United Nations International Day of Peace
The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-00836, in the name of Bill Kidd, on the United Nations international day of peace 21 September 2011. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the UN International Day of Peace 2011; notes that the International Day of Peace was first celebrated in 1982 and that, since 2002, it has had a fixed date of 21 September; further notes that the UN has stated that the day is “devoted to the aim of achieving worldwide peace and commemorating and strengthening the ideas of peace both within and among all nations and peoples”; understands that it is expected that millions of people around the world will celebrate the day; hopes that it will have widespread support across Scotland, and notes the peace day commemoration event in the Parliament on 21 September.
17:02
I thank members who are unable to stay but have told me that that is the case or have passed me a note, in particular Patrick Harvie and Neil Findlay. It was very kind of them.
It gives me great pleasure to bring to the chamber of the Scottish Parliament a debate on the 30th anniversary of the United Nations international day of peace. Today, President Barack Obama and many other heads of state will address the United Nations General Assembly. Among them will be Laura Chinchilla Miranda, which is not a name that we often hear in here. I met her once and she is a very nice person. She is the President of Costa Rica—the country that introduced the original resolution that created this day. At this point we should remember that practically the first four words of article 1 of the “Charter of the United Nations” are “To maintain international peace”. There can be no more dignified or pressing aim than that.
We join in peace today with countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Uganda and the United States, and with organisations including Amnesty International, the Arab League and the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, which is based in The Hague—all of which recognise, promote and celebrate peace day.
Thousands of organisations and millions of people across the world are united in calling for peace in a world in which so many suffer the terror, hardship and pain of warfare and the indiscriminate use of weapons of all kinds. We know that here in Scotland there are weapons stationed on the Clyde that have the capacity to bring about the destruction of communities, cities, countries, civilisations and, potentially, our whole planet. Trident nuclear missiles have been condemned as being immoral by church leaders and as illegal by the chief judges of the International Court of Justice. They have been called useless by senior military chiefs of staff—but guess what? They are deemed to be indispensable for our protection and safety by politicians at Westminster who have a taste for sitting at the top table.
The Trident system, whose upgrade and replacement are earmarked to last for another 50 to 60 years, is a drain on scarce resources at a time of severe recession. The system is also an environmental disaster waiting to happen: it has experienced more than 100 leaks and on-board fires in which radioactive material has been discharged into the waters around our coasts. What is more is that if Trident were ever fired in anger or through a systems error, it would prove to be an abomination on a monumental scale. Even in a full-scale war, the military sees nuclear weapons as an outrage, as we know from General Eisenhower, who said in his autobiography that when he was informed of the decision to use the bomb in 1945, he thought that
“it was an unnecessary and inexcusable move to destroy the lives of countless thousands of innocent women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when Japan was on the brink of collapse and surrender.”
General Eisenhower said that the real reason for using the bomb was to send a message to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, the evil empire, had not fired its weapon, but America, the land of the free, had fired its weapon. We must remember that politicians on both sides are to blame for the fear in which we lived throughout the 1940s, 50s, 60s and 70s, and which continues today.
Why should we have weapons of mass murder stationed on our land? No plan exists to have nuclear capability in Scotland beyond successive Westminster Governments’ insistence on maintaining such a presence here. When the Vanguard and Trafalgar nuclear-armed and powered submarines go, so too will the Astute vessels that are being insinuated into the Faslane site. At the moment, we can do nothing to remove those hulks and their warheads but protest against their presence in our midst. We must at all times be prepared to protest. However, only with political power can we ensure that they go lock, stock and barrel. In their place can be conventional defence forces but—most important—use can and will be made of the transferable engineering skills of the workforce that remains, as Scotland develops its unique resources to become the green powerhouse of Europe.
With the benefit of the planned subsea interconnector and the North Sea grid, which are passing through the European Commission, we can be the fulcrum of a secure and affordable source of energy for Europe into the 21st century and beyond. That requires the engineering skills of the workforce at Faslane, in conjunction with our world-class university research facilities and development operations, which can put us at the forefront of that exciting development. The transformation of Faslane and Coulport from military bases to peaceful developments that enable the production of clean energy would be fitting.
The achievement of peace is never truly a passive process. Even the non-violent civil disobedience movements of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jnr required thought, organisation, logistics and—most important of all—the channelling of bravery in the right direction. None of that happens in a vacuum. As we know, it takes more bravery to be seen standing shoulder to shoulder with other nations and peoples around the world in the cause of peace than it does to hide behind massive military force or the threat of doomsday weapons—even those that must never be used, as the cost of using them would lead to the annihilation of life on earth.
In line with that stand against such weapons, I was honoured to attend the “Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” review conference 2010 at the United Nations in New York and to present to the conference’s president, Ambassador Libran Cabactulan, a signed statement on behalf of First Minister Alex Salmond in support of a nuclear weapons convention. The significance of an NWC is that it would achieve what the conventions on biological and chemical weapons did in declaring such weapons to be illegal under international humanitarian law.
Actions in themselves do not speak louder than words, but words without the intention to act are less than worthless. If we mean to achieve peace among the peoples of the earth and a future that is fit for all humanity, we must demand an end to destructive weaponry in our midst and take the necessary political actions to achieve that.
After the debate, I am holding an event in room P1.02, which anyone is welcome to attend.
17:09
I congratulate Bill Kidd on securing the debate and apologise to the Presiding Officer and other members, as I may have to leave early as a result of an unavoidable appointment in Cumbernauld at 7 o’clock.
I cannot think of a topic for discussion in the chamber that is more important than peace. It is from peace that all that is good in life can emanate. No society that finds peace at contest will be able to offer its citizens security or the opportunities that we take for granted in Scotland.
Bill Kidd cited Dwight D Eisenhower. An American statesman of older vintage, James Madison, wrote in his “Political Observations”:
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.”
Those words from 1795 are as true today as they were when they were first written. That is why I welcome this international day of peace. I apologise to Bill Kidd that I will not be able to attend his reception to mark the occasion, but I hope that it goes well.
The international day of peace, or peace day, provides an opportunity for individuals, organisations and entire nations to create practical acts of peace on a shared date. Today’s debate is only one of many events to mark the day. Those events are testament to the commitment of many people to the goal of peace.
In that regard, I want to mention an event that was held in my constituency to reaffirm the commitment to peace. Today may be the international day of peace, but the United Nations designated 1986 as the year of peace, and a peace garden was established in Kilsyth in that year as part of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council’s contribution and efforts to mark it. Earlier this month, I was pleased to attend an event to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the creation of that peace garden. A number of people attended the event, and those who were present were able to restate their support for peace. Although the garden’s origins are not necessarily directly tied to the international day of peace, the objectives are such that it is well worth mentioning.
I do not want to take up too much time, as I know that other members want to speak.
I thank Bill Kidd again for securing the debate, and look forward to the day when peace is secured across the globe. That might be achieved somewhat sooner if we could move away from a global circumstance. In 2010, some $1.6 trillion was expended on the military and armaments—some 43 per cent of that by the United States alone. I am not so blinkered as to expect that that expenditure will entirely wither away—indeed, I believe that secure defences can be important to secure peace. However, when we see extreme poverty and its consequences—hunger, illiteracy and disease—run rampant in parts of the globe, it is surely right to question the size of the global expenditure. Perhaps if we took even a portion of that expenditure to feed and educate the world, the goals that are represented by the international day of peace might be closer to being achieved.
17:13
I thank Bill Kidd for giving us the opportunity to debate the UN international day of peace. Like Jamie Hepburn, I apologise. I have an appointment at 5.30, so I need to leave early.
In one respect, this debate is completely pointless—talking about the matter is a complete waste of our time. What can we do about peace in this country, never mind world peace? Bill Kidd highlighted some of the big issues that affect the world. However, if we as individuals or ordinary citizens do not talk about peace and the issue of peace does not affect our mentality and how we view our role in life, what chance is there that anyone at any level will do something about it? The notion of the type of world and society that we want to see surely must start with the individual. Surely it is about individual buy-in to what is right and what is wrong, and to the fact that the notion of a peaceful society and a peaceful world is entirely achievable; in fact, it is not achieved purely because of the actions of individual humans, wherever they may be on the planet.
There are a number of absurdities. I will not go into all the debates around unilateral nuclear disarmament, but I will say that we live in a country that we are told is heading for a double-dip recession and in which people are being asked to make financial sacrifices, yet we are also told that we can afford to replace the nuclear weapons that are supposedly needed to defend us. Even if we were to accept the principle of nuclear weapons, how—when we are nearly bankrupt—can we justify spending money on a new generation of weapons when we already have something that can destroy the world 10 times over?
The notion of the sort of world that we want to live in must start with us and the messages that we give to our children and grandchildren. It must affect and influence the way in which we communicate with and respond to our neighbours and others in our community.
Jamie Hepburn was right to raise the issue of extreme poverty. It is true that such poverty exists throughout the world, but we must also speak up about issues that affect us in this country—the human rights abuses in the United Kingdom, never mind the human rights abuses that take place elsewhere. I cannot understand how we can justify selling arms to some of the worst dictators in the world because doing so creates jobs. If we can use job creation as a justification for doing anything, we would be as well setting up cyanide factories all over the central belt of Scotland so that we can export cyanide to enable people to kill as many other people as they can at one fell swoop. The fact that something creates jobs is not, in and of itself, a justification for allowing it. Surely our starting point should be to ask what the purpose of something is.
We should take a stand against some of the abuses that we see elsewhere across the world, but I sometimes wonder whether we have any right to lecture anyone about what happens in their country. Maybe it is time to put our own house in order at a Government, council and community level, as well as a personal level.
In a sense, although this debate might be pointless, it is unavoidable. We need to have it. If we cannot individually sign up to the notion of living in a better and more peaceful world, what chance does anyone have?
17:17
I apologise for croaking out this speech. As I told my committee colleagues earlier today, I have what my wife calls a serious bout of man flu.
I commend Bill Kidd for securing this important debate. His commitment to the cause of international peace, and particularly the work that he has done on promoting a nuclear-free world, starting right here in Scotland, is well known and well respected. Not many members of this Parliament can claim to have met United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. I hope that, should Mr Kidd ever find himself unable to make a meeting with Ban Ki-Moon, he remembers the kind words that I have said about him.
Politics is often characterised by competing ideologies—those on the left and those on the right; those who believe in one constitutional course for our country and those who support another. However, I hope that we would all agree that there are topics that are above the often mundane mediocrity of these discussions and around which the chamber can unite, such as the wish for Scotland to be a broker of international peace.
I am often asked about the point at which I knew that the SNP was the party that I wanted to be a part of, or when it became clear to me that independence was the right course of action for our country. For me, it was simple. Any niggling doubts that I had were immediately wiped out when the decision was taken to send our young men and women into a disastrous war in Iraq—a war that the majority of the Scottish population opposed. We should not forget that this Parliament opposed a unilateral decision to go to war without UN backing, yet we had no choice about whether to participate in that illegal conflict.
Many of the smaller nations of the world right here in Europe play a huge role in international peace. Just look at Norway’s Oslo accords: the first face-to-face agreement between the Israeli Government and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Although peace can seem a very long way off in that region of the world, the Oslo accords are very much seen as the foundation blocks for any future peace negotiations. In addition, we are all familiar with the Geneva convention, which is there to protect, in particular, persons who are not participating in hostilities and civilians who are taken captive in military conflict. It is a standard bearer for human rights in modern conflict and a cast-iron protection against state torture—and it comes from one of the smallest nations in Europe.
Regardless of where we stand on the constitution or the independence question, we are surely in agreement that we would like to see Scotland play a similar role in brokering international peace. I look forward to the day in the future when the global peace movement takes a huge step forward as a result of measures contained in what our future generations will call the Glasgow charter or the Edinburgh convention. However, the truth is that while we are part of a United Kingdom structure that carries with it a lot of heavy baggage—the UK is often seen as the yes man of US foreign policy—Scotland as a nation cannot effectively fulfil such a role.
As Scots we are internationally respected, whether as innovators and inventors of the modern world or in academia. Even our football team’s supporters—the ever-loyal tartan army—are much respected and loved, although that may well be more out of sympathy than anything else. As a nation we have within us an ethos of egalitarianism; fairness is in the very fabric of our society.
When I had the pleasure of working for the late, great Bashir Ahmad MSP, we hosted Scotland’s for peace, which brought to Parliament its peace book, which many members in the chamber will have signed. The message was a simple one, but one that surely resonates to the very core of what we all believe. It said:
“We desire that Scotland be known for its contribution to international peace and justice rather than for waging war.”
As Scotland is undoubtedly undergoing an evolution in its constitutional arrangements and structure, it is imperative that we hold on to that message and make it a self-evident truth. Whether I wake up the day after an independence referendum euphorically elated or bitterly disappointed at the result, the one reassurance that will comfort me is that the people of Scotland will never waver on their commitment to international peace and justice. Let us, as the servants of the people, never allow ourselves to forget that message.
17:22
I thank Bill Kidd for bringing the motion to the chamber. I agree with Humza Yousaf’s comments about his long-standing work on the issue.
I had a wee look at the UN website yesterday and saw a message that the Philippine military was to have a one-day truce with communist rebels to mark the UN international day of peace. My initial thought was, “Big deal,” but then I went on to read about peace day. The website stated:
“Peace Day should be devoted to commemorating and strengthening the ideals of peace both within and among all nations and peoples.”
If one life is saved, it will be a deal well done. Let us hope that it is the first of many such days.
Of course, there are many advocates of peace, many of whom are politicians. I agree with Hugh Henry’s comments about the position of some of them. There is nothing more embarrassing than seeing the UK Prime Minister peddling arms at a time when nations in the middle east are trying to bring about a peaceful resolution to their difficulties.
Armaments are a very big business, as is waging wars. Although we all aspire to seeing peace become big business, the reality is that not only war, but aid, is big business—just ask Halliburton, which does so well out of it. One may ask why big business is so relaxed about wars. It is relaxed about wars as long as the theatre of war is away from the US or the UK.
I had a few thoughts about peace and I wondered whether an illegal war could result in a legitimate peace. Indeed, what is peace? It will vary. Many oppressive regimes have provided at least basic services for their citizens, whereas replacing the regime with ‘freedom’ has resulted in survival of the fittest.
My instinct remains to support the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, but I wonder whether that will bring about peace. There are obligations placed on the invader, obviously. Does peace mean peace at any price? Quite clearly peace means different things to different people. If there is a withdrawal of troops, there will certainly be trauma associated with that, not least for the women and girls of Afghanistan. The dodgy deal that will bring about the ultimate withdrawal will see intolerant bigots revisit the grief on women and girls there. I wonder whether the west is interested in that. Indeed, is it interested in lasting peace? It is important—touching on the comments made by other members—that we look at what we do here, because poverty creates a lot of difficulties.
When, in any country, the oppressor stops its bullying, that is not real peace. To my mind, that is just a cessation of violence. Some horrendous terms have been associated with peace, including “shock and awe” and “the surge”. Those are euphemisms for death and few were spared the ravages, although, of course, the oil ministry in Baghdad was.
Real peace is food, warmth, compassion and social justice. Despite the differences of opinion in the Parliament, I am sure that there is a great wish to see that. The UN has a very important peacekeeping corps. Those are the only soldiers that I would like to see on our planet.
I have come across some other phrases. Peace building is an interesting phrase, so I will read out one of its lengthy definitions:
“Peace building is different from ‘peace-making’ and ‘peacekeeping’ in that it focuses on creating a long-term culture of peace, rather than solving existing conflicts or preventing old ones from re-occurring.”
There are many conflicts around the globe, but I will touch on three: Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya. If those conflicts were resolved, that might be a step in the right direction.
Hugh Henry asked what the Parliament can do about the issue. The mere discussion of the subject is very important. I would like to see the Parliament being a force for good in the future, and I think that that will come about.
17:27
I declare an interest, as I am a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Like other members, I congratulate Bill Kidd on securing the debate and recognise his consistent role in promoting the issue of peace in the Parliament. It is fitting that we are able to hold the debate today and join with people all over the world who will gather to promote and strengthen ideas of peace.
The UN day of peace is supported by organisations across the world, including Mayors for Peace, of which a number of Scottish cities are members and which Bill Kidd also supports and promotes. Across the country, various church groups and peace organisations will mark today with prayer or quiet meditation.
The Parliament has a role to play in promoting peace and fostering good relations. Although I understand what my colleague Hugh Henry meant when he referred to the pointlessness of debating the issues, it is important that we debate them. We are an open, participative and progressive Parliament and, through our UK and international relations office, we develop links with other Parliaments and organisations throughout the world, sharing our experiences and building new relationships.
Of course, the Scottish Government’s international development fund also plays an important role, as it works with charities to fund new developments, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. The Scottish Government also works with the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund to assist communities in Zambia and money from the fund also helps displaced people in war-torn Darfur. By working with charitable organisations to aid development, this Parliament can play a part to help alleviate poverty and promote a peace agenda.
In my constituency, the Conforti Institute is dedicated to promoting co-operation and reconciliation among all peoples—in particular the poor, disadvantaged and powerless of the world—regardless of race, gender, culture or creed. The institute offers courses that challenge sectarianism, racism and social exclusion, and which aim to equip young people and the wider community with the knowledge and skills needed to be responsible citizens. It has an inclusive vision and is open to different cultures and religions. I commend it to the Parliament and to the Government on this international day of peace.
As a Parliament, we also have the ability to make strong symbolic gestures of peace. Following the Trident debate in 2007, the Parliament resolved to call on the UK Government not to go ahead “at this time” with the proposal in its white paper to renew the Trident weapons system. Like others in the chamber, I do not want Trident to be replaced at any time, so I would have preferred an even stronger motion—indeed, I tried to lodge an amendment to the motion. Nonetheless, when the motion was agreed to, it still indicated this Parliament’s opposition.
A majority of Scots oppose the Trident nuclear programme for a variety of reasons, which we have heard about during the debate. Besides the abhorrent nature of such destructive weapons, the cost is overwhelming, particularly at a time of imposed economic austerity. As has been mentioned, the Government estimates that the renewal would cost in the region of £20 billion. That is money that will not be invested in new homes or in creating jobs. CND believes that the cost of replacing Trident can be paid only at the expense of jobs and public services.
The threat of nuclear weapons continues to undermine efforts for peace, while Britain’s pursuit of a new generation of weapons undermines our moral authority on the world stage. The evils of nuclear warfare are indisputable. Storing our own weapons of mass destruction is wrong and using them would be an abomination. The cost of war, of course, is more than financial. The UN day of peace should serve to symbolise that.
I recall Tony Benn speaking of his joy when he first read the preamble to the UN charter on returning as a young pilot from a war in which his brother and many friends had been killed. It begins:
“We the peoples of the United Nations determined ... to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind”.
That was the promise of his generation to those who followed. We have a responsibility to uphold those ideals and to educate our children so that they have an understanding of the importance of peace. Once again, I congratulate Bill Kidd.
17:31
I, too, congratulate Bill Kidd on bringing such an important motion to the Parliament. It is supported across the chamber and across the South Scotland region that I was elected to represent. An international day of peace only serves to remind us of the conflicts that are going on around the world every day. I give my full support to the peace movements that are working to bring an end to such disputes and I will focus my speech on exploring the distinctive contribution that Scotland can make, working together with others, in helping the international community to address the global challenges that face our society in our peacebuilding efforts.
We need look only as far as Norway, Sweden and Ireland in determining how Scotland can play a part in such processes. As my colleague Humza Yousaf pointed out, since the early 1990s, Norway has played a crucial role as a facilitator in a number of peace and reconciliation processes. In assisting with negotiations with Guatemala, Sri Lanka and Sudan and in providing aid to Somalia, Norway has modelled itself on the stability and neutrality that are conducive to playing a key role in peace processes. In several conflict areas, Norway’s role has been to support the UN’s efforts. That has been a vital element of Norway’s participation in the international community. Norway is one of the most important financial contributors on the issue. With several UN funds and programmes, it is one of the three largest contributors in absolute terms. It has contributed substantially to several UN peacekeeping missions and more than 50,000 Norwegians have served in UN-led peace operations.
Similarly, Sweden actively participates in various peacekeeping missions and provides humanitarian assistance. It was Sweden that pushed for the UN to form the Peacebuilding Commission and it has had the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute since 1966. That was the idea of the then Swedish Prime Minister and was supported by the Swedish Parliament. The purpose of the institute is to conduct scientific research on questions of conflict and co-operation that are of importance for international peace and security, with the aim of contributing to an understanding of the conditions for peaceful solutions of international conflicts and stable peace.
Moving across the water to our neighbours in Ireland, we see another small nation working independently to benefit international relations. Ireland is also actively involved with the UN Peacebuilding Commission, with further effectiveness coming in the shape of the Irish Government’s standing interdepartmental committee on peacekeeping.
All those examples bring me to the conclusion that Scotland needs a place in the international peace community. We could certainly contribute much by offering the support that is needed to broker peaceful deals. CIFAL Findhorn, the UN Institute for Training and Research-affiliated centre in Moray, is proof that we have the talent and facilities and the desire to help.
The SNP has been a long-standing supporter of the establishment of international peacekeeping and humanitarian missions that will support the efforts of Scots who volunteer their services abroad. I cannot help but come to the conclusion that we should have a Scottish peace corps, which could allow Scots to participate through existing organisations and provide opportunities where none currently exists. I would be delighted if the minister would have a meeting to consider that notion.
In that context, I am also keen to see Scotland become associated with the European voluntary humanitarian aid corps following the current pilot phase. Inspired by the vision for the European peace corps that was set out in the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Commission has started the practical implementation of that pilot initiative by selecting, training and deploying the first team of European humanitarian volunteers.
The project is exciting and it will give people across Europe the opportunity to make a real difference in the world; one that will harness the overwhelming willingness to volunteer to provide humanitarian aid. In years to come, I look forward to seeing many independent Scots becoming ambassadors for peace through such schemes.
17:35
I start by thanking Bill Kidd for bringing the motion to the Parliament’s attention by debating it in the chamber today. It is important that we recognise the 30th anniversary of the international day of peace.
It is no surprise that the motion has been brought by Bill Kidd, who is the main reason why I want to speak in the debate. He takes an international approach to the promotion of peace and does his bit to seek an end to nuclear proliferation. He has been tireless in those efforts over the years, whether at the United Nations or through the variety of networks across the globe in which he has been involved. I never thought that I would say it, but he really has gone global. We should never underestimate the amount of time that he puts into those roles, and in that respect he is an excellent ambassador for the peace movement. Such is the extent of his travels that he is also an excellent ambassador for Scotland. I will back off now; that is enough praise for Bill Kidd. I will move on to some other stuff, but I thought it was important to get that on the record.
My first real hands-on experience of nuclear weapons came about because I come from the Vale of Leven, and Faslane is within those general environs. I remember very well campaigners such as Les Robertson and Jim Bolan at the Faslane peace camp doing their bit on the local front line. Irrespective of what people think about nuclear weapons—the majority of members are against them but a minority still support them—we should never forget the selflessness of people who protest against weapons of mass destruction every day, even when it is not fashionable to do so. I put on record my praise for those individuals.
I want to talk about peace and nuclear weapons. I know about the hypocrisy whereby we think it acceptable for certain nations to have weapons of mass destruction but are hell-bent on preventing others from having theirs. Of course, the answer is that no one should have them at all. The more important point for me as a Scottish person is that we do not need nuclear weapons to start a war, although they represent the worst-case scenario and are the driving force behind a lot of wars.
On the power to go to war, as a Scottish citizen, I feel that it is a moral dereliction of duty that the decision whether Scotland should engage in a war is not in the Scottish Parliament’s hands. How can we promote peace when we cannot prevent our Scottish sons and daughters from going to war, whether illegal or otherwise?
I know that there is no constitutional consensus in the chamber around independence. I strive not to be political about that. Although it would be possible for an independent Scotland to be involved in illegal wars—independence is not a magic wand—I believe with all my heart that we are best placed for that not to happen should we become independent. Irrespective of their constitutional views, I pay tribute to members of all parties in Parliament for what they have done to promote peace.
John Finnie made the important point that it is not enough just to object to wars; we have to positively promote peace both to ensure that we have stable communities, a stable country and a stable international community, and to make wars less likely to happen. That is about the nurturing of peace, which is vital.
Who is to say that Libya, pre-conflict, was a peaceful nation? Who is to say that Afghanistan or Iraq is peaceful? Who is to say that Libya, post-conflict, will be peaceful? Who knows what human rights abuses might continue irrespective of which regime or Government is in charge? Indeed, that very point has already been well made.
The best thing this Parliament can do to promote peace is to have a big vision of connection with the international community. The more barriers we break down as internationalists and the more connections we make with other countries and other organisations across the globe, the more we will get an international understanding and international co-operation. We can promote peace in this Parliament if we keep lifting our eyes to the bigger picture.
I once again thank Bill Kidd for securing the debate.
17:40
There can be no doubt that we do not yet live in a world full of peace. I applaud Bill Kidd for securing this debate. I also applaud him for increasing our understanding of the continued need for peace—as, indeed, the wide variety of speakers from whom we have heard have also done. As we have been reminded by recent events in Libya, among other things, the time is right for us to take a stand and to take action.
Peace is a construct that sounds appealing, whether it is peace in one’s life, peace in a family, peace in the community or peace in the world. In some ways it might seem simple and in other ways it might be one of the most complex challenges of all time. Today we take time out to reflect, to celebrate, to raise awareness and to plan how we can work together to promote peace and eliminate conflict.
However, peace does not have to be associated with the conflict of war; it can relate to violence or intolerance in our daily lives or even to peace of mind. Peace can have a different meaning for each of us but, in the end, it all comes down to a simple definition: a state of calm and serenity, with no anxiety; the absence of violence; and freedom from conflict or disagreement among people or groups of people.
None of the members from whom we have heard has challenged the underlying premise that today we should take the chance to stand alongside millions of others around the world and show that we want to make a difference. I propose that we in Scotland move into a new realm of peace building that draws on the UN’s definition. Unlike peace making and peace keeping, which are related to warfare and the settlement of conflicts, the concept of peace building is, according to a UN report,
“the construction of a new environment ... the transformation of deficient national structures and capabilities, and ... the strengthening of new democratic institutions.”
The 2011 UN international day of peace is recognised around the world and, like other members, I welcome this opportunity to raise the event’s profile and the core that it represents. I also welcome the opportunity for a collaborative approach across political parties in Scotland. Here is a subject on which we can unite; indeed, I believe that today we have united on it and that we will continue to unite.
In that case, does the minister agree that it is a shame that no one from the Conservative and Liberal parties is present for the debate?
I share the member’s disappointment that those parties are not represented. As Mr Kidd indicated, the Greens sent an apology.
Members have told us of the breadth and depth of activities that are taking place today. Those activities centre on three guiding principles and actions: peace within, represented by the minute of silence at noon in each time zone; peace without, represented by an act of service for peace that benefits the larger community; and peace year round, which is a commitment to a daily peace practice that involves joining with others to build a worldwide culture of peace.
As Mr Kidd highlighted, President Obama addressed the UN today. Closer to home, I—and I am sure other members—received a communication today from the Scottish branch of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom urging the Parliament to reopen the debate on peace and nuclear disarmament. I believe that that wish is echoed by the majority across Scotland and I am glad to report that the Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Government Strategy will meet peace groups tomorrow to discuss how Scotland and this Parliament can continue to take a lead role in campaigning for peace.
Today is also a day of global ceasefire. In acknowledging a unified day without violence, a global ceasefire can provide hope for citizens who must endure war and conflict. As well as proving that worldwide peace is possible, a cessation of hostilities for 24 hours can enable relief workers to reach civilians who are in need of food, water and medical supplies.
Although peace is not just about the prevention of war, there can be no doubt that the impact of war is widespread, devastating and continues around the world today. I suggest that those members who are interested take advantage of the website internationaldayofpeace.org to obtain much more detailed information on the impact of war on children, women, the environment, animals, the availability of food and water, and poverty.
Several members have talked about the impact of war on poverty but, for now, I would like to focus our attention on the impact on children. As a father of five and a grandfather of two, I, like many other members, find it hard to comprehend the impact of war on children. Marking international peace day is one way in which we can show that we as individuals, as a nation and as a growing international community are not prepared to tolerate the conflict, tension and destructive nature of war. As the United Nations Children’s Fund says:
“The impact of armed conflict on children must be everyone’s concern and is everyone’s responsibility”.
Armed conflict hurts children in a myriad of ways: children die as a direct result of fighting; millions of children live with injuries and disabilities that are caused by armed conflicts and political violence; and thousands of children in armed conflict situations have been conscripted, kidnapped, press-ganged, terrorised or otherwise forced by circumstance into becoming child soldiers. Some—girls especially—may be forced into sexual servitude. In addition, millions of children across the world live with the immoral, horrifying and absolutely unnecessary threat of nuclear weapons. Today, as we recognise the international day of peace, let us take time to think of those children and take steps to change the world on their behalf.
Scotland has a strong record of supporting the creation of peace. We have a history of leading the way in international peace talks, from the Craigellachie talks to the Edinburgh conversations and the Edinburgh peace and justice centre. We have the ability to play a bigger role in international peace building than might be expected of a country of our size.
The Parliament has made clear its firm opposition to the replacement of Trident, and we will challenge the UK Government to listen to the democratic voice of Scotland in calling for the removal of Trident and of all nuclear weapons.
However, let us not become complacent and assume that we are the ones who are leading the way. Even in Scotland’s recent past, there has been conflict. There are tensions and, on a daily basis, hundreds of people in Scotland do not live in peace. On one level, however, we have demonstrated our ability to lead a country on the path to independence peacefully, constructively and respectfully.
We can learn from our international neighbours. For example, since the early 1990s, Norway has played an important role as a facilitator in a number of peace and reconciliation processes. Norway’s experience has shown that small countries can play a constructive role in resolving complex armed conflicts, even without the direct involvement of the UN or the major powers. We will actively consider what more Scotland can do to create a peaceful world.
I will close with the words of Ban Ki-moon, who calls each and every one of us to action:
“On this International Day, let us promise to make peace not just a priority, but a passion. Let us pledge to do more, wherever we are in whatever way we can, to make every day a day of peace.”
Meeting closed at 17:49.