Choose your display style: Default (modern browsers) | Basic (older browsers) | Minimal (printing) | Large type

Nonviolence and Social Empowerment

WRI homepage > WRI publications > Online monographs > Nonviolence and Social Empowerment (London: WRI 2005) > PDF version > browsing version (multiple files)

edited by Chris Ney

Timed to coincide with the launch of its new Nonviolence Programme, War Resisters' International finally publishes articles based on presentations at its 'Nonviolence and Social Empowerment Study Conference" in February 2001. While not complete, these articles reflect some of the discussion at the conference. which was the result of a process over several years. In a report of the conference, War Resisters' International wrote: "The conference program stretched the bow from personal experiences with empowerment and disempowerment, over working in groups and organisations to social movements and to international cooperation (or disempowering tutelage?) (...)"

More than providing new answers this conference raised new questions, and again raised old questions in new circumstances. "Globalization" or its effects ran as a topic through many plenaries and working groups. What are the effects of globalization on the social movements? What possibilities exist to counter the "globalization of multinationals" with a "globalization from below", a globally connected resistance, that is empowered by its variety?'

Chris Ney kindly agreed to edit case studies submitted for the conference, and War Resisters' International would like to thank him for his work, and is glad to be able to finally make these resources available to a wider public online.

I. EMPOWERMENT : IDEAS AND CONCEPTS

II. EMPOWERMENT: ACTIONS AND CAMPAIGNS

MILITARISM

ENVIRONMENT

COMMUNITY/RACIAL/ETHNIC ISSUES

ECONOMIC JUSTICE

REPRESSION

Empowerment: just another phrase?

By Vesna Terselic

Buzz words. You catch them here and there--in peace, environmental or women's initiatives and United Nations documents. They change from season to season, from year to year. "Empowerment" has appeared in the language of my colleagues who are working on social change as an attempt to explain to ourselves and to others what we are actually doing.

Once upon a time, the magic word was "participation," but for the last few years, it has been "empowerment." People involved in development work during the 1960s, '70s and '80s swore by peoples' participation, while activists in the '90s and the beginning of the new millennium swear by empowerment.

The term empowerment must suit my work better--I am up to date with activist nad linguistic fashions! More than a fad, I would like to present some arguments why the concept of empowerment is a step forward compared to the concept of participation.

In development circles, the request for participation was made following the big revolutions of the twentieth century, revolutions which have not brought much to the world's poor. Asking for participation was rather humble and modest, not oriented on gaining power or controlling the world's resources. The idea behind asking for participation was that "big power" might be left to the existing power holders, as long as they allowed space for communities to make their own local choices. Soon, the big organizations (including the United Nations) accepted the language of participation. They started proclaiming it themselves. Unfortunately, with or without participation, the poor continued to get poorer, there have been more wars, and things have gone from bad to worse for many people.

"Power," according to distinguished sociologist Dennis H. Wrong, "is the capacity of a person to produce intended and foreseen effects on others." In other words, power is the capacity to influence. While this definition does not cover all that might be said about nonviolence and empowerment, it will be good enough for this argument about participation vs. empowerment.

The phrase "power to the people" does not sound very fresh, but may be a promising way to understanding empowerment. Seen in this light, empowerment seems to be better than participation because it expresses determination not just to offer any kind of contribution (something that participation has very often meant), but to contribute in a way that will lead to shifts in power relations. Following an era of shyness, when activists felt that any kind of power was wicked--and many people involved in civic initiatives were afraid of being seen as power hungry or manipulative--embracing the concept of empowerment might mean that civic initiatives want to have real influence. To realize that goal, they need to deal with power.

Participation meant taking part in the existing power structures, empowerment might mean transforming power relationships through transforming one's self, changing relationships in society, and changing cultural patterns. The question remains: how to do it. Inequalities, first addressed centuries ago, are still enshrined in present power structures. When power relationships shift today, do we know how to act and not merely complain?

Reality Check the Concepts

In the aftermath of the anti-globalization protests that began in Seattle, the question we should ask might not be "What is the utopian horizon of a more just world?" but "What small, achievable steps can we take now?" "How many successful empowerment experiences can we present in the spaces that open after successful street actions?" Writing in The Ecologist, Simon Retallack makes the point" "Seattle has created a unique and historic opportunity for real change. Now is the time to seize it." Opportunities for change usually open only after protests that use lots of energy and skill. How often have those opportunities been fully exploited? The point is not just to demonstrate at the front doors of decision-makers, but to participate in the decision making process.

I do not want to look at distant examples and will start, therefore, with what is happening in my own backyard. Power structures in Croatia are shifting following the elections in January 2000. The Croatian Democratic Alliance (HDZ) that led my country through the wars, is in pieces, and the new MPs are receptive to different proposals. Organizations that have been working on peace-building since the beginning of the war in 1991 are out of breath and out of sight. People are exhausted. The authoritarian regime of the HDZ lasted too long, and it is unclear whether we will be able to use this unique chance to exert any influence at all.

In 1993 when the Volunteer Project in Pakrac began, activists from the Antiwar Campaign Croatia (ARK) dreamed about such opportunities for dialogue. We had hoped for dialogue between people of Serbian and Croatian nationality from the two parts of the war-damaged town. We had hoped for dialogue on normalization with the local media and authorities. But, our hopes dissolved after several days of military action in May 1995 during which most of the Serbian people fled from Western Slavonia.

Still there have been some important changes; we may have failed in creating space for dialogue, but we have opened paths of empowerment for women. The women's club in Pakrac, which started its activities with a modest laundry in 1995, is now a strong and visible organization. It is participating actively in women's rights campaigns. The group carried out impressive actions before the general election, inviting people to use their power and vote. Women, who had been invisible a few years ago, now have a voice. Women can put issues on the local agenda and can no longer be ignored.

What the women's club in Pakrac, together with most peace organisations in Croatia, still find difficult is to speak to power. How to address important issues like the return of refugees, war crimes and peace-building in the media? How to start local projects to increase economic empowerment? How to open public dialogue?

For civil initiatives in Croatia--and anywhere in the world--it remains to be seen whether we are empowered to take responsibility for transforming a crisis. Are we empowered to stop assuming that everyone will see the value of our arguments? Are we empowered to step out of the margins and jump into mainstream culture, to avoid compromise while promoting dialogue?

Assumptions and Fears

Are we ready to question our assumptions? Are we ready to face our fears?

In the summarizing chapter of his study The Strategy of Nonviolent Defence, Australian nonviolent activist and scholar Robert J. Burrows underlines how important personal change is, pointing out that "everyone can learn to speak the truth...everyone can learn to deal with the conflict in their personal lives... everyone can learn to respect others more deeply." Of course, everyone could choose to do all that, and even more. But why should one do that?

More than two thousand years ago Buddha made similar recommendations. Jesus Christ offered a similar message. Utopian socialists like Thomas Moore described towns of happy, satisfied people. The 18th century English feminist Mary Wollstonecraft demanded equal rights for women. Friends of mine, working on the protection of human rights, share the same dream as Martin Luther King Jr. and hope for, even demand, the impossible.

All of them could do their best to explain that things might work better if all of us could act according to certain prescribed ideals. The saints have proposed different options: meditation as a way to conscientious living, respecting the ten commandments in the Old Testament, following any kind of expected behavior--from Christian morality to feminist ethics.

But, that does not answer the question. What about the people who do not find themselves following these prescribed ideals? Everywhere in the world activists are a minority. While being abused some feel it is better to sit still and wait, others resist. But resisters seem to be the much smaller group. Dialogue among ourselves is important. But, isn't it even more important to engage the majority? How do we continue dialogue with people who are not ready to give up mainstream values? Or are not interested in searching for new kinds of power, but prefer to struggle for their portion of the dominant power?

One of the questions we might consider in reaching out to mainstream audiences is whether their daily struggles within the dominant power system--struggles which appear perfectly natural to many people--are not the source of anxiety and fear. In Women Who Run With Wolves, Clarissa Pinkola Estes has written: "When culture narrowly defines what constitutes success or desirable perfection in anything-looks, height, strength, form, acquisitive power, economics, manliness, womanliness, good children, good behavior, religious belief -there are corresponding dictates and inclinations to measurement in the psyches of all its members." The majority of people in northern countries tend to live up to these culturally and socially prescribed standards. In turn, they might be entitled to gain a share of security--maybe even power. Perhaps the best way to change these ancient patterns is not to expect radical transformation, but to work out methods of involving more people in dialogue, and eventually in common projects

Activists often speak about apathy, prevalent in many communities. "The cause of apathy is linked to indifference," according to writer and therapist Louise K. Schmidt. "However if we look more deeply, we will find the cause of our apathy stems more from the fear we feel surrounding despair than from indifference. Apathy is a defense that prevents one from facing fear. It is a refusal to feel that, which unattended, creates numbness and ultimately non-action."

How do we confront the feelings of insecurity that Nobel Prize winning author Elias Canetti described in his book Crowds and Power: "Rulers tremble today, not, as formerly, because they are rulers, but as the equals of everybody else." Everybody is afraid, not only are we caught in networks of relationships and power structures, determined by social and cultural contexts, but we are also prey to disabling fear.

In Place of a Conclusion

Empowerment may be a more promising concept than others that have been offered in the development debates of previous decades. Taking steps closer to power, on both a conceptual and working level, means something, but the questions arising from previous concepts have remained unanswered, and are still painfully present. Significant, tangible change is not around the corner. But, that fact does not dissolve my desire for change or diminish my will for accountable power. Even if it does turn out that empowerment has been just another phrase.

Sources:

Canetti, Elias, Crowds and Power, Penguin Books, London 1992.
Burrows, Robert J, The Strategy of Noviolent Defense, SUNY, New York 1996.
Pinkola Estes, Clarissa, Women Who Run With the Wolves, Doubleday, New York 1992. Retallack, Simon, "After Seattle: Where next for the WTO," The Ecologist, Volume 30, No 2, April 2000.
Schmidt, Louise K, Transforming Abuse, New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, 1995. Wrong, Dennis H., Power, Transaction Publishers, 1995.

A version of this article appeared in the June-August 2000 (No. 2439) issue of Peace News.

What Power Do We Want?

By Cecilia Moretti

It isn't easy to think about the kind of power we want, especially when we believe in a freedom that is opposed to any kind of authoritarianism. It becomes even more difficult because, over the centuries of human history, the word power itself has been contaminated with notions of authority and domination.

Frequently when power is discussed, it is referred to as the power of those who govern, those who maintain their power through the appropriation of common treasures--such as land and natural resources--for their own interests. This story has been repeated since prehistoric times, when tribal communities became sedentary and began to enter into disputes over land with their neighbors, occupying territories by force, expelling people, and appropriating natural resources and even human beings into slavery. At this stage in human development, wars also began to occur.

The scenario continues into the present day, in which a few multinational and transnational corporations control economic and political power, and place the rest of the world at their feet. The globalized world is their territory and they move through it searching for markets and for cheap labor to exploit. More and more, everything becomes subordinated to their obsessive desire for wealth and profit.

This kind of power is based on control by the few, egotism, individualism, competition, the exercise of violence on all levels, and exploitation.

However, another type of power has also existed throughout the history of humankind. Thanks to this other kind of power unjust situations have been transformed. In the face of death, this other power manifests itself as the power of life. Faced with the destruction of wars and violence, it emerges as a constructive force. In the face of individualism, it exists in collective and solidarity efforts.

Nonviolent leader Mohandas Gandhi said that the power to change resides in the people. Similarly, some Eastern philosophies assert that the power to change comes from within ourselves. These beliefs refer not only to collective power but also to individual power. Change at both levels is needed because the dominant power has sought to put external obstacles in the way of our freedom (in order to dominate us) and it has lodged internal obstacles (as false values) in our way. These internal obstacles--patriarchy, individualism, egotism, competition, materialism, discrimination, the instinct to consume (which has damaged the environment so severely)--sometimes impede us far more than the external ones. We have been trained for submission and passivity, so that we obey and do not rebel against the power exerted over us. On occasion, many of these false values have represented the greatest hurdles in the way of social and political revolutions. We have also been brainwashed to believe that the only way to have power is to impose our will on the next person.

The power to transform

But there is another concept of power, based on the capacity that each one of us--as human beings--has within us the capacity for great creativity and richness. Each person is capable of different types of power, even if that power sometimes lies dormant. Those of us who are nonviolent and anti-authoritarian believe, not in the power of domination, but in the power of freedom. We believe in the power to make decisions autonomously and solidarity with others. We believe in the power to transform situations of injustice through the power of working side-by-side. We believe in becoming conscious and raising consciousness in others, because the power to change resides within us.

We can take away power from the corporations by consuming less or differently--choosing carefully what we consume, buying from small and independent producers and not from large companies. We can refuse to pay taxes that prop up corrupt governments who abuse our rights or attack other nations or sell arms that increase conflicts. We can reclaim or occupy land that has been appropriated by the few and cultivate and use it for the benefit of ordinary rural people who work it. The Movimento Sem Terra (Landless Movement) has done this in Brazil as have other indigenous people in different countries.

One's entire personal and social life can be developed in such a way as to avoid any type of collaboration with this power for domination. This power tries to appropriate our own power, for example, the power of production. In the process, our own powers are diminished. If we could act with total freedom, we could do so much more.

Power corrupts

We do not believe that we solve our problems by taking power characterized by domination, or by turning the dominated into the dominators. This kind of power corrupts. Its values and behaviors become internalized, and show themselves in the actions that follow. We have too many examples of revolutions that took power, but soon reserved it to a small group who came to dominate the rest.

For us, power is synonymous with creative action and transforming situations, making the most of resources and improving human relations for the benefit of all. It is about creating organizational forms that seek different objectives that enable individual and collective goals to be met in a way that is pluralist and horizontal. We work to build organizations in which all play a part and share decision-making, with respect for one another.

Not large corporations, but small. Not economics, politics, and society on the macro scale, but on the local level. Rather than the state, the community; and instead of centralization we look for decentralization and diversification.

Cecilia Moretti lives in Argentina and is Vice-Chair of War Resisters International.

Translation: Lucia Brandi.

Empowerment

By Pushpa Bhave

The word or concept of empowerment comes from the patriachal discourse because patriarchy has been obsessed by 'power.' Women as a group have been or are derived of that power. Although some women have been caressed by it, more often women are oppressed by it.

In the initial stages of gaining a new awareness of their situation, women have shown signs of yearning for power--it was a time when they wanted to be like men in order to be equal. But that was only a passing phase. When women started thinking critically and felt free to perceive the world through their new awareness, they established a new philosophy of life. This philosophy challenged the hierarchy of power--it challenged the tug of war for supremacy among nations, exemplified by the possession and the use of nuclear weapons. Women realized that violence, war, and a culture of hatred endangered the human values that are nurtured around the world as core cultural values. Two world wars and many other peripheral wars had devastated not only the physical structures of cities, but also the value structures of humanity. Because women have always been victims in the battles for supremacy among men, they raised their voices--together with peace-loving men--to oppose war and nuclear weapons.

But the texture of human affairs is not so simple. Ambition comes naturally in this achievement-oriented world. And the newly liberated women saw the light of the public domain as a challenge. They wanted to prove themselves--not an easy task for these women who struggled to establish themselves for the first time in the public realm. Meanwhile, men who held power--and were well accustomed to the world of bargaining--knew how a gesture to the sharing of bit of power can help in bargaining with any nonconformist. By the skillful use of power, one can easily co-opt people and create a rift among militant and dissident groups.

Gender bias continued despite the many eloquent words about equal opportunity. And among the women who were trying to stand on their own feet in a male-dominated world, there were differences of caste, creed, social class. As women achieved success in the so-called man's world, in fields ranging from education to industry and the professions, there were new differences--both natural and structural. Women's attitude towards other women who were not so successful changed and vice versa.

The male-dominated world did not like the challenge and competition posed by 'these liberated women.' Although we recognize that there were individual men who admired these women, as a group they reacted against it. So, they used women against women, creating groups like working women versus housewives--women fell victim to this game.

Similarly, economic independence has been much talked about, but not a single country has safeguarded women against tyranny in the family, domestic violence, or a subservient position in the home. The ability to earn a living, while important for women on its own, does not solve as many of the problem that it was claimed it would resolve. At the same time, being in the public realm exposed women to another set of power structures and hierarchies. Some women became a part of these power games without questioning them. Some were co-opted by the patriarchy, a process that is most evident among right-wing political parties and movements that use religious sentiment as bait. Finally, some women are even now questioning the structure from within. These three groups are not well-defined or well-established compartments.

It is not surprising that women, who as a social group had been restricted to the private world and almost invisible in the public scene, wanted to arrive by assuming positions of decision-making power. Yet, they were not free from the abuses of that power, just as no human being who is part of our contemporary world can claim to be completely innocent as far as the use of power is concerned.

Returning to the theme of empowerment, it is interesting to note that in the last decade, concept words arrive periodically on the horizon. In some years, the concept was 'structural adjustment,' but we don't hear much about that anymore. In recent years, the term has been 'empowerment.' Frequently, the true meaning of these value-ridden concept words can be found in the context in which it has been used.

Just as patriarchy has been obsessed with power, the word empowerment points to the male ego as the man sees himself even now in the role of the provider. The notion of empowerment risks extending the role that patriarchy envisions for itself (including the state) to the role of providence--a role that is trying to provide empowerment to women who are deprived and are not looked after by so-called successful city women. Empowerment is presented by many agencies as a packet that is neatly wrapped by efficient hands. But genuine empowerment is an ongoing process.

True empowerment relates to how a woman interacts with the situations around her. And how she discovers fountains of energy deep within her. A grief-filled situation might break one person while it empowers another. So, empowerment should not be viewed as an ornament offered to women to appease them. We must emphasize that real empowerment is a process from within and without. For a woman to raise her consciousness of her self, begin to shape her own worldview, and form an association with other people whose consciousness is also being awakened is genuine empowerment.

Social empowerment has been described as having three levels: personal or power within; collective or power with; social or power in relation to certain ends and/or power against certain social forces. Of course, these levels are interrelated. Examining these different levels helps to distinguish between genuine and false empowerment. Let me consider several different examples from our history.

Long ago, during the movement for India's independence, Gandhiji encouraged women to come out of the private domain by empowering them with a redefined of womanhood. In his philosophy, personal power (power that was not achievement-oriented) held an important place. What was significant in Gandhiji's approach was a new relationship forged between the poor woman in the village and the city woman (sometimes even a millionaire's wife). The use of khadi (homespun cloth) was a means to this end. The city woman discarded her fine sari from Manchester and accepted the thick homespun cloth that was spun in the village cottages. "Power with each other" was created. He convinced the women to reject gold, so there was empowerment by means of renunciation. Gandhiji's efforts at changing women's sex role was important also.

But to arrive at some more recent history, I would like to cite the example of Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) or the movement for justice for people displaced by the Sardar Sarovar dam project. Empowerment is usually understood economically, but the social groups here were very marginalized and their passage from depravity was eased by th empowerment achieved through their collectie actions. This movement sought to stop the construction of a series of dams along the Narmada river. Their efforts have forced the World Bank and Indian governments to review this and other damn projects. They concluded that the project was ill-conceived and while the struggle against the dam project continues, it also sparked a people's movement.

The leader of the NBA, Medha Patkar, has served as a principal organizer for this movement, but many individuals' lives have changed because of NBA. So it happened that a young woman was alone in Manibeli (a village on one side of Narmada), but she had the courage to resist the police force--something that was unimaginable among poor illiterate rural communities. On the other side of the river, women who have been rejected by their husbands carry a social stigma. But, in NBA two women who were rejected by their husbands assumed positions of respect. Now when women from the NBA go to march or protest in the city, the men look after the small children and the housework. The empowerment that they have achieved by working together is, in some ways, more effective and meaningful than economic empowerment.

In the recent past, it is also important to look the phenomenon that I call, 'mock empowerment.' Using political practices and rhetoric that create majority empowerment combined with minority disempowerment, this phenomenon has been the work of rightist groups or parties that use religious sentiment to divide people and reinforce male power.

It gives women a false sense of pride that they are working for religion and in the name of religion, they are encouraged to be violent. They also work against other groups of women. In the 1992-93 riots in Bombay and elsewhere, women took an active part in the violence. These political parties and groups are not opposed to gender bias, but they have rallied large groups of women to support them. Thus, patriarchy created mass-hysteria against a certain race of people. And it can happen again.

The real empowerment is fountain of energy from within, it manifests itself in social action and aims at social change.

19-2-2001

Collective identities: trap or tool for empowerment?

By Andreas Speck

Collective identities--"we" as queers, or whatever group you like--are often perceived as empowering by providing a sense of belonging. At the same time, by the very existence of these collective identities produce new boundaries of "in" and "out" and new norms of behavior that limit people's freedom to be and to do. Thus, identity can be disempowering and even threaten people's lives, in the case of nationalist or homophobic attacks.

Perhaps it's obvious, but I consider none of the normally-discussed collective identities (ethnic, gender, or nation-based) as "natural." All of them are social constructions. That doesn't mean they don't exist or that they don't have an influence on our lives. But it means that we have an active role in shaping our collective identities, in stabilizing or deconstructing them.

As a gay man, I write primarily about that perspective. But I believe that similar processes are at work in the construction of other collective identities and these reflections are not limited to issues of gay identities.

Constructing "the Other"

It is probably no coincidence that Western European/Northern American, heterosexual, middle-class white men are generally unaware of their identity: they represent the "norm" against which everything is measured. Collective identities are often definitions of "the Other," different from the norm and therefore less valued. At the same time, these descriptions of "the Other" are necessary to define the "norm." One of these "norms" is heterosexuality. Thus, something that is a social construction is shown as normal--a practice that serves to maintain power and to secure control. This practice is not possible through definition of heterosexuality on its own, but through the construction of "the Other:" the non-heterosexual or homosexual. This demarcation--the exclusion from the norm--leads to the construction of identity and the description of a collective identity for homosexuals.

In this process there is no awareness that normality depends on "the Other" even though it is the dominant form in society--that is, definitions of heterosexual depend on definitions of homosexual. Rather, those who do not belong become aware, painfully, of their own collective identity through this very exclusion. The Other experiences a collective sense of not-belonging and being different. Coming Out as gay or lesbian then can be a first step in the process of empowerment and there is little doubt it is crucial for a one's personal development and self-confidence. At the same time, this homosexual (or gay/lesbian) identity would not be possible without a hetero normality.

Redefinition of identity: first step of empowerment

One necessary first step of the gay/lesbian emancipation movement was to redefine the negative collective identity that was imposed on the community as a positive. Gay Pride and Gay is Good were slogans that attached positive values to one's identity. According to writer Susanne Kappeler, "The development of a political awareness of identity...is a first step in the politicization of the resistance of oppressed groups.... Awareness of identity is a result and a means of liberatory politics, identity a (temporarily) term of struggle: a response to discrimination and the view of the norm. Identity in this sense means awareness of a common history of exploitation and oppression...." This means empowerment on both a group and personal level.

In the beginning, many of these movements had to struggle to overcome definitions inherited from the outside. Many people of color in the U.S. and elsewhere had a socially-inherited view of inferiority compared with white people. As part of the process of organizing for empowerment, they had to overcome and reshape that perception. Similarly, many gays and lesbians agreed with a negative view of themselves, leading to a policy of claiming to be the same as straights. The gay and lesbian movement that emerged after Stonewall was largely a Coming Out movement in which gays and lesbians empowered themselves by working on their own outing.

In the women's movement, women's groups filled a need to share the common experience of oppression with each other and to empower themselves as women. Then they served to develop political action. All of these movements experienced a shift from identity as a common experience of oppression toward a politics of identity. Newly found identities as Black or gay or lesbian or women became the basis for political action. As the gay movement consolidated, however, the frontal assault on the basic notion of boundaries between sexual identities rapidly lost popularity. Gay activists began to argue that gays were a sexual minority deserving of the same rights as other citizens. Instead of tearing down the system, the new goal emerged--rearrange the system and allow homosexuals to participate on a more equal basis. Thus, identity looses its character as a temporary term of struggle and becomes a means of constructing new norms for the group on which this identity was first imposed.

Dominant identities: invisible norms

Male identity, heterosexual identity or white identity exist as norms, but there is little awareness of them. It does not make sense to employ them as terms of struggle or products of liberation politics. To the contrary, through their norm-setting character they are means to shape and oppress and do not require an awareness of identity to achieve this end. Rüdiger Lautmann states that heterosexuality is not suitable for identity. It is only a category of exclusion--a category of the rest. Perhaps heterosexuality wants to be seen as the same as being human being and this immodest claim is the reason for its universal success. This white, male, heterosexual norm reflects the structure of power relations in society, a prerequisite and product of the power to define. Therefore, it is increasingly necessary to question this identity as a norm. Weakening this norm-setting identity involves snatching it from its status as "natural" to achieve its collapse. At the same time, it is not enough to deny these identities and to pretend they don't exist.

As a white man from Germany, I have a view of the norm. Without reflecting on it, I am likely to judge others according to this norm, to divide people into categories according to well they conform to the norm and perhaps even pressure into compliance the norm as an exercise of my power. These characteristics--male, heterosexual, and white are attributes of power-over, not of liberation. At the same time they limit the behavior of those to whom they apply, just as the norm robs the potential of others. Everyone becomes enslaved to the norm.

Anyone who has tried to break with masculinity understands the powerful pressure of the norm, even for non-heterosexuals. The pressure begins with banal issues like clothing--through these superficialities society's pressure to conform is most evident. Ever tried cross-dressing in public? Although empowerment for heterosexual men might sound strange in a patriarchal society, I see it as crucial to breaking the cycle of reproducing oppressive masculinities. In this process, it is important to acknowledge men's power-over (women, gays, people of color) as a step toward overcoming the desire for power-over and replacing it with power-with others.

Marginalised identities

The collective identities of marginalized and oppressed groups are also ambivalent. I believe that advocates of identity politics tend to overvalue the collective awareness of oppression in the attempt to reshape identity in a positive way. Although recognizing shared oppression is an important aspect of empowerment, the principle of exclusion is built into these collective identities. They are constructing norms and thereby limiting inclusion also. Judith Butler cautions that while we fight the violence of being made invisible, we do not produce new forms of violence in this context norms of identities. New regulative ideals are easily constructed, controlling which forms of gender and sexuality are legitimate and which are not, leading to new forms of marginalization. The effect is disempowerment, when I realize that I don't fit the norms of the collective that I identify with.

Susanne Kappeler makes the point: "The content and reason of a political awareness of identity is not to celebrate a newly found identity, but to overcome the racist, sexist, heterosexist identity and the abolition of all criteria of discrimination and exploitation....Politics of identity, a politics of interests out of so called identities, means the de-politisation of the struggle for self-liberation of oppressed groups. With this politics of identity--women's politics instead of feminist politics, lesbian and gay politics instead of anti-heterosexism politics, female culture instead of criticism of patriarchy--with all this politics of identities and differences, which is emerging today, the political sense of building a collective awareness of identity of oppressed groups got lost. Identity was run-down to a psychological and cultural term, and lost its meaning for liberation politics."

Queering, the identity dilemma?

This is what queer politics is about. With the weakening of oppression resulting from personal and social empowerment--queering of identities is one option to avoid the trap of identity politics. At the same time, insisting on the awareness of identity as an oppressed group might still be an important political tactic. While it might be easier to identify as gay--at least in the cities of western countries--I still have to accept one of the collective identities, gay or straight. But aren't these just new norms? Does taking this identity mean that I accept the norm? Does it meant that I am complying voluntarily with the norm?

There are many practical difficulties in refusing to conform. One is that society's norms have a lot of power to shape reality. This power affects me too. Although I have my share of the advantages that patriarchy offers to men (despite the fact that I'm gay), society often imposes an identity on me--whether I like it or not. But, do I have to take part in perpetuating the homo-hetero binary just to comply with the norms of the gay community? Where is the liberation in this?

For me, empowerment is the means overcoming of the need to comply with collective identities--to see being gay as one of many aspects of my individual identity, no more important than the others. The question is how to liberate ourselves from society's constructions of the norm? The danger is in simply denying the power of existing collective identities or to be unaware of how we participate in them. If we manage to refuse to take part in constructing and stabilizing these norms, then maybe possibilities for liberation will emerge.

Sources:

Astrid Albrecht-Heide & Christine Holzkamp: Lebensformen und Sexualität. Vielfalt quer zu patriarchalen Leitbildern Dialogreferat. In: Jutta Hartmann u.a. (ed.): Lebensformen und Sexualität. Herrschaftskritische Analysen und pädagogische Perspektiven. Bielefeld 1998
see for example: Jonathan Ned Katz: The Invention of Heterosexuality. New York 1996
Susanne Kappeler: Kofra 61, December 1992/January 1993
Jan Clausen: Beyond Gay or Straight. Understanding Sexual Orientation. Philadelphia 1997, p. 90
Rüdiger Lautmann: Paradoxien der homosexuellen Identität. Identitäts(ge)rede. In: Manfred Herzer (ed.): 100 Jahre Schwulenbewegung. Berlin 1998
Judith Butler: Imitation and Gender Insubordination. In: Dianne Fuss (ed.): Inside/Out, Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories. London 1991
Adrienne Rich: Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. In: Ann Snitow and others (ed.): Powers of Desire. The Politics of Sexuality. New York 1983
Susanne Luhmann: Verquere Pädagogik? Queer Theory und die Grenzen anti-homophober Bildungsarbeit. In: Jutta Hartmann and others (ed.): Lebensformen und Sexualität. Herrschaftskritische Analysen und pädagogische Perspektiven. Bielefeld 1998
Susanne Kappeler, 1993

Andreas Speck is on the WRI Executive and presently works as coordinator of WRI's Nonviolence and Social Empowerment project.

Be realistic, demand the impossible

By Howard Clark

Look back at an experience of empowerment. I wonder if the experience now seems that it was just a passing feeling you had at the time. Back then, you or your group somehow gathered the strength to make a difference--or at least feel that you made a difference. You may have changed something permanently, but the feeling was ephemeral. It wore off. A sense of empowerment is something that needs to be recreated continually.

Forms of empowerment, whether types of activity, attitudes, styles, spread by contagion. But after a while we begin to look for improvement, some benchmark to surpass--an additional element, an innovation, or better results. A street action that is empowering the first time we participate soon begins to need something new--more people, a wider range of groups, more impact. When it becomes difficult to extend the level of social mobilization, it is a common mistake for many of us to confuse militancy for empowerment. People escalate the action hoping for similar results in terms of public disruption and press coverage. But this kind of militancy has its price. It often increases the marginalization that activists experience and is likely to narrow the social base for the actions. It can lead to a disempowering downward spiral, reducing the prospect for change either on the question under debate or on how social power is constructed.

In this article, I want to look at the need for strategy to achieve our goals in the context of an understanding of the power needed to oppose certain social forces. Let me begin with a brief review of the discussion about nonviolence and social empowerment. Nonviolent social empowerment does not aim to establish power-over (domination) but to strengthen people's power-to-be and power-to-do. It envisages a process--perhaps a better word would be praxis--of restructuring social power from the grassroots. It operates on three levels: power-within (personal power--the sense that each of us has when we feel centered), power-with (the power we feel when we connect and cooperate with others), and power-in-relation-to (the power to achieve our goals, to defend our values, to stop the forces of death and destruction).

Power-for

A movement needs some assessment about what it can achieve in a certain timeframe. That assessment may be intuitive or analytical, but it is best when made explicit. Of course, any assessment needs to be revisited and reevaluated regularly. Sometimes success takes a movement by surprise and allows it to move quickly beyond its initial demands--the campaign against genetically-modified food in Europe is a recent example. Unfortunately, activists sometimes confuse symbolic power and the espoused goal, especially when movements employ direct action. An example of this confusion sometimes affects efforts to liberate space (also known today as reclaiming space). Is the space or land itself important. Or is the action's statement of taking control more important? Is the practical or the principle paramount? Confusing symbol and political goal also effects actions for environmental defense and direct disarmament.

In the great anti-technocratic revolts of 1968, the slogan "Be Realistic, Demand the Impossible" was a rallying cry against the managerialism of the times. As I write, it warms my heart to hear the staid tones of the BBC reporting on anti-capitalist demonstrations in Washington DC. But a rallying cry is not a strategy for change.

With the anti-globalization demonstrations in Seattle in 1999 and Washington in 2000 and other cities, we have seen encouraging mobilizations representing the force of one coalition of opinion within society. Who now will make use of that force? Who offers channels for the energy now mobilized to take concrete forms? At a local level, solidarity projects and fair trade shops do their work, but efforts are underway to move beyond that? Is there anything more than a number of lobby groups with merely reformist perspectives? I ask because I don't know, but these are important questions. It often seems that the more important it is to show results, the less visionary the demands become. The point, however, is not to abandon the pursuit of the vision but to find limited steps and possible forms of activity that enhance our capacity--our power-within and our power-with. We also need to look for practical and attainable objectives matched to our strength, which will ultimately be the steps towards realizing the vision: the impossible takes a bit longer. Redefining what is possible requires a strategy in which each phase creates a base for future expansion.

Power-against

At the same time, it is not enough merely to build up the strength of a movement. One also has to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the power structures we wish to challenge, looking for leverage points and particular sensitivities on the question at issue. A nonviolent attitude generally seeks to include the opponent in the outcome of a struggle, to recognize the opponent's legitimate concerns. Nevertheless, entrenched interests do have to be engaged in struggle, and, at some level, defeated.

Empowerment for social struggle must include preparation for some kind of contest in which we need to make tactical calculations about where to focus our energies. We must also be aware of the full repertoire of methods available and the different constituencies that can be mobilized. Unfortunately, many movements tend to repeat themselves--to stay with familiar methods and draw on familiar constituencies--instead of testing different methods

Are there ways to maximize our unity while promoting divisiveness amongst our opponents? The consumer boycott against Nestlé in the 1970's and 1980's because of its marketing practices in the Third World found a way. Nestlé was not the only manufacturer conning Third World mothers that powdered baby formula was better than breast milk. If they had all been put under the spotlight, they would have coordinated efforts to present a common front--no doubt paying for scientific reports to prove that powdered baby formula is better than breast milk. But when only the biggest company came under attack, the others began to change their practices to prove that they were better than Nestlé. In the end, Nestlé itself introduced a new code of practice.

Are there weak points where a limited action can inhibit or restrain the opponent? Peace Brigades International found that the presence of a few international volunteers would give dictators and death squads pause in threatening human rights activists. They also found that they could not always assume that this would be the case--at times, the international presence could attract unwanted attention and have adverse effects. Liam Mahoney and Enrique Eguren have done an excellent analysis in their book, Unarmed Bodyguard (Kumarian Press, 1997.)

Many movements concentrate on symbolic sites for struggle particularly the very site where a regime or company has plans to do something (build a road, site military hardware, etc). At this symbolic level we should ask: are there other mobilizing symbols closer to home that can inspire and engender connections with a wider range of people?

More than a contest

There are also people's actions that the ruling power simply cannot resist. If the elite repress the people, it brings out a reactive sympathy. If they allow the people's action to go ahead, then they concede ground to the movement. What dilemmas can we pose to our opponents?

Is there anything we want that our opponents would not mind conceding? Is there anything we can offer our opponent that would help them make concessions? The decision of some of London's pioneer squatters to offer to manage houses they had saved from demolition was controversial in the movement at the time (nearly 30 years ago), but offered a win-win solution to both local councils and squatters.

The leading scholar on nonviolent action, Gene Sharp, has suggested four mechanisms by which a power structure changes in the face of a nonviolent movement: conversion (so that it accepts the movement's demands); coercion (so that it concedes); accommodation (so that it grants part of the demands); or disintegration. Most of us have probably experienced accommodation and the problem of trying to press for what we really wanted all along. Many of us have probably experienced success in converting or coercing a power structure and then faced the backlash from those who were not converted, those who felt left out of the accepted compromise. In some dramatic cases, groups have seen their society's political regime disintegrate only to fear the forces that stepped in to fill the power vacuum.

All of this suggests that nonviolent struggle is more than a contest. Power-against is just part of the third level of empowerment, power-in-relation-to.

Within every nonviolent movement that works on a particular issue, there is a deeper agenda. An agenda that includes creating societies in which people have the power to shape their own lives and strengthen a sense of social connectedness. Nonviolent social empowerment is not just a process or praxis, but a goal--replacing remote and impenetrable hierarchies with human-scale and transparent structures.

Howard Clark is the author of Civil Resistance in Kosovo (Pluto Press). He lives in Spain.

Empowerment: International Dimensions

By Andreas Speck

Although international cooperation among political movements is as old as the movements themselves, it has become more important in times of economic globalization. Since the UN Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, solidarity has entered official discourse in discussion of an international "civil society." Rather than add to that discussion and the growing NGO-ization of popular movements, I want to examine the experience of one movement--War Resisters' International (WRI)--with international cooperation through the lens of empowerment. As an international network of pacifist and nonviolent organizations, WRI focuses on the grassroots level and works to achieve change at the leadership level by indirect means.

My approach to these issues is shaped by my experience as a "total objector" to both military and alternative service in Germany in the 1980s. I have been involved in the nonviolent peace movements and their anarchist or direct action wing since the mid-80s and got involved with WRI as a representative of the Federation of Nonviolent Action Groups (FöGA), the network of nonviolent anarchist groups in Germany. In this essay, I will explore three areas of international cooperation: solidarity actions, international nonviolent interventions (both of which are acts performed by "outsiders" to a conflict in cooperation with parties in the conflict) and, finally, the formation of a joint struggle against militarism.

Solidarity Work

War Resisters' International's solidarity work has focused primarily on supporting conscientious objectors who face imprisonment and other form of states repression. In the conflict between conscientious objectors on the one side and the state and militaries on the other side, War Resisters' International "intervenes" as a partisan third party[1] - providing support for the antimilitarist movement, and promoting the common cause of conscientious objection. During the second half of the 1990s, a major focus of WRI's solidarity work was the antimilitarist struggle in Turkey especially the imprisonment of conscientious objector and WRI vice chair Osman Murat Ülke[2].

The Turkish antimilitarist movement

The antimilitarist movement in Turkey is still quite young. It began with the first public declaration of conscientious objection by Tayfun in 1989. A second declaration followed in 1990by Vedat Zencir, combined with a campaign against conscription. Both conscientious objectors were prosecuted and sentenced under Article 155 Turkish Penal Code and charged with "alienating the people from the military," but not for conscientious objection itself.

Early in its development, the Turkish antimilitarist movement looked for international cooperation. In 1993 the International Conscientious Objectors' Meeting (ICOM) gathered in Ören, Turkey. Although the meeting did not enjoy legal status in Turkey because it was never approved by the Turkish authorities, the contacts made were important for the movement that followed. On 17 May 1994, İstanbul Savaş Karşıtları Derneği (Istanbul War Resisters' Association) organized a press conference to mark International Conscientious Objectors' Day, celebrated on May 15. Four Turkish COs used the forum to declare their conscientious objection publicly. Three German supporters gave presentations on the situation of conscientious objectors in Germany and Europe. Organizers of the press conference raised a demand for the right to conscientious objection, supported by more than 100 signatures (Nadler 1994: 7).

After the press conference, 17 Turkish participants and the three German delegates were arrested. The Germans were released the following day, but were prevented from leaving Turkey. After trial in early June, they were forced to leave the country and banned from visiting again. While most of the Turkish people were released on the same day, four remained in prison for weeks and even months--among them was Osman Murat Ülke. They also were charged under Article 155. İstanbul Savaş Karşıtları Derneği was banned.

Although Osman Murat Ülke participated in the press conference only as a translator, he was the most outspoken person during the trial. In June 1995, at the anticipated end of the trial, an international delegation was organized to observe the proceedings at the Military Court at the General Staff in Ankara. Faced with huge international interest, the court postponed the trial ended until August 29, 1995. Another international delegation was organized, this time smaller than the first. While three of the accused were convicted and sentenced to prison terms equal to the time they had already spent in prison, Osman Murat Ülke was acquitted. But he was sent immediately to the recruitment office and called up to report to his military unit at Bilecik two days later. He was allowed to go home and to travel to Bilecik on his own. Not surprisingly, Ülke did not obey the call up order, but used World Peace Day on September 1 to make a public statement. At a press conference in Izmir, he burned his draft papers, and publicly declared his conscientious objection. Although everyone expected his immediate arrest, nothing happened for more than one year. Then on October 7, 1996, Osman Murat Ülke was arrested and taken to the Mamak military prison in Ankara (Speck 1996: 1/8)

International Solidarity

The development of Osman Murat Ülke's case made it possible to prepare for solidarity actions. Osman Murat Ülke was not only well known in the international antimilitarist movement when he was arrested in October 1996, but also a practice of cooperation existed between Izmir Savaş Karşıtları Derneği (Izmir War Resisters Association or ISKD) in Turkey and several groups of the WRI network. The ICOM gathering in 1993, several delegation visits to Turkey, and travel Osman Murat Ülke to groups in Europe laid the ground for a large solidarity campaign.

Immediately after his arrest, the international network mobilized an action alert. Protest faxes and letters from all over the world arrived at the prison, and letters expressing solidarity were sent to Osman Murat Ülke in prison. When he was transferred from Mamak military prison to his military unit in Bilecik following the trial on 19 November 1996, faxes arrived at Bilecik barracks before he did! The same thing happened when he was moved to Eskisehir military prison, where he was tried several times for disobeying orders and desertion. He was finally released on 9 March 1999, after being sentenced to one year imprisonment, which he already served while awaiting trial. Although there were no new charges against him, he was ordered to present himself at "his" military unit in Bilecik again. But everyone knew that he would not report (ISKD 1999). Since then, he has been living in Izmir, officially sought for desertion, but practically ignored by the police and the military. Still, he can be arrested whenever it suits the Turkish state.

In an interview Osman Murat Ülke points to the importance of solidarity - solidarity from within Turkey, and from abroad - while he was imprisoned. He received more than 2,500 letters while in prison, contributing to his own sense of empowerment or power-within while in prison (Ülke 1999). Earlier, ISKD activist Serdar Tekin pointed out, that in case of arrest "international delegations and support are of a practical importance, to reduce the danger of torture and mistreatment". (Tekin 1996).

Excursion: theoretical questions

Because empowerment is about the effectiveness of different strategies, the question arises: why did this work (at least in a limited way) in the case of Osman Murat Ülke? By contrast, why did Serbian war resisters warn their international partners against carrying out a similar solidarity campaign in the event that one of them would be arrested[3]? Why did they fear this kind of international solidarity from below?

A closer look at Gene Sharp's "Consent Theory of Power" (Sharp 1973, 1980) might provide an answer. According to Sharp, power is based on the consent of those governed. If this consent is actively withdrawn, power crumbles, it ceases to exist (see figure 1). Although Sharp's model presents a simplified analysis of power relations within a society, it completely overlooks important issues of international relations and must be modified to address solidarity.In the case of Turkey, the Turkish elites (especially the military) enjoyed strong support from most NATO countries, especially from Germany and the United States. Greece, a nation that is almost at war with Turkey, is the notable exception among NATO members. Following Sharp's model, this international support stabilizes the Turkish elites. A withdrawal of consent by the Turkish population can be neutralized through support from outside elites such as Germany and the United States (see figure 2).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Building on Sharp, Norwegian peace researcher Johan Galtung has suggested another model, the "great chain of nonviolence." Acts of solidarity those states that support the Turkish elites become very important. Thus, the Turkish elites become dependent on public opinion in Germany and the United States, a power relationship that could be exploited with international delegations to trials and with campaigns of protest letters and faxes to military and prison authorities following Osman Murat Ülke's arrest.

Although additional conscientious objectors publicly declared their objection to military service during and after Osman Murat Ülke's prison term, no new CO's were called up or arrested. It seems that the Turkish state has decided to ignore the issue, perhaps to avoid the emergence of a new human rights issue while Turkey seeks membership in the European Union, a process that has identified Turkey's human rights record as an issue.

The case of Yugoslavia was very different. The antimilitarist movement in Yugoslavia was already accused of being an agent of "the West." Because Yugoslavia and "the West" view each other as enemies (and even went to war during NATO's bombing in Spring 1999), a solidarity campaign by citizens of Western states could have supported the claim the Yugoslav powerholders. These international antimilitarist groups were far from being supporters of the Yugoslav regime, even when they opposed NATO's bombing campaign. To support the Yugoslav antimilitarists, there was no power relationship that could have been exploited for solidarity actions.

Solidarity Work: Other Aspects

Solidarity actions provide support, and that shouldn't be a one-way road. While the Turkish antimilitarist activists receive solidarity from other activists around the world, they are also expressing their solidarity with antimilitarist activists in other countries, like Greece or the Balkans.

From the point of view of empowerment, this mutual support is important not only because of the direct consequences (providing funds for a campaign or carrying out solidarity actions to raise public awareness), but also because of the power that comes from the sense of belonging to an international movement. These exchanges of solidarity provide that experience and the direct human interaction that might help to break the experience of isolation in one's own country. This experience was especially important for Yugoslav peace activists during the era of the Milošević regime. It became increasingly important during NATO's bombing campaign when peace activists felt more isolated and marginalized in an increasingly nationalist Serbian society.

However, solidarity can also be disempowering--both for those receiving solidarity and for those offering it[4]. For those on the receiving end the potential danger is the development of a relationship of dependency in which the local group depends on outside support for almost everything. Even in the best of circumstances, this situation can lead the group to take its political agenda and policies from its supporters, not its constituency. At its worst, I call this dynamic "the NGO syndrome," which involves the development of local or regional NGOs that are completely dependent on outside funding without any local base. This activity might empower those employed by the NGO, but the local community is prevented from self-organization and degraded to receiving foreign "aid."

For those providing solidarity, there are two potential dangers that can lead to disempowerment: the first is an uncritical acceptance of every action and policy of those who receive support. This often happened in the third world solidarity movements of the 1970s. The second danger comes from overlooking the links between international issues and the problems in one's own society. This problem can result from a reticence to confront the reality in one's own country and from projecting idealized or romantic visions on movements that are far away

International Nonviolent Intervention

Although international solidarity is a form of international nonviolent intervention, the term is used increasingly to name nonpartisan interventions in a conflict by third parties. Although the history of international nonviolent interventions goes back to the 1930s, when Maude Royden started to form a "Peace Army" to act as a human shield between the Japanese and Chinese forces during the war between Japan and China (Weber 1993), initiatives for nonviolent intervention became increasingly popular after the end of the Cold War. Some of these projects have been described in the journal, Peace News.

War Resisters' International has a long history of involvement with international nonviolent intervention. After its Triennial meeting in 1960, Gandhi's idea of a Shanti Sena (Peace Army) was taken up on the initiative of Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) to create an "international Shanti Sena," an effort that became the "World Peace Brigade," founded in 1961 in Beirut, Lebanon (Weber 1993: 50-51). Although short-lived, this organization was an important experience for the subsequent creation of "Peace Brigades International" in 1980. In 1971, during the war of secession between Bangladesh and Pakistan, WRI and Peace News initiated a similar project, "Operation Omega" as an international nonviolent direct response that also sent relief to the border areas of Bangladesh (Graham, 1971; Moody, 1971, 1971a, 1971b; Omega 1971).

Balkan Peace Team

In the 1990s WRI's most important project of international nonviolent intervention was the Balkan Peace Team, which operated in Croatia, and later expanded to Kosov@ and Serbia. The project closed in January 2001 when the Kosov@ team left the project.

The Croatia team of the Balkan Peace Team engaged in different activities at different levels of society, usually in close cooperation with local civil society groups. The teams observed trials of members of the opposition or of minorities, documented human rights abuses against Serbs and members of the Croatian opposition. They also contributed to the development of civil society networks through the exchange of information. While the human right monitoring work helped to create political space that could be used by local activists (and served as an indirect contribution to local empowerment) the network building activities contributed very directly to the empowerment of local activists.

In a first study Müller/Büttner (1996) wrote, "The BPTI project plays a strongly supportive role in civil society's development of articulation and conflict resolution abilities (peacebuilding: empowerment through seminars and networking)." In a more detailed analysis, they point out that the most important aspect is "the continuous strengthening of the local partners through the specific additional and supporting work of the team" (Müller/Büttner/Gleichmann, 1999).

Critical Remarks

Some critical remarks need to be made about the growth of activity in the field of international nonviolent interventions, a phenomenon that cannot be viewed in isolation from the poor state of the peace movement in most Western countries, at least in the period from the end of the Cold War. With the advent of the so-called "war on terror" increased mobilization and some coordination offer hopeful signs, but a renewed movement has not yet firmly established itself.

To a significant degree, the fall of the Berlin Wall had a disempowering effect on many peace activists. The changes that it represented may have brought (capitalist) freedom to Eastern Europe, but they also marked the end of any alternative to the Western model of capitalist liberal democracy. It also revealed that, stripped of the simple east-west schema--there are no easy answers to long-standing conflicts and wars in many parts of the world

When the initial hope for a "peace dividend"--massive disarmament (or even demilitarization) and reinvestment in social programs didn't become true, the peace movement in many parts of the West seemed to have been demobilized and even disempowered. In fact, the military even gained ground in most countries and found new justifications for its existence. In response to the war on the Balkans, initiatives for humanitarian aid and nonviolent interventions were widely welcomed in the movement, while the militarization of our own countries continued and the role of our governments in fuelling the Balkans conflicts remained largely unchallenged. It seemed that the peace movement of Western Europe emigrated to Yugoslavia to empower others and support anti-militarist activists there, while it was too disempowered to confront militarism at home.

"Maybe we got our priorities wrong," said Nenad Vukosavljevic of the Sarajevo based Center for Nonviolent Action one day after NATO started its bombing campaign in March 1999 (Berndt 1999). Perhaps the concentrated peace work on the Balkans combined with the lack of campaigning against militarism in the NATO countries was one factor that contributed to NATO's bombing campaign. His question points to the need for linking international nonviolent intervention with antimilitarist campaigning and organizing at home (Berndt/Speck 1999, 2000), something that is in the present proposal for an International Nonviolent Peace Force.

A similar pattern can be observed in conscientious objector movements in countries were conscription has been abolished or where conscientious objection is no long a political issue. Many of these groups turn to solidarity work with CO movements abroad, a strategy that often means that only a small group of activists continues to be concerned with CO issues. Rarely do they develop new strategies to challenge a professionalized army at home.

Joint Struggle Against Militarism

Although War Resisters' International (and the larger peace movement) has decades of experience with international cooperation, the organization is still far from a joint struggle against militarism. Some international campaigns like WRI's efforts surrounding Prisoners for Peace Day on 1 December, or International Conscientious Objectors' Day on 15 May--or campaigns against nuclear weapons or to ban landmines--have been successful to a limited extent. Yet it seems that the more successful they can be, the less they challenge the roots of militarism itself. Indeed, the ban on landmines has even been supported by powerful militaries.

In developing a joint struggle against militarism, we need to be aware of internal power relationships among anti-militarist movements in the West and other parts of the world. While the major military powers reside in the West, antimilitarist movements from the West express their solidarity with movements elsewhere and often provide material support. Although this support is needed, it does not represent a joint struggle--something that would include challenging the military might of the Western nations.

We, who live and campaign in the "First World" need to be aware that we benefit from the West's militarism, even as activists. We enjoy from freedom to travel (and cheap fares), benefit from social security and welfare, and purchase inexpensive imported products (which are the result of a globalized economy and cheap labor secured by militarism). In short, we benefit from the massive military strength of the West.

Thus, a joint struggle against militarism needs to put capitalism--and patriarchy--on the political agenda, issues that are often avoided by the Western peace movement because they require us to acknowledge our own contradictions and to questions the Western way of life. Without tackling these issues and promoting a fundamentally different social, economical and political order, we will be stuck in solidarity work that risks the dangers outlined above. But we will never achieve fundamental change nor develop at a shared struggle that tackles the roots of militarism

Closing Remarks

On the first day of the Nonviolence and Social Empowerment conference, the Indian Sarvodaya activist Daniel Mazgaonkar made some important remarks. He raised the question about what kind of democracy we mean when we talk about the need for democracy, for democratic change? Are we talking about parliamentary systems, which are presented today as the ultimate ration of democracy? Or do we think of a new kind of democracy, one that is not based on state systems, but developed from the grassroots, and embedded in people's lives--a democracy that we might call Gandhian, or anarchist?

Western peace activists also need to ask questions about what kind of economy we want, when we talk of economic empowerment, and self-reliance? And what kind of technology?

International solidarity is an important aspect of War Resisters' International's work today, and makes important contributions to the empowerment of activists. But in the long run, it can only be the beginning of a process in which we need to empower each other to face global militarism, and to develop a joint struggle for a just social order.

Sources:

Berndt, Hagen, 1999: Beiträge zum Aufbau ziviler Gesellschaften - Aktionen gegen Krieg. Rundbrief der Bildungs- und Begegnungsstätte für gewaltfreie Aktion, No 38, Wustrow
Berndt, Hagen and Francis, Diana: Stages and Roles in Conflict. Handout to participants of KURVE Wustrow's Trainers' Training
Berndt, Hagen and Speck, Andreas: Satyagraha - Zivile Macht von unten. gewaltfreie aktion Vol 31, No. 121
Berndt, Hagen and Speck, Andreas: Zivile Konfliktbearbeitung als Juniorpartner der Globalisierung? Von der Kreation neuer Wahrnehmungs- und Handlungsmuster bei der Transformation von Konflikten. gewaltfreie aktion Vol 32, No. 123, page 3-18
Burrowes, Robert J. 1996: Nonviolent Defence - a Gandhian Approach, State University of New York Press
Francis, Diana and Ropers, Norbert, 1996: Peace Work by Civil Actors in Post-Communist Societies.
Graham, David, 1971: Omega's revolutionary philosophy. Peace News No 1831, 6 August 1971
ISKD, 1999: Osman Murat Ülke ist frei! Kırık Tüfek No 4, April 1999
Lederach, John Paul, 1997: Building Peace. Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington DC
Martin, Brian, 1989: Gene Sharp's Theory of Power. Journal of Peace Research Vol 26, no 2, pp. 213-222
McGuinness, Kate, 1993: Gene Sharp's Theory of Power: A Feminist Critique of Consent. Journal of Peace Research Vol 30, no 1, pp 101-115
Moody, Roger, 1971: Omega and Human Unity. Peace News No 1827, 9 September 1971
Moody, Roger, 1971a: The new challenge of Omega. Peace News No 1841, 15 October 1971
Moody, Roger, 1971b: Wither Omega? Peace News No 1849, 10 December 1971
Müller, Barbara and Büttner, Christian: Optimierungschancen von Peacekeeping, Peacemaking und Peacebuilding durch gewaltfreie Interventionen? Studie zur methodischen und systematischen Operationalisierung dieser Fragestellung. Institut für Friedensarbeit und gewaltfreie Konfliktlösung e.V., Arbeitspapier Nr. 4
Müller, Barbara, Büttner, Christian, Gleichmann, Peter R., 1999: Der Beitrag des Balkan Peace Team zur konstruktiven Konfliktbearbeitung in Kroatien und in Serbien/Kosovo. Auswertung Begleitforschung Balkan Peace Team, Teil Eins. Unpublished
Nadler, Franz, 1994: Festnahmen in Istanbul. Türkische und kurdische Wehrpflichtige verweigern gemeinsam den Kriegsdienst in der türkischen Armee. graswurzelrevolution No 189, Summer 1994
Omega, 1971: Omega's first confrontation. Operation Omega's own report of the August 17 crossing. Peace News No 1839, 24 September 1971
Patchwork, 1998: A Movement Action Plan for Turkey. Documentation. http://people.freenet.de/ask/map_turkey.html
Rohwedder, Jörg, 1998: Internationale Trainingszusammenarbeit am Beispiel Deutschland-Türkei. gewaltfreie aktion Vol 30, No 117/118
Sharp, Gene, 1973: The Politics of Nonviolent Action. Vol. 1-3. Boston, Porter Sargent
Sharp, Gene, 1980: Social Power and Political Freedom. Boston, Porter Sargent
Speck, Andreas, 1995: Sich fügen heisst lügen. Die Geschichte einer totalen Kriegsdienstverweigerung. Schriften der Erich-Mühsam-Gesellschaft, No. 10, Lübeck
Speck, Andreas, 1995: Die erste Wehrpassverbrennung in der Türkei. Neue Phase in der Auseinandersetzung zwischen türkischen AntimilitaristInnen und dem Militär. graswurzelrevolution No 201, October 1995
Speck, Andreas, 1996: Freiheit für Ossi! Türkischer Kriegsdienstverweigerer im Militärgefängnis im Hungerstreik/Prozess am 19. November. graswurzelrevolution No 213, November 1996
Speck, Andreas, 1998: Practical Peace Policy through Civil Intervention in Everyday Life. Initial Lecture at the European Peace Congress Osnabrück. In: Women in Black Belgrade (ed.): Women for Peace. Belgrade
Tekin, Serdar, 1996: ,,Geht nicht zum Militär - geht nicht zur PKK!" Interview mit Serdar Tekin vom Izmir Savaş Karşıtları Derneği, graswurzelrevolution No 205, February 1996
Ülke, Osman Murat, 1998: ,,Es wäre paradox, jetzt die Uniform anzuziehen.". Interview with Osman Murat Ülke, published in: DFG-VK Bildungswerk NRW e.V.: ,,...weil ich jegliche organisierte Gewalt verweigere". Erfahrungen mit Gefängnis, Gerichten und Militär. Dortmund.
Ülke, Osman Murat, 1999: Interview mit Osman Murat Ülke vom 2. Mai 1999 in Izmir. Kırık Tüfek No 6, April 1999 and No 8, October 1999
War Resisters' International 1997: Statement of principles. Peace News No 2416/17, August/September, p. 15
War Resisters' International, 2001: Facing the challenges of the anti-globalisation struggle. A Statement by War Resisters' International, August 2001
Weber, Thomas, 1993: From Maude Royden's Peace Army to the Gulf Peace Team: An Assessment of Unarmed Interpositionary Forces. Journal for Peace Research, Vol. 30, No 1, p. 45-64

Notes

[1] Diana Francis and Norbert Ropers make the distinction between partisan, semi-partisan and non-partisan actors in a conflict (Francis/Ropers 1996). Even more explicit are Berndt/Francis in a diagram used in KURVE Wustrow's trainers training (Berndt/Francis, without year). WRI's solidarity work is clearly partisan.
[2] a brief overview of the Turkish antimilitarist movement is included in: Movement Action Plan for Turkey. Documentation. Patchwork 1998, especially from page 9 on.
[3] So did Igor Seke from Serbia at WRI's seminar "From Kosov@ to Seattle: what role for nonviolent action?" in Oxford in August 2000, a few months before Milosevic finally lost power in Yugoslavia.
[4] On some problems of solidarity work and international cooperation see Rohwedder 1998

Fear--a sign that we are alive

By Roberta Bacic

As a participant in an action of the "Sebastian Acevedo Movement Against Torture" shortly before the plebiscite in 1988, we gathered in front of the National Library located in the heart of Santiago, the capital of Chile. The action was planned for 12 o'clock sharp and it was supposed to last not longer that 3 minutes. It all started perfectly and, as soon as we started, we heard the police cars and the doors of the library closing up. Fear was immense. What would happen? Could we find a way to escape if the doors were closed and in front was the street full of transit? There was no time to think or discuss. We read our pledge naming people who were held in custody and were being tortured, threw it so that people could collect it and hold hands while singing our song, "Por el pajaro enjaulado. . . ." ("For the caged bird...")

The police was already there, spraying water mixed with acid towards our group. We finished our song and tried to escape but without allowing anyone to depart alone, as we were trained. We had internalized our training. Some managed to disperse amidst the normal crowd and the spectators who had come to see what was happening. Some were taken by the police while I fell on the library's stone steps--the force of the water was so strong that did not allow me to stand. One of my colleagues held my hand, aware that it was a risk to be alone. Somehow we ended up in a taxi, after having rejected one that offered help, but we rejected it for security reasons. It took us to office of SERPAJ (Latin American NGO Peace and Justice Service) quite far from the library. We had to take off our clothes as the acid was irritating our skin and reacting with our clothes. We were welcomed by our friends who had not come to the action, then we took a shower and sat down to lunch. Nobody asked anything. It was up to us to share. The evidence of abuse was clear. . . . months later we learned that the acid thrown on us was the same used in South Africa to disperse demonstrations in favor of ending the apartheid.

When I was asked to write about living with fear--a topic that had been so crucial in resisting the dictatorship in Chile--I didn't think it would be difficult to share part of the experience of living with fear and to talk about how we managed it at personal and social level. But it has not been easy at all. My experience of fear was re-awakened and I have had to deal with it again.

The fact that Pinochet was in London (and that he was sent back to Chile to live a life in impunity instead of returning to face trial), has triggered internal processes and stimulated a need to evaluate the way we dealt with fear during the dictatorship. My thoughts have been on how I as an individual and we as a community would face it now. I will try to share with you that which remains constant.

Fear is an emotion that works as a survival instinct. It lets us know that we are in danger. Because of this we have to look into it--face our fears and deal with them. If we deal with fear adequately it can become a very empowering experience, but if we do not succeed in dealing with it, fear can disempower us. We cannot expect to overcome fear, nor we will defeat it. But we can hope to develop the ability not to panic, to live with our fear, and to use it constructively to take the necessary steps to move towards our goals or targets. In my case, the goal was to stop the dictatorship and struggle towards a more just society.

When I share this experience with the human rights and social action groups that I have been involved with, I use a passage from a story that helps us understand the ideas I have tried to express in words:

"And the boys knees trembled as he felt he was lost in the forest. So, he said to himself in loud voice: -Get away fear!,
-and as his legs kept trembling he shouted:
-Get away fear! Leave me!
And then the legs continued trembling, but only because it was cold.

(Taken from: La Piedra Arde, by Eduardo Galeano. Graficas Ortega, S.A. Salamanca. Spain. 1983.)

In situations that push us to our limits and we perceive ourselves at risk, fear will likely surface as a response. We have to face it. What situations am I referring to? Any situations in which we live with insecurity and anguish. In war situations, or as was the case in my country, during dictatorship, the feelings of insecurity and anguish merge: fear of being arrested, fear of being denounced, fear of being tortured, fear of being caught in an illegal meeting, fear of being betrayed, etc. Fear can arise in response to the unknown (what happens if I am arrested?) and in response to what is known (a specific threat over the telephone).

The Components and Consequences of Fear

As a mechanism, fear can act to prompt us into protecting ourselves or others. Fear can also inhibit us. Fear itself is not necessarily negative. It acts as a defense mechanism that allows us to take precautions in a dangerous or threatening situation. But fear can also push us towards paralysis, obsession, and feelings of guilt.

Fear creates a general state of alertness, a sensation that we must always be on edge and that we are under stress because of what might happen. Fear makes us feel that we are vulnerable, that we are unprotected, and that we can be harmed. We might feel impotent. Fear might make us feel unable to act in the face of difficult circumstances. Or we might feel that what happens to us does not depend on our actions, and is out of our control.

Because of fear, we may even experience an altered sense of reality. We might lose sense of where fear really is, or if it even exists. The sense of anxiety and fear might appear diffuse and we might even be unable to perceive what is happening in or around us.

Facing fear directly during extreme situations seems the best way to deal with it. Sharing different experiences of fear and methods for dealing with it, as part of a group, proved to be very helpful for us. These are some of the resources that we have found to be particularly useful:

Resources

Lastly, I'd like to add that we used to run workshops on dealing with fear which proved to be incredibly helpful. A key resource has been the book, Salud Mental: La Comunidad Como Apoyo by Carlos Martin Beristain and Francesc Riera based on their experience of working in El Salvador and Guatemala during periods of intense repression.

Roberta Bacic is a War Resisters International Program and Development Officer. A version of this article appeared originally in Peace News.

Peace in Bougainville and the Work of the Leitana Nehan Women's Development Agency

By Kris Hakena

Background to Bougainville

Bougainville is in the South Pacific, approximately 1,000 km. northeast of Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, and is part of the Solomon Islands group in Melanesia. It has a land area of some 10,620 sq. kms. Bougainville comprises two large islands, Buka to the north and Bougainville less than a kilometer to the south, and about 168 smaller groups of islands and atolls scattered over 450,000 sq. kms. of the Solomon Sea. At its southern end, Bougainville is barely 20 km. from the neighboring Solomon Islands.

Like its neighboring Pacific regions, Bougainville was administered as a colony for many years. Buka and Bougainville were a British possession until 1898, when they were traded to Germany. They were occupied by Australia at the beginning of World War I. In 1942, the Japanese invaded the islands, but the Allied forces recaptured them in 1945. After the war, Bougainville came under Australian administration as a United Nations Trust territory. In the late 1960s and early '70s, when Papua New Guinea achieved independence from Australia, Bougainville was declared part of the new nation, over the objections of the Bougainvilleans--one of the world's many examples of colonial powers drawing borders that do not correspond to long-standing relationships between indigenous peoples.

Bougainville has nineteen distinct groups, each with its own language, customs and traditional practices, and a further 35 dialects. Its population is somewhere between 160,000 and 200,000 people. (There was no census in Bougainville between 1980 and July 2000, and at this writing there are no figures available.)

Except for two districts, Buin and Nissan Island, Bougainville is a matrilineal society; kinship, descent and inheritance of property--including land--are determined in terms of matrilineal lines, and Bougainvilleans see women as equal partners in the political, economical and social development of Bougainville. The women of Bougainville, like all other women in Papua New Guinea, produce and process about 80% of their families' food and commonly have the responsibility for raising young children.

Most people live on the coast and in central villages. Sweet potato and fish are the main foods. The second starch foods are taro in the northwest and yams in the southwest. A variety of traditional and introduced foods are grown in swampy areas. Sago is an emergency food.

Bougainville has many natural harbors. Large swamps dominate the west coast. Plantations line the east coast and the inland lowlands of the Buin district. Most of Buka is coral that has been raised above sea level by earth movements over thousands of years. Coconut and cocoa plantations cover most of the coastline.

Bougainville is almost all of volcanic origin, and rich volcanic soil covers most areas. There are two dormant volcanoes, Mt. Bagana and Mt. Balbi. The Emperor Crown Prince and Deuro Ranges form a central mountain spine, where the Panguna mine is situated.

The Bougainville Crisis

The people of Bougainville always wanted self-determination; they never wanted to be part of a united Papua New Guinea. The fight for self-determination started back in the early 1950s. This is not a new issue. Bougainvilleans strongly align themselves with the people of the South Solomons, which went from British colonial rule to independence in 1978. Bougainville has traditional ties and a lot in common with the South Solomons.

The recent political crisis, however, could be said to have its origin with the commissioning of the Panguna mine by the government in 1969. The traditional Bougainvillean landowners were vigorously opposed to the mine. In the 1970s, those who lived or owned land near the mine were unable to protect their land, houses, and other properties. The treatment of the landowners and others by the administration and mine officials further alienated them from the Papua New Guinea political leadership.

The formation of the Bougainville Special Political Committee in 1973 gave a boost to the idea of political development in the North Solomons province. On September 1, 1975, Bougainville declared its independence from Papua New Guinea in a demonstration of both Bougainville's cultural unity and identity and widespread reluctance among Bougainvilleans to be railroaded into a united Papua New Guinea. Bougainville and the new government of Papua New Guinea reached a peaceful compromise when the Papua New Guinea government offered partial self-determination to Bougainville through the formation of the North Solomons Provincial Government, the first of its kind in Papua New Guinea.

But during the 1987 national elections in Papua New Guinea, one Bougainville political party strongly opposed Bougainville Copper Ltd., which developed into a very serious confrontation between security forces and the traditional landowning communities in the Panguna area. The crisis heightened in late November of 1988 when the militant landowners took to the jungle as the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) and caused damage to properties. The militants demanded the closure of the mine, 10 billion kina in compensation, and the secession of the North Solomons Province from Papua New Guinea. The national government offered a development package that was irrelevant to issues raised and thus both inadequate and impractical.

The Panguna mine ceased operation in May 1989, and Papua New Guinea declared a state of emergency in June. In 1990 it imposed a blockade around the island, cutting off trade and the import of many necessities. The national government tended to approach the crisis as a law and order problem rather than a political one, as have successive national governments ever since the North Solomons Province was granted partial self-determination (albeit with very little legislative power).

Other issues that contributed to the conflict include:

Thus, what started as a land use issue, with the Panguna landowners against Bougainville Copper Ltd. and the Papua New Guinea government, turned into the armed conflict Bougainvilleans call the "Bougainville crisis."

The conflict caused enormous suffering for innocent people, especially women and children. An estimated 10,000 to 18,000 were killed during the conflict. Atrocities were committed by all the armed forces. Villages were burnt. Millions of kinas worth of investments owned by the government, businesses, and ordinary people were ransacked and destroyed. At the height of the conflict in 1989, all administrative, social, and economic services came to a standstill. Nearly ten years of fighting resulted in total destruction of the island's economic and social infrastructures and greatly sabotaged the Papua New Guinea economy as well. Destruction, death, and suffering became the hallmark of the "Bougainville crisis."

The damage had a psychological component as well. The conflict caused people to become their own enemies. It created disunity, hatred and a desire for payback. Power came to be seen as coming from the barrel of the gun. Some uncontrolled elements claimed the right to lead by force and terror; those who did not toe the line were beaten up or killed. Everyone was subject to all kinds of humiliations and abuse. Fear was instilled in the minds of the people. Innocent Bougainvilleans were forced to do things against their will.

In short, the conflict created a long nightmare of anarchy, destruction, chaos, and despair, leaving in its wake a way of life that needs healing and rehabilitation from within and a shattered economy that needs reconstruction from external sources.

The Peace Process

At their twelfth negotiation, the Papua New Guinea and the Bougainville leaders agreed on amendments to the Papua New Guinea constitution to allow for the establishment of the autonomous government on Bougainville and a referendum on Bougainville's future political status, to be held no earlier than ten years and no later than fifteen years after the election of the first autonomous government. The agreement on the referendum was a gesture to the people of Bougainville in recognition of their long struggle for self-determination. The Bougainville leaders also agreed to dispose of weapons and implement good governance.

In early 1990, there was a lot of peace reconciliation work throughout Bougainville under the guidance of the Bougainville Council of Elders supported by the women's and youth organizations. Within their respective communities, at the councils of elders are well respected on Bougainville and have a lot to say on what goes on the community level. The Bougainville Council of Elders with the assistance of the Papua New Guinea government has now established authority and has basically brought everything under its control in Bougainville. The Council has played a very big role in peace and reconciliation and general maintenance of law and order.

The women's, youth, and church groups and non-governmental organizations have also played a pivotal role in the peace process. At times, women's organizations even walked into non-government controlled areas to bring peace to the armed forces and beg them to lay down their arms and talk peace. The women's groups made their pledges for peace known in meetings, peace negotiations, and political meetings between the Papua New Guinea government and Bougainville leaders.

The fragile peace process in Bougainville is now moving in the right direction supported by countries such as Australia and New Zealand. There is a Peace Monitoring Group (PMG) that consists of seventy-five peace monitors--twenty from New Zealand, thirty from Australia, fifteen from Vanuatu, and ten from Fiji--to monitor the progress of the peace process. Its prime role is to monitor the adherence of the parties to the undertakings they have made concerning the peace process and in particular to monitor the cease-fire agreement. The second task is to provide assistance to the parties so as to facilitate the peace process. The PMG has done an excellent job. Its presence has helped to build confidence in the peace process throughout the province.

The Bougainville leaders and the Papua New Guinea government both still consider the PMG presence as essential, in part because, unfortunately, the program on arms disposal has not been accomplished as yet. The guns used during the armed conflict are still in the hands of the ex-combatants. A working committee known as the Peace Process Consultative Committee has been formed under the chairmanship of the Ambassador of the United Nations in Bougainville to formulate a program on arms disposal.

Women and the Bougainville crisis

Since the beginning of the Bougainville crisis in 1989, women were the among its principal victims. Women were raped, tortured and abused by the armed forces. At the height of the crisis and the blockade imposed by the Papua New Guinea government around the island in May 1990, all administrative, social and economic functions came to an abrupt halt. At the same time, the Bougainville Revolutionary Army destroyed many of the health and education institutions that were left in the province. Women and children suffered the most, as there was no medicine available on the island. Many women died during childbirth; many lost loved ones--husbands, sons, and daughters. (A survey conducted by our organization revealed that there are 2,000- plus widows in the province.) Others were deserted by their husbands, and there was an increase in the number of single mothers. There was total breakdown of family values.

Also, during the crisis, women's freedom of speech was restricted; they were afraid of being harassed and abused even more if they expressed their views openly. And their movement to attend to their families' needs was restricted. They were not free to go to their gardens to collect food for their families.

Yet during that time, many Bougainville women, even when they were suffering, pulled their families together as the basic unit of community support. Even during the worst of the crisis--as well as after it--women organized themselves into church groups and stood together praying for reconciliation and peace.

The conflict brought about many changes and challenges. Bougainville will not be the same again politically, economically, or socially. New roles are being imposed on the women of Bougainville, and new roles need new approaches. We need a new vision that can be put into practical use for the betterment of Bougainville women and of all of us. This is an important task that needs expertise and funding.

Women have a special place in our society. They are mothers, teachers, owners of land, they have traditional values and responsibilities. Bougainville is predominantly a matrilineal society, and under the traditional system women are responsible for making decisions on the use of the land. The cultural rights of the women of Bougainville had been suppressed since foreign colonization of the island, but women are still well-placed and well-respected in the Bougainville social system and are in a good position to influence our leaders to restore peace on Bougainville.

Those are some of the reasons women organized themselves to end the conflict. As a result of the countless problems they encountered, they have taken an active role in the process of finding lasting solution to the ten-year conflict. Women's groups are very much aware of the lessons of the conflict, and many have organized themselves to face the present challenges and are involved in community rehabilitation programs. They feel that their potential and capabilities for rehabilitation and development need to be recognized because they hold important keys that no one else can turn. At the same time, the women feel strongly that they will not be safe until the guns in circulation are completely destroyed.

The Birth of LNWDA

My wife, Helen Hakena, and I personally experienced many of the horrors of the crisis on the island of Buka. In 1990, when the Papua New Guinea government withdrew its troops and services from Bougainville, BRA commanders quickly took up positions throughout Bougainville and on Buka. Their troops went on patrols, checked registration of vehicles, and carried out raids on the homes of ex-soldiers, businessmen, educated people, government workers, people who were suspected of having guns, and people who supported the Papua New Guinea government and were opposed to secession.

Helen and I saw our home, our business, and our entire village looted and burnt by elements of the BRA. We saw people at Helen's village being shot at indiscriminately and beaten with grass knives and gun barrels by the BRA, which also confiscated our two vehicles. We witnessed young Bougainvilleans left out in the sun by the Papua New Guinea security forces in efforts to collect information from them on the whereabouts of the BRA. I witnessed a gun battle at night between the Papua New Guinea security forces and a group of BRA that saw many BRA troops killed. We were so closely monitored by the BRA that we became depressed and traumatized. Under the stress, Helen gave birth prematurely to our son Max. We had no medicine and we were constantly on the move to avoid being captured by the BRA. Our lives were shattered.

All those events, plus other experiences of atrocities witnessed and reported by others, gave us the idea of starting an organization that could bring about peace and normalcy to the province. The thing that drove us above all was how the vulnerable and innocent people were being affected by the conflict, in particular the women and children.

Thus we came to found the Leitana Nehan Women's Development Agency (LNWDA) to "meaningfully contribute to restoration of peace on Bougainville by promoting nonviolence and women's rights and empowering women as agents of change to improve their social status." (The language is that of the organization's vision statement.) Prior to founding LNWDA, Helen worked with the Catholic Women's Association to get clothing, medicines, and cooking equipment to both government and BRA-controlled areas.

LNWDA Goals and Structure

Leitana is the original or traditional name for Buka, as Nehan is for the island of Nissan. We coined the name to reflect the community-based nature of the organization and its ownership by the local women from northern Bougainville. Since our programs have gone into mainland Bougainville, there has been debate about changing the name to reflect our Bougainville-wide aspirations and to counter the criticism that Buka women should not seek to do the work that should be done by local women in other districts.

LNWDA is an NGO, registered with the Papua New Guinea Investment Promotion Authority. It carries out community education workshops and advocates on behalf of women on issues affecting them. Its goals are:

The LNWDA agenda is set in the community workshops that we hold, a "bottom-up" approach. A "shopping list" of requests and suggestions come from these events and the board works with the staff to cluster these and set program priorities.

The organization is governed by a voluntary board of directors who meet quarterly. Of the eight board members, five are women and three are men; we included men because we want to promote gender balance and because in our Melanesian culture, men, women, and children work together to complement each others' work. Board members are selected and elected for their experience and commitment to the goals of the organization. We come from an established social network of friends and colleagues in the islands of Buka and Nissan in northern Bougainville.

LNWDA's Programs

With our mission statement realized and our goals and objectives set, we went about identifying the sort of programs and activities that could best suit the mission. Our first activities, while the conflict still raged, involved organizing and helping to organize conferences, meetings, and marches for peace; later, we were able to create continuing programs to help Bougainvilleans recover.

Conferences, Meetings, and Marches

The Bougainville Catholic Women's Reunion, 15 August 1994

LNWDA, together with the Bougainville Catholic Women's Association, organized the first women's reunion (predominantly Catholic), which, surprisingly, brought together more than 2,000 women from all over Bougainville. At that time the conflict was at its peak, but with their commitment to the return of sanity, peace and harmony to the province, the women who attended felt they had to do something.

The aims of the reunion were to unite the attendees to end the conflict through prayers and other nonviolent approaches; to reaffirm their commitment to peace on Bougainville--that is, personal peace, community peace and peace in the province; to strengthen their network in the province; to participate meaningfully and effectively in decision-making; and to participate in all forms of development affecting their lives.

Peace trip to Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1-9 September 1994

Again LNWDA and the Bougainville Catholic Women's Association organized 105 women on a peace trip to Port Moresby that coincided with a National Catholic Women's Federation conference. The trip's expenses were personally met by the women themselves. The aims of the peace trip were for Bougainville mothers to reconcile with mothers of soldiers killed by the BRA and for all Catholic women in Papua New Guinea to unite and influence the national government to stop the fighting and find peaceful means of ending the conflict that was bringing havoc, despair and destruction to the people and the nation.

Peace Conference, Arawa, Papua New Guinea, October 1994

LNWDA assisted in organizing women to attend the 1994 peace conference in Arawa, the first of its kind since the conflict started in 1988. This peace conference drew thousands of people from both sides the BRA- and government-controlled areas. Though leaders of the BRA like Joseph Kabul and Francis Ona did not turn up, this was the beginning of the realization by the people of Bougainville that they had to unite and work together to achieve common goals. This conference resulted in the attendance by more than 200 Bougainville leaders from the BRA and Papua New Guinea government at peace meetings in Burnham and Lincoln, New Zealand. After the Lincoln meeting a cease -fire was signed by both parties on 30 April 1998.

Silent Peace March, December 1995

LNWDA organized a silent peace march attended by hundreds of women in Buka in December 1995. The aims of the march were to show and voice concern about the continued atrocities and violence committed against the women of Bougainville by the armed forces and to move toward ending the conflict by peaceful means. Women's groups from all over Buka and Bougainville organized for the march and paid their own expenses to attend it.

The organizers moved ahead despite the ambivalence of the Papua New Guinea security forces about the march. The security forces questioned Helen about the aim of the march, but then released her. The silent peace march was filmed by a TV crew from Port Moresby and showed in 45 countries all over the world.

Other International Conferences

Helen and two of LNWDA's directors, Agnes and Alina, attended a number of international conferences to get support from women from all over the world to end the violence and the conflict. Expenses for these conferences were funded by people and organizations that are committed to peace throughout the world. Both the BRA and the Papua New Guinea security forces made traveling overseas difficult at that period because they feared international condemnation of their activities. The BRA had a very sound and effective intelligent network in Papua New Guinea and strong support from people and organizations in other countries, especially Australia.

On one of Helen's peace trips to Australia she was quietly held up by two men at the Port Moresby airport. They harassed her, confiscated her documents--including video tapes to be presented at the conference--and told her to return to Bougainville, which she did for fear of being killed. We had to engage a security service for her in Port Moresby. We are still puzzled as to who organized the holdup and confiscated her documents, but such is the fate of people who work for peace or who believe in nonviolent approaches to finding peace.

Strengthening Communities for Peace (SCP)

This is a program that was developed in 1998 by LNWDA and an Australian-based NGO, the International Women's Development Agency (IWDA). It builds on an eight-year partnership between IWDA and members of LNWDA on a working-toward-peace project that sought to address conflict-based homebrew alcohol abuse and community violence in Buka, Nissan, and the northwest district of mainland Bougainville. Through the SCP project, LNWDA has expanded its program of community awareness throughout Bougainville and will offer communities follow-up workshops to facilitate the development of strategies to deal with social problems.

The overall goal of the project is to contribute to the restoration of peace on Bougainville by promoting nonviolence and women's rights. One of its main objectives is to strengthen the ability of women, communities, community leaders and LNWDA trainers to address violence on Bougainville in general and violence against women in particular.

Homebrew Alcohol Awareness Raising

Because of the physical and psychological effects caused by the conflict, our people, especially the youth, turned to homebrew alcohol in order to put the past behind them or try to shield themselves from the full horror of their bad experiences, not knowing that they were indirectly causing more problems for themselves and the community. Most people affected by homebrew-related problems are women. These problems include incest, rape, break-ins, abortion, weekend divorce, murder and marital rape. Most cases of domestic violence, rape, and sexual harassment are homebrew- and crisis-related. In just one incident, a women who was pregnant with twins lost both babies when her drunken husband threw a chair at her, killing one baby on impact; the other one died later in the hospital. Recent thefts or holdups by drunken youths of vehicles belonging to overseas aid donors like Ausaid and the European Union is a great cause for concern. This is going to affect reconstruction programs that are funded by those agencies, like rebuilding Bougainville's roads.

LNWDA has organized seminars and workshops and has ongoing community awareness campaigns to schools, market places, villages, and communities to educate people about the health problems and other social effects related to the consumption of homebrew alcohol and promote discussion among families and the community about how to deal with trauma and address conflicts in a nonviolent way. In follow-up workshops, communities will devise strategies to reduce the incidence of homebrew abuse and address violence, particularly violence against women. Homebrew awareness programs are directed at families, couples, youth, ex-combatants, and the community at large.

LNWDA was given air-time of 20 minutes every Thursday by the management of Radio Bougainville, where we broadcast our programs to thousands of people throughout Bougainville so those we do not reach in our community awareness and workshops can hear our programs. This has proven to be very successful, judging from the number of people writing to tell us that they like our programs and the number of people, especially women, who have sought counseling services from us.

Violence Against Women

We also focus our efforts on