wri-irg.org
War Resisters' International
Donate to WRI
WRI homepage > Publications > The Broken Rifle > No.32, June 1995
Here it is at last: a summary of most of the discussions held at our Triennial Conference last December. This report is not exhaustive, as we could not obtain notes or tapes for all the scheduled events. If anybody has any written summary of one of the meetings not featured here, please send it to the London office so that it can be included in the collection of longer reports that will be available in English and Spanish mid-July.
Any person interested in receiving the longer version of the Triennial report should order a copy directly from the office, including a donation for postage if possible.
Convenor: Ana Chavez (SERPAJ-Argentina)
First there was an analysis of the elements which characterise the socio-political and economic situation on the one hand, and on the other hand, security in the different regions of Brazil, in Norway, Argentina, and France. Whereas the social situation in the rural world varies in Brazil according to region, in general one can say that the land is in the hands of the few, and the rest are faced with having to emigrate to the large zones of poverty that exist in the cities. There is a very high rate of unemployment, which aggravates social differences. With regard to security, it is characterised by the existence of private police forces, paramilitaries, police assassinations, repression of the popular movement and the growth in the number of police officers, faced with the individualist demand from the population, among other factors.
In Norway, in spite of the fact that since World War II, there has been a tendency toward the balanced distribution of natural resources, the society is passive and individualist, there are environmental problems, racism, discrimination and unemployment. The society maintains a certain control over the police, but they are not prepared for prevention, rather for repression.
In Argentina, there is a great concentration of the population in the cities, which have large areas of poverty, and there are major social and regional imbalances. Criminal law is applied to the poor, while civil and commercial law is applied to the rich (20% of the population). Nobody controls the police, they have certain legislative powers, private security forces are growing, the real political opposition is systematically repressed.
The social situation in France is injurious, above all, to immigrants, who suffer from constant discrimination, especially those who come from Algeria: opposite this exists a strong tendency toward individualism, and toward consumerism (for the part of the population for whom this is possible) and zones of poverty made up of people whose basic needs are provided for by the state. Employment is becoming more precarious, the schools are becoming militarised. Control is exercised mainly over the immigrants, over the fundamentalists, in spite of the fact that the police are integrated into the civil society.
These analyses led participants to point to structural violence as the cause of urban insecurity and of discrimination. Therefore it is necessary to build awareness among the people by means of education, while identifying the forms of capitalism. People must work for the demilitarisation of the police, the democratisation of the communications media, international denunciation of police actions which involve discrimination, a model of defence which protects the victims of the economic system, and preventive resolution of conflicts.
Finally, as concrete proposals, the first steps were taken toward establishing an international network for the denunciation of human rights violations in Latin America; people emphasised the importance of international boycotts, for example to prevent Germany's sale of weapons to Brazil, and of the development of the alternative economy.
Convenor: Hector Tajam (Proyecto Regional de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales, Uruguay)
In his comments on the theme group report at the Triennial, Hector Tajam said that only five people had taken part in the group, one from Paraguay, one from India, two from Spain and he himself from Uruguay. They had expressed concern about the general lack of attention paid to economic questions, for other themes were bound up with the economy. Peace and justice tended to he losers in the competition for resources. We should be more than mere consumers and should claim the right to help make all the decisions that affected us.
Today there were parts of the world where not even the bare necessities of life were available. Or there were places where the workforce found itself in an increasingly precarious position. At the same time wealth had come to he concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Valuing capita] above labour had prompted a neo-liberal economic policy that put people at the mercy of the private sector. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and similar international financial bodies imposed on so-called Third-World governments environmentally deleterious economic policies that could augment their foreign debts to disaster point.
Disputes over the use and distribution of wealth and natural resources remained one of the principal causes of strife between classes and states. Labour should he accorded its true value and bare necessities should be met by using human and material resources properly. Solidarity and cooperation should take precedence over competition and mutual exploitation. The quest for social justice entailed cutting military expenditure, not repaying foreign debts, providing state guaranteed social security and permitting democratic participation in decisions affecting the whole population. There would he no social justice until we ended economic oppression, and we should never forget that economic disputes were one of the most frequent causes of war.
Convenors: Rafa Sainz de Rozas (KEM-MOC, State of Spain) and Hugo Valiente (MOC, Paraguay)
First there was a brief presentation on militarism from the Latin American and European point of views. Traditionally the situation in Latin America has reflected Europe's or the United States' conflicts and interests. After the Cold War - which, among other things, helped maintain the economic structures of exploitation inherited from colonial times - the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, them-selves instruments in the hands of European and North American countries, have exacerbated the poverty and misery of most of the Latin American population. Another factor in the increasing militarisation is the struggle against the drug trade, which in many cases has amounted to actual warfare. In such a situation, conscientious objection is the first political campaign to question the military at its roots.
With the end of the Cold War the hitherto concealed conflict between North and South reemerged, with its fundamentally economic basis. In Europe the militarisation of society is often being achieved not in the usual way, such as by obligatory military service (OMS) or alternative service (AS), but by more subtle means - by turning former military conscription into "civilian" forced labour and by imposing laws that more and more curtail individual liberty, in order to facilitate almost total control of citizenry, who it is hoped will be good consumers. This whole process has been accompanied by a change in the concept of "defence" and the structures of armies which intervene more and more to protect economic interests. Maintaining domestic "security" is today the task of the police forces which have assumed the dimensions of armies. Within this context the pacifist movements of the 1980s never managed to question militarism as such as their demands were too superficial and concentrated on the arms race. Nor have objectors known how to question militarism in most European countries, with the exception of the State of Spain, where a massive civil disobedience campaign has managed to question the values which underpin the prevalent, global militarism.
Traditionally the conflict between objectors and the state has revolved on an axis between those objectors who demanded greater freedom of conscience and the state that tried to suppress them in order to control the situation [see diagram]. In recent years debate by the CO movements (at ICOMs) has led us to believe that what we as objectors are basically striving for is the demilitarisation of society, while the state, on the other hand, wants to maintain or promote militarisation. We have to evolve strategies which prevent the CO movement remaining static on this vertical axis, planning to approach what would be a diagonal trajectory, which would he the ideal - that is, progress towards a demilitarised society which would he accompanied by an increase in individual liberty.
Analysing the situation of CO groups in Euskadi, Turkey/Kurdistan, Paraguay, Chile, Serbia, Argentina, Germany and Colombia, it becomes clear that our ideologies are not dissimilar and that what we want is a movement that has a decision making structure as horizontal as possible. We should therefore concentrate our work on training - taking care of not focusing only on young men of conscription age - becoming as financially self-sufficient as possible, linking with the rest of society, and questioning the military at its roots.
The presence of a significant number of objectors does not systematically amount to a real threat to the military (see the case of Germany or France). It is therefore important not to dismiss a country situation as very backward he-cause it has no CO law and objectors are severely punished and sent to prison (as happens in Greece and Colombia), for the presence of only a small number of objectors in these countries might actually prove a strong challenge to the existence of armed forces or of militarist government policy. So even though the CO movement in Europe may, for the most part, he stagnant, in Latin America it clearly has great potential.
As regard international cooperation, the work of the International Deserters Network provides a very good example of efficient information exchange and direct assistance for people who have fled from war. It was also proposed that future cooperation should be based on an exchange of information between LA and Europe, via KEM-MOC and the organisers of ICOM '95 (SERPAJ Chile and MOC Paraguay). An internship scheme whereby one or two objectors from MOC Paraguay would spend six to twelve months with MOC (State of Spain) was also discussed. Finally a speaking tour of European countries by SKD Izmir would be organised.
Convenors: Christine Schweitzer (Bund für Soziale Verteidigung, Germany) and Marcela Rodriguez (Peace Brigades International, Colombia)
After mutual introductions the group considered three main questions: what are our broad aims and our specific goals and how best to achieve them? It was pointed out that we needed to deal with two types of conflict: wars (including civil wars) and the violence caused by government oppression.
On day two current nonviolent intervention projects were discussed and different types of resistance identified: backing local initiatives; serving as a buffer in conflicts; providing aid; trying to mediate; offering training in nonviolence. Peace Brigades International, it was pointed out, has for 10 years been trying to help deal with civil rather than war-provoked violence, its strength lying in its practical efforts rather than in propounding theory - although the group recognised the importance of developing theory on the basis of practical experience.
The central principles underlying the approach of the Colombia team of PBI were described: the importance of being a voluntary rather than a professional organisation and of never accepting funds that had political strings attached being stressed. PBI's approach and structure were described, and it was stated that the organisation had recently received invitations from groups in various countries, including Croatia and an ex-USSR republic. And a project in Gaza had been proposed. Suggested criteria for a project were listed, including goals, principles, proposed structure and desired outcome.
As to what, if anything, might he done in an actual war situation, the general conclusion was that there was no easy answer to this, and different views were expressed on what should he the peace-making role of such bodies as the UN. Examples were given of relevant actions by various groups - e.g. the despatch of civilian teams to serve as human buffers at the Nicaraguan frontier; the Gulf Peace Team's efforts; peace marches in Bosnia. There had been suggestions that UN peace-keeping forces should be replaced with unarmed, trained civilians. It was pointed out, however, that the existence already of civilian peace services posed certain questions - what should their position he on conscription? Could they he truly independent if (like the US Peace Corps) they were state-funded? Should volunteer teams he national or international?
Different opinions were expressed about the present situation in Haiti and what might he an appropriate form of international nonviolent intervention there.
Finally there was debate about what should be WRI's priorities in the next three years. One person thought we should have two distinct roles: to serve as an empowering local activists' network and to be an international campaigning body - although it was pointed out that these two roles were not necessarily mutually exclusive. Several people warmed of the dangers of creating unrealistic, utopian structures. And people in general stressed the value of WRI's role as an activists' network facilitating coordinated action.
Convenors: Joanne Sheehan (War Resisters League, USA) and Fernando Aliaga Rojas (SERPAJ, Chile)
On the first day we introduced ourselves and discussed definitions of "nonviolence" and "training". In Latin America, Altemir and Fernando said, they preferred to use "firmeza permanente" ("permanent firmness" or "steadfast persistence") rather than "nonviolence", which was simply seen as "no violence". In Mexico, "civil resistance" was used. It was noted that "training" was also not the best word -it was more of a process of education, helping people develop their own capacity to engage in peace and justice work, with a commitment to nonviolence. For many, including IFOR, it included working from a spiritual base.
In the Philippines, Tess said, they used the word "trainors" to show they were working with humans, "trainers" referring to working with animals. Jargon defined nonviolence training in Europe as many things, including preparation for civil disobedience, conflict resolution, decision-making and group process, peace education, anti-racism, and social defence. Finally, Fernando described the dynamic of nonviolence/positive life force going out and crashing against the wall of structures, of domination and alienation. When we crashed, we hit the wall and bounced back as a violent per-son. Nonviolence was about finding another way, going in another, more positive direction thanks to a nonviolent "training" process.
On the second, third and fourth days exercises were presented and facilitated by Fernando, Altemir (joined by Sinara), and Tess.
On the last day we discussed what we needed as trainers. This included the needs for: better evaluation tools of trainings and their impact on social movements; at least some financial support for trainers, provided we were clear about what we were about as trainers ("Trainers doing it as a job are different from an enthusiastic volunteer who does it from the heart"); generally longer training sessions (more than 2 days); sharing agendas, exercises and evaluations of trainings through various means; time to review our own work and recharge; exploring and sharing the reality of the people we work with; creating a team that can adapt to changes, be innovative and flexible; building trust with the people we work with; translating resources; and finally the need for more exchanges of experiences, for example through the Transnational Trainers Gathering, the International Gathering of Trainers planned by IFOR, and the South/South Trainors gatherings (next one in Thailand in 1996).
Participants agreed to try and share information through a "nonviolence trainers' mailing" of articles, case studies, resources and information on developments in the fields of nonviolence training, which trainers will send to IFOR to he copied and circulated 3 times a year.
Convenors: Matt Meyer and Greg Payton (War Resisters League, USA)
The group recognised how difficult it was to define "racism". For instance, in northern Norway, some groups discriminated against other groups the same colour as themselves; in South Africa, people of Japanese descent were considered "white"; in Germany, the notion of "culture" had replaced that of "race"; in Brazil, indigenous people were despised by their poorer, landless, white compatriots. It was important to accept groups' self-definition, which was intrinsic to seIf-determination; and it was important also to realise that the integration of the oppressed into a more powerful group did not constitute general improvement.
How governments exploited racism was discussed - for instance, in Argentina and the USA-also the unconscious racism of the poor and the conscious racism of the rich, who used it to further their own ends.
The parlous position of Brazil's indigenous people was described: their lack of territory, their subjection to forced labour and to business interests, the dissolution of their culture, and their outright physical persecution. One person commented that indigenous life was deemed not to exist, so killing indigenous people amounted to killing nobody. They served as scapegoats for the rest of the population, even having been blamed for a recent cholera epidemic. Nevertheless, we should not romanticize about them; and their position when they constituted a majority of the population was quite different from when they were in a minority.
Campaigns that managed to link indigenous issues to other social justice matters were discussed, and it was pointed out that campaigning for the right to he equal was not the same as campaigning for the right to be different It was recognised that white people had much to learn from indigenous people.
Debate about racism and militarism began with a consideration of the foundations of apartheid in South Africa and its military aspects, participants concluding that unfortunately the termination of the former had not meant an end to militarism, the new armed forces now hearing from more would-he recruits than they could cope with. South Africa's homelands had been modelled on Native American reservations in the USA - a country whose armed forces had always been rife with racism and whose recent foreign policy had clearly been racist. Racism in various other countries-Turkey, Germany and France - was discussed too.
Several different racial situations were looked at, for instance the Chilean and the Argentinian; also successful examples of "cross-cultural bridging"-that is, situations where ethnic prejudice had been countered, either nationally or by individuals or groups, examples of both of these being cited, also of interesting ethnic mixing and of positive education-for instance, the checking of school textbooks for any racist content in Argentina.
A special mini-workshop with Saswati Roy was held on ethnic conflict and cross-cultural bridges in India - a diverse, multilingual country where, although the notion of unity and diversity was propounded, growing religious fundamentalism was fostering increasing fear of "new enemies". However, teachers were trying to bring people together, for instance, bathing children from different communities in the same well.
People swapped accounts of anti-racist actions, mentioning, among other things, campaigns in Germany and Argentina to end anti-immigrant discrimination, efforts in Brazil to end divisions in society and the anti-racist work of the World Council of Churches in Geneva.
Finally a number of action proposals were made, including suggestions that we liaise with churches and other community groups; that we campaign to achieve observance of the laws that accorded land rights to indigenous people and that we help to promote the UN Day Against Racism by means of articles in Peace News.
Convenor: Maggie Helwig, Canada
Participants: Saswati Roy, India; Maria da Penha, Brazil; Carmen Magallon, State of Spain; Staša Zajovic, Serbia; Haya Shalom, Israel; Mariene Pantoja, Brazil; Ellen Elster, Norway; Rafinha, Brazil; michelle, State of Spain; Edda, Brazil
Though it was clear from the introductions onwards that women's situations vary drastically from country to country, continent to continent, and that practical strategies often have to take different forms, there were certain common issues that emerged clearly; in particular, the way in which the role of women is universally defined as submissive/inferior, and the ways in which this stereotype is used to prop up violence and economic oppression.
We began by talking about strengths and weaknesses of women's work against violence and ways in which women have chosen to organise, looking at the example of Women in Black in Israel, where a dedication to consensus politics proved to he both a strength of the group, and, later; a weakness, making them unable to respond to changing situations. We also talked about ways in which activists can respond when popular movements are in a state of decline.
Staša stressed that, if women take a "feminine", caretaking role in their community, this must be made not only visible, but an intrinsic part of international politics. This led into a discussion of the need to revalorise traditionally "female" values and roles.
Saswati shared her experiences of trying to build alternative economic systems or microsystems among women in their communities. She pointed out that women are to a large extent excluded from economic life in India because of society's beliefs about women, making women unable, due to both practical and psychological obstacles, to participate independently in the economy. Mariene and Maria noted that there are many parallels in the Brazilian situation, but that Brazilian women were not excluded from economic activity but used as a source of very cheap and easily exploited labour. Staša talked about her work building up income-generating projects in refugee camps, and there was some discussion of "parallel economies" created in different situations around the world. We also talked about the need to consider the value of "emotional work", and more generally the need to redefine the term "work".
There was also a discussion of nationalism and ethnicity, and its impact on women, particularly the exploitation of women's bodies for reproduction, and the divisions created between women by nationalist feelings.
Specific recommendations from the group included the re-establishrnent of the mixed-sex project group to promote discussion on gender issues and feminist perspectives within WRI sections; and starting a discussion within the WRI women's working group and Council members about integrating women's perspectives into the rest of WRI's agenda.
Convenors: Roberta Basic (Chile) and Rob Goldman (CO Support Group, South Africa)
We heard reports from participants about the processes of transition to democracy in South Africa, Chile, and Croatia.
As a form of government ruling over people, democracy is the best of a bad lot. It is a process that should include:
Democracy requires economic justice as well as political freedom. It cannot he stable if there is a marginalised poor segment of the population. Even in so-called stable democracies (e.g. Germany, Belgium, USA) the transition continues, in one direction or the other.
Democracy provides better possibilities for pacifist and anti-militarist organisations.
Military forces are a danger to human rights. They violate the human rights by waging war and by conscription. They distort democratic decision-making by pressuring governments to take militaristic actions. They steal resources which are needed for economic and social justice. They can be an instrument for and source of political repression, both of their own soldiers and of the civilian population.
Convenor: Roberta Bacic, Chile
Within the context of the WRI Triennial, a short workshop was developed on the control of fear. There was a large attendance and active participation in this workshop which made possible a dialogue and exchange of experiences on all kinds of valuable and significant activity carried out in various countries.
The workshop was divided into two parts;
a) A theoretical/psychological analysis on what fear means. There they explained in succession: what is fear, where and when it originates, how fear affects the individual, the individual's family group, environment and the society.
For each of these aspects an actual example was given and then there was an explanation of the consequences of fear, what happens when it is not confronted, where it takes us and how to confront it, whether directly or by evaluating the consequences which our conduct can have in the face of fear.
Finally there was a conversation about how fear works and the book by Carlos Martin Beristain and Francesc Rivera on the topic involved was recommended (Afirmación y resistencia, la comunidad como apoyo, Virus Editorial 1993).
b) Presentation of two concrete experiences of active non-violence where the theme of fear was present and the strategies used to overcome it or take it on. One of the experiences was the Sebastian Acevedo Movement Against Torture, and the other, the NO Campaign; both were important manifestations of opposition to the military regime in Chile.
Finally, there was agreement in the group that a more extended workshop would be very important where it would be possible to share and analyze those feelings which provoke fear; as well as to design activities which aid in isolating, confronting and tackling it.
Convenor: Jair Krischke, Movimento Justica e Direitos Humanos, Brazil
Jair Krischke, President of the Human Rights Movement of Rio Grande do Sul, gave an interesting, wide-ranging, and occasionally controversial presentation on the situation of human rights in this region and country. He pointed out the role of international solidarity during the military dictatorship in Brazil, when many Brazilian human rights activists seeking refuge in Argentina, Chile, and Paraguay in the 1970s supported the local human rights movements.
Today, in this "transition to democracy", overt government repression is less, but there are still victims of victims of torture and police murder. Brazil's 3.4 million street children, the fruit of 21 years of military dictatorship followed by extremely cruel economic structures, are the hardest hit.
Paradoxes abound: Brazil exports food for cows and imports powdered milk, although 80 millions Brazilians don't have enough to eat. The country is the world's fifth largest weapons exporter, but many young men drafted into the army are discharged because they are too weak or ill to carry a weapon. Five percent of the people own 40 percent of the wealth, but 63 percent are marginalised, living below UN standards of absolute poverty.
Economic marginalisation begets prostitution, crime, and repression - the military occupation of the favelas of Rio de Janeiro is a war operation. The real drug traffickers the rich who profit from the trade - are not punished, so the war is against poor, Black people. Brazil is a "sleepless" country: the poor can't sleep due to hunger and the rich can't sleep due to fear of the poor.
Women are preferential victims of violence - on the job, from their husbands, by overwork, by rape, by the police and military. Major cities have special police stations devoted to violence against women. This issue became controversial during the discussion period with Jair arguing that all police stations should he able to respond to violence against all citizens, while other participants felt that the extent of machismo and sexist violence in Brazil made special facilities and training necessary.
Slavery is still widespread throughout Brazil, with white workers lured from cities to remote areas, where they are forced to do agricultural or logging work 12-14 hours per day in exchange for food and housing, without pay. Despite pending court cases against local companies using slave labor, the situation will get worse, as soybean farming gives way to forestry.
The discussion period raised many other interesting issues, including the use of criminal prosecutions as didactic tools, the roles of transnational corporations and neo-Nazi groups, the support of Brazilian human rights groups for actions against violence in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Colombia, which has had 21,000 victims of political violence in the last four years, and the inhumane treatment of Amazon Indians by everyone: gold-washers, hydroelectric companies, the army, land speculators, Christian missionaries, lumber companies, and transnational corporations.
Convenor: Carlos Cardoso Aveline (União Protetora do Ambiente Natural, Brazil)
In this workshop we started from the situation of the young environmental movement in Brazil to come to a much wider perspective on fundamental questions about the relations between North and South.
Ecological themes, says Cardoso Aveline, are difficult to deal with on a grassroots level. There are no large environmental NGOs. Even the most progressive political party, the PT, is not really interested in the environment The UNCED summit in Rio in 1992 was more of a prestige event, with no concrete implementation.
For people from outside Brazil, environmental issues in Brazil bring to mind first of all the tropical forests of the Amazon, and the question of indigenous peoples. This was an important issue for the Brazilian participants as well, but the urban population also has its own problem: how to survive in the urban jungle. The rainforest is not under threat form the local population, but by big commercial companies and local authorities, who do not care about their won laws.
A solution can only he found on a world scale, we agreed. As long as the Northern part of the planet forces the rest of the world to adopt its anti-ecological economic model, then the poorer countries can only implement what the North has already decided. Development and environmental awareness involve a long process of education and convincing people.
Convenor: Cecilia Moretti (WRI Vice-Chair, Argentina)
Cecilia Moretti introduced the theme by mentioning the difficulty of organising nonviolent groups and relating to other groups in a nonviolent manner, especially when activists were facing government violence. During the dictatorships, in the 1970s, it was very difficult to mention nonviolence in many Latin American countries. During that period several armed struggles erupted, which were considered the only effective means of resistance. Nonviolence tended to be associated with passivity, and sometimes even with collaboration with the CIA. It was hard to adapt nonviolent theories and techniques for the most part used in the USA and Europe to the Latin American situation.
In Argentina, during the dictatorship, it was very dangerous to denounce human rights violations. So SERPAJ (Servicio Paz y Justicia) decided to start nonviolence training and to create a support network for the victims of violence.
In Panama, various groups existed but nonviolence was viewed somewhat sceptically. However, once activists had concentrated their efforts on peace education, human rights, nonviolence training and supporting victims of violence (particularly Indigenous people and women), much of the scepticism vanished. In Guatemala a SERPAJ group was set up three years ago to help Indigenous people mistreated by the military.
On the other hand, in El Salvador, where the struggle had lasted for 40 years, popular nonviolent resistance had been going on for a long time, even though activists did not consciously use nonviolent techniques. Before the civil war teachers, trainers, trade unionists and others comprised a vital part of the non-violent movement. Afterwards, many of these activists began to support the growing national liberation army because they felt time had come to take up arms in order to restore justice: they did not distinguish any more between means and ends.
In Nicaragua the situation changed between the 1970s and the 1980s. There had been a fairly strong nonviolent tradition among the Indigenous population and popular organisations such as trade unions, women's groups and farmers' associations. When the Sandinistas started their armed struggle against the dictatorship and the US domination, it became difficult to promote nonviolent strategy. The Sandinistas hunted down and even killed young people who refused to do military service. Among the latter were liberation theologians, who disagreed with the support some Christian groups were giving to the armed struggle. The Sandinista army made mistakes and caused a lot of pain and resentment, particularly among the Miskito people. After the revolution, compulsory military service became a sore point. Because the nonviolent movement had worked alongside the Sandinistas for the revolution, its members felt freer than party members to criticise the government. Nowadays the Sandinistas no longer talk about resorting to arms. With an in-crease in drug trafficking, prostitution, and other social evils more and more people have become aware of the value of a nonviolent approach.
Convenor: Ana Chavez, SERPAJ-Argentina
Since neo-liberalism was based on individualism and competition, the vast majority of the population were prevented from participating in the formal economy and state budgeting - which was absolutely undemocratic. This system started with the now-defunct military dictatorships, but it still prevailed, greed hindering constitutional progress.
Latin American economies made it their first task to meet their foreign obligations by lowering wages, lifting barriers to foreign investment and reducing the state's role. This process had been accompanied by the privatisation of public companies and had led to decreased social expenditure and a reduction of taxation on firms while increasing it on consumption. In this way the impoverished masses financed the ruling economic elite. Widespread poverty had increased delinquency. Emerging regional integration in Latin America, such as Mercosur, would not prioritise domestic development but rather concentrate on the needs of the external market. The greater the strength of this political-economic system, the greater the protection afforded it by the "international gendarmes". Today, indeed, in every Latin American country the marginalised Section of the population was under tight social and political control.
Our action plan for popular organisations included: supporting grassroots democracy, stressing that democracy depended on respecting human rights; engaging in peace education, indicating the negative effects of neo-liberalism; creating an information network, conducive to solidarity and helpful over publicizing projects; encouraging cultural integration; creating awareness of environmental degradation and working with popular organisations committed to environmental protection and restoration; and alerting organisations to the dangers and conflicts liable to he caused by regional, neo-liberal integration procedures.
Convenors: Staša Zajovic (Women in Black, Belgrade); Vesna Terselic (Centre for Anti-War Action, Zagreb)
Vesna Terselic from the Anti-War Centre in Zagreb described her group's main activities, referring to the work being done with school children and the attempts being made to get the government to respect human rights, even in wartime. Attention had also been given to conscientious objection and to getting stories in the national and foreign press. They had also been busy studying the situation in Serbia and Bosnia. There was still a long way to go to develop civil society, but small steps were now being taken.
Staša Zajovic, from Women in Black in Belgrade, explained that women organ-ised weekly nonviolent demonstrations and vigils in order to make thernselves visible. The group hoped to counter the negative effects of turning nationalism into the official state ideology. It wanted to promote discussion across sex, ethnic and dass lines, and believed it was essential to prevent total breakdown in communication between neighbouring countries which were at war.
Bojan Aleksov was a member of Women in Black who worked with other peace groups also. He was, for instance, involved in a refugee project which combined humanitarian aid with reconciliation efforts. He had also been working with deserters from Bosnia and conscientious objectors for the past three years, helping to provide them with legal assistance and other forms of support.
Workshop participants realised how limited the effects of their actions in their countries had been and that they could not hope to make much of an impact in situations where criticising the government was considered subversive ("siding with the enemies").
Doubts were expressed about the role of foreign peace groups in ex-Yugoslavia. Many groups had done useful work keeping open lines of communication with the outside world, notably via ernail, which had often maintained daily contacts when access to all other means of communication had been restricted. Support from abroad might prove most helpful in the long-run, once a local movement had been established. But it was unwise to let ill-prepared foreign activists encounter refugees and other war victims. Some groups had a fairly narrow charitable, even at times, paternalistic approach. Peace caravans had not always proved very useful; however the presence of small, cautious, well-prepared peace teams might he helpful in some situations although it was still too early to tell for sure.
The workshop ended with discussion on the effect of UN and NATO intervention in the region. It was noted that some UN Blue Helmets had created problems -engaging in sexual abuse, blackmail, etc. Soldiers were simply soldiers, whether they were "peacekeeping" or performmg their normal tasks.
Fadlitator: Roberta Bacic, Chile.
Panelists: Ana Chavez, SERPAJ Argentina: Rob Goldman, CO Support Group (COSG) South Africa; Vesna Terselic, Anti-War Centre, Croatia
The plenary concentrated on various questions answered by each panelist in turn. Asked about the causes and socio-economic consequences of war crimes, Rob Goldman replied that in South Africa hit-squads had caused many disappearances during the apartheid period. Bodies had been found, but most of those who had given the orders and committed the crimes had not yet been identified. A special commission would he looking into this in 1995. Apartheid had caused great economic suffering for black people robbed of their land. He thought social healing was going to be difficult - as indicated by the inscription on an Afrikaans monument commemorating the British oppression which stated: "Never forget and never forgive". Ana Chavez pointed out that in Argentina the dictatorship had been rooted in the political and economic ingredients of liberalism. The whole continent had actually endured dictatorship for the past 500 years. Forced disappearances, and torture had been prime tools of oppression during the 1976-1983 dictatorship. Although a so-called "state of rights" now existed, the state was still harassing people. Vesna Terselic said that slaughter during the Croatian civil war had already claimed the lives of several thousand people on all sides of the conflict. Many had had to flee from their homes and everyone was worried about what might happen if the UN troops departed, even though their presence offered no long-term solution.
Asked when and why the killings had stopped, Ana replied that they had been a tool which in time had ceased to he useful to the dictatorship. This became apparent during the Falklands/Malvinas war. The efforts of popular groups plus international back-up had hastened the process. Rob commented that domestic resistance, employing many different nonviolent tactics, had played a crucial part in the demise of apartheid, along with international solidarity, economic sanctions and boycotts. Vesna said that the war had stopped in Croatia. but not in Bosnia. War crimes had been used as a means of freezing the democratic process. Although the UN was monitoring the ceasefire, the situation was still very unstable.
Ana thought the role of human rights organisations was of vital importance. Under the Argentinian dictatorship the mothers of the Plaza de Mayo had walked around the square displaying pictures of their missing children. They had tried to bring the those who had perpetrated war crimes to trial, but the government had passed amnesty laws. Groups and individuals had to go on demanding accountability as civil rights were still being violated. Rob commented that, paradoxically, popular organisations were now facing difficulties in South Africa as many activists had been elected to Parliament or were government employees. It was important to support them but at the same time to bring gentle pressure to bear on them. For Vesna, valid assessment of organisations' effectiveness depended to a large extent on what one expected of them. Some journalists had done useful work in writing about anti-war actions. It was still difficult to foresee what type of civil society might emerge.
As for whether she thought social healmg was possible, Ana said she doubted whether the government was really determined to work on the healing process. Argentineans needed truth and justice, but the authorities were evading their responsibility over dealing with the disappearances. Rob felt that it might be hard to achieve a type of reconciliation that was satisfactory for everyone. Crimes needed to he confessed by those who had committed them and some form of compensation - even if only symbolic - should he offered to the victims. Prosecuting apartheid criminals might provide the right-wing with political martyrs. South Africans wanted to know who were the guilty so that they could forgive them. In Croatia the situation was rather different be-cause many of the war crimes had been committed by foreigners whom it was even more difficult to prosecute. There was much bitterness and anger on the part of the population and a desire to punish the guilty. Vesna felt that at the moment all she could do was to talk to people and help them to communicate, this being crucial to any form of reconciliation, which her country would take a very long time to achieve.
The plenary ended with a South African participant stating that social healing should not he considered just a national issue but rather one that concerned the whole of southern Africa, where apartheid had also been responsible for many crimes.
Facilitator: Dorie Wilsnack, WRI Treasurer, US. Panelists: Ricardo Changala, SERPAJ-Uruguay and representative of SERPAJ-América Latina to the United Nations, and Franz Nadler, KDV im Krieg, Germany.
Dorie introduced the main issues to he discussed during the session - Has the United Nations (UN) any relevance to WRI's work? Should WRI continue to use its consultative status with the UN or should it stay away completely? - and briefly described WRI's consultative status vis-à-vis the UN's ECOSOC and UNESCO.
Ricardo Changala described SERPAJ's work at the UN. SERPAJ was one of only five Latin American NGOs to have consultative status, and as such frequently represented other groups' views at UN meetings. It worked mainly with the Commission on Human Rights and its subcommittee; with various working groups (for instance ones dealing with arbitrary detention, disappearances, Indigenous issues, and development); with several UN rapporteurs (e.g. on torture and extra-judicial executions); and with committees monitoring the implementation of various international agreements. Such work had sometimes helped local campaigns by focusing international attention on human rights violations.
Franz Nadler opined that WRI's aims clashed with those of the UN, which he viewed with suspicion as it had been established by the World War II victors to guarantee their hegemony and create a form of world army. It was not, in fact, just "peace loving" states that belonged to it. He commented that governments were tending to make UN military interventions an excuse for not demilitarising. And UN intervention forces were financially dependent on the "great powers", which consequently had a big say over where and how interventions should he made. Payments made by the UN for each Blue Helmet encouraged small states to despatch troops. UN intervention was in fact quite likely either not to affect or else to have a bad effect on the countries concerned. Moreover UN troops had engaged in such illegal activities as drug trafficking, allowing arms delivery to Bosnia despite the embargo, and setting up brothels. He did not believe in a "world regime" or in reforming the UN, so be thought WRI should renounce its consultative status. During the discussion that followed other people remarked on the negative aspects of UN work: the UN had broken international law by intervening in Yugoslavia before the seceding republics had actually been recognised; despite UN troops' 30-year presence in Cyprus, little seemed to have been achieved, and the UN's presence might even have undermined social movements' efforts to deal with the conflict; sexual exploitation of women in ex-Yugoslavia had increased because of the presence of UN troops, who had furthermore sold exit passes to deserters and displayed ethnic bias.
Others objected to WRI renouncing its consultative status arguing that the role of NGOs was precisely to influence the work of the UN; if they left, states' actions would be left unchecked. Although far from satisfactory, the UN had managed to bring positive changes in certain situations at the local level (for example in Croatia, where there would have been many more deaths without UN intervention). It was a mistake to talk of the UN as an homogenous institution, and one had to make distinctions between its various bodies; the Decolonisation committee, for instance, had done some useful work. Finally, it was important not to reject any involvement with the UN outright, but to think strategically of ways to influence UN policy in accordance with WRI aims.
In the past few days I have been reflecting on what unites us so many cultures, languages, peoples. I found one thing: we're here because we are activists for life. That's the most important thing. We're here because we are the people who struggle for life, for the dignity of individuals. A long road stretches before us.
(...) After many years of activism I have often asked myself whether we aren't like a fire brigade: we rush to put out fires when summoned, then dash around putting them out; yet we aren't fire fighters. We only have a few buckets of water or sand. We face violence and conflict only when this erupts. We must probe deeper with our tactics, search for causes.
(...)I must refer to what I call the suspension of conscience. Suspension of con-science is something that turns people into mere spectators, not protagonists of their own life. It enables us to evade responsibility and leave things as they are. It takes many forms and is an integral part of mass communication by the media. It results from fear and oppression, and is conducive to shallowness of language and thought - depriving words of their meaning, pretending lies are the truth and injustices justice. It allows modification of values and permits passive social attitudes. (...) The important thing is to see how we movements for peace, human rights, and nonviolence can construct a collective conscience. (...)We must he aware of our limitations. But were there a collective conscience, a motivating agent prompting us to act, society could he transformed and liberation facilitated. (...)In my opinion all our work should have a political dimension. We should not confine ourselves merely to helping to resolve a few conflicts but should try to achieve vital social transformation.
(...) How should we see that political systems and alternative social and economic systems are influenced by our "micro" actions and day to day efforts?
(...) Another central task within our organisations is considering the true meaning of power. (...) The nonviolent approach should involve thorough examination of what comprises power and of how it is managed and used. For power is not only political; it is also intellectual, social and religious. What is inherent in power? What does it mean when power is transformed for the benefit or the people?
(...) Today Latin America is said to he democratic. But these democracies are a myth. An Uruguayan writer, Eduardo Galeano, whom many of you know, says these democracies we live in today are really more "democraduras" demco-dictatorships than democracies: their citizens are still oppressed. Such a democratisation process is only nominal, not genuine.
(...) The findings of the World Bank are clear, suggesting that the 1980s were the lost decade - a decade in Latin America of increased impoverishment and devoid of development. Is it possible that democracy is conducive to impoverishment and marginalisation? What's happening? We need to study and redefine the principles of democracy and power. Our work suggests that human rights and democracy are indivisible: if human rights are violated, democracies are weakened and cease to he democracies.
(...) Today we believe that bloc politics has disappeared and been replaced by other international forces. Such global transformation should herald radical changes and compel us to deal with environmental problems. (...) I don't believe in this First and Third World notion. I have never understood it. We are just one world, whose wealth is badly distributed.
I mustn't end off without mentioning certain hopeful signs and praising people's abilities. One of my countty's singers, Fito Pais, has a beautiful song which asks: "Who told you all is lost? I come to offer you my heart." All is not lost. You are here from different backgrounds and have prospered from meeting each other and sharing experiences. The question is how to continue this process and transmit our new knowledge to our friends back home.
I think we should he optimistic about the possibilities of social change, in spite of the monstrous injustice besetting our world. It seems to me that there are three types of revolutionary: those who believe in wielding weapons and are out to destroy then rebuild everything (...); those who plan the revolution over a cup of coffee and the revolution ends when the cup is empty - there are many such people; then there are others, including you, for whom the revolution is an everyday event. For we change society day by day. We can cooperate over planning, form a vast network and devise joint actions to achieve liberation. Our social movements provide us with a challenge for the next century. We must use our imagination. Everything depends on us.
Thank you and a fraternal embrace of peace and goodwill.
Although Latin America is a continent full of contrasts and exposed to many conflicts, it is also a continent where there are great struggles for liberation. Recently, nonviolent actions have played an important part in these struggles. Assessing our contribution we can see that it has been quite significant and that we have planned better and defined our goals more clearly.
Since governments use their power to manipulate us more and more of us are announcing that we will not respond to violence with violence. I've been pleased to hear young conscientious objectors say they want to fight for life and therefore refuse to join the army.
The actions of Peace Brigades International of Women in Black in Israel/Palestine and former Yugoslavia (to give but a few examples) have given new impetus to the movement. It has become more pluralistic and has achieved new ways of living together in mutual respect. The quality of the work on nonviolence training has been generally of great value.
There are many activists who couldn't get to this conference because of lack of funds, work commitments, or the political situation in their own countries. Yet without their support we would not be here today. It is up to us to pass on to our groups what we have learned over the past few days and to put into practice the proposals that have been made.
We must use our scant funds to the best possible effect. We're not government or United Nations representatives, but activists for life and liberty and opponents of militarism. We should strive to act consistently in the pursuit of our goal.
Thank you to all of you who helped write this report and in particular to: Roberta Bacic, Ana Chavez, Jan van Criekinge, Ellen Elster, Maggie Helwig, Matt Meyer, Greg Payton, Vicky Rovere, Charhe Scheiner, Joanne Sheehan and Hector Tajam.
A big thank you also to our volunteer translators, Pierre Arcq, Gerd Büntzli, Inge Dreger, Jeannine Edel-Otte, Sabin Erazti, Felix Marcuello, Anne Scherer, Andreas Speck, and to our editors, Pat Arrowsmith and Francisco Roman.
The proposal is to hold a series of consultations with movements engaged ii' armed struggle or who have recently quit armed struggle. These consultations would he held in different countries, and would be documented afterwards. They would happen over a period of time, say a three-year period, to build up the trust necessary for a real dialogue. In view of recent transitions from armed struggle by a number of movements, either through their success or changes in conditions and a switch in strategy, the discussions should pose questions about what was gained through armed struggle that could not he achieved trough non-military means
As WRI tends to concentrate mainly on State militarism, such a consultation would develop its analysis and ability to respond to violence organised by non-state bodies.
A fuller proposal about procedure will be elaborated, and then discussed by the WRI Executive and the WRI Council. Adequate funds should be raised to em-ploy one full-time staffperson to work on this project before embarking on organising any of the consultations.
Contact: Howard Clark, at WRI office.
The goal is to make a descriptive survey of the military service regulations in all countries in the world. The survey should draw up country by country profiles on laws and regulations as regards conscription, conscientious objection and substitutory service. Furthermore it should be a practical handbook and therefore describe the actual practice of achieving a CO status.
The survey would he carried out by a full-time researcher and should take 6 to 7 months to complete. Bart Horeman has offered to work on the project and be responsible for fundraising in the Netherlands.
Contact: Bart Horeman, at Vereiniging Dienstweigeraars (VD), postbus 94802, Sparrenweg 3-5,10009 AV Amsterdam, ph.: +31206680999, fax: +31206652422, email: vd@vd.hacktic.nl
The proposal is for WRI to form an Africa Working Group, in order to help network among and develop contacts with African groups, individuals and Africans in the diaspora. A loose network already exists within WRI among a handful of African groups and individuals, as well as among several African Studies and solidarity activists in Europe and North America. This proposal seeks to give that network better coordination and focus, to assist WRI's communications with African contacts, to facilitate communication between African contacts, and to expand the scope of WRI's work in this area.
Jan Van Criekinge and Matt Meyer will serve as coordinators, to make sure that initial mailings go to individuals and groups listed at the initial meeting, and to serve as central contact points for the WRI office and new contacts. The group will seek to recruit a contact within Africa to take on the role of co-convenor. Foundations and individuals should be approached to raise mailing and some travel funds.
Contacts: Matt Meyer, do WRL, 339 Lafayette St, New York, NY 10012, USA; phone: +1 212 523 2783; Jan van Criekinge, Hellichstraat 39, 3110 Rotselaar, Belgium; phone: +3216446926 (home); fax: +322 6400774.
This Service would establish a pool of volunteer translators willing to provide a translation service to peace and related groups who could not otherwise afford translation. in the first months of 1995, a feasibility study would he carried to identify the needs for translation, to find volunteer translators, to work out more precisely how the service would function, and to establish an economic base. This would then he followed by a two or three-year pilot project.
Contact: Agatha Haun, c/o WRI office.
The proposal is for WRI to prepare articles and case studies on countries in transition to democracy for the use of people working on countries facing similar situations. A volunteer activist from a country in transition would be brought to London to do the research work and analyse the data from a WRI perspective.
Contact: WRI office.
The proposal is to set up a fund large enough to enable one of the peace internationals to explore and develop an emergency proposal for nonviolent action in response to an international crisis. The fund would beheld by WRI and funds would be released in agreement with IFoR and Peace Brigades International to take on additional staff either to do a feasibility study or to release one of the existing staff of WRI, PBI or IFoR. Rapid nonviolent responses to international crises would benefit from the contacts of the international organisations, and also their experience of working together.
In September 1994, the Vth International Conference on War Tax Resistance and Peace Tax Campaigns adopted the Fund as their new international project and will provide some funding for it. Additional grant proposals will he submitted to sympathetic funds.
Contact: Dominique Saillard, at WRI office.
This database would highlight alternative economic models, increasing the visibility of southern countries. The Academy of Gandhian Studies is willing to act as a contact and will strive to raise the funds for the three-year project.
Contact: Haranath Tadepally at the Academy of Gandhian Studies, 2-2-1133/5/5 New Nallakunta, Hyderabad 500044, India, fax: +91 40 551332.
The proposal would he intended to provide opportunities for young workers from Africa, Latin America and Asia to attend a one-year intensive course and field work aimed at understanding Gandhi in the contemporary world. At the end of the course, the students would he expected to create similar programmes in their own countries. The programme would cover all the costs of 12 participants per year. The Academy of Gandhian Studies has offered to take responsibility for all fundraising and coordinating work.
Contact: Haranath Tadepally at the
Academy of Gandhian Studies, 2-2-1133/5/5 New Nallakunta, Hyderabad 500044, India, phone: +9140558067; fax: +91 40551332.
with the approval of the IX International Conscientious Objection Meeting (Cachipay, Colombia) and the XXI Triennial of War Resisters' International (São Leopoldo, Brazil)
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) acknowledges freedom of conscience as a fundamental right. Since its resolution of March 10, 1987, the United Nations Commission of Human Rights appealed to member states to recognise conscientious objection as a genuine exercise of the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, included in both the UDHR and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Exercising this fundamental right, there are conscientious objectors who refuse to perform any (civilian) service as a substitute for military service. They consider it part of the recruiting system, and hence an integral part of the structure of military defense. This violates the demand of their conscience to refuse any involvement in any kind of military structure.
Even though it is generally agreed that a fundamental right should not be subject to any limitations or charges, these objectors denounce the fact that in practice there are serious restrictions in exercising their rights. The fact that they are the only people who are drafted to the (civilian) substitutory service, which furthermore restricts the obligation to the male gender, demonstrates that the essential reason for this service is not that it is civilian or social but that it is a substitute, and consequently something that is derived from and is justified solely in the function of, compulsory military service.
This leads to the conclusion that (civilian) substitutory service is a punishment designed to limit the full exercise of the right to conscientious objection, perverting the original intention of these objectors not to participate in any military structure.
As a result of this reasoning, and on the basis that Amnesty International considers to he a prisoner of conscience any person who, without having used violence to defend his/her positions, he/she is imprisoned for reasons of belief or thought, the participants in the IX International Conscientious Objection Meeting, held in Colombia in November 1994, and the participants of the XXI Triennial Conference of the War Resisters' International, held in Brazil in December 1994, appeal to Amnesty International to extend that recognition to those people who are imprisoned on the basis of their refusal to perform either military service or its susbtitutory civilian service, in the exercise of their fundamental right to conscientious objection.
wri-irg.org
War Resisters' InternationalDonate to WRI