This page in
Deutsch »
War Resisters' International
Triennial Conference
3-10 August 2002 in Dublin, Ireland
Report compiled and edited by Sophie Reynolds and Benjamin Kienzle with help of Silke Makowski and Milana Müller
WRI homepage > Publications > The Broken Rifle > No.57, December 2002
WRI homepage > Network > Events > Triennial 2002 final report < Triennial archive site
Joanne Sheehan
You can't really put what happens at a War Resisters' International Triennial into a brief report. It's a time when WRI activists from around the world gather. Over the course of a week together, 180 people attended from 20 countries/ from every continent. The conference title -- Stories and Strategies: nonviolent resistance and social change -- was really the central theme. Storytelling began at each morning's plenary as somebody told their own personal story. Storytelling and sharing strategies continued in the evening plenaries and daily theme groups.
People who worked together from a distance came together in Dublin. It was also a place for people new to WRI to join with us, to bring their stories, strategies and to learn with us. It was an opportunity for all of us to network, to bring information back to our grassroots organizing, to create links across borders. It was also a time for stories to be told through music and theatre and over meals and into the evening as we continued to talk and listen.
This report does tell some of the stories that were told and the strategies that we shared and developed. If you attended the Triennial, this will refresh your memory and be a record of the plenaries and theme group you attended. But so much more happened than any one of us could tell. So, for everyone -- whether or not you were there -- it is a record of the stories and strategies we shared as we strengthen our nonviolent resistance and work for social change. You'll find resources listed in a number of the theme group reports if you are interested in reading more about the topic.
Many theme groups made suggestions for further work. The WRI Triennial Business Meeting and Council have taken the proposals into consideration and incorporated many into our programme work for the coming years. This Triennial is part of a process. We will not leave the theme behind, we will continue to explore how to use stories and how they help us develop strategies.
I want to thank everyone who made this Triennial possible. It takes a lot of work to organize such an event. Thanks to the staff, volunteers, presenters, facilitators, resource people, the funders and all the participants.
December 2002
Joanne Sheehan
from Ireland's 'organizer and host', Rob Fairmichael
The morning plenaries opened with somebody telling their own personal story in 15 or 20 minutes. These were always an inspiring start to the day. We all face difficult struggles of varying kinds; some may be more mundane, some more dangerous and risky, some more varied, but all represent the struggle of an individual to be true to themselves and to overcome violence and live nonviolence. Siva Ramamoorthy's journey from nonviolence to violence and on to nonviolence in Sri Lanka was one; the gun which he felt would liberate him became with time a burden and a pain. But keeping the faith in the face of the mundane can be difficult in a different way. While we listened to people who might be considered to have a particularly interesting story I hope that part of the message is that anyone there could be sitting in the hot seat telling their story. We all have a story. And that was part of the Triennial message as well.
The theme groups which participants followed for four mornings in a row were at the heart of the Triennial conference. This was where people had a chance to really get to grips with one topic.
After lunch there was an opportunity to take part in workshops which anyone could offer, i.e. if you wanted to put on a workshop you put on a workshop and if people were interested they came.
This is an important counterpoint to the morning programme in that it allows everyone an equal opportunity. There were a few people from around Ireland that I was involved in specifically inviting to run workshops. Again I would assume a very varied response but there was a broad choice so hopefully something for everyone. And there was also an opportunity for specialist interest groups regarding work with women, or nonviolence training, to get together.
The evening plenaries, after dinner, were a time when people were already getting tired but an opportunity for everyone to hear usually a few presentations and engage in plenary debate. As well as different aspects of story-telling and strategising from several continents, this included Glencree talking about their work primarily with victims and combatants of the Northern Ireland troubles. One interesting story that I heard from Michael Randle in the evening plenary was the origin of the CND symbol (also featured in Peace News (Culture and Resistance. PN 2448) in a piece by Andrew Rigby) -use that next time someone accuses it of being a 'broken cross'! Florencia Mallon's point about honouring the stories that don't make it into the history books was an important one. Analysis was made of changes since 11th September 2001. And it is always a privilege to hear directly the stories of struggles that people are engaged in, whether in West Papua, Vieques, Israel or elsewhere.
There is a difficult act to do in arranging enough social and cultural programme and not too much. After a day's work, with an ending time for plenaries at 9.30 pm, 10.00 pm is a realistic starting time and this is already late for many people, particularly for those not native (English language) speakers for whom listening to English as lingua franca was tiring.
An excellent local drama production (The Day the Music Died by a community drama group from Finglas) was an amazingly human, and at times humorous (without detracting at all from the seriousness of the topic) look at a seminal event in the troubles in Northern Ireland. It was really impressive, both play and presentation. Also impressive in a different way was Mary Begley and friends leading traditional music sessions several evenings (a number of participants contributed songs).
My own contribution was playing music to a written paper I had produced which everyone received, 'Musical musings on Irish history and culture'. This intended (in 22 or 23 pieces over a couple of hours) to both run through various aspects of Irish history and culture, and to introduce a range of Irish musicians, singers and groups so people had a quick introduction. The edited paper will be included on the INNATE website (look under 'Other resources' on the home page). It was two and a half thousand years of Irish history and culture in two and a half hours. The final celebration/party evening only started after 10pm; in future I would recommend the business programme ending at 6.00 pm so people get a decent evening of it. Irish musician Tommy Sands was great, but it was too late for some people to attend or perform in the extempore performances which we hoped. That said, it did not prevent inveterate night owls partaking in a drumming session which kept on until nearly 3 a.m. -I was pleasantly surprised that DCU's security men let it run until then. We were certainly going out with a bang.
Meeting old friends and making new ones is an essential part of such a gathering. That and the craic and story telling that goes along with it. How could you not be amused as Gernot Lennert 'proves' that Ireland is really Turkish? Or laugh with the antics of assorted performances, intentionally humorous or not.
On the free afternoon a 'marketplace' where locals offered various trips in various directions around Dublin to the internationals. I led a group of twenty or more on a guided tour around the centre of Dublin, giving the socio-political spin along with personal anecdotes. (I forgot to tell them about the time the car we were in was swooped on outside the GPO, one special branch car in front, one behind, and we were questioned -all for being dangerous disarmament activists in a 'neutral' state!).
A home stay programme enabled Triennial goers to stay with Irish hosts for a few days. Many people were fixed up with accommodation during the Triennial or afterwards either informally or through the WRI structures. And despite the relatively small numbers for the pre-organised home stay programme I think it was important to offer it, both for those who wanted to be organised and for those who might not have got to meet people who would offer them accommodation. The opportunity to stay in homes was an important component of being in Ireland and it is something I would like to see for future Triennials.
We had a small but useful seminar in Belfast, with WRI Triennial attenders from four continents, the Monday after the Triennial ended.
Small groups of internationals travelled during the Trienniale to visit local activists, or to take part in local peace events. E.g Hiroshima day.
Business sessions topped and tailed the Triennial. One question of debate was whether the next Council (annual meeting) should take place in Columbia or whether it should be a stand alone conference. So it was a question of how to engage with the Colombian situation, and engage with Colombian activists, rather than whether to (it was decided to hold the 2003 Council there). Another piece of business encouraged engagement on the anniversary of the attacks on the USA on 11th September.There were less people than anticipated, a couple of hundred in total. A conclusion on the content might be that there were too many stories and not enough strategies. While involvement from Ireland was lower than I would have liked, I got the impression that those who did come and engage got a tremendous amount out of it, and I hope that INNATE will be able to maintain a relationship with most of these people.
There were people we knew wanted to come (i.e. people we had links with) who were not granted visas, e.g. from Kinshasa, Congo. The Department of Foreign Affairs' ruling that people had to have travelled outside their own country before (and returned) before getting a visa to Ireland was both insulting and illogical -but we did know there were people who wanted to get a booking simply to get into the country. If Foreign Affairs used as part of the criteria whether people had links with the organisation concerned, or shown involvement in the same field, then they would have been on more solid ground.
There were many, many great people there. I include in this very substantially the workcampers, provided through Voluntary Service International (SCI) who were impressive and did a fantastic job; without them the logistics could not have functioned. Likewise the interpreters who kept Babel babbling on. The daily magazine provided an instant record and news of what was happening that day. Ordinary activists and individuals from around the globe were often inspiring. The WRI staff kept their remarkable cool throughout. And after all was said and done I did feel privileged that the Triennial had come to Ireland and to have been part of such an event.
Facilitation: Florencia E. Mallon, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Our first plenary featured three speakers: Florencia Mallon, sitting in for Elham Bayour who was unable to come due to a family crisis; Michael Randle, pioneer of the nonviolent direct action movement in Britain and a peace researcher and activist; and Koussetogue Koudé, peace and human rights activist from Chad, living in France. Our main goal at the plenary was to open a discussion around how the stories and memories of resistance and action told by earlier generations can help today's activists formulate more focused and inclusive strategies for action. Each speaker analyzed specific stories of loss, oppression and resistance in order to reflect on the lessons we might learn for the future.
The first story of the plenary was a song sung by Tony Kempster which told of the dialogue between a Palestinian and an Israeli boy. One boy asks the other throughout the song, "What would you do if you met me in a war situation?" The other boy's first answer is, "I would shoot you," his next answer is, "I would hide you away, and set you free," and the last one is, "I would put down my gun, open my arms and weep."
Florencia began her presentation with Elham Bayour's story of Sitti, her grandmother. Sitti was expelled in 1948 from her ancestral village in Palestine, and until the day she died she carried the key to that family home. This image of an elder preserving the memories of past usurpation in a concrete symbolic object, a key, and using this to transmit to the next generation the ongoing desire for restitution, reminded Florencia of an image she had uncovered during her work with the Mapuche indigenous community of Nicolas Ailío, located in southern Chile. One of the elders of that community had preserved the memory of his parents being evicted from community lands by an abusive landlord, their house and possessions burned, and had passed that image of loss to the next generation in order to inspire ongoing struggles for restitution. In the case of the community of Ailío, however, the original lands could not be recovered, and only after forty years of struggle, repression, and intense internal debate did some community members successfully petition the government for new land. What might happen to the keys many Palestinian elders have carried for more than half a century, when similarly to Ailío's land, many of the houses these keys open are simply no longer accessible to their owners? Florencia concluded by suggesting the importance of honoring, preserving, and remembering these earlier stories and histories, while at the same time searching for a new political strategy that can make the goal of justice and restitution more reachable. Returning to the image of the key, we must carry it with us as the representation of earlier memories, desires, and rights, but often we must find new doors to unlock.
Michael Randle told us about his experience in the emerging anti-nuclear movement in the UK in the 1950s and 1960s. While the movement clearly did not achieve all its goals, Michael emphasized its legacies -- including the development of the international peace movement symbol, the connection with anti-nuclear movements in Africa, and the influence on direct action movements against war throughout the world in the decades between the 1960s and the 1980s. In addition, he argued that, despite not achieving disarmament per se, the movement was important in forcing a series of international treaties that at least partially banned nuclear testing and proliferation. Thus, even if a movement does not reach all its goals, one legacy for the future must be to understand the unintended successes reached along the way. A final point Michael made was the need to reconsider carefully what implications Just War precepts might have for peace activists.
Koussetogue Koudé introduced his remarks with a story. While participating in a panel on the involvement of youth in the political life of Chad, he had shared the podium with Brahim, a well-dressed and well-educated man who spoke on behalf of Chad's younger generation, bereft of other alternatives, that is turning more and more to the commercialization of violence as their only path to financial security. These young people, known as colombiens, are a living symbol of the broken promises in Chadian society that must be confronted if the legacy of dictatorship is ever to be successfully dealt with. Koudé then outlined a series of steps that would allow the present government in Chad to begin resolving the problems inherited from the dictatorship, including abolishing the use of diya, traditional blood price for a crime, which keeps the state from taking responsibility for violent abuses; and ending government impunity in previous human rights abuses, which encourages ongoing abuse by giving the message that some people are above the law. Through judicial reform, the establishment of a Truth Commission, education of the population, and international solidarity, Koudé concluded, Chad could begin to move beyond the legacies of the earlier cycle of violence and repression. Two general points were reiterated for the discussion. The first was the role of storytelling -- of the memories, experiences, and identities preserved from the past -- in helping us build alternative but realistic strategies and languages of activism in the present, in the hope of building an alternative future. Florencia encouraged the audience to ponder how the stories emerging from this plenary might serve as a starting point for rethinking present strategies of activism. The second point was that, in putting together the stories and images from Palestine, Chad, the Mapuche of Chile, and the anti-nuclear movement in the UK, we must also be mindful of the different contexts in which storytelling and memory are placed and preserved, in the North and the South, and in different locations within North and South. Michael Randle's story is about someone who makes a personal decision, an option that others in his generation made alongside him, to say no to the horrendous destructive power being unleashed by his own country and its allies, against other parts of the globe. The stories told by Elham, Koudé and Florencia, are about strategies for surviving the violence done directly to the people of the societies involved.
In a brief discussion several important issues were raised, but not adequately addressed. Among these was the nature of generational divisions between activists: were older people always more conservative or tied to older ways? Another question was whether is wasn't better simply to let go of the past, and "move on." A third issue was whether "oral history," and the stories that emerged from it, was mainly a phenomenon in the South, or whether it also was important in the North. Finally, the question was raised as to who is in charge of storytelling today. Does the media have responsibility? Who hears the stories?
That we were unable more fully to address these and other concerns, may have had an impact on the way in which we attempted to integrate stories and strategies in subsequent plenaries. There was a tendency through the rest of the triennial to separate out stories from strategies. Stories were about experience; strategies about politics. Most of the stories seem to come from the South; for some, strategies seemed to be elaborated in the North. Thus the challenge with which we entered the first plenary -- which was to answer the question: what role do stories play in our strategies? -- remained on the table by the end of the Triennial. Perhaps it should always be so, since the constant reinterpretation of the past is an important part of formulating better pathways into the future. The one thing that perhaps we can conclude with some certainty, is that we "move on" at our peril if we are unable adequately to process the memories, experiences, and identities that form a part of our legacy from past generations.
Facilitation: Rob Fairmichael, INNATE
The civil strife, which plagued Northern Ireland for 30 years, officially stopped in 1998 when all factions involved, Catholics/Nationalists/Republicans, Protestants/Unionists/Loyalists and the British and Irish governments, signed the Good Friday Agreement. However, Ian White, director of the Glencree Centre of Reconciliation and himself a Unionist-turned-moderate Protestant who fled with his Catholic wife from increasing intimidation in Belfast, pointed out that cross-communal relationships in Northern Ireland are still very weak and peace between the people involved has still to be built.
The story of the work of the Glencree Centre demonstrates some ways forward in building relationships after violence and some of the issues that we face. Glencree, located in the Republic of Ireland, has developed various programmes to try to meet needs and gaps in the peace building process in Northern Ireland and to complement and support the work of governmental and nongovernmental organisations and groups in this field. The Centre provides a 'safe space,' facilities and the expertise of staff and volunteers for any group or individual that wants to work towards a lasting peace in the North. It is financed by both British, Irish and European governmental organisations and private sources, though fund-raising consumes a lot of valuable time. In order to facilitate its workshops and projects, the Glencree Centre has developed three values: (1) inclusiveness of all persons; (2) non-judgement of any person, although this is sometimes quite difficult and (3) non-scapegoating.
The programmes at Glencree are constructed for different target groups: residential political workshops bring together political leaders, activists and -- often reluctantly -- members of the security forces from all parts of the British Isles for a weekend of structured dialogues and informal talking ('storytelling'). About 200 participants take part in around 8 workshops a year. This often leads to fruitful networking between participants and to the realisation that the 'enemy' can be talked to without sacrificing one's identity. Glencree offers training programmes in negotiation, mediation and other Alternative Resolution Skills. It also tries to engage leaders and members of the main churches -- often accused of either perpetuating the conflict in the North or of sticking their heads in the sand -- in cross border and cross community workshops. In these workshops it is particularly important that the participants learn to accept that two truths can exist: "If one is right it doesn't mean that the other one is wrong."
Jacinta de Paor presented a victims/ survivors project L.I.V.E. (Let's Involve the Victims Experience), with two films: one was about youths from North Belfast, one of the most notorious conflict areas, taking part in a weekend project; the other showed the first meeting in 2000 between Pat Magee, a former IRA member who was a bomber involved in carrying out the Brighton hotel bombing in 1984, and the daughter of one of the victims of that bombing. L.I.V.E. started very small but now has ten weekend meetings of 25 people each year. Victim-survivors from all parts of the British Isles, mainland Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, take part. Meetings usually start on Friday with an informal trust-building introduction and continue on Saturday with 'training' (e.g. related to the media or bill of rights) and, if appropriate and mutually accepted, a meeting between victims and ex-combatants, which is often challenging.
Fun, art and music are important aspects of the work both in themselves and in facilitating the process of verbal exchange. Most crucial is that each person talks about his or her suffering, tries to accept it and listens to that of the others. In order to avoid people not listening, each person with a question has to get up and sit in a certain chair. This kind of strategy might be summed up as healing memory through story-telling. Although this kind of healing is mainly individual, it also affects the communities as a whole, as the stories told are communal as well as personal. The interconnectedness and relatedness of the participants' lives, past and present, always become apparent. The objectives of L.I.V.E. are support for victims while they are dealing with their past, the acknowledgement of past hurts and wrongs, learning how not to hate and building relations and bridges. However, nobody is asked to forgive, that is a choice each person has to make for him-or herself. The question of when justice comes into this process was not ignored, but according to Ian the justice tends to come through the questions the victims raise and the answers they get from the ex-combatants to these questions. During the workshops, any question can be asked, although this is often difficult for the 'victimised.' Moreover, all stories told are equally important and welcome. Not surprisingly, participants in L.I.V.E. often disagree, but violence has never occurred. Importantly the complexity and limitations of identifying someone solely either as a victim or as an aggressor often become apparent.
Facilitation: Joanne Sheehan,War Resisters'International
The global violence of war and militarism is intimately linked with the violence people experience in their personal daily lives. Violence becomes normalised when we constantly receive information from the media about crimes and atrocities which happen around the world. 'Compassion fatigue,' a relatively new phenomenon in Western societies, is the result. However, Joanne Sheehan pointed out that the telling of personal stories makes the horror become more real and perhaps does sensitise people after all. In order to underline these thoughts three people from different parts of the world made up the third evening's panel and shared their stories with the audience.
Hasina Khan, a Muslim feminist activist in Aawaz-E-Niswan in India, spoke about the impact of communal violence between Indian Hindus and Muslims on individuals, families and children. In particular, she described a preplanned and state-sponsored massacre carried out by supporters of the radical Hindu Sangh Parivar in the Indian state of Gujurat on 28 February 2002. This massacre has been unequalled in its genocidal dimensions, level of state involvement and atrocity. She underlined this with the help of posters and slides. The massacre left Muslims, especially children, with a deep sense of having been betrayed by Hindus. Hasina Khan puts the massacre down to the activities of the radical Hindu Sangh Parivar, its increasing influence in Indian society and state structures, including the police and national government, and its indoctrination of Hindu children with a distorted, sometimes even perverse 'Hindu' ideology -- in itself a form of violence.
In the second part of her speech, Hasina Khan tried to explore nonviolent solutions to the excesses of communal violence. She argued against forms of nonviolent resistance as practiced by Gandhi in the 1920s and 30s. Rather, she referred to protest meetings, processions, the screening of films, poster exhibitions and signature campaigns to arouse the conscience of the 'silent majority' and involve them in the effort to pressure the government to act against the aggressors. She emphasised that the aggressors must be punished and justice must be done to the victims, otherwise retaliation is very likely. Yet, the main objective is to bring the communities together and to change the mindset of the (potential) aggressor. The 'Khoj' project at municipal schools in Mumbai, for example, challenges successfully Muslim children's entrenched stereotypes of Hindus, even after 28 February. Similar projects are undertaken now at Hindu majority schools.
Neles Tebay is a Catholic priest from West Papua, a territory in the Pacific occupied by Indonesia. Since 1963, Papuans have been subjugated to torture, rape, intimidation and other forms of human rights violations. Between 1963 and 1998, at least 100.000 Papuans were killed, often during military operations of the Indonesian army. West Papua has been declared a military operation zone (DOM) and any Papuan is suspected to be either a member or supporter of the Papua Liberation Movement (Organisasi Papua Merdeka). He recalled how he learnt as a child to fear the Indonesian army and how the conflict brought about hatred and violence even between Papuans themselves and between Papuan villages. However, today Papuans have become aware of being oppressed, manipulated, intimidated and victims of injustices.
Neles Tebay sees two root causes of the conflict in West Papua: (1) the militarism that perpetuates a culture of violence, i.e. that violence is seen as a
solution; and (2) the denial of the Papuan's right to self-determination. Papuans have adopted various nonviolent strategies to address these causes: First, Papuans struggle for demilitarisation by documenting past human rights violations, demanding justice (through a UN investigation) and urging the Indonesian government to withdraw its troops and not to build up an East-Timor style militia. Secondly, Papuans endorse genuine dialogue and mediation by international and recognised institutions as the way forward. Thirdly, West Papua was declared a zone of peace. Fourthly, increased inter-faith co-operation has strengthened the struggle for justice, peace and human dignity. Fifthly, the council of tribal chiefs, the students association and the womens association need empowerment. Sixthly, it is necessary to unmask the root causes and to promote human rights among Papuans and distribute information about human rights violations around the world. Finally, Papuans need the help of the outside world in supporting a review of the UN's policy towards the right of self-determination and in raising the West Papua case all around the world.
The final story was told by Victoria Cáceres about her family, who left Chile after the military coup that brought Augusto Pinochet to power in 1973. In 1970, the socialist government of Salvador Allende was elected with a clear majority. However, the country was deeply split between the right, centre and left and the reforms of the new government, especially privatisation and the agrarian reform, incensed the right, which collaborated with the army in an intimidation campaign and incited workers to strike. Finally, the Allende government was overthrown in a coup supported by the CIA. The coup was a tragedy for Chile and resulted in widespread torture, disappearances, imprisonment and above all exile. The new economic policies of the Pinochet regime (based on the theories of the Chicago school of economics) favoured the rich and were a burden for ordinary citizens. Finally, Victoria Cáceres went into voluntary exile and moved to Venezuela. The living conditions were quite good there for her and her family, and with the economic help of various European organisations she and other exiles created FEDEFAM (Ferderación de familiares de detenidos y desaparecidos), which has tried to make people more aware of the fate of the interned and disappeared. In 1988, a referendum came out against Pinochet's dictatorship and with the increasing democratisation Victoria Cáceres returned to Chile.
The three stories brought two important reactions from the audience: One was expressed by Koussetogue Koudé of Chad who asked, "How can we comprehend so much evil?" He answered it himself saying that the first step that we as humans take towards evil is the hardest and that after that it is progressively easier. We therefore have to remain vigilant, so as to make sure that we do not take this first step. Several speakers emphasised another point of the importance of the influence of outside actors on conflicts such as those in West Papua or Chile. The U.S. government and its Western allies have fuelled and supported these conflicts and have maintained their world-wide economic and political power with the 'globalisation of violence.' Moreover, such seemingly harmless factors as education, the media and even what ordinary people in rich countries buy have helped significantly to sustain conflicts. These dangers have become more acute since 9/11. Everybody agreed that individual and collective action is necessary to fight them.
Facilitation: Andreas Speck, War Resisters' International
After the 11th September terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre, symbol of world economic power, and the Pentagon, symbol of US military power, the 'dominant powers' divided the world into 'good' and 'evil,' into friend and enemy. This thinking not only dominates foreign policy and the raison d'etre of the so-called 'war against terrorism,' but increasingly affects the domestic policies of nation-states. This plenary aimed to develop strategies for peace and antimilitarist campaigners to strengthen civil society through examining how the effects of 11 September and militarism are limiting civil liberties and the building of a civic sector.
Elke Steven of the German Komitee für Grundrechte und Demokratie described how the situation inside the 'centre' (EU, USA) has changed since 11 September: oppressive policies can be more easily justified as 'anti-terror measures' and the obligation to join the 'good' has led to the reduction of civil liberties. Most Western states have passed so-called 'security laws' that make the surveillance of citizens and the collection and exchange of information about citizens between states easier. The target groups of these laws are often nonwestern foreigners and activists of the anti-globalisation movement. In the United States (but also in the UK), large numbers of foreigners were interned without trial and the EU has closed its borders even more tightly, mainly against asylum seekers. Thus, the sometime defenders of civil liberties and human rights, i.e. the Western states, have become actually its violators. Hence it is important to form both national and international groups and majorities that can influence governments in favour of true civil liberties.
Judith Pasternak, a veteran antimilitarist activist from the United States, referred to Elke Steven's speech and argued that the fight between democracy, a 'bottom-up' system, and militarism, an 'top-down' system, has a long tradition in 20 th century US history: Whereas up to the 1960s civil liberties and social security increased, the time afterwards saw a retreat of democracy, a growing military budget, lower taxation of big corporations and less influence for the US Left. In Seattle, the global justice/ anti-globalisation and workers movements gained again some ground. But 11 September provided George W. Bush and his big business supporters with the means to crush the movements. Thus, better organisation of these movements against the 'Patriot Act' and similar acts is urgently needed.
Oscar Huenchunao, a CO activist from Chile, also referred to the paradox that in the name of civil liberties, these very liberties are reduced. However, he reminded the audience that civil liberties at all are still today only a dream in many countries. Since Augusto Pinochet's military coup in 1973, his native country Chile has experienced a situation of internal militarisation, which has become even more primitive after 11 September. The fear of repression is sometimes so strong that activists just do not do anything. The policy of zero tolerance under which students were recently arrested during a demonstration could easily be used to convince young people not to get involved in politics or social movements such as CO groups. Strategies have to concentrate on the fears (of young people) and how to alleviate them.
Not surprisingly, this plenary triggered off an interesting debate about the effects of 11 September and strategies to strengthen civil liberties and civil society. Ekkehart Krippendorff, a radical academic, considered it politically not correct to speak about a 'terrorist attack' concerning the 11 September events. He argued that we do not even know what actually happened. Rather, he sees it as a power struggle between two highly organised forces, the Bin Laden clan, a former business partner of George W. Bush, and the US government. The strategy that antimilitarists should use more is to make sure that fundamental civil liberties are constitutionally guaranteed. The peace movement is in fact a human rights movement. The war on terrorism and its effects on civil liberties are an attempt to get rid of fundamental rights and activism. Others emphasised that civil liberties often existed only on paper. But what happens if people cannot read them, e.g. in South Africa, or cannot access them due to their economic circumstances? Therefore, antimilitarism must also include the struggle against multinational corporations, globalisation and the effects of structural violence. Moreover, it is necessary to identify those people who profit from 'terrorism,' e.g. weapons producers and sellers -- as one commentator pointed out. In regard to the 'war on terrorism' and the imminent war against Iraq, others urged to move away from a purist stance in the pacifist movement and to look for unlikely allies such as conservatives or soldiers who object to only certain military campaigns. However, some maintained that 11 September is not a new beginning. Rather, antimilitarist movements have to continue with their strategies, including fighting for (total) CO and against conscription, and rely on their own strength. Michael Randle demanded that peace activists have to condemn any act of terror, which he defined as any violent act against civilians. He emphasised the importance of both small, pacifist pioneering groups and broad civil movements to strengthen antimilitarist goals. In a final comment, Andreas Speck pointed to the necessity of common denominators in the antimilitarist movement, of the support for both constitutionalism and asylum seekers, and of the awareness of the rapid change of laws, particular human rights legislation.
Grassroots activism is at the heart and soul of War Resisters' International. That is why this panel was scheduled for the final evening of the conference.
Each panelist was first asked to share a story of their work for peace and justice. Joanne Sheehan began by telling the story of the nonviolent occupation of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in New Hampshire, in the U.S. Joanne was a nonviolence trainer, organizer and participant in the campaign. Joanne told of how, to bring together large numbers committed to nonviolent principles, with an inclusive decision-making process, all participants were required to take nonviolence training, make a commitment to nonviolence guidelines, become part of an affinity group who made decisions by consensus, and agree to bail solidarity. 2400 people occupied the site, 1415 were arrested and held, while opposition to nuclear power became an issue that could not be ignored. It became a model for grassroots nonviolent action in the US and beyond.
Dr. Luis Nieves Falcon opened his presentation with stories of leading Puerto Ricans. He detailed the degradation suffered in U.S. jails by Alejandrina Torres, a political prisoner charged with "seditious conspiracy" for campaigning for an end to U.S. colonialism. Once released after almost 20 years in prison, Alejandrina continues to work for the betterment of her community and peoples.
Eduvina Vilches, a 70 year old pobladora, (grassroots woman) living in one of the many shanty towns peripheral to Santiago told of the continuous struggle of the poor to survive amongst poverty and social exclusion which brings lack of opportunities, crime, drug addiction and many other problems which keep the spiral of violence. She told of how she has devoted her life to grow her own many children and children from other relatives and other people as a way of keeping them away from these problems and give them a chance of a better future.
Panelists then shared stories from their movements that influenced them.
Joanne spoke of the stories she has heard while doing Listening Project Community Surveys. Listening Projects are a nonviolent tool used to encourage people to look deeper at an issues, while giving the organizers information to base future strategies on.
Luis Nieves Falcon spoke of Carlos Zenon, a fisherman from Vieques, who has spent his entire adult life in the nonviolent struggle for an end to the military occupation and bombing of his home, which has robbed him of livelihood, the health of himself and family members, and peace.
Eduvina told of how during Pinochet's dictatorship she helped musicians and artists, by taking care of their children whilst going to play or actions. This, so that they would be able to express the need for change and culture. She said that for many years they had almost no space to earn their living and so had no chance to have anybody around to take care of them while they were away. She would care for them, support their actions and at the same time encourage them to keep going. She also told them that she had never had the chance to study beyond elementary school for being so poor and that she had read the books she could find in local libraries or in the houses she used to work as a maid. By that she wanted to make sure that they knew that keeping culture alive was a way of avoiding poverty, exclusion and ignorance. It was also a way of preventing crime and addictions.
Joanne concluded by speaking about how storytelling works among women, how it has been used to build bonds across borders and time. Joanne told of two and a half days spent with a group of 18 women from 13 countries who came together to share experiences working for justice and peace. Gathering prior to the Hague Appeal for Peace, each woman told a story of how she had dealt with a conflict situation. Despite their diversity, they were able to come to common understandings on war (which they saw as including not only armed conflict but also daily violence against human beings), and peace (not only the cessation of firing, but the presence of justice and equality.)
In reflecting upon the international influences contributing to the diverse grassroots movements of Puerto Rico, Dr. Nieves Falcon cited the Plowshares disarmament movement, the Zapatistas of Mexico, and the WRI itself as key sources of inspiration and solidarity.
Eduvina said that poets, musicians and artists in general had helped denouncing all over the world what was going on in Chile and by that, and other actions, international solidarity became a reality. It also helped to create general awareness of all the arbitrary things that were taking place and the Chilean culture kept on a high profile.
Facilitation: Ellen Elster
Links between economy and militarisation as well as between the co-evolution of both profit-based and military international bodies and internal social and political conditions in different countries are visible in various parts of the world.
Ireland's neutrality, which is established in its constitution, is a clear example: Although it has prevented Ireland's membership in NATO, Ireland joined NATO's "Partnership for Peace" programme in 1999, which commits Ireland to "inter-operability" and involves "bombing for peace" operations as well. Moreover, after September 11, Irish cooperation with the US military has intensified and includes the use of Shannon Airport and 'overfly' permissions. In 2000, Ireland rejected the Nice Treaty, which gives the EU formal control over its members' military components. However, the EU does not accept the result of the Irish referendum.
More generally, the globalisation of trade and military conflicts are closely connected. The United States, backed by military alliances such as NATO, protects and defends its economic interests. In Angola, these links and interests still mirror the Cold War: The Marxist NPLA is supported by Cuba and Russia, whereas the capitalist UNITA is supported by Western countries. Even those Western countries that carry out some humanitarian work have always an eye on their interest, in particular on establishing their presence and improving their readiness to conclude lucrative contracts. The pattern is similar in both the Congo and Sudan, while Cameroon, though sharing many conditions, has avoided conflict, perhaps due to strong government. In the Congo, there are also troops from different neighbouring countries, i.e. Namibia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Burundi and Angola. All want to defend their interests there. The UN forces from South Africa are actually not peacekeeping forces but only observation units since no peace agreement exists. In South Africa itself, the trade embargo during apartheid led to the development of a military economy with sophisticated weaponry to defend apartheid. The inheritance is a nuclear research industry and a military economy that the new government has happily adopted.
In Africa, many of the "ethnic and tribal wars" have their background in economic problems that are linked to the global economy. Angola, for example, is suffering from a total collapse of society as a result of a war linked to the export of its resources. The warring factions have control over oil and diamonds respectively. Moreover, the factions are closely linked to international actors, all with their own economic and political interests, and other countries join out of fear that they could lose out on international trade.
Moreover, military governments are often closely associated with transnational companies (TNCs) and are therefore protected by Western governments. It can be easier for TNCs to work with corrupt or military governments, since these are easier to bribe and are often willing to put military force behind measures that work in favour of TNCs but against the people.
Although a stable economy is in many cases profitable for TNCs, particularly if capital is invested in production that requires a high level of expensive technology, there are cases where TNCs directly and indirectly feed into conflicts: e.g. profits from extractive industries such as mining can often be increased when there is instability. Furthermore, in some cases the profit or debt serving strategies of TNCs fuelled internal conflicts, e.g. in the Philippines or Indonesia. In former French colonies, colonisation facilitated the influence of TNCs in each aspect of national life. Their influence can hardly be controlled by national law.
However, the active fostering of war by TNCs or military alliances is the exception rather than the rule. It is rather the threat to the livelihood of whole tribes (or even larger societies) as a consequence of current global economic processes that causes an increasing number of internal national conflicts. These are often disguised as "ethnic" or "religious" wars and form the majority of wars today.
Globalisation itself is, however, not necessarily bad and both negative and positive aspects can be discerned. TNCs are criticized because their enormous economic power leads to political power as well, which in turn weakens democracy. Within the framework of the WTO, countries sign international agreements that control every aspect of trade with the effect that governments are losing control over basic functions. Therefore, many indebted countries cannot fulfil their promises of free social services. Their inability to invest also widens the technology gap. The kind of stability needed for foreign investment is different from that needed by employees: Labour rights are being eroded by the presence of free trade zones. Moreover, programmes introduced to pay off debts are altering infrastructures and destroying ways of life. Cultural diversity is also suffering from the dominance of Western life styles and the English language. On the other hand, globalisation has become a forum for the struggle for social justice as the visibility and awareness of common problems and political power games has grown. In addition, transparency is easier to achieve and communication is improving. In conclusion, globalisation can be a positive force, but only if social and environmental goals become its main objective rather than the profit of economic elites.
Peace/anti-war movements and the new social/anti-globalisation movements share the concept of global justice. Since the turning point of Seattle, Trade Unions, New Socialists, and Peace activists demonstrate together. While recruitment to the "symptomatic" movements that deal with conflict and reconciliation has been slowing down, young people are increasingly attracted by "causal" movements that deal with the causes of injustice and conflicts. Organisations such as ATTAC are potential allies of peace/anti-war organisations. Both should form cooperative resistance with the common theme that human values and environmental issues are more important than profit.
In this regard, the World Social Forum (WSF) in Porto Allegre, Brazil, is particularly interesting. It was set up as an alternative to the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos and took place at the same time. 60,000 people from civil society all over the world attended the WSF in January 2002. As a huge number of groups were marketing their own interests, orientation was very difficult. However, both local and an international networks were set up for correspondence and for the coordination of joint actions. The WEF, on the other hand, is a non-government forum aiming at bringing together business and other interest groups, e.g. politicians, scientists, activists, and religious groups. The world media is extremely well represented. Therefore, it might be useful to have a more firmly established network between the WSF and WEF.
Differences between the African Union and the European Union were also discussed, particularly in their structure and influence. The AU is an elite created top-down organisation; the EU developed slowly from a union of democratic countries. The case of Zimbabwe shows AU's control over African governments intervention in each others countries is not effective.
The particular role of WRI in the campaign against the negative effects of globalisation can take different forms:
Facilitation: Joanne Sheehan and Julia Kraft-Garcia
Participants in this theme group were from Ireland, India, Spain/Denmark, France, UK, Turkey, Germany, Colombia, USA.
Each of the first three days included an exercise, a presentation from our resource people and discussion focused on a question
1)"How does violence manifest itself in our whole society? Looking at it, as it affects our daily life both structurally and directly."
2) "What are the patterns of socialization and of domination that encourage and nurture violence, both within society and between societies?"
3) "How can we break those patterns/ cycles of violence?"
On the fourth day we looked for patterns and strategies for strengthening nonviolent social empowerment and the way an international network can support this.
We began with a violence spectrometer exercise. People were asked to form a line placing themselves on a spectrum according to how violent they think their society is. This gave us an opportunity to think about our own situations, to define what we meant by violence in society, and to see what violence means in different countries.
A few highlights Hilal Demir talked about the militarist tradition of Turkey, and the tools of the
socialization of violence; education, militarism, prison and industries.
Education was seen as the most important, teaching people not to question authority. There are constant police checks, which leads to "the police in our mind" -harassment can lead to psychological problems. Hilal told her story and how she started to heal after she tried to think of the police as human beings, not as enemies. The pressures put on those who refuse to go into the military includes the inability to find jobs and difficulties marrying. In order to avoid military service, gay people had to provide a photo proving they were gay.
Sexual harassment is considered quite normal, men touching women is common.
Hasina Khan said that after the 11th of September, the identity of Muslims changed as the political situation changed in India. A side effect is that issues such as the place of women within Islam, fell to a much lower priority as the focus is now on minority rights not women's rights. The Muslim minority now feel they have to keep their society's problems to themselves (i.e. do not report domestic violence) so that Hindus can't pounce on them in judgment and denigration. She said that questioning authority is a western value. Hasina talked about Anand Patwardan's recent film which points out that "war is not a solution, because war itself is terrorism", and which is now banned. (See Peace News No. 2448, Sep.-Nov.2002 "A celebration of love: an interview with Anand Patwardhan".)
Martin Rodriguez said the patterns that cause violence in society in Colombia are: family, school and media. In the fami-ly the man is the boss, the women have to follow, and older persons have autho-rity over younger ones. In school pupils have to obey teachers and cannot ques-tion them. The media is the only means for youth of identifying with the rest of the world; and media being violent and focused on power, they motivate the youth to follow those in power and sup-press the youth. The media idealizes po-wer and violence. The structures of po-wer are maintained, both directly and indirectly, by violent means.
There are similar patterns in all three countries.
Julia presented what "social empowerment" means and how nonviolence fits in. (Peace News No. 2439, June-Aug. 2000 "Power-with, not power-over")
A discussion on the subject of fear, how we can deal with fear, lead us to invite Roberta Bacic to talk to the group. Roberta, who was involved in movements in Chile, came to talk about dealing with fear. She said we have to acknowledge the fear -- trying to avoid fear is a waste of energy. Fear is a healthy way of protecting you; it tells you that you are in danger, and you then have to analyze the situation. (see Peace News No 2439, June-Aug. 2000, "Fear -- a sign that we are alive" by Roberta Bacic)
People believe in authorities (military, religious); military gets glamourised; violence of educational systemsmilitarized; media normalizes crime and promotes violence; society is not recognizing violence; violence is very deep, so if you don't question it, you can't see it; support for war is hidden or denied ("We're "just" sending lorries" (to a conflict) or "we build submarines, not weapons"); violence gets normalized; violence is seen as a means for conflict resolution; power structures within families; impunity; discriminatory laws; stress (authorities telling police of danger); environmental stress; police under stress react too violently; poor self esteem is a factor in how people react in conflict situations; "healing" without justice; machismo pushing men into violent attitudes, women are seen as targets, trophies to gain; sexual minorities oppressed; easy access to arms; prejudice; scapegoating; justifying that people are defending themselves with arms; blaming the victim, lack of genuine information and clarity; indoctrination of narrow point of view (nationalism); youth are motivated to war and to bear arms by the family and media; military culture; the "compartmentalisation" used by politicians to break down protest into single issues that separates people and analysis is part of the "western Cartesian culture" -- separating kinds of violence, not making the connection between violence in the streets and capitalism; educational systems; war toys; new video game by U.S. military aimed at recruitment; sexual harassment/abuse; militarised police/state; production of arms; corruption; patriarchal society; sexism; violent entertainment; domestic violence; school kids bullying each other; weapons used in peoples daily lives; people getting paid to commit state violence; racism; dangerous driving; poverty; aggression; old people put into homes; conflicts between majorities/minorities; fundamentalism; genocides; US soldiers in foreign countries; dominance of U.S. in the world; purchasing goods made by oppressed workers; violence not seen as conflict but as normal.
Get people together before being able to deal with fear; look for a target that can gain support and then focus and analyze the risks; build a network exclusively on one to one trust; recognize that people are sick and tired of politicians - they need to do actions not listen to speeches; inform people -- get this information to others -- without them dismissing us, or not trusting the information; wear a badge, this might lead to discussions; use "invisible theater"; show there are countries without armies; interactions between artists, musicians, activists, grassroots people can make things change; use music and theater to give the message to youth to refuse to fight; educate people about violence through nonviolence trainings; remember the building part of nonviolence, not just the direct action part; fight the cycle of fear, and others commented that we should not suppress fear, but understand it, because fear can be the rational response to a threat -get rid of the paralysis brought by fear; need to find relevance, making
people feel that things are part of their life; talk to people, be open about our views; direct action is necessary; raise consciousness in communities; link people telling their own stories; need to change people's consciousness at a grassroots level. (Joanne shared an article she wrote in Peace News No. 2435, May -- Aug. 1999, "Developing strategies for abolishing war")
Have a global map of conflicts to give a better understanding of global issues, and links between local and global conflicts; link people community to community; encourage local work; sharing stories of action; create opportunities for teenagers to be linked, link students from different countries via host houses and exchange programs; write and share case studies of successful nonviolent campaigns-need concrete examples to encourage people to carry out direct action.
The process of listening to each other's stories, thinking about the connections and differences, was what was most interesting for the participants of this theme group. We agreed we needed more time to develop strategies and hope that WRI's Nonviolence and Social Empowerment program can continue this work.
Facilitation: Dorie Wilsnack and Eric Bachman
Ethnic community and intra-state violence, but also intra-ethnic conflicts, have often deep-rooted causes such as mutual fears, insecurities and hatred of ethnic, religious or cultural groups.
Moreover, these causes are frequently exaggerated by political leaders or the media.Various forms of nonviolent strategies and methods exist to address them, two of which were discussed in this theme group: building bridges and nonviolent intervention.
Building bridges can have different objectives, which can be combined in various ways and orders depending on the situation. One objective can be simply to establish personal contacts, for example through intensive short term living together (2-3 weeks) for children, youth or adults or the establishment of safe places for people with diplomatic or government roles to meet privately (out of the public eye).
Another may be to listen to the other side(s). However, a feeling of superiority on one or both side(s) might block dialogue. Nevertheless, different methods have been used successfully to achieve this objective, e.g. compassionate listening projects between Jews and Germans, meetings of victims and perpetrators of the Northern Ireland conflict in Glencree, Ireland, non-violent communication (Marshall Rosenberg), listening projects such as the Rural Southern Listening Project or the creation of safe houses for gatherings and meetings. Communication with, or understanding of each other will improve, if both sides accept and acknowledge the suffering of the other side. Therefore, it is important to show one's pain and not only the anger that one might have. Public actions can set an example that others follow.
Another objective is to find common ground. Working together on an activity or issue that is not directly related to the conflict but which involves people from both groups in the conflict (e.g. international work camps, arts projects, activity dealing with children's needs, etc.) is a common way to approach this objective. But it might also involve actively looking for common points during meetings or dialogue.
A challenging objective is to develop respect and empathy between the opposing groups. Various projects and methods can help to develop more empathy, inter alia exchanges, i.e. living with people in the other community for a period of time, dialogue projects that help to heal wounds from the past, learning about the lives, the needs and pains of the others or a continued international presence in a conflict region.
And finally an objective of building bridges can be to deconstruct the historical myths and stereotypes that fuel a conflict as in the Entangled Lives Project.
However, it is necessary to point out that good facilitation and transparency of actions are extremely important during all the projects and methods mentioned above, as otherwise they may not work as intended but may produce the opposite result. Sensitive and aware use of the way that language and accent can be partisan and can denote extra value being given to one side, can lower reactivity and make it easier for people of different 'sides' to accept and receive facilitators. It is also important to take into account both the groups that have a self interest in maintaining a war or tense situation, and the role of diasporas, which often have considerable influence in a conflict (either in supporting or in de-escalating the conflict).
However, bridge building does not create the necessary structural changes. There is a need to address the economic and political structures that are part of the problem, although some steps might create new problems, e.g. economic reparations. For example, a lack of legal opportunities for redress or change (including the possibility to have greater autonomy) increases the probability of violence. However, bridge building does help to prepare the ground for structural changes.
The second way to address ethnic community and intra-state violence that was explored is Nonviolent intervention -this is a complex undertaking and various factors must be clarified before beginning it.
First of all, early preparation, if possible, is essential for a successful intervention, in particular good training and informing for newcomers. This includes also an evaluation of the effectiveness of the intervention. The intervening group should be invited. It must be also clear that the intervening group has respect or status in the community, local and international, and that it has good communication with the activists inside the conflict. Certain power relationships may have a negative influence on the support. The interveners need to be clear about their motivations (personal, political, etc.). Imposing one's own agenda from outside will almost certainly have negative implications. Other preliminary questions for detailed reflection are the safety of all, public, activists, interveners, consequent to the interventions and the likely effectiveness of the interventions in stopping the cycles of violence in the long and short term.
To increase the flow of information to the outside world often influences the authorities to be less violent, e.g. through Amnesty International. Those involved in conflict are often not prepared and need training in empowerment and in order to know legal rights.
Outsiders might also be able to be a role model to those involved in a conflict and might encourage and strengthen the self-esteem of those in conflict situations. It is also important to support democratic and peaceful voices in the diaspora.
However, several difficulties and dangers must be kept in mind: Intervention or outside support is only useful when it takes place over a longer period of time; Outside expertise may be too overwhelming for the people inside; and financial strength of the outsiders may have too much influence. Out of these considerations, it is possible to develop a catalogue of questions that one needs to ask oneself, and of information one needs to know before participating in a nonviolent intervention:
Facilitation: Andreas Speck
This group mainly talked about the issue of conscientious objection. The fact that some members of the group are from countries with conscription and some are from countries with "professional" armies caused the discussion to raise more questions than answers.
A few notable questions in particular are: How can we use conscientious objection as an antimilitarism tactic?
Should it be used as an antimilitarist tactic?
What this has led to, is the conclusion that conscientious objection does not cover everything that needs to be covered. It becomes a side show when armies are "professionalised".
That conclusion only raises more questions:
What do we do when our work must go from anticonscription to anti a professional army?
Should we advocate desertion from the military?
What other tactics can we use? Each individual shared their own country's situation's, meaning twelve situations were described and compared. This was informative and helpful in understanding each other's perspectives and the work to be done.
Facilitation: Doro Bruch and Tikiri
Migration is in many cases the consequence of an on-going conflict, oppression or human and resource exploitation, which in turn is maintained by military force. There is no difference between war refugees and economic refugees; they are all refugees.
Increasingly, the military is involved in sealing off borders and in dealing with displaced populations in conflict areas. However, the closure of borders of rich countries, in particular, is an unacceptable form of discrimination and social injustice. Moreover, these rich, 'democratic' countries often use the 'refugee issue' to arouse racist feelings among their populations in order to get full support for their policies. All these issues should urge WRI and WRI sections to build strategies in order to protect and maintain the freedom of movement for all people.
There exist already plentiful campaigns that deal with various issues. WRI sections or individuals from these sections are more than welcome to join.
The 'No Border Campaign,' the 'Freedom of Movement Campaign' and similar campaigns support the right of each person to travel and settle down freely.
Many campaigns and local groups work for the legalisation of asylum seekers. It can be either social and legal support for individuals or campaigns demanding the right of each person 'to be legal' wherever s/he lives ("No one is illegal"). Many of these campaigns are linked to refugee collectives, as the direct support of such collectives is usually necessary.
The policies of rich states towards migrants have also made anti-deportation campaigns necessary. Two different forms of campaigning have emerged: emergency support for a certain person or family in order to prevent their deportation or more general campaigns such as the 'Deportation Class Campaign,' which has targeted airlines in order to persuade them not to help deport migrants.
Finally, campaigns exist to analyse the aims of governments and of the institutions they use to hide their dirty work: No action can be done without data to convince the general public, which is very often blinded by government propaganda.
WRI and WRI sections have the duty as antimilitarist and anti-war organisations to show and denounce the involvement of armies in sealing off borders. They are the best-placed organisations to do research on the relations between state violence and armies and their links with racism and the closure of borders. Denouncing how the 'war on terrorism' is used to target migrants is also a task any peace organisation that cares about justice has to fulfil. This task can be linked with various campaigns against laws restricting civil liberties, especially because these laws also target activists, e.g. the Terrorism Act in England, LSQ in France or the anti-terror pastete in Germany.
The Seville summit of the European Union (EU) in June 2002 finalised the common European policy to prevent immigration. A wide spectrum of measures to prevent illegal immigration is in place now, including collaboration on defence matters, policing, legal affairs and data collection. Furthermore, each European state restricts legal migration and the right to asylum. The EU also decided to collaborate with the United Nations, NATO and IOM on refugee issues outside the EU and its neighbouring countries. This puts further pressure on countries outside the EU to sign repatriation agreements.
Armies can be used to deal with migrants internally, to organise repatriation and to prevent migrants to enter the EU. For instance, 12,000 soldiers of EUROMARFOR have been deployed along the Spanish and Italian borders.
Collaboration with displaced peace workers and support for COs and deserters who ask for asylum can be effective ways to prevent a Fortress Europe. CONCODOC and other resources can be used as helpful tools in this effort. Connection e.V./DFG-VK has recently shown how it can work: After a successful campaign to support deserters of the South African army and police during apartheid, the group found out which wars are recognised as justifications for deserters to be granted asylum by institutions such as the UN. Since then, they have organised seminars to inform COs and deserters seeking asylum about their rights. In order to influence the German government, they have tried to gain support from towns to agree to officially host deserters and to grant asylum. Finally, they have collaborated with groups and lawyers in Turkey in order to protect peace workers, COs and deserters from Turkey.
Our solidarity must also be shown when delegates cannot come to a conference or a seminar due to the usual visa restrictions. Any refusal to issue a visa -- for whatever reason -- needs to be publicly denounced, if not with an action, at least with a press release directed at the local media of the conference/seminar.
Many tasks have to be fulfilled. Therefore, WRI sections should share their experiences in order to learn from the different activities in this field. Sharing experiences can be a great resource for any peace and antimilitarist activist concerned with the issue of asylum and migration but also for groups supporting migrants.
Facilitation: Helen Stevens
This theme group brought together people who are becoming acquainted with the concepts of nonviolence, and experienced activists who are benefiting from revisiting these key ideas. Helen Stevens of the Scottish Centre for Nonviolence facilitated this group.
Helen began by telling her own story, focusing on some of "the key turning points in her life". One was seeing Picasso's "Guernica". She worked with Quakers in orphanages in Vietnam, which gave her the courage to stand beside oppressed people. Upon returning home, she began focusing on stopping the production of Trident warheads. The group looked at antiwar posters and discussed which ones held special meaning in relation to our own understanding and experience. We discussed how pacifists relate to those who choose violent methods to achieve their causes and whether goals achieved through violence have longterm negative consequences.
During the second meeting, we analysed the concept of satyagraha practised by Gandhi. The principles of which include refraining from violence and hostility, considering opponents as people, making contact with opponents, attempting to gain trust, rejecting humiliation, doing constructive work, making a visible sacrifice, and expecting change. We added other possible principles including confronting a wrong situation, being creative, and affirming the change. We applied these ideas to practical situations, including discussing creative solutions to diffuse an abrupt act of violence in a nonviolent protest. Finally, we explored controversies related to nonviolent action. Each pair debated a challenging topic such as whether nonviolence is a principle or a practical tool, or the value of sabotaging property.
On our third day, we examined five steps in campaigning:-waking up, finding allies, taking action, developing a mass movement, and creating a new society. These steps are inspired by George Lakey's book, 'Strategy For A Living Revolution'. The next model concerned the sources of social power. This can be structured as a pyramid with the authority at the top or a table with each of the sources as legs that support the authority. Sources include the control of knowledge and skills, people's thoughts and beliefs, money and property, obedient people, and the military and police. Any attempt to disrupt the sources of power through nonviolent action can bring about change. We shared information about ways we worked to dismantle sources of power. Helen described using street theatre to draw attention to the stark realities of children in Iraq. Fintan from Ireland shared details about a campaign to address war toys: an information sheet asking Santa not to bring war toys for Christmas was distributed to parents to share with their children. The power of using humour in nonviolent action was highlighted by Javier from Spain. He described how he dressed as a flower standing inside a helmet for a protest about the United States's bombing of Afghanistan. Eduvina emphasised the importance and success of artists in the nonviolent protests in Chile. Graffiti decorated the streets with slogans and images, and singers wrote catchy and powerful songs.
The group concluded that nonviolent activists have endless creative options for calling attention to injustice and working to remove the sources of its power.
Facilitation: Roberta Bacic, Brandon Hamber, Elisabeth Stanley, and Andrew Rigby
Storytelling, denial and silence Dealing with the past is not an objective exercise. It is about connecting to personal truths and values in a way that eases the struggle of life in the present and enables them to be projected into the future.
During times of repression and conflict, there are few opportunities to tell diverse stories. Storytellers who challenge dominant discourse may face ideological denigration or direct brutality. Stories are silenced in many ways, e.g. use of censorship, demonization of opponents, restriction of access to democratic processes, through group pressure.
In the aftermath of repression, storytelling can be a cathartic experience -- to expose what was previously denied can be an act of power. Storytellers can make sense of their identity and place in the world through the telling. Storytelling offers an opportunity for an individual to rebuild or make connections with society. The story teller can do something with their experience, now in the present, of their memories and associated feelings of traumatic past events.
To collect, listen to and acknowledge stories are also important aspects. To make sense of the past, diverse and complex stories [that situate individuals in their wider social and structural context] should be listened to. While storytelling is often a powerful act, silence is also a means to deal with the past. Silence can also hold power for the oppressed as stories can be used and abused by oppressors. Silence and stories, are subject to change over time and space.
Civilians are the main casualties of war and conflict (over 90%). In South Africa, for example, people have been directly victimised by structural violence, systematic segregation and human rights violations. Such a culture of violence can result in extreme traumatization.
Trauma is a concept that is often uncritically adopted. Used to describe "insane" responses to circumstances, trauma is distinguished by the collection of individual symptoms.
The current dominant response to trauma does not address the cause and context of traumatic experiences. Traumatic expressions may actually be healthy and "sane" mechanisms to deal with repressive and violent events. Trauma should be identified in a broader framework that recognises gendered, neo-colonial, capitalist and multi-cultural conditions.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, established in the wake of apartheid in South Africa, was firmly linked to notions of healing and reconciliation. It operated in a state of tension (between the internal needs of 'victims' and the political constraints of the society). It attempted to deal with trauma and provide healing. Through reparations and official acknowledgement of individual stories, a truth commission can facilitate healing. But, a truth commission must be followed by strong support groups. A truth commission, by itself, cannot meet all needs.
National healing and individual healing are not necessarily the same thing. For the individual, related broader truths, justice, compensations and acknowledgement, can be needed to move forward.
It was in the process of this session that the message came through rather than the content: an inquiry into the meaning and nature of forgiveness reveals there is no consensus about what it means. There is no possibility of imposing an understanding of what is the nature of forgiveness for different people. Thus from the standpoint of this 'not knowing', the basis of projects aiming to achieve forgiveness looks undermined.
However the experience of this group's inquiry showed that once liberated from attempts to define/ identify forgiveness a powerful openness was arrived at in which the difficulty of the experiences of pain and healing came to be shared. Indeed the difficulty of the attempts and frustration about trying to reach an apparently 'false' goal forced out into shared space the common shared difficulty of living with past painful experience.
Thus an open meaningful 'space' was created and arrived at by the group's struggle with forgiveness and journey beyond the term. This in itself was an act of 'Dealing with the Past' in the way it developed in this theme group. i.e. of struggling with it in all aspects in the present.
This suggests that discussion and sharing about people's expectations of themselves and beliefs about what they should be able to do and how, with regard to forgiveness may offer a contribution to us in dealing with the past.
In the attempts to approach, identify, forgiveness, and the complex relationship between justice and forgiveness, the following was expressed:
What can make it easier to forgive?
Revenge; Hate/Anger; Dehumanization; Ignorance; Victimhood; Imposed 'solutions'; Resentment; Forgetting; Bitterness; Confusion; Demands
The experience of Chile was considered where problems encountered included the shift of activists from being part of an NGO to becoming part of a state organisation; not all victims/survivors getting reparations; the results being insufficient for some actors.
Outcomes in Chile were: monetary compensation; exemption from military service; access to education; healthcare; human rights education; legal processes; essay competition.
Concrete cases gave the possibility to illustrate issues of judicial process; power in social, economic, and political structures; and the relation between the content of suffering and the form of redress.
A broad range of elements are involved in dealing with the past as well as the political aspects. The many access points to this work and forms to develop / implement it are based in context and direct experience. There is not one answer, nobody owns or has the power to define words such as ' forgiveness' or 'reconciliation'; it seems that this is a field that we can prescribe very little ; meaning or authenticity slips away very quickly at the first hint of any imposed definition or proscribed route. Being present to individual truths and perspectives without solutions seems to be the starting, and possibly the end point, of how we can influence/facilitate this process.
Cultures of violence accumulate voids, silences and great collective pain.
In these situations, we see mediators and peacemakers struggling to contain or neutralise the current crisis. Following this period a process of peace building occurs, sometimes in a situation where wounds are deep, issues unresolved, and justice not seen to have been done. Thus the idea of 'Conflict Transformation' is more useful as a process not as an event. This process aspires to be one in which each individual has a stake and from which each participant seeks empowerment to find their own particular points of departure. This valuable and critical process dealing with the past cannot begin, end or progress along the timelines of conflict. This process is part of a Culture of Transformation, of society that has an ideology of participation and consensus.
One participant represented his reflection on the topic through this poem:
Tears, a ripping of tissue inside
pain, to hear and empathise
conviction, a passion for justice
clarity, to see my life's purpose
open-like a flower.
Sun, shine, petal, power
to reveal the alternatives to war
to create the culture of peace.
Facilitation: Howard Clark
After introductions, expectations ,etc on Day 1, Christine Schweitzer presented a short typology of peace operations in which the UN and regional inter-governmental bodies - NATO, the Organization of American States, the Organization for African Unity (now the African Union), the OSCE - were the actors.
UN peace operations have taken place when the governments of countries have agreed to UN intervention. Excluded from this typology were wars -that is, the war against the Taliban and the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia -although these have a rhetoric of "peace" and are followed by a species of "peacebuilding". The UN has also intervened when there is a threat to internal peace, as authorized by Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. Since 1945, 55 operations have taken place, two thirds of them since 1991 (with the end of the Cold War, the Security Council of the United Nations has been more likely to authorize operations). "Complex" missions involve military and civilian actors, for instance in Kosovo NATO leading the military side and the OSCE the civilian side.
In recent years, especially since the Rwanda and Srebrenica massacres, the rules of engagement for blue helmets and the means of peacekeeping have changed enormously. Traditional peacekeeping involved armed forces that were employed when there was a bi-partisan agreement. They did not use force unless for self-defence and were composed of units of personnel sent as voluntary contributions from smaller countries in order to keep strict neutrality. For example, armed forces might be used to watch over a ceasefire.
Peacekeeping has now developed to include many more functions and players: there is more freedom to use weapons -lethal force may be authorized not only for self-defence but also to further the mission of the intervention. Accordingly a new interpretation of impartiality has evolved. There is more power play in the contributions that the large military and superpowers make in personnel, infrastructure and weapons. The UN stance is that the military is needed to protect civilian interventions. It could be that NATO and perhaps the new European Force will in future perform this military role during interventions.
The group then began to make explicit some of the assumptions of our own discussion and identify issues to which we should return. Motives for peacekeeping operations range from the states' pursuit of their own political and economic interests to a response to public outcry. They may include humanitarian motives.
Different situations and forms of conflict make it necessary to distinguish several types of operations, including peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peacebuilding. The different moments in the process of a conflict make different responses relevant, genuine peacebuilding is appropriate both pre-and postwar.
The second day, the group looked specifically at the example of Kosovo, drawing on the experience of Howard Clark and of a Serb from Kosovo, Sonja Nikolic.
In 1992, the Conference (forerunner of the Organisation) for Security Commission in Europe sent a 16-person team to three areas of rump-Yugoslavia. In Kosovo, it monitored court cases and mediated to end the journalists' hunger strike. The Belgrade government didn't allow this team to stay after July 1993, and there was very little international presence in Kosovo until after the appearance of the Kosovo Liberation Army (1996). The nonviolent student demonstrations of 1997 made diplomats take more notice, but it was really the Drenica massacres of February-March 1998 that put Kosovo top of the international agenda. Negotiations with Belgrade to stop the Serbian offensive in Kosovo finally led to an agreement for ceasefire and to the establishment of the Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM), a mission to be run by the OSCE with 2,000 civilians. Some points about the KVM:
It was set up too late to stop the war, and indeed among major actors (the KLA, Belgrade, Washington) there was little interest in stopping the war -the US used the KVM to prepare public opinion for war.
The OSCE was not capable of mounting such a mission rapidly (at the time of its withdrawal in March 2000, it was still only at 70 per cent of its anticipated strength). Although anti-war activists complained that it was headed by US general William Walker, and although some countries favoured recruiting "verifiers" with military experience, we should also recognise that some countries asked for people with experience of nonviolence and conflict resolution and could not get them -- e.g. France approached MAN (Mouvement pour une Alternative Nonviolente) asking for 50 verifiers and got one!
If the war could not be stopped, at least a number of small and local successes were achieved (calming a flashpoint, etc).
After the war, the victors set up UNMIK to govern Kosovo plus 50,000 troops of the NATO-led KFOR. Although their slogan was "bringing peace to Kosovo", the mission lacked a clear strategy and, among Albanians, groups aligned with the KLA seized the initiative, while most Serbs either fled or took their lead from Belgrade. UNMIK staff are very highly paid but have in general been poorly prepared and have short-term contracts. They function without transparency on key matters and without accountability to the residents of Kosovo. There is much to criticise in the civilian side of the operation. Sonja, who was perhaps the last Serb to leave Prishtina, spoke of her efforts to organise protection for Serbs who wanted to stay and how, in the end, there was no alternative to the protection of the international military.
The group was well aware that there are many instances in Kosovo (as elsewhere) where the military have taken on roles that could better be played by civilians, but also faced the dilemma that, while at times it may seem as if some military protection may be useful for vulnerable people in the short term, military engagement tends to come as a whole package.
The third day began with Christine Schweitzer presenting a typology of nonviolent intervention, with examples from particular actors ranging from governments and military alliances to grass-roots peace groups. While the discussion focused on what peace groups do, it had to take into account the effect on the situation of bigger players. People found Christine's framework helpful in clarifying what could be expected from nonviolent intervention and how interventions in which we were involved might coexist (and either conflict with or complement) what others were doing. The group contained people with experience of Balkan Peace Team (BPT), Peace Brigades International (PBI), Austrian Civilian Peace Service, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) (against Israeli attacks on Palestinians), election monitoring in South Africa, and the proposed Nonviolent Peace Force, plus several specific actions of nonviolent intervention, and following the presentation we discussed these activities within the framework offered by Christine.
Into the category of peacekeeping came nonviolent activities such as accompaniment, monitoring, inter-positioning and advocacy internationally. Peacemaking (in the limited sense of "helping parties find a negotiated solution") is generally a strategy for diplomats or particular NGOs who have credibility in the situation. Grassroots people-to-people initiatives in this framework come under peacebuilding, where external peace groups often play a supportive role to local civil society groups and in general design their activities in order to "expand the space" open to local groups.
Every conflict requires the use of all three strategies, and simultaneously -whether the goal is prevention or post-war reconstruction and reconciliation. Intervention also takes place on a spectrum ranging from non-partisanship to solidarity. WRI as a network always seeks to act out of solidarity with its local counterparts, sometimes acting out of simple humanitarian solidarity (for instance, in opposing military blockades), but also may take part in "non-partisan" ventures such as the Balkan Peace Team, where it was important to be seen as open to hearing the views on all sides of the ethnic divisions. PBI very much stresses that it operates "by invitation" and adopts a "non-partisan" position, whereas Christian Peacemaker Teams enter a situation more as protagonists: as well as offering accompaniment, they are themselves willing to engage in nonviolent confrontation and to organise independent actions to express their opinions.
From the experience of recent nonviolent intervention, a number of issues come up about decision-making and training. Projects with long-term volunteers often throw up conflicts between those in the field and those in the support structure. Different problems were encountered in projects where people went to the field for a shorter term. For instance, activists who went to Palestine with the International Solidarity Movement found that the instigators did not have a culture of, nor the infrastructure for, participatory decision-making, nonviolence training and post-action collective reflection and evaluation.
As there was a separate workshop on the possibilities (and problems) of a Nonviolent Peace Force, this group only touched on the issue of how to build up more capacity for large-scale interventions. Clearly the Nonviolent Peace Force envisaged would depend heavily on institutional funding, would have a general policy of non-partisanship and would not be an appropriate infrastructure for something as oppositional and confrontational as the ISM.
The final morning was devoted to a series of "barometer" discussions about questions generated the previous day, the evaluation and preparing the report back. Questions in the barometer were variations on "Is military protection sometimes necessary?" and "With sufficient resources, could nonviolent intervention eliminate the humanitarian need for military intervention?", leading on to discussion of what can we best do with the resources we have.
In the evaluation, great appreciation was expressed of the convenors/facilitators, especially to Christine for the inputs she had written up on the walls. Several people felt that it had strengthened what they had to say as spokespeople for groups opposing military intervention. Some would have liked a more thorough discussion on preventive strategies. The typologies presented by Christine had offered great clarity about what has been and what exists, but there may be visions for action that do not fit.
(See http://www.ppu.org.uk/war/peacekeeping.html for this typology)
Workshops on a wide range of topics were offered three afternoons of the Triennial; while some had been planned in advance there was space for those attending the conference to seize the opportunity of having many experienced and diverse activists present and call a workshop to present, explore and get feedback on issues they were involved in. The style and content was entirely open to facilitators to create, thus workshops ranged from experiential skills learning to presentations, discussions to detailed strategy planning. These afternoons saw seeds of new actions and collaborations, the development of strategies already underway and reviews of long established campaigns. They reflected the wide areas of life e.g. theatre, direct action, writing and the involvement at all levels of political activity where people/ attendees/we are creating space and finding ways to do antiwar/peace/ nonviolence work.
The workshops were:
This page in
Deutsch »
War Resisters' International
Triennial Conference
3-10 August 2002 in Dublin, Ireland
Report compiled and edited by Sophie Reynolds and Benjamin Kienzle with help of Silke Makowski and Milana Müller