Text - Letter of Peace addressed to UN

Most people desire peace from the bottom of their hearts. However, tragic and continuous violations of peace between different peoples are all too clear. The task of seeking effective solutions to obtain peace is not easy. There are many obstacles.

This letter suggests some principles which may help to overcome these obstacles and at the same time, offer a foundation on which to build a more solid peace.

I. The misdeeds done in History cannot be blamed on those living today, for the simple reason that we did not exist at that time.

II. Why, then, should we feel and feed resentment against others if we have no responsibility for what happened long ago?

III. Once we have finished with these absurd resentments, why can we not be friends and work together globally to build a more united and gratifying world for our children and ourselves?

IV. It is productive to know as much History as possible. But we cannot turn the clock back and change History. We can also see that if History had been different, for better or worse, the future would have also been different. Likewise, through the course of the years there would have been other encounters, other links; other people would have been born, not us. None of those who have the gift of life today, would exist. This does not imply in any way that the evils caused by our forefathers were not really evil. We censure and reject them, and we do not want to repeat them.

The surprise of existing will help those living today strive happily to right the wrongs caused by previous generations.

V. Human beings, by the mere fact of their existence, there always being the possibility that they might not have come to exist, have a fundamental relationship: being brothers and sisters in existence. If we did not exist we could not be anybody's blood brothers or sisters. Our awareness of this primordial fraternity in existence will facilitate our solidarity in opening ourselves to society.

VI. When organising new social structures now considered adequate to build a more stable, peaceful society, it is sometimes dangerous to base them on other older structures, even though these may have been considered appropiate in their time. It is safer to build the foundations of these new structures on human geographic units. At the same time, the risk of these structures closing on themselves must also be avoided since this gives rise to all kinds of frictions and even wars.

VII. Human being is free, intelligent and capable of love. It is known that love cannot be forced or imposed; neither can it be blind, it must have lucidity. Either it arises freely and wisely or it is not genuine. Whenever one's freedom is curtailed or one is deprived of wisdom we are preventing this person from loving us. Therefore, to defend, favour and develop the genuine freedom and wisdom of the individual -which in itself implies a social co-responsibility-, means favouring cordial feelings among people and thus better enables us to build peace.

VIII. The present representatives of the institutions that have prevailed through History, certainly have no responsibility for actions which took place in the past, since they were not alive then. But, in order to promote peace, these representatives should nevertheless publicly state their regrets for past evils and injustices committed by the institutions throughout History, when it is prudent to do so. In their institutional roles they should try to compensate for the damage caused.

IX. Progenitors are responsible for giving existence to other beings. Therefore, with the help of society, they should provide their offspring with sufficient support for their entire lives, above all in the inheritance of a more peaceful world for their entire lives. This obligation is particularly strong in the case of the weak willed or those with mental difficulties. This provision should allow them to develop their lives with human dignity as they have not asked to exist. The young have a right to be motivated and enthused by the joy of living, learning from the example of their parents, family and society. In the same way they have the right to carry out research in the sciences and technology, in order to build a more peaceful world.

It is clear that it is impossible to build worldwide peace while in society itself, and even in the family, there is disdain toward more than half of its members: women, children, senior citizens and other marginalized groups. Rather, a full recognition and respect for their dignity and their rights would lead towards favouring peace.

X. A growing number of countries already recognise the right we all have to think, express ourselves and freely form groups, provided we respect the rights of others. But, likewise, every human being has the right to be able to live his or her own life in this world in accordance with what he or she sincerely thinks.

Democracies must therefore take a qualitative leap in order to defend and favour every person's opportunity to live in keeping with his or her conscience without ever, of course, curtailing anyone else's freedom, or causing damage to others or to oneself.

Without resentment, peace can be built from evidences, freedom and friendship.

Thank you, friends...

P.S.:
It is the responsibility of those in power to concentrate on the common good of their contemporaries since they already exist and have a right to live with human dignity, without compromising the ecological balance of tomorrow.

If a nation makes good progress thanks to its politicians, relationships among its present citizens will be smoother and more gratifying and will give rise to grateful new generations, happy to have seen their country's improvements, since these gave rise to the ideal conditions for the encounters among adults that brought about the present generation. Nevertheless, if other nations are poorly governed, interpersonal relationships among the living adults are more strained, causing other encounters, relationships, etc., and thus other human beings are born, different from those that would have been born if the nation had been in a better situation. Those born under the latter circumstances will be happy that things have turned out that way as otherwise they would not have been born. Still, these new citizens should try to improve the situation when they grow up.

It is evident, therefore, that in each country, tomorrow's citizens, whoever they may be, will always be happy with what yesterday's governments did for better or worse, since they exist due to these actions. Therefore, the contemporaries' welfare is the most important target for our present day governments.

This letter is not based on any particular ideology, but is the result of self evident facts.

Signing this letter does not imply any connection with or obligation to the promoters of the same. It would be wonderful if those who agree with it, would on their own initiative promote peace in the light of these facts.

The Letter of Peace says, "most people" desire peace from the bottom of their hearts." As you can see, the Letter is realistic. It doesn't try to belie itself nor anyone else. The truth is what allows consent of wills.

First of all, I have to say that not everyone wishes peace but a majority does. There are those who are in favor of confrontations and disagreements. They agree, for instance, on not having harmonious relations between parents and children, between social bodies or between nations. They profit from this state of affairs and want this to continue.

Secondly, many of us sometimes don't want peace with the whole being and are not coherent with all the consequences of peace. Though we do wish peace "from the bottom", which is certainly the most important thing, we are not always consistent in daily life. We act against peace many times. People do not rally together around a common cause by just telling them that it is easy and that it has immediate and always positive and definitive results.

The Letter of Peace is, I repeat, realistic. It says that "there are many obstacles" in building peace. These obstacles are individual, social, internal and external. So, it is therefore a progressive and never ending path.

What is the Letter of Peace's aim?
After these first sentences there is, let's say, a declaration of wills.

The Letter of Peace has two aims: the first one is "to point out some principles to help overcome obstacles" which are, on one hand, opposed to peace and, on the other, to "offer a foundation upon which to build peace solidly".

These are the Letter's aims. In the summary-conclusion these main obstacles and pillars will be recalled.

The Letter is not a God which solves everything by magic. It only "indicates" and "points out". This is its greatest advantage and its responsibility. The task of building peace is every person's task individually and socially.

THE TEN PARAGRAPHS
In general, every paragraph of the Letter of Peace addressed to the U.N can be understood by itself, out of its context. However, these paragraphs are also progressive, in other words, the following paragraphs are better understood once the previous ones have been read. Hence, they also represent a unity.

Most people trust that human nature is good. So, disagreements and wars begin because people think they are more than they are. They wish to be more than they are by extending their limits to possess and demand more space, goods, time, friends, etc, than needed. This fact generates conflicts and fights. Accepting the reality of our existence with joy, what we really are, is a good way to reduce and to eliminate those difficulties. Being as realistic as we can about our existence, the Letter of Peace rejects the basis on ideas formed beforehand, on ideologies or suppositions. It wants to be as objective as possible. This is done by the self evident facts it shows.

The Letter of Peace, from its beginning, clearly shows a limit of human beings: "the misdeeds done in History cannot be blamed on those living today, for the simple reason that we did not exist at that time". A human being is a being who lives in time. So, first of all: one hundred or two hundred years ago: "those living today didn't exist". Hence, we cannot be guilty of anything that happened during that time.

Secondly, we exist today. What we cannot do is assign responsibilities now for mistakes and wrongdoings that happened in History long ago. I say History with capital letter.

Those responsible for past actions aren't alive anymore (when I say this I am talking about living in this world. I am not saying whether there is life in another place or in another way). We are "living today". So, we must give up finding and punishing today those responsible for old evils; consequences of which, however, we suffer in the present.

At present there are many disagreements within families and many wars between nations motivated by old injuries and injustices, that could have been avoided if people would just have acted consistently with this evidence!

Is it not true that many states, people, ethnic groups, social groups and even families "have and foster historical resentment" against other peoples, ethnic groups and families? Many times, the reason for this is to retain or increase patriotism, a country's self confidence or even strength and family unity. But this training in resentment generates negative prejudices making relations between people who have to live together very difficult.

The Letter of Peace is cautious about such a fragile subject and shows new evidence by questioning. The right answer to this question can be easily found: "Why, then, should we feel and feed resentment towards each other?"

Harmonizing History
Efforts have been made (you know them well since you are experts in peace) to harmonize the teaching of History in different countries (UNESCO, for instance). But up until now they have been fruitless. Prejudices between countries have not been eliminated. Great prejudices between different races and religions are still continuing. Family history is twisted, as well when it is passed down from parents to children. In order to have peace, History cannot be falsified.

Resentments against contemporary people as a result of past events are certainly "absurd resentments". They are like gravestones that weigh us down almost from the very time we are born. They are shackles, a slave to the past. "Once we have finished with these absurd resentments" those living today are free and able not to enslave new generations with this absurd instrument of subjugation.

Friendship
Here, the Letter of Peace also questions one of its main subjects which is one of the words more often written-- four times. This subject is friendship: "Why can we not be friends?" Making enemies leads to fighting and wars; on the contrary, a friendly attitude -which is the common denominator existing between different kinds of human relations- allows the construction of peace.

Humanizing work
Peace cannot be done on its own. It is necesary to work at it. The majority of people spend most of their time in the workplace. But if this work is done in a hostile way, under coercion, by force, without mercy, with little freedom, without beauty nor creativity, done only for the attainment of power, because of ambition as it happens many times, work, I repeat, becomes a hell or at least a purgatory which is something very far from peace.
What is more, the result of a job done this way will probably be deprived of human qualities. This is a new obstacle for peace. Only by being friends we are able to "work together globally to build a more united and gratifying world" for the already existing people in order to leave it as an inheritance to the ones who will start to live. (Please look at paragraph nine and the P.S.)

Many times, for instance, during a discussion, shameful historical events of our ancestors are used like weapons to be thrown against the opponents. However, looking at the fourth paragraph of the Letter, the reality of knowledge and history in use is very different.

Let's have a look
In order to facilitate peace, historical facts cannot be hidden. On the contrary, there are two reasons for a person to be happy knowing everything done -good or bad- by his/her forefathers and by History in general. As the first paragraph says, the first reason is: "those living today are not guilty of it" The second one is: "if history would have been different -better or worse- other people would have been born, not us". If a person is happy to live, he/she will be glad to know that what happened before his/her conception were the right conditions created for him/her to come into being.

Accepting History?
The ontological acceptance of History is different from its ethical acceptance. Past evils "were really evils" so, "we censure and reject them and we don't want to repeat them". Ontological acceptance means accepting that said fact happened, but it doesn't imply that it is good ethically speaking because this would mean becoming an accomplice of it, even though it is a posteriori. The big difference, the great border of History is placed between what already happened and what still hasn't happened. The first is unchangeable. We don't have neither guilt nor glory. And if we are really happy of existing we could rejoice ontologically because of what happened the way it happened (on the contrary, I insist, we would not exist).

What hasn't taken place yet is still undetermined and it can still happen in one way or another. We are responsible for this and we must work along this line being as ethical as possible.

The surprise of Being
It is much more probable that each of us might not have come to exist. It is enough that our father and mother would have never met. For there was only one probablity which is, in fact, what occurred. For human reason it is easier to understand that nothing existed than to understand that something exists. How amazing to be! What a wonderful feeling it is to realize -at the same time that we certainly might not have come into being.

We are the ones who, in fact, live. What we have in common is this reality: the fact of being and that we might not have existed. We are "brothers and sisters in existence". This makes a fraternity more primordial, basic and wider than fraternity because of blood, race, country, etc. It can be said that we form "the club of the existents." Because human beings have limits and are not gods, we are different from each other.

During their history and life period, people, families and countries acquire wisdom, culture and wealth. Some get more than others. Justice is necessary for peace. But justice alone is not enough. Solidarity is needed in order for everyone (people, families, countries) to have the minimum needs to live with dignity.

Blood relationship or friendship, for instance, takes place among people who know each other. Solidarity, however, reaches out to unknown people. The only thing we know about them is just their existence...and their needs.

"Our awareness of this primordial fraternity in existence will facilitate our solidarity" with everyone so this way we will be able to work more easily for peace.

Nowadays, more than ever before in History, many countries and continents are organizing "new social structures considered appropriate in order to make a more solid and peaceful society". But, what do we base these structures on?

The current social structures "considered appropriate in their time" don't have endurance to bear new ones. They weren't built for that. And what is more, structures and institutions, because they are made by men and women, are also limited.

But it is normal that those who manage these structures and institutions today are also limited, because they are made by men and women. It is also normal that those who manage these structures today, wish to remain in power. They want their old structures to remain. So, they praise them as the best foundation on which to construct the new ones.

If in order for the old structures to be the pillars of the new ones, they have to be remodeled and strengthened-- this will help them to stay in power.

The Letter of Peace doesn't state that this is impossible but it says it is "dangerous" to do it. Each case has to be taken into account closely. What the letter of Peace tells us is that "it is safer to build the pillars of these new structures on human geographic units". They can be people, ethnic groups, regions, etc. The way of avoiding "the risk of these structures closing in on themselves" is mentioned in the previous paragraph: "being aware of the primordial fraternity in existence".

For a long time, human beings have been defined as an "intelligent animal". Today, we are more sensitive about human freedom so we define the human being as "free, intelligent and capable of love". It is well known that "there is no peace if there is no justice". Peace based on injustice will be false peace and it will lead to the suffering of many. It will be short-lived and will probably end in strife and war.

Love
On one hand, love is not an optional reality for human beings. Neither is it an exclusive reality of those who profess a religion excluding the rest of the people from living it. But on the other, it is very difficult for anyone to always be fair and just with everyone, regardless of if these people are known, unknown or even enemies. This is very difficult. There are few examples in universal History or in family history. "There is no justice if there is no love" Love is necessary in family life, has to also be a part of professional, business life and in the workplace if peace is a true desire.

Freedom
The seventh paragraph says: "Love cannot be forced or imposed, neither can it be blind. It must be lucid. Either it arises freely and wisely or it is not genuine" These sentences are obvious. In order to have peace it is necessary to "defend, favor and develop the genuine freedom of the individual". The words "freedom", "free" and "freely" appear seven times in the text of the Letter of Peace addressed to the U.N.

The lack or reduction of freedom, in families (especially in children and women because of still existent male domination), in the workplace, in politics as well as in relations between countries can be the greatest offense to a person's dignity. This is one of the largest sources of unhappiness and resentment and they become the greatest obstacles to peace. Human beings are essentially social. You see, we are born in a small society of two people, a woman and a man. Human freedom cannot be practiced in a individualistic way. To have peace, freedom must be lived in its "social co-responsibility" dimension which is the innermost part of it. This way, through social co-responsibility, peace can be facilitated.

This is a current subject propitiated, to a certain extent, by Pope John Paul II. This paragraph restates what has been said in the first one: "the present representatives of the institutions...are not (personally) responsible for what happened in the past." But, the next line says something about the distinction between individuals and institutions. Many of these institutions which are made by human beings, however, survive and "have prevailed throughout History." Because of this, they are able to enjoy today the good consequences of "past evils and injustices committed by the institutions throughout History".

It is obvious, then, "in order to promote peace, these representatives should openly admit regrets" for those painful acts committed in the past. This has to be done "when it is prudent to do so". It cannot be done, for instance, if an institution suffers harassment or an attack because doing so is like giving weapons to the opponents. And "in their institutional role they should try to compensate for the damage caused".

In the Letter of Peace's original version this paragraph was written this way: It is convinient to ask for "forgiveness". But, when the Letter was solemnly presented in Santiago, Chile someone suggested that it was not right to ask for forgiveness since institutions do not have moral guilt. Instead, it was better to use the word "regret". This remark was then added to the text.

There is a common subject underlying the two parts of this paragraph: the social responsability we have to the existing generations who "haven't asked to exist" nor could do anything about coming into life. The first paragraph contemplates those who are responsible for procreation and to what degree. Then the second paragraph addresses the responsibility of helping to them to grow, as human beings are born the most helpless of the animals.

The third one then points out the need for the "recognition and respect of dignity and rights...for more than half of society members...and families: women, children, the elderly and other marginalized groups".

The first paragraph
Many times new human beings who begin life are treated, perhaps unconsciously, as "intruders" or "invaders" who "come" to be part and share in a world which they have not contributed to. Perhaps, people think that the children "have decided to come". Sometimes they look at them as a burden, a moral-religious duty to be accepted maybe in compensation for the enjoyment of marriage. Many sociologists assert that a great deal of problems that so many children in developed countries suffer from are due to their parents' lack of freedom or lack of education or perhaps to the lack of responsibility.

The responsibility of procreation
First of all, no one "has asked to exist". As I have already said, no one has been able to do anything to achieve being born because they didn't exist previous to conception. Secondly, no one can be forced to conceive if they don't want to. Not even God for believers, because God created human beings with freedom. To force him would be contradicting himself. So, conceiving a new human being is the responsibility of the existing adults and youth.

Parents are not just a "green traffic light" who "allow" this person to come in the world. No. Their responsibility is different and greater. This human being -possible of being conceived but not obligated to come into being- doesn't exist yet. Parents are the only possibility for this unique person to come into being because a distinct person would be born from another woman and another man. The parents' responsibility is to bring a new being into existence. Otherwise, they wouldn't exist at all.

Who is responsible and until when are they?
Parents are not alone with these maternal or paternal responsibilities. Neither will all of them be able to do them well. Society, by creating a proper social atmosphere, culture or economy helps large families...have also co-responsibility in each conception. So, this paragraph of the Letter of Peace says that parents "with the solidarious help of society" should provide for their offspring. It is usually thought that parents and society are responsible for children until they have reached the legal age of majority. However, nowadays there are cases -illness, drugs, etc. and situations -unemployment, war, refugees, among others- that can extend this period of responsibility "until their children's death".

What is the best thing to do for young people? "Foremost, to leave them a more peaceful world as an inheritance." How can a person dare to give birth to someone if they don't contribute to peace, development, solidarity, etc.? What kind of world do they invite this new being to live in? If parent and society are not happy to exist, if they are not happy the way they are, if they are not happy living in this world even its limits, what kind of right do they use to bring into existence new beings to this world which is disliked by them?

On the other hand, this is not a question of leading the young to passiveness and laziness but a question of "motivating and inspiring them...to work...in order for them to be able to contribute to a more peaceful world".

The third part of this paragraph is obvious, although what it says it is still not lived with the minimum amount of dignity everywhere. Think, for instance, in women. By the way, tomorrow is "International Women's Day". Even if it is obvious, however, someone could question that some instances of marginated people are not a question of responsibility. Rather, they are in a marginal situation because of their behavior and freedom. To this remark I would answer: even though some people, during their lives, have not made good use of their freedom and are now ill, etc., however, they always fully possess their human dignity because they exist. Moreover, who can assert that they, someday won't be ill and in need of help, in part because of their own responsibility (think, for instance, about car accidents and other reasons)?

Present democracies must be preserved. However they can be improved to overcome its many present illnesses, especially in order not to constitute a "subtle majority dictatorship" as they are being called.

In a state, nation or country, several ways of organizing political life can coexist. It is the same as several religions, several transportation networks coexisting in one territory in order to be chosen by each citizen depending on individual preferences.

This "qualitative leap to be taken by democracies" is what is being called "democracy in freedom" : "that each person is able to live -also in political life- in accordance with what they sincerely think".

In Lisbon, a person to whom we introduced the Letter reading this summary-conclusion "without resentment, peace can be built from evidence, freedom and friendship", cried out: "if I would have read this line in the begining, I wouldn't have needed to have read the entire letter". Here -as I stated previously- the obstacles to peace are summarized. You can see the pillars where peace "can be built". "Freedom, evidences and friendship" are the three main pillars of peace.

Once more, the Letter of Peace is realistic and leaves everyone their own open responsibility. The Letter alone doesn't build peace, but only facilitates it: from what it points out, peace work "is possible". Here the task of each and every one of us begins. The text concludes by saying "thank you" because those who work for peace are free in doing so and also because everyone will benefit from it. Those working solidarily for peace are, by all means, "friends".

This indeed constitutes as a post script because it was added after the Letter was first officially signed in Barcelona, on April 22nd, 1993. This P.S. could have had the title: "Warning for leaders", for those who have the task of leading in any field: families, institutions, and even politics.

If the Letter begins by looking at the past in order to eliminate absurd resentments, the P.S. begins by looking forward. But the evidence from where it initiates is the same in both cases: a human being, before conception, did not exist. As we have seen in the first paragraph, contemporary peoples are not responsible for the past. From this evidence, in the P.S. we see that a human being doesn't exist before conception and that depending on what we do in the present, different people will come into being. It concludes with something which is still a widely shared viewpoint today: "Therefore, the welfare of their contemporaries is the most important objective of political leaders".

text translates
Basque Catalan Chinese Danish Esperanto	French Finnish German Hungarian Italian	Norwegian Portuguese Quechua Spanish Tagalog