论文部分内容阅读
非暴力——和平文化的关键因素
Translated by He Chenxu and Zhu Luqi
In the post-Cold War era， there has been a major shift in the central actors within the international political discourse. International political involvement was （and to some extent still is） a monopolistic privilege of the states， and not many ordinary citizens were part of the international political discussion. Within the rapid social change after the Cold War， however， human beings became more and more central in international relations. Numerous concepts， such human security， human rights， and human development， are taking more and more importance in shaping the relations among peoples and nations； indeed， one could argue that traditional state-centered international relations is not always suitable to comprehend the complexity of today’s world..
The idea of the Culture of Peace emerged in this paradigm shift since the late 1990s. Although some may argue that the UN overemphasized the “hard power” peace contribution through its Peacekeeping Operations after the Cold War， the organization also made an immense contribution for development of the concept of Culture of Peace.
Following the twentieth century’s bloody wars， a new concept was formed to ensure that the world takes more positive and concrete actions to stop violence and conflict and to attain sustainable peace. This new concept termed “Culture of Peace” is defined by the United Nations as， “a set of values， attitudes， modes of behaviour and ways of life that reject violence and prevent conflicts by tackling their root causes to solve problems through dialogue and negotiation among individuals， groups and nations.”
The origin of the concept of “culture of peace” goes back to the Seville Statement of 1986， which clearly stated that peace is possible. Many scientists， from various fields including psychology， anthropology， sociology and medicine， with different cultural backgrounds， gathered to analyze the scientific correlation between war and human beings， and concluded that war is not biologically inherent to humans， but rather a social construction. It asserted that peace can be created by society.
The Yamoussoukro Declaration on Peace in the Minds of Men （1989） stated very clearly that “peace is more than the end of armed conflict.” In other words， the absence of war alone does not indicate peace. In addition to violence in terms of war， the possession of weapons should be rejected as well. Often， people live in fear of others’ violence and feel the need to protect themselves， but this fear must be relieved and transformed into a belief in the inherent goodness of people. Those who possess weapons are teaching others that violence is permissible. However， a culture of peace is a culture in which no violence is acknowledged. Thus， the possession of weapons does not agree with a culture of peace no matter how it is perceived. There are leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King， Jr. who have shown that societal change can be made without even a single weapon and that such change can be lasting. 在后冷战时期，国际政治话语权的核心角色发生了重大改变。国际政治参与过去是（在一定程度上现在也是）国家垄断的，很少有民众能够参与到国际政治讨论中。然而，随着冷战后社会的迅速变革，人逐渐成为国际关系的核心。诸如人的安全，人权和人类发展 等诸多观念在构建民族间、国家间关系的过程中变得越来越重要；的确，传统的以国家为核心的国际关系在理解当今世界的复杂性时不一定适用了。
和平文化的观念在20世纪90年代后的转型中应运而生。尽管许多人会说，联合国过分强调了“硬实力”通过冷战后的维和行动对和平所做的贡献，但是联合国同时也为和平文化观念的发展做出了巨大贡献。
20世纪血腥的战争结束后，一个新的观念形成了，它的形成是为了确保世界采取更多的积极和具体的行动来阻止暴力和冲突，维护持久的和平。这一新的观念被命名为“和平文化”，联合国对其解释为“一系列抵制暴力、防止冲突的价值观、态度、行为方式和生活方式，通过个人、组织和国家间的对话与协商，寻找暴力和冲突的起源，最终解决问题。”
“和平文化”的观念起源于1986年的塞维尔声明，声明中明确阐述了和平的可能性。许多领域的、有着不同文化背景的科学家，包括心理学，人类学，社会学和医学等，汇集在一起，分析战争和人类的科学联系，最终得出结论，战争并不是人类与生俱来的，而是社会产物。声明表示和平能够被社会所创造。
亚穆苏克罗宣言（1989）清楚地表明“和平不仅仅是武装冲突的结束”。换句话说，没有战争并不代表着和平。除了战争所代表的暴力，武器的持有也应该被杜绝。人们经常生活在对他人的暴力的恐惧之中，他们感到有必要保护自己，但是这种恐惧必须要祛除，并转化为对人性本善的信仰。那些拥有武器的人是在告诉人们暴力是被允许的。然而，和平文化中不承认暴力。因此，不论人们怎样理解，持有武器与和平文化都是格格不入的。像甘地和马丁·路德·金一样的领袖们为人们做出了诠释，说明社会变革可以不通过武力来实现，并且能够永久延续下去。
Non-Violence is Essential：
非暴力是关键：
In 1999， the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace. This groundbreaking document defined eight areas of action to establish the culture of peace and emphasized that the actors of the culture of peace is everyone， including governments， civil society， and individuals.
Non-violence and dialogue are the basic components of the culture of peace. According to the Declaration and Programme of Action， the culture of peace promotes international peace and security through non-violent means - disarmament， military conversion， and negotiation. This illustrates that， for the culture of peace， reducing the possibility of armed conflict by demilitarization and disarmament is the main method to ensure the needed peace and security. This idea is completely different from the argument that security can be maintained through military power， including nuclear deterrence. Some may argue that the non-violent methods are powerless to persuade the aggressors to compromise their positions and stop violence. However， Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. used non-violent means to resist inequality and advocate human rights and have shown that non-violence is not the method of a coward， but is the method of the courageous that has a tremendous power to transform society from the culture of war to the culture of peace. In King’s words， “Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time： the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence.” Non-violence is not physically aggressive， but is spiritually proactive. On the other hand， so-called ‘hard power，’ such as “military might， political authority， and wealth，” cannot ensure sustainable peace. Instead， hard power often causes the vicious cycle of violence by encouraging revenge； hence， the “peace” created by hard power may just become an intermission between wars. Therefore， non-violence is an essential element to ensure sustainable peace and thus create the culture of peace.
Furthermore， violence is present not just in terms of war and weapons， but also in a structural sense， such as in poverty and the unequal legal rights of men and women. Structures that keep people from attaining their right to peace must be recognized as violence and should not be permitted. In addition， as I criticized the mere punishment of wrongdoers without positive instruction for improvement， I similarly believe the death penalty does not serve a truly peaceful purpose. Taking the life of any human being is violence. Governments should discard this form of violence in their legal systems with the understanding that executing any person does not transform the root causes of violence that exist within the minds of people into peaceful causes. Along with violence at the structural level， there is also violence at the cultural level. For example， the supremacy of men and the oppression of women should be considered violent cultural ideas. These must be rejected and the status of women and men should be equalized in all cultures.
In a more micro-level， the abandonment of violence seems to be appropriately emphasized. For example， achieving equality between men and women， which is included in the Programme of Action， cannot be realized unless gender violence cease to exist. Also， overcoming the structural violence that is caused by class， racial， or religious discrimination is crucial in achieving peaceful and successful development in any country， as it hinders certain population to realize their potential to the fullest. The principle of non-violence in a global scale can be implemented， but it needs a serious support of member states through their own action in first abandoning violence as political means.
1999年，联合国大会通过了和平文化行动宣言和纲领。这一开创性的文件定义了建立和平文化的八个领域的行动，强调和平文化的践行者是所有人，包括政府，民间组织和个人。非暴力政策和对话是和平文化的基本组成部分。根据行动宣言和纲领，和平文化通过非暴力的途径——裁军，军队转换和协商等来促进国际和平和安全。这就表明，对于和平文化来说，通过废除军备和裁军来降低武装冲突的可能性是确保和平和安全的主要方法。
这一理念与强调军事力量包括核威慑来维护安全的观点背道而驰。一些人可能会争辩说非暴力的方法无力说服侵略者放弃他们的地位并停止暴力。然而，甘地和马丁·路德·金都曾经利用非暴力的手段抵制过不公平，倡导人权，这就表明非暴力并不是懦弱的表现，而是勇敢的方法，是将社会从战争文化转化为和平文化的重大力量。引用路德金的话来说，“非暴力是我们这个时代重大政治和道德问题的答案：人类必须不动用镇压和暴力来克服镇压和暴力。” 非暴力不具有侵略性，但是具有前瞻性。另一方面，所谓的‘硬实力’，如军事实力，政治权利和财富等不能确保可持续的和平。相反的，硬实力经常会挑起报复，造成暴力的恶性循环；因此，硬实力造就的和平仅仅是休战期。因此，非暴力是保证可持续和平的关键因素，能够创造和平文化。
暴力并不单单以战争和武器的形式出现，它还可能以其他形式存在于整个社会结构中，例如由贫困和男性女性之间不平等的权利所引发的暴力。阻碍人们寻求和平的社会结构也应被视为暴力并被淘汰。另外，正如我不看好仅仅惩罚违法者却并不提供正确积极的社会导向这一做法，我同样相信死刑并不能达到真正实现和平的目的。剥夺人的生命也是一种暴力。各国政府应摒弃这种存在于法律体系内的暴力，并认识到处决任何人都不能把扎根于人们思想中的暴力转化为和平。这种结构层面的暴力往往伴随着文化层面的暴力。例如，男人至上和压迫女性应被视为暴力的文化理念。这些理念应该被社会摈弃，男性和女性在所有文化中都应得到平等对待。
从更微观的层面来说，消除暴力似乎也应得到适当的强调。例如，《行动纲领》中的男女平等这一目标只有在彻底消灭性别暴力后才能实现。同样，克服社会结构中由阶级、种族或宗教歧视所导致的暴力对于任何国家实现和平、成功的发展来说都至关重要，因为这些暴力会阻碍一部分人充分发挥其潜能。非暴力原则可以在全球范围内执行，但这需要各个成员国的大力支持，从自身做起，放弃暴力的政治手段。
Commitment to Dialogue：
致力于对话：
The Culture of Peace Programme of Action developed a few years prior to the United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations in 2001. While the “Clash of Civilizations” theory was being promoted by certain scholars， an alternative response to the increasing violence and misunderstanding among cultures was much needed. Culture of Peace clearly sends a message that， in our contemporary world， dialogue is the key in creating understanding among different cultures and cooperation for sustainable peace. In fact， the Programme of Action asks the member states for “Support actions that foster understanding， tolerance and solidarity throughout society…”
A culture of peace places a great emphasis on dialogue， along with non-violence， to be a method handling conflict and advancing understanding and tolerance. Through dialogue people from different cultural， political， and economic backgrounds can find positive stimuli in their differences that can boost new prospects. Through dialogue， conflict becomes a constructive opportunity to transcend misunderstandings and initiate deeper understanding through mutually beneficial engagements. Without the will to listen to the opposing sides， however， true dialogue is almost impossible.
Dialogue is in the opposite end of conflict resolution measures from violence. Violence hinders economic growth， violates human rights， and perpetuates further antagonism between conflicting parties. The Culture of Peace， I believe， counters this trend of conflict resolution by doing exactly the opposite； respecting other cultures， promoting human rights， and reconciling the relationships between the former combatants. It may be easier to restore to violence when different interests clash with one another； however， commitment to dialogue is essential in further developing the Culture of Peace in order to overcome the dependency toward violence that humanity has accumulated. 《和平文化行动纲领》早在2001年“联合国不同文明之间对话年”之前就得到了发展。虽然文明冲突论被一些学者所提倡，但我们急需另一种解释来平息日趋增长的暴力和文化误解。和平文化明确传达了这样的信息：在当今世界，对话是加深不同文化间的理解和合作并维护可持续和平的关键。事实上，《行动纲领》要求成员国“支持增进理解、包容和团结全社会的行动…… ”
和平文化特别强调以对话、非暴力的方式处理冲突、增进了解和包容。通过对话，来自不同文化、政治和经济背景的人们可以求同存异，激发共鸣。通过对话，冲突变成了一个富有建设性的机遇，可以通过互惠互利的做法，消除误解和增进了解。然而，如果缺乏聆听不同观点的意愿，真正的对话也就无法进行。
对话是与暴力截然相反的冲突化解方式。暴力妨碍经济增长，侵害人权，使冲突双方的矛盾进一步延续。我相信，和平文化与此截然不同，它尊重不同文化，倡导人权，协调对立双方的关系，进而阻止冲突朝扩大化的方向发展。当利益发生冲突，诉诸于暴力也许是最简单的方法。但是，致力于对话是进一步发展和平文化的基础，从而克服人类已经积累的对暴力的依赖。
Self-Transformation is possible：
自我转变并非难事：
Promotion of Culture of Peace needs to be developed through both from bottom-up and top-down approaches. From the bottom-up， civil societies and concerned individuals play important roles in raising the awareness about issues related to Culture of Peace. Top-down approach can provide necessary means and resources in order to resolve the problems. Thus， Culture of Peace can be realized only through the harmony of the two approaches and different actors under one shared purpose of peace.
Lastly， to achieve a culture of peace， the efforts of all people are necessary. Individuals are key players in a culture of peace because an individual’s sense of inner peace influences the way he or she makes outer peace. Deepak Chopra， in his book Peace is the Way， explains that each individual has a duty to generate a personal transformation toward a daily consciousness of peace and that， from this level of consciousness， a new world order is birthed. The greatness of this dimension of individual focus is that everyone can take action for peace every day through the peaceful improvement of oneself. Furthermore， inner transformation and empowerment can be accomplished by all people， in all conditions of life.
和平文化的推广需要从自下而上和自上而下两方面展开。在自下而上方面，公民社会和有关个人可以积极帮助提升公众对于和平文化相关问题的认识。自上而下的方面可以为解决问题提供必要的措施和资源。因此，和平文化只有通过这两种渠道的共同努力才能得以实现。
最后，普及和平文化需要所有人的共同努力。每个个人都是和平文化中的关键角色，因为只有个人心怀和平，才能保证其和平对待世界。迪帕克·乔布拉在《和平之路》一书中谈到，每个人都有朝着和平意识进行思想转变的责任，通过和平意识的普及，新的世界秩序就会诞生。这种强调个人作用的理论的伟大之处在于每个人每天都可以通过对自身的和平化提升而为和平做出贡献。并且，内部转化和赋权适用于各种生活方式下的每一个人。
Compiled by the UNITY writing team from various sources
Translated by He Chenxu and Zhu Luqi
In the post-Cold War era， there has been a major shift in the central actors within the international political discourse. International political involvement was （and to some extent still is） a monopolistic privilege of the states， and not many ordinary citizens were part of the international political discussion. Within the rapid social change after the Cold War， however， human beings became more and more central in international relations. Numerous concepts， such human security， human rights， and human development， are taking more and more importance in shaping the relations among peoples and nations； indeed， one could argue that traditional state-centered international relations is not always suitable to comprehend the complexity of today’s world..
The idea of the Culture of Peace emerged in this paradigm shift since the late 1990s. Although some may argue that the UN overemphasized the “hard power” peace contribution through its Peacekeeping Operations after the Cold War， the organization also made an immense contribution for development of the concept of Culture of Peace.
Following the twentieth century’s bloody wars， a new concept was formed to ensure that the world takes more positive and concrete actions to stop violence and conflict and to attain sustainable peace. This new concept termed “Culture of Peace” is defined by the United Nations as， “a set of values， attitudes， modes of behaviour and ways of life that reject violence and prevent conflicts by tackling their root causes to solve problems through dialogue and negotiation among individuals， groups and nations.”
The origin of the concept of “culture of peace” goes back to the Seville Statement of 1986， which clearly stated that peace is possible. Many scientists， from various fields including psychology， anthropology， sociology and medicine， with different cultural backgrounds， gathered to analyze the scientific correlation between war and human beings， and concluded that war is not biologically inherent to humans， but rather a social construction. It asserted that peace can be created by society.
The Yamoussoukro Declaration on Peace in the Minds of Men （1989） stated very clearly that “peace is more than the end of armed conflict.” In other words， the absence of war alone does not indicate peace. In addition to violence in terms of war， the possession of weapons should be rejected as well. Often， people live in fear of others’ violence and feel the need to protect themselves， but this fear must be relieved and transformed into a belief in the inherent goodness of people. Those who possess weapons are teaching others that violence is permissible. However， a culture of peace is a culture in which no violence is acknowledged. Thus， the possession of weapons does not agree with a culture of peace no matter how it is perceived. There are leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King， Jr. who have shown that societal change can be made without even a single weapon and that such change can be lasting. 在后冷战时期，国际政治话语权的核心角色发生了重大改变。国际政治参与过去是（在一定程度上现在也是）国家垄断的，很少有民众能够参与到国际政治讨论中。然而，随着冷战后社会的迅速变革，人逐渐成为国际关系的核心。诸如人的安全，人权和人类发展 等诸多观念在构建民族间、国家间关系的过程中变得越来越重要；的确，传统的以国家为核心的国际关系在理解当今世界的复杂性时不一定适用了。
和平文化的观念在20世纪90年代后的转型中应运而生。尽管许多人会说，联合国过分强调了“硬实力”通过冷战后的维和行动对和平所做的贡献，但是联合国同时也为和平文化观念的发展做出了巨大贡献。
20世纪血腥的战争结束后，一个新的观念形成了，它的形成是为了确保世界采取更多的积极和具体的行动来阻止暴力和冲突，维护持久的和平。这一新的观念被命名为“和平文化”，联合国对其解释为“一系列抵制暴力、防止冲突的价值观、态度、行为方式和生活方式，通过个人、组织和国家间的对话与协商，寻找暴力和冲突的起源，最终解决问题。”
“和平文化”的观念起源于1986年的塞维尔声明，声明中明确阐述了和平的可能性。许多领域的、有着不同文化背景的科学家，包括心理学，人类学，社会学和医学等，汇集在一起，分析战争和人类的科学联系，最终得出结论，战争并不是人类与生俱来的，而是社会产物。声明表示和平能够被社会所创造。
亚穆苏克罗宣言（1989）清楚地表明“和平不仅仅是武装冲突的结束”。换句话说，没有战争并不代表着和平。除了战争所代表的暴力，武器的持有也应该被杜绝。人们经常生活在对他人的暴力的恐惧之中，他们感到有必要保护自己，但是这种恐惧必须要祛除，并转化为对人性本善的信仰。那些拥有武器的人是在告诉人们暴力是被允许的。然而，和平文化中不承认暴力。因此，不论人们怎样理解，持有武器与和平文化都是格格不入的。像甘地和马丁·路德·金一样的领袖们为人们做出了诠释，说明社会变革可以不通过武力来实现，并且能够永久延续下去。
Non-Violence is Essential：
非暴力是关键：
In 1999， the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace. This groundbreaking document defined eight areas of action to establish the culture of peace and emphasized that the actors of the culture of peace is everyone， including governments， civil society， and individuals.
Non-violence and dialogue are the basic components of the culture of peace. According to the Declaration and Programme of Action， the culture of peace promotes international peace and security through non-violent means - disarmament， military conversion， and negotiation. This illustrates that， for the culture of peace， reducing the possibility of armed conflict by demilitarization and disarmament is the main method to ensure the needed peace and security. This idea is completely different from the argument that security can be maintained through military power， including nuclear deterrence. Some may argue that the non-violent methods are powerless to persuade the aggressors to compromise their positions and stop violence. However， Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. used non-violent means to resist inequality and advocate human rights and have shown that non-violence is not the method of a coward， but is the method of the courageous that has a tremendous power to transform society from the culture of war to the culture of peace. In King’s words， “Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time： the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence.” Non-violence is not physically aggressive， but is spiritually proactive. On the other hand， so-called ‘hard power，’ such as “military might， political authority， and wealth，” cannot ensure sustainable peace. Instead， hard power often causes the vicious cycle of violence by encouraging revenge； hence， the “peace” created by hard power may just become an intermission between wars. Therefore， non-violence is an essential element to ensure sustainable peace and thus create the culture of peace.
Furthermore， violence is present not just in terms of war and weapons， but also in a structural sense， such as in poverty and the unequal legal rights of men and women. Structures that keep people from attaining their right to peace must be recognized as violence and should not be permitted. In addition， as I criticized the mere punishment of wrongdoers without positive instruction for improvement， I similarly believe the death penalty does not serve a truly peaceful purpose. Taking the life of any human being is violence. Governments should discard this form of violence in their legal systems with the understanding that executing any person does not transform the root causes of violence that exist within the minds of people into peaceful causes. Along with violence at the structural level， there is also violence at the cultural level. For example， the supremacy of men and the oppression of women should be considered violent cultural ideas. These must be rejected and the status of women and men should be equalized in all cultures.
In a more micro-level， the abandonment of violence seems to be appropriately emphasized. For example， achieving equality between men and women， which is included in the Programme of Action， cannot be realized unless gender violence cease to exist. Also， overcoming the structural violence that is caused by class， racial， or religious discrimination is crucial in achieving peaceful and successful development in any country， as it hinders certain population to realize their potential to the fullest. The principle of non-violence in a global scale can be implemented， but it needs a serious support of member states through their own action in first abandoning violence as political means.
1999年，联合国大会通过了和平文化行动宣言和纲领。这一开创性的文件定义了建立和平文化的八个领域的行动，强调和平文化的践行者是所有人，包括政府，民间组织和个人。非暴力政策和对话是和平文化的基本组成部分。根据行动宣言和纲领，和平文化通过非暴力的途径——裁军，军队转换和协商等来促进国际和平和安全。这就表明，对于和平文化来说，通过废除军备和裁军来降低武装冲突的可能性是确保和平和安全的主要方法。
这一理念与强调军事力量包括核威慑来维护安全的观点背道而驰。一些人可能会争辩说非暴力的方法无力说服侵略者放弃他们的地位并停止暴力。然而，甘地和马丁·路德·金都曾经利用非暴力的手段抵制过不公平，倡导人权，这就表明非暴力并不是懦弱的表现，而是勇敢的方法，是将社会从战争文化转化为和平文化的重大力量。引用路德金的话来说，“非暴力是我们这个时代重大政治和道德问题的答案：人类必须不动用镇压和暴力来克服镇压和暴力。” 非暴力不具有侵略性，但是具有前瞻性。另一方面，所谓的‘硬实力’，如军事实力，政治权利和财富等不能确保可持续的和平。相反的，硬实力经常会挑起报复，造成暴力的恶性循环；因此，硬实力造就的和平仅仅是休战期。因此，非暴力是保证可持续和平的关键因素，能够创造和平文化。
暴力并不单单以战争和武器的形式出现，它还可能以其他形式存在于整个社会结构中，例如由贫困和男性女性之间不平等的权利所引发的暴力。阻碍人们寻求和平的社会结构也应被视为暴力并被淘汰。另外，正如我不看好仅仅惩罚违法者却并不提供正确积极的社会导向这一做法，我同样相信死刑并不能达到真正实现和平的目的。剥夺人的生命也是一种暴力。各国政府应摒弃这种存在于法律体系内的暴力，并认识到处决任何人都不能把扎根于人们思想中的暴力转化为和平。这种结构层面的暴力往往伴随着文化层面的暴力。例如，男人至上和压迫女性应被视为暴力的文化理念。这些理念应该被社会摈弃，男性和女性在所有文化中都应得到平等对待。
从更微观的层面来说，消除暴力似乎也应得到适当的强调。例如，《行动纲领》中的男女平等这一目标只有在彻底消灭性别暴力后才能实现。同样，克服社会结构中由阶级、种族或宗教歧视所导致的暴力对于任何国家实现和平、成功的发展来说都至关重要，因为这些暴力会阻碍一部分人充分发挥其潜能。非暴力原则可以在全球范围内执行，但这需要各个成员国的大力支持，从自身做起，放弃暴力的政治手段。
Commitment to Dialogue：
致力于对话：
The Culture of Peace Programme of Action developed a few years prior to the United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations in 2001. While the “Clash of Civilizations” theory was being promoted by certain scholars， an alternative response to the increasing violence and misunderstanding among cultures was much needed. Culture of Peace clearly sends a message that， in our contemporary world， dialogue is the key in creating understanding among different cultures and cooperation for sustainable peace. In fact， the Programme of Action asks the member states for “Support actions that foster understanding， tolerance and solidarity throughout society…”
A culture of peace places a great emphasis on dialogue， along with non-violence， to be a method handling conflict and advancing understanding and tolerance. Through dialogue people from different cultural， political， and economic backgrounds can find positive stimuli in their differences that can boost new prospects. Through dialogue， conflict becomes a constructive opportunity to transcend misunderstandings and initiate deeper understanding through mutually beneficial engagements. Without the will to listen to the opposing sides， however， true dialogue is almost impossible.
Dialogue is in the opposite end of conflict resolution measures from violence. Violence hinders economic growth， violates human rights， and perpetuates further antagonism between conflicting parties. The Culture of Peace， I believe， counters this trend of conflict resolution by doing exactly the opposite； respecting other cultures， promoting human rights， and reconciling the relationships between the former combatants. It may be easier to restore to violence when different interests clash with one another； however， commitment to dialogue is essential in further developing the Culture of Peace in order to overcome the dependency toward violence that humanity has accumulated. 《和平文化行动纲领》早在2001年“联合国不同文明之间对话年”之前就得到了发展。虽然文明冲突论被一些学者所提倡，但我们急需另一种解释来平息日趋增长的暴力和文化误解。和平文化明确传达了这样的信息：在当今世界，对话是加深不同文化间的理解和合作并维护可持续和平的关键。事实上，《行动纲领》要求成员国“支持增进理解、包容和团结全社会的行动…… ”
和平文化特别强调以对话、非暴力的方式处理冲突、增进了解和包容。通过对话，来自不同文化、政治和经济背景的人们可以求同存异，激发共鸣。通过对话，冲突变成了一个富有建设性的机遇，可以通过互惠互利的做法，消除误解和增进了解。然而，如果缺乏聆听不同观点的意愿，真正的对话也就无法进行。
对话是与暴力截然相反的冲突化解方式。暴力妨碍经济增长，侵害人权，使冲突双方的矛盾进一步延续。我相信，和平文化与此截然不同，它尊重不同文化，倡导人权，协调对立双方的关系，进而阻止冲突朝扩大化的方向发展。当利益发生冲突，诉诸于暴力也许是最简单的方法。但是，致力于对话是进一步发展和平文化的基础，从而克服人类已经积累的对暴力的依赖。
Self-Transformation is possible：
自我转变并非难事：
Promotion of Culture of Peace needs to be developed through both from bottom-up and top-down approaches. From the bottom-up， civil societies and concerned individuals play important roles in raising the awareness about issues related to Culture of Peace. Top-down approach can provide necessary means and resources in order to resolve the problems. Thus， Culture of Peace can be realized only through the harmony of the two approaches and different actors under one shared purpose of peace.
Lastly， to achieve a culture of peace， the efforts of all people are necessary. Individuals are key players in a culture of peace because an individual’s sense of inner peace influences the way he or she makes outer peace. Deepak Chopra， in his book Peace is the Way， explains that each individual has a duty to generate a personal transformation toward a daily consciousness of peace and that， from this level of consciousness， a new world order is birthed. The greatness of this dimension of individual focus is that everyone can take action for peace every day through the peaceful improvement of oneself. Furthermore， inner transformation and empowerment can be accomplished by all people， in all conditions of life.
和平文化的推广需要从自下而上和自上而下两方面展开。在自下而上方面，公民社会和有关个人可以积极帮助提升公众对于和平文化相关问题的认识。自上而下的方面可以为解决问题提供必要的措施和资源。因此，和平文化只有通过这两种渠道的共同努力才能得以实现。
最后，普及和平文化需要所有人的共同努力。每个个人都是和平文化中的关键角色，因为只有个人心怀和平，才能保证其和平对待世界。迪帕克·乔布拉在《和平之路》一书中谈到，每个人都有朝着和平意识进行思想转变的责任，通过和平意识的普及，新的世界秩序就会诞生。这种强调个人作用的理论的伟大之处在于每个人每天都可以通过对自身的和平化提升而为和平做出贡献。并且，内部转化和赋权适用于各种生活方式下的每一个人。
Compiled by the UNITY writing team from various sources