• All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.

  • I.F. Stone

woensdag 7 december 2016

Standing Rock

The Dakota Access Pipeline and the Doctrine of Native Genocide

Tuesday, 06 December 2016 00:00 By Tim Scott, Truthout | News Analysis 
Water Protectors resisting the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, November 18, 2016.Water Protectors resist the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, November 18, 2016. (Photo: Lucas Zhao / Oceti Sakowin Camp)
The peaceful Native Water Protectors who have been resisting the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) on sacred land belonging to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have succeeded in winning federal accommodations to temporarily halt DAPL construction, but the energy company behind DAPL has pledged to proceed (with state support). Knowing the enduring historic and structural nature of this modern struggle -- a struggle in which the Water Protectors have courageously confronted violent local, state and private militarized forces, inspiring support from thousands of US military veterans -- is vital to understanding its significance. 
While the origins of the legal doctrine that facilitated conquest, genocide and the structure of settler colonialism in the US is well known to Native people throughout North America (and beyond), they are less known to current generations of white settlers.
The Doctrine of Discovery, Colonialism and White (Christian) Supremacy
The Crusades were launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II and his papal bull (an official papal decree), Terra NulliusTerra Nullius, Latin for "land that belongs to no one" permitted European Christian kings and princes to "discover" and claim land occupied by non-Christians. During the Crusades in 1240, the canon lawyer Pope Innocent IV penned a legal commentary on the rights of non-Christians that questioned if it was lawful to invade a land that "infidels" possess. Innocent went on to respond that it was, because the Crusades were "just wars" and were being fought in "defense" of Christianity and to take back lands that rightfully belonged to Christians. Innocent asserted a Christian right to legally dispossess pagans of sovereignty and property.
In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, which gave King Alfonso of Portugal the God-given right to conquer and enslave sub-Saharan Africans. In the bull, Nicholas V mandated Alfonso to "invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens [Muslims] and pagans whatsoever ... to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors ... and to convert them to his and their use and profit." In 1455, Pope Nicholas V issued another bull, the Romanus Pontifex, to King Alfonso -- and extended to all Catholic monarchies -- the right of "discovery" and seizure of all lands that were not inhabited by Catholics. It also encouraged the enslavement of the non-Christian inhabitants of all stolen lands. Thus, when Christopher Columbus landed on Guanahani island in 1492, he performed a ceremony to "take possession" of the land in the name of the king and queen of Spain, as ordained by the church. Columbus was also following church doctrine when he wrote in his personal diary about his intentions for the Indigenous people he encountered by claiming, "I could conquer the whole of them with 50 men, and govern them as I pleased."
A year later, in 1493, Pope Alexander VI issued the papal bull Inter Caetera, which gave Spain the Americas, while Africa and India were allotted to Portugal (and later, land that would become Brazil, as well), for the purposes of colonization and to convert and enslave the Indigenous inhabitants of the Americas. Inter Caetera also justified the enslavement of Africans. Inter Caetera established the Law of Nations (also known as the Law of Christendom), a papal and thus legal decree stating that "one Christian nation did not have the right to establish dominion over lands previously dominated by another Christian nation."
All together these papal decrees (between 1095-1493), originating from the Crusades, served as a bedrock for the ideology of white supremacy as tied to the establishment of international law under the Doctrine of Discovery (or the Doctrine of Christian Discovery). This ideological doctrine was fundamental in the creation of sovereign rights in settler colonial nation-states and the legalization of European claims to own, occupy, colonize and exploit the continent of Africa and the entire Western Hemisphere, condemning Indigenous peoples to a subhuman status in domestic and international politics. The Doctrine of Discovery advanced the structural foundations (political/legal, cultural and economic) for the transatlantic slave trade and the genocidal policies and practices of colonization across the globe.
With the "discovery" of the Americas, the imperialist nations of England and France followed the new doctrine of discovery and quickly used it to claim rights and powers of first discovery in North America. In 1496, England's King Henry VII issued a Royal Charter, which commissioned an expedition led by John Cabot  -- in the name of England -- "to find, discover and investigate whatsoever islands, countries, regions or provinces of heathens and infidels, in whatsoever part of the world placed, which before this time were unknown to all Christians ... to conquer, occupy and possess whatsoever such towns, castles, cities and islands by them." Based on Cabot's explorations, England laid claim to his "discoveries" from Newfoundland to Virginia. France contested England's claims, and declared first discovery rights of ownership and sovereignty over North America. At the time, both countries were Catholic, making them cautious to violate papal bulls. It would not be until the end of the 16th century when France, England and the Netherlands were able to compete with Spain and Portugal for supremacy over the lands and bodies of Indigenous peoples on a global scale.
By the late 16th century, England freed itself from papal rule and attached the name and principles of the 1095 papal bull Terra Nullius to Queen Elizabeth I's definition of discovery rights, which required the occupancy and actual possession by Europeans of non-Christian lands as crucial elements of a discovery claim.
Thereafter England proclaimed that only Christian nations could discover and claim territory in the Americas (and later Australia), conditioned on the establishment of permanent settlements that cultivated the land. According to the Encyclopedia of Public International Law, this version of the doctrine of Terra Nullius was to become the "eighteenth-century convention of European international law -- it being held that any land which was unoccupied or unsettled could be acquired as a new territory by a sovereign State, and that the laws of that State would apply in the new territory."
In his article, "The Doctrine of Discovery in American Indian Law," professor Robert Miller documents how "the Doctrine of Discovery was the international law under which America was explored and ... was the legal authority the English Crown used to colonize America and to obtain Indian lands." After the American Revolution, the "Doctrine of Discovery" was embraced by the states and the courts as both common and natural law. Thus, the doctrine became the legal and ideological basis for settler colonialism in the United States, and became further entrenched as the centerpiece of land rights and Native law in the US by the time of the 1823 US Supreme Court decision, Johnson v. M'Intosh. This decision affirmed that the "Doctrine of Discovery" was indeed a well-established legal principle of English and American colonial law and had carried over to become the law of the land in US states and the federal government. According to journalist Julian Brave NoiseCat, "Justice John Marshall used the doctrine to support the majority opinion of the court, which found that Indians ... could not own, the ancestral homelands where their people had lived, loved, worshipped, married, mourned and died for millennia." The Johnson v. M'Intosh decision stands to this day. NoiseCat went on to report:
The doctrine has had a significant influence on Indian law and set a precedent that resonates even in modern decisions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- widely considered the most liberal justice on the Supreme Court -- even cited cases based upon the doctrine as recently as 2005 to deny a land claim brought before the court by the Oneida Nation.
To this day, the doctrine continues to be a structural barrier to Indigenous rights to lands, resources and self-determination (liberation).
US Settler Colonialism: "Destroy to Replace"
The nationalistic narrative attached to the Doctrine of Discovery inspired the notion of Manifest Destiny and conjured up a social imaginary where intrepid white immigrant pioneers courageously settled a vast continent that was there for the taking. The counter-narrative to this tale is best described by settler colonialism, which frames this undertaking not as a set of distinct historical events, but as a persistent and ongoing cultural, political and economic structure. In their article, "Decolonizing Feminism: Challenging Connections between Settler Colonialism and Heteropatriarchy," Maile Arvin, Eve Tuck and Angie Morrill explain:
Newcomers/colonizers/settlers come to a place, claim it as their own, and do whatever it takes to disappear the Indigenous peoples that are there. Within settler colonialism, it is exploitation of land that yields supreme value. In order for settlers to usurp the land and extract its value, Indigenous peoples must be destroyed, removed, and made into ghosts.
As a nation-state, the United States is defined by the genocide of Native people and the enslavement of Black people and would not exist without the brutal structure of settler colonialism (and chattel slavery). In fact, genocide is not an aberration of US democracy, but is instead foundational to it.
The colonization of North America by Christian whites -- especially after the formation of the US -- differed significantly from "franchise colonialism" (or extraction-oriented colonialism) that was practiced in other parts of the world, such as in India under British rule.
As professor Lorenzo Veracini describes it in Settler Colonial Studies journal, franchise colonialism differs from settler colonialism in that its "message to Native populations is 'You, work for me,'" while "the settler-colonial message is 'You, go away.'" Settler colonialism, as Wolfe puts it in the Journal of Genocide Research, "destroys to replace" by erecting "a new colonial society on the expropriated land base ... settler colonizers come to stay [and] invasion is a structure not an event ... to get in the way of settler colonization, all the native has to do is stay at home." While in some instances, white settlers in US settlements enslaved Indigenous peoples for their labor, the primary goal of the US settler state was to eliminate Native people altogether.
Soon after the American Revolution, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, which claimed, "any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen." As a result, scholar Malathi Michelle Iyengar points out, "even the lowest-status whites (Jews, Irish peasants, indentured servants) were legally white -- i.e. Human -- by virtue of not being Black (i.e. Slave) or Indian (i.e. Savage-to-be-vanquished)." This dehumanizing racial paradigm allowed Congress to establish that only "free white" people are eligible to be citizens in the growing settler nation and deserving of the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Despite nationalist ideologies, the social structure of settler colonialism cannot be reduced to distant and unfortunate "birth pangs" of a young nation as it strived to live up to its enlightened values and institutions. The violence of settler colonialism is reasserted each and every day of the occupation for as long as it lasts. Its violence is inherently entwined in other persisting forms of brutality.
In addition to frontier homicide, other genocidal strategies of elimination and social control characterized by the US settler colonial nation-state include systematic and state-facilitated assimilation techniques via boarding schoolschild abduction, Christian conversion, forced sterilization and the breaking down of Native title into alienable individual freeholds (see Dawes Act of 1887). Elimination strategies continue to this day through criminalizationimpoverishment and perpetual treaty violations as suicide rates among Native youth skyrocket. Additional strategies include blood quantum laws  (Indian blood laws) designed to decrease recognition of Indigenous land claims over generations, as well as laws that enable white settlers to make claims of indigeneity (claim membership in an Indigenous group).
Native poet and novelist Sherman Alexie claimed, "In the Great American Indian novel, when it is finally written, all of the white people will be Indians and all of the Indians will be ghosts." The racial construction of Native people continues to be embedded within the ideology of eugenics, whereby the destiny of their Indigenous identity will be diluted and disappear over generations and white settlers can more legitimately claim native status. Arvin, Tuck and Morrill emphasize that "settler colonialism must be understood as a multi-fronted project of making the First Peoples of a place extinct; it is a relentless structure, not contained in a period of time."
Only through continued resistance have Native people survived the ongoing genocidal project of the Doctrine of Discovery and US settler colonialism. Recognizing this reality reveals what is at stake for the Water Protectors who will continue to resist big oil at Standing Rock, for it is a struggle for Indigenous survival and for the preservation of Earth itself.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

TIM SCOTT

Tim Scott is an educator, writer and social worker who was a community and union organizer for many years. He has a doctorate in Social Justice Education with a focus in Cultural Political Economy.

    Edward Snowden

    Without a debate or any new law, the rights of every American -- and basic privacy of people around the world -- have been narrowed.

    https://twitter.com/Snowden



    U.S. Deep Culture

    Are we witnessing the Fall of the U.S Empire?

    In what follows, the macro level conflict formation of US Empire will be reflected through my personal experience: Based on details from my work in Lawrence (Kansas/USA) during the successful period of the Sanders campaign as well as conversations and debates from this time, it’s safe to say that it has never been more exhausting to be a citizen of the United States’ Empire. Johan Galtung’s theoretical insights into culture and conflict dynamics have helped me make sense of the presidential election process unfolding since August 2015. This peace and conflict studies approach to understanding the role of culture and conflict in the election process can help elucidate important implications of both candidates’ stances.
    While completing studies in Argentina and Chile in 2015, I explored US cultural imperialism in Latin America in cooperation with the Galtung-Institute for Peace Theory and Peace Practice.Insights from this work, particularly my work on Project Camelot, prompted me to engage my peers in examining the impacts of US deep culture on the maintenance of its empire and, by extension, its significance and relevance for the frustrating developments of the unfolding 2016 election process.
    As it stands, the electoral process has presented the American people with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump; two presidential candidates that hold the lowest favorability ratings in modern history. Political alternatives were easily subjugated before the official party nominations. The concession of the Democratic primary race by Bernie Sanders to Hilary Clinton on July 12th, two weeks before the Democratic Convention, depleted the broad-based movement that desired to address underlying structural faultlines in the United States. This concession was crucial, because from a geopolitical perspective, the Sanders campaign represented the choice towards more positive peace as set forth by Prof. Johan Galtung in his book “Fall of the US Empire: And Then What?”, namely “to integrate with the rest of the world as equals and solve the underlying contradictions of empire”. More specifically, Johan Galtung’s predictive approach to the study of Empire posits that empires fall due to synergizing contradictions in their political, economic, military, and cultural dimensions of power. The challenge for the next president will then be to solve these contradictions; or else…

    Understanding Culture

    The political conflict at the heart of the US presidential election is a reflection of a deeper, a cultural conflict over both the identity of individual Americans and the identity of the United States and its role in the world at-large. Resolving this conflict over cultural identity is more difficult due to differing perspectives of what constitutes culture. Culture is defined as, “The ways in which individuals and groups make meaning of their social and physical world, and the values, beliefs and processes that are reproduced through this meaning-making.” Culture can be a conscious process of meaning-making (surface culture) or an unconscious process whereby a person acts out a cultural script (deep culture). The iceberg model of culture delineates three levels of culture- surface, shallow, and deep. Surface culture includes food, dress, music, arts and other elements that could be easily identified as ‘culture’ by an outside party. However, the majority of culture lies in the unspoken rules and deep-seated rules below the visible surface culture. As cultural norms become deeper and more unconscious, the emotional attachment becomes greater and therefore more difficult to alter. The US presidential elections provide a perfect example of how deep culture limits legitimate dialogue over cultural elements that lead to conflicts. The entire spectacle of the 2016 election cycle includes celebrations, ritual, clothing, and art that are surface manifestation of this deep cultural understanding. Examining the elections from a cultural perspective helps “challenge the universal claims of much mainstream international relations and political and social science.” Peace and Conflict studies experts like Rubinstein and Foster as well as Avruch and Black at George Mason University also insist on the cultural approach to reading politics because ways of handling conflicts in general and of the US in particular are not actually universal. Rather, they are based on a particular history, geography, and anthropology deeply rooted in Western civilization.

    Understanding US Deep Culture in the 2016 elections

    US deep culture is fundamentally derived from Judeo-Christian theology. This religious cosmology is the foundation for the ‘civilizational code’ that provides the subconscious script for behavior in situations of crisis and conflict. This script is especially strong, as its roots can be traced back to ancient civilizations in Mesopotamia and East Asia. The historical context is important because small Christian tribes relied on the strength of a powerful God to survive and compete with other social groups. Christianity can be characterized as a singularist and universalist religion. Singularist in that it stipulates one God that rules the Universe, particularly in favor of a specific set of Chosen People.

    The concept of one God delineates a fundamental cultural distinction between Self and Other. This theological tenet further develops into six cultural concepts that are particularly violence-prone: 1-Dualism, 2-Manichaeism, 3-Armageddon (DMA) and 4-Choseness, 5-Glory, and 6-Trauma (CGT).Dualism is the understanding according to which the universe is fundamentally divided into two parts. Manichaeism, an attitudinal stance named after a theology developed by the Iranian prophet Mani, denotes this dualism as forces of Good and Evil eternally struggling for supremacy. Armageddon is the idea that a total, zero sum ‘final battle’ between Good and Evil will settle the eternal struggle. These elements help operationalize CGT. In the context of the United States, Choseness is the belief that the United States is a chosen nation, a “city on a hill,” a beacon of the democracy for the rest of the world. With the theological backing of the all-powerful God, the United States has been chosen to enact the divine mandate on Earth. Galtung further clarifies, “The smallest people with the biggest God and a clear mission in the world if and only if they keep their side of the pact. In other words, a linkage between moral behavior as defined in a religious context and foreign relations, relations to other peoples. Fulfilling the commandments becomes not only an individual obligation and a condition for one’s own salvation, but a collective obligation to be fu1filled by everybody for collective survival. Internal religious control becomes a social necessity.” Below is a table outlining the consequences of the theological divide between God’s Chosen and what is “left to Satan:”
    cultural-violence



    (Click to enlarge)
    Equally important are the notions of Glory and Trauma which refer to important historical points in time, events, or periods in a culture’s cosmology. During the Presidential election, these glory and trauma points are referenced frequently. For instance, September 11, 2001 is a Trauma point that is often used to legitimize military expenditure and wars abroad. In the rhetoric of both candidates, to remedy and recover from this trauma, the glory of American Exceptionalism and it’s hegemony in the international community must be maintained. These concepts are cemented firmly in Donald Trump’s slogan- “Make America Great Again” or in Hilary Clinton’s recent statement “part of what makes America an exceptional nation (…) is that we are also an indispensable nation; in fact; we are THE indispensable nation.” Trauma is a threat to the collective psychology of a people, or the ‘collective subconscious’ in Jungian terms. Trump’s framing in particular seeks to remedy trauma and other U.S handicaps through the restoration of self-referential Glory. Indeed, watching the presidential election unfold in the context of the U.S Empire reveals cultural patterns embedded in structures which are silent, do not show – are essentially static, like “tranquil waters.”
    In many ways, the Sanders campaign sought to provide an alternative to the DMA, CGT way of thinking by focusing on underlying economic, social, and political issues, absurdities and contradictions inherent in the US imperial structure. For example, Sanders wanted to challenge wealth inequality by reforming the tax system, increasing the minimum wage, and empowering the “99%.”  Sanders’ economic platform was bolstered by his refusal to take corporate money for his campaign. For many people in my hometown Lawrence, – [and here, geography matters because Lawrence is considered a “dot of blue in a sea of red.” The town is “more liberal” (to quote a prominent misclassification and political misunderstanding in American politics) than the rest of Kansas.] – Sanders represented a break from ‘politics as usual’ and a credible step toward the construction of a peace culture. He acknowledged a need for the creation of a more equitable society. On March 3rd 2016 at a Sanders rally at the Douglas County Fairgrounds, people lined up around the block and waited several hours to enter the arena. During his speech, he focused on challenging corporate control of US politics, strengthening minority groups in the political realm, and ending US military intervention abroad. In this manner, the rhetoric of Sanders portrayed a more inclusive US Self. The “we” usually referenced in the media refers to the identity of the liberal nation-state and the elites rather than its subjects. In Sanders’ approach however, the central tenet of a peace culture stood out: He sought “unity in diversity” by fully taking into consideration the infinite wealth of the cultures of the world and by averting the ‘fear reflex’ when confronted with otherness.” Additionally, Sanders was more prone to utilizing the four aspects of peaceful communication as defined by de Matos in “Learning to Communicate Peacefully.” These include: Love your communicative neighbor, Dignify your daily dialogues, Prioritize Positivizers in your language use, and be a communicative Humanizer. A prime example is Sanders’ reaction to criticism from Native peoples that they were being excluded from the conversation. At said rally, I witnessed a student from Haskell Indian Nations University introduce Sanders, who then dedicated a significant portion of his speech toward highlighting indigenous rights, tribal sovereignty and the effects of wealth inequality on native populations. Lester Randall, Chairman of the Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas and my colleague through my position at Kansas University, sat on the stage during the rally as well. Sanders’ stump speech evolved through dialogue with the electorate, an act of cooperative narrative construction that granted respect and dignity to voices that were normally marginalized. This positive approach outlined a vision for an inclusive and peaceful future.
    In contrast, Clinton’s approach remains more negative and fear based. It focuses on “defeating the Republicans.” The DMA script was routinely invoked by the Clinton campaign including during the Democratic primary to defeat the challenge of Bernie Sanders. As the corporate candidate, Clinton was unable to counter the political and economic arguments of Sanders. Instead, she exploited the dualism of the two party system. During the democratic debates she would routinely sideline the substantive comments of Sanders by reinforcing the manichaeist idea that the ‘Good’ Democratic Party needed to unite and defeat the forces of ‘Evil’ represented by Donald Trump and the Republican Party. Considering ideas outside of the prominent Liberal discourse, or entertaining the politics of Bernie Sanders, was rejected because such a split of the side of good would result in defeat in Armageddon (read: election day). In turn, she relied on tropes of American strength and the fear of the state losing legitimacy if Trump were to be elected.
    In a sense, deep culture is one of the primary reasons for the autism of the US Empire and its inability to understand the goals, needs, and interests of the world at large. The surface culture in the United States reflects the underlying cultural understanding of conflict. Seen in this way, DMA/CGT in the United States is an obstacle for peace and peace culture. Attempts to alter this mindset are sidelined in public discourse, because “realpolitik approaches” have marginalized cultural approaches.

    Remembering the BERN

    In a speech for UNESCO, David Adams explicitly draws the connection between peace culture and empire. Adams outlines two symptoms- economic and political- of the culture of war and empire. Economically, the state encounters a balance of payments problem because the states puts money into the military, but doesn’t appropriately develop industry or exports. Politically, there is political alienation because the people no longer believe that the government works with them. People in my generation have lived almost the entirety of their adult lives under the War on Terror – Sanders tapped into this latent desire to move towards more peaceful status quo. The historical trauma of 9/11 has been utilized to justify governmental expenditure on war rather than health care, education, or the social safety net at large. This system is a form of violence, as “human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations.” Indeed, Sanders’ volunteers like myself, framed our commitment to the Sanders campaign directly in these terms. Millennials are still searching for political answers to student debt, and rather than providing an answer, the presidential elections have only cast more doubt. I heard many stories about how student debt was destroying the future of this generation. The campaign was an opportunity to develop a culture of peace that challenge the deep culture of empire and put people back at the forefront of politics. Volunteers were enthusiastic, because they felt like their voices were being heard, and that the collective project of “Feeling the Bern” challenged the violence of the current system.

    What about Violence?

    Galtung’s violence triangle helps conceptualize the different prongs of the Sanders campaign. The three types of violence- direct, structural, and cultural- were experienced by campaign staffers to different degrees depending on their socio-economic status, race, gender, and age. For example, many white, lower-middle class staffers were interested in the structural violence of student debt and the underlying economic structures that increased suffering through lack of employment and low wages. Many staffers of color were concerned primarily with ending police brutality- both the dimensions of direct, individual violence of police murder and the structural components of the prison-industrial complex and The New Jim Crow. As mentioned above, the campaign’s platform as a whole challenged cultural violence through inclusivity and criticism of mainstream and liberal political thought.
    The campaign also made a distinction between direct and indirect violence that was important to hold individuals accountable for crisis and war without losing legitimacy through ad-hominem attacks. For example, the members of the military and specific politicians were subject to criticism, but the analysis of violence was abstracted to the systemic level as a way to impulse policy change. This helped the campaign avoid the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness” whereby individuals are considered to directly responsible for structure, not acting within a system. This internal analysis of violence – even if the campaign didn’t necessarily express itself in these exact terms – resulted in a clear rhetorical superiority over the Clinton campaign. Sanders’ criticism was quite heavy on the political, economic, and military structures of misery in the United States. He was able to effectively link Clinton to those structures as a key player, but did not challenge her as an individual. For Sanders’ supporters, this distinction was a rhetorical device to avoid criticism that Sanders was attacking Clinton or mudslinging. In official events or the debates, Sanders was often asked if his criticism of systems and structures was directly addressing the actions of Clinton, and he consistently deflected such questions as ridiculous horse-race commentary perpetrated by the profit-driven media.
    Clinton’s legitimization of war culture is directly related to her analysis of violence. As a devout realist, acolyte of Henry Kissinger, and Secretary of State, the foundation of Clinton’s rhetoric is security. Security is about diminishing threats. Thinking is limited to achieving a negative peace where the person, direct violence of other countries/groups does not occur. Of course, “focusing on reduction of personal violence at the expense of a tacit or open neglect of research on structural violence leads, very easily, to acceptance of ‘law and order’ societies.” Clinton reinforces the structures of American Empire by making the case that American’s are unsafe because the Others are not following the ‘correct’ international order. Violence and mass shootings in the United States that broke out due to structural conditions, in Clinton’s eyes, are due to individuals that are breaking the law suffer from mental disorder or personal psychosis. Or violence from structure is due to bad intentions and inherent Evil. This analysis failed to satisfy many Americans that have suffered structural violence, especially because Clinton’s vision of the future is limited to a vision of negative peace. A far-reaching vision of peace cannot be achieved without a foundational and equally far-reaching re-conceptualization of violence.
    Many Americans are deeply frightened at the potential outcome of the election in November. Much of this fear stems from evidence that Trump or Clinton, the candidates that were ultimately selected, will be able to address the underlying structural formations that have caused so much suffering inside and outside the US.
    The process has been disappointing for those who have an “unabated aspiration for peace, which implies the necessity of finding a way of living together better in this world of growing complexity and uncertainty that all too often is now witnessing the outbreak of new forms of violence.” Deep Culture has limited the spectrum of debate to Manichaeist ideas that deliver more violence, but little justice or understanding. My experience participating in the Sanders campaign and frequently discussing these issues explicitly showed me that people in the United States are keen to discover new ideas, not just reformist policy. Peace research can play a positive role in raising critical reflection about deeply held cultural elements by improving the understanding of violence and its causes, as well as the potential for positive peace in the form of an equitable and harmonious; empathy-literate society. Fortunately, culture is not static and can be changed. I am hopeful that as violence, in all its forms, continues to manifest with great frequency, Americans will consciously choose a culture of peace. If the US Empire and its structures deteriorate by 2020 as predicted by Galtung in 2000, the country will need to answer the question- “And then… What?” A timely answer would be “Peace Literacy.”
    Keil Eggers – US representative of the Galtung-Institut to UPeace

    Works Cited
    Brigg, Morgan. “Culture: Challenges and Possibilities.” In Palgrave Advances in Peacebuilding, 329–46. Springer, 2010.
    De Matos, F.G. “Learning to Communicate Peacefully.” In Encyclopedia of Peace Education, edited by Monisha Bajaj. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University: IAP, 2008. http://www.tc.columbia.edu/centers/epe/entries.html.
    Eggers, Keil. “AND THEN WHAT?” And Then What? ZineAccessed September 13, 2016.
    Galtung, Johan. “A Structural Theory of Imperialism.” Journal of Peace Research, 1971, 81–117.
    ———. A Theory of Civilization: Overcoming Cultural Violence. Transcend University Press 9. Oslo: Kolofon Press, 2014.
    ———. “Cultural Violence.” In Violence and Its Alternatives: An Interdisciplinary Reader, 1st ed., 39–53. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.
    ———. The Fall of the US Empire – And Then What? TRANSCEND University Press, 2009.
    ———. “TRANSCEND MEDIA SERVICE » Who Runs The World? The Subconscious(*).” TRANSCEND Media Service, December 30, 2013.
    ———. United States Foreign Policy: As Manifest Theology. University of California, Institute on Global Conflict & Cooperation, 1987.
    ———. “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research.” Journal of Peace Research 6, no. 3 (January 1, 1969): 167–91. doi:10.2307/422690.
    lyonstreet1. Culture of Peace Pt. 5. Global Movement to Replace the Empire. International Leadership Development Program Conference of the University of Connecticut Institute of Comparative Human Rights, 2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWfkQLe0B6I.
    Preis, B, and C.S. Mustea. “Background Note:  The Role of Culture in Peace and Reconciliation.” Paris: UNESCO, 2013.
    Stang, Hakong. “The Centre- Periphery Myth of the World: The Origin of Universalism in Eurasia.” Trends in Western Civilization Project. Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo, n.d. https://www.transcend.org/files/?id=551ebebf08338.
    Thapa, Manish. “Session 6: Culture, Conflicts and Peacebuilding.” Lecture presented at the UPM 6001 UPEACE Foundation Course, UN Mandated University for Peace, August 29, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnNLdjmrsCs&feature=youtu.be.

    "The Fall of the US Empire"

    Johan Galtung on "The Fall of the US Empire"

    STORYJUNE 07, 2010
    Watch iconWATCH FULL SHOW
     
    TOPICS

    GUESTS
    Johan Galtung
    founder of the field of peace and conflict studies. He has spent the past half-century pursuing nonviolent conflict resolution in international relations. His latest book is called  The Fall of the US Empire, in which he predicts the collapse of the American empire in ten years, by 2020.
    The amount of money the United States has spent on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq surpassed the $1 trillion mark last week, according to the National Priorities Project Cost of War counter. To date, over $747 billion has been appropriated for the war in Iraq and $299 billion for the war in Afghanistan. The US is spending over $136 billion on the wars this year. I’m joined now by Johan Galtung, who has spent the past half-century pursuing nonviolent conflict resolution in international relations. He’s known as a founder of the field of peace and conflict studies. [includes rush transcript]

    TRANSCRIPT
    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
    AMY GOODMANIn these last few minutes, we’re going to talk about war. The amount of money the US has spent on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq surpassed the $1 trillion mark last week, according to the National Priorities Project cost of war counter. To date, over $747 billion has been appropriated for the war in Iraq and $299 billion for the war in Afghanistan. 
    We turn right now, in the last few minutes, to a man who has spent the last half-century pursuing nonviolent conflict resolution. He’s known as a father of peace studies. His name is Johan Galtung. His latest book, The Fall of the US Empire–And Then What?: Successors, Regionalization or Globalization? US Fascism or US Blossoming?
    We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Johan Galtung. As you survey they geopolitical landscape right now and the wars that the US is involved with, what are your thoughts?
    JOHAN GALTUNGWell, thank you so much for inviting me. 
    It’s an empire against a wall; an empire in despair; an empire, I would say, in its last phase. My prediction in the book that is here, that you mentioned, The Fall of the US Empire–And Then What?, is that it cannot last longer than 'til about 2020. In 1980, I predicted for the Soviet empire that it will crack at its weakest point, the wall of Berlin, within ten years, and it happened in November 1989, and the Soviet empire followed. So my prediction is a similar one for the US empire. And that could lead to the blossoming of the US.
    AMY GOODMANWhy do you say ten years, that the US empire collapses in a decade?
    JOHAN GALTUNGWithin ten years — well, the prediction was made in year 2000, and I actually said twenty-five years. But then Bush was elected president, and his narrow vision, his fundamentalism, made me cut it by five years, because I saw him as an accelerator, which he certainly did, launching three wars — war on terrorism, war on Afghanistan and war on Iraq. Now, this comes after the US did not win 1953 in Korea and lost 30 April, 1975 in Vietnam. In other words, we are now in war number five of major significance. That is typical for the decline of the empire that it goes like that. When you ask me why did I have that time horizon, well, I made a comparative study of quite a lot of declines of empires. I'm a little bit of an expert on that, actually. And there are certain factors that are similar. They rise and decline more quickly now. Of course, the two Roman empires, the Western and the Eastern, lasted longer. Now it’s quicker. The US started, I would say, in 1898, walking into the shoes of the dying or dead Spanish empire. And we are now dealing with a phenomenon which is about 110, 112 years old. And as I told you, I put the upper limit at 2020. 
    AMY GOODMANWhen you ask "And then what?" you say "US fascism or US blossoming?" What do you mean?
    JOHAN GALTUNGWhat we see right now is an intensification spreading, special forces increasing, let us say, from thirty to forty-five countries. And that’s exactly what you would expect. It’s an effort to try to externalize, to say that there are enemies abroad that are trying to get at us, instead of saying the obvious, namely that we have made a construction, and that construction is dying itself. If you try to dominate the world economically, militarily, politically and culturally at the same time, and then having these four support each other, it cannot last for a long time. And that’s the phase we are in now. Now, in that period, there will be fascist reactions. It’s not impossible that it could be a military coup in the US from the right, not impossible within this period. But, you see, I am much more optimistic than that: I think that the US is in for a blossoming period. Look at what happened to England when it got rid of its empire from 1965 on. Russia got rid of its empire from 1991. They took some time. There was a bad Yeltsin period. Right now Russia is rising. You see the same in France. You see it in Italy.
    AMY GOODMANJohan Galtung, we’re going to break now and bring our viewers and listeners part two of our conversation this week. Johan Galtung is known as the father of peace studies. His latest book, The Fall of the US Empire–And Then What?