Committee for Conflict Transformation Support

CCTS
Newsletter 17

International Policy and the CCTS

Why did we think that the 'War on Terror' and proposed war on Iraq was an appropriate topic for us, a group of practitioners working to support conflict transformation in regions suffering from widespread political violence?

Since the tragic events of September 11th, at each of our CCTS meetings we have discussed our misery and frustration at the responses it has evoked, particularly in the US and the UK: responses which in turn have had major repercussions in other parts of the world. We have debated repeatedly what responses we in turn might make and asked ourselves whether we would in fact see eye to eye with each other in our analysis and in the things we would want to advocate. We have questioned also whether it is in line with our agreed purposes as a committee to undertake such advocacy collectively. Our style is more reflective than normative. We have agreed that we would like to sit down and reflect in an open process with policy makers: one in which self examination and challenge could be genuine and mutual, but have wondered whether any policy makers would want to undergo such a process with us. In the end we have been limited by our own time and energy and not, so far, moved beyond our own personal efforts as individual members.

First of all, I think it can be safely said that we do the work we do because of the values we hold and the transformations we would like to see. We work in support of people trying to address conflict constructively, in ways that will increase justice, reduce violence and build the foundations for peaceful relationships. I think it is reasonable to assume that we do so because their goals are consonant with ours.

If we want to see such approaches taking root in other societies, it would seem highly contradictory - not to say arrogant and dishonest - not to want them to take root in our own. And if we uphold the responsibility and capacity of citizens to act for change where they live we would, I believe, lack integrity if we took no such responsibility upon ourselves. The policies of Western governments - those for which most of our members share some responsibility - have typically been ones reliant above all on military intervention and, most recently, on unilateral assaults on chosen targets - ones involving a great number of civilian deaths. This is ironic, since much of our work in support of nonviolent approaches to conflict is funded by the very same governments. It is hard to escape the conclusion that there is one rule for the rich and powerful and another for the rest.

Personally, I find it embarrassing enough as a middle class British woman to work as a 'consultant' in other people's countries, without the added shame of Britain's current role as backer of US military attacks. Wherever I go I am asked why our Prime Minister acts as he does. Given the UK's track record, I am not sure why, but my colleagues abroad seem genuinely shocked.

My personal feelings are not the point here. What matters is that our association in our work, through Western funding, with the actions of 'the West' (and I realise that the rest of Europe is not in the same position as the US and the UK), is in danger of bringing the approaches we espouse into disrepute.

More importantly still, the punitive and bullying actions being taken by giant military powers and the deals they are doing to 'bring on board' countries which might otherwise object are giving a moral and political fig leaf to repressive governments wanting to respond with brute force to their own insurgents. In Indonesia, Burma, Nepal, China, Chechnya, Israel/Palestine - the list could be greatly extended - the notion of a 'War on Terror' is being used to justify the rejection of dialogue in favour of new rounds of repression. This has a direct impact on our work and the contexts in which our partner organisations are struggling to make a constructive contribution. (It would be good to collect well-documented accounts of this impact. Please send them to us.)

Moreover, we are in danger of becoming sucked into the 'reconstruction' end of a cycle of Western military 'interventions' and their aftermath. While I am still working in Kosovo/a, in the wake of the NATO war there, many other 'internationals' have already moved on to Afghanistan. It has been evident that the effects of an overwhelming international presence have been to submerge local capacities, undermine local service provision and distort the (already weak) local economy and what was left of Kosovar society, at the same time establishing a huge sex trade which flourished in response to its 'needs'. I find that acutely depressing and foresee the repetition of the same mistakes in Afghanistan. They are not separate in their invasiveness from but a continuation of the original policy and impact of military assault.

I believe in the work I do because I believe in the people I work with. They act with courage in the face of huge odds and do so with integrity and vision, believing that nonviolent ways forward are possible. I share their aspirations and I want my country to become part of the solution - not remain as a very real and powerful part of the problem. Paul's article argues why a war on Iraq would be a horrible example of the latter.

Diana Francis

Main Article

newsletter  |  ccts