|
a discussion paper by Howard Clark
This paper begins with some reflections on the early history of the CCTS and on the characteristics of Conflict Transformation as an approach. The second section moves on to discuss the need for Conflict Transformation workshops to include the dimension of nonviolent struggle, even of combat – not just of empowering the peace forces in society but also undermining the forces for war. This can be seen as strengthening the adversarial element of conflict transformation. The concluding section notes some of the pitfalls and dilemmas of People Power, while also identifying what conflict transformation thinking adds to the approach.
1. CCTS early history
The CCTS began in 1992 – under the name the Coordinating Committee for Conflict Resolution Training in Europe(1) – with the goal of multiplying the number of conflict resolution trainers in East and Central Europe, a need expressed repeatedly by people from that region at the Helsinki Citizens Assembly in Bratislava in March 1992. Yet the very first activity funded by the Committee – a trip to Osijek, Croatia, by Adam Curle and Judith Large – fundamentally changed our understanding of that need. Adam and Judith found the would-be trainers flat-sitting, to prevent an eviction, and they found them threatened – both their safety and their livelihood.
From then on, it was clear that what was needed was not so much the transfer of conflict resolution and in particular mediation skills as a range of types of support for emerging values-based groups that were challenging the dominant social attitudes.
1a) Human rights advocacy and conflict transformation go together
This statement has always seemed self-evident within CCTS. It was part of the platform of the Helsinki Citizens Assembly itself. Moreover, most founder members of the Committee favoured ‘active nonviolence’, in particular nonviolent struggle for justice by oppressed groups. Then the first additional organisation to join CCTS – International Alert – was a body born of the need felt by human rights activists to address the conflicts underlying the violation of rights.(2)
For CCTS, it was clear that the people within a conflict who are stirred to respond to human rights issues are often those most motivated to engage in dialogue and other conflict resolution initiatives. However, various dilemmas occur in combining human rights advocacy with conflict resolution work – some of which we discussed in the first CCTS seminar, A Time to Take Sides.
1b) Civil courage and a sense of empowerment are essential for peace work
The theory of conflict resolution tends to concentrate more on the relationship between the conflicting parties than on the relationship between would-be peacemakers and their own community. In the situations CCTS initially addressed – the context of ethnic violence in former-‘Communist’ Europe – people were frequently rejected by their own ethnic group for refusing to hate ‘the Other’. Moreover, many well-meaning people felt helpless when conflicts that had previously existed as undercurrents swelled into a tidal wave sweeping all before them. Part of our work has therefore revolved around the theme of empowerment, including strengthening group cohesion, debating values and clarifying strategy. There has, of course, been work to maintain, revive or establish connections between hostile communities, but – especially in the CCTS’s early days and in the Balkans – my impression is that we paid more attention to strengthening the ‘peace constituency’ within particular communities.
|
|
|
(1) 1 I will refer to the Committee as CCTS, whatever its name was at the time to which I am referring
(2) I believe that International Alert grew out of Martin Ennals’s frustration as secretary-general of Amnesty International. Recognising that reports of human rights violations are often an early warning of severe conflict to come, he saw the need for a fuller response than the restrictive Amnesty mandate would permit.
| |