The International Day of Peace, also officially known as World Peace Day, is a United Nations-sanctioned holiday observed annually on 21 September. It is dedicated to world peace, and specifically the absence of war and violence, such as might be occasioned by a temporary ceasefire in a combat zone for humanitarian aid
access. The day was first established in 1981 and first observed in
September 1982 and is kept by many nations, political groups, military
groups, and people.
To inaugurate the day, the United Nations Peace Bell is rung at UN Headquarters (in New York City). The bell is cast from coins donated by people from all continents except Africa, and was a gift from the United Nations Association of Japan, as "a reminder of the human cost of war"; the inscription on its side reads, "Long live absolute world peace".
In recent years, a searchable map of events has been published at un.org.
History
1981 – UN General Assembly Resolution passed
The United Nations General Assembly declared, in a resolution sponsored by the United Kingdom and Costa Rica, the International Day of Peace, to be devoted to commemorating and strengthening the ideals of peace. The date initially chosen was the regular opening day of the annual
sessions of the General Assembly, the third Tuesday of September. (This was changed in 2001 to the current annual celebration on 21 September each year — see 2001 below.)
1983 – Annual Reports
Beginning
in 1983, at the request of the Office of the Secretary-General of the
United Nations, Pathways To Peace (PTP) submitted a "We the Peoples"
Initiative Annual Report to the UN, summarizing the Peace Day
activities. The reports from 2005 and 2009 are available as archives as cited
below. For its initiatives for the International Year of Peace in 1987,
PTP was granted "Peace Messenger" status by UN Secretary-General Perez
de Cuellar. In 2006 the name was changed from "We the Peoples" Initiative to "Culture of Peace Initiative."
1996 – Seanad Éireann debate
A proposal for expanding the International Day of Peace to include Reconciliation, in which a massive number of emblems (White Doves) would be distributed
after a formal presentation at the United Nations, was put forward by
Vincent Coyle, of Derry, Northern Ireland, and was debated at Seanad Éireann. It was accepted that it would be impractical for one member state to ask for a particular slot at a general UN ceremony. However, events have been held at the United Nations in New York, with the support of Kofi Annan, in April.
2001 – Date set at 21 September
In
2001 the opening day of the General Assembly was scheduled for 11
September, and Secretary General Kofi Annan drafted a message
recognising the observance of International Peace Day on 21 September. The September 11 attacks, often referred to as 9/11, were perpetrated
on that same day when a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by
the militant Islamist terrorist group al-Qaeda against the United States
of America occurred just blocks away from the UN on the morning of
Tuesday, September 11, 2001. That year the day was changed from the
third Tuesday to specifically the twenty-first day of September, to take
effect in 2002. A new resolution was passed by the General Assembly, sponsored by the United Kingdom (giving credit to Peace One Day)
and Costa Rica (the original sponsors of the day), to give the
International Day of Peace a fixed calendar date, 21 September, and
declare it also as a day of global ceasefire and non-violence.
2004 – Taiwanese commemorative stamp controversy
A diplomatic stir occurred when Lions Clubs International
sponsored a competition for six posters to be used for International
Day of Peace commemorative stamps issued by the UN Postal
Administration. A poster by 15-year-old Taiwanese school student Yang
Chih-Yuan was announced as one of the winners, but the announcement was
withdrawn. Taiwan media reports, Taiwan Lions Club and the government of
Taiwan claimed the decision not to use the poster resulted from
pressure from China; the rejection of the student's painting on political grounds did not reflect the ideals of the International Day of Peace. The UN issued a statement that, although in the shortlist of eight
designs, "due to an internal misunderstanding and miscommunication, Mr.
Yang's proof got publicized in error as one of the six stamps intended
to be issued." The government of Taiwan (Republic of China) later issued a stamp containing the image.
2005 – UN Secretary General calls for 22-hour ceasefire
In 2005, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for the worldwide observance of a 22-hour ceasefire and day of nonviolence to mark the Day.
Global survey of celebration
The
Culture of Peace Initiative published an annual report for the
International Day of Peace in 2005 describing events in 46 countries: Africa 11; East Asia and Pacific 12; Latin America and Caribbean 4;
Europe 14; Middle East 3; North America 2 (22 states, provinces).
2006 – Peace Parade, UK
In
2006, then Secretary-General Kofi Annan rang the Peace Bell for the
last time during his term in office. That year the UN asserted the "many
ways it works for peace and to encourage individuals, groups and
communities around the world to contemplate and communicate thoughts and
activities on how to achieve peace." The United Kingdom held the
primary public and official observation of the United Nations
International Day of Peace and Non-Violence in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, organized by Peace Parade UK.
2007 – UN Secretary General calls for worldwide moment of silence
In 2007, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon rang the Peace Bell at United Nations Headquarters
in New York calling for a 24-hour cessation of hostilities on 21
September, and for a minute of silence to be observed around the world.
2009 – International Year of Reconciliation announced
Painting by children, International Peace Day 2009, Geneva
In 2009 – International Year of Reconciliation – the day was marked
by a massive number of white doves being distributed after a formal
presentation at the United Nations, bearing in mind the Charter of the
United Nations, including the purposes and principles contained therein,
and in particular those of saving succeeding generations from the
scourge of war, bringing about by peaceful means, and in conformity
with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or
settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a
breach of the peace, and practising tolerance and living together in
peace with one another as good neighbours, thus developing friendly
relations among nations and promoting international cooperation
to resolve international economic, social and cultural rights and
humanitarian issues. Vincent Coyle of Derry, Northern Ireland gave his
full support.
2009 International Day of Peace: WMD – We Must Disarm
"Take
Action for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons ... Disarmament and
non-proliferation...to raise awareness of the dangers and costs of
nuclear weapons, and on why nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation
are so crucial."
Global survey of celebration
The
Culture of Peace Initiative published an annual report for the
International Day of Peace in 2009 describing events in 77 countries: Africa 14; East Asia and Pacific 20; Latin America and Caribbean 11;
Europe 23; Middle East 7; North America 2 countries (48 states,
provinces).
2010 – Youth for Peace and Development
"The
United Nations is looking for stories from young people around the
world who are working for peace. The campaign slogan this year is Peace=Future, The math is easy."
2011 – Peace and Democracy: Make Your Voice Heard
In
2011 the UN Peace Day's theme was "Peace and Democracy: Make Your Voice
Heard". Many organizations held Peace Day events worldwide in 2011.
There were school activities, music concerts, global comedy clubs
(www.thinkPEACE.net), peace doves, prayer vigils, peace conferences, and
UN activities. Organizations like Peace One Day, Wiser and Culture of Peace have been active participants in Peace Day activities for years.
2012 – Sustainable Peace for a Sustainable Future
In
2012, the United Nations set the theme for the year's observance as
Sustainable Peace for a Sustainable Future, commemorating and
strengthening the ideals of peace both within and among all nations and
peoples.
Global Truce Day 2012
In 2011, Peace One Day announced at their O2 Arena concert, a new international campaign called Global Truce 2012, a grassroots initiative and international coalition with non-governmental organisations and students' unions in every continent, which increased participation and action on Peace Day 2012, the day of Global Truce. Particular focus in this campaign included a cessation of hostilities on the day and a reduction of domestic violence and bullying in society. The Peace One Day Celebration concert on Peace Day in 2012 was held at Wembley Arena to celebrate Global Truce 2012. The Global Truce
campaign will continue and be named with each year it leads up to,
involving more partners and coalitions for mass participation and
life-saving practical action on Peace Day.
2013 – Focus on Peace education
UN
Secretary General Ban Ki Moon dedicated the World Peace Day 2013 to
peace education in an effort to refocus minds and financing on the
preeminence of peace education as the means to bring about a culture of peace. Animator and children's book author Sue DiCicco announced in May 2013 a global campaign to increase awareness of Peace Day and promote peace
education within schools and community groups through the Peace Crane Project. Gorey Community School in County Wexford, Ireland, was chosen to be School of Peace for 2013.
Global Truce 2013
Peace One Day launched a new theme for Global Truce 2013: Who Will You Make Peace With?
Peace Day Comedy 2013
To
bring awareness to Peace Day, thinkPEACE promoted a Peace Day Comedy
program, "Stand-Up For International Peace," held in over 50 global
comedy clubs in 2013.
2014 – Right to Peace
The concert of INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PEACE at Amsterdam's Ziggo Dome. 21 September 2014 (organized by MasterPeace)International Peace Day ceremony, organised by Ekta Parishad, Gandhi Bhawan, Bhopal, India, September 2014
The theme of the 2014 International Day of Peace was the Right of
Peoples to Peace, reaffirming the United Nations commitment to the UN Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace, which recognizes that the promotion of peace is vital for the full enjoyment of all human rights.
2014 Peace Day Comedy program
To
bring awareness to Peace Day 2014, the thinkPEACE Network promoted a
Peace Day Comedy program, "Stand-Up For International Peace," to be held
in over 50 global comedy clubs.
Waves Of Kindness global meditation events
The Waves Of Kindness Global Initiative celebrated the United Nations International Day Of Peace though global meditation events.
Comment in Global Education Magazine
Director of UNESCO to Vietnam Katherine Müller said in Global Education Magazine:
"I personally identify with UNESCO's values in the sense that I truly
believe Education, Culture, Social and Natural Sciences, and
Communication and Information are some of the most powerful drivers for
sustainable development and peace, as a sustainable future cannot exist
without sustainable peace. Raising awareness, capacity building,
promoting understanding and respect for diversity, and fostering
opportunities for interaction to find ways to ensure a culture of peace
are all actions that will motivate people to become interested in
setting peace as a priority for sustainable development."
2015 – Partnerships for Peace – Dignity for All
The theme of the 2015 International Day of Peace was "Partnerships for Peace – Dignity for All".
2016 – The Sustainable Development Goals: Building Blocks for Peace
The theme of the 2016 International Day of Peace was "The Sustainable Development Goals: Building Blocks for Peace".
2017 – Together for Peace: Respect, Safety and Dignity for All
This
theme was based on the TOGETHER global campaign that promotes respect,
safety and dignity for everyone forced to flee their homes in search of a
better life.
The Peace Crane Project
In 2017, The Peace Crane Project announced the goal of collecting 1,000 cranes from students around the world to display in various venues to celebrate.
2017 Global survey of celebration
A survey by the Culture of Peace News Network found internet reports about 562 celebrations of the International Day of Peace from 127 countries around the world this year. These included 128 events coming from most of the provinces and states
in Canada and the USA. Next were the countries formerly part of the
Soviet Union with 104. There were 96 events cited in 27 European
countries, 81 from 29 African countries, 67 from 20 Asian countries, 58
from 16 Latin American and Caribbean countries, and 28 from 21 Arab and
Middle Eastern countries.
2018 – The Right to Peace – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 70
The 2018 U.N. Peace Day Theme was "The Right to Peace – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 70."
2018 Global survey of celebration
A survey by the Culture of Peace News Network found internet reports about 764 celebrations of the International Day of Peace from 129 countries around the world this year. These included 233 events coming from most of the provinces and states
in Canada and the USA. Next were 177 events from Europe and 158 events
from Asia. There were 95 events from Latin America and the Caribbean, 71
events from countries formerly part of the Soviet Union, 71 from
Africa, and 15 from Arab and Middle Eastern countries.
2019 – Climate Action for Peace
The United Nations selected the theme "Climate Action for Peace" for the 2019 International Day of Peace.
According to the UN website, "The United Nations calls upon all to take action to tackle climate change."
"On 23 September [2019], the United Nations is convening a
Climate Action Summit with concrete and realistic plans to accelerate action to implement the Paris Agreement."
The International Day of Peace Student Observance on 20 September
2019 at United Nations Headquarters featured young people presenting
their projects to fight climate change and promote peace.
2019 Global survey of celebration
A survey by the Culture of Peace News Network
found internet reports concerning more than 655 celebrations of the
International Day of Peace from 103 countries around the world in 2019.
2020 – Shaping Peace Together
The United Nations has selected the theme "Shaping Peace Together" for the 2020 International Day of Peace.
According to the UN website, "This year, it has been clearer than
ever that we are not each other's enemies. Rather, our common enemy is a
tireless virus
that threatens our health, security and very way of life. COVID-19 has
thrown our world into turmoil and forcibly reminded us that what happens
in one part of the planet can impact people everywhere."
2020 global survey of celebration
A survey by the Culture of Peace News Network
found internet reports concerning more than 717 celebrations of the
International Day of Peace from 78 countries around the world this year. The largest number came from Western Europe and from the European countries formerly part of the Soviet Union.
2021 – Recovering Better for an Equitable and Sustainable World
The 2021 theme for the International Day of Peace was "Recovering Better for an Equitable and Sustainable World.'"
2021 global survey of celebration
A
survey by the Culture of Peace News Network found internet reports
concerning more than 628 celebrations of the International Day of Peace
from 79 countries around the world in 2021.
2022 – End racism. Build peace.
The 2022 theme for the International Day of Peace was "End racism. Build peace."
2022 global survey of celebration
A
survey by the Culture of Peace News Network found internet reports
concerning more than 846 celebrations of the International Day of Peace
from 91 countries around the world in 2022.
2023 – Actions for peace: Our ambition for the #Global-Goals
The 2023 theme for the International Day of Peace was "Action for peace: Our ambition for the #GlobalGoals".
2023 global survey of celebration
A
survey by the Culture of Peace News Network found internet reports
concerning more than 942 celebrations of the International Day of Peace
from 93 countries around the world in 2023.
2024 – Cultivating a Culture of Peace
The 2024 theme for International Day of Peace is "Cultivating a Culture of Peace".
2024 global survey of celebration
A
survey by the Culture of Peace News Network found internet reports from
834 celebrations of the International Day of Peace from around the
world in 2024 including many reports in Japanese, Hindi, Russian,
Ukrainian and Arabic, as well as English, French, Spanish, Italian and
Portuguese.
Critics of neoconservatism have used the term to describe foreign policy and war hawks who support aggressive militarism or neocolonialism. Historically speaking, the term neoconservative refers to Americans who moved from the anti-Stalinist left to conservatism during the 1960s and 1970s. The movement had its intellectual roots in the magazine Commentary, edited by Norman Podhoretz. They spoke out against the New Left, and in that way helped define the movement.
Terminology
The term neoconservative was popularized in the United States during 1973 by the socialist leader Michael Harrington, who used the term to define Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol, whose ideologies differed from Harrington's. Earlier during 1973, he had described some of the same ideas in a brief contribution to a symposium on welfare sponsored by Commentary.
The neoconservative label was adopted by Irving Kristol in his 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative'". His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited the magazine Encounter.
Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of the magazine Commentary, from 1960 to 1995. By 1982, Podhoretz was terming himself a neoconservative in The New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".
The term itself was the product of a rejection among formerly
self-identified liberals of what they considered a growing leftward turn
of the Democratic Party in the 1970s. Neoconservatives perceived in the
new left liberalism an ideological effort to distance the Democratic Party and American liberalism from Cold War liberalism as it was espoused by former Presidents such as Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.
After the Vietnam War, the anti-communist, internationalist and
interventionist roots of this Cold War liberalism seemed increasingly
brittle to the neoconservatives. As a consequence they migrated to the
Republican Party and formed one pillar of the Reagan Coalition and of
the conservative movement. Hence, they became Neo-conservatives.
History
Senator Henry M. Jackson, an inspiration for neoconservative foreign policy during the 1970s
Neoconservatism was initiated by liberals' repudiation of the Cold War and by the "New Politics" of the American New Left, which Norman Podhoretz said was too sympathetic to the counterculture and too alienated from the majority of the population, and by the repudiation of "anti-anticommunism" by liberals, which included substantial endorsement of Marxist–Leninist politics by the New Left during the late 1960s. Some neoconservatives were particularly alarmed by what they believed were the antisemitic sentiments of Black Power advocates. Irving Kristol edited the journal The Public Interest
(1965–2005), featuring economists and political scientists, which
emphasized ways that government planning in the liberal state had
produced unintended harmful consequences. Some early neoconservative political figures were disillusioned Democratic politicians and intellectuals, such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who served in the Nixon and Ford administrations, and Jeane Kirkpatrick, who served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations in the Reagan administration. Some left-wing academics such as Frank Meyer and James Burnham eventually became associated with the conservative movement at this time.
A substantial number of neoconservatives were originally moderate
socialists who were originally associated with the moderate wing of the
Socialist Party of America (SP) and its successor party, the Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA). Max Shachtman, a former Trotskyist theorist who developed strong feelings of antipathy towards the New Left, had numerous devotees in the SDUSA with strong links to George Meany's
AFL-CIO. Following Shachtman and Meany, this faction led the SP to
oppose immediate withdrawal from the Vietnam War and oppose George
McGovern in the Democratic primary race and, to some extent, the general
election. They also chose to cease their own party-building and
concentrated on working within the Democratic Party, eventually
influencing it through the Democratic Leadership Council. Thus the Socialist Party dissolved in 1972, and the SDUSA emerged that
year. (Most of the left-wing of the party, led by Michael Harrington,
immediately abandoned the SDUSA.) SDUSA leaders associated with neoconservatism include Carl Gershman, Penn Kemble, Joshua Muravchik and Bayard Rustin.
Norman Podhoretz's magazine Commentary, originally a journal of liberalism, became a major publication for neoconservatives during the 1970s. Commentary published an article by Jeane Kirkpatrick, an early and prototypical neoconservative.
Rejecting the American New Left and McGovern's New Politics
The neoconservatives rejected the counterculturalNew Left and what they considered anti-Americanism in the non-interventionism of the activism against the Vietnam War. After the anti-war faction took control of the party during 1972 and nominated George McGovern, the Democrats among the neoconservatives endorsed Washington Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson
for his unsuccessful 1972 and 1976 campaigns for president. Among those
who worked for Jackson were the incipient neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Richard Perle. During the late 1970s, neoconservatives tended to endorse Ronald Reagan, the Republican who promised to confront Soviet expansionism. Neoconservatives organized in the American Enterprise Institute and The Heritage Foundation to counter the liberal establishment. Author Keith Preston named the successful effort on behalf of neoconservatives such as George Will and Irving Kristol to cancel Reagan's 1980 nomination of Mel Bradford, a Southern Paleoconservative academic whose regionalist focus and writings about Abraham Lincoln and Reconstruction alienated the more cosmopolitan and progress-oriented neoconservatives, to the leadership of the National Endowment for the Humanities in favor of longtime Democrat William Bennett as emblematic of the neoconservative movement establishing hegemony over mainstream American conservatism.
In another (2004) article, Michael Lind also wrote:
Neoconservatism
... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and
social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey
and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves
'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War] ... many
'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center ... Today's
neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition.
Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still
apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the
left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of
William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older
ex-leftists.
Leo Strauss and his students
C. Bradley Thompson,
a professor at Clemson University, claims that most influential
neoconservatives refer explicitly to the theoretical ideas in the
philosophy of Leo Strauss (1899–1973), although there are several writers who claim that in doing so they may draw upon meaning that Strauss himself did not endorse. Eugene Sheppard notes: "Much scholarship tends to understand Strauss as an inspirational founder of American neoconservatism". Strauss was a refugee from Nazi Germany who taught at the New School for Social Research in New York (1938–1948) and the University of Chicago (1949–1969).
Strauss asserted that "the crisis of the West consists in the
West's having become uncertain of its purpose". His solution was a
restoration of the vital ideas and faith that in the past had sustained
the moral purpose of the West. The Greek classics (classical republican and modern republican), political philosophy and the Judeo-Christian heritage are the essentials of the Great Tradition in Strauss's work.Strauss emphasized the spirit of the Greek classics and Thomas G. West (1991) argues that for Strauss the American Founding Fathers were correct in their understanding of the classics in their principles of justice.
For Strauss, political community is defined by convictions about
justice and happiness rather than by sovereignty and force. A classical
liberal, he repudiated the philosophy of John Locke as a bridge to 20th-century historicism and nihilism and instead defended liberal democracy as closer to the spirit of the classics than other modern regimes. For Strauss, the American awareness of ineradicable evil in human
nature and hence the need for morality, was a beneficial outgrowth of
the pre-modern Western tradition. O'Neill (2009) notes that Strauss wrote little about American topics,
but his students wrote a great deal and that Strauss's influence caused
his students to reject historicism and positivism as morally relativist positions. They instead promoted a so-called Aristotelian perspective on America
that produced a qualified defense of its liberal constitutionalism. Strauss's emphasis on moral clarity led the Straussians to develop an approach to international relations that Catherine and Michael Zuckert (2008) call Straussian Wilsonianism (or Straussian idealism), the defense of liberal democracy in the face of its vulnerability.
A theory of neoconservative foreign policy during the final years of the Cold War was articulated by Jeane Kirkpatrick in "Dictatorships and Double Standards", published in Commentary Magazine during November 1979. Kirkpatrick criticized the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter, which endorsed détente with the Soviet Union. She later served the Reagan Administration as Ambassador to the United Nations.
In "Dictatorships and Double Standards", Kirkpatrick distinguished between authoritarian regimes and the totalitarian
regimes such as the Soviet Union. She suggested that in some countries
democracy was not tenable and the United States had a choice between
endorsing authoritarian governments, which might evolve into
democracies, or Marxist–Leninist
regimes, which she argued had never been ended once they achieved
totalitarian control. In such tragic circumstances, she argued that
allying with authoritarian governments might be prudent. Kirkpatrick
argued that by demanding rapid liberalization in traditionally autocratic
countries, the Carter administration had delivered those countries to
Marxist–Leninists that were even more repressive. She further accused
the Carter administration of a "double standard" and of never having
applied its rhetoric on the necessity of liberalization to communist governments. The essay compares traditional autocracies and Communist regimes:
[Traditional
autocrats] do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure,
habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal
relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they
are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to
cope.
[Revolutionary Communist regimes]
claim jurisdiction over the whole life of the society and make demands
for change that so violate internalized values and habits that
inhabitants flee by the tens of thousands.
Kirkpatrick concluded that while the United States should encourage
liberalization and democracy in autocratic countries, it should not do
so when the government risks violent overthrow and should expect gradual
change rather than immediate transformation. She wrote: "No idea holds greater sway in the mind of educated
Americans than the belief that it is possible to democratize
governments, anytime and anywhere, under any circumstances ... Decades,
if not centuries, are normally required for people to acquire the
necessary disciplines and habits. In Britain, the road [to democratic
government] took seven centuries to traverse. ... The speed with which
armies collapse, bureaucracies abdicate, and social structures dissolve
once the autocrat is removed frequently surprises American
policymakers".
1990s
During
the 1990s, neoconservatives were once again opposed to the foreign
policy establishment, both during the Republican Administration of
President George H. W. Bush and that of his Democratic successor, President Bill Clinton. Many critics charged that the neoconservatives lost their influence as a result of the end of the Soviet Union.
After the decision of George H. W. Bush to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Iraq War
during 1991, many neoconservatives considered this policy and the
decision not to endorse indigenous dissident groups such as the Kurds and Shiites in their 1991–1992 resistance to Hussein as a betrayal of democratic principles.
I
would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in
Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able
to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties
is Saddam [Hussein] worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I
think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait,
but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our
objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems
of trying to take over and govern Iraq.
A key neoconservative policy-forming document, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
(commonly known as the "Clean Break" report) was published in 1996 by a
study group of American-Jewish neoconservative strategists led by Richard Perle on the behest of newly-elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The report called for a new, more aggressive Middle East policy on the
part of the United States in defense of the interests of Israel,
including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the containment of Syria through a series of proxy wars, the outright rejection of any solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict that would include a Palestinian state, and an alliance between Israel, Turkey and Jordan against Iraq, Syria and Iran. Former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense and leading neoconservative Richard Perle
was the "Study Group Leader", but the final report included ideas from
fellow neoconservatives, pro-Israel right-wingers and affiliates of
Netanyahu's Likud party, such as Douglas Feith, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks Jr., Jonathan Torop, David Wurmser, Meyrav Wurmser, and IASPS president Robert Loewenberg.
Within a few years of the Gulf War in Iraq,
many neoconservatives were endorsing the ousting of Saddam Hussein. On
19 February 1998, an open letter to President Clinton was published,
signed by dozens of pundits, many identified with neoconservatism and
later related groups such as the Project for the New American Century, urging decisive action to remove Saddam from power.
The Bush campaign and the early Bush administration did not exhibit
strong endorsement of neoconservative principles. As a presidential
candidate, Bush had argued for a restrained foreign policy, stating his
opposition to the idea of nation-building. Also early in the administration, some neoconservatives criticized Bush's administration as insufficiently supportive of Israel and suggested Bush's foreign policies were not substantially different from those of President Clinton.
During Bush's State of the Union speech of January 2002, he named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as states that "constitute an axis of evil" and "pose a grave and growing danger". Bush suggested the possibility of preemptive war:
"I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by,
as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not
permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the
world's most destructive weapons".
Some major defense and national-security persons have been quite
critical of what they believed was a neoconservative influence in
getting the United States to go to war against Iraq.
Former Nebraska Republican U.S. senator and Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, who has been critical of the Bush administration's adoption of neoconservative ideology, in his book America: Our Next Chapter wrote:
So
why did we invade Iraq? I believe it was the triumph of the so-called
neo-conservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and
incompetence that took America into this war of choice. ... They
obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited
national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the
burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terrorist
attack ever on American soil.
President
Bush, VP Dick Cheney, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meet with
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his staff at the Pentagon, 14
August 2006.
The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war was stated explicitly in the National Security Council
(NSC) text "National Security Strategy of the United States". published
20 September 2002: "We must deter and defend against the threat before
it is unleashed ... even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place
of the enemy's attack. ... The United States will, if necessary, act
preemptively".
The choice not to use the word "preventive" in the 2002 National
Security Strategy and instead use the word "preemptive" was largely in
anticipation of the widely perceived illegality of preventive attacks in
international law via both Charter Law and Customary Law. In this context, disputes over the non-aggression principle in domestic and foreign policy, especially given the doctrine of preemption, alternatively impede and facilitate studies of the impact of libertarian precepts on neo-conservatism.
Policy analysts noted that the Bush Doctrine as stated in the
2002 NSC document had a strong resemblance to recommendations presented
originally in a controversial Defense Planning Guidance draft written
during 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz, during the first Bush administration.
The Bush Doctrine was greeted with accolades by many neoconservatives. When asked whether he agreed with the Bush Doctrine, Max Boot
said he did and that "I think [Bush is] exactly right to say we can't
sit back and wait for the next terrorist strike on Manhattan. We have to
go out and stop the terrorists overseas. We have to play the role of
the global policeman. ... But I also argue that we ought to go further". Discussing the significance of the Bush Doctrine, neoconservative writer Bill Kristol
claimed: "The world is a mess. And, I think, it's very much to Bush's
credit that he's gotten serious about dealing with it. ... The danger is
not that we're going to do too much. The danger is that we're going to
do too little".
2008 presidential election and aftermath
President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain at the White House, 5 March 2008, after McCain became the Republican presumptive presidential nominee
John McCain, who was the Republican candidate for the 2008 United States presidential election, endorsed continuing the second Iraq War, "the issue that is most clearly identified with the neoconservatives". The New York Times
reported further that his foreign policy views combined elements of
neoconservatism and the main competing conservative opinion, pragmatism, also known as realism:
Among [McCain's advisers] are several prominent neoconservatives, including Robert Kagan
... [and] Max Boot...
'It may be too strong a term to say a fight is going on over John
McCain's soul,' said Lawrence Eagleburger ... who is a member of the
pragmatist camp, ... [but he] said, "there is no question that a lot of
my far right friends have now decided that since you can't beat him,
let's persuade him to slide over as best we can on these critical
issues.
By 2010, U.S. forces had switched from combat to a training role in Iraq and they left in 2011. The neocons had little influence in the Obama White House, and neo-conservatives have lost much influence in the Republican party since the rise of the Tea Party Movement.
Several neoconservatives played a major role in the Stop Trump movement in 2016, in opposition to the Republican presidential candidacy of Donald Trump, due to his criticism of interventionist foreign policies, as well as their perception of him as an "authoritarian" figure. After Trump took office, some neoconservatives joined his administration, such as John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Elliott Abrams and Nadia Schadlow. Neoconservatives have supported the Trump administration's hawkish approach towards Iran and Venezuela, while opposing the administration's withdrawal of troops from Syria and diplomatic outreach to North Korea. Although neoconservatives have served in the Trump administration, they
have been observed to have been slowly overtaken by the nascent populist and national conservative movements, and to have struggled to adapt to a changing geopolitical atmosphere. The Lincoln Project, a political action committee consisting of current and former Republicans with the purpose of defeating Trump in the 2020 United States presidential election and Republican Senate candidates in the 2020 United States Senate elections,
has been described as being primarily made of neoconservative activists
seeking to return the Republican party to Bush-era ideology. Although Trump was not reelected and the Republicans failed to retain a majority in the Senate, surprising success in the 2020 United States House of Representatives elections and internal conflicts led to renewed questions about the strength of neoconservatism.
In the Biden administration, neoconservative Victoria Nuland retained the portfolio of Under Secretary of State she had held under Obama. President Joe Biden's top diplomat for Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, was also a neocon and a former Bush administration official. In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, neoconservatives including the Cheney family (Dick & Liz) and Adam Kinzinger supported Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign. After losing the election, Harris' campaign team was criticized by those within the Democratic camp for allying with neoconservatives.
Evolution of opinions
Usage and general views
During the early 1970s, socialist Michael Harrington
was one of the first to use "neoconservative" in its modern meaning. He
characterized neoconservatives as former leftists – whom he derided as
"socialists for Nixon" – who had become more conservative. These people tended to remain endorsers of social democracy,
but distinguished themselves by allying with the Nixon administration
with respect to foreign policy, especially by their endorsement of the
Vietnam War and opposition to the Soviet Union. They still endorsed the welfare state, but not necessarily in its contemporary form.
Irving Kristol remarked that a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality",
one who became more conservative after seeing the results of liberal
policies. Kristol also distinguished three specific aspects of
neoconservatism from previous types of conservatism: neo-conservatives
had a forward-looking attitude from their liberal heritage, rather than
the reactionary and dour attitude of previous conservatives; they had a
meliorative attitude, proposing alternate reforms rather than simply
attacking social liberal reforms; and they took philosophical ideas and
ideologies very seriously.
During January 2009, at the end of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs
and prominent critic of Neoconservatism, proposed the following as the
"main characteristics of neoconservatism": "a tendency to see the world
in binary good/evil terms", a "low tolerance for diplomacy", a
"readiness to use military force", an "emphasis on US unilateral
action", a "disdain for multilateral organizations" and a "focus on the
Middle East".
In foreign policy, the neoconservatives' main concern is to prevent the development of a new rival. Defense Planning Guidance,
a document prepared during 1992 by Under Secretary for Defense for
Policy Paul Wolfowitz, is regarded by Distinguished Professor of the
Humanities John McGowan at the University of North Carolina as the "quintessential statement of neoconservative thought". The report says:
Our
first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either
on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a
threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a
dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and
requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a
region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient
to generate global power.
According to Lead Editor of e-International Relations
Stephen McGlinchey: "Neo-conservatism is something of a chimera in
modern politics. For its opponents it is a distinct political ideology
that emphasizes the blending of military power with Wilsonian idealism,
yet for its supporters it is more of a 'persuasion' that individuals of
many types drift into and out of. Regardless of which is more correct,
it is now widely accepted that the neo-conservative impulse has been
visible in modern American foreign policy and that it has left a
distinct impact".
Neoconservatism first developed during the late 1960s as an
effort to oppose the radical cultural changes occurring within the
United States. Irving Kristol wrote: "If there is any one thing that
neoconservatives are unanimous about, it is their dislike of the counterculture". Norman Podhoretz agreed: "Revulsion against the counterculture
accounted for more converts to neoconservatism than any other single
factor". Neoconservatives began to emphasize foreign issues during the mid-1970s.
In 1979, an early study by liberal Peter Steinfels concentrated on the ideas of Irving Kristol, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Daniel Bell.
He noted that the stress on foreign affairs "emerged after the New Left
and the counterculture had dissolved as convincing foils for
neoconservatism ... The essential source of their anxiety is not
military or geopolitical or to be found overseas at all; it is domestic
and cultural and ideological".
Neoconservative foreign policy is a descendant of so-called Wilsonian idealism. Neoconservatives endorse democracy promotion by the U.S. and other democracies, based on the conviction that natural rights are both universal and transcendent in nature. They criticized the United Nations and détente with the Soviet Union. On domestic policy, they endorse reductions in the welfare state, like European and Canadian conservatives. According to Norman Podhoretz,
"'the neo-conservatives dissociated themselves from the wholesale
opposition to the welfare state which had marked American conservatism
since the days of the New Deal' and ... while neoconservatives supported
'setting certain limits' to the welfare state, those limits did not
involve 'issues of principle, such as the legitimate size and role of
the central government in the American constitutional order' but were to
be 'determined by practical considerations'".
In April 2006, Robert Kagan wrote in The Washington Post that Russia and China may be the greatest "challenge liberalism faces today":
The
main protagonists on the side of autocracy will not be the petty
dictatorships of the Middle East theoretically targeted by the Bush
doctrine. They will be the two great autocratic powers, China and
Russia, which pose an old challenge not envisioned within the new 'war
on terror' paradigm. ... Their reactions to the 'color revolutions' in
Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan were hostile and suspicious, and
understandably so. ... Might not the successful liberalization of
Ukraine, urged and supported by the Western democracies, be but the
prelude to the incorporation of that nation into NATO and the European
Union – in short, the expansion of Western liberal hegemony?
Trying to describe the evolution within the neoconservative school of
thought is bedeviled by the fact that a coherent version of
Neoconservatism is difficult to distill from the various diverging
voices who are nevertheless considered to be neoconservative. On the one
hand were individuals such as former Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick
who embodied views that were hawkish yet still fundamentally in line with Realpolitik.
The more institutionalized neoconservatism that exerted influence
through think tanks, the media and government officials, rejected
Realpolitik and thus the Kirkpatrick Doctrine. This rejection became an impetus to push for active US support for democratic transitions in various autocratic nations.
In the 1990s leading thinkers of this modern strand of the
neoconservative school of thought, Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol,
published an essay in which they lay out the basic tenets of what they
call a Neo-Reaganite foreign policy. In it they reject a "return to
normalcy" after the end of the Cold War and argue that the United States should instead double down on defending and extending the liberal International order.
They trace the origin of their approach to foreign policy back to the
foundation of the United States as a revolutionary, liberal capitalist
republic. As opposed to advocates of Realpolitik, they argue that
domestic politics and foreign policies are inextricably linked making it
natural for any nation to be influenced by ideology, ideals and
concepts of morality in their respective international conduct. Hence,
this archetypical neoconservative position attempts to overcome the
dichotomy of pragmatism and idealism
emphasizing instead that a values-driven foreign policy is not just
consistent with American historical tradition but that it is in the enlightened self-interest of the United States.
Views on economics
While
neoconservatism is concerned primarily with foreign policy, there is
also some discussion of internal economic policies. Neoconservatism
generally endorses free markets and capitalism, favoring supply-side economics, but it has several disagreements with classical liberalism and fiscal conservatism. Irving Kristol states that neocons are more relaxed about budget deficits and tend to reject the Hayekian notion that the growth of government influence on society and public welfare is "the road to serfdom". Indeed, to safeguard democracy, government intervention and budget
deficits may sometimes be necessary, Kristol argues. After the so-called
"reconciliation with capitalism", self-identified "neoconservatives"
frequently favored a reduced welfare state, but not its elimination.
Neoconservative ideology stresses that while free markets do
provide material goods in an efficient way, they lack the moral guidance
human beings need to fulfill their needs. They say that morality can be
found only in tradition and that markets do pose questions that cannot
be solved solely by economics, arguing: "So, as the economy only makes
up part of our lives, it must not be allowed to take over and entirely
dictate to our society". Critics consider neoconservatism a bellicose and "heroic" ideology
opposed to "mercantile" and "bourgeois" virtues and therefore "a variant
of anti-economic thought". Political scientist Zeev Sternhell
states: "Neoconservatism has succeeded in convincing the great majority
of Americans that the main questions that concern a society are not
economic, and that social questions are really moral questions".
Friction with other conservatives
Many conservatives oppose neoconservative policies and have critical views on it. Disputes over the non-aggression principle in domestic and foreign policy, especially given the doctrine of preemption, can impede (and facilitate) studies of the impact of libertarian
precepts on neo-conservatism, but that of course didn't, and still
doesn't, stop pundits from publishing appraisals. For example, Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke (a libertarian based at Cato), in their 2004 book on neoconservatism, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order, characterized the neoconservatives at that time as uniting around three common themes:
A belief deriving from religious conviction that the human
condition is defined as a choice between good and evil and that the true
measure of political character is to be found in the willingness by the
former (themselves) to confront the latter.
An assertion that the fundamental determinant of the relationship
between states rests on military power and the willingness to use it.
A primary focus on the Middle East and global Islam as the principal theater for American overseas interests.
In putting these themes into practice, neo-conservatives:
Analyze international issues in black-and-white, absolute moral
categories. They are fortified by a conviction that they alone hold the
moral high ground and argue that disagreement is tantamount to
defeatism.
Focus on the "unipolar" power of the United States, seeing the use
of military force as the first, not the last, option of foreign policy.
They repudiate the "lessons of Vietnam", which they interpret as
undermining American will toward the use of force, and embrace the "lessons of Munich", interpreted as establishing the virtues of preemptive military action.
Disdain conventional diplomatic agencies such as the State
Department and conventional country-specific, realist, and pragmatic,
analysis (see shoot first and ask questions later).
They are hostile toward nonmilitary multilateral institutions and
instinctively antagonistic toward international treaties and agreements.
"Global unilateralism" is their watchword. They are fortified by
international criticism, believing that it confirms American virtue.
Look to the Reagan administration as the exemplar of all these virtues and seek to establish their version of Reagan's legacy as the Republican and national orthodoxy.
Responding to a question about neoconservatives in 2004, William F. Buckley Jr.
said: "I think those I know, which is most of them, are bright,
informed and idealistic, but that they simply overrate the reach of U.S.
power and influence".
Starting during the 1980s, disputes concerning Israel and public policy contributed to a conflict with paleoconservatives. Pat Buchanan terms neoconservatism "a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology". Paul Gottfried has written that the neocons' call for "permanent revolution" exists independently of their beliefs about Israel, characterizing the neoconservatives as "ranters out of a Dostoyevskian
novel, who are out to practice permanent revolution courtesy of the U.S.
government" and questioning how anyone could mistake them for
conservatives.
What
make neocons most dangerous are not their isolated ghetto hang-ups,
like hating Germans and Southern whites and calling everyone and his
cousin an anti-Semite, but the leftist revolutionary fury they express.
He has also argued that domestic equality and the exportability of democracy are points of contention between them.
Paul Craig Roberts, United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy
during the Reagan administration and associated with paleoconservatism
stated in 2003 that "there is nothing conservative about
neoconservatives. Neocons hide behind 'conservative' but they are in
fact Jacobins.
Jacobins were the 18th century French revolutionaries whose intention
to remake Europe in revolutionary France's image launched the Napoleonic Wars".[109]
Trotskyism allegation
Critics have argued that since the founders of neo-conservatism included ex-Trotskyists, Trotskyist traits continue to characterize neo-conservative ideologies and practices. During the Reagan administration, the charge was made that the foreign policy of the Reagan administration was being managed by ex-Trotskyists. This claim was cited by Lipset (1988, p. 34), who was a neoconservative and former Trotskyist himself. This "Trotskyist" charge was repeated and widened by journalist Michael Lind during 2003 to assert a takeover of the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration by former Trotskyists; Lind's "amalgamation of the defense intellectuals with the traditions
and theories of 'the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement' [in
Lind's words]" was criticized during 2003 by University of Michigan
professor Alan M. Wald, who had discussed Trotskyism in his history of "The New York Intellectuals".
The charge that neoconservativism is related to Leninism has also been made by Francis Fukuyama.
He argued that both believe in the "existence of a long-term process of
social evolution", though neoconservatives seek to establish liberal democracy instead of communism. He wrote that neoconservatives "believed that history can be pushed
along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a
tragedy in its Bolshevik
version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United
States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of
thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support". However, these comparisons ignore anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist
positions central to Leninism, which run contradictory to core
neoconservative beliefs.
Criticism
Critics of neoconservatism take issue with neoconservatives' support for interventionistic foreign policy. Critics from the left take issue with what they characterize as unilateralism and lack of concern with international consensus through organizations such as the United Nations.
Critics from both the left and right have assailed neoconservatives for the role Israel plays in their policies on the Middle East.
Neoconservatives respond by describing their shared opinion as a belief that national security is best attained by actively promoting freedom and democracy abroad as in the democratic peace theory through the endorsement of democracy, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention.
This is different from the traditional conservative tendency to endorse
friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the
expense of undermining existing democratic systems.
In a column on The New York Times named "Years of Shame" commemorating the tenth anniversary of 9/11, Paul Krugman criticized them for causing a supposedly entirely unrelated war.
Adherence to conservatism
Former Republican Congressman Ron Paul (now a Libertarian
politician) has been a longtime critic of neoconservativism as an
attack on freedom and the Constitution, including an extensive speech on
the House floor addressing neoconservative beginnings and how
neoconservatism is neither new nor conservative.
John McGowan, professor of humanities at the University of North Carolina, states after an extensive review of neoconservative literature and theory that neoconservatives are attempting to build an American Empire, seen as successor to the British Empire, its goal being to perpetuate a "Pax Americana".
As imperialism is largely considered unacceptable by the American
media, neoconservatives do not articulate their ideas and goals in a
frank manner in public discourse. McGowan states:
Frank
neoconservatives like Robert Kaplan and Niall Ferguson recognize that
they are proposing imperialism as the alternative to liberal
internationalism. Yet both Kaplan and Ferguson also understand that
imperialism runs so counter to American's liberal tradition that it must
... remain a foreign policy that dare not speak its name ... While
Ferguson, the Brit, laments that Americans cannot just openly shoulder
the white man's burden, Kaplan the American, tells us that "only through
stealth and anxious foresight" can the United States continue to pursue
the "imperial reality [that] already dominates our foreign policy", but
must be disavowed in light of "our anti-imperial traditions, and ...
the fact that imperialism is delegitimized in public discourse"... The
Bush administration, justifying all of its actions by an appeal to
"national security", has kept as many of those actions as it can secret
and has scorned all limitations to executive power by other branches of
government or international law.
