jeudi 31 octobre 2019

Café Citoyen: Objectifs de développement durable

CONCORDIA en partenariat avec la Librairie-Café "Raconte-moi la Terre" va mettre en place des café citoyen. Il s'agit des cafés débats qui seront animés par des volontaires en service civique et en CES (Corps européen de solidarité). Le prochain café citoyen sera animé par Capucine, service civique PrODDige et il sera dédié aux objectifs de développement durable. Il aura lieu vendredi prochain 8 novembre à 17h. L'adresse exacte est 14 rue du Plat (Lyon 2, près de Bellecour). Voici le lien vers de l'événement https://www.facebook.com/events/830369334049233/


jeudi 10 octobre 2019

Journées d’études « Démocratie et Néolibéralisme »


Journées d’études « Démocratie et Néolibéralisme »

17 octobre 2019 - 18 octobre 2019, à l’ENS de Lyon, site Descartes, salle D4.260



Présentation

Peu de catégories sont aussi indéterminées que celles de néolibéralisme et de démocratie. Celles-ci sont largement mobilisées dans des débats actuels au sein des sphères publique et académique  : de manière antinomique, le néolibéralisme aurait sonné le glas des pratiques démocratiques, l’exemple paradigmatique étant le Chili de Pinochet  ; et de façon plus ambivalente, il aurait inspiré des transformations dans le domaine de l’action publique, dont le New Public Management est la figure de proue. Dans ces deux cas, il y aurait une tendance à relativiser l’importante de la question de la démocratie dans les théories néolibérales. Néanmoins, la critique et la reconfiguration de la démocratie est une préoccupation constante dans les écrits néolibéraux, ce qui définit à la fois et en même temps un champ d’intelligibilité pour saisir les conceptions d’une démocratie néolibérale et celles d’une philosophie politique du néolibéralisme. Ce faisant, l’on ouvre sur des nouvelles possibilités de compréhension des rapports entre ces deux catégories  : les relations entretenues entre elles viennent alors éclairer à la fois le néolibéralisme et la démocratie.

mercredi 9 octobre 2019

Nicholas Roerich

Nicholas Roerich (1874-1947) The Highest mountains stand as the witnesses of the Great Reality
by Rene Wadlow
2019-10-09 07:03:09




Nicholas Roerich, the Russian painter, explorer, and cultural activist, whose birth anniversary we note on 9 October, stressed throughout his life the role of beauty and culture in bringing humanity together in unity. “True art is the expression of the radiant spirit.” Art is the manifestation of the coming synthesis of the spiritual and the material. The gates of the sacred source must be opened wide for everybody, and the light of art will ignite numerous hearts with a new love. At first this feeling will be unconscious, but after all it will purify human consciousness. Bring art to the people “where it belongs. We should have not only museums, theatres, universities, public libraries, railway stations and hospitals, but even prisons decorated and beautified.” 

His inspiration is still at work today in many efforts to preserve the art of the past and to create an art of the future which speaks to the highest aspiration of the person. 

Roerich gained recognition at a young age in St. Petersburg art circles. His paintings of early Russian life, inspired in part by his archaeological excavations of tumuli “a reminder of the Vikings in Russia” were popular among those who were looking for inspiration in the Russian past. 

There were some among the Slavophiles of the early 1900s who felt that Russia had a unique culture and thus a special role to play in the salvation of humanity. They rejected anything coming from Western Europe. However, Roerich, while close to some of the Slavophiles, especially Princess Maria Tenisheva and her efforts at the experimental village Talashkino, was never hostile to artistic creation from non-Russian cultures. As he said “The chief significance of an artistic education lies in opening up wide horizons to the pupils and in inculcating the conception of art as something infinite.” Roerich believed that one had to preserve and develop what was best in local culture as a contribution to a world culture in which the best of local cultures would be preserved. “Culture is a constant becoming, a dynamic evolution of a living world.” 

Probably the most influential aspect of Roerich’s Russian period was his cooperation with Igor Stravinsky for the theme and the music of the Sacre du Printemps and with Sergei Diaghilev for the ballet, costumes and scenery of the Sacre in Paris in 1913, a music and dance which revolutionized ballet at the time. As Roerich wrote of Le Sacre “The eternal novelty of the Sacre is because spring is eternal, and love is eternal and sacrifice is eternal. Then in this new conception, Stravinsky touches the eternal in music. He was modern because he evoked the future; it is the great serpent ring touching the great past —the sacred tunes that connect the great past and the future.” 

The Sacre is the most Dionysian of Roerich’s inspiration. His painting of 1911 “The Forefathers” at the time of Roerich’s collaboration with Stravinsky might almost be a sketch for the opening of the Sacre, whose early pages quiver with the sound of pipes. Here Dionysus-like, primitive man charms with his piping a circle of wild beasts, in this case, bears, reflecting the Slavic tradition that bears were man’s forefathers. 

Stravinsky was presented to Roerich by Sergei Diaghilev, the Russian with a holistic vision of art: music, painting, dance, and the publisher of The World of Art magazine. Roerich had already designed some of the sets for Borodin’s Prince Igor produced by Diaghilev in Paris in 1909. Roerich produced the outline and the theme for Le Sacre and later designed the sets and the costumes. 




In 1901, Nicholas Roerich had married Elena Ivanovona who shared his interest in art, music and the philosophy of China, Tibet and India. Later, in the West she wrote her name as Helena and also published under the pen name Josephine Saint-Hilaire On Easterm Crossroads (1930). The Russian composer Moussorgsky was her uncle. The young couple cooperated with the Buriat Lama Dorzhiev in building a Tibetan Buddist Temple in St. Petersburg. 

Dorzhiev saw the possibility of an alliance of the Buriats, Kaimyk and other Buddhist tribes living in the eastern part of Russia with the thirteenth Dalai Lama, who was the most politically aware of the Dalai Lamas. The alliance was to be headed by the Tsar Nicholas II and would have been a counter weight to English and Chinese influence in Tibet. 

From Dorzhiev, the Roerichs learned of the Tibetan text and ritual, the Kalachakra (The Wheel of Time) and of the coming of a new historical-astrological cycle “The New Age” to be marked by a new Buddha, Maitreya. (1) Nicholas II, however, was not to become “the Bodhisatva Tsar”. He was soon caught up by the 1917 Russian Revolution. By 1918, the Roerichs left Russia foreseeing the Soviet policy of controlling all art forms for narrow political purposes. 

After a short stay in Western Europe, the Roerichs moved to the United States where his paintings had already been shown. With American friends, he created the Master School of the United Arts in 1922 in New York City, where music, art and philosophy were taught. Students were advised to “Look forward, forget the past, think of the service of the future. Exalt others in spirit and look ahead.” 

In 1924, the Roerichs left for India and travelled especially in the Himalayan areas. For Roerich, mountains represented a path to the spiritual life. “Mountains, what magnetic forces are concealed within you. What a symbol of quietude is revealed in every sparking peak. The highest knowledge, the most inspired songs, the most superb sounds and colors, are created on the mountains. On the highest mountains there is the Supreme.” 

The Roerichs undertook a number of expeditions to Central Asia and the Altai Mountains of Russia (1923-1928 and 1933-1935) along with their son George, who became a specialist of Tibetan culture and language. George Roerich’s Trails to Inmost Asia (Yale University Press, 1931) is a good and unsentimental account of these trips, George being assigned the hard work of running the logistics. Nicholas Roerich always remained convinced of the need to preserve local culture. He put an emphasis on collecting folk tales and traditional practices of medicine, especially the use of herbs. “In every encampment of Asia, I tried to unveil what memories were cherished in the folk memory. Through these guarded and preserved tales, you may recognize the reality of the past. In every spark of folklore, there is a drop of the great Truth adorned or distorted.” 

Roerich’s desire to make known the artistic achievements of the past through archaeology, coupled with the need to preserve the landmarks of the past from destruction, led to his work for the Banner of Peace to preserve art and architecture in time of war. Roerich had seen the destruction brought by the First World War and the civil war which followed the 1917 Russian Revolution. He worked with French international lawyers to draft a treaty by which museums, churches and buildings of value would be preserved in time of war through the use of a symbol — three red circles representing past, present and future— a practice inspired by the red cross used to protect medical personnel in times of conflict. 

Roerich mobilized artists and intellectuals in the 1920s for the establishment of this Banner of Peace. Henry A. Wallace, the US Secretary of Agriculture and later Vice-President, was an admirer of Roerich and helped to have an official treaty introducing the Banner of Peace — the Roerich Peace Pact — signed at the White House on 15 April 1935 by 21 States in a Pan-American Union ceremony. At the signing, Henry Wallace on behalf of the USA said “At no time has such an ideal been more needed. It is high time for the idealists who make the reality of tomorrow, to rally around such a symbol of international cultural unity. It is time that we appeal to that appreciation of beauty, science, education which runs across all national boundaries to strengthen all that we hold dear in our particular governments and customs. Its acceptance signifies the approach of a time when those who truly love their own nation will appreciate in addition the unique contribution of other nations and also do reverence to that common spiritual enterprise which draws together in one fellowship all artists, scientists, educators and truly religious of whatever faith.” 

As Nicholas Roerich said in a presentation of his Pact “The world is striving toward peace in many ways, and everyone realizes in his heart that this constructive work is a true prophesy of the New Era. We deplore the loss of the libraries of Louvain and Oviedo and the irreplaceable beauty of the Cathedral of Rheins. We remember the beautiful treasures of private collections which were lost during world calamities. But we do not want to inscribe on these deeds any words of hatred. Let us simply say: Destroyed by human ignorance —rebuilt by human hope.” 

After the Second World War, UNESCO has continued the effort, and there have been additional conventions on the protection of cultural and educational bodies in times of conflict, in particular The Hague Convention of May 1954 though no universal symbol as proposed by Nicholas Roerich has been developed. 

Today, the need to bring beauty to as many people as possible is the prime task of developing a culture of peace. As Nicholas Roerich wrote “The most gratifying and uplifting way to serve the coming evolution is by spreading the seeds of beauty. If we are to have a beautiful life and some happiness it must be created with joy and enthusiasm for service to art and beauty.” 

********************************** 

See Alan Sponberg and Helen Hardacre Maitreya: The Future Buddha (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, 304pp.) 

********************************** 

Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens

mardi 1 octobre 2019

U.N. General Assembly: Can It Provide the Needed Global Leadership?

27 Sep 2019 – The international relations specialist Stanley Hoffmann once quipped “Goals are easy to describe. What matters more is a strategy for reaching them.” The United Nations through its annual debates in the General Assembly, its special world conferences such as those devoted to the environment, population, food, women, urbanization, and within the Specialized Agencies have created goals for a world public policy in the interests of all humanity. There are three important phases of this world public policy: formulation, implementation and evaluation. Thus, this September the UNGA began with a “Climate Action Summit” to evaluate governmental efforts to meet the challenges of climate change. Government leaders set out what they have done, or plan to do, at the national level but they said relatively little on what they could do together.

The Climate Action Summit was followed by the policy statements of national governments: Jair Bolsonaro, Donald Trump, Recep Tajyip Erdogan, Emmanuel Macron, Hassan Rauhani, Angela Merkel, Boris Johnson, Narendra Modi and Abdel Fatth al Sisi. All except al Sisi came to national power through elections and not military coups. Thus in some way, they represent the degree of awareness of world issues and the priorities of their electors.

The question asked many years ago by the world citizen Norman Cousins,


“Who Speaks for Man”?

To meet the major challenges of world-wide issues, strong leadership is necessary. Yet the avenues for leadership at the world level are difficult to trace. Leadership at the national level is usually clearly structured in a pyramid with the office of President at the top, with Cabinet Ministers, the higher ranks of the military just below. There may be a vast informal network of influential advisors, business leaders, the press – all with leadership roles, but the formal structure of governance is hierarchical and clearly defined. People generally expect the Prime Minister or the President to lead. In fact, he is judged on whether or not he provides such leadership.

At the world level, there is no world government as such, and a strong leader at the national level may play little role on the world level. What the Commission on Global Governance wrote in 1994 remains true today:


“At the moment, political caution, national concerns, short-term problems, and a certain fatigue with international causes have combined to produce a dearth of leadership on major international issues. The very magnitude of global problems such as poverty, population or consumerism seems to have daunted potential international leaders. And yet without courageous, long-term leadership at every level – international and national – it is impossible to create and sustain constituencies powerful and reliable enough to make an impact on problems that will determine, one way or another, the future of the human race on this planet.” (1)

Thus, there is a need for constant leadership and direction at the world level. There is a need to maintain and rebuild enthusiasm, to reset the course when policies do not work out as expected, to keep up a momentum and an enthusiasm. The United Nations is the only universal organization at the world level, and thus it is from within the United Nations that leadership at the world level must come. Leaders within the U.N. system must be able to reach beyond the member governments – at times over the heads of current government office holders – to the people of the world.

There are two positions of authority in the ill-defined pyramid structure of the United Nations. One is the Secretary-General; the other is the President of the General Assembly who is elected for one year at a time. The President of the current, 74th session is Tijjani Muhammed-Bande of Nigeria. There have been times when the head of one of the Specialized Agencies of the U.N. or the financial institutions or U.N. programs have provided leadership but usually on only one or two subjects.

Especially on the resolution of armed conflicts, people look to the Secretary-General for leadership. In some cases, the Secretary-General has been able to play a central role. As the servant of the Security Council, the Secretary-General has been able to play a mobilizing role in times of conflict and political crisis in those cases when the Security Council has been unified behind a decision. Since the chairman of the Security Council is a national diplomat and serves on a rotating basis only for one month, he cannot play a real mobilizing role nor is he perceived as a world leader.

Some hope that the President of the U.N. General Assembly, who is in post for a full year, could play a leadership role. So far such hopes have not been realized in practice. It would be difficult to find many people who can name the last five Presidents of the General Assembly or to cite much of what they have done other than presiding over meetings.

Today, with real challenges to humanity, with a reform-minded Secretary-General who for a decade faced refugee issues, we may see some of the marks of strong world leadership.

NOTE:

1) The Commission on Global Governance. Our Global Neighbourhood (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995)

______________________________________

René Wadlow is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment. He is President of the Association of World Citizens, an international peace organization with consultative status with ECOSOC, the United Nations organ facilitating international cooperation and problem-solving in economic and social issues, and editor of Transnational Perspectives.