CHAPTER THREE
Participatory Peace and Glocalization

GLOBALIZATION WAS CELEBRATED AS THE PEACE OF OUR generation. It promised a world without borders, a global village in which communication, travel, trade, and consumption would be universal. By wearing jeans, eating at McDonald’s, and watching MTV, the people of the world could reconcile under the umbrella of a single megaculture and advance a common experience of peace and prosperity.

True, globalization has produced important achievements in the developed world as well as in Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, but it has not created the anticipated paradise. The blanket of globalization simply did not cover everyone. Much of the world’s population remains deeply entrenched in poverty, disease, and violence; these populations struggle beyond the walls of the revolution. Moreover, in many cases these societies not only were deprived of the benefits of globalization but also fell victim to it. Globalization had, at least in their eyes, usurped their identities and attempted to impose upon them a cultural, political, and economic system that was at odds with their traditions, values, and capacities.

Awareness of this dark underbelly of globalization was limited, particularly with respect to Africa. During those days in Casablanca when we dreamed of joining the rest of the world as party to the Davos globalization, neither the political nor the economic leadership was moved by the genocide that took place a few thousand miles south, in Rwanda, where 850,000 people were killed within three months.1 A world of globalization euphoria existed alongside a world of vast suffering; an invisible wall divided them.

Those who grow up in the globalized world enjoy the most advanced health services and technology and the opportunity to realize one’s full intellectual potential. In such societies, war has by and large become a historical narrative. On the developed side of the invisible wall, one’s chance of survival past the age of five is greater than 99 percent. In Sierra Leone, however, approximately every fourth child dies before the age of five,2 plagued by malaria, AIDS, diarrhea, or other health problems primarily affecting developing countries. The children who endure these health threats are often recruited to become child soldiers.3

The globalized and unglobalized worlds are extremely foreign to each another. Consider the following:

• An estimated 2.6 billion people (nearly half the world’s population) live on a per capita income of under $2 per day4—less than what the average European cow receives in subsidies.5
• In Sierra Leone, less than $40 per year per person is spent on health, compared to more than $6,000 per person in the United States.6
• Under-five mortality is fifteen times higher in low-income countries than in high-income countries.7
• Most developing countries currently suffer, or have suffered in recent years, from conflict.
• Conflict is estimated to have caused more than 300,000 deaths in the year 2000 alone, with more than half of these deaths occurring in Africa. Direct mortality from conflict accounts for 0.5 percent of all mortality.8
• Twenty percent of the world’s population enjoys 80 percent of the world’s resources.9

Although some developing countries are trying to meet the globalization criteria and enter the Emerald City, others are expressing frustration and hatred through violence. Such countries provide fertile ground for fundamentalists and extremist anti-Westerners. Afghanistan is a prime example. On September 11, 2001, the invisible wall collided with the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York. Al-Qaida itself did not act out of poverty and misery, but its base of support lies among the have-nots and those estranged from Western culture.

Following the tragic events of September 11, Americans were left wondering in genuine astonishment, “Why do they hate us?” The answer is dichotomous: although most developing countries would prefer to be American allies, there also exists deep antagonism toward the superpower and its allies. According to a post-September 11 Pew Global Attitudes survey, the United States remains substantially mistrusted by the rest of the world.10 September 11 was a rude awakening that united the Western world; it was an attack against the symbol of US and Western power. The result was not only a collaborative focus on terrorism but also a clearer understanding that much of the world has not realized the prosperity of globalization.

The United States and its allies went to war to punish those responsible and the countries that supported them, but success is still distant in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has become clear to both the United States and Europe that technological, military, and economic power does not protect them against people hidden in caves. US trade can reach Kabul in no time, but weapons—including potential weapons of mass destruction—can depart Kabul just as easily. The “local” arena has become fertile turf from which fanatics can attack global power. Globalization has boomeranged.

This is not the forum in which to fully analyze the nature of globalization or its place in today’s world. We must, however, weigh its repercussions on our generation’s peace and diplomacy. It has become clear that the world needs a bridge between the global and the local.

The bridges that exist have had limited success. Although Western military deterrence has influenced the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, it has not succeeded in pushing other regions into a pro-Western, antiterror camp, as is exemplified by Iran, Syria, and Gaza. And although in absolute terms economic aid and debt forgiveness seem substantial, their effects are limited by the bureaucracies of the donors and recipients, and, in some cases, by the corruption of the latter. The gap between the haves and have-nots remains colossal, maintaining the potential for international turmoil.

Democratization is the cornerstone of the US administration, and if the world followed the gospel of Thomas Jefferson, perhaps peace would reign. However, even countries that yearn for freedom fight its imposition by the United States. Democratization is a long and arduous process and must germinate and evolve from a country’s roots if it is to embody the individual culture of each country.

Present bridges focus on relationships between governments, but to facilitate cultural understanding and peaceful coexistence we must link the global and the local—hence, “glocalization.”

The Power of the City

The channel for glocalization must be a political entity with clout. The one sociopolitical unit that is gaining power in the era of globalization, while also remaining closest to the needs and aspirations of citizens, is the city.

In 1930, seven hundred million people, representing 30 percent of the world’s population, lived in urban areas.11 Today, that number has increased dramatically; 2007 was the first year in which more people were living in urban areas than in rural areas.12 Cities have become our primary social unit, and in both the developed and the developing worlds cities are eagerly stepping into the voids created by the decline of national boundaries and the erosion of the power of the nation-state.

Cities can reach people in ways that nations cannot. Cities have the flexibility to adapt large-scale programs to local needs and resources. They can plan modern, urban infrastructure to deal with the massive influx of people joining city peripheries, particularly in the developing world. Cities can push for tourism on a level that is impossible for national governments, creating tailored marketing plans for local sites and museums.

Where youth is concerned, cities have the ability to bring the younger generation together on a local scale. Cities can work closely with children to provide basic necessities, can create a youthempowerment agenda for the future, and can encourage interactions among youth from different cities.

Cities also have greater control over their relationship to other cities in the areas of media, art, sports, economics, and trade. The forging of city-to-city relationships through economic and social activity and exchange can help connect the local and global. In 2001, one of the organizations over which I preside—the Glocal Forum in Rome—initiated city projects related to diplomacy. The aim of the Glocal Forum is to create a balance between the global and the local—to glocalize peace and development through city-to-city interactions. With projects in over one hundred forty cities worldwide and relationships with nearly one hundred partners from the public and private sectors, the Glocal Forum is making great strides toward decentralizing the peace process and inviting the participation of more people from all levels of society.

One event initiated by the Glocal Forum is the annual Glocalization Conference, which began in 2002. These conferences bring city representatives together in an effort to engender city-to-city relationships across borders and conflict zones. For example, at the second annual Glocalization Conference, in Rome, a roundtable discussion took place between mayors of the conflict cities Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) and Asmara (Eritrea), Belgrade (Serbia) and Pristina (Kosovo), Nablus (Palestinian Authority) and Rishon Le-Zion (Israel), and Delhi (India) and Karachi (Pakistan). James Wolfensohn—one of the most prominent statesmen and economists in the world and president of the World Bank at that time—was present, and the conference moderator was Terje Rod-Larsen, who is a peacemaker to the core. Neither, however, was required to use his diplomatic skills—a common language among the mayors was already manifest. They were ready to engage with one another for peaceful coexistence and for the good of their cities’ citizens.

The intention of the conference was to facilitate links between two cities representing states in conflict. These links required cooperation based on the empowerment of local governments in project implementation, youth empowerment for the same purpose, and a connection between the development-based economic aspects and the peacebuilding aspects of the project. Although these links required political support, they also demanded less bureaucracy and more social participation.

The encounter between the mayors of Delhi and Karachi was typical. By coincidence, they entered the arrival hall of the Rome airport at the same moment, and only one driver was present to pick them up. It was then that they discovered the “unpleasant” surprise of their mutual presence. The traffic jams of Rome afforded them time to break the ice, and by the time they reached the hotel the concept of a youth exchange (ultimately facilitated by the World Bank) was set in stone. That program is still running.

Mayors as the New Peace Leaders

The connection between the mayors of Delhi and Karachi is exactly the sort of relationship that should be appreciated and encouraged in modern peacemaking. With the erosion of national governments’ powers as a result of globalization, the powers and responsibilities of cities and local governments have increased. Today, mayors are catering to most of their citizens’ needs, including low-income housing, street infrastructure, social services, education, health, and the public order. Citizens are becoming locally patriotic and are getting increasingly involved in their cities. The city provides a meeting point between global and local forces. It attracts the benefits of globalization but remains local; it uses Microsoft Windows while peering through the backyard window.

Mayors and local governments are thus well positioned to lead peacebuilding efforts. Less hindered by bureaucracies and political dogmas than their national counterparts, mayors share a common urban dialogue that allows them to communicate and cooperate on a pragmatic basis. Close to the people, they can mobilize their civil societies to take an active part in the consolidation and preservation of peace through economic and social cooperation across the conflict divide. Local actors not only should be the beneficiaries of peace initiatives but also should be empowered as vital agents to demonstrate the benefits of coexistence in the day-to-day experience of post-conflict communities. City-to-city cooperation can facilitate a participatory process and create a constituency for peace; misguided stereotypes can be shattered and peace dividends can extend beyond elite groups to benefit broad sectors of society.

Mayors sometimes need a little encouragement to connect with their cross-border counterparts. In September 2002 I found myself waiting at the Athens municipality with Ghassan Shaka’a, a senior leader of the PLO and mayor of the city of Nablus, the most populated city in the West Bank, and my friend Meir Nitzan, mayor of Rishon Le-Zion, one of Israel’s wealthiest and largest cities. We were to meet with Dimitris Avramopoulos, the mayor of Athens and a staunch proponent of cities’ engagement in diplomatic efforts. The wait was uncomfortable, to say the least.

“Nothing will come out of this. All common ground is lost,” Nitzan whispered to me, while Shaka’a’s demeanor exposed his desperation to abandon ship.

Forty-five minutes later, the two mayors departed the meeting having forged a close friendship that continues to this day. During the meeting, they spoke about their responsibilities to their citizens and youth and discussed day-to-day management of sewage problems and transportation planning. Both men had profound disdain for their respective national governments, believing that the national leaders had virtually abdicated their responsibilities to their people’s real needs. A union of sorts was born, surprising both Israelis and Palestinians.

This union launched a broader initiative for making pragmatic and down-to-earth contacts between Israeli and Palestinian mayors. A few months later, the Israeli mayors of Rishon Le-Zion, Ra’anana, and Ashdod, together with Palestinian mayors from Nablus and Qalqilya, were hosted by the mayor of Rome, Walter Veltroni. Within forty-eight hours we had created the Rome Understanding, a document dealing with a long-term vision of peace, according to which “the two states, Israel and Palestine, will live side by side in peace, security, and mutual dignity.” The understanding included a program of “socioeconomic as well as people-to-people cooperation on the local level” and agreeably addressed issues of permanent status.

The text was embraced by both the Israeli and the Palestinian unions of local government, and Nablus and Rishon Le-Zion immediately began to cooperate. Youth from both cities now engage in an Internet-based pen pal project and have developed a municipal youth community to deal with youth-related issues and cooperative practices. Additionally, youth from Rishon Le-Zion assisted youth from Nablus in establishing a municipal youth council to meet the needs of the youth in the city.

With the impetus of Israel’s disengagement from Gaza, and in the aftermath of the 2007 Annapolis Conference, the Rome Understanding can be applied to additional cities within Israel by twinning them with Palestinian cities. A network of municipal youth councils, established across Israel and Palestine and facilitated by the international community, not only will help young people resist the temptations of Hamas and other terrorist organizations but also will foster the creation of a platform for close cooperation on a grassroots level—a more effective method than any antiterrorist strategy.

Since the summer of 2001, I have been meeting with mayors from around the globe and facilitating their interconnectivity. I have discovered that local governments generally possess a down-to-earth attitude, a pragmatic managerial capacity, and a better understanding of people’s needs than their national counterparts. All of these characteristics are vital to peacemaking and peacebuilding. Mayors and their staffs can serve as modern-day diplomats; through decentralization—or glocalization—cities bring practical and powerful capacities to the peace table. City diplomacy must be undertaken by local players so that they can act on the global map of peacebuilding and development.

A Direct Line to Citizens

Because mayors are so much closer to their citizens than national governments, they can cut out the excesses of national bureaucracy and the irrelevant elements in peacebuilding projects. The Rome-Kigali connection, facilitated by the Glocal Forum, illustrates how city-to-city interactions can be both more efficient and more effective than large-scale aid programs implemented on a national level.

I met Theoneste Mutsindashyaka—the young, charismatic mayor of the Rwandan capital of Kigali—during the first Glocalization Conference in Rome, in May 2001. In his soft voice, he recalled the horrific saga of the Rwandan genocide and the deep wounds that penetrated his city. With the support of the Glocal Forum, we decided to create the first concrete North-South intercity developmental project, a partnership between the cities of Rome and Kigali, to contribute to the internal peace of Rwanda.

The project was spearheaded by an urban agricultural project on Kigali’s periphery. The Italian government transferred most of the funds to execute the project through the city of Rome, which itself invested 15 percent of the budget. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization worked with the municipality of Kigali to plan and develop the project, which included the establishment of local associations on rehabilitated wetlands and in hill areas, the development of microgardens, and the creation of animal-breeding and forestry associations. Agricultural experts from the Roman municipality worked with their counterparts in Kigali, with both sides contributing equal knowledge. (In city-to-city cooperation, the North must admit what it needs to learn, rather than lecturing the South or imposing what it thinks the South needs. Capacity building goes both ways.)

The project brought former enemies together in a constructive way. Hutus and Tutsis, the genocide survivors, worked side by side, as did soldiers who had returned from the Congolese border. A study by the Italian research company CERFE, commissioned by the World Bank, illustrated the project’s cost-effectiveness: the cost of overhead was 6.5 percent—much more efficient than state-to-state projects, which have administrative overhead of up to 30 or 40 percent.13 This difference is due to the fact that national governments hire more—and more expensive—consultants. As a result, the quantities and benefits of aid that actually reach the needy are far greater in intercity aid projects than in interstate aid projects. In this project, a model was created for future peacebuilding projects channeled through cities.

More importantly, the project inspired Rome-Kigali municipal staff and civil society relations in all directions. In Kigali, the mayor of Rome hosted a roundtable discussion between interested individuals and groups, replacing costly consultants and bureaucracies with civil society. A Rome delegation of ten people visited Kigali to learn its needs. Shortly thereafter, the municipality of Rome supplied toys and recreational units for children, provided important medication to Kigali hospitals, and helped facilitate, through Rome Sports University, a marathon and a sports training unit in Kigali. The energy of social goodwill met the needs and enthusiasm of a society in Kigali struggling to come to peace with itself. The Rome-Kigali connection brought more people into the peace process and cut out the waste and anonymity of national programs.

Another example that proves the great potential of city-to-city developments is the astounding success of the Glocal Forum’s We Are the Future program, initiated by Quincy Jones (a music legend and man of peace), my good Palestinian friend Hani Masri, and me. Jones penetrated the mind-set of people throughout the world, raising both awareness and funding to tackle the poverty, hunger, and conflict in Africa, with his 1985 aid venture represented by the famous song “We Are the World.” However, his projects were not sustainable, and much of the money evaporated into the hands of corrupt African governments.

Jones was disappointed, but he refused to give up. He became drawn to the concept of working with local governments and, together with Hani Masri, we initiated the We Are the Future program for children who were victims of war in seven conflict cities: Addis Ababa; Asmara; Kabul; Kigali; Nablus; Freetown, Sierra Leone; and to some degree Rishon Le-Zion, as a partner of Nablus. The beneficiaries received goods, services, and a holistic approach to education in the areas of nutrition, medicine, sports, and computers.

The project was ignited by a massive concert in Rome in 2004 that featured a mosaic of pop, reggae, Asian, Arabic, and Hebrew songs performed for a half million captivated spectators. Stars included Santana, Nora Jones, Oprah Winfrey, and Angelina Jolie as well as local performers from Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, Rwanda, and Israel.14 The exposure resulted in close to forty developed cities volunteering to become peer cities to the seven conflict cities.

One such relationship was created between the North American city of Baltimore, Maryland, and Freetown, one of the world’s poorest cities. During meetings between the two mayors it was revealed that the biggest killer after the war was malaria, which often resulted from a lack of proper sanitation. Only two garbage trucks were available to take care of the sanitary disaster that had engulfed Sierra Leone’s capital city. Within days, Baltimore arranged for two more garbage trucks to be deployed in Freetown. US companies and organizations partnered with the municipality to provide the aid that Freetown required. In this case—as in so many others—it was the city that was able to communicate its particular needs on a global level. Glocalization had affected development and peace.

Iraq’s process of democratization and development might have looked different if its rehabilitation had reflected the way it was conquered—city by city. The concept of glocalization could facilitate links for development capacity and peacebuilding among Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul and US and British cities.

Most people covet peace but lack faith in the other side’s ability to nurture it. Glocalization can recruit societies to be part of the peace process and channel their existing goodwill into cooperation; its essential power lies in the link between local government and civil society, which continues to grow with time. The democratization of peace is not about the imposition of democracy on nondemocratic regimes but about the participation of societies in peace processes, where they often encounter the former enemy on a cooperative basis for the first time. A worldwide, participatory social network led by local governments can be created, generating a better balance between the beaming powers of globalization and those left in the shadow of conflict and misery.