept of the campaign.

Besides the Advisory Committee and the educator in residence, there was also aYouth Program that since has organized virtual youth desks and other activities inten countries (see Tyler and Berry 2000). It was linked to the Campaign by a mem-ber of the Advisory Committee.

1.2.3. Phase III: New horizons – structures and strategy (2003–2005/2006)

A two-year plan. After the first accomplishments, there was a need for a new orien-tation. At the initiative of Cora Weiss and after consultation of the advisory com-mittee, the then HAP program director Meg Gardinier drafted ‘The Two-Year Planof Action of the HAP/GCPE September 2003–August 2005.’13 This paper was dis-cussed and revised at a reunion of the Advisory committee in Hamburg, Germany,during a conference of Teachers for Peace International (July 2003), a meetingsponsored by the Foundation for a Culture of Peace (Federico Mayor). The newplan provided, basically, a more regular communication between the members ofthe advisory committee, including a regular peace education electronic newsletter –an institution that has survived the campaign and is still producing monthly (seebelow). The really new achievement was a concrete list of commitments of severalmember organizations for the two-year period. However, there were no new con-crete and common goals in this plan of action.14

Linza meeting and Tirana call. In 2004, an ‘Encounter for a Culture of Peace:Peace Education’ was planned, originally together with the Spanish Foundation fora Culture of Peace in Spain. Finally, the meeting was held in Linza/Tirana, Albania,in October. This proved to be a lucky choice since Albania was the place of one ofthe four pilot projects where disarmament education had been implemented. Thiswas the last huge gathering of the Global Campaign, and probably it was one of itsmost important ones.15 The idea was to make use of the four pilot projects indisarmament education described peviously in a plea for the inclusion of peaceeducation in the educational systems. Thus, the conference started with a panel ofministers of education and peace education experts continued by a plenary withpeace and disarmament education practitioners from Albania, Cambodia, Niger, and

146 W. Wintersteiner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Peru. High-ranging diplomats and UN officials like Under Secretary General Anwa-rul K. Chowdhury and Michael Cassandra from the UN Department of Disarma-ment Affairs were present. Another important point was the visit of the site of thePeace and Disarmament Education UN DDA/HAP project. Following a successful‘Weapons in Exchange for Development’ UN project, the DDA and HAP Peaceand Disarmament Education project has worked in partnership with the local com-munity of Gramsh in 2002 and 2003. (Gramsh is a city created 50 years ago to pro-duce guns and ammunitions in its armaments factory.) The meeting concluded withthe Tirana Call for Peace Education, probably, the most explicit statement of theCampaign for the integration of peace education into the school systems.16

The DDA cooperation project provided a learning experience for many educa-tors who, no doubt, retained some of the methodology and pedagogy in theircontinuing teaching practices. However, it is not sure that this valuable project hashad the expected long-term effects and the anticipated dissemination effect that theTirana meeting had planned to promote. Despite the strong support by UN Under-Secretary General Anwarul K. Chowdhury and many efforts to propagate the out-come of the project, to my knowledge, no other country has taken this experienceas a model. And there was no follow-up mandate either to do a similar job in othercountries. The GCPE had to learn a lesson that unfortunately is very common forNGOs dealing with (national) authorities. They get the chance to carry out a so-called ‘pilot project,’ which means to make an experience on a small-scale in orderto apply the positive achievements on a large-scale. But it turns out that, though theexperience is worth generalizing, this second step never comes about. The TiranaCall for Peace Education fell on deaf ears: ‘We call on all ministers of education,regions, and local authorities to replicate these achievements, exchange experiences,and integrate peace education into all pre-school, primary and secondary school sys-tems, tertiary education, and teacher training programs’ (HAP 2004).

2. Merger with other organizations

After all these accomplishments, it may be surprising that 2004 was the last year ofthe HAP Campaign’s planned activities. In 2005, there were no more meetings ofthe Advisory committee or any other major event of the campaign. Due to the lackof funding and because she felt unable to continue to carry the weight of the orga-nization and the fundraising all alone, after all these years, HAP president CoraWeiss decided to look for a new solution. Among the existing partners, Peace Boat,a Japan-based NGO, seemed to be best equipped to take over the network. Since1983, Peace Boat worked on an international level for peace education. It carriesout its main activities through a chartered passenger ship that travels the world onpeace voyages.17

As a first step, a US Peace Boat branch was created in 2005. In November2005, the Board of Directors of HAP, decided to cede its peace education programs,namely the GCPE, to Peace Boat. In June 2006, on board, the ship in Vancouverharbor, Canada, the final handover ceremony was held accompanied by somemembers for a last meeting, the Advisory Committee and a common strategymeeting, with the leadership team of Peace Boat. However, to my knowledge, thiscooperation lasted only for about half a year and there was no more activity ofPeace Boat, which involved the core group of the Campaign, the InternationalAdvisory Committee.18

Journal of Peace Education 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

In January 2007, the stewardship of the GCPE was given to the Peace Educa-tion Center at Teachers College, Columbia University, under the leadership of thethen co-director Tony Jenkins. With little or no funding, the Peace Education Centerfocused on developing means of promoting peace education through a new websiteand a revised monthly online newsletter, while other activities generally declined.19

The emphasis on the newsletter, as well as other activities related to the website,were proposed as a strategic shift from the more centrally coordinated activitiesunder HAP towards a more decentralized campaign which fits, as it seems, verywell to the original idea of the campaign conceived by Betty Reardon. In 2009, theefforts were transitioned to the US National Peace Academy, when Tony Jenkinstook a new position as the Director of Education.20 The new newsletter now hasmore than 4000 monthly subscribers proving the growing interest of the peace edu-cation community in mutual information and a common platform.

2.1. Assessment

An assessment of the HAP GCPE has to evaluate its achievements compared withits goals and considering the means that were available; it has to put the campaigninto the wider context of similar or different reactions on globalization; finally, ithas to assess its (maybe not fully developed) capacities and the lessons to learnfrom its experiences.

2.1.1. Achievements

These are the main achievements of the Campaign, as presented by the initiatorsthemselves. The Campaign has:21

• Established a website that provides

(a) peace education curricula, translations of curricula in various languages(b) channel of communication for international network

• Increased partnerships to disseminate information and resources to over15,000 people

• Published teacher training manuals including

(a) Learning to Abolish War: Teaching Toward a Culture of Peace(b) Peace Lessons from Around the World(c) Peace and Disarmament Education: Changing Mindsets in Niger, Albania,

Peru, and Cambodia

• Annual Conferences with international peace educators• Partnered with Ministries of Education in Africa, Asia, Europe, New Zealand,and South America.

• Formed a unique partnership project with the UN Department for Disarma-ment Affairs to integrate disarmament and peace education programs in bothformal and nonformal settings of Albania, Cambodia, Niger, and Peru whichhave been adopted by each of their Ministries of Education

148 W. Wintersteiner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

• Conducted over 200 workshops and presentations in classrooms, communities,national and international framework.

In terms of a qualitative assessment, I would identify four main achievements:

• The conceptual framework of the Campaign, highlighting the ultimate goal,the abolition of war, and the concept of the culture of peace as the ‘royalroad’ to reach this aim;

• A fresh and very clear statement that peace education is a necessary elementin any serious peace process (HAP 2002);

• Consequently, the struggle for the integration of peace education into all cur-ricula and communities;

• The creation of a huge global network of peace educators, their encourage-ment, and education.

What was unique with the GCPE? It was probably the first attempt to create aglobal movement to advocate for peace education. Other existing international net-works or associations may have peace education in their program, like the UNE-SCO school network, or developed worldwide peace education activities, likeUNICEF or the Red Cross, and others. The new international associations for peaceeducation that emerged in the 1980s, including Teachers for Peace International,may have the capacity to organize efficiently several international congresses in dif-ferent parts of the world. The Peace Education Commission (PEC) of InternationalPeace Research Commission (IPRA) may be a unique international cooperation of(academic) peace educators, with regular biannual meetings, a clear structure, and anewsletter. However, the ambition of the GCPE was higher: to create a task forceof engaged peace educators from (almost) all continents, following a common strat-egy for peace education. According to its name, the GCPE was a campaign, andonly secondly, a forum for the exchange of ideas. The ambition of the GCPE wasto have an impact on the education policy of the states where its members wereactive. This was the specific quality of the GCPE, as affirmed, for instance, byadvisory committee member Loreta Castro, professor for peace education at MiriamCollege. The Philippines: ‘I have always looked at the GCPE as an advocacy net-work (more meaningful than the usual professional organization), whose main goal[…] is to build public awareness and political support for the introduction of peaceeducation into all spheres of education throughout the world.’22 The Campaign hasenriched her own work as director of the Center for Peace Education at MiriamCollege, while she, in turn, has substantially contributed to the aims of the Cam-paign, not least by her textbook on peace education (Castro/Nario-Galace 2008),dedicated to the GCPE. This is a good example how the Campaign ideally workedaccording to its initial idea.

Another example for the moral and intellectual support to local and regionalinitiatives is the network European Education as Peace Education, a loose associa-tion of peace educators in Europe, founded in 2000, which was very much inspiredby the GCPE. This network organized from 2004 to 2006, a European wide Univer-sity course – an in-service teacher training in peace education with speakers andtrainers who partially came from the GCPE (see Wintersteiner 2004). The Appeal,A European Initiative for Peace Education, which was adopted at the final seminar

Journal of Peace Education 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

of the two-year course, is clearly inspired by the GCPE and cites the HAP as itsmotto (see Wintersteiner 2007, 22).

Probably, conceptually, and politically the most important example is the appli-cation of the GCPE philosophy to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Adina Shapiroand Ghassan Abdullah, Co-Directors of MECA in Jerusalem, and members of theAdvisory Committee of the GCPE, elaborated on the role of education in the Mid-dle East conflict. In an article for the UN Online Chronicle Edition in 2003, theywrote:

‘Even the most honest, good faith implementation of political agreements cannotrepair the schismatic psychological, emotional and educational fault lines opened afteryears of conflict. If left unattended, these ‘black holes’ can swallow up years of harddiplomatic efforts. Our painful experience has taught us that we have no choice but torecognize the educational system as playing a strategic role in the political process.’23

Starting from this analysis, the joint Israeli and Palestinian peace educators askedfor including peace education in any peace process, according to the HAP motto,No peace without peace education:

‘What do we mean when we speak of education on the strategic level? […] Creatinga strategic place for the educational systems would mean that just as the negotiatorson all levels consult military, economic and diplomatic experts, and sometimes healthand media experts as well, there should be an educational track to be consulted.’24

As a practical example, they developed a peace education annex to the GenevaAccord Middle East peace agreement. This annex was widely distributed and gath-ered feedback from various international educators. It aimed to be an educationmodel for any political accord. (GCPE. Worldwide Activities Brief, Issue 6,November–December 2003, 5).25 This Middle East initiative is an excellent bestpractice example of the campaign, an initiative that should have been continued andimitated by other peace educators (See also Shapiro 2003). It shows as well, indi-rectly, the vulnerable aspect of the campaign. The network was only as strong as itspartners were. Where dynamic and active partners were at work, like in the MiddleEast, there were visible accomplishments. Where this was not the case, the HAPoffice, in the long run, could not fill the gap.

2.1.2. The international context

To which problem was the GCPE intended to be the answer? What was the contextof such a ‘globalizing’ idea like the GCPE? In the early 1990s, it became clear thatglobalization had led, among many other things, to an unequaled connection andtransnational communication within the global civil society. This opened new hori-zons for peace education.

The global perspective of peace education was elaborated already at the end ofthe 1980s, before new communication tools like internet and email were available,namely, in books like Building a Global Civic Culture: Education for an Interde-pendent World (Boulding 1988a), or Education for Global Responsibility (Reardon1988). Consequently, Betty Reardon and Alicia Cabezudo defined ‘education forglobal civic responsibility’ as ‘a major focus of peace education in the new phaseof the field […]’ (Reardon and Cabezudo 2001, 25).

150 W. Wintersteiner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

At the beginning of the new millennium, parallel with the HAP Global Cam-paign, several global initiatives emerged. The best known examples are the encoun-ters of the World Social Forum as well as of the World Education Forum that havetaken place, since 2000, first in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and meanwhile in differentparts of the world. Also in 2000, the UN launched the International Year of a Cul-ture of Peace followed by the Decade for a Culture of Peace. In the same year2000, at the IPRA conference in Tampere, Finland, the PEC decided to create thefirst and really international academic journal specializing in peace education, theJournal of Peace Education, started in 2004. All these initiatives emerged in an eraof (relative) optimism after the fall of the Iron Curtain, when the general hope wasto make profit of a ‘peace dividend’ (despite the war in Yugoslavia, the atrocities inRwanda, and many other wars in so called failed states), before the setback of 11September 2001, brought a completely different international climate which alsomade it harder for peace (education) movements to prevail.

This leads to another question: If the HAP Campaign has started with so muchsupport, raising so many hopes, mobilizing so many institutions, and people, whydid it stop to work as a structured ‘organization’ after only a few years?

In my view, the HAP GCPE was a heroic attempt to create a worldwide peaceeducation organization as a strong motor for implementing peace education in theformal and informal education all over the world. It was heroic because this attemptnever had a realistic chance of realization, given the personal resources, the finan-cial means, and the political circumstances. ‘The goal of the campaign is to assurethat all educational systems throughout the world will educate for a culture ofpeace,’26 as the Campaign Statement reads. But this goal cannot be achieved by acampaign, be it a huge one. This needs a whole historical period of transition withseveral stages and many actors working on various levels.

An organization called Campaign is a contradiction in itself. While the idea ofan organization is stability in order to carry out long-term programs, a campaign isalways something limited, with clearly defined, short- or middle-term tasks and aclear action plan. The heroism of the GCPE was to accept this contradiction whileaiming to be both – an initiative expected to have immediate success and a networkexpected to continually grow and deepen. It was exactly this activism, informedand inspired by a huge and noble long-term goal that made the GCPE so attractivefor many peace educators all around the globe. Maybe this was going hand in handwith an overemphasis of the global approach and with an underestimating of thedifficulties on the ground. But indeed, the Campaign worked very well as aquasi-organization, as long as the four conditions were fulfilled:

(1) Concrete (short-term) tasks.(2) People to carry out these tasks.(3) An adequate (academic) structure.(4) Funding for the projects and for meetings and conferences to prepare projects

and to disseminate their outcomes.

All four conditions were given in the first two phases identified above, the start-ing phase and the establishment phase where so many projects were realized. In thethird phase meant to be the consolidation phase, when the need for a morestructured work became clear, the energy and the resources decreased (factor four).Further, it was no longer as easy as it had been at the start to define clear tasks

Journal of Peace Education 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

(factor one) for the whole campaign; instead, there was, as mentioned previously, alisting of duties and commitments of various member organizations. Another factorwas also the poor anchorage in academic institutions to lead the Campaign. Theaffiliation with the Peace Education Center, at the beginning a decisive success fac-tor, proved to be insufficient when the Center began losing more and more of itsbacking from Teachers College, Columbia University. There were no systematicattempts to get support by the global academic peace (education) community. Forinstance, at the PEC meetings of IPRA 2000 – 2006, to my knowledge, the Cam-paign was never really a topic.27 We have to keep in mind the Campaign worked ina networking style which means that it depended on the support and collaborationof local and international educators, organizations, researchers, youth activists, andpolicy-makers committed to the Campaign goals. The strength of the New YorkHAP headquarters was fundraising, as well as using lobbying channels into the UNand some governments where pilot projects were carried out. It could not makegood the fact that beside a couple of showcases, many initiatives did not progressin implementing peace education in their respective educational systems.

Seen the other way round, we can state that the Campaign has accomplished itsinitial mission: to make a start, to show the way, to lay the ground. By its exis-tence, it has revealed the need for a global perspective and by its activities, it hasdemonstrated that step by step a difference can be made. It is now up to the interna-tional peace education community to develop new, maybe more sophisticated formsof global networking, including a denser net of academic peace education projects,comparative studies, and common research with peace researchers from other disci-plines. In doing so, the Campaign always reminds us that, while working for veryconcrete and limited endeavors, we must not lose sight of the ‘big whole’ that isthe abolition of the war system including a culture of war and violence.

2. Outlook: what is the interest in the GCPE for today’s peace educators?

Put in its historical context, the HAP/GCPE was a creative reaction to new chal-lenges and opportunities for peace education, namely, the rapid development ofglobalization with all its consequences, problems, and chances mentioned above.

The idea of the GCPE was to make use of these new opportunities in order toface the new challenges: A global movement to develop a common global strategyfor peace education as a main tool for conflict prevention, profiting from the experi-ences all over the world, and thus, combining de facto peace education and globaleducation.

Today, the situation has already changed. Peace education has become a topic inpeace building in post-war societies, even if it is mostly by new strategies of theinternational civil society and aid associations, not so much by the effort of stateauthorities. It is, more or less, integrated into programs to help children, promotepeace through culture, and restore the educational system. Some articles in the JPEbring case studies of such activities in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, or Asia.There are a few strategy papers on development cooperation written from a peaceeducation perspective (Seitz 2004). The problem nowadays is less about the promo-tion of the integration of peace education into peace programs (which still is a task)but to assess very concretely how this is done. This is not the task of a Campaignbut of accompanying (academic) research. Thus, it is encouraging to see that – forexample – ‘addressing ethnic conflict through peace education’ is surveyed as a

152 W. Wintersteiner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

common and comparative international effort of peace educators in Cyprus, Israel/Palestine, Nigeria, Northern Ireland, Rwanda, South Africa, the Ukraine, as well asthe USA (Bekerman and McGlynn 2007).

With the wisdom of hindsight, I would argue today that the Campaign (as theHAP Campaign) was in many, but not in all matters, up-to-date in its concepts ofpeace (education). If we follow Richmond (2008), we can distinguish four para-digms (or generations) of peace concepts (especially in International Relations): arealist paradigm that focus exclusively on state diplomacy; ‘idealist’ peace whichfocuses on conflict resolution which implies an opening towards civil society; lib-eral peace building with a wider recognition of nonstate parties which opens thepath to bottom-up activities; and finally a fourth generation, informed by feministand post-structuralist movements that challenges the liberal model of power, asksfor emancipation as part of any peace process and urges a transformative peace edu-cation, as preached by the Global Campaign. GCPE was based on concepts of aculture of peace, highlighted the role of women for peace processes, in this sensebelonging to generation four. However, its concept (and practice) was still inspiredby a strong universalism (typically for liberal peace) as I see it. It answered thepost-colonial challenge by celebrating cultural differences but discussed too littlethe power relationships behind universal concepts, including universal concepts ofpeace education that educators in many developing countries are confronted with.This is a point that could become crucial for a global discourse on peace education,especially when the number of peace education programs increases.

Another challenge is linked with the development of the discussions and debatesinside of international organizations, namely UNESCO and UN, as well as in thepeace research community which eventually led to the concept of the culture ofpeace. The HAP/GCPE adopted maybe for the first time so visibly the concept ofthe culture of peace and elaborated an integrative approach for peace documentedin the cited ‘Hague Agenda’. Inside of this new peace strategy (if it was one), peaceeducation was assigned a crucial role. It is interesting to see that, to cite only oneexample, the Report of the High-level Group to the Alliance of Civilizations as wellcalls education one of the key instruments to ‘improve relations between societies’and ‘to build bridges between communities’ (High Level Group 2006, 25). TheReport warns about the ‘focus on strictly job-related education’ which already ‘hasdiminished the attention paid to the humanities and social sciences and limited theavailability of instruction in these fields in many developing countries. A well-rounded holistic education is invaluable for the development of critical thinking,interpretive, and adaptive skills, which are increasingly important in a world ofincreasing complexity and diversity.’ It mentions in first line ‘citizen and peaceeducation’ (High Level Group 2006, 25). Thus, the slogan of the GCPE, To reachpeace, teach peace, is today much more accepted than 10 years ago.

However, there is still so much to do. The overall long-range goal of the GlobalCampaign, as formulated by Betty A. Reardon at the very start of the initiative isstill valid and, alas, a desideratum in most parts of the world:

‘To as that peace education becomes as standard a part of the content of elementaryand secondary education as are the basic skills of literacy and numeracy, and to facili-tate this end to introduce peace education teaching methodology as a fundamental ofthe education of all teachers, and to encourage the general education of the public inthe purposes and approaches of peace education […]’.28

Journal of Peace Education 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Notes1. The author thanks cordially, Betty A. Reardon, Cora Weiss, and Tony Jenkins for their

critical remarks on an earlier version of this paper and for all the precious informationand insight they have given.

2. In 2000, Cora Weiss became President of the IPB.3. This reminds a little the situation in the 1970s: When the PEC of the IPRA was founded,

not all fellow peace researchers found this a necessary step (see Boulding 1988b; Win-tersteiner 2010).

4. See the report of the International Peace Bureau: http://www.ipb.org/Triennial%20Report%201998–2000.html

5. http://www.peace-ed-campaign.org/newsletter/archives.html6. All quotations from three emails to the mailing list of the Hague Appeal for Peace work-

ing group for a Global Campaign for Peace Education, between 10 and 22 June, 1999.The author of these lines was one of the recipients.

7. See Peace Matters. Newsletter of the Hague Appeal for Peace, vol. 3, issue 1, January2000, p. 1 and 6.

8. The manual is still available online: http://www.haguepeace.org/resources/book2/Eng-lish1.pdf

9. Namely English, Russian, Arabic, Albanian, and French.10. However, supplementary lessons, also from other countries, including Argentina, Brazil,

Lebanon, Peru, Sri Lanka, Uganda, and West Africa are available at the web: http://www.haguepeace.org/index.php?action=resources&subAction=morePeace.

11. See the conference report Problems of Small Arms and Light Weapons of Human Secu-rity: Lessons Learned from Field Experiences: http://www.unidir.org/pdf/activites/pdf-act49.pdf or the report Practical Disarmament for Enhancing Human Security: http://www.unidir.org/pdf/activites/pdf2-act49.pdf.

12. See Skendaj 2005.13. A concept for the structure of this strategy document was prepared by Tamo

Chattopadhay, then Peace Education Fellow of the HAP at Columbia University, in May2003.

14. This list included organizations like the International Peace Bureau, Educating Cities,Fundacion por la Cultura de Paz, Peace Education Centers, EURED (a European peaceeducators’ network), MECA (Middle East Children’s Association), and the US NationalCampaign on Peace Education.

15. Definitely, it was the best-documented conference of the GCPE. See for a fullreport and all documents: http://www.haguepeace.org/conf/images/tirana/albaconfre-port2004.pdf

16. http://www.haguepeace.org/index.php?action=history&subAction=tiranaConf17. See the website of Peace Boat: http://www.peaceboat.org/english/?menu=4618. The Hague Appeal and the Global Campaign are still well documented, including all

documents and newsletters which are still available in the net. The archives of the HAPare in Swarthmore College Peace Collection http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG201–225/DG211HagueAppeal.htm.

19. All newsletters (since 2003) can be found at: http://www.peace-ed-campaign.org/newsletter/20. http://www.nationalpeaceacademy.us/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=121. See http://www.peace-ed-campaign.org/history.html22. Letter to the advisory committee, January 2007.23. http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2003/issue3/0303p58.asp, see also Abdullah and

Shapiro 2003.24. See footnote 18.25. http://www.haguepeace.org/files/2003–11-12.pdf26. http://www.haguepeace.org/index.php?action=pe#statement27. There is also, as far as I see, only one article in the JPE mentioning the Campaign

(Jenkins, 2004).28. Betty A. Reardon, email-communication, June 1999, see footnote 6.

154 W. Wintersteiner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Notes on contributorWerner Wintersteiner, PhD, is the founding director of the Centre for Peace Research andPeace Education, Klagenfurt University, Austria. His main research fields are: peaceeducation, culture and peace, including literature and peace, teacher training. His booksinclude Viktorija Ratković/Werner Wintersteiner (eds.): Culture of Peace. A Concept and aCampaign Revisited. Klagenfurt/Celovec 2010.

ReferencesAbdullah, Ghassan and Adina Shapiro. 2003. Education As a Matter of Policy. http://www.

un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2003/issue3/0303p58.asp.Bekerman, Zwi, and Claire McGlynn, eds. 2007. Addressing Ethnic Conflict through Peace

Educaton. New York, NY: Palgrave/McMillan.Boulding, Elise. 1988a. Building a Global Civic Culture. Education for an Interdependent

World. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Boulding, Elise. 1988b. Friedenserziehung als Friedensgestaltung [Peace Education as Peace

Formation]. Bonn: AFB-Text.Burkes, Betty J. 2005. “Developing Peace and Disarmament Education Initiatives to Disarm

Children and Youth. Executive Summary” In Peace and Disarmament Education.Changing Mindsets to Reduce Violence and Sustain the Removal of Small Arms, editedby Gloria Levitas, 19–23. New York, NY: The Hague Appeal for Peace. http://www.haguepeace.org/resources/DDA-book.pdf.

Castro, Loreta N., and Jasmin Nario-Galace. eds. 2008. Peace Education: A Pathway to aCulture of Peace. Quezon City: Miriam College. http://www.peace-ed-campaign.org/resources/cpe-book-14oct2010-FINAL2.pdf.

High-Level Group of the Alliance of Civilizations Release Report. 2006 Accessed on June30, 2007 http://www.un-ngls.org/site/article.php3?id_article=170.

http://www.haguepeace.org.http://www.peace-ed-campaign.org/newsletter/archives.html.http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG201-225/DG211HagueAppeal.htm.HAP. 2002. Integrating Peace Education into Curricula and Communities Worldwide. Final

Report on the Strategic Meeting of the Hague Appeal for Peace Global Campaign forPeace Education, held in New York City, November 22–24, 2002.

Jenkins, Tony. 2004. “Learning to Abolish War: Teaching Toward a Culture of Peace (BookReview).” Journal of Peace Education 1 (1): 135–137.

Levitas, Gloria, ed. 2005. Peace and Disarmament Education. Changing Mindsets to ReduceViolence and Sustain the Removal of Small Arms. New York, NY: The Hague Appealfor Peace. http://www.haguepeace.org/resources/DDA-book.pdf.

Newsletters of the Global Campaign for Peace Edcuation (2003–). http://www.peace-ed-cam-paign.org/newsletter/archives.html

Peace Matters. Newsletter of the Hague Appeal for Peace (2000–2002).Reardon, Betty. 1988. Education for Global Responsibility: A Guide to Teacher Designed

Curricula K-12. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Reardon, Betty A., and Alicia Cabezudo. 2001. “Tasks and Directions for the Global Cam-

paign for Peace Education.” Disarmament Forum 3: 19–26. http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art47.pdf.

Reardon, Betty A., and Alicia Cabezudo. 2002. Learning to Abolish War. Teaching Towarda Culture of Peace. Vol. 3. New York: Hague Appeal for Peace. Available in English,Russian, Arabic, Albanian, and French.

Richmond, Oliver. 2008. Peace in International Relations. Milton Park: Routledge.Seitz, Klaus. 2004. Education and Conflict. The role of Education in the Creation, Prevention.

and Resolution of Societal Crises – Consequences for Development Cooperation Esch-born: German Technical Cooperation. http://www2.gtz.de/dokumente/bib/05-0160.pdf.

Shapiro, Adina (2003): Peace Education Must be Part of Middle East Road Map. PeaceMatters, September, 1 and 3.

Skendaj, Elton. 2005. “In Albania, A Transforming Experience.” In Peace and DisarmamentEducation. Changing Mindsets to Reduce Violence and Sustain the Removal of SmallArms, edited by Gloria Levitas, 24–35. New York: The Hague Appeal for Peace.

Journal of Peace Education 155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4

The Hague Appeal for Peace. 1999a. Conference Program.The Hague Appeal for Peace. 1999b. The Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice for the

21st Century. New York. http://www.haguepeace.org/resources/HagueAgendaPeace+Jus-tice4The21stCentury.pdf.

The Hague Appeal for Peace. 2004. The Tirana Call for Peace Education. http://www.haguepeace.org/files/TheTiranaCallforPeaceEducation.pdf.

Tyler, Jo, and Adam Berry, eds. 2000. Time to Abolish War! A Youth Agenda for Peace andJustice. New York: The Hague Appeal for Peace.

Weiss, Cora. 2010. “The Hague Appeal for Peace.” In The Oxford International Encyclope-dia of Peace, Vol. 2, edited by Nigel Young, 298–300. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wintersteiner, Werner. 2004. “The ‘Old Europe’ and the New Tasks for Peace Education.”Journal of Peace Education 1 (1): 89–102.

Wintersteiner, Werner, ed. 2007. UNESCO/EURED In-Service Teacher Training Course“Human Rights and Peace Education in Europe.” First Cycle 2004–2006. Klagenfurt:Centre for Peace Research and Peace Education.

Wintersteiner, Werner. 2010. “Educational Sciences and Peace Education: MainstreamingPeace Education Into (Western) Academia? In Handbook on Peace Education, edited byGavriel Salomon and Ed Cairns, 45–59. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

156 W. Wintersteiner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:16

05

Oct

ober

201

4