Content／学習内容

• “Conflict Sensitivity” for Practitioners

  What is conflict sensitivity? Why is it necessary in the field of peacebuilding, which is defined as interdisciplinary in this course? Beyond experience gained through practice, to what extent can it be theorized? Once established, is the theory beneficial to the development of interdisciplinary peacebuilding? This class will provide a structured foundation for the critical relevant body of theory that is beneficial to peacebuilding practitioners.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    In the field of your activities, regardless of its scale, as long as you deal with communities or groups of people, you will face conflicts or some sort of it. In due course, you may face a split or division within such a group and inevitably have to deal with the leadership’s egos. And if such a conflict or some sort of it is unattended in its latency, a certain irreparable crack is created into the human societal dynamics and one day triggers the larger conflict. That is why, no matter what stage you are in, you may have to acquire a certain quality of “conflict sensitivity”.

  • Part 2

    If the war breaks out, what will be the fate of “buffer states” such as Norway and Iceland (both founding members of NATO), which are located between the great powers just like how Ukraine is located. On the Asian side, South Korea and Japan also share the same fate. What kind of conflict sensitivity should be acquired in order to mitigate it?

  • Part 3

    The Ukraine war caused an irreversible impact on the entire globe, such as global warming. For us to tackle them, we inevitably require interstate and inter-disciplinary collaboration, particularly in the field of science and technology. Here comes “Science Diplomacy”.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

  • Desmond J. Molloy

    Professor, Paññāsāstra University (Cambodia)

  • Aya Fukuda

    Lecturer, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Conflict Analysis

  In designing interventions toward “conflict considerations”, we begin with a detailed context analysis of the history, background, root causes, structure of the society/environment, actors, factors and potential intervention points. This class will examine existing tools and their applications, such as Galtung’s conflict triangle and his ABC triangle; conflict trees and stakeholder analysis using specific case studies.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    Conflict Analysis is introduced by Prof. Isezaki and taken up by Prof. Molloy. Definitions and typologies of Violence and Conflict are drawn from scholarly perspectives including Galtung and Lederach. The Principle of Conflict Transformation that precedes sound Conflict Analysis is considered. Essential perspectives and tools of conflict analysis, drawn from practice are listed. These include Narrative Context Specific Analysis; the ABC Triangle; the Conflict (Problem) Tree; Stakeholder Mapping; SWOT Analysis and Systems Approach to Conflict Mapping, together addressing Actors and Factors affecting conflict dynamics.

  • Part 2

    Having mentioned Narrative Context Specific Analysis, we consider the Problem (Conflict) Tree. Conscious of subjectivity and the requirement for reflexivity in developing Needs-based Approaches, this allows us to consider the core problem, the roots and the associated outcomes, in the context of a dynamic conflict context i.e. the Factors. Stakeholder Mapping offers us insight into the Actors and their relationships. Galtung’s ABC Triangle, Attitudes, Behavior and Context, offers a useful lens to view the Actors’ position in given conflict contexts.

  • Part 3

    Conflict Analysis (continued). The generic SWOT Analysis Metrix offers a perspective to interventions highlighting Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. The Systems Approach to Conflict Analysis prepares a schematic of the essential elements of the context, drawing the results of our Conflict Analysis; Factors, Actors and Context, together, facilitating the development of Reinforcing and Balancing Loops that contribute to addressing the Core Problem. Prof. Isezaki and Prof. Molloy discuss this critically.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Desmond J. Molloy

    Professor, Paññāsāstra University (Cambodia)

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• International Norms for Intervention: ”Do No Harm”

  This class will review existing interventionist visions of peace, based on Western historical perspectives, and examine norms of behavior as “interventionists” with a focus on Mary Anderson’s “Do No Harm” theory.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    Do No Harm (DNH) approach to conflict interventions is introduced critically by Prof. Isezaki. Prof. Molloy then explains Mary Anderson’s (CDA) DNH approaches. Conflict Sensitivity is essential. In any intervention we become part of the context and can have both negative and positive impacts, Dividers and Connectors. We must act on this knowledge to minimize harm. We review the six principal lessons that CDA has proven through extensive fieldwork. There are always options. Local ownership is essential. Maintain situational awareness in a dynamic environment.

  • Part 2

    The necessity for having a Systems Approach to Conflict Sensitivity in applying expanded DNH considerations to intervention implementation is emphasized. Systems thinking allows us to build-in resilience to solutions. The Intervention Cycle is presented in schematics demonstrating how the dynamism within Leverage Points is identified through Feed-Back Loops. Feed Forward Loops then suggest options for adjustment of implementation strategy and perhaps even the intervention Theory of Change. The lesson is reinforced with a review of the Systems Map.

  • Part 3

    DNH Session 3 offers some personal experience of the consequence and harm caused by poor consideration of Conflict Sensitivity or sound understanding of the context. Two examples draw from the DDR process in Haiti from 2004 to 2007 while the third considers the instrumentalization of aid during the NATO and Partners intervention in Afghanistan. Prof. Isezaki and Prof. Molloy close the session with a lively and critical discussion.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Desmond J. Molloy

    Professor, Paññāsāstra University (Cambodia)

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Conflict Considerations for Social Work

  Urban slums and rural communities, where public welfare, rights acquisition, and the organization and empowerment of the population for development are needed, often have structural conflict that can lead to violence, including armed violence. What does “conflict considerations” mean to practitioners engaged in such environments? This study examines this question from the perspective of social studies.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Understanding Conflicts when Working in Communities

    This part defines and distinguishes between conflict and violence, as well as the different types of violence (i.e., direct, structural and cultural violence). It also explores why conflictual environments develop and the different stages of conflict.

  • The Question of Neutrality, Guiding Principles, Skills and Role of a Peace Builder in Community Work

    This part deals with the question of whether it is possible, and even right, to be neutral when working in communities, especially where some are extremely powerless. It also discusses some of the essential Principles that must guide Peace work in communities, namely, Non-maleficence, Justice and Respect for the autonomy of individuals. It discusses some of the important skills required and the role that Peace Builders can play at each stage of a Conflict.

  • Steps in Peace Building & Application of the ‘Do No Harm’ Approach

    This part explores some of the processes that one needs to keep in mind when working for peace in communities, namely understanding ourselves, understanding the context, planning for action, continuous monitoring and problem re-framing, & rethinking interventions.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Helen Joseph

    Founder President, Aroehan, NGO Working on Sustainable Rural Development in Maharashtra

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Conflict Sensitive Social Work Practice

  The 2008 Mumbai attacks, in the context of the India-Pakistan war, intensified the conflict between India’s minority Muslim and majority Hindu and caused widespread violence in community work settings. Focusing on peacebuilding projects attempted by social work practitioners targeting young people, we examine and evaluate the tested conflict analysis methods, conflict-sensitive approaches and project planning processes.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Background, History and Current Situation of Religious Conflict in India

    This part discusses India’s syncretic culture, starting from the situation during the time of British rule in India, the subsequent partition of India together with the deep scars that partition brought with it, the Shah Bano Case and its aftermath, the rise of the Hindu right wing and the current scenario.

  • Attempts By Civil Society Groups to Address Conflicts

    This part elaborates on some of the basic tasks that must be fulfilled to ensure that peace is sustained. This includes working at the root cause of the conflict, identifying the obstacles/the dividers to peace, and working on strategies to minimize their influence by institutionalizing the peace process. It also discusses the roles and functions that peace builders can play in sustaining peace.

  • Efforts made by the College of Social Work in Building Peace

    This part describes the efforts made by SALOKHA, (a project of the College of Social Work) after the 1992-93 riots that erupted in India after the destruction of the Babri Massjid (Mosque). It explains the reasons why the project was started, the Aim of Social Integration that it was pursuing, and the process of work it undertook to give the youth a new direction. It also describes how Salokha intervened at different levels – in schools, in colleges, in the university, with civil society groups and with the police system – so that the message of peace could be sustained.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Helen Joseph

    Founder President, Aroehan, NGO Working on Sustainable Rural Development in Maharashtra

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Confronting Violent Extremism

  How do legitimate and radical thoughts and actions, such as protests against social injustice and resistance to bad government, develop into violent extremism by what process? Is it possible to deradicalize such actions into nonviolence? If possible, when, at what stage, how and by whom should it be intervened and implemented? This session provides an overview of violent extremism, which is often caused by narrow religious and sectarian interpretations, and provides a perspective on potential countermeasures.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    What is de-radicalization? This part explores the problem of defining ‘radicalization’ and ‘violent extremism’. It discusses multiple meanings of these interchangeable terms in different policy contexts and questions why we continue to keep them ambiguous. It is argued that de-radicalization or countering violent extremism policies shall be effective when they begin with a clear definition of the problem.

  • Part 2

    This part expands the discussion on ‘understanding violent extremism or radicalization’ by asking, ‘Who gets to define these terms’ and ‘Who does not get the same right’ and why? It points out that if only the powerful get the right to define and frame the problem, the truth of the powerless may never be told. To understand and address violent extremism effectively, we must be able to view the problem from the perspective of the powerless. Moral clarity is essential for effective CVE policy & practice.

  • Part 3

    This part introduces the concept of epistemic violence, i.e., ‘silencing or discrediting the voices of the oppressed in the knowledge domain’. It offers a reflexive account of the presenter as a Peace Studies researcher/teacher in post 9/11 years. It explains how the academic and policy literature on violent extremism tends to suppress the voices of /from the Global South on peace and security.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Fatima Sajjad

    Associate Professor, Director of Centre for Critical Peace Studies, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• What Can School Education Do to Combat Violent Extremism?

  In countries where the prevalence of violent extremism has become a social problem, higher education settings such as universities often turn into hotbeds for its emergence. How can de-radicalization be achieved without undermining the spirit of criticism and change that should be the hallmark of higher education? Through practical examples from Pakistan, we will study the practice of interdisciplinary peacebuilding in the field of universities.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    How can education counter extremism? This part argues that if extremism is understood as closing of minds to the possibility of difference, preventing or countering extremism should entail doing the opposite, which is opening minds to the possibility of difference. Education can open minds by fostering critical and historical consciousness.

  • Part 2

    This section focuses on the problems of higher education in the context of Pakistan, explaining why education fails to foster independent and critical minds in the universities. It also discusses three key skills that education can inculcate in students to counter violent extremism.

  • Part 3

    This section introduces two specific projects that aim to foster critical consciousness and reflexivity to counter extremism in universities. The projects based in Pakistan aim to challenge dominant knowledge to change mindsets and build sensibilities for peace and justice.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Fatima Sajjad

    Associate Professor, Director of Centre for Critical Peace Studies, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• The Role of Educators Between Conflicting Nations

  In addition to the domestic need for “conflict considerations”, is it possible for educators from countries that are in international conflict to collaborate mutually? This session investigates the effects and impacts of each country’s domestic “conflict considerations” referring to the case of India and Pakistan.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    Considering the role of educators between conflicting nations, the outline of the Indo-Pakistani conflict is covered first in this part. Then, it is discussed how, historically, the role of education has been used to build stereotypes and maintain conflict between India and Pakistan.

  • Part 2

    As the role of educators and educational institutions are critical, education for peacebuilding and the role of educators are discussed in this part. For peacebuilding education, we will learn how to advance peace and reduce conflicts by exploring good examples. For the role of educators, requirements and/or conditions to internalize the value of peace for educators are investigated.

  • Part 3

    Having learned the role of education and educators, the international collaborative program for peacebuilding initiated by Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, PCS Global Campus program, is introduced. Following that, a wrap-up discussion is held focusing on the relations between the government and education. Lastly, the question “Is peace possible between the two countries?” is asked of lecturers.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Helen Joseph

    Founder President, Aroehan, NGO Working on Sustainable Rural Development in Maharashtra

  • Fatima Sajjad

    Associate Professor, Director of Centre for Critical Peace Studies, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

  • Aya Fukuda

    Lecturer, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• “War” and “Peace” from the Perspective of Communication

  The mechanisms of the outbreak and spread of war are analyzed through the “trinity model” of the laws of those in power, the structure of the media, and the psychology of the masses. Thus, a new methodology for maintaining peace is explored.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    This section introduces the lecturer, who is a practitioner rather than an academic, and explains the background that led to the creation of the PEACE COMMUNICATION curriculum, along with an overview of his career. The session also introduces the “Hierarchy of Influences Model” as fundamental knowledge for studying media literacy, a key theme of this curriculum.

  • Part 2

    This section provides an explanation of key concepts in contemporary media literacy. The first keyword is “Fake News,” offering insights into avoiding the binary thinking of Fake vs. Fact and suggesting necessary perspectives and knowledge. It also explains the differences between “Filter Bubble” and “Echo Chamber,” using simulations to demonstrate how social media can create community divisions.

  • Part 3

    This section focuses on “Communication Theory,” the core of the curriculum. By comparing the concept of communication with similar terms such as “information” and “Presentation,” it explores the difference between “what we want to say” and “what others understand.” It also examines the relationship between “words” and “images” to understand the different ways “war” and “peace” are communicated.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Takeshi Ito

    Representative Director, Communication Designer, asobot inc.

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• War Propaganda

  The process of securitization that emerges in wars and conflict is facilitated through the use of expressive media such as television, social media, public relations, art, and advertising. This session critically analyzes propaganda and censorship methods based on the outbreak of war in which advertising and PR agencies played a major role. In addition, we examine how interpretations of war memories and postwar historical views can be reconciled with “freedom of expression” including the negative mechanisms that can give rise to the emergence of new wars and conflict.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    The first part of the WAR PROPAGANDA section provides a brief overview of the “history of propaganda,” with specific examples from Nazi Germany during World War II. Using the 10 Commandments of War Propaganda, which identifies commonalities in past wars, the lecture explains the structure of “war scenarios” that also apply to modern conflicts.

  • Part 2

    This part introduces two specific examples of “war scenarios.” The first is “The Nayirah testimony,” which played a pivotal role in sparking the war in the 1991 Gulf War. The second is the use of the phrase “ethnic cleansing” during the 1992 Bosnian conflict. It delves into the involvement of advertising and PR firms in both cases, highlighting their underlying influence.

  • Part 3

    The final part explores not only propaganda during wartime but also the unintended emergence of propaganda in the postwar period through the “Memory’s War,” or conflicts over historical narratives. It poses a critical question: “How can we communicate the wars happening today to future generations for building peace?”

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Takeshi Ito

    Representative Director, Communication Designer, asobot inc.

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Construction of War Memories and the Implications

  Memory is a politics that goes to the extent to transform itself to the monster that commit genocide without hesitation. In this lecture, we will start by defining what is memory, and examine the issues of “Collective Memory” and “knowledge production” and how such may lead to unequal power relations and pursuit of certain interests.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    In ancient Greece, memory was an art important for an educated person and his rhetoric skills. Of a much recent date is a term ‘collective’ memory, which refers to a collective narrative of the past shared by a collective (e.g. nation). French sociologist Halbwachs argued that individual memory is inseparable from collective social frameworks available to individuals and collectives in the present moment in which they recollect the past event. This part ends with the boom of collective memory in the early 1990s, together with a troubling trend of historical revisionism which took off with the end of Cold War.

  • Part 2

    Examples of the Bittburg Affair from 1985 and the Okinawa Affair from 2005 are discussed, next to the example of Ukraine and WW2 memory. Memory of Holocaust may seem stable but the politics of Holocaust memory is evolving continuously, depending on the current politics. During the Cold War, the anti-communist production of knowledge deliberately bundled together Nazism and Communism, as being same. Simultaneously, in the 1960s, identity politics becomes deeply intertwined with anti-communism. This part will end with the discussion on knowledge production issues and epistemology of causes of conflict.

  • Part 3

    This part starts with personal reflection on break-up of Yugoslavia. Dominant understanding of causes of conflict in liberal peacebuilding is based on a ‘cultural argument’, which understands the root causes to be incompatible identities, ethnicities, religions, and civilizations. Knowledge is never neutral or objective. Knowledge production enables unequal power relations and pursuit of certain interests. Most of academics reproduce certain knowledge paradigms and do not question assumptions on which they are based. The lecture ends with the discussion with Prof. Kenji Isezaki about peace education and collective memory problem, related to Hiroshima and Palestine.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Maja Vodopivec

    Assistant Professor, Leiden University

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• What is “Science Diplomacy”?

  War and conflict continue concurrent with the escalating impact impending disaster such as global warming. Such urgent issues require broad collective action that all of humanity must tackle with a common sense of purpose. Collaboration and development of science and engineering technology across borders are essential to solving these global problems, and its interdisciplinary practice is expected to contribute to deterring war and conflict in contributing to building peace. In this class, we explore the theory and practice of “Science Diplomacy”.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    Introducing science diplomacy. What is meant by science and diplomacy? Science is all academic disciplines, including social sciences and humanities. Diplomacy is the pursuit of state interest. Science diplomacy is the use of science for foreign and security policy purposes. Science diplomacy can be both cooperative in solving common challenges and competitive between states. I introduce my own educational and research background from my science diplomacy experiences, which I will draw on in these lectures – a world view based on personal learning for political psychology and science diplomacy, experiences with science diplomacy in Europe, the USA, the Middle East, and East Asia.

  • Part 2

    The three ideal-type categories of science IN diplomacy (use of academic knowledge in diplomacy), diplomacy FOR science (when states facilitate or fund scientific cooperation), and science FOR diplomacy (track 1.5 or 2 diplomacy based on scientific networks). I discuss these three categories as necessary conditions for each other. Science diplomacy is a recent concept that started around 2010, but it is a centuries-old practice in which states have used science for foreign policy purposes. Science diplomacy is historically the domain of strong non-state actors. Effective science diplomacy is often in synergy between state and non-state actors.

  • Part 3

    Theory and concepts of power are valuable for discussing and analyzing science diplomacy. Direct, indirect, agenda-setting, conscience-controlling, and structural power illustrate aspects of science diplomacy. Political psychology allows us to discuss science diplomacy for perception and misperception in international politics, learning and socialization, individual and group biases as groupthink, time horizons for building networks, and interpersonal trust. Sun Tzu, in The Art of War, highlights the strategic value of knowing the counterpart. There are challenges to science diplomacy, including dual-use, intelligence, and moral panics. Dual-use and intelligence are practical problems. Science diplomacy reflects the evolving world order.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Rasmus Gjedssø Bertelsen

    Professor, UiT The Arctic University of Norway (Tromsø)

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Practice of “Science Diplomacy”

  We will focus on Arctic warming and the opening of the North Sea Route as one of the early warning issues of the impact of global warming. We will study the current situation of related “Science Diplomacy”, which has been forced to take on new challenges due to the outbreak of the war in Ukraine and the subsequent “pausing” of the operation of the Arctic Council, the institution overseeing the rules-based norms governing the collaborative behavior regarding economic, search and rescue, scientific research and cultural issues in the Arctic. We will look at how “science diplomacy” can work to reduce tensions which, in this period of major transformation of the new international order might herald the emergence of a new Cold War, and build peace among nations.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    The practice of science diplomacy based on my own experiences and research is introduced. Introduction of the practice of diplomacy FOR science, science IN diplomacy, science FOR diplomacy, and challenges to science diplomacy between the West, China, and Russia. Discussion of necessary conditions between ideal-type categories of science diplomacy. Outline of science diplomacy under Cold War, post-Cold War, current power transition. The practice of science diplomacy under the world order changed with the relative transition of economic, science, and technology legitimacy from the West to the Rest.

  • Part 2

    Practice of diplomacy FOR science, e.g., French support for Université Saint-Joseph de Beyrouth and US support for the American University of Beirut and the American University in Cairo. Diplomacy FOR science for Arctic cooperation after the Cold War. Cooperation among the West and among the BRICS+, with decreasing cooperation between the blocks. UN frameworks for global science diplomacy. The Norway-EU Science Diplomacy Network. Personal experiences in science IN diplomacy from United Nations University and Climate COP. Personal experiences of science FOR diplomacy with the Russian Security Council, Arctic Security Roundtable of the Munich Security Conference, and the Geneva Centre for Security Policy.

  • Part 3

    Challenges to science diplomacy between the West, China and Russia. Dual-use science and technology in the West and the East. Intelligence in academia in the West and the East. Practical problems with practical solutions: interdisciplinary understanding of dual use; information management and classification, security clearance access to information. Other information is open. Research security for vulnerable scholars and students in closed societies. Moral panics of engaging intellectually with the other rather than practical problems. Rewarding or punishing the other by academic contact. Science diplomacy in the current evolving world order. Global knowledge governance under the pursuit of US unipolarity or multipolarity.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Rasmus Gjedssø Bertelsen

    Professor, UiT The Arctic University of Norway (Tromsø)

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• How to De-escalate International Tensions

  This session examines a new ‘cold war’ structure in which China and Russia confront each other and the West in championing the rise of the Global South. It is important to analyze the factors that form the motives for China and Russia’s diplomatic actions from a peacebuilding perspective, which are difficult to see from the “West” view point. At the same time, we will look at the possibility that economic activities based on how the interdisciplinary aggregation and exchange of knowledge, including “science diplomacy”, can alleviate the structure of economic confrontation dominated by the acquisition and transfer of natural resources. Furthermore, Western justice, which has been responsible for the development of human rights and humanitarianism, targets China and Russia, deepening the conflict. In this situation, we will look at the possibility of applying “transitional justice,” which does not compromise the value of justice but recognizes the reality of “cultural relativity” and applies that understanding towards peacebuilding.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    The session discusses how to navigate international tensions in today’s multipolar world. The talk examines the shift from Cold War bipolarity to current multipolarity, analyzing how competing power centers with divergent values and technologies create unprecedented complexities for global stability, nuclear deterrence, and diplomatic solutions.

  • Part 2

    This session focuses on changing the world order to de-escalate international tensions. World order is continuously evolving. World order is defined by relative power among great powers. Pre-WWI/II European imperial multipolarity, post-WWII US-Soviet bipolarity and formal decolonization. Post-Cold War US unipolarity and hegemony underpinning globalization. Emerging order of US unipolarity, Sino-US bipolarity, and multipolarity. Relative shift of demography, economics, science, and technology from the West to the Rest—the challenge of sustainable development and new global governance. World order is divided into US-led NATO+ bounded order and BRICS++, where China is the largest economy and science and technology actor- continuous decolonization, Gaza.

  • Part 3

    In this session, lecturers have discussions about what is going on and what the challenges are. Questions posed to the guest lecturers include the settlement of the Ukraine war, the roles to play by small states (buffer states), and recommendations to the Japanese government.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Gunnar Rekvig

    Program Director, Sasakawa Peace Foundation

  • Rasmus Gjedssø Bertelsen

    Professor, UiT The Arctic University of Norway (Tromsø)

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Japan’s Role in Peacebuilding in This Turbulent Times of World Order

  In order to realize interdisciplinary peacebuilding, including “science diplomacy” on a global basis, a nation or society is needed to serve as its hub. What are the requirements for that hub? In the new Cold War structure, we will examine the geopolitical advantages of “buffer states” or small states located between major powers, and the unique qualities that make them potential hubs. Examples of such cases include Norway and Iceland, both founding members of NATO, and Japan in Asia.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    In this concluding lecture, Japan’s conflicted path to peacebuilding is examined through four critical lenses: its constitutional pacifism, the marginalization of atomic bomb survivors (Hibakusha), unresolved World War II grievances that hinder regional cooperation, and Japan’sdiminishing global influence in peace initiatives, culminating in specific recommendations for strengthening Japan’s role in international peacebuilding.

  • Part 2

    Japan was the first modern non-Western great power. The Rest looks for alternative development models. China has a current successful model. There are development models other than those of the West. East Asia’s challenges of tradition, modernization, family, and demography exist. East Asia thinks about its own preferred regional and world order that East Asian orders before and after the US-led current order. Japan has its own history of social, economic, cultural, culinary, philosophical, etc., connections with the Rest of Asia, notably China, e.g., Chinese characters, kanji. Japan is currently firmly embedded in the US-led NATO+ bounded order to be critically considered by Japanese society.

  • Part 3

    In the past, when PLO Chairman Arafat was still treated as a terrorist by Western countries, the Japanese government invited him to Tokyo. This laid the foundations for the subsequent Oslo Accord. Furthermore, there was the late Madam Sadako Ogata, who was the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. She, as the chairperson of JICA, promoted a peace deal in the Philippines with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, which was also treated as terrorists at the time. Japan has had such diplomatic achievements in the past. Now is the time for us to stand up and put our expertise on the line.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Gunnar Rekvig

    Program Director, Sasakawa Peace Foundation

  • Rasmus Gjedssø Bertelsen

    Professor, UiT The Arctic University of Norway (Tromsø)

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

Staff／スタッフ

• 
  Kenji Isezaki

  Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

  Professor Emeritus
• 
  Desmond J. Molloy

  Paññāsāstra University (Cambodia)

  Professor
• 
  Aya Fukuda

  Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

  Lecturer
• 
  Helen Joseph

  Aroehan, NGO Working on Sustainable Rural Development in Maharashtra

  Founder President
  Career

  Former Professor, College of Social Work, Nirmala Niketan, University of Mumbai, India

• 
  Fatima Sajjad

  University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

  Associate Professor, Director of Centre for Critical Peace Studies
• 
  Takeshi Ito

  asobot inc.

  Representative Director, Communication Designer
• 
  Maja Vodopivec

  Leiden University

  Assistant Professor
• 
  Rasmus Gjedssø Bertelsen

  UiT The Arctic University of Norway (Tromsø)

  Professor
• 
  Gunnar Rekvig

  Sasakawa Peace Foundation

  Program Director

Competency／コンピテンシー

Contact／お問合せ先

Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
Office for International Affairs
tufs_pcs_ondemand@tufs.ac.jp

Related Contents／関連コンテンツ

Contents

Peace and Law

• Learning

Free

Expired

Speech Training System for Japanese

• Learning
• Link

Free

On Air

An Introduction to Postwar Taiwan Fiction

• Learning

Free

On Air

The 11th UU-A Symposium : " Access to Water and Sanitation in the Cities of Tomorrow "

• Learning
• Link

Free

On Air