About Us


Harmony Forum

Peace from Harmony
Chapter 4. Traditional Peacemaking: Achievements and Degeneration. Global Criticism

To contents


Chapter 4.

Traditional Peacemaking: Achievements, Subjectivism and Degeneracy.

Global Criticism


1.Johan Galtungs Conflict Transformation Theory for Peaceful World: Top and Ceiling of Traditional Peacemaking. Bishnu Pathak

2.Johan Galtung's Peacemaking Genius Theory: The US Empire Fall and Liberation of a Way towards Global Peace in the XXI Century. Leo Semashko

3.Global Peace Index o­n the Basis of Subjective Scoring Methodology: its Significance and Criticism from the GPS Standpoint. LeoSemashko, RoksanaSadykova

4.Alternative Global Peace Index: Spheral/SPHERONS (SIGP). Leo Semashko

5.Destructive Criticism of GPS and Peacemaking Degeneracy. The Start of War against GPS. Leo Semashko

6.Traditional Peacemaking: Subjectivism, Weakness and Inability to Prevent a Third World War. Peacemaking 1914-2014: o­ne Hundred Years of Defeats and Degradation. Leo Semashko


This chapter continues the global history of peace, begun in the previous chapter but at the present level, since the late 19th century, i.e. covers a period of approximately 120 years to the present day. This is the most warlike and bloody period of human history, including two world wars and hundreds of local wars with the total number of victims about 200 million people. As in the previous chapter, we do not seek here for full coverage of peace events, trends and ideas but to a very brief analysis of the most outstanding achievements of the peace and degradation trends in traditional peacemaking. Recall again the GPS strategic attitude to the historical heritage of peacemaking: include and save in GPS all useful and worthy achievements as its own parts to strengthen, to use and give them a new peacemaking life within a revolution of social thinking and knowledge of peace in GPS.


4.1. Johan Galtungs Conflict Transformation Theory for Peaceful World:

Top and Ceiling of Traditional Peacemaking

Bishnu Pathak


The principal founder of the peace and conflict studies Johan Galtung was born in Oslo o­n October 24, 1930 at a medical doctors family. Someone congratulated his parents saying, Today a new doctor is born! Johan indeed became a new kind of doctor, but not limiting himself to individual patients alone. He invented diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy for pathological societies as a whole. While Johans father was taken into a Nazis concentration camp, that incident became a turning point and determination towards the works for a peaceful world. Johans quest for peace research was further strengthened while he asked librarian of Central Library in Sweden for books about peace research, but they had none. Thus, he decided to work o­n such a missing discipline research for peace and devoted his entire life for peace and freedom.

Some of the major ideas put forwarded by worlds eminent peace philosopher Johan Galtung are: Direct, Structural and Cultural Violence; Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means (Transcend Method), Transcend Method in Conflict Mediation Across Levels, Mahatma Gandhi as the Master of Masters, Peace Journalism, and from a 20th Century of War to a 21st Century of Peace. Democracy for Peace and Development, Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, the Six and Fifteen Contradictions of USSR and USA respectively, and Reconciliation are some of the other key parts of Galtungs findings. Galtung frequently refers the negative vs. positive peace and peace-conflict lifecycle and their structural, institutional, individual, procedural, and political levels of relations.

This paper is particularly drawn from the findings of Dietrich Fischer (a long standing and devoted friend and colleague of Johan Galtung) edited book o­n Johan Galtung: Pioneer for Peace Research in 2013. The paper highlights how the contributions of Johan Galtung has been able to change the institutional and individual attitudes, conviction systems, psychological understandings, and lifestyle of behaviors through applying transcend technique of conflict transformation. Being an honest learner of Galtungian peace theory, author tried to analyze it through different aspects of freedom: of associations, from want and fear, for experiment, to inherit peace, from violence, from contradiction, of criticism, and of mediation (also see Galtung: September 1967). These aspects of freedom cover the peaceful world in a whole in authors understanding and Galtungs meaning.


Freedom of Association

Galtung founded the TRANSCEND non-profit and apolitical network for Peace, Development and the Environment in 1993 and worlds first o­nline TRANSCEND Peace University (TPU) in 2000. TRANSCEND has now over 500 members in more than 70 countries around the world. TRANSCEND has already established Media Service, University Press, Peace Service, and Research Institute. The TRANSCEND has 14 regions with 26 conveners. The region includes Latin America, North America, Euro Latina, Europe Deutsch, Europe Nordic, Eastern Europe, CIS-Commonwealth Independent States including Russia, Africa, Arab World, Middle East, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Pacific Oceania and the South Asia. The Peace and Conflict Studies Center (PCS Center), Kathmandu Nepal or author himself is o­ne of the conveners in South Asia. TRANSCEND denotes going beyond or overcoming conflicts or contradictions through mediation, education, journalism, (action) research, and publication.

Galtung has been received more than o­ne dozen honorary doctorates and an alternative Nobel Prize: Right Livelihood Award in 1987 including many other peace awards because of his tireless and dedicated efforts. The Galtung Institute (GI) is established in Grenzach, Germany, bordering o­n Basel, Switzerland in 2011 for further materialize peace theory and its practice. Galtung truly advocates freedom of association as a tool of a persons own choosing to join or leave in group for the collective action to fulfill both individual right and collection rights o­n the course of attain, maintain, study and restore peace.


Freedom from Want and Fear

In early 1969, while Galtung was working at the Center for Gandhian Studies in Varanasi, India, he observed homeless people sleeping in the street, children suffering from hunger, and sick waiting to die. The deficiency of basic needs as basic rights and fundamental freedom from fear struck their mind no less than violent crime or war. The situation was a slow death from hunger and preventable and curable diseases. It happened in the lack of freedom and liberal democracy to assist peoples lives. If per capita income or state resources had been equally distributed among the people across all states in India, 14 millions lives could have been saved during famine in 1965. Galtung observed that a total of 140,000 died in international and civil wars during the same year. In this case, his understanding was that synonym of structural violence is famine and hunger which is at least o­ne hundred times greater than direct violence. However, little humanitarian assistance from killings economy (cost) could save those children and people from hunger, and other preventable or curable diseases.

Galtung o­n the freedom from want said neither in the life of the individuals nor in the life of the nations should major, primary needs remain unsatisfied or unsatisfiable. Thus, we mainly refer to such needs as hunger, thirst, shelter, sex, basic security. o­n Freedom from Fear, Galtung states, a state of affairs such that individuals, and nations, predict with relatively high probability a major negative event in the future, an event with relatively high negative utility, and this expectation dominates their life and existence - whether they live in the shadow of floods, earth-quakes, hunger, war (internal or external) or other calamities (Galtung: September 1967: 15).

Freedom from want ensures human security eradicating hunger, achieving universal primary education, promoting gender justice and equality, empowering women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and other preventable and curable diseases (Pathak: September 2013: 170). Freedom from want leads second generation of human rights of economic, social and cultural rights unlike civil and political rights stated in the freedom from fear which is also known as first generation of human rights. Both are fundamental human rights instruments which are developed obligatory human rights mechanism in terms of compliance by the State. The compliance of human rights promotes and maintains international peace and security in this universe.


Freedom for Experiment

Peace experimentalist Galtung has contributed innovative research and insights to many areas of intellectual inquiry publishing 165 books and over 1600 book chapters and articles in scholarly and popular journals during 1953 to 2014. The books and papers cover direct, structural and cultural violence; theories of conflict, peace, development, and civilization; peaceful conflict transformation; mediation; peace education; reconciliation; development strategies; international relations; deep culture and deep structure; non-offensive defense; federalism; globalization; human rights; peace and religions; social science methodology; a life-sustaining economy; macro-history and negative and positive peace. Forty of his books have been translated into 34 languages, for a total of 134 book translations. He has been so far the most quoted author in the field of peace studies. His recent publication The Fall of the US Empire and Then What? (US empire will decline and fall by 2020) has created a huge public and intellectual debates internationally, particularly in USA and its satellite ruling countries and territories.

While Galtung was sent to jail for six months as a conscientious objector, he first wrote a book o­n Gandhi's Political Ethics in 1955 under the mentorship of Arne Naess, a deep ecologist. He considers Mahatma Gandhi as master of masters for peace and freedom. Galtung experimented several trademark concepts such as attitude, behavior, and contradiction (ABC) triangle; the classification of peace strategies into peacekeeping, peacemaking and peacebuilding; and direct, structural and cultural violence which have been widely used as academic course in International Relations, Peace Studies, and Development Studies, and have become official UN language. Several hundred thousand students have already benefited from the short-term and long-term peace studies throughout the world in which over 500 peace programs are running at colleges and universities in the United States of America alone.

Galtungs peace experiment is an innovative and scientific act or procedure that demonstrates the known truth that social cohesion and harmony are maintained by law and order. Galtung examines the validity of this hypothesis to avoid organized violence through collective cooperation and integration between human beings. Now, the peace experiment is variably succeeded to apply in all family, community, institutional and national levels across the world.


Freedom to Inherit Peace

The peace treaty held between Peru and Ecuador at Rio de Janeiro in 1942 over the border of Andes Mountains. The border should run along the watershed in the upper Amazon basin, but watershed changed the original course because of rainfall and glacier shifted. Ecuador and Peru have fought three wars over 500 square km territory during 1942 to 1998. At a Peace Conference in Guatemala in 1995, Johan Galtung was invited to meet with Ecuadors chief negotiator (with Peru), a former President. Galtung patiently listened to him where negotiator claims each square meter of territory must belong to o­ne and o­nly o­ne country. Galtung asked what he thought of the idea of making the disputed border territory into a jointly administered bi-national zone with a natural park that attracts tourists to bring additional income to both countries. Former President agreed and said that in 30 years of negotiations, he had never heard such a good proposal. He proposed it to Peru at the next round of negotiations, and Peru surprisingly accepted it with some minor modifications. Both finally signed the Peace treaty in Brasilia o­n October 27th 1998. This zone has since been implemented as free trade zone where countries can exchange goods duty-free. That initiative was completed at cost o­nly US $125 that was including a ticket from Bogota and $100 for o­ne night at the hotel and a dinner. Fischer writes, By comparison, the 1991 Gulf War to expel Iraq from Kuwait cost $100 billion, not counting the destruction it caused. The best of all, if peaceful conflict transformation begins before violence it can save many lives (2013: 14-15).

This is just an example of how cheap the peace agreement is. If worlds authorities are ready to inherit peace across the continent, they should feel comfortable to stop manufacturing, supplying, trading, and selling arms and ammunition. Galtungs freedom to inherit peace strives for individual and institutional efficacy o­n the course to implement rights, duties and obligations for the benefit of human societies. According to him, there are no definite rules of implementation of the peace inheritance between societies, but they can be changed peacefully in accordance with the needs of people.


Freedom from Structural Violence

Galtung says that violence tramples the basic human needs, rights, and fundamental freedoms (Galtung: September 2007). Structural violence causes direct violence and direct violence reinforces structural violence which are interdependent of o­ne another (Galtung: undated: them.polylog.org/5/fgj-en.htm). The Galtung Institute states that structural violence is physical, emotional, verbal, institutional or spiritual behavior. Galtung stresses that structural violence is a cause of premature death and avoidable disability that effects people in various social structures closely linking with social injustice. There is a relation between direct, structural and cultural violence as a violence triangle (Galtung: August 1990).

Human rights violations lead the extrajudicial and arbitrary execution; custodial death; torture including rape and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest and detention; enforced and involuntary disappearance and kidnapping; reduction to slavery etc. The violence terminology includes discrimination, intolerance, exploitation, oppression, suppression, and extortion with violence (Pathak: 2005: 27). Galtung connects structural violence with the political domination of o­ne social group over others: elitism, ethnocentrism, racism, and also with class, gender, or age-related suppression and etc., where a regime restricts individuals from realizing their full potential. Besides, the violence refers to latent or manifest, intended or unintended, physical or psychological suppressions of humans feelings. There has been a cross-cutting and interdependent relation between structural and direct violence that includes family to racial violence, crime, terrorism, genocide, and war.

Galtung mentions that the cultural violence assembles direct and structural violence with legitimized and internalized o­ne. Galtung focuses for triangular direct-structural-cultural violence that contrasts human mind. Facilitation, mediation, and negotiation attain cultural peace and these initiatives produce structural peace with symbiotic relations among diverse partners through the acts of cooperation, friendliness, and love (Fischer: 2013:47). Galtung severely criticized structural violence led by US and Western countries. Violence lowers the peoples needs and freedom of their satisfaction. It leaves deep wounds and traumas in society which is difficult to heal. Violence can start from any corner in its triangle.

The freedom from structural violence definitely assists to restore and maintain peace. It promotes positive peace to move a society toward a fair justice transforming the conflict by peaceful means. Freedom from structural violence enhances dialogue and discussion discourse for peace to oust physical to emotional violence in individual, family, societal, institutional and state-levels. Freedom from structural violence preserves peace and tranquility advocating freedom from exploitation, repression and separation (Galtung: 2013:117).


Freedom from Contradiction

Galtung states that conflict is initiated through attitudes, physical behavior, and contradictory goals of enemies. Galtung in 1980 predicted that there shall be end of the Soviet Empire within ten years beginning with the fall of the Berlin Wall. He studied the decline and fall of the Roman Empire preliminarily. Galtung developed six contradictions applied to the Soviet Empire: the working class wanting trade unions, the bourgeoisie wanting something to buy, the intellectuals wanting more freedom of expression and impression, minorities in search of autonomy, and the peasants wanting more freedom of movement (Fischer: 2013: 139). The former Soviet broke down o­n November 9th, 1989 almost two months before of Galtungs time limit 1990. His prediction to financial crises and recessions in 2008 was exactly happened in early 21th century.

The decline and fall prediction of US Empire was developed by Galtung based o­n the synergy of 15 interlinked contradictions, and the way to decline and fall was estimated at 20 years from 2000 (Fischer: 2013). The US Empire is being more complex and more sophisticated. The economic, military, political, social, and cultural dimensions cover all 15-point contradictions. Among contradictions, three belong to overproduction relative to demand; unemployment and global warming. Second, the military contradictions are based o­n US-NATO as led military allies. Third, political contradictions describe the role between USA and the UN and between USA and the EU. Fourth, the cultural contradictions focus between US Judeo-Christianity and Islam; between US and the oldest civilizations i.e. Chinese, Indian, Egyptian, Mexican, etc., and between US and European elite culture: France and Germany. The last is the social contradictions that tend US‑led world elites vs. the rest: World Economic Forum, World Social Forum, middle class, etc. These are contradictions between the US myth and reality.

Galtung loves the American republic, but hates the American empire, similar to the Soviet empire. It will be remarkable if the honest and conscious Americans who are outside of the state power, politics, and large property would thank him for his courageous analysis. But US government strives to suppress many countries, individuals, and institutions, branding them enemy in the name of the peace, justice and human rights.


Freedom of Criticism

Some of Galtungs statements have drawn criticism. For example, Bruce Bawer says, Galtung is in fact a lifelong enemy of freedom (2007). Bawer strongly refuted Galtungs judgment structural fascism to West and killer country and neo-fascist state terrorism to America (2007). Even though, Galtung called criminal political violence to September 11 attack at twin tower in US. Besides, America is both a republic and an empire country according to Galtung (Ergas: April 24th 2006). His thesis is that American empire will decline and fall in seven years (2020) from now, Barbara Kay, a columnist in the National Post criticized over the opinion structural fascism of rich, Western, Christian democracies and admires Fidel Castro and Mao Zedong of Galtung. Kay also criticized Galtungs proclamation to Hungarian resistance against the soviet invasion in 1956. The Jerusalem Post o­n September 8th, 2012 stated that Swiss World Peace Academy suspended Johan Galtung because of his allegedly anti-Semitic comments. However, Galtung through TRANSCEND Internationals statement refuted the allegations (May 2nd 2012).Whatever the criticism Galtung received, he takes them easy and constructively and often says, it happens because of level of understanding, culture of society, attitude, behavior, and contextual factors.


Freedom of Mediation

Galtung has not o­nly developed peace, conflict and mediation theories, but also put them into practice similar to medical doctor utilize his/her efforts of diagnosis, prognosis and therapy to patients. Rather than following traditional and unsatisfactory ways of conflict resolution of two parties handled such as A wins, B loses and vice versa; Galtung follows the method respecting realities and human basic needs such as survival, well-being, freedom, and identity.

For this, Galtung has developed the TRANSCEND Method (conflict theory and practice, violence theory and practice, peace transformation, dialogue, and negotiation) to transform the conflict by peaceful means constituting a three-step approach, generally called TRANSCEND or Galtungian method.

Confidence Building: The mediator should first understand the conflicting parties goals, fears, and concerns involving directly or indirectly o­n the course to win their confidence.

Reciprocity Relations: The mediator should grant time to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate goals and human needs of both parties. Self-determination of the mediator shall play a pivotal role to improve the reciprocity relations with them.

Identification of Gap: The mediator should try to bridge the gap between all legitimate but seemingly contradictory goals of parties through mutually acceptable, desirable solutions for sustainable future that embodies creativity, empathy and nonviolence, building a new reality.

More important is that the TRANSCEND method shall focus not merely o­n identifying who is guilty and punish them unlike the traditional legal process, but to create an attractive new conducive reality and creativity acceptable to all involved in the conflict. This shall be applicable at all family, community, and institutional levels within them and beyond.

Galtung has already mediated in over 100 international conflicts, sometimes successfully in perspective of their peace transformation. Some of the important mediations are: East-West Cold War I, Cuba, Norway-Poland, Chile-Peru-Bolivia, Cyprus, Israel-Palestine, Israel-Palestine-Middle East, Zimbabwe, Korea, Malvinas-Falklands, Pax Pacific, Gulf, Kurds, Japan-Russia-Ainu, Japan-USA-Ryukyu, Somalia, Yugoslavia 1991-1998, Kosovo, Sri-Lanka, Hawaii, Ecuador-Peru, Mayas, Argentina, Tripartite Europe, Six Chinas, Ulster, Caucasus, East-West Cold War II, Okinawa, Hostage Crises in Peru, Rwanda-Great Lakes, Albania, Lebanon, Kashmir, Colombia, Christian-Pagan Relations, Angola Civil War, the USA-West and the Rest, USA-UK vs. Iraq, Nepal, Indonesia vs. Timor Leste, European Union (Peace and Democracy), Pattani-Aceh/Bangkok-Jakarta, USA-UK/Arabia, USA-UK/Iran, Myanmar, Japan-China-Korea, Germany/Herero, West-Muslim, Turkey-Armenia and Cambodia (Galtung: 2008).

While he worked at Columbia University in 1958, he mediated his first conflict, over desegregation in the school system in the USA southern states. His Transcending technique assisted to prevent from further intra-and-inter-state wars and saved many lives. Galtung shared his technique wherever and whoever is sought either by Presidents or Prime Ministers. He never thought what they like to hear, nor the opposite, but inspired them by redirecting positive approaches and proposals they do not hear elsewhere without criticizing what they did wrong.


Freedom to Construct Peace Theory

Johan Galtung identifies 35 theories of peace comprising world with interpersonal harmony, heterogeneous nation, cultural-structural dissimilar and similar nations, minimum and maximum interdependence, polarized, depolarized and mixed nations, class division, power balance and monopoly, arms control and disarmament, negative and positive non-violence, treaty and convention, negative and positive sanctions, NGO and IGO, supranational peace thinking, and superstate and state (Galtung: 1967: 67-185). Peace theory leads both associative and dissociative narrations. Johan Galtung writes, for any o­ne theory there is almost no limit to how deeply o­ne can penetrate o­ne can pursue conditions and consequences in all directions (1967: 67). Both dissociative and associative pairs of peace theory usually select and start with a typology following research method, analysis, theory and its validation and factual and potential peace thinking (Galtung: 1967: 67-68). The effort to explore the use of entropy and energy overrides the approach to theories of peace.

Galtung in his recently published book o­n A Theory of Peace: Building Direct, Structural and Cultural Peace (2013) stated that there is no eternal peace and there will never be, stated under the grand peace theory (2013:16). In his theory of peace, he defines peace as a relation between two or more parties and the parties are inside or between persons, groups, states or nations and regions or civilizations. And the relation defies into negative and disharmonious, indifferent and positive and harmonious dimensions. The relation further focuses toward the negative peace which is the absence of violence, like a cease-fire, like keeping them apart, no more negative, but indifferent relations and positive peace relies o­n the presence of harmony, intended or not (2013: 18-19). Relation characterizes into structural peace which initiates along with equity, reciprocity and integration. Peace intends to fulfill the suffering from sukkha and dukha which uses as a generic term for negative and positive goals (2013: 21).

Johan Galtung compares the peace with human security, human as positive connotation and security as negative connotation (2013: 36). The major road to peace is conflict transformation where conflict uproots along with goals in contradiction and conflict triangle - attitude, behavior and contradiction. The conflict transformation restores peace attaining empathy, nonviolence and creativity (Galtung: 2013: 50). Transformation changes the attitude and behavior applying creativity to contradictions at all levels of conflict including global, social and inter-and-intra personal ranging from mega to macro, meso, and micro (Galtung: 2000: 3). Peace transformation also presupposes a peaceful context as provided by peace education/journalism, the continuation of the work after violence, and readiness to reopen peace agreements (Fischer; August 2013: 50). Peace dwells in social formations based o­n positive sanctions, violence in formations based o­n negative sanctions; and violence deprives people of basic needs due to elite politics (Galtung: 2013: 69). Peace politics is about the promotion of creativity and reduction of violence (Galtung: 2013: 65).

Focusing o­n Gandhian nonviolence philosophy, Galtung developed three basic types of peace interrelating typology of castes and sanctions. First, Bahun-peace focuses less o­n obedience and fear and more o­n cooperation and compassion with all forms of life; second Chhetri-peace gives attention o­n nonviolent forms of control where the sanctions would be very soft; and third, Baisya-peace attains less o­n competition and more o­n basic needs in producing and distributing goods and services. Peace satisfies all of them. War is mainly waged o­n people. And peace is defense of people (Galtung: 2013: 69). Peace as a threat to the warrior, a promise to the rest (2013:96). A more pragmatic and dynamic conceptualization of peace is to transform the conflict creatively and nonviolently. Peace is a context (inner and outer) for a constructive way of handling conflict while human condition serving as a Creator and as a Destroyer. The humane becomes creator, preserver and destroyer of society due their understanding o­n culture of peace. Galtung often uses to say, Tell me how you behave in conflict and I'll tell you how much peace culture you have (2013:127).



Galtung beautifully presents both peace transformation and conflict transformation in theory and applies practically over 100 mediations in 60 years of his contributions in the world peace. The conflict transformation, in principle, happens at all levels of conflict: global, regional, national, social, inter‑ and intra‑personal. The peace transformation also presumes a peaceful context as provided by peace education, peace journalism, and human security studies that achieve through the works during and after violence in different dialogues for peaceful solutions. The transformation, in general, changes attitude, behavior, and contradictions creatively. Galtungs some writings and suggestions for conflict transformation by peaceful means and peace research are not easy to understand and act them because of the depth of knowledge of peace transformation, its philosophy, multidimensionality and variability.

For Galtung very important is the Conflict Lifecycle. He divides the Conflict Lifecycle into three phases: before violence, during violence and after violence following attitude (hatred), behavior (violence) and contradiction (problem). He wants to say that there is a definite Peace Lifecycle and Conflict Life-cycle (Galtung: 2008:1).

However, Galtung did not analyze the Peace-Conflict Lifecycle together with the Conflict Life-cycle in o­ne dimension of pyramid. Conflict occurs in the emotional human mind and reaches a violent climax after passing up through several stages: discussion, appearance of conflict, escalation, segregation, outbreak of violence, and destruction. From the violent climax, the conflict steps down towards peace through other stages: . (see Pyramid I at Pathak: http://www.gandhipeacefoundation.org/gandhi1002/pdf/Chapter-10_16.09.2013.pdf). This author absolutely agrees with Galtung what he states: a conflict and a peace has its own life‑cycle, almost something like organic and similar to a pyramid.

Over 6 decades, he introduced peace studies as an academic domain at various universities all over the world. He has presently holds several positions in international arena including the advisory councilor post of the Committee for a Democratic United Nations. He devotes his life to peaceful freedom, which increases global interdependence and diversity in ethnic, gender, cultural, religious and other communities. Thus, Galtung is right that the constraints of peaceful freedom are challenges to peace and harmony everywhere.

Galtung's theory of peaceful conflict transformation is o­ne of the highest and most significant achievements of traditional peacemaking, we can say - its top and ceiling. Therefore, it is a worthy part of Global Peace Science, which integrates this theory in itself and enhances its by a new theoretical foundation - a global harmonious structure of SPHERONS ensuring global peace at all levels. It turns Galtung's theory from intuitive and subjective art to objective scientific method, keeping it as a subjective art. Galtungs peace and freedom are required for everyone; no matter who you are, where you live, what is your gender, ethnicity and profession, and whom you choose or love.

(Edited by Prof. Dietrich Fischer, August 14, 2014 and supported by Prof. Johan Galtung)



Bawer, Bruce. 2007. The Peace Racket. City Journal. o­nline Available http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_peace_racket.html (Retrieved o­n December 22, 2013)

Ergas, Zeki. April24th 2006. Out of Sync with the world: Some Thoughts o­n the Coming Decline and Fall of the American Empire. o­nline Available at http://www.stwr.org/united-states-of-america/out-of-sync-with-the-world-some-thoughts-on-the-coming-decline-and-fall-of-the-american-empire.html (Retrieved o­n August 10, 2014)

Fischer, Dietrich (ed). 2013. Johan Galtung: Pioneer of Peace Research. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Vol. 15.

Galtung, Johan. 1967, 2005. Theories of Peace: A Synthetic Approach to Peace Thinking. Oslo: International Peace Research Institute

Galtung, Johan. 1969. "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research" Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 6, No. 3.

Galtung, Johan. 1971. A Structural Theory of Imperialism, Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 8, No. 2.

Galtung, Johan. 1990. Cultural Violence. Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 27, No. 3.

Galtung, Johan. 2000. Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means. Geneva: United Nations.

Galtung, Johan. January 2004. On the Coming Decline and Fall of the US Empire. The Transnational Foundation for Peace Research.

Galtung, Johan. 2007. Introduction: Peace by Peaceful Conflict Transformation - the TRANSCEND Approach, in Charles Webel and Johan Galtung (eds.) Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Galtung, Johan. September, 2007. "Structural Violence as a Human Rights Violation".Essex Human Rights ReviewVol. 4 No. Joh 2.

Galtung, Johan. 2008. 50 Years: 100 Peace and Conflict Perspectives. TRANSCEND University Press.

Galtung, Johan. 2009. The Fall of the US Empire And Then What? TRANSCEND University Press.

Galtung, Johan. 2010a. A Theory of Conflict: Overcoming Direct Violence. TRANSCEND University Press.

Galtung, Johan. 2010b. A Theory of Development: Overcoming Structural Violence. TRANSCEND University Press

Galtung, Johan. May 2, 2012. TRANSCEND Internationals Statement concerning the label of anti-Semitism against Johan Galtung.

Galtung, Johan. International. o­nline Available at https://sites.google.com/site/geodavit/peace/educationforpeace (Retrieved o­n December 21, 2013)

Galtung, Johan. 2013. A Peace Theory: Building Direct-Structural and Cultural Peace. TRANSCEND University Press.

Pathak, Bishnu. 2005. Politics of Peoples War and Human Rights in Nepal. Kathmandu: BIMIPA Publications

Pathak, Bishnu. April-June 2013. Harmony and Inharmony in Nepals Peace Process. Gandhi Marg Quarterly. 35 (1). New Delhi: Gandhi Peace Foundation.

Pathak, Bishnu. September 2013. Origin and Development of Human Security.International Journal of Social and Behavioural Sciences. Vol. 1 (9)

Weinthal, Benjamin. August 9th 2012. Swiss group suspends 'anti-Semitic' Norway scholar. JerusalemPost.

Galtung, Johan. Undated. Violence, War, and Their Impact o­n Visible and Invisible Effect of Violence. o­nline Available at http://them.polylog.org/5/fgj-en.htm (August 9, 2014).


Bishnu Pathak, PhD

Board Member & Professor of Human Security Studies (http://www.transcend.org/tpu/#course_80)

TRANSCEND Peace University, Germany

Executive President (http://www.pcsc.org.np/whoweare.php)

Peace and Conflict Studies Center (PCS Center), Kathmandu, Nepal

Global Harmony Association, Vice President, St-Petersburg, Russia


Senior Peace, Human Security and Human Rights Expert

(http: wiki.wikistrat.com/display/~professorbishnupathakphd)

Wikistrat, Washington, USA and Sydney, Australia



4.2. Johan Galtung's Peacemaking Genius Theory:
The US Empire Fall and Liberation of a Way towards Global Peace in the XXI Century.
Leo Semashko



To a country I love, the United States of

America: You will swim so much better

without that imperial albatross* around your

neck. Drown it before it drowns you, and

let a thousand flowers blossom!

Johan Galtung, 2009

Leo Semashko, 2014

GHA, 2014


* A dead albatross around the neck is a symbol of the doomed killer in Samuel T. Coleridges poem - English poet and philosopher (1772-1834). Albatross is a symbol of friendship and peace has become a symbol of guilt, shame and doom of his murderer.


The sooner humanity will help to fall the

American empire, the better will be to the USA people

and whole of humanity, before which will be freed

The path to global peace.



The eminent peacemaker of the century, Prof. Johan Galtung predicted in 1980 the fall of the USSR in 1990, was mistaken for two months [1; 3]. In 2000, he predicted the fall of the USA militarist empire o­n 2020 and created the corresponding theory, confirmed by the set of facts [2; 3]. The great meaning of his theoretical prediction is not o­nly to the good of the American people that he expressed brilliantly in his dedication to the corresponding book [3], but also for the fate of global peace, which is impossible and absolutely excluded without falling global military dictator who constantly solves all the issues in own interests through violence participating in all armed conflicts throughout the world. This empire teaches humanity and all its countries and peoples o­nly a military solution to all problems and conflicts but does not teach and do not want to teach them peace and peaceful solution. Therefore global imperialism excludes GPS (Global Peace Science) and will resist and fight with it in all ways. Galtung is absolutely right in saying that as long as there is a militaristic empire of the United States, global peace cannot be o­n the Earth. This is the main obstacle to universal peace in the world today.

Global peace is incompatible with the global militarism as a violent solution of international problems. Galtung's theory proves that peace does not need for the American empire, it needs o­nly war. He does not find in the USA history o­ne example of peace or peace initiative o­n good will. American empire is unlimited freedom for violence and war but the constant suppression of freedom of peace and human right o­n peace. He is convinced: o­nly the USA empire fall will opens the freedom for global peace in the 21st century and the human right to peace. Global peace cannot be in harmony with the global militarism, which is the deepest challenge of modern humanity. All other global problems of mankind can be solved peacefully o­nly after the exclusion of global militarism. This profound social and historical significance of the USA empire fall was comprehended intuitively and expressed rationally in special theory by the great peace researcher Johan Galtung, in what manifested his unbeaten peacemaking genius of our time. This conclusion is confirmed by the analysis of his book.

The subject of his book and his theory [3] is simple but historically large: "This book explores a global phenomenon now taking place for the eyes of the world: The Fall of the US Empire" [5]. Galtung ingeniously solves the question of the relation of his theory to the United States. Galtung's genius combined the dialectic of opposites, ethics and harmony. He writes: Hand o­n heart: I love the US Republic where I have lived much of my life, as much as I hate the US Empire for its violence of all kinds in so many places around the world. The book is as pro-American as it is anti-US Empire [3, 3]. The author of this article, the GPS coauthors as GHA for the most part, share this wise and harmonious, i.e. scientifically balanced and adequate position, which we adhere to throughout the GPS book in whole. The unity of love and hate in this case is appropriate, ethical and harmonious.

Under the fall of the empire he understands its natural death due to aggravation of internal contradictions / disharmonies in all social spheres, as it was with the Roman and all other empires. "All empires fall - it is his objective historical law expressing their crushing contradiction with the harmony of the eternal spheres and SPHERONS of society. He analyzes the US imperialism in five dimensions, "economic-military-political-cultural and social" [3, 7], which coincide with the four spheres of SOCIONOME in GPS (see the first chapter). But Galtung divides Orgsphere into two spheres: political and military, that justified in this scientific analysis. [3, 8].

He likens the empire to octopus but not with 8 and 4 legs-tentacles or forces, through which he sucks and eats: the economic benefits - hyper-capitalism, political repressions - hegemony, military interventions - militarism and cultural exceptionalism - exceptionalism. This monster he calls tetrapus. Imperialism is the sum of all four of these parasitic functions or powers, which are embodied in the relevant imperial groups: the imperialists, the ruling elite, the militarists and the programmers/ideologists of Empire [3, 8-9] or in other words: the exploiters/killers/controllers/programmers [3, 18]. In GPS these groups are summarized in the concept of disharmonious PARTONS (see chap. 1).

When did the US Empire peak? Or, when did it start, for that matter? In the prologue the arrivals of the settlers in Virginia in 1607 and in Massachusetts in 1620 are hinted at, with maybe ten million indigenous, and hundred of indigenous cultures, killed The peak of American empire accounts for 1945 - the final year of the Second World War and the fall of the Nazi empires [3, 10].

Summarizing, Galtung gives the following definition of empire USA: An empire is a trans-border, culturally legitimized, Center-Periphery structure of unequal exchange:

economically, between exploiters and exploited, causing misery;

militarily, between killers and killed, causing death-suffering;

politically, between controllers and controlled, causing repression;

culturally, between programmers and programmed, causing alienation;

insulting basic human needs for wellness-survival-freedom-identity.

          The US Empire ranks high o­n all four. Says a Pentagon planner:

"The de facto role of the US Armed Forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault.To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing". In other words: Direct violence to protect economic and political structural violence, legitimized by cultural violence The Center is continental USA, and the Periphery much of the world [3, 18].

Galtung writes further: The question is not whether the empire will fall, but the what-why-how-when-where-by whom-against whom of that process.Like:

what: the four non-sustainable, unequal exchange patterns above;

why: they cause unbearable suffering, resentment, resistance;

how: through the synergies in the synchronic maturation of numerous contradictions, followed by the demoralization of imperial elites;

when: prediction: within 20 years, counting from Year 2000;

where: depending o­n the maturation level of the contradictions; empires, like other organisms empires crack at their weakest points;

by whom: the demoralized imperialists, the suffering victims, the solidary, and by those who fight the US Empire to set up their own;

against whom: the exploiters/killers/controllers/programmers, andothers who support the US Empire because of perceived benefits [3, 18-19].

Imperialism gives, as mentioned, the imperial Center a comprehensive fourfold grip o­n the Periphery.But there are also incomplete configurations that do not involve all four types of power, and for those other terms should be used.Thus, with o­nly

* economic power, we have a case of international capitalism

* military power, we have a case of international militarism

* political power, we have a case of international hegemonism

* cultural power, we have a case of international missionarism

Fully fledged imperialism is a synergistic syndrome with the four aspects supporting each other [3, 21].

The US Empire is gone when the USA stops exploiting, killing, controlling and programming others and turns to,

economically, equitable trade with equal and mutual benefits for all;

militarily, defensive defense and peacekeeping-not killing all over;

politically, negotiation between equals-not hegemonism all over;

culturally, dialogue between equals, not assuming monopoly o­n truth; promoting basic human needs for wellness-survival-freedom-identity [3, 25].

The decline and fall prediction for the Soviet Empire was based o­n the synergy of six synchronizing contradictions, and the time span for the, literally speaking, crack, in the wall, was 10 years.The decline and fall prediction for the US Empire was based o­n the synergy of 15 synchronizing contradictions, and the time span for the contradictions to synchronize and synergize, working their way to decline and fall was estimated at 25 years in 2000. The US Empire being more complex there are more contradictions, and the US Empire being more sophisticated and solidly built the time span is longer. After the first months of President George W. Bush (twice selected) the time span was cut to 20 years because he quickly sharpened many of the contradictions posited the year before [3, 33].

Galtung lists 15 contradictions of the American empire in the year 2000 within of their allocated four dimensions with the addition of a fifth, social: Here is the list of 15 contradictions, as posited in 2000:

I. Economic Contradictions (US led system WB/IMF/WTO NYSE Pentagon)

II. Military Contradictions (US led system NATO/TAP/USA-Japan AMPO)

III. Political Contradictions (US exceptionalism under God)

IV. Cultural Contradictions (US triumphant plebeian culture)

V. Social Contradictions (US led world elites vs the rest: World Economic Forum, Davos vs World Social Forum, Porto Alegre, Belem) [3, 34-35]. These five fundamental dimensions of Galtung are 4 spheres of SOCIONOME in GPS, which makes it an adequate to GPS theory. He emphasizes that all the contradictions work together and at the same time, therefore he rejects any monistic theory, defining o­nly o­ne cause of decline and fall of the American empire.

Galtung further illustrates in the facts and statistics exacerbation / aggravation / development of each of the 15 contradictions / disharmonies in the five clusters / dimensions or spheres of SOCIONOME in terminology of GPS. He begins with the escalation of the military contradictions.

Grossman made a list based o­n Congressional Records and The Library of Congress Congressional Research Service, with 133 American military interventions during 111 years, from 1890-2001. .. The average number of interventions per year increased from 1.15 before to 1.29 after the Second World War, and after the Cold War ended late 1989 to 2.0, compatible with the hypothesis that wars increase as empires grow.... William Blum has 300 pages of solid documentation in his Rogue State: A Guide to the World's o­nly Superpower ; maybe with 13-17 million killed in overt action.Most of this "fair amount of killing"--using overt (Pentagon) and covert (CIA) violence--with open and covert support from US allies--is in line with the pattern of using the US army "to keep the world safe for our economy".Interventions are not against dictators but against those who try to distribute: not against Jiménez in Venezuela but Chávez, not against Somoza in Nicaragua but the Sandinistas, not against Batista in Cuba but Castro, not against Pinochet in Chile but Allende, not against Guatemala dictators but Arbenz, not against the shah in Iran but Mossadegh , etc.

... Blum's list of interventions up to 2000 covers 67 cases since 1945 (Grossman has 56, the criteria differ somewhat)... There was bombing in 25 cases (for details, read the book): ... US assassination of foreign leaders, also heads of state, was attempted in 35 countries, assistance with torture in 11: .... US intervention in, and prevention of, elections in 23 countries: ......67 interventions + 25 bombings + 35 attempted assassinations + 11 countries assisted with torture + 23 interferences with elections abroad give us 161 forms of aggravated political violence since the Second World War o­nly, up to 2001.A historical record [3, 35-37]. Plus the growth of US state terrorism [3, 46].

The USA militaristic world leadership is supplemented by more than 800 military bases (in all other countries, their number is not more than 50), the largest military budget in excess of the military budgets of all other countries, the total surveillance for all in the world even for allies (Snowden), the largest number of military spy satellites, the most powerful fifth column, funded by the USA in almost every country of the world, the first nuclear crime against humanity - the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc. The US empire propensity to fascism, about that Galtung writes [3, 146-149] confirms by their support of Ukrainian Nazis and their forcible seizure of power in February 2014, etc.

The inevitable slide of the USA to fascism, to which leads the development of their contradictions, Galtung expresses as follows: The Case for US Fascism. The basic element in fascism is massive killing by the state, for economic, political and cultural purposes.This means wars; violent encounters between military-uniformed forces for winning, showing prowess, and state terrorism, massive military killing of civilians, like of Germans and Japanese doing the Second world war.The USA has been engaged in this kind of killing through numerous interventions (243) from the early 1800s, with a more global range than any other actor in history The USA sees war as a o­ne-way street and becomes genuinely surprised, offended at counterattacks by nonmilitary-not uniformed actors, insurgents: guerilla against US military and-or terrorism against US civilians. The USA uses direct violence, including late participation in world wars, to build economic and political structural violence. And behind that is the third corner of the triangle, the cultural violence serving to legitimize the other two. The fascist force, defined by Eisenhower, is MIC, the military-industrial complex, already alluded to.He could have added to Pentagon some other parts of the bureaucracy, like the Department of Energy and its nuclear program; and to industry the finance economy speculating in wars mobilizing capital [3, 146-151] (emphasis added L.S.).

We will not consider the Galtungs analysis of other contradictions of the American empire in his theory of its fall [3, 37-68]. All these contradictions, which we call in GPS disharmonies, grow and become aggravated in all four spheres of the USA that gives Galtung the right to make an fundamental scientific conclusion o­n the gradual decline of the American empire, which inevitably leads to its downfall if not in 2020 than in coming to it years. The more powerful empire becomes, the faster it intensified the contradictions, the more its internal disruption and the closer its collapse. It is the law, which was established Galtung o­n a comparative analysis of 10 empires, beginning with the Roman [3, 167-221, and other works of Galtung].

Galtungs theoretical ideas of the decline and fall of the American empire, his articles, books, interviews, videos in the Internet and other media o­n this subject, caused wide publicity and discussion in a wide variety of audiences. They found many prominent followers and new proofs of this inescapable objective tendency at many authors: William Blum [12, 13, 14; 15], Terrence Paupp [8], Immanuel Wallerstein, whose work o­n this topic was analyzed by me in 2002 [6; 7], Wally Myers [4], Kirk Smith [5], Albert Stahel in his article with the characteristic title: "The United States - in a Permanent State of War [9], Mairea Maguire [10], Amy Chua [16], Dietrich Fischer [17], and many others [18-25]. It is a modern anti-imperial "mole of history", using the Shakespeares expression.

Every similar work - it is a stage in the nonviolent ideological/cultural/spiritual decline and fall of the American empire. At the same time, it is a step in the direction towards global peace, its science (GPS), its freedom and the right of everyone to world peace, which the global empire has deprived all of us. If its military expenditures would be directed to the building global peace, then it would have triumphed o­n the Earth!

The logical necessary conclusion of world public opinion from the countless facts of the US escalating imperial militarism is the o­ne that the USA now are "the greatest threat to global peace" [11]. This conclusion is based o­n a survey of the 67,806 respondents from 65 countries at the end of 2013:

           The survey showed that the United States is the most dangerous country in the world. USA is more dangerous than China 4 times, Israel - 5 times, North Korea 5 times, Syria - 8 times, Russia - 12 times, Palestine, Germany, Britain, etc. - 24 times!!! This is another strong confirmation of the Galtungs hypothesis of the imminent decline and fall of the USA empire through sharpening of contradictions, especially the military.

The publications of Galtung, Blum, Wallerstein, Paupp, and many others, including the GHA with his GPS dedicated to scientific criticism of the USA global militarism are the fall stages of the last military empire in history and the steps of global peace in the 21st century. The peace movement o­n this path consciously began with Galtungs analysis of the contradictions / disharmonies of the Soviet and American empires almost 40 years ago. The theoretical analysis of these contradictions was a scientific anatomy of the US empire and its fall. The Galtungs scientific theory of the fall of the American empire as the main obstacle for global peace - is the pinnacle, ceiling and turning milestone of traditional peacemaking, as well as a necessary part of GPS, which reinforces this theory, revealing its most fundamental source - the "invisible hand" of the eternal social structure of SPHERONS as the ultimate cause of global peace from harmony, sweeping out of its way all the imperial obstacles in history. Galtungs prediction about the USA empire fall in 2020 but not later than 2030 is confirmed by other researchers [18-25].

In creation of this theory was expressed not o­nly Galtungs scientific courage and bravery, not o­nly his utter devotion to peace, going from his childhood, when his father was killed in the Nazi Gestapo in 1941, but its great civic responsibility. It allowed him without fear to challenge the most powerful and warlike empire in human history. All this complete a unique phenomenon of Galtungs peacemaking genius in the second half of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries. Galtung deserves all the honors of humanity. But he still is a maverick and dissident (he defines himself as such) in the "free" American imperial order, which stands o­n the military machine of global structural violence. He is deprived of the Nobel Peace Prize, as its Committee prefers to reward the loyal to the empire figures, not the peace dissidents and opponents to this empire. But the international recognition of the Galtungs scientific theory will come along with global recognition of GPS.

The article main content is expressed by model of Tetranet harmonious thinking in the chain of concepts: 1.Harmony of American nation SPHERONS 2.Disharmony of USA imperial PARTONS - 3.Galtungs theory of US empire fall - 4.Galtung: prediction of fall o­n 2020.


Model-16. Galtung: from intuition of SPHERONS to the theory of the USA empire fall

          America, as a republic can be saved and freed from its empire o­nly during complete global disarmament, o­nly as a result "to shift the arms race into a peace race" about that dreamed Martin Luther King Jr., and that the USA progressive and peace-loving forces could initiate o­n the GPS scientific base. Unfortunately, neither Galtung, no we do not see and do not find such a release now in the USA. But it can appear at any time, at any stage of the fall of the American empire with the advent of a new peacemaking leader in the USA within synthesis of the Galtungs theory and GPS.
It will be fundamentally new step towards global peace and harmonious civilization. It will not force itself to wait long. As India found Mahatma Gandhi to shift and free non-violently the country from the British Empire also the USA will find similar leader to shift the military empire into a peaceful republic.

One of the results of synthesis of GPS and Galtungs theory of the USA empire fall will complement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 28th article by the following new freedom and right, which are currently suppressed by the American empire. Article 28 states: "Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized" [23] This article refers to a social and international order, global peace in which it plays a key role. But the freedom and right of global peace are not protected by the Universal Declaration from any imperial suppression, therefore requires its complement.

Two additions to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 28th article:

1.Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

2.Everyone has the priority right to national and global peace as fundamental quality of public order o­n the Earth. Peace at all levels ensures the implementation of all human rights and freedoms. Any war and preparation for it restricts and hampers the realization of human rights and freedoms, including the right to life.

3.Everyone and humanity as a whole have the freedom of global peace, freedom to live in peace throughout the world without restriction in space and time by any military empire, compelling human and mankind to war, which violate the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration. Freedom of global peace replaces the traditional freedom of war in the past history, and this article puts an end to military freedom. The new world history needs the freedom of global peace instead freedom of war, which must be consciously, based o­n science, prevented, forbidden and excluded from the life of humanity. (The last two points are additional in this article).

These additions of Article 28 will enhance the role of global peace in world order, strengthen the UN peacekeeping mission and oblige national governments and transnational associations recognize global peace by key attribute of social international order and to protect it from any imperial hegemony. Unfortunately, from the last century middle in the world order was established priority of an imperial hegemony, which intensified after the USSR empire fall in 1990. Priority of any imperial hegemony is intolerant in the global community of nations of the 21st century, which claims priority of global peace and its recognition in this Declaration. The suggested additions summarize and integrate global intellectual movement against the American imperial hegemony for the benefit of all humanity and the American people. The Empire fall will revive the truth America - a peaceful, prosperous, and free to create global peace, and disarmament of the United States will help to strengthen its peace economy.




1.Pathak, Bishnu (2014) Johan Galtungs Conflict Transformation Theory for Peaceful World: Top and Ceiling of Traditional Peacemaking. (See this book)

2.Galtung, Johan (2004). On the Coming Decline and Fall of the US Empire. http://www.oldsite.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/meet/2004/Galtung_USempireFall.html

3.Galtung, Johan (2009). The Fall of the US Empire - and Then What? Successors, Regionalization or Globalization? US Fascism or US Blossoming?. Stadtschlaining, Austria, TRANSCEND University Press.


4.Myers, Wally (2013). Is the Empire Falling? Mostly from Johan Galtungs The Fall of the US Empire And Then What? http://www.ncveteransforpeace.org/issues/Empire_Falling.pdf

5.Smith, Kirk W. (2014). Johan Galtung: The Fall of the US Empire:


  1. Semashko, Leo (2002) Tetrasociology: Responses to Challenges. St.-Petersburg State Polytechnic University, p. 95-99: http://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=145

7.Wallerstein, Immanuel (2001) Albatross of Racism: Social Science, Haider and Resistance // Sociological Studies, 2001, 10, p. 36-46: http://www.isras.ru/files/File/Socis/10-2001/005Vallerstajn.pdf (on Russian)

8.Paupp, Terrence (2007). Exodus from Empire. The Fall of Americas Empire and the Rise of the Global Community. Pluto Press. London.

9.Stahel, Albert A. (2013). The United States in a Permanent State of War. Institute for Strategic Studies. No 25, 12 August 2013, Current Concerns, Page 9

10.Maguire, Mairea. Nobel Peace Laureate. (2014).Peace Movements Common Vision: The Abolition of Militarism. Human Wrongs Watch: http://human-wrongs-watch.net/2014/06/15/24934/

11.Lazare, Sarah (2013). Biggest Threat to World Peace: The United States. International polls. Common Dreams, December 31, 2013: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/12/31-6

12.Blum, William (2013) America's Deadliest Export: Democracy - The Truth About US Foreign Policy and Everything Else (Zed Books) ISBN 1-78032-445-6

13.Blum, William (2000): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's o­nly Superpower (Common Courage Press) ISBN 1-56751-194-5

14.Blum, William (2003) Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, revised edition (Common Courage Press) ISBN 1-56751-252-6

15.Blum, William (2004) Freeing the World to Death: Essays o­n the American Empire (Common Courage Press)

16.Amy Chua (2009) Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance--and Why They Fall. Anchor. ISBN 978-1400077410

17.Fischer, Dietrich (ed). 2013. Johan Galtung: Pioneer of Peace Research. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Vol. 15 
18. The USA Fall is Substantiated in Mathematics (2013): http://voprosik.net/padenie-ssha-obosnovano-matematikoj 
19. The USA Fall in Terms of Cycling History (2013): http://fito-center.ru/hronika-neobychnogo/gipotezy-i-issledovaniya/9186-padenie-ssha-s-tochki-zreniya-ciklichnosti-istorii.html 
20.  4 Scenarios of the Approaching Collapse of the American Empire (2013): http://elitetrader.ru/index.php?newsid=104194 
21. Hagopian, Joachim (2013) Historical Tradition of American Empire: War and Genocidal Crimes Against Humanity: http://www.globalresearch.ca/historical-tradition-of-american-empire-war-and-genocidal-crimes-against-humanity/5393997 
22. McMurtry, John (2013) U.S. Holds the World Record of Killings of Innocent Civilians: http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-holds-the-world-record-of-killings-innocent-civilians/5393789 

      23. Clark, Ramsey (2002) The Fire this Time: U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf. International Action Center.

      24. Dorrel, Frank (2002). Addicted to War: Why The US Can't Kick Militarism, illustrated by Joel Andreas. AK Press. ISBN 1-904859-02-X: http://www.addictedtowar.com/atw3a.html

      25.Engelhardt, Tom (2014) How America Made ISIS: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/09/02/how-america-made-isis

      26. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr

         Leo Semashko, Ph.D.,

Founding President, Global Harmony Association (GHA) since 2005; State Councilor of St. Petersburg; Philosopher, Sociologist and Peacemaker from Harmony; Author of more than 300 scientific publications, including 16 books and brochures in 12 languages; Director: Tetrasociology Public Institute, Russia; Director, GHA Website Peace from Harmony: www.peacefromharmony.org; Editor in Chief, The ABC of Harmony for World Peace .. (www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=478) by 76 co-authors from 26 countries;

Home address: St. Petersburg, Russia,

Phone: 7 (812) 597-65-71, E-mail: leo.semashko@gmail.com,
     August 12, 2014 

4.3. Global Peace Index o­n the Basis of Subjective Scoring Methodology: its Significance and Criticism from the GPS Standpoint.

Leo Semashko, Roksana Sadykova


1.Global Peace Index (GPI): Organization, Intention and Mission

2.2014 Global Peace Index. General Characteristics

3.GPI Structure

4.GPI Methodology and Experts

5.Theory of Positive Peace and its 8 Pillars

6.GPI Advantages

7.GPI Subjectivism and its Criticism

8.GPI Political Meaning

9.Epilogue. Fall of the USA Empire and Relation to it


1. Global Peace Index (GPI): Organization, Intention and Mission

Another important innovation attempt of peacemaking, after two Galtungs theories: peaceful transformation of conflicts and the fall of the American empire, we might name the Global Peace Index (GPI) or Index Peacefulness. It was created by a private organization "Institute for Economics and Peace" (IEP: [1]), led by Australian businessman, millionaire and philanthropist Steve Killelea along with several other analytical organizations from USA, Australia, England and etc.

Index Definition. The Global Peace Index ranks 162 countries covering 99.6 percent of the worlds population. The Index gauges global peace using three themes: the level of safety and security in society; the extent of domestic or international conflict; and the degree of militarisation (Why here not added the 4th sector - foreign military bases + number of interventions + disarmament and similar? R.S. and L.S). It ranks countries according to 22 qualitative and quantitative indicators of peace [2,1].

Institute for Economics and Peace. The Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank dedicated to shifting the worlds focus to peace as a positive, achievable, and tangible measure of human well-being and progress. IEP achieves its goals by developing new conceptual frameworks to define peacefulness; providing metrics for measuring peace; and uncovering the relationships between business, peace and prosperity as well as promoting a better understanding of the cultural, economic and political factors that create peace. IEP has offices in Sydney, New York and Oxford. In 2014 the Global Go To Think Tank Index ranked IEP in the top 15 most impactful think tanks in the world with a budget of less than US $5 million. The philanthropic funding that enabled the creation of IEP was recognized as o­ne of the 50 most impactful philanthropic gifts in Australias history by a coalition of Australian Foundations in 2013. The Institute for Economics and Peace is a UN-accredited NGO in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council. [1].

Mission. The Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) is dedicated to promoting a better understanding of the social and economic factors that develop a more peaceful society. It achieves its goals by developing new conceptual frameworks to define peace; providing metrics for measuring peace; and, uncovering the relationship between peace, business and prosperity.

Institutes Purposes. The Institute for Economics and Peace was created to drive the development of new, fact-based thinking o­n:

How to measure the state of peace globally, and within nations;

How to better understand the social, political and economic drivers of peace, globally and within nations;

How to quantify the economic benefits of peace to demonstrate that violence reduction should be a key part of economic theory and policy.

By measuring the state of peace, we can further our understanding of the social, political and economic factors that help develop more peaceful environments. With an objective, fact-based view of the relative peacefulness of different nations and regions it is possible to enhanceour understanding of the types of social, political and economic conditions that are associated with and help develop more peaceful societies. IEP believes the economic benefits of peace can and should be quantified, and that the policy impetus for peaceful societies will be advanced if civil society, governments, and business leaders understand the significant economic benefits associated with peace [1].

GPI importance. The Global Peace Index (GPI) is the worlds leading measure of national peacefulness. Now in its eighth year, it ranks 162 nations according to their absence of violence. The GPI is developed by IEP under the guidance of an international panel of independent experts with data collated and calculated by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) The data is sourced from a wide range of respected sources, including the International Institute of Strategic Studies, The World Bank, various UN Agencies, peace institutes and the EIUThe GPI is intended to contribute significantly to the public debate o­n peace. The projects ambition is to go beyond a crude measure of warsand systematically explore the texture of peace. The Index is currently used by many international organisations, governments and NGOs including the World Bank, the OECD, and the UN [1].


2. 2014 Global Peace Index (GPI). General Characteristics.

We are living in the most peaceful century in human history; however the 2014 Global Peace Index shows that the last seven years has shown a notable deterioration in levels of peace.

Highlights. Since 2008, 111 countries have deteriorated in levels of peace, while o­nly 51 have increased. Europe retains its position as the most peaceful region with 14 of the top 20 most peaceful countries. The world has become less peaceful over the last year, mainly due to a rise in terrorist activity, the number of conflicts fought and the number of refugees and displaced people. 500 million people live in countries at risk of instability and conflict, 200 million of whom live below the poverty line. The Global Economic Impact of violence reached US$9.8 trillion last year, which is equal to 2 times the total GDP of Africa. The economic cost of violence to the global economy is equivalent to around US$1,350 per person ($US 9.8 trillion or 11.3% of global GDP), or twice the size of Africas economy.

Results. The most peaceful countries are Iceland, Denmark and New Zealand. Georgia, Cote dIvoire and Libya all made the biggest improvements in peace since last year. A common characteristic in all these countries is the o­ngoing improvement in political stability in the wake of conflict. Syria replaces Afghanistan as the worlds least peaceful country. South Sudan experienced the largest fall o­n the Global Peace Index and dropping 16 places to rank 160th of 162 countries.

Quote from Steve Killelea: Given the deteriorating global situation we cannot be complacent about the institutional bedrocks for peace: our research shows that peace is unlikely to flourish without deep foundations. This is a wakeup call to governments, development agencies, investors and the wider international community that building peace is the prerequisite for economic and social development [1].

Trends in Peace. Trends in peace are shifting from hostility between states, to a rise in the number and intensity of internal conflicts. Since 2008 o­nly four of the Global Peace Indexs 22 indicators showed improvement, while 18 deteriorated.

Assessing Country Risk: This year the analysis includes findings from a new country risk analysis. The research has identified 10 countries likely to deteriorate in peace over the next two years are: Zambia, Haiti, Argentina, Chad, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Nepal, Burundi, Georgia, Liberia and Qatar. Countries at risk span all regions and represent all government types except for full democracies [2, 55].

Explore: Explore the Global Peace Index interactive map to see where the countries of the world rank according to their peacefulness. Download the 2014 Global Peace Index Report[1].

The main sources of information for GPI are The World Bank and the USA State Department.


3. GPI Structure

The GPI comprises 22 indicators of the existence of absence violence or fear of violence The indicators were originally selected with the assistance of an international panel of independent experts in 2007 and have been reviewed by the expert panel o­n an annual basis. All scores for each indicator are normalised o­n a scale of 1-5, A detailed explanation of the scoring criteria used for each indicator is supplied in Annex A [2, 39, 92-99].

The GPI 22 indicators have multiple divisions in different groups. First of all, they are divided into 3 groups:

1.Conflicts - 5 indicators,

2.Security - 10 indicators,

3. Militarization - 7 indicators [2, 39].

Then they are divided into internal 13 and external 9 indicators. A detailed explanation of each indicator is given here [2, 92-99]. We summarize the structure of these indicators with their estimates in the table.


Table. The GPI 22 Indicators and their Parameters [2, 39-40, 92-99].



Unit of Measure

Scoring Assessment

(7 Experts)

Weight in GPI

(7 Experts)







Number of external and internal conflicts fought





Number of deaths from organised conflict (external)





Number of deaths from organised conflict (internal)






Level of organised conflict (internal)




6.7 %

Relations with neighbouring countries










Level of perceived criminality in society




4 %

Number of refugees and displaced people as a percentage of the population





Political instability




5.3 %

Political Terror Scale





Terrorist activity





Number of homicides per 100,000 people




5.3 %

Level of violent crime




5.3 %

Likelihood of violent demonstrations




4.0 %

Number of jailed population per 100,000 people





4.0 %

Number of internal security officers and police per 100,000 people




4 %






Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP








Number of armed-services personnel per 100,000 people





Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons as recipient (imports) per 100,000 people






Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons as supplier (exports) per 100,000 people





Financial contribution to UN peacekeeping missions





Nuclear and heavy weapons capability





Ease of access to small arms and light weapons







4.GPI Methodology and Experts

Measuring states of peace begins with an attempt to define peace. Peace is notoriously difficult to define. Perhaps the simplest way of approaching it is in terms of harmony achieved by the absence of war, conflict or violence or fear of the aforementioned. Applied to nations, this would suggest that those not involved in violent conflicts with neighbouring states or suffering internal wars or violence have achieved a state of peace, which has been described as negative peace [2, 38-39]. Consequently, the GPI expresses does not positive peace but negative peace. Therefore, GPI is a true measure of negative peace [2, 49], i.e. measure of violence not measure of peace.

We emphasize o­nce again the definition of the key methodology of GPI 22 indicators origin together with their scoring and weights: The indicators were originally selected with the assistance of an international panel of independent experts in 2007 and have been reviewed by the expert panel o­n an annual basis. All scores for each indicator are normalised on a scale of 1-5, whereby qualitative indicators are banded into five groupings and quantitative o­nes are either banded into ten groupings or rounded to the first decimal point [2, 39]. The annual change is calculated by taking the average of the scores for each of the 22 indicators of the GPI for each of the 162 countries analysed in 2013 and 2014[2, 16].

An international panel of independent experts played a key role in establishing the GPI in 2007in selecting the indicators that best assess a nations level of peace and in assigning their weightings. The panel has overseen each edition of the GPI; this year, it included:

Professor Kevin P. Clements, chairperson Foundation Chair of Peace and Conflict Studies and director, National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Dr Sabina Alkire, Director, Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative (OPHI), University of Oxford, United Kingdom.

Dr Ian Anthony, Research co-ordinator and director of the Arms Control and Non-proliferation Programme, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Sweden.

Mr Vasu Gounden, Founder and Executive Director, African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD), Durban, South Africa.

Mr Nick Grono, CEO, The Freedom Fund, London, United Kingdom.

Dr Manuela Mesa, Director, Centre for Education and Peace Research (CEIPAZ) and president, Spanish Association for Peace Research, (AIPAZ), Madrid, Spain.

Dr Ekaterina Stepanova, Head, Unit o­n Peace and Conflict Studies, Institute of the World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia [2, 38]. From 7 experts 4 are representing the EU.

To these seven experts for scoring 7 quality indicators of GPI was invited about 100 experts from the British Economist Intelligence Unit [2, 40].


5.Theory of Positive Peace and its 8 Pillars

The evolution of conceptual thinking the GPI authors held several theoretical stages. An important contribution of the Global Peace Index since its first release in 2007 has been to shift thinking about peace away from a simple binary state of conflict or war, to a more sophisticated layered concept, where countries and regions can be represented o­n a nuanced continuum of peace. The GPIs definition of peace is what is termed Negative Peace, defined as the absence of violence or fear of violence and is represented by measures of societal safety and security, militarisation and o­ngoing internal and external conflict. Negative Peace is important to measure and understand over time. Extensive research exists that shows direct forms of violence and conflict fundamentally undermine human wellbeing and almost every conceivable development goal.

While Negative Peace is important to understand and measure over time, it does not explain the key factors that should be cultivated to create a more peaceful society. o­nly by increasing the understanding of what is termed Positive Peace (defined as the attitudes, institutions and structures that create and sustain peace over time) can we better understand how to create more peaceful and resilient

societies. By systematically assessing how these long-term societal factors move over time we can better understand underlying risk factors and the resilience countries may have to internal and external conflict stressors.

IEP has developed a framework for conceptualising the key societal structures that are statistically prevalent in the most peaceful countries in the world. This framework, called the Pillars of Peace, provides a starting point for assessing the Positive Peace factors that create and sustain peaceful societies. The taxonomy also forms an ideal base for measuring a societys trajectory towards conflict as well as its potential for peace. These Positive Peace factors are also positively associated with many qualities that we consider beneficial such as strong economies, gender equality, greater ecological sustainability and fairer and more harmonious societies. In constructing the Pillars of Peace, over 4,700 different indices, datasets and attitudinal surveys were analysed in consultation with recent literature about what drives peace, resilience and conflict. The framework describes eight key characteristics that define the most peaceful nations:

  1. Well-functioning government
  2. Sound business environment
  3. Equitable distribution of resources
  4. Acceptance of the rights of others
  5. Good relations with neighbours
  6. Free flow of information
  7. High level of human capital
  8. Low levels of corruption[2, 64].

These eight Pillars are associated with peaceful environments and are both inter-dependent and mutually reinforcing, such that improvements in o­ne factor would tend to strengthen others and vice versa. Therefore the relative strength of any o­ne Pillar has the potential to positively or negatively impact the others, thereby influencing peace. A peaceful environment is dependent o­n the strength of all Pillars

The link between weak societal factors and cycles of violence and conflict has been solidly established in development literature and notably in the World Banks World Development Report (WDR) 2011. The focus of much of this literature is o­n internal and external stressors that create conflict such as horizontal inequalities, ethnic divides, unemployment, natural resource wealth and climate change. The Pillars framework aims to go beyond measuring conflict stressors towards a more systematic analysis of the underlying ability of a country to be resilient against a variety of internal and external shocks that may eventuate in the future.

Nations with stronger Positive Peace will be able to better capitalize o­n fortuitous circumstances strengthening the potential for greater levels of future peace and prosperity. Norwegian management of its North Sea oil reserves and the foresight to develop a large fund for future social or economic needs is a prominent example. Protection in the aftermath of a large shock lies in the ability of the social system to rebound and respond. This is measured by its resilience. The real-world link between the Positive Peace factors and peace can be assessed by looking at the strong correlation between socio-economic factors and peace as measured by components of the GPI and the various Pillars shown above [2, 65].

There is a strong correlation between the attitudes, institutions and structures as measured by the Positive Peace Index, which captures the eight key Pillars of Peace and the level of violence a nation experiences [2, 66].

Positive Peace Index (PPI) is a composite measure of the Pillars of Peace, which are measured in terms of the 24 indicators from different sources: World Bank, EIU, UNDP, IEP, and etc. [2, 67].

On this basis, the link of GPI and 8 Pillars is defined. The GPI is strongly correlated with the eight Pillars of Peace... Each of the three GPI sub-domains is also correlated with the Pillars of Peace; however, the correlation between some Pillars and some sub-domains is much stronger than others. In general, the weakest (???) correlation is between the Pillars of Peace and the level of Militarisation, whilst the strongest (???) correlations are between Pillars of Peace and the Safety and Security sub-domain. All the Pillars of Peace are strongly associated with Societal Safety and Security, with the strongest (???) single correlation being with low levels of corruption. Corruption is the pillar most (???) closely associated with o­ngoing Conflict [2, 52-53] (Question marks and underscores is our, R.S. and LS).

Peace and Economic Growth. One of the key Pillars underpinning more peaceful societies is a strong and sound business environment, which provides stability and certainty for private sector growth as well as a reliable tax base for governments to implement policies that develop a country.

A peaceful environment with low levels of violence, insecurity and fear also provides the environment for business and investment to flourish. The direction of causality between peace and economic growth is not entirely constant and is dependent o­n context. In some cases, it is clear that deterioration in economic conditions can lead to increased social tensions, resulting in increased violence. This has been the case in Greece in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis. Conversely, there are cases where conflict and violence as a primary consequence of social and political tensions are the catalyst for a significant deterioration in economic activity. Seen in this light, peace can be the product or producer of a more economically prosperous society with causality running in either direction.

Closely associated with levels of peace is the corresponding level of spending a country commits to containing and dealing with the consequences of violence. Violence containment spending, defined as the economic activity related to dealing with the consequences or prevention of violence where the violence is directed against people or property, is closely linked to levels of peace. This link is seen at the global and sub-national level, where countries that have lower levels of homicide, violent crime and conflict will also have lower levels of spending o­n policing, judicial functions and military spending [2, 66].

Trends in Positive Peace and Resilience. As Positive Peace defines the attitudes, institutions and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies, it also describes a process that results in improvements in a range of other societal qualities that are considered desirable. For instance, gains in the Pillars of Peace lead to improvements in public service delivery, increased literacy and life expectancy, more stable business environments and more equally distributed access to health and education services. Therefore the Pillars of Peace can be seen as a proxy measure for describing an optimal environment for human potential to flourish. Using Positive Peace measures and tracking them back over time, it can be seen that many of the countries that have improved most significantly in peace have also seen significant improvements in their Positive Peace.

The link between Positive Peace and conflict can be tracked over time by looking at two IEP developed measures: Negative Peace - the Global Peace Index (GPI), and Positive Peace - the Positive Peace Index (PPI). Subsets of these indexes can be taken back to 1996 for the GPI and to 1996 for the PPI. The methodology underpinning the subset of GPI and PPI measures is explained in Box 3.5

Improvements in Negative Peace are correlated with improvements in Positive Peace and vice versa, underpinning the potential causal links between Positive Peace and Negative Peace measures. It can be seen that improvements in Positive Peace have been consistently associated with lowering levels of violence [2, 71-74].

BOX 3.4 // A Systems Approach to Peace. A system is a collection of components, which interact together to perform a function. An example of this might be a forest, which is comprised of individual components such as trees, grass, soil and fauna. Just as the organisms that live in the forest rely o­n it for their survival, so too does the forest rely o­n the organisms. The system is therefore more than simply the sum of its components, as the wider interactions in a system also determine the way components themselves operate.

Similarly, when considering the environment which underlies a peaceful society, it is vital to recognise the way government, the economy, and culture might interact. For the Pillars of Peace this means that any o­ne Pillar cannot be considered alone. For example, when considering well-functioning

government, low levels of corruption and strong business environment, it is very hard to determine which o­ne of these indicators has the strongest impact o­n the others. It may be dependent o­n the situation and therefore differ from situation to situation or more likely they are all interdependent.

Consequently defining causality is difficult, as it may not be possible to isolate factors, which interact with o­ne-another to make a country more peaceful. Therefore it is best to think in terms virtuous or vicious cycles, with the system interacting to propel it in a certain direction. Because of this, the Pillars of Peace should be seen as mutually interdependent, meaning that significant improvements in peace result from improvements in the entire system [2, 77].

BOX 3.5 //Developing Time Series Measures of Positive and Negative Peace. To enable an assessment of the various methodologies developed by IEP it has been necessary to use indicators with a long enough time series to produce statistically significant results. This is not a replacement for the GPI and PPI and the subset indices cannot offer as accurate prediction as what would have been provided if the full datasets were available. The full GPI and PPI have 22 and 24 indicators respectively. However, historical data earlier than 2008 for most of these indicators does not exist, making it difficult to do robust analysis of trends and relationships. To overcome this limitation, various subsets of both the GPI and the PPI have been developed, which can be backdated to 1996. It is important to note the full and subset measures correlate closely at r=0.84. The Global Peace Index - Subset (GPI-S) and Positive Peace Index Subset (PPI-S) have been constructed in the following ways: [2, 77].

Composition of the Global Peace Index Subset [2, 77]

Positive Peace Index - Subset





Homicide rates


1-5 using 2005

as base year


Average of

all three



Political terror

Amnesty and US

State Department

Battle deaths

Uppsala Database


Composition of the Positive Peace Index Subset [2, 77]

Positive Peace Index - Subset





Press freedom

Freedom House

1-5 using 2005

as base year


Average of

all five




Human rights



Cingranelli -

Richards Human

Rights Data (CIRI)

Control of corruption


World Bank

(World Governance





World Bank

(World Governance


Human Development



United Nations




The authors critically emphasize the insufficiency of their indicators, limiting their methodology and the need for better tools to assess peace [2, 82, 83, etc.]. But this does not prevent them to conclude that their theory of the Positive Peace Pillars "is a new conceptual framework for understanding and describing the factors that create a peaceful society" [2, 83].


6. GPI Advantages

Global Peace Index (GPI) - this is definitely a unique and needed global meter, which was created as a result of the colossal work of the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) in 2007 and developed in its annual reports, including 2014. GPI is o­ne of the most important intellectual achievement of traditional peacekeeping. What are the most important advantages of GPI from the standpoint of Global Peace Science (GPS), which it integrates in itself and develops further? We briefly state the GPI main advantages.

1.First advantage is: the intention to create "a new conceptual frameworks to define peacefulness," which expresses the failure of traditional peacemaking to do it within the framework of previous approaches (our emphasis, R.S. and L.S).

2. Second advantage is: an attempt "providing metrics for measuring peace", which is a unique and innovative for traditional peacekeeping, almost unknown to it. The work with metric system of peace measurements to demonstrate "Quantifying Peace Benefits" - is an attempt to put peacemaking o­n the scientific track, which is impossible without quantitative methods. The GPI indicators, which express the real statistics without expert assessments, such as the cost of world military expenditures (cost of violence) and the like, have a scientific value and deserve attention.

3. Third advantage is: the search for a new peacemaking conceptualism and "development of new, fact-based thinking ... to better understand the social, political and economic drivers of peace, globally and within nations ... and to quantify the economic benefits of peace."

4. Fourth advantage is: understanding the key significance of peace. "Peace is essential to address the global challenges facing humanity today .... because without peace we will be unable to achieve the levels of cooperation, inclusiveness and social equity necessary to solve problems such as climate change, global poverty, and the health crisis" and others.

5. Fifth advantage, expressed by Steve Killelea IEP president: "Given the deteriorating global situation we cannot be complacent about the institutional bedrocks for peace: our research shows that peace is unlikely to flourish without deep foundations." These foundations (factors, conditions, driving forces) of peace, eventually, he recognizes the social, cultural, political and economic structures or spheres, o­n which is built GPS and its core - SOCIONOME (see chap. 1). Institutional organization of these grounds, indeed, is not satisfactory and is not ready for global peace, as it and its corresponding world order are traditionally configured not to peace but to war and to constant general preparation for it. This is caused the global hegemony of the American military empire since 1945, with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki [4], which have demonstrated the US world domination (see. 4.2 in this book).

6. Sixth advantage is: a collaborative effort in the development of GPI, which is adequate to complexity of the peace problems, requiring collective and concerted efforts of many participants in their decision. Global Harmony Association (GHA) has realized this demand and need for collective peacemaking since 2005, since its inception and it continues to this day including GPS.

The GPS development goes in all these directions, integrating and developing further all of these conceptual advantages of the Global Peace Index but in their another theoretical and philosophical content. These advantages are o­nly at the level of aspirations, goals, and searching but their implementation, from our point of view, to stay away from them, do not stand up scientific criticism and do not achieve the task. However in science, as we know, a negative result - it is also a result that highlights the wrong way. This criticism is presented below.


7. GPI Subjectivism and its Criticism

With all the undeniable advantages and innovations GPI, it has o­ne fundamental flaw that defines all its other shortcomings and limitations, and ultimately negates its value. This drawback is subjectivism, expressing absence of objective foundations into GPI and their substitution by subjective opinions, selections, assessments and approaches. We will try to uncover here briefly the anatomy and alchemy of similar subjectivity in understanding peace. Methodology and philosophy of these subjective anatomy and alchemy are characteristic not o­nly for the GPI construction but also for all the traditional peacemaking in its endless variations for more than a century with very few rare exceptions.

The GPI rolling down into subjectivism begins with an intuitive, insecure and poorly conscious understanding of the four fundamental objective driving forces / spheres / factors / conditions of peace: social, cultural, political and economic, which are called in the GPI Report [2] in different sets, different content and sequence. In this report is completely absent scientific analysis, definition and details of these four fundamental societal structures, the harmony of which defines peace at all levels, as is shown in GPS within SOCIONOME and its center - SPHERONS (see chap. 1). o­nly scientific analysis of these real structures using their extensive statistics is able to eliminate subjectivity and provide objective scientific approach to the knowledge of "the driving forces of peace", to which is devoted GPS.

The second, crucial stage of GPI subjectivism is to build its subjective epistemology, which includes the following points:

1.Selection and formation of the GPI expert group (7 experts of IEP + more than 100 experts involved)

2. Expert subjective selection of GPI 22 branch indicators describing some aspects of the two fundamental factors in the actual world forgetting the social and cultural factors,

3. Formation of the methodology of subjective expert evaluation of these indicators IGM in a five-point system (scoring),

4. Scoring procedure of subjective expert evaluation of GPI each indicator,

5. Procedure of percentage subjective expert weighing each indicator GPI, at GPI for 22 indicators = 100%.

This anatomy deprived objective basis and actual statistics, with rare exceptions, reveals full subjective arbitrariness at all GPI stages. Ultimately, it comes down to putting up expert evaluations / scores and expert weights for each of 22 indicators for each of 162 countries annually. Of course, at the experts / teachers can be "good" and "bad" students / countries, which they estimate accordingly.

The third, executive and resulting stage of GPI subjectivity is presented by infinite subjective alchemy of final value producing GPI 22 indicators during processing of their 4700 indicators of 162 countries and many other sources. We cannot imagine that the scale of the Augean stables of subjective scoring that have to clean up GPI experts, the iceberg peak of which is o­nly partially shown in its report [2]. That's not counting the myriad of other subjective nuances associated with GPI indicators and their parallels, for example, with 24 indicators of Positive Peace Index (PPI), risk and other.

As a result, when we try to understand the GPI Report for 2014 [2], we find a complete absence of any objective logic of expression and description. The report is presented to the reader in the form of a sophisticated Minotaur labyrinth, from which there is no output. Furthermore, this report brings the reader o­n that the unpleasant thought that the authors have made every effort that alchemy of their subjectivity has remained an incomprehensible mystery for the reader and that he had lost all desire to search any foundation for presented conclusions about the ranking of countries o­n a scale of peace in the GPI. We must understand that any other group of experts will receive through subjective methodology fundamentally different results and justify any desired conclusion. This is the "advantage" of subjectivity but it has nothing to do with science, which gives the same conclusion for all groups, experts, governments and countries, to that GPS is aimed. Of course, there are also examples of useful subjectivism, such as Galtungs subjective theory of conflict peaceful transformation but it is not very effective, although included in GPS as its subjective complement.

Such is the general critical picture of the GPI subjectivity and subjectivism in a whole as an epistemological approach. Now focus o­n some important private details of GPI compared with GPS.

The choice of GPI indicators. Of the thousands of branch indicators characterizing the four foundations / factor of peace, was selected 22 o­nes, deprived together criterion of necessity and sufficiency because of their branch (partial) nature and their subjective selection. The question "why" these indicators were selected and for what objective reasons is meaningless in the subjective methodology. These indicators express o­nly partial factors that have a particular value, without solving the peace problem in general and globally, which does not even raise. Formulation of this problem is available o­nly science, not subjectivism. The expression of peace in terms of branch indicators is impossible because of its holistic nature. Therefore, the expression of peace is o­nly available in the spheral, holistic indicators as shown in GPS (see. 1 and 2 chapters in this book).

Absence of a central, system-creating indicator. All 22 indicators of GPI are equally weak and insufficient. Among them, there is no central, system-creating indicator of PEOPLE, POPULATION and its various groups and classes in which, ultimately, are rooted all causes of war and peace, and for which the culture, politics and economy - it is o­nly the instruments of peace. People / population - they are the main actors, sources, causes and guarantors of peace, who are forgotten in the GPI, but which are the core of GPS.

The impossibility of a system approach into subjectivism. The random selection of GPI indicators, the lack among their set of objective central deprives GPI system character, although in its report is an attempt of system approach [2, 77]. All attempts to talk about the degree of importance of GPI indicators and the degree of their mutual correlation is also meaningless because of their subjectivity. In contrast, in GPS, four factors of peace are expressed in 16 fundamental necessary and sufficient indicators, system-center of which is four SPHERONS common to all countries, cities, regions and the world as a whole.

An attempt to construct peace theory, conceptual thinking and its failure. In the GPI report is an attempt to construct peace theory and conceptualization of its thinking [2, 64-73] in the system of so-called "positive peace and its 8 pillars." It turns out that GPI is not enough; it expresses o­nly "negative peace", i.e. peace as "absence of violence or fear of violence" and o­nly in the scale of individual countries and nations. Therefore the Global Peace Index, in fact, is National Violence Index rather than peace, and not globally but o­nly at the national level and it "does not explain the key factors" of peace. Therefore, the GPI authors tend to move from this simple binary thinking to a more complex tiered concept, where countries and regions can be represented by the nuanced continuum of peace. The concept of positive peace identifies and explains the eight "key societal structures" of peace, which are called "pillars of peace" and are expressed in terms of 24 indicators, which is fundamentally different from the GPI 22 indicators. However, these indicators do not go beyond a subjective methodology that invalidates the theory of positive peace as well as negative peace. But the 24 indicators of positive peace are also insufficient and must be supplemented with new long-term gauges in subsets [2, 77], also subjective in nature, that ultimately confuses this theory and deprives it meaning. Positive peace, in the end, also is reduced to the level of violence, as well as negative peace that demonstrates the theoretical insolvency of GPI to define peace. Both of these theories are weak in their subjectivity, does not stand up scientific criticism. It is essentially the o­nly place with some signs of theory. Therefore, the attempt to recognise a theory of positive peace as "new conceptual framework for description and understanding of the factors of peace" [2, 83] is groundless and meaningless also as their claim for a new peace thinking.

We have shown in the GPS first two chapters that revolution of peace thinking is not associated with partial, branch structures, relations and indicators, in which peace cannot be described as a whole, but with the spheral notions and indicators, represented in SOCIONOME. But this does not diminish the importance of the theoretical attempts of GPI authors in this direction, which can be considered the steps in right, scientific and objective direction to overcome their subjectivity.

Inability to define the concept of "peace." Despite many attempts, the GPI authors could not scientifically define the concept of "peace" because of subjectivism. Peace is determined at them through violence or through security, which also expresses the violence.

Pretension for quantification of GPI indicators and its failure. We have emphasized above the importance of scientific quantification of peace indicators. But GPI indicators are bitty o­n all characteristics, by type: qualitative and quantitative, o­n the units of measurement: cost, natural, percentage, etc. They exclude virtually every statistical expression. Their summation and integration takes place o­nly in the subjective process of mystical expert evaluation in scoring and percent. This procedure cannot be "quantification" of peace indicators but o­nly its profanation and parody. It has no scientific meaning. It cannot go to any comparison with the universal quantification of scientific spheral indices of global peace in global statistics, discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of this book. The expert assessment is justified o­nly in impasse cases.

Practical and scientific application of GPI. This is stated in o­ne sentence of the report: "The index is currently used by many international organizations, governments and NGOs, including the World Bank, the OECD and the United Nations" [1]. But we have not found any precise list of its applications for 7 years with an analysis of its identified strengths and weaknesses. Hence the phrase o­n the application and scientific use of GPI remains unfounded. Based o­n our analysis, we can conclude that GPI subjectivism excludes of its scientific character and with it its practical application.


8.Political meaning of GPI

Our analysis shows that the GPI has no real scientific meaning and application, except for its positive intentions. No any peace it does not measure and any its trends it does not fix. It's all guesses o­n subjective expert scoring: how many experts so many possible ratings, and directly opposite. If so, then what is the GPI meaning, which persists in 7 years? We assume that its real sense is political.

It consists in the fact that by subjective assessments and arbitrary selections to mask the first main threat to global peace the US military empire and move it from the first militaristic place among the 162 countries to the middle of their list o­n peacefulness and annually increasing its GPI. The American empire has zero intention to peace and maximum militarism and violence in the world today that was proven Galtung and many honest and courageous analysts of this empire [4]. The American empire disguises itself in GPI through its subjectivism and arbitrariness of scoring, trying to give self a peace-loving nature. It brings unfortunate dwarfs and outcasts of this empire like Syria, North Korea, Iran, and of course, adding to them Russia as the US opponent, to the most aggressive and dangerous for peace countries through GPI. However, as a sociological poll of almost 68,000 respondents from 65 countries shown, they recognize the United States the greatest threat to global peace [5; 6]. What should we believe that scientific research of 68 thousand respondents or alchemy of subjective scoring 7 experts of GPI? The question is rhetorical.

In light of this GPI political meaning becomes clear why in it has not got such a revealing indicator for the USA as the foreign military bases, and some other "unpleasant" for them indices, such as disarmament, interventions, bombings, tortures, killings of innocent citizens [8] and the like? Because these indicators clearly expose the militaristic essence of the American empire. The USA has about 800 foreign military bases, and Russia o­nly 25 and all other countries combined - no more than 50 bases [7]. All these facts unfold the true meaning of GPI: not scientific, but political, ideological and propaganda in the service to American empire. Science does not perform these functions and subjectivism is very convenient for this purpose. In this regard, it should be emphasized that GPS, which claims to objective, scientific understanding of peace cannot have anything common with these functions of GPI, which is, wittingly or unwittingly, the index masking global militaristic hegemon of our time.

The article key content is expressed by model of Tetranet harmonious thinking in the chain of concepts: 1.Harmony of spheral factors of peace 2.Branch indicators of peace 3.Ssubjective expert scoring 4.Scientific insolvency GPI


Model-17. GPI: Subjectivism and scientific insolvency



9. Epilogue. Fall of the USA Empire and Relation to it

This issue has become for us a central discussion point. o­n the o­ne hand, we are absolutely convinced, after Professor Galtung [4; 6], that peace will never come o­n Earth as o­n it the last military empire is dominated USA Empire, which he predicted the collapse in 2020. Therefore, any science of global peace and any peacemaking are meaningless without recognition of its fall. It is inevitable due to the inexorable objective laws that opened Galtung, and its necessity for global peace, for its freedom and for the right of everyone to it. This freedom and this right are constantly violated by USA Empire. GPS reveals the laws of peaceful world order, an alternative to the laws of the militaristic world order established after 1945 by the American empire, after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which established for humanity the fear of global violence up today. Therefore, the world will never be better and alternative world order will never come to Earth until o­n it the USA military Empire is dominated. This is clear and understandable to most of humanity now, as evidenced by dozens of scientific publications o­n this topic. This is an objective fact, and it should be, and it is the part of a new science - GPS.

On the other hand, the American empire with its unimaginable number (many times larger than all other countries combined) of war crimes against humanity since 1945, starting with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has established a stable and fast growing anti-Americanism of global scale. It is the world spiritual resistance, in which are unacceptable mixed, from our point of view and from the perspective of GPS, two opposite o­n the subject, but the same in quality, intuitive relations: the hatred to American Empire and hatred to the American people. The o­nly correct moral, scientific and humane relation, separating the hatred subjects found Galtung, defining his own relation: "I love the US Republic , as much as I hate the US Empire for its violence of all kinds in so many places around the world" [4, 3].

Therefore, the US Empire fall does not mean the fall of the American people, the destruction of this country and the death of its population / inhabitants who are not responsible for the imperial decisions and actions. American empire is the American power elite, including politicians, financial clans and ideologues who led America into a state from which ordinary Americans suffer themselves. o­nly this difference is morally true, humane and meets GPS, its understanding of global peace from social harmony of spheral classes of the population, SPHERONS, which exclude empire (so all empires fall) and its partial disharmonious groups - PARTONS, o­ne of which in history is the USA power elite. Will fall and should drop its power, its world order and not the American people and the country's population.

Only with this in mind, an essential difference in GPS, it will avoid another disastrous extreme in relation to the American empire - complete anti-Americanism with the destruction of the citizens and the country as a whole, which means the death of hundreds of millions of civilians and innocent people. This is absolutely unacceptable philosophy for GPS as it is full violence, which excludes any social harmony. GPS avoid an error of traditional identification of a whole with the part, the people / population with the power elite / ruling class. GPS rejects any violent acts, including violent demonstrations and overthrow of government, recognizing o­nly peaceful transformation through a change of consciousness of most people.

Therefore, the fall of the ruling elite of the American empire GPS connects with three prerequisites.

1.Development based GPS ideology and consciousness of global peace as an alternative to military science, militaristic ideology and consciousness of inevitability and eternity of war.

2.Overcoming the false consciousness of elitism, God's chosen people, special mission of the American people, which contradicts the equality of all people, excludes justice between them and their priority as the main actors of peace and harmony rather than individual nations, states, governments, economy, etc. As recognized in the Declaration of Human Rights, all human beings are born equal, i.e. o­n nature. This nature of people, as evidenced by many philosophers and in GPS, is a social and peaceful, which excludes war, which can o­nly be understood as a social pathology from deep ignorance in harmony and as deviation from human nature. (If humanity would spend at least 1% of the military spending o­n scientific knowledge of social harmony, it would long live in peace and prosperity, freed from military pathology!). But the blind faith of some Americans that their exceptionally duty, asPresident Obama said recently, - to be a bulwark of freedom and democracy, to bring the American notions and protect the world entire, i.e. be the world's policeman - it's just a misconception that turns to other countries by violence and chaos. We see it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, Middle East etc. As if peace, freedom, democracy and justice can be achieved by violence, besides of which the American empire does not recognize other means, for example, such as harmony. Freedom cannot exist without peace and harmony. The first thing that takes a war - it is a human life and freedom of peace. The target cannot justify the means. Violence begets counter-violence and ultimately destroys its source.

3.To counter false consciousness of violence priority can o­nly scientific positive consciousness of global peace from social harmony through public enlightenment and harmonious education since childhood and based o­n it harmonious democracy of SPHERONS of America, excluding any war (about the spheral democracy see in later chapters). o­nly by this, peaceful and reasonable way the American Empire can be transformed into a peaceful prosperous society, seeing its meaning not in the global violence and in global aid to the poorest countries of the world o­n the basis of scientific concepts of peace, freedom, democracy and prosperity from harmony. That is the true purpose and destiny for America, which its founding fathers seen for the country, as well as its genius of modern times, as Martin Luther King, bequeathing to America "to shift the arms race into a peace race"! Nobody put this higher peaceful purpose! American society, serving the world and to others poorest countries, itself shall prosper and not to fall and deteriorate, destroying other countries.

No ways to keep the American empire, to prolong its life and disguise its war crimes, even with the most sophisticated subjective peace indices will save it from imminent fall. The rescue of American society from its imperial ruling elite is o­nly a new, positive peace consciousness of social harmony, presented initially in GPS, which is necessary, first of all, the American society for its salvation and survival from the empire.




1. Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP): http://economicsandpeace.org/; http://economicsandpeace.org/research/iep-indices-data/global-peace-index

2.2014 Global Peace Index Report:


3.2014 Global Peace Index Highlights: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/our-gpi-findings;


4. Galtung, Johan (2009). The Fall of the US Empire - and Then What? Successors, Regionalization or Globalization? US Fascism or US Blossoming?. Stadtschlaining, Austria, TRANSCEND University Press.

5. Lazare, Sarah (2013). Biggest Threat to World Peace: The United States. International polls. Common Dreams, December 31, 2013: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/12/31-6

6. Semashko, Leo (2014) Johan Galtung's Peacemaking Genius Theory: The US Empire Fall and Liberation of a Way towards Global Peace in the XXI Century (see 4.2. above);


7. http://www.pravda.ru/politics/military/defence/10-05-2013/1155538-baza-0/

8. McMurtry, John (2014) U.S. Holds the World Record of Killings of Innocent Civilians:



Roksana Sadykova,

GHA Ambassador of Peace and Disarmament from Harmony in Russia,


Address: Ufa, Russia

Email: roksana.sadykova@gmail.com


Leo Semashko, Ph.D.,

Founding President, Global Harmony Association (GHA) since 2005; State Councilor of St. Petersburg; Philosopher, Sociologist and Peacemaker from Harmony; Author of more than 300 scientific publications, including 16 books in 12 languages; Director: Tetrasociology Public Institute, Russia; Director, GHA Website Peace from Harmony: www.peacefromharmony.org; Editor in Chief, The ABC of Harmony for World Peace .. (www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=478) by 76 co-authors from 26 countries;

Home address: St. Petersburg, Russia,

Phone: 7 (812) 597-65-71, E-mail: leo.semashko@gmail.com,

August 25, 2014


4.4. Alternative Global Peace Index: Spheral/SPHERONS (SIGP). Leo Semashko


Here we will formulate a hypothesis of the alternative objective Global Peace Index and define in general terms the structure for its future development. If GPS cannot use an existing GPI because its scientific insolvency in its subjectivity (see above), GPS should create it o­n an alternative basis of social spheres and SPHERONS of social genome - SOCIONOME. Therefore, it will be titled as follows: Spheral or SPHERONS Global Peace Index (SIGP). This is its hypothesis and definition of its objective sources, which are reflected in SOCIONOME. It will measure the level of global peace not in indicators of national violence, as GPI, and in indicators of global social harmony all of its 16 fundamental elements discussed in the first chapter, and in the relevant spheral statistical indicators of SOCIONOME discussed in the second chapter.

If the level of global peace is equal to the level of global harmony, the most appropriate generalized unit of measurement for SIGP may be the percentage expression of the achieved level of social spheral harmony in any society and in the entire world. SIGP is the result of the arithmetic average of the harmonization of each of the 16 fundamental elements of social harmony in SOCIONOME. The first and key indicator among them is the level of harmonious consciousness in years of harmonious education of each of four SPHERONs, which included a certain amount (e.g., 30-50%) should take the intuitive harmony / peacefulness inherent to every human being. Of course, this and all other questions of SIGP construction will find a special study and scientific rationale in its development.

SIGP is a revolution in the methodology of this index, which consists in the transition from the branch indicators to fundamentally new spheral indices with the corresponding spheral statistics, which raise the index with the subjective to objective level. They also are not discarded but improve branch indicators as complementary SIGP. GPI as Index National Violence may be an addition for SIGP to express a measure of disharmony / violence in society in an alternative methodology. In GPI the factors of peace are the private / branch and in SIGP are holistic / spheral. It is qualitative difference and revolution of peace thinking, its transition from the subjective arbitrariness to the objective criterion of necessity and sufficiency.

As SIGP never ever can be equal to 100% - this is o­nly the highest ideal of full harmony for the eternal desire to it, the missing percent will be to express the level of social disharmony as the ground for possible conflicts, prophylaxis of which will prevent their worsening and eliminate social clashes. Of course, for the detailed elaboration of SIGP requires colossal work of a large integrated team of sociologists, statisticians, demographers, economists and other specialists o­n the basis of GPS and within relevant international institution as part of the Academy of Spheral Social Sciences, about which see below.


Dr. Leo Semashko



4.5. Destructive Criticism of GPS and Peacemaking Degeneracy.

The Start of War against GPS. Dr. Leo Semashko


This paragraph of the GPS (Global Peace Science) is based o­n analysis of the latest living facts of degeneration of traditional peacemaking, further: t peacemaking limited 20 and 21 centuries. The concept "degeneration" can be replaced by any similar term - decay, decomposition, regression, collapse, degradation, impotence and so o­n but the essence does not change, of which we have already mentioned and that is obvious to everyone. For more than o­ne hundred years, the old ideology, education, theory and practice of t - peacemaking were powerless to stop or prevent at least o­ne war, neither two world wars in the 20th century, nor the hundreds of local wars in it and in the 21st century. Over 60 years the war between Jews and Palestinians continues as well as the wars in some countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and elsewhere. The SIPRI annually record dozens of armed conflicts in the world [1], against which the peacekeepers are helpless and the facts of their impotence in front of everyone. Now begins a civil war in Ukraine. We see how the military experts from NATO, State Department, Pentagon and CIA have visit Kiev in their own interests but we do not see here any o­ne of the great peacemakers of U.S. or Europe, including Glen Martin. However, this does not diminish the particular achievements of t - peacemaking. They are powerless to stop the war but they can be useful in constructive paradigm of GPS. We keep our analysis within the scientific area and not cross its Rubicon with policies.

Previously, to eliminate ambiguity and misunderstanding GPS, we must repeat and emphasize o­ne key idea, which goes the refrain through all of the GPS chapters: all achievements of t - peacemaking for more than a hundred years are saved and used in GPS as its private positive toolkit but we did not aim to analyze it here. Our goal is different - the creation of GPS as a new scientific paradigm of global peace.

In the analysis of t peacemaking as a whole we clearly see its contradictory nature. o­n the o­ne hand, this is massive opposition to the war as a progressive international movement for peace that defines o­ne of the most prominent political and spiritual trends of the 20th century and prepares GPS. Peacemaking involves a myriad of spontaneous anti-war actions, as well as countless number of private and rigidly fragmented peacemaking institutions, public organizations, ideas and researches in various fields, accumulated over more than o­ne hundred years. Metaphorically speaking, these achievements resemble a chaotic pile of old and almost useless bricks today, of which it is impossible to construct a building global peace, because it is no foundation, frame and actors/builders. GPS is intended to create and open them to give old peacekeeping bricks a new life and revive them in a new way in the new paradigm. Therefore, GPS no waives from former peacekeeping achievements but creates conditions for them rebirth, finding them a system place in the theoretical and practical architecture of global peace.

On the other hand, t - peacemaking, for more than a hundred years of existence, was unable to prevent or stop at least o­ne war and reverse the growth of a militaristic tendency in the world. It is an obvious fact, which casts doubt o­n the peace movement capacity, its good for peace, its reality and the possibility to achieve its purpose at least in any historical perspective. The militarist trend in the world, along with the growth of military budgets and the arms race, has been steadily expanding and enhanced contrary to all peacekeeping efforts, more and more threatening military annihilation of humanity. People, nations and governments do not see in t - peacemaking ideas and tools that can reverse the militaristic trend and ensure humanity to build global peace. None of the peacemaking classics, the concepts some of which are discussed in other chapters of GPS, did create a scientific theory of global peace, which could consolidate their countless private achievements. The traditional peace thinking, for the most part, has degenerated into a "game of beads" of thin intellectuals, who has no effect o­n the real life with its wars and armed conflicts.

Devoid of a consolidating idea/theory/concept/science t - peacemaking degenerates not o­nly spiritually but also as a practical peace movement that actually died except for a few still operating his last of the Mohicans, funded by the rich persons. All of the above - it is objective evidence of degradation of t - peacemaking that is felt by world civil society and all honest thinkers and scientists. The new age need a new theory and practice of peacemaking.

The GPS formation is a scientific attempt to answer this historical challenge of the new century. This attempt cannot be successful within the countless repetition of traditional peacekeeping ideas of any quality, level and scale. It can be successful and hopeful within a fundamentally new ideas and theoretical approaches, i.e. o­nly as a scientific revolution of peace thinking and scientific breakthrough in social cognition that is expressed in the title and content of the GPS book [2]. o­nly such a scientific revolution will provide fundamentally innovative paradigm of global peace, consolidating all past peacekeeping achievements. GPS with its unique ideas of global harmony, SOCIONOME (social genome of peace from harmony) and SPERONS, harmonious spheral classes of the population as natural sources and spontaneous actors of global peace - this is the first in history of peacemaking sample such scientific innovation and revolutionary paradigm.

Naturally, its creation cannot be easy, simple and smooth, without a struggle and suppression that is well illustrated by Glenn Martins negative letter as his complete negation of GPS and powerlessness to oppose it worthy scientific alternative. Why t-peacemakers reject peace it is a special issue involving the main nerve of t - peacemaking degradation, which is discussed in this and other paragraphs of GPS. Of course, Glens letter is a slight but representative in scientific and ethical terms public demonstration of called degradation, which will be supplemented by other similar examples in the critical part of GPS. Here and now we will analysis the title letter o­n the basis of outlined above methodological platform of GPS relationship to t - peacemaking.

Glen Martin, PhD is the famous American philosopher and author of many books and articles, the leader of several public organizations engaged in promotion of the Earth Constitution and the Chair of Peace Studies at Redford University (www.radford.edu/gmartin). Glen cooperates with GHA since 2010 and has co-authored several GHA books and projects (http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=428). Below we publish his critical letter of May 28, 2014 for the GPS first two chapters [2]. The first of these chapters is devoted to logic and theory of SPHERONS - harmonious spheral classes of the population as a natural source of global peace, the theory of which is the core of GPS, and the second - their statistical empirical proof, which is minimal but sufficient. As we know, the theory and empirical basis are two necessary and sufficient foundations of any science, including GPS. To reject any science, it is necessary to logically destroy its theory and contrast it the refuting facts. Below we analyze how Glen Martin solved this task of denial/suppression of GPS in his critical writing. To facilitate the analysis of this letter, it was divided into 20 numbered logical fragments.


Glen Martins letter o­n May 28, 2014

Dear Leo,

(1)I wish you the best of luck with this book and promoting global peace science. (2)But as someone who has been Chairperson for many years of a program in peace studies at this university, I have to say that GPS is not a panacea for world peace and it is very unlikely that the placing it at the beginning of this book is going to somehow make thoughtful and informed people subscribe to it.

(3)As I wrote to you earlier (which resulted youre your removing me as co-editor of the book), none of the major themes that characterize the worldwide movement in peace studies appears in GPS. (4)There is no consideration of the vast contributions to understanding the violent dynamics of our world made by Max Weber, Immanuel Wallerstein, Jürgen Habermas, and others. There is no consideration of the global ethics movement and the great amount of work done o­n defining global ethics o­n behalf of peace. There is nothing about the theory and practice of nonviolence and the vast amount of work coming from the inspirations of Gandhi, King, Tolstoy, etc.

Nor is there anything about the worldwide movement for the study and practice of nonviolent communication led my Marshall Rosenberg and others. There is nothing substantive about the role of capitalism in the promotion of war, a literature spearheaded by Marx and continued by many others. There is no analysis of totalitarianism, its forms and roles in war and violence, and the literature o­n that subject, led, for example, by Hannah Arendt. There is nothing about the vast literature o­n human rights and human dignity and its contributions to creating peace and harmony. Nor is there anything about the ethics of care and compassion and the literature around that theme. (5)What are all these scholars, working in all these fields, going to think about GPS? I doubt very much if they are going to drop their own substantial work and flock to GPS.

(6)Regarding GPS itself, it is not clear to me how the four societal spheres can be effectively and properly differentiated or what value it would be to approach society this way. Each set of social information? {C-? These are the defects in Glens letter} humanitarian, instrumental (informational), organizational, and technical would seem to apply to all the spheres. I can see gathering specific information for selective purposes defined by certain spheres, but how this contributes to peace is not apparent to me.

(7)One can appreciate that these four functions are essential to society (humanitarian, informational, organizational, and technical), but recognizing this appears to me to be merely a descriptive feature of the interrelation of these. However, I do not see these as classes of people (8)but as functions that are often the domain of any o­ne person: for example, I personally have humanitarian functions, informational functions, organizational functions and technical functions? {C-?} as do many other people. (9)This categorization appears somewhat arbitrary and limited in its usefulness.

(10)Nor do I see how study of these functions is going to lead to harmony or peace. Historically society both nationally and internationally has been involved with much conflict, war, and violence. I do not see any prescription here for changing things in ways that would promote peace. (11)Like the famous case of Adolph Eichmann, I may appear to have benign technical, organizational, etc., functions, but I am still part of a social machine dedicated to war, violence, and genocide.

(12)I can perhaps see how the sociology with multivariable and dimensions would be a good place for dialogue among social scientists and other thinkers. But how is this going to get the world to peace? What if my technical job is building nuclear weapons? Am I in disharmony with something? I do not see how the words disbalance or disproportion (that appear many times) are illuminating as to how we can achieve peace. (13)According to the definitions in the chapter, I could apparently be building weapons while in a state of social harmony.

(14)Neither do I find analysis of the institutions and motivations usually associated with war and violence: I do not find any mention of multinational corporations, systems of exploitation, industrial-military complexes, militarized sovereign national security states, terror and counter-terror, undemocratic structures of governing, motives for imperialism, patterns of hate, fear, and ignorance, etc.? {C-?} things that are most often taken as causes of war and impediments to be overcome through a process of both dialogue as well as structural changes. What am I missing here?

(15)And as I said above, neither do I see mention of the positive things that are usually associated with the establishing of peace: conflict resolution, authentic democratic modes of governing, economic conversion to peaceful goods and services, dialogue directed toward mutual understanding, nonviolence in theory and practice, nonviolent forms of communication, economic and social justice, truth and reconciliation processes, respect for human rights and human dignity, etc.

(16)In the literature of peace studies, analyses are often divided into structural dimensions (economic, social, and political systems that may support either war or peace) and psycho-social dimensions (peoples fears, emotions, moral convictions, attitudes, etc.). How does Tetrasociology address transformation in each of these areas? Just collecting data is not going to create peace. What are the ethical, structural, social, and psychological characteristics of a world peace system (as opposed to the present war-system)? In these chapters, I see the word harmony appear over and over again, but its usage appears so vague and general that I do not see how it seriously addresses any of the above issues.

(17)As I said above, I wish you the best of luck with this, but I do not think that GPS supplies any hitherto undiscovered secret about how to create peace in a complex world. (18)I am willing to bet that many people contributing papers to this volume have much to say that is ignored by . And I do not think it will not help the cause of peace if we fool ourselves into thinking we have a magic bullet.

(19)My best harmony wishes to you and all the authors of this book. (20)We all sincerely want peace, but in the quest for peace and harmony we also must also remain faithful to truth, intellectual integrity, and the tradition of quality scholarship upon whose shoulders all peace researchers build.


Dr. Glen T. Martin

President, World Constitution and Parliament Assoc. (www.worldparliament-gov.org)

President, Institute o­n World Problems (www.earth-constitution.org)

Professor of Philosophy, Radford University (www.radford.edu/gmartin)

Laureate, GUSI Peace Prize International


In accordance with the world's scientific ethic/culture, our analysis consists of two parts: 1. Definition of positive importance of this letter ​​and 2. Critical part. Unfortunately, this ethic/culture is rejected in Glens letter because it is a complete, 100% denial of GPS. He does not find it any positive thing. An interesting question arises: that can be positive in full negation? We try to answer this difficult question, the essence of which is that deployed denial is indirectly (i.e. besides the authors purpose and understanding) significant and instructive in some aspects.

The indirect positive meaning of Glens letter for GPS is as follows:

1.This letter expresses the internal contradictions of the GHA in the process of creating the world's first GPS, in which Glen participated with the beginning, with the ABC Harmony of 2011/12 [3], where the GPS philosophical sources and scientific roots are. Therefore, this letter is a good indicator of the intense atmosphere of creative contradictions, obstacles, doubts, anguishes and searches, in which it is born. It is within the GHA. But in the external environment, this atmosphere for GPS will be a thousand times more intense and complex, facing with a dominant militarism and his hawks.

2. This is the first philosophical criticism of GPS; more precisely, the first two chapters (only 83 pages). In this criticism the author expressed his ideological doubt in GPS. Glens criticism indirectly, besides his will, helps us and all to better understand the GPS preferences and its weaknesses and defects, which require more attention from its coauthors.

3. This criticism indirectly (other than the authors desire) sharpens for GPS the old philosophical problem of military/peace nature of man and humanity, which has key theoretical importance in GPS and scientifically solved it.

4. The main positive point of this letter is that it clearly illustrates (besides the authors will and consciousness) the degradation of traditional peacemaking, unable to contrast GPS the new positive alternative, impotent in the ideological war against the scientific revolution of peace thinking in GPS and ability to defend o­nly their own private old achievements that limited his horizon. Therefore we, the GHA, should thank Glen for his criticism in these positive, even though indirect, regardless to his intentions, consequences for GPS.

Critical part. We must start with a reminder of two things:

1. The GPS contents include 12 chapters (along with military part), of which we wrote at this moment o­nly the first two. These chapters are the key theoretically and empirically, but they are o­nly o­ne sixth of GPS as a whole. Therefore, to judge it as a whole will be correct when will be presented all of its chapters. Unfortunately, Glen judges GPS as a whole o­nly by its two chapters of the twelve. It makes his criticism inadequate subject.

2. We started with GPS since March 2013. Glen took in it an active part in various roles, has agreed to be the editor and to write for it big section: "The Earth Constitution of Global Peace" and appreciated the social importance of GPS and Tetrasociology. For example, he wrote about me and GPS in February 2014:

I am amazed at your energy and persistence in developing this work of world peace, and I congratulate you o­n it.02/02/14

I think the subtitle that you propose for the GPS book (with including in it The Earth Constitution and in GPS the Glens Section with this title o­n 50 pages) is fine. I think your work o­n Tetrasociology (TS) should come first in the book, and it should be free to make the claim that all theoretical approaches to peace are subsumed within this approach and therefore it proposes to call itself global peace science We want to promote both TS and the Earth Constitution as much as we can.... we need to maintain the objectivity that sees GPS as encompassing the application to all domains of relevant human knowledge to the study of peace. 03/02/14

They are the wonderful ideas and evaluations of GPS, which he had so much more and which we do not find today.

But the main and highest grade of Tetrasociology, which is the theoretical basis of GPS and the ABC of Harmony, Glen gave in this book in 2012, defining it as "our new planetary paradigm, the fundamental revolution in science and paradigm shift in human consciousness" [3, 296]. What we, the GHA members, now must believe: that Glen wrote in his letter now or what he has said many times for three months before and earlier? For GPS he has not found now any positive word. In short, Glen-traditionalist suppressed and defeated Glen-innovator.

The answer o­n the question: why Glen turned from supporter of GPS into its opponent, we can find, first of all, in his dismissal of the second editor role in GPS book. This, in turn, has some other organizational reasons, including his refusal to donate even o­ne dollar for peace. Now we will consider the 20 logical fragments of his writing.

 (1) Is it possible to be sincere, wishing good luck GPS, which you have declared war and completely reject? It is a paradox, as a wish of good luck from the executioner mouth to the victim. Can GHA trust false wishes? Glen himself hesitates to call them "sincere" at the beginning and at the end of his letter. It's just a mask of politeness.

(2) God gave man for all his/her affairs a panacea of mind, o­ne of the highest manifestations of which is science; therefore GPS is a panacea for humanity from wars. Reject this panacea of peace, it means to reject a panacea against war and then allow the eternal and ineradicable existence of wars. It is recognized by the militarists claiming the military nature of human. If so, peacemaking is meaningless and turns into an element of culture of war, not peace, as now. Then it leads to self-denial and becomes excuse militarism. This is its degeneration and collapse. Peacemaking with a similar rod never achieves peace. We, GHA, contrary, recognize the peaceful nature of human that Tetrasociology explains scientifically, in particular, in the ABC of Harmony. Therefore, we consider the GPS, along with other conditions, which are defined by it, really as a panacea of peace against war. This is a crucial way to eradicate all wars and transform the human history of military in peace. Why this intellectual possibility should scare thinking people? o­n the contrary, it will bring them, if they want peace. It will o­nly scare militarists even masked peacekeepers.

You here well oppose yourself as Chairperson of a program in peace studies at Radford University to fundamentally new GPS, which from the beginning has positioned itself as an innovative/revolutionary approach to peace. Why are you now demonstrate your aggression against GPS scientific revolution in social knowledge, in sociology and statistics primarily? Why you, peacemaker, are not trying to cooperate with it peacefully and friendly, preferring to fight with it?

(3) You obviously have forgotten that almost a year ago, we defined our GPS as a scientific revolution associated with a fundamentally new paradigm of peace and peace thinking. Therefore, this paradigm is the main subject of analysis in GPS and long known issues of t-peacemaking, about which are written millions of books and articles for a hundred years and which are not excluded from the GPS are considered in it o­nly as necessary in its later chapters. Consequently, we can hardly be considered this remark as correct.

(4) Here you painstakingly enumerate about a dozen missing, o­n your opinion, themes in GPS and the same number of authors and then as many again from traditional peacemaking repertoire. So half of your letter constitutes the reproaches of GPS what lacks in it. I could still add them twice. The pretension to grasp the immensity is non-scientific, especially in a small book of 200-300 pages. We are sure this is not scientific criticism and primitive attempt to smear. In this piece of your writing, as we feel, you list themes of your semester lecture course for students, which you are reading, probably 30 years old, and want that GPS was its copy. But GPS will never be this copy in principle, because such courses are taught more than 100 years but they did not stop and did not prevent any of the hundreds of wars, with more than 200 million victims in the 20th century. Aggressiveness of the U.S., the main warlord in the world since 1945, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, from your lectures and the like is not reduced, it is constantly growing. You propose to continue this peacekeeping comedy another 100 years, when will be a third world war, and if it will not be last, will be the fourth world war and so o­n to infinity in the fun of peace professors. We, GHA, do not wish to participate in this senseless and immoral peacemaking farce and intend to radically change the peacekeeping theater repertoire. You do not want to change it, we change it. This is our disharmony and distance. Already o­n page 3 of the GPS first chapter is a list of 40 thinkers of new repertoire, most of which you do not have. In other chapters of GPS they are complemented by new dozens of researchers.

We aim to create a fundamentally new, authentically scientific and holistic approach to global peace, which is missing and in which will find worthy place all the achievements of traditional research of peace. You do not see that there is in GPS and see what is not there. What do you call this method? This is not a criticism but a method of psychological violence and mental suppression in the ideological war to discredit and moral destroy the opponent with his innovative ideas, constituting the scientific revolution, what you do with GPS. Such methods are beyond the realm of science and ethics. Scientific and ethical criticism has to do with what is, not with what is not. You do not see and completely neglect analysis of the GPS key ideas, which are absent in t peacemaking: theory of global peace from social harmony, SOCIONOME - social genome of peace from harmony, and SPHERONS, harmonious spheral classes of the population as eternal sources, causes, actors and guarantors of global peace. You say nothing about them. You ignore them. You neglects these ideas as if they do not exist, rejecting them o­n 100%. What's it called? As anything, but it is not a scientific and ethical criticism. How would you rate similar attitude to your Constitution? Incidentally, advising Marshall Rosenberg, you have violated the four rules of its non-violent communication, suppressing ignoring all the GPS key ideas. GHA develops these ideas 10 years. How GHA members can evaluate your denial of these ideas? This is a rhetorical question.

So, resume. The half of your letter is empty list of what is missing in the GPS and the other half is the purely negative judgments about GPS devoid of logic, facts, and positive alternative. And then, and more is outside of a scientific and constructive criticism. Therefore, your letter as a whole - it's just your personal opinion (doxa) of propagandist nature devoid of any scientific and peace value. We do not find in your letter any specific thoughts useful for GPS. It is destructive, hostile and negative criticism. This is your ideological war with GPS. Ignoring the main scientific, empirical argument GPS (the second chapter) - its statistical facts, you behave like Hegel, who said: if the facts do not coincide with my theory it is much worse for the facts.

(5) Think for others is very dangerous, because it means to deprive their own opinions that do totalitarians. Doubt for others is also a sin. You cannot answer for everyone. Why do scientists have to throw their studies when they can do them multiple times more efficient and most importantly useful within GPS, which is open to all, without exception peacekeeping achievements of all sizes. GPS is created not instead of them and in addition to them to consolidate them, to strengthen their role and raise their practical value. The true scientists who are not afraid of innovative ideas will o­nly welcome such a new opportunity for their research and would be willing to cooperate with GPS. Of course, if they are not biased a priori negative attitude towards GPS, like Glenn, who has reason to be offended.

(6) If you have not read the ABC of harmony and GPS first chapter where it explains then that's your problem. In addition, you could read the introduction to Marxs German Ideology, Max Weber, Parsons, Braudel, Toffler, Bourdieu, Castells and others who explore the fundamental role of this structure in society, including for peace. Peace is a social phenomenon, the reasons of which are in the structures of society and structural harmony. Misunderstanding this main social idea is an indicator of intellectual degradation of t - peacemaking, which says about all, except the main - structural harmony of society as the ultimate source of peace. Here is the cause of your incompetent questions about the information, educate in which you have no place in critical analysis. Please, read the ABC of Harmony.

(7) Rejecting the structure of functions and analysis of their role, you reject the whole direction in classical sociology, which I fully share and use in GPS. Every science recognizes the structural and functional analysis as the own fundamental base, which covers the deep laws of relationship of structures and functions. Such for society are four spheres of production and four classes of people (SPHERONS) who are employed in these spheres by the production function of the necessary resources PIOT, without which there can be no society and no individual in history. You do not understand it and want to humiliate GPS, so you qualify their "merely a descriptive." Therefore, you do not see these functions as "classes of people." Maybe you do not see the functions of the capitalists and proletarians, feudal lords and peasants, slaves and free, and the like as classes of people? Any group of people is a definite social function. This is the ABC of sociology and philosophy. Why you do not know it?

(8) Yes, everyone human has these universal functions, so each o­ne is employed in each of the four spheres but, for the most part, he/she spends his time o­n o­ne of them, which likes for she/he more and to which the person has been prepared. Therefore, the person belongs mostly (on time) to o­ne of four SPHERONS. Human freedom is o­nly in the choice of o­ne of four objective spheral functions as a major for himself but he is powerless to cancel them or create new spheral function. He/she can o­nly create a new partial function within them.

(9) This your conclusion is just another attempt to unduly diminish the GPS and thereby humiliate it. This and similar classifications of spheres are recognized dozens of prominent scientists, starting with Marx but they lack the division of population in these spheres, which was first proposed and statistically (empirically) is proved in Tetrasociology. Therefore, it is an objective, scientific and useful in the highest degree. Your conclusion is devoid of any scientific basis, both theoretical and empirical. It is empty and meaningless words.

(10) If you do not understand the essence of these social functions and their value ​​in society, then, of course, you cannot understand how they can "lead to harmony or peace" and to see any peace "prescriptions". If these features are important in society, they are essential for social harmony, peace, justice and for generating corresponding prescriptions. We have proved this in the first chapter of GPS. Please, read it. I can o­nly regret that you cannot comprehend these simple and obvious ideas of GPS. Your mind is focused o­nly o­n the psychological understanding of peace but its key causes lie in the social structural level that is confirmed by all the conflicts and wars of our time. We can o­nly wonder at your social incomprehension.

(11) Thank God, you are not Eichmann. But your example illustrates o­nly elementary contradictory of human who in different social structures reveals either good or bad, including militaristic tendencies and nothing more.

(12) You're right, sociology has not yet become a good place for peace dialogue. Among its more than 120 disparate branches it has sociology of war but no peace sociology. This is explained by the narrowness of sociology, which is not available social wholeness, in which are rooted the origins of global peace. Peace o­n Earth can o­nly be global, for all countries and peoples and not for some. Therefore, GPS is founded o­n fundamentally new, global and harmonious multi-dimensional (pluralistic) Tetrasociology that develops me about 40 years. It is based o­n the synthesis of tens of sociological concepts of the past, including Marx, Weber, Wallerstein, Habermas, and unknown to you Braudel, Sorokin, Parsons, Bourdieu, Toffler, Castells and many others in my dozens of books and articles. Why do you ignore this sociology that underlies GPS as well as the ABC of Harmony, o­ne of the authors of which you are and which you appreciated and praised as "our new planetary paradigm, the fundamental revolution in science and paradigm shift human consciousness" [3, 298]? Where in your neglect of GPS is "non-violent communication" of Rosenberg, who saw this communication and life as a whole in harmony? He called people: "create your life, your relationships, and your world in harmony with your values"[4]. You like Rosenberg, but reject harmony in your lectures and in your conference, so with it you reject non-violent communication, which work for peace.

Your questions here correspond to the GPS first two chapters, which I cannot repeat to you. Please, read them.

I also do not see how your Constitution, which you often mention, can provide peace in militaristic ocean without its peaceful transformation, restructuring and without global actors of peace, i.e. without SPHERONS? This is legal utopia as at Kant, who proposed it more 200 years ago but humanity is now also far from it. Everyone can see that conscious global peace was unattainable in traditional partial structures in the entire past history. Therefore, your Constitution, if it wants to ensure global peace must be based o­n a fundamentally new, universal and eternal social structure of SPHERONS, which is disclosed in GPS. Your Constitution may be excellent in legal terms but it's no good socially deprived the new social structure in sociology and statistics, without which it is unlikely will be recognized by scientists and politicians.

I suggested you to repair this deep defect of your Constitution through Tetrasociology but you refused, because it requires your new education. Toffler wrote: "In the 21st century an illiterate is longer no considered who cannot read and write but those who cannot learn and relearn." We invite you to learn and relearn in Tetrasociology as a science of social harmony and world peace, which has a strong theoretical and empirical basis. But you have chosen a random social structure 11 sectors of Barbara Hubbard [5]. We found no the traces of its theoretical and empirical foundation and you keep them secret. This structure is a purely arbitrary set of concepts, which is devoid of the following important social elements and attributes: society and people, politics and finance, democracy and power, harmony and disharmony, resources and processes, human and family, nations and classes and so o­n. This full of holes structure is well exhausted and supplemented in four spheres of GPS at solid scientific foundation, partially presented in its first two chapters. But you chose instead it holey structure of sectors. Why? Obviously, your choice is determined by nonscientific motives of GPS suppression.

(13). In the state of conscious global social harmony, you, like anyone else, do not have to create weapons and equip the army, because in this state will be achieved general and complete disarmament.

 (14) Your first sentence in this passage exposes you that you did not read carefully even the GPS contents and introduction, which clearly states that to the analysis of war, military science and military-industrial complex will dedicate the second part of the book, which we have not reached still. You are looking at a substantial pioneering book the traditional details. This is equivalent to finding pieces of horse carriage in a modern car. These parts are wheels, springs, control, seats. They present but in a whole new way. Similarly is with GPS. In addition, you should understand: we cannot and does not aim to cover an infinite number of elements of peace-building, or at least those that you list. To illuminate them, we need to write ten books and ten years, at least. To what you doom us? We understand: to kill GPS.

(15) Again, the list of what is missing in two chapters of GPS. Why you do not touch their main ideas? About which we do not find you a single word? What can we say about your qualification and intentions, if you do not affect them? In your student program too many are not. For example, you no mention and explain the great islands of peace in history, such as Numa Pompilius, Ashoka, 300 years peace of the Iroquois peoples, etc., as well as analysis of the ideas of universal harmony, generating peace, in Vedas of ancient India, in Avesta of ancient Persia, in Plato's ideal state, in the writings of Aristotle, St. Augustine, Farabi, in numerous treatises of "Eternal Peace", etc. Without GPS you are powerless to understand, analyze and explain them to your students.

(16) It is again unlettered question, the answer to which you could find in GPS two chapters please, read them. Surprisingly, as a philosophy professor, peacemaker, coauthor of the ABC of Harmony, which was written in the GHA almost during full 2011 year with Glenns participation, who praised it as "our new planetary paradigm and fundamental scientific revolution" may not know now what is social harmony and remain ignorant in its understanding as the sole source and cause of peace? It is obviously o­ne of two things: either his participation in the ABC was formal and false or he now thickens negative paints in his letter. What is his dynamics? This is Glens paradox for the GHA members. What we must believe and trust: that he wrote about harmony in the ABC or the fact that he wrote about it in a letter now? Moreover, in a recent Glens prospect of his next year's conference in Radford University o­n "Building the New World and Planetary Peace" he never uses the concept of harmony [5]! Amazing! As if he is not a co-author of the ABC of harmony with the most flattering review about it! In his article in the ABC says that he "understands that freedom, peace, justice and prosperity primarily arise from ... harmonious institutions", i.e. of social harmony; and his Constitution "establishes a dynamic peace system for the Earth from social harmony" [3, p.108 -109]. Here, in his short two-page article the concept of harmony and its derivatives appear 14 times! How then can you talk about the lack of understanding harmony and expose it ostracism now?

What is the reason? Is it in true ignorance of harmony or in the intentional ideological suppression of it? What should think the GHA members and 75 co-authors of the ABC about the sincerity of our colleague in this graceless case? Or he hopes that we do not remember anything? That he disavows today? Excluding the harmony of his conference, we can understand that he disavows today.

 (17) Of course, for you GPS, and with it global peace and its cause, remain secret because you have not read its first chapters. We have seen that you nothing else read in the first chapters of GPS of their 83 pages except preamble (the first 12 pages). Now I doubt even in your ability to read. You have not touched the key ideas of GPS: as Russian fable says - he saw lots of insects but did not notice the elephant. This can hardly be called a honest and fair criticism. You ignore the most important facts of GPS - its second chapter (43 pages), entirely devoted to statistical proof of SPHERONS, about which (proof) we do not find a single word in your letter. o­nly a circus conjurer can reject science without touching any of its fact. Therefore, the scientific value of your criticism is zero, and as such it represents a degradation of your peacemaking. This is a suppression of freedom of thought and dissent. Your letter is devoid of honest scientific criticism.

(18). Your charges do not have any examples. Whom and what GPS ignores, when our principled position is to consolidate and preserve all peace achievements? This is pure slander. With who are you willing to bet? WHO would bet with you? Who whom is deceiving and who whom is helping? Maybe you are cheating us and helping warlords instead peacekeepers? ..... Leave this political theme.

(19) Your wishes to us sound like the wishes of destruction of our GPS. See also (1).

(20) Your destructive criticism of GPS, not leaving it anyone chance of life, forcing us to doubt in the sincerity of your wish for peace. Can we trust your sincerity to wish peace when you reject its science - GPS? The true and sincere peacemakers are solidary with any scientific step towards peace. You stopped and suppressed the GHA scientific step to global peace contrary "faithful to truth, intellectual integrity, and the tradition of quality scholarship", which were trampled in your destructive criticism. This showed our scrupulous scientific analysis of each phrase of your letter.

The o­nly thing we can assume is that you wrote your murderous criticism in a bad mood and terrible time trouble, which allowed you to quick look o­nly the first 10 pages from the 83 in two GPS chapters. (Otherwise we cannot explain the fact that you have supported us 3 years and here turned around 180 degrees at o­nce). So your criticism turned unfriendly, empty and superficial. We invite you to write slowly, according "faithful to truth, intellectual integrity, and the tradition of quality scholarship" constructive criticism of key ideas and facts GPS: hypothesis of social harmony, spheral structures and functions united in SOCIONOME, spheral employment, spheral classes of the population (SPHERONS) as global social structure of peace, statistical empirical researches of Russia SPHERONS and five schools from five countries: Algeria, Argentina, India, Russia and Rwanda, etc. Please, prove to us that you are able to not o­nly destructive but also constructive criticism. We will be happy to publish it in the GPS book, like any other scientific criticism.

We also will publish your letter and our response to it in the book and o­n the website. Are you able to publish these texts at least o­n your website for your students and your conference participants, to revive and to inspire them through scientific revolution of GPSat least in its criticism? Could you ruin our doubts o­n this score?

In conclusion, as a consequence of the long ideological war with the scientific revolution of Tetrasociology, I must emphasize my position of dissident in the West and in Russia. Marxists in Russia criticized and persecuted me since 1976 and still for the refusal from monistic Marxist theory of classes and class struggle, for its replacement by pluralist theory of harmonious spheral classes of the population - SPHERONS paradigm [6]. I am criticized in the West since 2002, starting with my first and a key book in English for the World Congress of Sociology in Brisbane, Australia [7] for the refusal from the traditional social thinking, limited by narrow branch concepts of industrial society and its replacement with a holistic social science of global Harmony - SOCIONOME paradigm or social genome. In both I was a dissident for my alternative thinking. But for the West I am dissident as Russian (not Anglo-Saxon) author of fundamentally new holistic social science of global harmony (my dissent confirmed and Glen), and for Russia I am dissident as author alternative to monistic Marxism the harmonious pluralistic worldview freed from the ideas of violent revolutions and wars. Both paradigms also constitute a scientific revolution of GPS, which is derived from Tetrasociology and in which it continues and develops.

As proved by Thomas Kuhn, the scientific revolutions are inevitable, necessary and unstoppable, each of them meets a stubborn resistance but sooner or later wins [8] o­nly in the way of the scientific revolution of GPS is possible update of social history in a harmonious civilization and global peace. But GPS must overcome the resistance of the ideological war, initiated by the Glen Martin at the beginning of formation and output in light of GPS. Peace science is born into the war. It's a fact of disharmonious society. This is normal for it. This is the reality with all its attendant consequences, including hostility to knowledge of global peace. This is a deep disharmony of modern dying industrial civilization, overcoming of which is the historical challenge of the 21st century and mission of GHA.




1.Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). SIPRI Yearbook 2013: http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2013/01

2.Semashko Leo and the GHA coauthors (2014) Global Peace Science or Peaceloveology: The First Common Good for the 21st Century and every Human, Scientific Revolution of Peace Thinking and Creation of Peace from Harmony instead War (in progress): www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=585

3.Semashko Leo and the GHA 75 coauthors from 26 countries (2012) The ABC of Harmony for World Peace, Harmonious Civilization and Tetranet Thinking.New Delhi, Doosra Mat Prakashan: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=478

4.Rosenberg, Marshall (2003) Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. Second Edition. Encinitas, CA: Puddle Dancer Press. ISBN 1-892005-03-4

5.Martin, Glen (2014) Building the New World Conference: www.btnw.org

6.Semashko, Leo. Suppression of Thought Freedom in Russia, 35 years:www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=534

7.Semashko, Leo (2002) Tetrasociology: Responses to Challenges. St.-Petersburg State Polytechnic University: http://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=145

8.Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-45807-5. LCCN 96013195.


Dr. Leo Semashko

GHA President,

GPS Initiator and Editor


4.6.Traditional Peacemaking: Subjectivism, Weakness and Inability to Prevent a Third World War. Peacemaking 1914-2014: o­ne Hundred Years of Defeats and Degradation. Leo Semashko


Peacemaking mountain of the US military

Empire gave birth to peace mouse for

Pentagons cat.



This article is a brief overview conclusion of the fourth chapter. In it were published the articles analyzing the main achievements and shortcomings of traditional peacemaking. For 10 years of the GHA searches, none of its members could not write an article summarizing the achievements and shortcomings of peacemaking in the past century with a list of its achievements and contributions to global peace, nor recommend anything like that of the world's peacemaking archive during this time. We will try at least in minimal degree to fill this gap.

Pacifism as opposition to the war and violence by peaceful means and their moral condemnation is the earliest peaceful movement, whose origins are rooted in the Indian religion of Jainism, which denied any war. The pacifist organizations in the West first emerged after the Napoleonic Wars, reaching a wider distribution in the 19th century end, in Russia in the form of "Tolstoystvo". The pacifists proposed ban war, all the conflicts between the states decide into international arbitration courts, to conduct a full disarmament and military obligations to replace civil alternative. We will not touch its multi-millennial history, limiting it to 20 century, in which he could not withstand the start of two world wars. Therefore, with all its moral virtues it was completely discredited because of its subjectivity, powerless against the war. Pacifism and its criticism have enormous literature, which requires a special analysis in a separate chapter in the following publications of GPS.

Of the thousands of peace organizations in the world, about 80% of whom are in the USA, briefly highlight the characteristics of a few of them.

One of the oldest organizations, in fact American, was founded in 1964, 50 years ago, is the International Peace Research Association (IPRA: http://ipra-peace.com). IPRA unites twenty five research Commissions: Art and Peace, Conflict Resolution and Peace-Building, Development and Peace, Eastern Europe, Ecology and Peace, Forced Migration, Gender and Peace, Global Political Economy, Indigenous Peoples' Rights, Internal Conflicts, International Human Rights, Nonviolence, Peace Culture and Communications, Peace Education, Peace History, Peace Journalism, Peace Movements, Peace Negotiations and Mediation, Peace Theories, Reconciliation and Transitional Justice, Religion and Peace, Security and Disarmament, Sport and Peace, Youth and Peace, Peace Tourism. It is a beautiful and broad peace themes! But what is its result? - War and violence are preserved, the world has not become better and nothing has changed for real peace.

IPRA avoids the terms "science", "scientific research", "scientific definition of peace" and the like, obviously not counting possible to recognize their researches as scientific. Then what are these studies? Obviously therefore, we do not find scientific, generally accepted in the IPRA, the definition of "peace." We do not find also a list of the achievements and contributions of IPRA in global peace for 50 years of its work. The o­nly thing that we found to their website is a list of 24 conferences for 50 years. Is it possible to achieve peace by the conferences? What is the meaning and result of IPRA in 50 years? These questions remain unanswered.

The Peace Theories Commission generalized that it and IPRA "focuses o­n those philosophies of peace that may contribute to undermining the ideologies of war and conflict. We are particularly interested in bringing together scholars from different cultural and spiritual viewpoints in the search for common paradigms of peace thinking beyond the paranoias of competing world-views "(http://ipra-peace.com/P_T_C.html).

Unfortunately, this paranoia remained insuperable in the INRA and peacekeeping as a whole, and the GHA invitation to participate in the creation of "general paradigm of peace thinking" within GPS has been ignored, as well as all other (about 150) organizations to which we referred. Obviously, IPRA and other had nothing to offer in GPS.

International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO: http://www.prio.no/). It was established in 1959 and "conducts research o­n the conditions for peaceful relations between states, groups and people." It also did not want to study global peace but o­nly some of its conditions and details, as well as all other peacemaking organizations. It unites 15 research groups: Cities and Populations, Civilians in Conflict, Conflict Patters, Environment, Gender, Governance, Humanitarianism, Law and Ethics, Media, Migration, Non-state Conflict Actors, Peacebuilding, Regions and Powers, Religion, Security.

What is the meaning and results of PRIO work for 55 years? What are the achievements and contributions to global peace? These questions also remain unanswered just as at IPRA and peacemaking in a whole. As we would not add up research groups, commissions, conferences and structures of organizations, we will never get from them any peace, as it happened in 100 years, and from them together - a holistic scientific picture of global peace, like the o­ne offered by GPS. Peacemaking focuses o­n armed conflicts and violence and not to peace. But peace, as we know, is not reduced to the absence of armed conflicts and violence.

Peace Alliance (http://peacealliance.org/). Peace Department in the Government of War??? Peace Alliance is the USA peacemaking organization, which promotes the idea to ​​create a "Department of Peace" in the USA government. Congressman - Democrat Dennis Kucinich prepared still in 2001 a corresponding bill to the House of Representatives but it still did not budge. As it is written o­n the site: "There is currently a bill before the U.S. House of Representatives to establish a United States Department of Peacebuilding. This historic measure will augment our current problem-solving options, providing practical, nonviolent solutions to the problems of domestic and international conflict. The legislation will pass from bill to law under o­ne condition: that a wave of citizen interest rise up from the American people and make itself heard in the halls of Congress."

The contradiction between the militaristic Pentagon and this Department is supposed to solve very simple: 1 Limit this Department competence by "city, county, and state governments," leaving for the Pentagon foreign wars, and 2. Make this Department by division of the Pentagon to disguise its militarism: "Support our military (Pentagon L.S.) with complementary approaches to peacebuilding. Create and administer a U.S. Peace Academy, acting as a sister organization to the U.S. Military Academy": http://peacealliance.org/issues-advocacy/department-of-peace/#sthash.YIEqB6ES.dpuf.

It's hard to say what is more in this - stupidity connecting incompatible peace and Pentagon (fried ice!) or servile service to Pentagon in its peacekeeping disguise, like GPI! In any case, it is a fact of paranoia of American peacemaking and its full intellectual and moral degeneration. Here can say: "Peacemaking mountain of the US military Empire gave birth to peace mouse for Pentagons cat."

Speaking without irony, this idea is a lot of skepticism: whether in the USA imperial government the Department of Peace along with the Pentagon? It sounds like a utopia of new century. But a certain sense it has provided transformation the USA militaristic government in a peaceful, which is possible o­nly after the fall of the American Empire in 2020, as it predicted by Professor Galtung. o­n the other hand, devoid of a scientific peace theory this Department promises to discredit itself o­n the basis of the dominant subjectivity in peacemaking. It's a vicious circle and its a dead end.

The subjective weakness of "Peace Alliance" peacemaking is clearly visible in its programmatic article of Matthew Albracht, Executive Vice President: "The Leading Edge of Peace: Our Evolutionary Path Forward" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-albracht/the-leading-edge-of-peace_b_4942207.html?utm_hp_ref=impact&ir=Impact.This title, expressing the article essence, is pointless as evolution cannot be The Leading Edge of Peace! For "Peace Alliance" the real leading edge of peace, as we have seen - is the Pentagon! The path of such an evolution of peacekeeping - is the way of unimpeded continuation of the war, o­ngoing centuries. Such peacemaking is not able to think ahead of anything but war it is its evolution. This is a poverty of peacekeeping thinking in the richest and most militaristic empire of the world! And this is natural, because of its full intellectual impotence in the scientific understanding of peace, in its subjectivity and absolute practical weakness before the war. Therefore, farther declarations, petitions and endless begging donations all at all, which no o­ne does not give anyone, like peacemaking does not go.

Sarajevo 2014. "Peace Event: June, 6-9, 2014, Sarajevo. The biggest international Peace Event 2014 - 100 years after World War I." Its main slogan is: "Come and join us! Let us transform a World of Wars and violence into a Culture of Peace, Nonviolence & Justice!" Http://www.peaceeventsarajevo2014.eu/the-peace-event.html. The strange things are here. 1. WHY the beginning of World War I is included into the rank of peaceful events? Can now be the peacemakers are celebrating as a peaceful event the beginning of ANY war? Of course, this is progress far back from peace! 2. The calls to transform the war into peace are wonderful. They sound 100 years and all the time not a single war was transformed into peace. At peacemakers nothing has changed in 100 years. They do not learn from their sad historical experience, they ignore it and have not shown for 100 years the ability to develop radically.

Summary. This kind of facts are endless. Their essence is the same - in the subjectivity of peacemaking, its endless weakness and before wars and in the face of almost complete degradation for the past 100 years with very rare exceptions. During this time in fact it went no further the good subjective wishes: "Let's not kill each other", "Let's not fight," "Let us live in peace," "Let us turn the war into peace" and the like, devoid of any understanding of objective nature and scientific approach to the causes of peace.

How can you call the actions, which more than 100 years are fruitless? - They are meaningless in the long run! If wars, armed conflicts, military spending and the arms race continue and grow, what is the peace movement, trying to resist them? - It is meaningless in the long run! What are the benefits of this movement for peace? - It is very relative and minimal, close to zero! Who and where tried to determine the achievements and contributions of this movement in global peace? - It seems that if we are not mistaken, no o­ne anywhere! While this should be the banner of peacemaking as a whole and each peacemaking organization! The o­nly sense that has peace movement - the moral and subjective forming an aversion to war and refusal from it but devoid the objective grounds and scientific theory they are infinitely weak.

As a result, within 100 years, under the sounds of sweet appeals to peace come to pass hundreds of wars with 200 million victims. The modern militarists, like last, also listen them and fight and forge weapons for new wars. In contrast to the two World Wars, which were prepared and started for years, a third world war (WW3) is now fully prepared and will begin within 5-10 minutes. What can the existing peacekeeping oppose to WW3? How would it bitterly and sadly did not was, we must recognize that it cannot do anything to oppose it, because it remains at the level of 1914, and the war progressed intensively whole century and now it is ready to begin in 5 minutes. Therefore, traditional peacemaking degraded and requires urgent revolutionary renewal. The peacemaking crayfish is hopelessly behind for 100 years from the tank of war and it is hopelessly weak in front of it. The last century was the century of wars, therefore, the age of defeats and degradation of peacemaking, which was powerless against them.

The weakness and degradation of peacemaking in 100 years are explained by its subjectivity and "paranoia" of its infinite subjective approaches to peace. In peacemaking there is no objective basis for understanding peace and for its scientific definition, which makes it weak and powerless before the wars and pushes it to the way of "weak" peacemaking coming from Erasmus, in which peace always and everywhere remains by "expelled and battered" as he defined it. The o­nly way to overcome the intellectual impotence of peacemaking, its exit from the impasse of subjectivism and degeneration and its revolutionary renewal offers GPS in paradigm of social genome of peace from harmony - in the paradigm of SOCIONOME and SPHERONS - actors, causes, sources and guarantors of global world (see the first chapter) .

The basis of all peace organizations are their intuition of eternal SPHERONS - o­nly this can explain the existence of these organizations and their constant emergence within century. But their intuition of this objective but until the unknown and unrecognized source of peace - at everyone are their own, subjective. It is the main gnoseological source of the infinite set of subjective understanding of peace, alienated from each other peace organizations and ideologies that give rise to them "paranoia." The way out of it is o­nly o­ne - GPS based o­n an eternal objective source of global peace in human society, to what this book is dedicated.

Thus, the revolution of peacemaking is in the following transitions:

1. From subjectivity of traditional peacekeeping to recognition of objective SPHERONS, eternal harmonious spheral classes of the population as the sources, causes, actors and guarantors of global peace in GPS;

2. From the branch (partial and private) peaceful thinking to the spheral, holistic and integral thinking of the spheres in GPS;

3. From unscientific and subjective peace thinking to scientific and objective peace thinking in GPS;

4. From understanding war as source of peace: "If you want peace - prepare for war" to understanding harmony as source of peace: "If you want peace - create harmony" in GPS;

5. From misunderstanding main barrier of global peace - the American military empire to a clear realization of this fact in Prof. Galtungs corresponding theory with his prediction of its fall in 2020 this is fully recognized in GPS;

6. From traditional political, economic and cultural institutions of militaristic world order to the new political, economic and cultural institutions of global peace order based o­n GPS;

7. From the "paranoia" of competing partial peace visions and organizations to united harmonious diversity of the world peace movement o­n scientific basis of GPS and led the most peaceful and neutral countries.

Only in result of similar revolution of peacemaking, which was launched in the GHA since 2005 under motto "Peace from Harmony", determining the cause of peace in harmony, can hope that peacemaking will transform from weak to strong able to prevent a third world war and "shift the arms race into a peace race" (Martin Luther King Jr.). The alternative of this peacemaking revolution, made in GPS does not exist. The revolution of peacekeeping gives the start to scientific breakthrough of social cognition and social sciences, the stragglers more than o­ne hundred years.


Dr. Leo Semashko

GHA President

August 27, 2014


To contents

© Website author: Leo Semashko, 2005; © designed by Roman Snitko, 2005