Home | Search | Contact Us
|
Home | Search | Contact Us |
|||
|
||||
   
   |
Home » Thinkers & Themes » Thinkers » Boulding & Forsberg
A Conversation with Elise Boulding and Randall Forsberg PART III: AUGUST 2002 Read Part I: New Definitions and Moral Responses
In her description of two initiatives designed to bring the world closer to peace, Forsberg points out that abolishing war must be more than a moral concept and explains how the spread of democratic values has lessened the likelihood of war. Ways in which the U.S. has taken steps backward regarding the threat of nuclear war are discussed. Boulding emphasizes the need for a consciousness of "species identity" as she explains the importance of developing a culture of peace simultaneously with political actions and initiatives. She also defines "UN citizenship" as she returns to the potential for the UN to serve as a resource for public education at all levels. Current options for the Middle East, Iraq, and the India-Pakistan-Kashmir conflict are analyzed in light of political and economic factors. Both participants agree on the importance of supporting civil society in regions of conflict. The BRC's Patti Marxsen moderated. *** PM: We'd like to invite you both to help us envision a "way out" of our current predicament. How would you propose that those committed to the vision of a world without war proceed to pursue that vision, given the state of the world today? How does your approach compare to the strategy being implemented from Washington in the current war on terrorism? Maybe we should start with Randy because you've been working intensely on an anti-nuclear initiative. Maybe you could summarize that work and bring it into the context of this question. RF: I'm involved in two activist projects which are rather different from each other. One of them is a very broad project, which I mentioned earlier, Global Action to Prevent War. This was just beginning to get underway when we wrote Abolishing War and has really become fully developed and launched now as an international coalition-building project to end war, internal armed conflict, genocide, and terrorism. It's a comprehensive, overarching program, or we've tried to make it a comprehensive program, which includes several different kinds of approaches and tries to integrate them. One part of it involves measures we discussed earlier, which could be taken under the auspices of the UN and other regional organizations to try to prevent armed conflict from breaking out or to resolve it early on. A second component is a long-term program of measures for arms control and disarmament that covers not only nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, but also conventional weapons and the conventional arms trade and arms industry. And the third part is support for building a culture of peace, that is, creating a larger cultural environment in which those first two programmatic components could actually develop sufficient political support and be implemented. It's important to have a comprehensive program of this kind because it gives a context and a timeline and a sense of plausibility to ending war as a project of our time. It's important not to think of ending war as a "mere" moral concept or a goal, but as something much more along the lines of ending slavery or abolishing the death penalty or, if you look back to ancient times, ending the practice of human sacrifice. There was a time when, in early agricultural societies, human sacrifice was not uncommon. To return to one of your earlier questions, we have come to a time when war is obsolete, and that is increasingly widely recognized. Among other things, it's evidenced in the decline in very large-scale wars, great power wars, world wars. PM: You're speaking now of war as a means of dispute resolution. RF: Well, not just as a means of dispute resolution but also as a means of acquiring wealth or political territory or power. People's tolerance for organized armed violence as a way of achieving political goals has declined with the spread of democracy and the growing value placed on each individual human life and the growing respect for the dignity and worth of every individual as being equal. Those values are basically incompatible with the idea that human beings should be canon fodder for the state or the ruler. So we are moving toward the end of war globally, albeit very slowly and in fits and starts. If we have a shared, programmatic vision with a timeline and a set of intermediate goals or bridges that lead from here to there, this goal can be accomplished more quickly and with less human suffering. So having that kind of overarching idea and vision is very important. At the same time, I'm working on another campaign which is very narrow and specific and is aimed at trying to alleviate one of the worst features of the war system that's still with us today, the danger of nuclear war. In many ways, after 20 years or so of a declining threat of nuclear war with very big cuts in the number of weapons, a pullback from deployment around the world, and vigorous nonproliferation efforts, we now seem to be moving in the opposite direction. There has been a proliferation of nuclear weapons to India and Pakistan; there are nuclear-weapons development programs underway in Iran and North Korea; and there was clearly a desire in Iraq to acquire nuclear weapons. The most recent treaty between the United States and Russia, which on the surface calls for cuts in nuclear weapons, will actually allow nearly all of the weapons that are withdrawn to be stored instead of destroyed. The best estimates today are that the United States and Russia each have about 10,000 nuclear weapons, and that at the end of this treaty 10 years from now, they could each still have 10,000 nuclear weapons. In addition, the most recent Pentagon statement on nuclear weapons, "The Nuclear Posture Review," which was released in January 2002, has called for the United States to develop new nuclear "bunker busters" to use against underground caves in countries that don't have nuclear weapons. This document also calls for the refurbishing of the U.S. nuclear-weapon production complex and preparations to resume testing nuclear warheads at very short notice, ending the moratorium that's been in place for five years. So lots of steps backward have been proposed or are being taken by the U.S. government. In fact, ever since Jesse Helms (R-South Carolina) became the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the mid-nineties, the United States has withdrawn from or blocked a number of treaties involving nuclear weapons, and also biological and chemical weapons. So there is a great and growing sense of danger and of threats of mass destruction. In the wake of 9/11, there has also been a growing fear that the idea that with all this proliferation, with nuclear weapons being stored instead of destroyed, and more and more nations having fissile material, terrorists could get their hands on a nuclear weapon or on some nuclear material and use this in an attack on a city. There is also a lot of worry about the confrontation between India and Pakistan. And I worry about the potential for that conflict to get worse following U. S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty in June 2002. It's likely that China will build up its nuclear force and this could lead to further build-ups in India and Pakistan. We could actually have a new nuclear arms race in Asia. With all these nuclear dangers, taking part in a focused effort to oppose and reverse these — similar to the freeze movement of 20 years ago — seems like it should be a high priority right now. As a result, I have worked with several other organizations to create the Urgent Call site where people can log on and sign a petition, "End the Nuclear Danger: An Urgent Call." We hope that everyone who reads this dialogue will take a minute to click on the link and sign that petition because we are hoping that this will become a very, very broad coalition campaign in the United States. Our goal is to sign up 1million people by June 2003, 10 million by June 2004, and to collect an average of $10 per signatory. These funds will be used in a major national advertising campaign that will put pressure on the U.S. government to make a radical change in these dangerous policies it's been adopting. But beyond that, this will be a first step toward renewing and revitalizing grassroots efforts for peace and disarmament in this country and throughout the world. PM: Elise, how would you propose that those committed to the vision of a world without war proceed to pursue that vision? EB: An apparent (but only apparent) difference between us in the Abolishing War dialogue was top-down versus bottom-up strategies. That this was only an apparent difference becomes clear in actually reading it. But I was delighted to discover that the third major area for Global Action to Prevent War is developing a culture of peace. I see the existence of policy initiatives and the ongoing work on the cultural climate as complementary approaches; it is absolutely essential that these things go on simultaneously. It isn't about doing the top and then doing the bottom, or vice versa. And that's what I was saying before about NGOs learning to operate in local venues as well as in national and international arenas; these things have to happen simultaneously. The average person who belongs to an NGO has no idea where the international headquarters are and what happens there. The focus of awareness is the local YWCA group or the local Boy Scouts or Rotary or whatever. The international aspect is there, but it's not a part of the consciousness of local participation. So much of what we're talking about is a need for change in consciousness. The outrageous steps that our government has taken to move backwards from what we had worked to achieve can only be stopped by a major surge in public activity that comes from a change in consciousness. You made that very clear, Randy, and I agree with that. But the sense of urgency has to be accompanied by a different kind of a social identification. Saul Mendlovitz likes to talk about developing a "species identity." We're talking about protecting the human species and we're talking about protecting the planet. This isn't just a matter of the foreign policy of states; it is literally a life and death matter for the human species. This is why we need to develop a culture of peace. There are two different things I want to add: one is about NGOs and the other is about the UN's role. The UN has, since its inception, declared years and decades and special days and so on. When I was going back and forth regularly to UNESCO and working more closely with it, the world development decades and the world cultural development decades were in full swing, and the UNESCO was publishing some very fine books which I used in my courses. But all these good books that were coming out of UNESCO never appeared on reading lists of social studies courses, at least in the U.S. The UN practice of declaring years and decades on special topics of international significance becomes, if one is properly alerted to it and aware of it, a set of priceless opportunities for teachers to introduce the world into the classroom. Currently, we are getting near the end of the World Decade for Indigenous Peoples, but hardly anybody in the U.S. knows that this decade has been going on. This year (2002) has been declared the International Year of the Mountains. And when you realize that some of the world's mountains are sliding down and destroying countries like Bangladesh, this is a very important consciousness-raising year. But in the U.S., nobody knows about it. PM: Are you saying this is something that public education should be more tuned into? EB: Exactly. NGOs should be using these resources for community education at the local level. The Kettering Foundation recommends holding public forums as a way to deal creatively with the need to understand diversity, and many towns actually hold such forums as Harold Saunders describes in A Public Peace Process (St. Martin's Press, 1999). The current United Nations-declared year should be a topic of these local public forums. And then there are the school systems, from kindergarten through grade 12; NGOs should be visible in what children are learning in schools and in other community settings. Churches, temples, and synagogues representing all the faith communities should also be involved in creating awareness of the significance of the UN in peace making. After all, religious institutions are NGOs too. NGOs of all kinds are in a unique position to encourage teachers and to work at the local level. NGOs could sponsor dialogues in many places to provide connection points to the international level. PM: This would bring an awareness to young people. EB: Yes, to young people and families. We have to address family violence, because the family is where we are shaped: any predisposition to violence or to “peaceableness” begins in childhood. This is literally the grassroots, right at its roots. Communities of faith need to get away from the holy-war teachings. Peace teachings are at the core of every faith. We need to get the emphasis right. This is all part of a broader social awakening. It has to begin in individual homes and neighborhoods. My point is that we need to change our level of awareness and acknowledge human rights, acknowledge concern for the environment, for all living things on the planet. People are concerned, but in terms of influencing behavior that will change public policy, we have a long way to go. That's why I say these local and community efforts are very important, but must be linked step-by-step to national and international settings. I would also suggest that we need to make more use of regional and intergovernmental groups. The European Union (EU) is establishing a model for how regional governmental associations can operate. They are really showing the way in how to deal with all kinds of problems at the regional level. The U.S., as part of the regional Organization of American States (OAS), stands out more and more as a rogue state simply because it's going in the opposite direction from the states of the European Union. It's amusing but sad to watch how the states of the European Union are struggling with their relations with the U.S. PM: A focus of yours since the original Abolishing War dialogue has been UN citizenship, which relates to the things you're talking about. Could you elaborate on that and connect it to what you're saying about the feeling for the UN? EB: As I was saying before, this identification with the UN really needs to happen at the individual level. We can't just rely on our country, we have to lobby our country to behave rightly in the UN; the fact that the UN Charter says "we the people" really means that the people matter. The UN is not a world government; it is made up of governments, but it is not world government. It is a body that creates a concept of citizenship in the UN for every one of the six billion people on the planet. As I was saying earlier, preparation for that citizenship begins in school. So every school system in every country should be preparing children for their citizenship in the UN. Doing this properly would mean a whole new set of materials coming into textbooks. The UN supports education programs, the UN years and decades, and so on, but this is largely ignored in the U.S. So part of the UN citizenship concept involves celebrating each year and each decade, really doing the work, following the agenda that has been prepared. There's a lot of work, particularly on the part of the UN University, that goes into preparing those years and decades. Utilizing this material in the spirit of UN citizenship would give people a different sense of their life on the planet. PM: You've both talked about some of the initiatives you're involved in. Randy, you've shared your knowledge about disarmament policies and, Elise, about the culture of peace and how many people at the grassroots level could work and should work together to bring that about. How would these things that you're both working on now and talking about connect to murderous conflicts in regions such as the Middle East? And given the tensions we hear about every day, we can't leave Iraq, India, Pakistan, and Kashmir out of the question. RF: As I mentioned earlier, I think there are a lot of similarities between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. In both cases, although they're not totally parallel, you have a large minority population in a region which, either as a whole, or in the view of some of its members, has inadequate political representation as things now stand and wants to see a different political arrangement. In the case of the Palestinians, they want their own state. In the case of Kashmir, I think what we might say is there is a lot of support for a plebiscite on the status of Kashmir, with various possible options, including becoming part of Pakistan (which India would certainly oppose) or becoming an independent country, or becoming a more autonomous province in India than it is right now, with a greater degree of separation. As I mentioned earlier, the program of Global Action to Prevent War does contain quite a few steps that would help resolve these conflicts. It calls for a more active role not only for the Security Council and the United States, but also for the international community as a whole to become more involved whenever there are ongoing, long-term conflicts that involve violence. The international community needs to be involved in listening to and hearing the parties, not just bringing them together to talk to each other, but also having people outside the region listen to people from inside the region talk about their grievances and their views of the conflict. The next step is to make efforts to identify equitable means of resolving the conflict and to pursue those efforts not only through the Security Council, but also through the General Assembly, the UN Secretary-General, and regional groups; that is, through diplomacy and more active political involvement. The international community can also offer economic involvement on the ground; nonmilitary forms of intervention and separation between the parties to prevent armed conflict; and even possibly military intervention, if that seems to be appropriate, in the form of armed peacekeepers. None of those steps that I just mentioned alone might be sufficient to resolve the particular conflicts you mentioned, because these are so intractable and have gone on for such a long time and involve what are, obviously, very deeply held values. However, all of them together would certainly be helpful. Pressure from the international community on the party which is the official state party might be helpful in the cases of Israel and India, in particular. Consider the precedent of South Africa, where the pressure of the international community's trade boycott of South Africa and strong condemnation of apartheid for 20 years played a very important role in changing the minds of the decision-makers in power, those with police power and the wealth of the state on their side. In the end, those in power voluntarily changed the political arrangements. If we had not had a laissez-faire, hands-off approach on the part of the international community as a whole in the Arab-Israeli conflict and in the India-Pakistan conflict, things might be different. If we started taking a more proactive approach, that could be very helpful in clarifying the nature of the conflict for people outside. In some cases, actually clarifying the claims of the state can alleviate tension, even though the state generally seems to be "the bad guy." What we need to remember is that it may have some points on its side that are not widely recognized. It also helps to clarify the points of sensitivity on both sides, where people come to the boiling point and resort to force. PM: Would the kind of pressure you're describing help us to resolve the tension between the United States and Iraq? RF: In the case of the United States and Iraq, I think we're facing a pretty different situation. In Iraq we have a country that has done a couple of things that set it apart from most other countries. First of all, it not only developed weapons of mass destruction, but it did use chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and against its own citizens of Kurdish background. Having a documented use of these weapons against both soldiers and civilians puts Iraq in a different category from other countries which have developed weapons of mass destruction but not used them. Now, we have to say that the United States did use a nuclear weapon in Japan so it's not as if we've never used them; and there have been allegations of other countries using chemical or biological weapons. But in the case of Iraq, the use was recent and occurred in two very different situations. So that seems particularly heinous, and it makes it seem that the current international standard – allowing countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction while at the same time trying to negotiate their abolition – should not be applied to Iraq. That's the first special point. The second special point is that the United States has taken it upon itself, completely outside of and contrary to international law, to take action in Iraq to make sure that Iraq doesn't acquire or keep weapons of mass destruction and indeed to change the government. Most people around the world in the Middle East and in other parts of the world hope that Iraq does not acquire weapons of mass destruction again and fear that it will if UN inspections end and if there is no other form of international action. I share that view. At the same time, I think that it's hypocritical and a double standard to some extent to take steps in Iraq which are utterly different from anything that applies to any other country, given that the United States and a number of other countries are acquiring and keeping nuclear weapons and not making good-faith efforts to move toward abolishing them. In other words, the situation in Iraq puts us between "a rock and a hard place." On the one hand, we don't want Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction, and on the other hand, we don't want to fly in the face of international law and single Iraq out for special punishment that doesn't apply to everyone under the same circumstances, nor should we support the United States unilaterally taking action here. PM: What other options exist? RF: There are other choices in this situation which are widely supported by the international community. They involve (1) having Iraq agree to the presence of international inspectors who will continue to verify and affirm that Iraq hasn't acquired weapons of mass destruction and (2) maintaining some sanctions, but highly targeted sanctions, far more narrowly targeted than those adopted in May 2001. Highly targeted sanctions would focus primarily on Saddam Hussein and the ruling elites and on preventing weapons and weapons of mass destruction from coming into the country. The very broad UN sanctions that have been maintained since 1990 — which destroyed Iraq's economy and contributed to millions of deaths from malnutrition and disease that could have been avoided — those sanctions have finally been lifted in favor of narrower sanctions that allow Iraq to sell oil, and to use the income to import anything it wants to which isn't specifically a weapon or a dual-use weapon of mass destruction component or technology. So that's an improvement. But the sanctions that are in effect today still don't allow for foreign investment in Iraq and won't allow Iraq to rebuild its economy. A better idea could be to have a more holistic solution, which would allow Iraq to develop a normal economy and to move forward, and stop having people die from malnutrition and disease, while keeping an international alliance together to prevent Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. That seems to me to be an effective compromise that could be reached and would certainly be far preferable, from many different points of view, to the United States conducting a war in Iraq. One of the key advantages of a compromise such as the one I've just described is that it would be a lot more effective in preventing future acts of terrorism against the United States. PM: Does this relate to your "urgentcall.org" initiative mentioned above? RF: Yes, it does. And there is an explicit call in that online petition for maintaining inspections in Iraq as an alternative to war. PM: Elise, how would your approach to abolishing war deal with the difficult questions? EB: Well, in the first place I want to say that I one hundred percent support everything that Randy has said. But I'd like to add that many of these countries — Israel is an exception — do not have a substantial civil society. And there are relatively few international NGOs in these countries. So it's a self-reinforcing situation: you don't get attitude change if you don't have contact among people. What needs to happen is that the NGO community, particularly the NGOs that are most concerned about health, education, peace, and so on, must develop constituencies in these countries. In the early 1990s I did a tabulation of how many NGOs there were in every country by region; there were really startling differences. We've all known that the Two-Thirds World has far fewer NGOs than the One-Third World. One of the things we must do is to help support the civil society that already exists in each one of these countries. We can do this in many ways because there are always people who desperately need support. Saad Edden Ibrahim, head of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies at American University in Cairo, is still in prison. He's one of the major liberal voices in Egypt whose journal has been very important in the region and internationally. We need to pursue conscious cultivation of NGO contacts in places like Egypt through various groups. Women's groups are more aware of this need and work harder at it than other organizations. I also think within the UN system, more development and use of the UN civilian peace missions and deploying them more widely in situations of tension would help; peacekeeping should not always be left to soldiers. PM: Just to underscore something you said earlier. Everything you're talking about needs to happen simultaneously with the kinds of things that Randy is talking about. So there really isn't a disagreement between you, it's just a different emphasis here and there. EB: I don't perceive any disagreement. RF: I don't either. In fact, I think the differences between us are a good deal less now than they were when we did the original dialogue. I think both of us have a greater sense of the complementary nature of these approaches and their power to make a whole where the sum is greater than the parts. PM: Do you think your differences have lessened because of the events that have happened since then or because of the dialogue, or both? RF: Both. EB: The one thing I wanted to address that has, somehow, never come out in our discussions is that the trade in light weapons has been multiplying so rapidly and it's totally uncontrolled. Those are the kind of weapons that were used in Afghanistan by the Taliban regime. RF: And in Africa. EB: Yes, we have got to address light weapons with the same stringency as we do other types of weapons. PM: I'd just like to pursue one point with you a bit. When you're talking about the importance of building a civil society, do you see the post-9/11 political climate in the world as more receptive to that? Have the terrorist attacks and the war on terrorism had an impact on this awareness globally? EB: I really don't know. For some people, it's made them more isolationist. But I think it ought to have made people more aware of the need for contact. The problem is that our mass media are presenting a particular image of the world in this country that is too easily accepted. Not enough people are saying, "Hey, we need to know more about X and Y and Z. We need a more active civil society!" That's one of the reasons we need a major drive to develop that awareness, because it isn't happening the way it ought to be happening. PM: I'd like to ask a final question that, in a way, takes us back to the beginning because it addresses underlying causes of terrorism. How would your strategy for peace, which we can define as being inclusive of the many things you've recommended today, address what some commentators have pointed to as the "root cause of terrorism," the socio-economic privation and political oppression suffered by masses of people who provide a breeding ground for terrorists? EB: The level that I was talking about of community interaction and working at the neighborhood level is so important. The first thing this would do, if it were really done in good faith, would be to bring middle-class and working-class people together. I've witnessed many social changes in my lifetime, but there's still an enormous gulf between the middle class and the working class. When Linda Stout came to the BRC and gave her talk entitled Social Justice in the 21st Century: What's It Going to Take?, she provided a beautiful example of that. She grew up working class and she continually encounters faulty assumptions by the middle-class people she works with about "how things work." They simply don't understand the world that she lives in and the people that she is trying to represent. So we still have an enormous gulf to cross in this country. There are also class issues internationally that must be addressed. There's a marvelous book entitled Daughters of the Goddess, Daughters of Imperialism: African Women, Culture, Power and Democracy (Zed Books, 2000) by a Dartmouth professor of sociology named Ifi Amadiume. She comes from Nigeria and in this book she analyzes women's groups in Africa and shows how leading women are all products of colonialism and have a colonial mentality, and how they ignore their own grassroots women who are trying to work locally. They distribute largesse without building on the capability and needs of those local women. So these class distinctions are a serious problem both in the West and the non-West. PM: Are you suggesting that greater awareness of oppression, poverty, and injustice on a local level might make us more compassionate in terms of the global society? EB: I think so, yes. RF: There are a couple of points I'd like to make about that. The very poorest countries tend not to be the ones who produce terrorists. We are more likely to find terrorist groups in countries where people are in transition from being very poor to being more part of the modern world. They see other people around them who are doing much better, or are the capitalists, the "exploiters," or the people who have capital; they see people who have money and who make money and tend to keep other people poor. So the rich get richer and the poor just stay where they are. The breeding ground has to do with comparative standards of some people "getting" and other people "not getting" rather than absolute standards. Obviously, ending war alone is not going to address that problem. I would also say that although the proposals I've made are not primarily focused on this redistribution, I think the people who are working in the anti-globalization movement, the people who are looking at aspects of globalization which have this destructive effect, are addressing this problem much more directly by focusing on how to minimize or avoid those aspects. I also think that the effort to extend human rights and to have equal treatment of people before the law and to democratize is very central. So political equalization is central to economic equalization or economic equity in terms of people feeling more empowered, politically, to shape their world. In fact, this is another area where the problem inside of the United States is not all that different. We're all at a higher level of income, but the gaps and the lack of empowerment are widening. There is a lack of empowerment among poorer people in the United States to take political action, to try to change the conditions that shape their lives by, for example, demanding universal health care. It seems to me that the majority of Americans would benefit from universal health care and yet the majority hasn't voted for it, are not aware that this would be in their interests. So in that sense we have a deficit of public debate and democracy on issues that shape people's lives here too, and not only in the developing countries where there's less literacy, less means of communication, and fewer NGOs. I do think that socioeconomic conditions contribute to violence but not in a simple, direct correlation. I recently did some research on statistics of homicide in North America. I came across a Canadian study that shows, in both Canada and the United States, a very high correlation between cities where there was a great inequality of income (a wide gap between the richest and poorest sectors) and the rate of murder. These findings are consistent with what we see internationally when people compare themselves with other people living nearby who are more fully empowered. We can certainly see this kind of thing going on with the Israelis and Palestinians: the Israelis tend to be fully empowered and are doing well economically and the Palestinians are experiencing an acute sense of being disempowered and disenfranchised. Making sure that people are in an environment where they have the opportunity to shape their lives economically has to be an important piece of the solution. PM: What if the U.S. had responded to 9/11 by "waging law" rather than waging war, wouldn't that have had an empowering effect on people caught in some of these local conflicts that need the rule of law also, the local rule of law? There isn't that much of a difference between the global and local in that sense, right? RF: Right. I completely agree. If you look at the Palestinian issue and the reluctance of the Palestinians to give up these suicides and their feeling that it's a necessity to get their rights, that has to be rooted in a lack of confidence, not just in Israel but in their own representatives and in the negotiating process to come up with a just solution. EB: The Palestinian peace groups still have so many resources for doing things differently that if we could change only the pressure of the outside and change the Israeli pressure, that society could blossom. PM: So much has to happen, as you're saying, at a very local level within the cultural context, for trust to grow. It seems that that's been a theme here today. Thank you both for a very stimulating discussion. *** Read Part I: New Definitions and Moral Responses
|
|
|
|
Ikeda Center for Peace, Learning, and Dialogue
|
|
