|
Report of a seminar held on Tuesday 12th April 2005 at Peace Direct, 56-64 Leonard Street, London, EC2
This latest CCTS seminar was designed to give organisations participating in the committee an opportunity to reflect together on current practice and, in particular, to consider the need for more power-awareness and more emphasis on the role of active nonviolence in conflict transformation. It was attended by 15 people (the planned limit) and facilitated by Alan Pleydell and Andrew Rigby. The seminar began with a brief presentation from Howard Clark, whose paper, ‘Campaigning power and civil courage: Bringing ‘people power’ back into conflict transformation’ is reproduced above (with minor editing to the version circulated before the seminar). Howard has a long history of work with CCTS, particularly in the Balkans, as well as being a council member of War Resisters’ International and convenor of its Colombia Working Group.
Opening remarks
Howard began by reminding participants of the history of CCTS – and its name change from the ‘Co-ordinating Committee for Conflict Resolution Training in Europe’ to the ‘Committee for Conflict Transformation Support’. The change from ‘Conflict Resolution’ to ‘Conflict Transformation’ was made in recognition of the fact that most approaches to conflict resolution ‘ignore the demands of justice and the realities of power, and lay too much emphasis on the role of third parties and non-partisan action, particularly on the role of outsiders’.
Howard commented that in this context his paper might seem to be stating the obvious, were it not for the fact that the approach it describes is so little used in practice. He put forward three possible reasons: that many practitioners are oriented more towards the search for common ground in conflict, rather than preparing for confrontation; that funders of conflict transformation are, in general, not interested in paying for confrontation; and that there is often inadequate separation between mediation, which is predicated on strict impartiality, and conflict transformation, which does permit the taking of non-neutral positions.
He stressed the importance of Conflict Analysis in identifying and examining the power structures that are at the root of any conflict situation. In the Balkans, for example, ethnic grievances were suppressed during Tito’s long reign, but encouraged and exploited by later politicians as a means of gaining power. In such circumstances it is not enough to work to resolve the ethnic conflict without doing something to address the underlying politics. Today, extremist politicians in Serbia are seeking to whip up feeling against a different enemy – gays.
Much of the work done by CCTS members in the Balkans has focused on supporting the courageous minority seeking to act as the ‘conscience’ of their community, and has therefore involved activities most relevant in the earlier stages of a conflict process (see Fig. 1 in the paper above). This has tended to ignore the potential of minority groups to join together with members of the majority to challenge the political regime. The group Otpor in Belgrade, for example, began in 1998 as graffiti artists, but after the Kosovo war and having had nonviolence training from Col. Robert Helvey and others linked with the Albert Einstein Institution (see Howard’s paper for details), they played a decisive role in the bringing down Milošević.
CCTS members have rarely been approached for training in nonviolent resistance. Moreover, there can be a tension between workshops for NGO capacity-building (a more common CCTS activity) and work with volunteer nonviolent activists.
Howard stressed the high cost of refusing to be a victim. In Colombia, for example, displaced people who have chosen to form nonviolent communities have been the objects of continued violence from the Government. 130 of the population of 1300 of San José de Apartadó have been killed since it was established in 1997.
The whole community, which has renounced any co-operation with armed groups, including those of the State, has recently been forced to move, following the imposition of a Police Post in their former location. Now their situation is desperate, but they still refuse to give up. It is not only hope that keeps them coming but also the lack of acceptable alternatives: they prefer to affirm their own dignity than to be forced into prostitution or crime in the cities.
The first action in nonviolent resistance to some act of usurpation (such as an occupation or a coup) is usually to send a signal that an illegitimate act has taken place. The strategic move then is often to break off communication with those deemed illegitimate power-holders. But there can also be other times for such a break. Thus several of the peace communities in Colombia have assiduously documented the acts of repression and violence against them and have asked the Government to investigate these actions. Now they no longer call on the Government of Colombia to do anything other than to leave them alone – knowing that the Government is implicated in the violence. The implications of cutting off communication are profound, and deserve further study.
Howard’s presentation was followed by plenary discussion which was then continued in two groups. In the afternoon discussion continued in a further plenary session. Much of the discussion throughout the day focused on the factors that limit the scope of CCTS organisations to engage in support for nonviolent conflict. Some of these factors can be described as practical: for example, that this type of work tends not to attract funding, or that it may not be how our partners in conflict areas want to work. Other factors of a more ethical nature include our responsibility as outsiders and our political goals, and those of our organisations. Plenary and group discussions are summarised together below under the headings proposed by the seminar’s facilitators.
|
|