West Suburban Faith-Based Peace Coalition

Presents Peace Essay Contest Winners

One day before:

August 27, 2017 The 89th Anniversary of the Kellogg-Briand Pact

Our Mission Statement: Promoting peace and justice in public policy Educating ourselves on legislative issues Advocating from our faith perspective Communicating with our legislators Encouraging others to be involved

Who are we?

We are an initiative of faith-based peacemakers from across Chicago's western suburbs. WSFPC includes clergy, congregations, church staff, lay persons, faith-based peace organizations, peace and justice committees, religious communities, and more, spanning from Oak Park to Elgin and Joliet. WSFPC is committed to sustaining work of peace through activities such as prayer vigils, public witness, peace education, peace essay promotion, lobbying/legislative initiatives, and interfaith dialogue.

Some of our Member Organizations are: Fellowship of Reconciliation, PAX Christi IL, the Lombard Mennonite Peace Center, the Lombard Mennonite Church, and the York Center Church of the Brethren.

Where and when do we meet?

The Legislation Workgroup meets the first Wednesday of every month at the First United Methodist Church of Downers Grove from Noon to 2:00PM in room #202.

The Servant Leadership Team meets the second Thursday of every month at the Lombard Mennonite Church from 7:00PM to 8:30PM.

Our Educational Forums take place the third Tuesday of every month at the Lombard Mennonite Church from 7:00PM to 9:00PM.

How does one become a member?

Send a check for any amount ($30 suggested) and your name, email address, and telephone number (please print) to: WSFPC, 213 S. Wheaton Ave., Wheaton, IL 60187. Our website is: www.faithpeace.org.

The West Suburban Faith-Based Peace Coalition is a Fellowship of Reconciliation Affiliate. Donations to WSFPC are tax deductible.

West Suburban Faith-Based Peace Coalition

Peace Essay Contest

Award Presentations

One day before:

August 27, 2016 The 89th Anniversary of the Kellogg-Briand Pact

Peace Essay Judges

Leila Bannon, Villa Park, IL Amira Boctor, Oak Brook, IL Jean Rosen, Wheaton, IL Carol Urban, Glen Ellyn, IL

Peace Essay Coordinator Frank Goetz, Wheaton, IL

Keynote Address

Kathy Kelly

Peace Activist Co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence

Thrice Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize

~ Presented at Abbington, Glen Ellyn, IL

Peace Essay Winners

First Place Award Melinda Clarke. Maui, Hawaii

Second Place Award

Suzy T. Kane, Wilmington, NC

Third Place Award Bello Sarafadeen, Lagos, Nigeria

Special Recognition

JanStephen Cavanaugh, Ph.D., Columbia, PA Walt Zlotow, Glen Ellyn, IL

Edward McDougal, Wheaton, IL

Honorable Mention Mau Maunze, Mutare, Zimbabwe

John Nerikaat, Portland, OR Virginia Carraway Stark, Dawson Creek, BC

Pat Hunt, Rolling Meadows, IL

~

First Place Award Melinda Clarke, Maui, Hawaii

ENFORCING the KELLOGG-BRIAND PACT

I was born in 1940 in the Rust Belt of the Appalachian Mountains where violence was accepted in the home, school, and community. We had a societal commitment to violence. I bought into those beliefs- until I went to Hiroshima to interview A-Bomb survivors:

“…what happened was beyond human comprehension. …I survived because I was walking to a building that was behind a small hill that faced downtown. ….for no obvious reason, I was suddenly knocked to the ground. When I was about to get up, wood and debris fell from the sky and hit me on the head and back. I didn’t know what had happened. I didn’t hear any bomb; in fact, there was no sound at all. I couldn’t even hear the wood falling. ( the blast was so strong it blew away the sound barrier or something like that)…I saw a street car with people in it on the outskirts of the city, I ran down the hill as fast as I could….As I ran I saw that everyone was just sitting or standing. Probably in shock, I thought. I was so happy to see them. I started to wave and yell to the people. …I got in as far as the first step before I saw that everyone was not only dead, but petrified. They were frozen in time- in a flash. It was so strange; no words could describe the emotions. I felt so alone…. It was an unspeakable experience for humans”

#

“There is no time for anger. I am now 81. My conclusion is this: our last hope is the non-violent person-the individual.”

#

“…all the houses collapsed. I saw a small boy, perhaps three or four years old trying to get help to save his mother. The house collapsed on her. A few of us started to dig but the fire was coming swiftly so we ran away. The small boy begged us to try longer, but we ran… I remember that little boy waiting for his mother to be freed. I feel very sad and wonder what became of him.

I don’t blame America… The real question is war. War is the unpardonable crime against heaven and humanity. War is a disgrace to civilization.”

#

In 1928 the US Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and the French Foreign Minister, Aristide Brian tackled the issue of war in hopes of preventing WWII. The Kellogg-Briand Pact was an international agreement to prevent war, but allowed for self-defense and on August 27, 1928 it became a law.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact (KBP) didn’t prevent WWII, but the seed that was planted survived and is in the process of blooming.

In addition to the KBP, there is the SEVILLE STATEMENT of VIOLENCE. In 1986 a group of scientists put out the SEVILLE statement in which scientists confirmed that there is nothing in our biology that is an insurmountable obstacle to the abolition of violence/war. UNESCO adopted that statement in 1989.

As of March 31, 2017 the population of America is 325,874,015. Millions of Americans want an end to war but have yet to demand it. Perhaps because we have come to accept war as permanent and natural. The task to end war seems overwhelming. But is it? The infrastructure to end war is a reality. We are closer to No War than we think. In Hawaii, ALOHA is written into the constitution. It is used when necessary and recently was effective in preventing an awkward situation between the leaders of China and the Dali Lama. Treaties and other such documents work when we insist upon it.

There are only 535 members of congress. We are millions. In his book: “Breaking Through Power”, Ralph Nadar asserts that it takes just 1 % of the population to break through power. When millions of us organize behind the “no war” concept, war will end. KBP is more than a concept: it is a treaty under international law, one that needs to be given more attention and respect.

Organizing can mean individual efforts. For example, the KBP and Seville statement could be copied by local groups and placed in classrooms for debates, or into libraries, government offices and public places until the KBP and the concept of No More War becomes a household slogan.

A State proclamation re: KBP with special events and a member of congress in attendance, or a traveling show of Peace Projects, a booth beside the military recruiting office are some ideas. Where there is an ROTC in schools, create a P(peace)OTC based on Kellogg and Briand, Nobel Prize, etc. Believe in the end of war and make it happen. Blaming others doesn’t work. We have to stand up and demand the end to war.

_______Response 1:

Requested Proclamation (As You Wish It To Appear):

WHEREAS, Kellogg-Briand Pact, also called Pact of Paris, multilateral agreement attempting to eliminate war as an instrument of national policy was signed on August 27, 1928 in hopes of preventing World War II; and WHEREAS, The Kellogg-Briand Pact was the most grandiose of a series of peacekeeping efforts after World War I, co-authored by Aristide Briand, the French Foreign Minister and the U.S. secretary of state, Frank B. Kellogg, as a general multilateral treaty; and WHEREAS, The Kellogg-Briand Pact subscribing nations agreed to renounce war as an instrument of national policy and to settle all international disputes by peaceful means but allowed for self-defense; and WHEREAS,The Kellogg-Briand Pact did not prevent WWII but planted the seeds of peace for which many Americans and the Nisei Veterans Memorial Center are asking for peaceful resolutions to conflicts; and WHEREAS, The Kellogg-Briand Pact's message aligns with the message of Aloha that we treat each other with kindness, respect and compassion; and WHEREAS, The Law of Aloha is written into the State constitution of the Hawaii; THEREFORE, I, DAVID Y. IGE, Governor, and I, SHAN S. TSUTSUI, Lieutenant Governor of the State of Hawai’i, do hereby proclaim August 27, 2017 as Kellogg-Briand Pact Day in Hawaii.

Additional Information: The Nisei Veterans Memorial Center on Maui is requesting this proclamation. Our mission is to ignite human potential by inspiring people to find the hero in themselves through the legacy of the Nisei Veterans. Our veteran's message to the next generation is one of Peace. Harold Okumura stated in our most recent speaker series to be kind to one another. Don't start war. War is hell. website: www.nvmc.org Name: Deidre Tegarden Title: Executive Director Organization: Nisei Veterans Memorial Center Organization Web Site: http://www.nvmc.org/ mail Address: deidre@nvmc.org

______Response 2: On May 10, 2017 8:12 PM, "Neil Abercrombie" <governor.neil@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Melinda, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you on the occasion of reminding me of the foundation laid by the Kellogg Briand Pact to achieve the conditions for international agreement to prevent war. This is particularly pertinent in our present day political context with the United States and France at the center of international concern and focus on the practical reality of meaningful diplomatic negotiation. The rise of nationalist populism and the advent of meeting this phenomenon with renewed vigor in terms defining our obligations to our common humanity could not be more timely. It is tempting to retreat from engagement with the drumbeat of multiple warfare filling our senses with dread and occupying our consciousness with the seeming impossibility of effective individual reaction and/or confrontation with the sheer enormity of the task looming before us. That is why your call for grassroots action to organize what is otherwise disparate dissipation of energy and commitment is so compelling. Individual effort transcends isolation in the process. Kellogg Briand, as you noted, was the seed that was planted. Your essay will be a solid step in bringing it into bloom. Aloha, Governor Neil Abercrombie Pacific Strategies 76 N. King Street Suite 203 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817

Second Place Award Suzy T. Kane, Wilmington, NC

WAR IS ILLEGAL To wish there were a law against war seems a pipe dream. President Trump has said he would not take nuclear weapons off the table, and he wants to add $54 billion to 2016’s defense budget of $585 billion--not counting the $12.6 war billion hidden in the Energy Department to maintain America’s nuclear weapons stockpile or its $5.8 billion to clean up the environmental consequences of producing nuclear weapons. Just to get a feel for the magnitude of taxpayer money devoted to war, if dollars were seconds, as John Allen Paulos asks us to imagine in his book “Innumeracy,” “it takes only about eleven and a half days for a million seconds to tick away, [but] almost thirty two years for a billion seconds to pass.” We can say the Department of Defense spends lifetimes of money on war. But take heart. Far from fantasy, it turns out there already is a law against war. Really. And it’s still on the books. “When the World Outlawed War” is the title of the volume David Swanson wrote to tell the story of the Kellogg-Briand Pact whose goal is to renounce war as a solution to problems between nations. Frank B. Kellogg was US Secretary of State from 1925-29 when Aristide Briand was the foreign minister of France. The pact made aggressive war a crime. Swanson points out that in the culture of the 1920s before the military-industrial complex existed, it was cool to be against war. Even the robber barons supported peace. The US Senate voted 85 to 1 in favor of ratification of the Pact that was signed in Paris August 27, 1928, Swanson reports, with nine senators not voting. On that date thirteen other nations also signed the pact. Two days later President Coolidge signed the treaty into law. After forty-seven more nations signed on, the illegality of war became an almost universally supported law. It became, too, the basis for the crime against peace. How can we obey the law against war if we don’t know about it? If we’ve never read the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution or Bill of Rights or discussed what government is for or what a law is or are unaware of the history of war and weaponry? If we don’t know about the psychology behind violence? We need good teachers. All Americans could commit to memory those famous words first drafted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . . .” As Lincoln saw it, the Constitution of the United States is not a stand-alone document but is meant to be read through the eyes of the Declaration of Independence. (See http://www.mrlincolnandthefounders.org/commentary/.) What is government except an organization for securing our rights, that is, keeping our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness safe? The government does this by writing laws and enforcing them. What is law but the line drawn to keep us from infringing on other people’s rights and they from infringing on ours?

According to the legal dictionary, “although they are not laws, regulations have the force of law, since they are adopted under authority granted by statutes, and often include penalties for violations.” Right out of the gate, not long after his inauguration, President Trump, believing rules for corporations have “gotten out of control,” promised that “we’re going to be cutting regulation massively” by 75 percent or ‘even more,’” as CNBC reported. George Lakoff, retired professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at Berkeley and now Director of the Center for the Neural Mind & Society, brings us back to the Declaration of Independence when he says that we would understand the word “regulation” better if we substituted the word “protection” for it. The protections (instead of regulations) of the Food and Drug Administration, for example, are to keep animals and us safe from such things as defective medical devices, cancer, poisoning, addiction, and irradiation. “From the viewpoint of corporations and other businesses,” Lakoff says, ‘regulations’ are limitations on their freedom to do whatever they want no matter who it harms, but from the public’s viewpoint, a regulation is a protection against harm done by unscrupulous corporations seeking to maximize profit at the cost of harm to the public.” How can we obey the law against war? First, to acknowledge the law, and to speak out against war. To recognize that our real enemy is not another nation. Our real enemy is ignorance, and the antidotes to ignorance have always been consciousness and education. ______Response: Scott Nunn, the Opinion Editor of Star News (the daily newspaper in Wilmington, NC) has accepted for publication a 700-word version of this essay to appear on the op-ed page of Star News on Saturday, August 26, 2017.

Third Place Award Bello Sarafadeen Lagos, Nigeria

How Can We Obey the Law Against War?

Whenever I saw images of people affected by wars when I was younger, I became sad and thankful. Sad, because it was painful to see other people go through such suffering. Thankful, that my home country was peaceful. The wars seemed so distant and I thought such calamities would never reach my home country or affect me. I now realize how naive I must have been.

Until recently, I had never heard of the Kellogg-Briand pact. Although it is a significant part of humanities history, not many people know about it. An agreement signed by several states in 1928 (after World War I) that renounced the use of war as an instrument of national policy, promoted diplomacy and peaceful settlement of disputes between signatory states. Overtime, the Kellogg-Briand pact has been signed by over sixty-four nations. Although the pact was unsuccessful in preventing the re-militarization that eventually led to World War II, its intentions were incorporated into the United Nations Charter in the 1940s. Yet, these anti-war expressions have achieved little in preventing wars. Thus, we need to promote knowledge about the pact and the need to obey it. 1

In today's globally connected world, wars in one country have ripple effect on others. An example is the European migrant crisis resulting from huge number of migrants and refugees crossing into Europe partly due to wars in Africa, Western and Southern Asia. This has placed huge pressure on European countries and a huge divide amongst various countries on how to resettle migrants.

I believe the first step towards obeying the law against war is by acknowledging wars as a shared threat and collective responsibility for all. This common responsibility can best be understood through the principles of Ubuntu. A humanist philosophical ideology of South African people which means “collective personhood/ solidarity”. Its meaning is captured by the Nguni proverb “umuntu ngu-muntu ngabantu” (I am because we are).2 This means all countries and citizens should be actively involved in promoting peace and averting wars.

According to the United Nations Secretary - General Antonio Guterres, a surge in conflicts today, requires a surge in diplomacy for peace. Also, aggressive behavior is believed to be innate in humans. Considering that women and children suffer disproportionately from wars often carried out by young people, it is important for these parties to be actively involved and given the opportunity to contribute in peace building i.e. through nonviolence, grassroot initiatives and social mobilization. An example is the efforts of the Nigerian-led grassroot #BringBackOurGirls campaign, which began in response to the abduction of Chibok girls by the Boko Haram sect on the 14th of April, 2014. Three years on, the campaign with local and international support has continued to advocate for the safe return of the girls.

1Totally History. “Kellogg-Briand Pact.” Accessed http://totallyhistory.com/kellogg-briand-pact/

2 University for Peace (2011). “Peace, Conflict, and Development in Africa: A Reader.” Edited by Erin McCandless and Tony Karbo. Accessed http://www.upeace.org/pdf%5CREADER_webpages.pdf

It took the entire history of humankind for the population to reach 1 billion around 1810. Just 120 years later, this doubled to 2 billion people (1930); then 4 billion in 1975 (45 years).34 Presently, the number of people in the world is approximately 7.3 billion. It is projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 and exceed 11 billion in 2100.

As world population increases rapidly, the demand for resources also rises. Access, the desire to own and control these finite resources oftentimes results in conflicts.

In Thomas Malthus’ renowned work (1798), An essay on the Principle of Population, the scholar argued that human population if left unchecked will outgrow its available resources thereby leading to many problems. According to Malthus, human population grows at a geometric rate (doubling with each cycle) whereas food supply increases at an arithmetic rate (uniform increment). This imbalance leads to over population and a future with very little resources for survival.

Malthus emphasized the importance of balancing population growth and the limited resources. By addressing population size and growth of nations through access to sexual and reproductive healthcare, family planning services and education, we are able to lower the rate of population growth and reduce pressure on resources. Thus, reducing conflicts and the likelihood of wars.

Wars rarely accomplish the ends for which they begin in the first place. And when they do, it takes several years for psychological/physical wounds to heal. Obeying the law against war is a challenging task, but not an impossible one. By acknowledging that the fight against war is a collective responsibility, ensuring the social inclusion of women and youths in peace building and tackling the issue of population size and growth rate, a world where wars cease to exist can be achieved.

______Response: Hello Bello, We are excited and happy to have had the opportunity to review your essay number 4012 about "How Can We Obey the Law Against War?" As the Head Coordinator of the Public Art Africa programmes in Lagos which are supported by UR4Africa it was eye opening to learn such a pact exists. Thank you so much for sharing your research and insight into the Kellogg Briand Pact with our students during our mural project on Peace and Security with the Nigeria police. You did a great job articulating how war also affects us in Nigeria and in various parts of Africa. Looking forward to sharing your essay on our platform (Please let us know when we can go ahead and do that) and also looking forward to the workshop you will be facilitating with our students, volunteers, and community members about the Kellogg- Briand Pact as we continue this conversation about Peace and Security in June. The programme for June is intended to not only include our Public Art students and volunteers but local members from the communities we service. After your presentation students and community members will engage the community in conversations about Peace and Security and the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Thank you for your time and commitment! 3 Carolyn K. “The Population Explosion: Causes and Consequences.” Accessed http://teachersinstitute.yale.edu/curriculum/units/1998/7/98.07.02.x.html

4 Ibid.

Please let us know if you have any questions and/or concerns. Sincerely, --

SHOLA AJAYI US: +19176353314 NIGERIA: +2348115705244 ur4africa.com JOIN THE MOVEMENT think.create.connect UR4Africa is a Pan-African space for media development. We coordinate safe spaces for creative learning, provide opportunities for collaboration between the diaspora and Africa, and act as a community media outlet to develop unique

Special Recognition JanStephen Cavanaugh, Ph.D., Columbia, PA

How Can We Obey the Law Against War?

Global Consciousness / Global Conversation by

JanStephen Cavanaugh, Ph.D. How can we obey the law against war? When we believe in—and trust—this law to keep us safe from war? We are beginning the 21st Century with more of humanity freed from war through law than ever before, yet catastrophic war continually looms on the horizon. What to do? Ending War is a Global Project The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928—the law against war; the lesson of World War I to end all war—was agreed upon international law. The United States and much of the “we” of humanity are signees. Yet, at the beginning of the 21st century, the “we” of humanity give this law no global authority. With no global will, the “we” of humanity cannot enforce this law. Why? Because the necessary and sufficient conditions for obeying this law are not present in global consciousness. The sufficient condition before we can obey any law is belief in the efficacy of the law. Most of us do not rob banks because we believe robbing banks is wrong. We believe and empower the law. Most of us stop on red because we fear the negative consequences. The necessary condition for the “how can we obey” is fear of law. We fear and give law enforcement authority. Belief and fear are the sufficient and necessary conditions of the mindset of consciousness before the ego—in whatever manifestation—will submit to international global authority to end war. Unfortunately, this understanding is dependent on a state of global consciousness not yet present in human development. Since the “how” is dependent on the “when,” we ponder when might these conditions be present? What shock is needed to energize the “when”? What cosmic slap is required to awaken the global imagination and change in consciousness Einstein foretold to avoid World War III and the age of catastrophe to follow? Humanity Is War Consciousness Dominant Since September 11, 2001, I have asked 400 individuals about their interest in ending war. To my surprise, even among most peace activists, there is little interest in ending war. In fact, there is general mistrust in the law against war. Many scoffed at the very idea: too big and can’t be done. A preliminary study of beliefs and attitudes (N=300) of Americans confirmed a probable thesis: ending war is a hard sell. If this thesis is confirmed, it appears that Americans do not trust the justice applied in law to keep them safe from war. The concept of humanity freed from the terror of war seems foreign to most people. Some are down-right terrified by the idea.

The State of Humanity in 2017 Combined together, the Age of Terrorism, unending guerilla war, and the Age of Climate Change—in geologic time, a short hot age followed by a long cold age—will inevitably converge to generate the “when” required to set in motion the “how”! We know not the hour. The Arab Spring on a global scale! In preparation, what can we do? Perhaps the most salient need is to initiate a global conversation. Global peacemakers dedicated to ending war can lay out a blueprint for law dominant global consciousness. In the subsequent awakening, global citizens may finally be ready to vote for leaders who obey the law against war. Thus, the dream will become reality: the Age of Peace when humanity, freed of war, moves one measure closer to the Kingdom on Earth which the sacred teachings reference: They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks. (Isaiah 2:4). Conclusions Humanity is war conscious dominant. Because humanity is war conscious dominant, protesting weapons of war will not end war. These protests could be judged as not helpful to ending war. This is the paradox of peace: humanity without war, humanity at peace from war, is forever humanity’s prayer, but, “we” do not believe freedom from war can become reality. Unbelief—the law against war—is not to be trusted. The idea is judged as “naïve”. For these reasons, rational arguments against war will never convince the “we” of our global population to give up war. The negatives against war beg the question of what will keep my family and me safe from the terror of war. Yet, there is a strong “gut” resistance to ending war even though many wish it otherwise. In summary, how can we obey the law against war to end war forever? Before the “how” must be the “when.” Before the “when,” the “we”—the global peace makers to end war—must embrace law dominant consciousness to end war. We can hope to be the leaven in the bread of the change in global consciousness to come. ______Response: Blog Responses: Endwarforever.com Comments (9)

1. JanStephen Cavanaugh said on 4/8/17 - 08:41PM

People ask me all the time, "what can I do to end war?" The answer straight forward ... those whose focus is ending war having a global conversation ... ending war is something we do all together ... otherwise it is dangerous. War will not end by being anti-military, but rather pro-military ... calling upon the best of war theory ... better not to go to war at all. We work with the military to end war ... how else to feel safe as we wind down from war, but begin to "stand down" to a point when all forced needed to keep the peace is in the hands of justice. We must dump our 1970 ways of protesting war ... they did work then to end one war, but they did not end war as we all know. Our thinking radical ... dumping all that we think we know on it's side. To see with beginner's mind. Peace through justice to end war ... to do so we must become "law dominant conscious ... and this essay attempts to understand the conditions needed to generate such a consciousness. If we see it and can imagine it we can build it. Welcome all ... enemy and friend alike ... in the name of the G-d of Love and Peace we proceed.

2. Betty C. Dudney said on 4/9/17 - 02:48PM

"Peace is in the hands of Justice" . The Leaven in the Bread of Peace is the justice of "Equality", the basis of the Universal Golden Rule, of Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity, Equal Respect, starting with protecting the rights of the least, so the rights of all, children, females as well as males equal under law. Equality4peace@yahoo.com

3. Mike Franek said on 4/14/17 - 06:59PM

What will be the baby steps towards that leap of consciousness? The evolution of social media is already heightening awareness and bonding like minded people to this end. The Arab Spring you mentioned demonstrated that. Although, ISIS uses it too, successfully. Do we need more martyrs for peace like Ghandi in front of cell phone cameras to tweek the global conscience? Women had a profound influence ending the "troubles" in N. Ireland. Could a global Women's consciousness bond and catalyze the human family into the "when" you describe? The "how" would be the easy part.

4. JanStephen Cavanaugh said on 4/15/17 - 02:07PM

Mike, Your comments and questions very important. Always in war the propaganda machines on both side use what means necessary to win. Social media no exception. Yes, martyrs likely as some, standing passively in the streets ... a blood sacrifice for law to end war, killed while forgiving the killer. And women likely to play a major role ... witness the Liberian women ending civil war ... as portrayed in "Pray the Devil Back to Hell". If it can happen in a small place like Liberian ... no reason why in time such a concept will grab women's imagination (and the men who love them) ... what you call "global women's consciousness ... leading the way.

5. Andre Sheldon said on 4/17/17 - 07:15AM

Namaste. In response to Mike Franek's comment about "a global Women's consciousness bond to catalyze the human family," I would like to tell a brief story. Sister Joan Chittister gave a profound speech on September 11, 2004. She talked about how women are affected by war and what can be done about it. (link below). She said it like it is. "The lives of our children, the protection of millions, the hopes of all humankind, wait again now for women, from opposite cultures, opposite tradition, to step over the line of political hatred to save them.”

6. Andre Sheldon said on 4/17/17 - 07:16AM

After the "Women's March," women are watching the Women's March FACEBOOK PAGE and website waiting for the next big initiative. What better way than to promote nonviolence to STOP WAR, with women as the "PEACEMAKERS." The goal is NO VIOLENCE. It won't be easy. The intricacies are complex, but there is simplicity in getting the movement started. Once it starts, it will take on a life of its own - promoting justice and charity.

7. Andre Sheldon said on 4/17/17 - 07:17AM

The long term goal is to teach the children the strength of nonviolence - heart of the human family - love, compassion, and generosity. Please see www.GSofNV.org LINK to Sister Joan's Speech: http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/genwom/womenpowerpeace.html

8. Mary Franek said on 4/22/17 - 02:12PM

I agree with you Jan, 2 sea changes need to take place in order to have global peace & freedom from war. First global conversations about peace through nonviolence & hopefully leading to raising peace consciousness about following the rule against war. Secondly an outpouring of voters committing to voting in leaders who are committed to following the rule against war. Raise peace consciousness through the rule of law & vote that way.

9. Mary Franek said on 4/22/17 - 02:22PM

Isaiah 2:4 could become the mantra & banner for The Women's Marches across the globe. Sister Joan C., Pema Chodren, Joan Halifax & spiritual women leaders might join the planners as mentors & spiritual guides of pereninal wisdom traditions (to name a few plus women leaders of indiginous cultures, Sufi Muslims, Hindu, etc.). ==============================================================

Hits on Web link in which essay was published: Significant uptick on April 16 in traffic after essay published.

May 15, 2017 3 -50%

May 14, 2017 6 +500%

May 13, 2017 1 -92%

May 12, 2017 12 +140%

May 11, 2017 5 +∞

May 10, 2017 0 -100%

May 9, 2017 6 +20%

May 8, 2017 5 +67%

May 7, 2017 3 0%

May 6, 2017 3 -63%

May 5, 2017 8 +700%

May 4, 2017 1 -50%

May 3, 2017 2 -33%

May 2, 2017 3 0%

May 1, 2017 3 +50%

April 30, 2017 2 -50%

April 29, 2017 4 +300%

April 28, 2017 1 -67%

April 27, 2017 3 +200%

April 26, 2017 1 -88%

April 25, 2017 8 +167%

April 24, 2017 3 -25%

April 23, 2017 4 +33%

April 22, 2017 3 +50%

April 21, 2017 2 0%

April 20, 2017 2 -71%

April 19, 2017 7 -30%

April 18, 2017 10 -47%

April 17, 2017 19 -14%

April 16, 2017 22 +144%

April 15, 2017

https://www.facebook.com/janscavanaugh

6 persons responded on Facebook

Special Recognition Walt Zlotow, Glen Ellyn, IL

2017 Peace Essay April 9, 2017 Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) How We Can Obey The Law Against War With the bombing of Syria last week Americans were again confronted with our leaders taking the United States to war in violation all international laws and norms forbidding unjust war. These laws and norms go back further than the War Powers Act of 1973, which forbids the president from engaging in military action without a declaration of war by Congress, unless that action results solely from an actual or imminent threat of attack against the United States. They go back further than prohibitions against illegal wars incorporated in the United Nations Charter of 1945. We must go all the way back to the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, better known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. The treaty, authored by US Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand, was ratified 85 – 1 by your 1928 predecessors, going into effect July 24, 1929. Kellogg-Briand is still in effect with a total of 62 signatories. Yet, the United States, with support nearly every member of Congress including yourselves, continues illegal perpetual warfare in seven countries, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and the aforementioned Syria, in complete violation of Kellogg-Briand. Since the September 11, 2001 attack against the United States, three presidents have used that isolated event to engage in perpetual warfare against any persons in any countries deemed to even possibly harbor ill will toward America. This blank check to violate Kellogg-Briand with impunity, causing untold thousands of deaths, injuries and refugees, makes a mockery of our commitment to peace and stability throughout the world. As my senators, I implore you to live up to your membership in the US Senate, known as ‘the world’s most deliberative body’, and return America to its adherence to Kellogg-Briand. The following steps might be helpful in fulfilling that long discarded commitment:

1. Request that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) convene a bi-partisan Senate Conference to review Kellogg-Briand.

2. Include historians versed in its origins and history to educate the 100 senators, the oldest of which was

born four years after Kellogg-Briand was ratified, likely not even aware of both its existence and prohibitions on their conduct.

3. Include constitutional and international law experts capable of identifying how current US policy of

perpetual warfare against millions of defenseless citizens violates all norms of law, morality and decency, including those covered by Kellogg-Briand.

4. Invite representatives of the administration involved in foreign policy, including the President, Secretary of

State and the National Security Advisor, to explain precisely why they ignore the War Powers Act of 1973, the UN Charter of 1945, as well as Kellogg-Briand.

5. Request the Joint Chiefs of Staff, consisting of all four services chiefs, to explain how their actions in

conducting perpetual military operations against civilian populations furthers America’s obligation to avoid unjust war, as well as serving its national self-interests.

6. Televise this conference on cable and network outlets to educate our citizens and inspire them of the

need to promote peace in the honored tradition of Kellogg-Briand.

But please, do not wait for such a conference occurring to comply with Kellogg-Briand. Speak up in the Senate, on your Senate website, at news conferences and Town Halls, on the need to end the perpetual wars we’ve been mired in for the past sixteen years. In so doing you will be honoring your role as citizen and senator. You will be returning America to its cherished place as the world’s beacon of peace and democracy. But most of all you will be finally engaged in preventing untold thousands of needless deaths and ruined lives. Those are the people Kellogg-Briand was designed to protect. Please consider and respond to this plea. But do not delay. Time is critical. Every day brings new misery, suffering, even death to the innocents trapped beneath our bombs. Respectfully, Walt Zlotow Glen Ellyn, IL _______Response: None

Special Recognition Edward McDougal, Wheaton, IL

“How Can We Obey the Law Against War: A Call for Increased Gun Export Regulation”

The Kellogg-Briand Pact, an international agreement by 62 countries to outlaw war, was signed on August 27,

1928. Of course, the United States has always interpreted the treaty to allow for self-defense. But more than

that, the Pact had the effect of making declarations of war, illegal so now we get “Authorizations for the Use of

Military Force” instead. The enforceability of the Pact has been problematic, too, because of the lack of

consensus on when self-defense is valid or when a state of war exists. Still, it is important to remember that war

is costly.

Therefore, this essay examines current U.S. policy on small arms exports. Wars cannot really be fought without

weapons. Surprisingly, we are responsible for 33% of the arms exports in the world (Muggah). Therefore, we not

only have a moral imperative to recognize our role in providing guns that kill, but also the negative externalities that

result from providing arms to unstable foreign countries.

Focusing specifically on the Northern Tier Countries (NTCs of Central America (Belize, El Salvador, Guatemala,

and Honduras), we see a region plagued by corruption and extreme violence. During the 1980’s, for example, El

Salvador was the single largest recipient of U.S. weaponry. Although the Civil War ended in 1992, the guns that

linger still cause many problems. Recently, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives estimated

that half the weapons available on El Salvador’s vibrant black market were made in the U.S. (Muggah). Yet we

continue to export large quantities of arms. The problem is that we do not know who is acquiring these weapons

and for what purpose.

Congress passed a law that prevents the federal government from keeping a federal register of guns—not just

domestic guns, but also exported guns (Cornell). The reason for the law was because of concerns that such a

registry would make it easier for the federal government to confiscate legally acquired firearms at some point, so

the law was passed to bolster our Second Amendment right to bear arms. However, the Second Amendment does

not apply to foreign countries, and Congress should recognize that exporting arms without adequate mechanisms

to monitor them, could have significant repercussions for our national security.

For instance, the NTCs are four of the top five highest homicide rate countries in the world. Honduras and El

Salvador have the two highest homicide rates in the world, with 84.6 and 64.2 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants

(U.N). This violence directly affects us and can be seen in the large influx of illegal immigrants from the NTCs

trying to escape by crossing into the United States. Some parents think it is safer to send their minor children

unaccompanied to the U.S. border on top of freight trains—across Mexico—than to keep them at home.

Furthermore, government corruption causes many arms to be funneled into the hands of private security firms who

are, sadly, more heavily armed then even the police. These firms amount to little more than mercenary armies. If

the police cannot protect their own citizens, this leaves the citizens scrambling for weapons to protect themselves,

resulting in even more violence and instability.

Thus, there is a moral imperative for us to make sure our exports are not contributing to this violence, and

maintaining a registry of which guns that we export are going to what end-users. This allows us to monitor the

impact of our exports and respond accordingly. This is a simple step that we can take to ensure we are not

contributing to the instability in these countries and creating border protection problems for ourselves.

A second step we can take would be to change the current policy of “presumption of approval” for arms export

licenses to be reversed. Instead, for countries like the NTCs, there should be a presumption of denial unless the

applicant can demonstrate that it is in our national interest to issue the license.

Even if Congress doesn’t act, the Executive Branch can and should implement these two changes to our export

regulations. As the suppliers of these weapons we bear both some moral responsibility for what happens with them

and the practical responsibility not to make our own national security situation with respect to our southern border

any worse.

Works Cited

Cornell. "18 U.S. Code § 926 - Rules and Regulations." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 25 Nov. 2002. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.

Muggah, Robert, and Steven Dudley. "The Latin American Gun Leak." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 12 Apr. 2017. U.N. "Global Study on Homicide." UNODC: Global Study on Homicide. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Web. 13 March. 2017.

______Response 1: Eddie, I read your essay and thought you did a great job introducing a complex topic and a possible solution. This is a topic that you could develop further by answering a few questions I bullet commented below.

• Should we only sell larger military weapons to an established democratic government and no small weapons that can be used more readily against civilian populations?

• If we don't sell the weapons, do we just leave that market to other bad actors? • Should we use arms sales as incentives for governments to make progress on human rights issues and

more democratic institutions? • How did arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets help or hurt our involvement in that

country and our current involvement there now • How many US weapons fell into the wrong hands after our war in Iraq?

You definitely made the reader think about whether at the national level we have a moral responsibility for civilian deaths of a police state we arm. It is not the same as a private sale of a gun in the US to a qualified civilian arms purchaser of a rifle or hand gun. Overall, well written short essay, but the topics requires extensive insight and research to fully develop, you can barely scratch the surface in a short essay. Jeanne Ives ______Response 2: To Whom It May Concern, Eddie McDougal was a student in my American Government Political Science class at Wheaton College in Spring 2017. Eddie has asked me to review his essay, “How Can We Obey the Law Against War: A Call for Increased Gun Export Regulation”. The essay uses the Kellogg-Briand Pact to argue that since war is illegal that sales of military hardware to countries with dictators or unreliable governments should be monitored. In particular the essay calls out many of the shaky Central American governments where there is extreme corruption and violence. The essay takes a frank look at the policies of the Unite States government on tracking weapons sold to these countries and if the U.S. should change its rules to track where small arms end up. Eddie really does a nice job of calling out the serious consequences of military weapons ending up in the wrong hands and how the U.S. should make foreign governments more accountable for the weapons. The essay uses excellent sources and makes a compelling argument. As a student, Eddie is curious and dedicated, I believe you will agree that this is an excellent essay. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, William Enright Part Time Faculty Wheaton College Phone: 630-234-8747 Email: enrightw@cod.edu ______Response 3: Critique of Eddie McDougal’s Essay By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies Chief Executive Officer, Valens Global Thanks for giving me the opportunity to read this interesting essay. I should specify that I don’t know what the essay prompt is—based on the essay’s framing, it may be about how the U.S. can obey the law against war—

and without knowing the prompt, it’s possible that some of my feedback will be rendered irrelevant by the rules of this particular essay contest. My major piece of feedback is that you should sharpen the link between gun exports and violence in Latin America. Much of the professional work I have done on the problem of U.S. guns being used in homicides south of the border has focused on “straw purchases”—when a gun buyer in the U.S. has a clean record, but then turns around and sells the guns to figures associated with cartels or other organized crime, who in turn smuggle them south of the border. Gun exports have been less of a focus for me, and are less of a focus in the literature generally. The L.A. Times piece you cite—by Robert Muggah and Steven Dudley—makes the link to arms exports clear, by explaining that local military and police may turn around and sell weapons to organized crime figures. You should specify this as well. Second, your major policy prescription is “a registry of which guns that we export are going to what end-users.” A reader would be better able to evaluate this prescription if you specify what the status quo legal regime is. Is there currently a registry of any kind for arms exports? If so, what does it cover? How would your proposed registry differ from the status quo? Third, your essay may try to answer this question by stating that “Congress passed a law that prevents the federal government from keeping a federal register of guns—not just domestic guns, but also exported guns.” It’s not clear from looking at the relevant statute—18 U.S. Code § 926—that it does this. That statutory language is directed at the Attorney General, who has jurisdictional power within the United States, but who is not responsible for regulating exports. I would take a closer look at commentary surrounding this statute to make sure that its intersection with arms exports is explained properly. (Note that this language almost certainly does have an intersection with the straw purchases problem set, which I highlighted above.) Fourth, I suggest cutting your paragraph about private security firms. Given the power of cartels and gangs, as well as rampant police corruption, private security firms are not one of Latin America’s most pressing problems. Further, as you state, private firms will inevitably arise when the police fail to offer adequate protection. Cutting that paragraph will allow you more room to develop your overarching argument. Again, thanks for sharing this interesting essay. Please let me know if you have further questions. And best of luck in your essay contest. ______Response 4: David Iglesias, Director, Center for Faith, Politics & Economics, Jean and E. Floyd Kvamme Associate Professor of Politics and Law, Wheaton College made critical remarks, raised questions and acknowledged good observation throughout the essay.

About the Peace Essay Contest

This project was inspired by David Swanson’s book, “When the World Outlawed War” and by Kathy Kelly who gave the book to Frank Goetz. Both of these individuals, Kathy and David, have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three times!

The West Suburban Faith-Based Peace Coalition (WSFPC, www.faithpeace.org), an Affiliate of Fellowship of Reconciliation, regards the multinational agreement to outlaw war 89 years ago a major advancement of civilization. It should not be the world’s best kept secret.

The WSFPC established the Peace Essay Contest in 2012 to inform the public, particularly students, about this historic event and promised $1,000 to the author of the best essay. Awards of $1,000, $300, and $100 for the top 3 were presented in 2013. It has continued to evolve:

• In the second year, we transformed it to an Essay/Response Contest to emphasize the need for essays which have the potential of moving us closer to a world without war.

• We were pleasantly surprised in that news of this contest had spread to many continents and inspired heavy participation (17 essays each) in two elementary schools: Grant School in South Chicago Heights and Winners International School in Nigeria.

• A new category was added, Honorable Mention, to acknowledge others who submitted excellent essays.

• Last year we felt compelled to add the Special Recognition category for excellent essays that needed to be included in the Awards Booklet.

This year 15 people applied and were accepted in the 2017 Peace Essay/Response Contest. Ten produced essays by the April 15, 2017 deadline. In addition to the 3 top winning essay/responses, 3 essays received Special Recognition.

The WSFPC appreciates all who participated in this Peace Essay/Response Contest, especially the 10 authors who submitted the essays and the 4 judges who evaluated them. We would also like to acknowledge all who promoted the Peace Essay Contest, especially Amira Boctor, Leila Bannon, Steve and Karen Jackson, Carol Urban, David Swanson, who posted a link to the essays and responses on www.warisacrime.org and International Peace Organizations including Pax-Christi, Fellowship of Reconciliation, and Veterans for Peace who distributed the Rules to its members all over the world.

Special thanks go to Kathy Kelly and Rev. William O’Shea for making this Fifth Annual Awards Luncheon such an inspiring and memorable event. We congratulate the winners! And we invite your comments and suggestions regarding this project.

WSFPC will announce the Rules for the 2018 Peace Essay/Response Contest in September, 2017. No major changes are anticipated in this, our Sixth Contest. Both the essays submitted and the responses documented will be judged. May this booklet continue the global conversation on ending war and all violence and be our prayer for peace.

For more information contact: coordinator Frank Goetz (frankgoetz@comcast.net).