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

WRI homepage > Publications > The Broken Rifle > No.42, March 1999

Choosing Peace Together

XXII Triennial, Porec

XXII WRI Triennial
Porec, Croatia
19-24 September 1998
Hosted by Antiwar Campaign Croatia

Introduction

Dear friends,

War Resisters' International's 22nd triennial conference "Choosing Peace Together" was an extraordinary event which brought together friends from all over the world. 309 participants from 40 countries -- Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Britain, Canada, Chad, Chechnya, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Kosovo/a, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Paraguay, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, State of Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, Turkey, USA, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia -- attended.

As Marko Strpic has written in an Antiwar Campaign Croatia (ARK) report, "Maybe it was, at least for me, the most important to meet people. We established truly good connections." Surely many might share the same insight. It is so good to experience that there are some other people trying to do something in more and less hopeless places in the world.

It was very important for Antiwar Campaign Croatia, which hosted the Triennial, because it renewed commitment to nonviolence. The Triennial helped to refresh and restart work on promoting conscientious objection. The organising effort also helped the Zagreb ARK office grow and build its capacity to do more. Activities linked with the Triennial also increased the visibility of the Centre for Civic Initiatives Porec, helping them in promoting human rights and empowerment of women.

The Triennial contributed to the visibility of peace work. During the conference there were two reports on local and national TV, and it was well covered in the daily press. Interviews with Greg Payton and Vesna Terselic were published after the Triennial ended. Who knows what kind of shift may have been brought by the words of Greg Payton, a Vietnam veteran from the US as he addressed war veterans in Pula, Croatia during the Triennial. People from the region also attended a discussion on Civil Tolerance by Triennial participants Rob Fairmichael of Northern Ireland and Gajo Sekulic of Bosnia-Hercegovina and Vesna Terselic.

It was an important step in the articulation of peace politics for peace-minded people from different post-Yugoslav countries. And it was important for War Resisters' International as we strengthened our international network and re-energised those who attended. The Triennial Business Meeting adopted a WRI Strategic Plan which is being worked on now. Seeds planted at the Triennial are growing around the world.

We hope that this report encourages and inspires you. It is a record of our gathering which we can share and learn from.

Peace,

Vesna Terselic
Joanne Sheehan
ARK and WRI Executive

Triennial sponsors

We want to thank all those who made this Triennial possible through their financial support:

Plenaries

Morning plenaries

The morning plenary sessions featured announcements, world news, and short presentations from participants who came upon their nonviolent activism in difficult and threatening circumstances:

Serdar Tekin from the Izmir War Resisters' Association described how he and war resister Osmat Murat Ülke sat around a table one night in the early '90s working out a strategy for resisting militarism in Turkey. "We thought we were the only ones in the country. We are very isolated because of the very militaristic and authoritarian society."

The group first contacted WRI in 1992, and soon made vital international contacts with other conscientious objection movements, including that in Greece (the Turkish state's traditional enemy). Anti-militarists in Izmir, Istanbul and other cities soon found themselves the subject of official harassment and arrest; when Ossi officially challenged the military service law by publicly burning his call-up papers, a long cycle of trials and releases and re-arrests began. International support was a major factor in keeping up morale, both for Ossi and his supporters: "For all this time we have not been alone. We really felt we were in a network of international solidarity."

Yeni Damayanti described how an opposition culture emerged out of student circles in Indonesia in the late '80s and early '90s. "We were trying to break up the culture of fear and give people more information, so we started to make open demonstrations. Usually we took cases of land disputes, because so many farmers had been kicked off the land for development projects like golf courses and chemical plants."

"We had the demonstrations openly, but we were quite careful in designing them. We had levels of danger for different locations. The one that got me to prison was in December, 1994, when we kind of miscalculated. We were in front of Parliament House, and we demanded that Suharto be taken to court and the military stop using military force dealing with civilians, and we also demanded dissolving the military extrajudicial bodies. Then the military came."

Yeni was imprisoned for a year. "In Indonesia, if you're an activist, you accept the fact that one of your feet is already in jail." She lived in exile for three years after her release, returning home soon after the fall of Suharto.

Xhelal Svecla, a dentistry student at the UPSUP Health Commission in Prishtinë (Kosovo/a), described how he became an activist after "trying to lead an ordinary life ... closing my eyes and thinking that someone else will deal with the situation."

"But the situation reached the stage that you couldn't any more just switch the TV off and stop it. I joined the students' union after I saw that I myself had to do something myself to help my people, to help somehow to resolve the situation that was eating me and eating everyone day by day. Now that the war is going on, I think there is not a lot of space and means with which we can work in our nonviolent struggle. Lots of people ask why the nonviolent struggle didn't work, and I don't know that myself.

"I hope the time will come when everyone in the world won't switch off the TV when Kosovo/a is shown but will raise their voice to stop this bloodshed and to start talking between two nations, between the Serbian regime, which is most to blame, and the relevant Albanian side, and once and for all to stop this genocide in Kosovo/a".

Diane Rizek/Shaloufi was born to a Palestinian family in Nazareth. "In 1948 Israel became a reality. Many Palestinians ran away because of the war in 1948 or they were kicked out. An apartheid policy was introduced. Farmers lost their land. Our history books were written in a way to encourage hatred of my people.

"As a student I started as an activist. Hatred started to increase inside me so I had to do something because I don't like to hate. When I married, we went together to live in Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salaam to rewrite the history of how people live together in this country.

"We have a lot of problems because we are a mixed community. But we try to teach our children -- also children from the surrounding villages -- they should look at the other as equals.

"Now we are recognised as an experiment. Many people come and visit us, take part in our workshops and training courses. We also get teachers to learn about how we do it, also from other countries -- like Greece and Croatia -- to learn how to deal with culture and different languages. How to deal with all these issues. "

from notes by Howard Clark, Ellen Elster, and Judith Pasternak

Choosing Peace Together

Vesna Terselic of ARK welcomed participants to the Triennial and noted the difficulties facing participants from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Montenegro and Serbia, including Vojvodina and Kosovo/a). "The war in Kosovo/a is gathering force and the humanitarian crises have already started, but the Croatian administration have not given visas to the people who work for peace and who could tell us about the 'other side' of the conflicts."

One invited participant, a human rights worker in Kosovo/a, was seriously injured when the van in which she was travelling struck a landmine a few days before the conference, Vesna told the meeting.

African-American peace activist Greg Payton spoke of his journey from conscript to discharged veteran to anti-war organiser. "In the coming days I will talk with people in Croatia and Bosnia who are traumatised by war, as myself. It's my hope that by talking about my own experiences can solve some of the inner tensions of what many people are suffering. Talking about the war is a way out of it.

"Within eight weeks of basic training, I was transformed from a person to a killing machine. It was a process of starting to dehumanise." Later in 1967, he was sent to Vietnam.

"Racism was very visible. The blacks were doing the dirty work, especially drafted blacks. It was supposed to be a rotating system of duties, but it didn't happen. After a while I understood that the way the Vietnamese were treated, was the same way as the blacks were treated. I was disappointed. I raised my voice against the practice in the barracks. Then I was attacked. I was shot at more times by white US soldiers than by the North Vietnamese.

"I started smoking opium in Vietnam. When I was back, I started with heroin. That took me away from reality and to forget what I had experienced. At the same time as using drugs, I tried to live a regular life with a family. It was like having two faces. Eventually I had a crash: I lost everything, my family, work, my dignity. I came to wanting to take my life. On that day I heard a voice in the back in my head.

"I was taken to the veterans' hospital. There I got in touch with Vietnam Veterans Against the War. As I got better, I started to talk with other veterans. We suffered from post-traumatic disorder. We suffered from the same problem. That unified us."

from notes by Ellen Elster

Justice After War

This session was set up as a debate among former-Yugoslav activists with differing views on the balance between justice and reconciliation in postwar societies, who would then face questions from a panel of people from other post-conflict situations (specifically, Chile and South Africa).

The Death of Conflict Resolution

This plenary was somewhat different from the other evening plenaries in that there were no speakers invited to give their considered views on the subject. Rather it was an interactive session which allowed all the Triennial participants to use their own experience to explore the issue of the current state of conflict resolution and the implications for the peace movement.

A series of issues were proposed for participants to consider and there were invited to use a variety of discussion methods to bring out contrasting assumptions and perspectives, and participants actively used the opportunity to disagree and exchange views. Among the issues raised were: the potential of conflict resolution to neutralise power imbalances between parties; the limited capacity of conflict resolution to cope with issues of justice and adequately incorporate a human rights perspective; and the possibility that conflict resolution can deal with the dynamics of inter-personal conflict but is unable to deal with the forces inherent in inter-national conflict. It also looked at ways in which the insights of a conflict resolution approach might still be relevant to peace activists if its current inadequacies are recognised and dealt with.

The session was not intended to produce agreed conclusions but nonetheless some points did emerge:

Report written by Clem McCartney. A longer version is available in the WRI archives.

Civil Action for Peace

The closing plenary included a powerful speech from Koussetogue Koude of Chad. Born during the civil war in Chad, Koude ('I come from a sacrificed generation') works for a youth organisation which resists discrimination and injustice. "When we talk about nonviolence, and say that it is possible to build a world without violence, they say that we are being utopian. How can we envision such a thing, when we live in a world with increasing borders and rising nationalism? But people can refuse to support war and violence...I am utterly convinced that we will prevail. They can call me a utopian, but I am profoundly convinced that it will happen."

Gender Day

Gender Day: A large step forward in WRI's history?

"This day was an experience. When I started to work in WRI in 1979, many men could not accept, nor understand why women should have their own spaces and their own conferences. After a while we formed the Women's Working Group, and one aim was to look at WRI's issues more in a gender perspective.
"But Gender Day was not a women's day. Being a gender day means that we should look at the world from a man's perspective and a woman's perspective. Of course, we could have chosen different perspectives, such as language, race, religion, identity. We can look at the world through many different glasses. And this time, after many years working on the edge of the WRI family, we chose gender-glasses.
"I think that this was a large step forward in WRI's history."--Ellen Elster
"Only a usual day" was one of the comments on gender day, probably one of the frustrated ones. While gender day was an important experience for WRI, and showed the willingness to take up the question of gender, at the same time it showed that it is still women who seem to be most aware of their gender and the importance of gender.

Making one day a special gender day made some general problems: Gender "is a question that can't be dealt with in a minute, because we need confidence in each other", says one of the reflectors. As many people didn't know each other before, there often was not enough time to get beyond the clichés, to get a deeper understanding of this very complex question. And the same reflector noticed: "the men were not confident enough to be personal, and some of them felt threatened by the theme. They accepted that gender was the word of the day, but failed to get behind the unpersonal and academic approach to the theme". Some even stepped out of the day, and in the evening plenary one woman made an important comment that maybe explains some of the difficulties the day faced. She said that this day probably for most women was the first time to discuss gender issues in mixed groups, and for most men it was the first time to discuss gender issues in groups.

Some comments in the discussions highlighted the difficulties of the theme: "Men perform, women conform." "I obey my conscience only", which is, as a reflector mentioned, "difficult for a woman to say with various external pressures to conform". Is the problem that men don't want to acknowledge that they conform too, that their "performance" is part of conforming?

The role of the reflectors

At least one thing that made this day an unusual day at the Triennial was the use of the technique of "reflectors". Six persons (four women and two men) were chosen to monitor the discussion in theme groups, workshops and in between, and reported to the evening plenary. This was meant to highlight the difficulties in discussing gender issues in a mixed organisation like WRI.

But the experience with using reflectors is ambivalent. "Perhaps there was a feeling that the presence of reflectors affected the spontaneity of discussion and hence many did not appreciate our presence", one reflector says. But "at the same time it is important that the presence of the reflectors in the same situations perhaps led people to discuss on gender issues".

The reflectors collected a lot of observations, "but the positive energy of the day was not reflected back to the plenary. I feel that the output in the plenary was not adequate," reflects one of the reflectors, and this was a result of a misconception of the day, giving the reflectors just one and a half hours to prepare their presentation.

Was the day a success? Comments from two reflectors: "Still, especially in the late hours of the day, I DID feel that special thing, the crossing of a line, where the understanding within a mixed group was real and honest." "I enjoyed being a reflector in the gender day and am happy that some progress has been made. Now it is to be seen how to transform this one day special event to an everyday normal affair within the WRI family." Every day is gender day.

Report by Andreas Speck and Majken Sørensen

Theme groups

Civil Disobedience and Environmental Action

facilitated by Stephen Hancock and Melanie Jarman

The aims of the group were: to uncover the environmental concerns of anti-militarists; to explore the links between militarism and environmental destruction; to compare methods being used; and to learn from each other as anti-militarists and environmentalists.

Day 1 explored the connections between environmental destruction and militarism and identified relevant questions to bear in mind during our discussions.

There were two case studies for day 2: a video and presentation on the campaign against nuclear transport in Germany and a presentation on Genetix Snowball, a UK campaign against genetic engineering.

Two questions were posed for Day 3 (Gender Day): To what extent are gender concerns part of your movement/group; and do your ways of organising attempt to address gender concerns or do they reinforce these? To what extent are gender concerns linked to militarism and environmental destruction? (discussed simultaneously in a men's group and in a women's group).

Day 4 had a discussion around prompt questions, including the following: "Patriarchy is the root cause of both militarism and environmental destruction"; "We do not have time to address sexism within our movements because our ecological system is on the verge of collapse"; "A trade-off between jobs and a healthy ecological system is inevitable"; "Our economic system is a form of war"; "Multinational organisations cannot be reformed"; and "Civil disobedience should always be the last resort". A case study looked at the campaign against the construction of a cellulose plant in Chile.

Day 5, the final day, looked at how nonviolent strategies differ between Western Europe and Chile; considered points for future civil disobedience actions; looked at how we can support one another in different countries, and at how ecological concerns can be brought into WRI's work. Members of the group took on individual commitments: in addition, parts of the group's recommendations have been incorporated into the WRI Strategic Plan.

Evaluation comments included the following:

Report written by Melanie Jarman. A longer version is available in the WRI archives.

Grassroots groups and peace processes

facilitated by Rafa Sainz de Rozas, Sni, and Rob Fairmichael

We tried to give each morning a similar format, and break the heaviness by doing things a bit creatively or having a game, a break or some music. Each day we spent some time looking at particular aspects of the theme and a particular geographical conflict; on the latter we were able to 'do' Euskadi (Basque Country), Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Kosovo/a, Chad, and Northern Ireland; sometimes it was a general exploration, sometimes more focused on our theme. The participants in the theme group were mainly European. More general aspects of the theme which we tried to explore included stages of peace processes (a list of stages was developed specifically for this group and used for a barometer/spectrum exercise), gender, the possibility of influencing political processes, the role of NGOs, economics etc.

'Neutrality' or impartiality was an issue of importance. No one really went for the term 'neutral', and 'impartiality' did not necessarily fit in all cases, or was not appropriate to the work some people were doing. Economics was felt to be an area which was ignored by peace activists but could be more fruitfully explored. The importance of strengthening indigenous grassroots groups in conflict areas rather than assuming 'we' had to rush in to intervene was an important point. On gender, we shared the different situations of women in relation to power and grassroots groups in our varied situations.

Even ten or eleven hours is short for dealing with a topic of this nature, and many questions were left not dealt with. Concluding questions and comments included:

Report written by Rob Fairmichael

Identity and Conflict

facilitated by Biljana Kasic and Maggie Helwig

Report back

There were about 35 people in our group, which was diverse both geographically and in terms of theoretical understanding or experience with the theme of identity. Much of the discussion stayed at quite a preliminary and exploratory level. Nevertheless, many of the participants found this valuable, since they had hardly explored the issues before at all. It is clear that this is an area that is still new ground for much of the peace movement and should continue to be explored.

The first day was spent in a go-around asking people to say how they identified themselves, which of their possible identities were important to them; then in small-group discussion of the question, "When people look at you, how do you think they identify you?" At the end of the session, we had people write down their thoughts and feelings about "group identity" and "individual identity".

The second day focussed on national identity and conflict. The day began with discussion in pairs asking people to think of a time when they wanted to stress their national identity or felt it to be important to them.

Gender day began with a go-around on the question, "When you woke up this morning, were you aware of your gender?" After a short role play and a discussion, participants were then asked to divide into small groups and each identify a situation of conflict in which their gender played a role. Interestingly, when the groups reported back, none cited any specific experiences; all made general reflections on gender and particularly on how they had felt about the discussions earlier in the day.

The fourth day began with a continuation of the discussion from gender day, which was probably more intense and more constructive than the discussions that happened on the day itself. We also came upon the interesting question of what kind of "collective identity" this theme group had so far developed. Then we spent quite a long time in small group discussions--each group was given one intentionally provocative statement about identity to discuss, then report back to the group.

The final day began with people who had been relatively quiet in the discussions being asked to make comments if they wanted to; then moving into some group discussion about these comments; followed by a brainstorm on how WRI could continue these discussions; and ending with a short evaluation.

Evaluation comments

We had a lot of positive feedback about the group; I think people found it very enjoyable, and for most people it seemed to be interesting and valuable. There's no question that the theme group developed a distinct "group identity" of its own, and people were using the ideas generated as a frame in which to view other discussions in which they participated.

However, I don't think we got very far in a discussion of the dynamics of identity, and, as someone observed, "we spent so much time trying to understand identity, we never really had time to talk about its relationship to conflict." The considerable differences between the participants and the relative novelty of the topic for many of them were probably the main reasons we didn't get any deeper.

Issues around "privilege" proved particularly sensitive, and gender was probably the most explosive single topic--but national/ethnic identity was also hard to discuss in much depth. Issues of, e.g., religious and class identity were barely raised. Perhaps discussion in very small groups would take us further

The Triennial Business Meeting agreed in a general way that this was an area WRI should continue to explore, and keep in mind when formulating agendas for future meetings, but no specific plans were made.

Report written by Maggie Helwig. A longer version is available in the WRI archives.

Nonviolence and Social Empowerment

facilitated by Howard Clark and Vesna Terselic

Report back

This was the largest theme group, beginning with perhaps 60 people. It was also the most diverse group, with a substantial group from Bosnia and Croatia, and three Chileans. The first session began late as all the theme groups had to be formed and shown to their meeting rooms, and interpretation arrangements had to be made.

The opening session was simple: a go-around of names, organisations, countries; a name game (throwing a cushion and calling the name); language group meetings on why people had chosen this and what they expected/hoped for; setting an exercise for tomorrow: "a moment when I sensed my/our power"

The second day began by sketching out the rough progress we wanted to make in the week, moving from micro to macro, from personal to societal. Then: in groups of 4, first, a round telling each other a story "a moment when I sensed my/our power"; second, a round asking "what did this sense of power consist of?", "what factors made it possible to behave?" and "was it real or an illusion?" A brainstorm and discussion followed.

On Gender Day--the third day--we examined the cultures of obedience, solidarity, and resistance. In our introduction it was noted that similar exercises could be carried out through the lens of race or class.

The fourth day examined the characteristics of Social Empowerment. Conclusions and evaluations were made on the fifth day. Written outcomes included lists of factors giving sense of power and factors demotivating/reducing sense of power; list of characteristics of social empowerment; and a list for WRI future work on social empowerment.

Evaluation comments

This is a huge topic and this was a huge group to try to tackle this through participatory and "elicitative" methods. We welcomed the rich diversity of experience within the group. However, the difficulties of bridging the Latino-Hispanic and Western peace movement contexts were much less than those of making a good connection with the Bosnian-Croatian context.

Most participants expressed appreciation for the work on Day 2. However, what we produced were lists, containing some items that needed to be taken deeper. Above all, a list is not a structured analysis, does not bring out the patterns or suggest the tools for analysis of specific cases.

The Culture of Obedience part of Day 3 was also widely appreciated, although one woman told me it was just another "sharing" go-around without deepening anything or addressing difficulties. During the reporting back, there was some tension between men and women. The different methods followed by the groups meant that the women reported back a more discursive list of points, including more personal experience, while the men produced a shorter and more pointy list, having discussed the most personal elements in pairs or trios. This accentuated the difference perceived by one woman that "women feel a pressure to conform, men a pressure to perform".

The men's group had an interesting detour into whether conforming to a masculine role model should be seen as "disempowered behaviour", as in some senses it is "overempowered", taking power from women.

People enjoyed our "elicitative" methods to begin with, but I think to get beyond their existing limits needed to concentrate on some specific cases and to be offered some specific frames for analysis. This means more theoretical input, either that comes from the convenors and is implicit in some of the exercises, or from a resource person in the group. (Even getting participants to fill in a particular grid around power implies some theory.)

Some of the talks at the start-of-day plenary session could have contributed to our discussion, especially the one from Yeni from Indonesia, which described how they built their movement up. Perhaps it would be good for each theme group to begin with a brief round, offering people the opportunity (but not obliging them) to report back on things they'd heard elsewhere in the conference that added to our discussion.

Report written by Howard Clark. A longer version is available in the WRI archives.

Peace Action and the Modernisation of the Military

Facilitated by Rafael Ajangiz and Orlando Castillo

We are witnessing today some structural changes in the armed forces of all our countries -- more visible in the North than in the South -- which seem much more serious than just another reform.

Territorial sovereignty is no longer the main concern of our rulers and the military. The main concern today is how to achieve national--or regional--interests in the fierce competition that results from globalisation at all levels. That means intervention abroad whenever and wherever it is needed, political, economical and, why not, military intervention--both warmaking and peacemaking military intervention.

But globalisation has also meant pressure from below, from a civil society who has a say about issues such as the environment or the war and the human rights situation elsewhere; this has already compelled some state governments to engage in some interventions which do not match their doctrine of national interest.

Our societies hold a certain number of values that naturally clash with those of the military: non-discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious, ethnicity, race, and so forth; environmental protection; respect for human rights, both group and individual; social justice; the arms trade; and so forth. These values appear to be more widely held with each new generation, so it is reasonable to think that better opportunities for peace action will open in the future.

The armed forces themselves are trying to adapt to these new values. Concerns over gender, sexual orientation, and environment are already acted on in some armed forces today -- if only to refer to them when more recruits are needed. This adaptation is two-sided. For example, in some states soldiers are able to refer their concerns to an ombudsman: this has resulted in less arbitrariness and, consequently, in a greater legitimisation of the military. At the same time, however, the armed forces cannot replicate civilian values entirely, because in doing so they would cease to be armed forces. A certain tension will always exist between the traditional military values and the new emergent civilian values. That tension, or confrontation, is our mobilisation potential.

Women are now admitted to many armed forces, including in specialist and combat programmes, but the admittance criterion is that they behave just like men, that they do exactly the same things and meet the same requirements. We are happy to observe that this kind of integration is posing some problem to the military institutions, but clearly this is not the way to deal with gender issues. Our concern is not that the military have equal opportunities policies, or that an individual's right to a particular career is maintained. Rather, we are trying to move towards a non-patriarchal society in which, very obviously, armies have no place.

Another issue we examined is conflict between the social and the military spheres over public expenditure. The military has commonly attempted to resolve this conflict by reinventing its role, for instance accentuating its role in natural disasters or presenting "humanitarian intervention" as a cost-effective alternative to accepting war refugees.

Directions for WRI work

The final goal of WRI is abolishing the army, all the armies. Definitely, it is an ambitious goal, but we can slowly bring it up if our peace action is addressed to delegitimise the military and their activities.

By delegitimisation we understand a diminution of the people's co-operation and compliance. This is the key criterion against which we should assess any strategy developed. Some areas to examine are:

  1. Carrying out specific campaigns to further the idea of the abolition of the armed forces and the comprehensive strategies which will make it possible, including regional campaigns such as "Europe without armies" and the like.
  2. Campaigns directed at the involvement of the military in contemporary conflicts:
    1. Campaigns to make the public understand the failures and limitations of military intervention
    2. Campaigns for asylum laws in every country;
    3. A campaign against NATO and its satellite organisations
    4. A campaign to outlaw the "School of the Americas" and similar training centres
  3. Campaigns on military expenditure:
    1. awareness campaigns on the true level of military spending and its integration with the arms industry and the arms trade;
    2. an extensive tax resistance campaign, in cooperation with development NGOs to give the larger picture of the need to reallocate resources away from the military and towards social development;
    3. a campaign to promote unilateral disarmament, e.g. broadening the strategy of the antipersonnel landmines campaign to all kind of armament, holding an International Day Without the Pentagon, and/or denouncing our own country to the International Court of Justice in The Hague for having produced, sold and used war armaments, a clear violation of human rights;
    4. a campaign against all production and trade of military armaments.
  4. Campaigns to resist military recruitment, forced or not:
    1. in the promotion and experiencing of civil disobedience as both a strategy for action and a value to replace the militaristic countervalues such as patriotism, discipline, hierarchy and consent;
    2. in the opening of anti-war museums;
    3. in the promotion of a pledge about non involvement in war to be signed by members of the public, especially in those countries involved in an armed conflict.
Report written by Rafael Ajangiz. A longer version is available in the WRI archives.

Women Crossing the Line

Convened by Shelley Anderson and Ellen Elster

Approximately 18 women participated in the theme group (from Bosnia, Britain, Chechnya, Chile, Croatia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Serbia, Spain, the Ukraine and USA).

Although there are dangers inherent in colluding with traditional roles played by women in caring for the vulnerable, and in building relationships and communicating, it was apparent that women's particular skills developed in these domains should be acknowledged, valued, supported and drawn upon by the peace movement at large.

The first day we introduced ourselves by telling who we were, what we were doing and our expectations. We also added a few words about the meaning of our names. Then we drew briefly the history of women in WRI, Helga starting telling us about Sibyl Morrison and Myrtle Solomon. Then Ellen, Shelley, Casha and Carmen each told their story from the WRI women's working group. We ended this day by discussing some points about the specific of women in peace, or if there were anything which was specific.

The second day Karoline from Norway told about her experiences from film-making, working with women in conflict-situation and especially women who had from suffered concentration camp during the second world war. We saw pieces from her film "The time of darkness", which also was shown in its whole later that week.

The third day Shelley, Netherlands/USA, told about her project in IFoR Women's Peacemaking Programme, especially the empowering part of the programme. Shelley presented the full programme in a workshop later and showing a video from the first consultation in Europe. After her introduction followed a discussion on women's strategies in their work, strengths and weaknesses both personally and organisationally.

The fourth day we had a go-around to sum up from the Gender Day. This report will be included in the report from the women's working group which were held later that week. Sara told about her experiences in the organisation of the disappeared in Chile and how women played a special role in that work.

The fifth and the last day Irina from Ukraine told about her work before we summed up. Shelley and Ellen had drafted a report from the group which was discussed. Then we evaluated the week's work by going around. Maia from Chechnya came in at the very end and gave us a brief introduction of the situation in her country.

From the evaluation it was pointed out that the mixture of presentation and discussion in an affective atmosphere, gave possibilities to listen and learn from each other, and to go home inspired and empowered to go on with our own work at home. The networking was important, also for future work. It was also mentioned by several that friends from Belgrade and Kosovo/a were missed in the group.

Report written by Ellen Elster. The group also wrote a joint statement, which is available in the WRI archives or through the office.

Reconstruction and Democratisation

Facilitated by Jørgen Johansen and Vanja Nikolic

This group examined the dynamics of social reconstruction at the grassroots level, where it is often necessary to construct institutions (and ways of working) which never existed before. It was abundantly clear to the participants that international agreements -- not just in the Balkans but in other contemporary conflict zones -- only put a lid on conflicts. Issues included impunity, bringing to light the crimes of a regime or of war, and finding a just basis for future peace.

Workshops

About 40 workshops were held during the five days of the open conference. A full list of workshops and their convenors is available in the WRI archives.

Individual workshop reports

Africa Working Group

Matt Meyer opened the meeting, discussing the history of the WRI AWG, with its origins at the Brazil Triennial. He explained the process by which preliminary contacts were established, both in French- and English-speaking countries, and noted the difficulties in making and maintaining contacts.

South Africa Report: South Africa today, Farid Esack exclaimed, is "in a mess." One consequence of the armed struggle has been the cheapening of life, the de-humanisation of society. In post-apartheid South Africa, a person can be killed over a pack of cigarettes. On the other hand, South Africa is an amazing country -- the only country that has willingly destroyed its own nuclear arsenal, the only country where peace activists have regular dialogues and open forums with the Minister of Defence, where the government supports the transformation of gender relationships. There is a serious problem with arms production and sales -- the toys for the boys that make up the Defence Forces -- but there are efforts to look at utilising alternative methods, and the arms industry faces serious economic cuts every year. These aspects of the new South Africa help promote the broader struggle for humanisation.

The Commission on Gender Equity which Farid heads is one part of this broader humanisation project. Though generally in partnership with government, the Commission has the power to investigate, subpoena, search and seize documents -- including those of government offices and officers.

Chad Report: Koude began by discussing the thirty years of civil war that Chad experienced. "Even today," he stated, "we live in a culture of violence." Despite the fact that nonviolence is very difficult to achieve, the Chadian civil society (which includes Tchad Nonviolence [TNV] and many other groups) proposes to forbid the carrying of arms by all people, throughout Chadian society. "There are so many guns, knives and traditional weapons, it is easy for any fight to break into violence."

Since 1990, Chad has officially been in a process of democratisation, but most civic organisations don't think it is for real, it's just words coming from above. At the beginning of 1993, after a national conference of civil society, demands were put into place calling for curricula on peace education and human rights. Since the government didn't respond, however, TNV and other groups started doing this work on a voluntary basis.

At the Triennial closing plenary, Koude highlighted the importance of a WRI-Africa link. "This conference has provided a real framework for exchange," he noted. "In Chad today, there are only two ways to become famous -- to become war lord or to engage in the anti-politics of empty words. The time has come to put a stop to that. We may start from a small seed, but that seed will grow. We must continue to work together, so that we may reap the benefits of these seeds."

Additional WRI Africa Work: Michel Monod reported on his work with groups in Congo-Brazzaville, most recently travelling there in January 1997. It was a tense time because of the elections, as arms were being brought into the country in large numbers. Michel conducted a small workshop in nonviolence, and brought a greeting from the president of the Congo Nonviolence Association.

Bindi mentioned that she had just come from working in Niger, conducting two-day conflict resolution trainings under the auspices of CARE.

Future work: Group members conducted a brainstorm on two major areas of work -- publications/education and conferences/action support. As far as publications and education work, it was agreed that, where appropriate, members would place articles in national and regional publications geared towards expatriate African communities.

Report written by Matt Meyer. A longer version is available in the WRI archives.

Algeria workshop

(excerpted from Matt Meyer's Africa Working Group report)

A special workshop, led by Maurice Montet (UPF, France), was held at the Triennial, covering the topic of harsh conditions for conscripts and deserters in Algeria. Campaigns for asylum have developed in several countries, with WRI members involvement in some cases.

The following proposals were agreed upon:

Nonviolence Training and Education

convened by Patricio Vejar, Chile

Patricio led us in an exercise used in his country to help empower people to act despite their fears during the dictatorship. He asked us to think of a time we felt very afraid. In silence we were to express our fear through the position of our bodies. He then moved us into pairs. We were asked to try to remove the other person's fear in silence, while still feeling your own fear. We were then moved by the facilitator into fours, and then into contact with the whole group. Most people felt like it was hard to keep feeling your fear when you were in contact with others, especially with the whole group caring for one another.

After the exercise we had a real-life opportunity to support someone experiencing great fear, when a participant suddenly joined the group and told how members of his organisation had received death threats after a misleading article about them was published in a local paper in the Krajina region, where they were working in support of (Bosnian Croat and Croatian Serb) refugees. As a group we were able to listen actively to this participant, share ideas, experiences, and resources, and at the end we made a loving and supportive circle around him.

report by Vivien Sharples. A longer version is available in the WRI archives.

Gender and Body Language

convened by Imke Kreusel, Germany

We formed small groups of three or four, and were given three minutes to creates three situations which would portray stereotypical male/female body language. We then presented the situations as a tableau (no movement or speech) to the group, who guessed which characters were supposed to be men and which were women, and tried to guess how each character might be feeling. This technique brought out a lot of laughter and discussion very quickly, and is a great tool which could be adapted to other types of issues. It's fun, very participatory, and can lead to interesting insights. The workshop leader showed us photos taken at a railway station without the subjects' knowledge, which showed consistent gender differences in body language.

The point was made that our body language affects our feelings, and therefore our behaviour, and vice versa, so one way to change ourselves is to consciously change our body language, which can lead to different feelings. For example, if you want to speak out in large meetings, it's hard to get up the courage to do that if you're holding your body in a shrinking and hangdog manner. If you change to an open and upright stance you make room for more confidence to emerge, and your voice can be louder. Imke told us that European studies have shown that body language tends to fit most with gender stereotypes during the ages of 15 to 25, when people are trying to show that they are a "real" man or woman.

report by Vivien Sharples. A longer version is available in the WRI archives.

The Organising Circle: A Method for Working in Groups

convened by Andreas Speck and Silke Kreusel, Germany

The Organising Circle is a structured method developed by German activists to help activists plan their work so that aspects often overlooked are actively considered. It names stages to work through: the beginning, the analysis, the goal, the strategy, the development of activities, the realisation of activities, and the evaluation. These stages are laid out on a grid, with the stages across the top and other aspects listed down the other axis: group members, group values and principles, resources, structure and process, problem and solution, communication, and environment. The group then systematically fills in the grid. For example, if a group starts to clarify its beginning, the question of "resources" is important: "What resources do we have?" (eg time, money, rooms, materials, contacts, technology, volunteers, etc) . In the "goals" stage, the personal goals of the group members should be made known, and during the development of the strategy, a group has to answer the question of which target groups or constituencies they want to reach with their project.

We tried out some parts of the Circle using a situation faced by Triennial organisers in real life, concerning visa denials and people stuck at borders. I found it a helpful tool, although it seemed like it could be a trifle compulsive to go through the entire grid, because it would take a really long time. But most groups I've worked with don't do enough of this sort of conscious planning and strategising, or don't do it well enough yet because it's so difficult, so I appreciated learning about this way of doing it.

report by Vivien Sharples. A longer version is available in the WRI archives. More information on the Organising Circle can be obtained from patchwork@oln.apc.org.

Psychosocial Effects of Compulsory Military Service

convened by Rosella Baronti, Chilean psychologist

Ten people attended this workshop, which analysed and reflected upon the effects of obligatory military service on both the individual and on the society in which they live.

One of the main issues to be highlighted was the role that military instruction has in either reaffirming or building upon forms of social indoctrination already started by other institutions. Military training imposes conditions on the articulation and organisation of the "psychological system" of the individual. It turns the individual into an object, conditions towards mechanical learning, into accepting without arguing, and emphasises standard rather than multiple responses. This is all added to a mix which includes discipline, denial of the individual, ritualisation and other actions designed to encourage submission to power.

From the discussion that followed, it was evident that awareness of the military's role is a function of an individual's personal historical experience, in particular the relationship between civilians and "their" military. Some people from the ex-Yugoslav countries had a different perspective -- not expressed openly but otherwise evident -- which understated the characteristics and consequences of military training. This is probably because of the recent experience of war: their armies are frequently conceived of as an ally which defends them from external aggressions.

Themes such as "Peace Armies", "Actions for Continental Integration", "Consolidation of Military-Civil Relationships", etc. have recently been introduced into the public debate in many countries. This often makes it difficult for us to reframe the debate around the more fundamental question of why armies exist in the first place.

Translation: Roberta Bacic

Statements

Statement on the war in Kosovo/a

War Resisters' International, an international pacifist network with affiliates in over 30 countries, discussed the war and humanitarian crisis in Kosovo/a at its Triennial conference in Porec, Croatia, 20-26 September 1998.
  1. The conference criticised the handling of the situation by intergovernmental bodies and by individual states:
    1. their failure to provide space for negotiations during the prolonged period when the Albanians of Kosovo/a pursued a disciplined policy of nonviolent action
    2. their treatment of Milosevic as a guarantor of peace in the region rather than as the person most responsible for the criminal policies carried out in the name of Serbian people
    3. their insistence that the issue has to be settled in the framework of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
    4. the refusal of those states which turn away refugees from FRY and especially the callousness of those states sending Kosovars back to a war and draft evaders into the hands of the Yugoslav army
    5. the game of bluff played by the Contact Group at a time when what was needed was an explicit and transparent explanation of what actions it was prepared to contemplate in what circumstances -- this closed off wider exploration of peaceful options.
  2. The conference noted the catastrophic consequences of the violent strategy of the Kosova Liberation Army in the face of a ruthless regime.
  3. The urgent requirement today is to halt the bloodshed, to support the safe and voluntary return of displaced people, to create conditions for reconstruction, and to set in motion a process to achieve a long-term political solution and demilitarisation of the region.
  4. A long-term solution requires the recognition of the human and political rights of all the people of Kosovo/a. The Serbian government has claimed the right to retain sovereignty over the territory of Kosovo/a on the basis of the integrity of the territory. But according to international standards any state which wages war against a part of the population should forfeit its legitimacy and therefore its right to rule them or the territory they inhabit, and an ethnic group has the right to secede from a state under which it is systematically persecuted .
  5. We therefore call upon the UN and EU, and individual states, to apply a political sanction they have so far excluded and which we believe would make a more useful impact than economic sanctions: this sanction is that unless the Yugoslav government immediately ends its attacks on Kosovo/a towns and villages and allows full international monitoring of the situation in Kosovo/a, and unless they begin internationally mediated talks with the representatives of the Kosovo/a Albanians, the UN, the European Union and individual states should promptly
    1. withdraw recognition of the Serbian claim to territorial integrity in respect of Kosovo/a
    2. undertake a process to determine the wishes of all the people of Kosovo/a concerning the future of the territory.
  6. The conference considered a range of proposals for nonviolent action in response to the present situation
  7. In the immediate term,
    1. we call on WRI affiliates and peace groups in Europe to consider blockading the embassies or consulates of FRY, beginning on 21 October under the slogan "Stop the war in Kosovo/a"
    2. we recommend that a further target for protest actions should be sporting events involving teams representing FRY
    3. we urge better communication among all international NGOs working on the question of Kosovo/a
    4. we urge support for the anti-war initiatives of anti-militarist and pacifist groups in Serbia and for voices for nonviolence within Kosovo/a, including those among the Serb and other minorities who oppose the policies of Belgrade and wish to live in peace with Albanians
    5. we call on all states to recognise the right to asylum of refugees from Kosovo/a and for war resisters from FR Yugoslavia
  8. In the longer term:
    1. we call on WRI affiliates and peace groups for increased support of the work of the Balkan Peace Team for inter-ethnic dialogue and encouraging civil society initiatives--especially in helping find good volunteers, in spreading the public reports, and in strengthening BPT's financial base
    2. we ask WRI affiliates to examine other international initiatives for nonviolent intervention and support of local groups when these are based on requests from people in the situation and organised in close liaison with them.
Porec, 26 September 1998

Statement to the Croatian and international public

The 22nd Triennial Conference of the international peace network WAR RESISTERS' INTERNATIONAL is taking place this week in Porec, Croatia. Three hundred representatives, coming from all continents of the world, are participating.

New strategies to strengthen justice in a post-war period and to strengthen peace are being discussed at the Conference. Many participants come from areas where wars are still in progress. We have discussed solidarity strategies against war, conscription, the arms trade, discrimination and violence -- especially against women -- and agreed on a strategy of resistance through means including conscientious objection, civil disobedience and war tax resistance. These discussions are an important contribution to the attempts to bring about reconciliation within and between post-Yugoslav countries.

We greatly regret that some internationally recognised peace activists from Serbia, Kosovo/a, Montenegro and Vojvodina are absent from the conference. The authorities of the Republic of Croatia have refused to issue visas to these activists, in contravention of promises given earlier, and despite the fact that the applications were made in good time. The participants of the Conference are of the opinion that this is not just an accident, rather, it is another example of the policy of the current Croatian Government not to support democratisation processes within the area of former Yugoslavia except by empty words. A country which does not allow freedom of association is not free.

It is symptomatic that this act of the Croatian Government comes at the same time that the Serbian Government is forbidding peace demonstrations against repression and war in Kosovo/a, planned and announced for September 19 in many cities in Serbia and Vojvodina -- could this really be just a coincidence? Obviously, democratisation, reconciliation and peace building in the region are perceived as a threat by the nationalist authoritarian regimes here.

The Croatian government also delayed visas to two of the African activists invited to this conference, to the point that they were not able to attend. We see this as a shameful act of discrimination.

One of our colleagues, a peace activist from Kosovo/a, is not able to join us because she was wounded by a land mine during a peace mission just a couple of days before our Conference. Although she was caught in the crossfire, she did manage to make it to the hospital where she is presently undergoing treatment.

The courage and persistence of the peace activists cooperating with the War Resisters' International network proves that every person has the possibility of resisting war and repression -- and that is always a valuable act. We will not allow current regimes to frustrate our efforts to achieve reconciliation and a lasting peace in the region of the former Yugoslavia.

Once again we call on the people of the world to choose peace together!

Signed by participants of the conference, Friday 25 September 1998

Business meeting

Elected and appointed positions chosen or confirmed at the 1998 Triennial Conference

Chair: Joanne Sheehan, USA

Treasurer: Andreas Speck, Germany

Vice-chairs: Peter Jones (Australia), Cecilia Moretti (Argentina), Osman Murat Ülke (Turkey)

Internationally elected council members:

The Council also includes a representative from each section and a non-voting observer from each associate organisation or publication.

Executive committee: Joanne Sheehan, Andreas Speck, Howard Clark, Ellen Elster, Vesna Terselic, Jan van Criekenge

New affiliates

Two new affiliates were agreed at the Council meeting preceding the Triennial:

Institut für Friedensarbeit und Gewaltfreie Konfliktaustragung, Hauptstr 35, D-55491 Wahlenau/Hunsrueck, Germany. Tel +49 6543 980296; fax 571 23019; email institut_fgk@bionic.zerberus.de [accepted as a section]

Archiv Aktiv für gewaltfreie Bewegungen, Sternschanze 1, D-20357 Hamburg, Germany. Tel +49 40 430 2046; email k.hocke@umwelt.ecolink.org [accepted as an associate organisation]

Project proposals

The following project proposals were approved at the Triennial Business Meeting. Details of all these projects appear in the Triennial Business Meeting minutes. Further details can be found in the WRI archives or via the office.

Triennial Report

Editing and design: Ken Simons (Toronto). This report is issue 42 of the Broken Rifle newsletter and is available in German and French as well as English.