“Serving World Peace”

The debate over how people will live together in future is ongoing not only between states or between alliances of states, but also within states themselves. The disregard for fundamental human rights and basic norms of international law is met by voices that know what is right and what justice means.
    The monstrosity, audacity and force of ignorance and contempt for what is right must not be allowed to checkmate us. Instead, we must be reminded of what is right, why it is right, and why what is right is indispensable. As soon as anyone commits or even justifies a breach of the law, we must stand against it – knowing the fatal consequences of unchecked perversion of justice. History books must become textbooks.
    Independent thinkers and fellow human beings show us the way. Alfred de Zayas, one of them, wrote his “Epigram for March 2026” (Current Concerns No. 6 of 24 March) succinctly and to the point. It reads:
    “History teaches us that civilisations decline and end when societies abandon their foundational values and no longer respect the rules of the game. Legal uncertainty leads to chaos, violence and war. A ‘culture of cheating’, double standards and bad faith betray the ‘human Covenant’ and undermine the proper functioning of society.”
    His final sentence reads:
    “As civilisations rise and fall, the responsibility for maintaining our culture and values rests on each one of us”.
    Our advantage: we need not content ourselves with legal-philosophical considerations. We can invoke positive law. In international relations, these are primarily the principles of peace set out in the United Nations Charter: the equal rights of all UN member states, the prohibition of the use of force in inter-state relations – with only two exceptions: the use of force on the basis of a Security Council resolution and self-defence.
    Many people are unaware that domestic law also imposes an obligation to promote peace. Germany is one example. The preamble to its constitution obliges all Germans to “promote world peace”. Article 26, in its first paragraph, states: “Acts tending to and undertaken with intent to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for a war of aggression, shall be unconstitutional. They shall be criminalised.” Article 2 of the Two Plus Four Treaty of September 1990, which is binding on Germany, declares “that only peace will emanate from German soil”.
    The constitutions of the federal states, as the well-known journalist and columnist Heribert Prantl reminded readers in the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” of 27 February under the headline “Joy of Peace”, assign the schools of the federal states – in Germany, the federal states are responsible for the school system – the essential task of ensuring that children and young people become capable of peace – not of waging war.
    For the book “Visions 2050. Where are we heading?” [Visionen 2050. Wohin steuern wir?], published by Eberhard Hamer in 2016, I had compiled the provisions of the German state constitutions regarding the educational objectives of the federal states (page 99ff.). The objectives of schools are “to instil a love of peace in young people” (Baden-Württemberg) and to “educate pupils in the spirit of reconciliation between peoples” (Bavaria); “to promote peacefulness and solidarity in the coexistence of cultures and peoples” (Brandenburg), “to educate for peaceful cooperation with other people and nations” and “to participate in the cultural life of one’s own people and of other nations” (Bremen) , “to shape young people into morally upright individuals” and “to prepare them for political responsibility through independent and responsible service to the people and to humanity, through reverence and charity, respect and tolerance, lawfulness and truthfulness” (Hessen) and to educate them to become “free individuals” who are “prepared to bear responsibility for the community with other people and nations” (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania); “in the spirit of humanity, to respect the convictions of others, to foster international solidarity and a spirit of peace” (North Rhine-Westphalia), “in the spirit of reconciliation between peoples” (Rhineland-Palatinate), “in the spirit of Christian charity and reconciliation between peoples” (Saarland), to instil “reverence for all living things, charity and peace” (Saxony), to educate pupils in “responsibility for the community with other people and nations” (Saxony-Anhalt) and to “promote peacefulness in the coexistence of cultures and peoples” (Thuringia).
    Heribert Prantl identifies key elements of peace education: “Peace education is not about avoiding conflict, but about teaching people to recognise, identify, negotiate and resolve conflicts.” “Peace education is training in the art of compromise. It is a school of curiosity that engages with others without immediately passing judgement.” “Education for peace means […] learning: even the other person, whom I may not even like, is somebody and has something to offer.”
    At the end of his column, Prantl quotes Nelson Mandela: “Education is the most powerful weapon for changing the world.” •