Arts & International Affairs: Volume 3, Issue 1, Spring 2018 - Page 22

ARTS & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS might exist before we have a word to express it. Like we have seen, the idea was there even if the word was not, and thus the two cannot always be equated. Read against the background of UNESCO’s constitutionally manifested principles, the catalogue project demonstrates that UNESCO’ focus is not on what is or even what could be. Instead, the organisation functions on the basis of what should or must be. What should be, is a world order built on the solidarity of mankind, reminding us again of the overlapping nature of the international and world senses of society in the English School conceptual triad. Moral solidarity of mankind as a road to peace is to most of us an indefinitely distant, unachievable dream. For UNESCO, however, it is a pragmatic goal, achievable through addressing and eliminating not merely the acts of war, but its root causes. Bull, like UN- ESCO, saw the goal of peace as one of the elementary, primary and universal goals of an international society sustained by a pattern of international activity, forming the basis of international order. Bull did not approach the goal of peace—in the sense of establishing a permanent, universal peace—as a goal seriously pursued by the international society. For UNESCO’s international society this, however, is a key priority. The word peace itself does not appear in the introduction to the catalogue and the exact nature of the term remains slightly hazy. While unarguably a significant line of inquiry, a more detailed discussion of the conception of peace as the driving force behind the catalogue project must remain beyond the scope of this article. However, a brief glance is in order. Does it refer to the absence of violent conflict and war? This would make sense considering that the intensifying Cold War ensured an ever-present threat of the situ- ation escalating into an armed conflict. But war and peace are not absolute antonyms. This type of an understanding would lead to a situation where they are only definable in relation to each other, peace meaning merely the absence of war and vice versa. For everyday usage of the terms, this simplification may be useful, but for an organisation aiming for sustainable peace, understanding the process of achieving it to be simply eliminating war would not be a fertile starting point. Perhaps, the puzzle could be solved by turning to the conceptual binary of peace propaganda. The goal of war propaganda is not war as such, but creating a culture that legitimises and justifies the acts of war or vio- lence—a process of dehumanising the enemy “so they can be killed without guilt” (Zur 1991). To put Johan Galtung’s (1996:6, 96) terminology to good use, war propaganda constructs and maintains a culture of violence. Likewise, the goal of peace propaganda is not peace itself, but creating a culture of peace. This idea can be ex FVFVBBǒF6fW"FRFVb&bFW&W7BBFVwFRv&BǖrFVw&FV@6VG"( FR&6ƖF&Gb涖B( 'WB6FFG&W72FRFVw&77VW0b7VGW&W&Ɨ6vFFRTU4477FVvBFVF2"WfV6fVW2&RvWfW"W&2BVVvFRVW"ЦvV6RbFW&F66WG֖vB&WV&RFFF6&VBFfF7FvV&W"#SS27VvvW7G2FBFR7GVVFrf7F"֖vB&RfV.( F&RBVЦBVFrWBbfV"bƖVGF6"F266RFRfV"bFW"w&VBv"आvWfW"fvr'VFR76&ƗGbv"vVBBWVFRVW&vV6Rb#