 |
Kathmandu Wednesday January 09, 2002 Paush 25, 2058.
|
Armed conflict and non-violent intervention
By Dr GOPAL KRISHNA SIWAKOTI
As we venture into the new millennium, we
stand at significant crossroads. Will the future bring an incessant stream of devastating
armed conflicts and brutal violence, like the horrors we have seen in Kosovo, Rwanda, Iraq
and East Timor and now in our own home? Or are there alternatives to the endless
repetition of such catastrophies?
A growing number of countries experience
internal armed conflict inflicting massive suffering on the population and raising
distinctive issues for human rights defenders trying to curb human rights violations. The
majority of violent and deadly conflicts in the world take place within states. Armed
groups that are not under government control are a key feature of these conflicts and are
responsible for many, sometimes extreme abuses of human rights. These are of immediate
concern to civilians affected by the fighting, but they also raise issues for national and
international organisations that protect human rights, work for peace or provide
humanitarian relief.
The principal question is whether human
rights defenders should cover conduct by insurgents — guerrilla forces seeking
political change, an ethnic or religious group seeking self-determination — as well
as by governments. What can be done to influence armed groups to respect human rights? Do
the same techniques apply that are used to shame abusive governments? A policy of human
rights defenders that was close to uniform a decade ago views conduct by non-governmental
groups, however destructive toward opponents or unengaged civilians, as a matter for the
state’s criminal law. It lies outside the scope of human rights law, which deals with
state action. That policy has changed in many instances in the light of the growing
incidences and brutality of ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts, and in response
to sharp criticism by governments of the reports from human rights defenders that are
critical of state action but silent about similar or worse behaviour by insurgents.
Can one - should one —enter into a
dialogue on human rights with groups that have engaged in acts of terror and laid waste
their societies? Does engaging with armed groups imply recognition and therefore
legitimacy? Will focusing on the abuses of armed groups undermine efforts to hold
governments accountable or deflect attention from violations committed by government
forces?
To these questions we should be adopting an
essentially pragmatic approach. There is an alternative, one that builds upon the recent
experiences of many organizations that have successfully experimented with the application
of "Third Party Nonviolent Intervention" techniques in areas of advanced
conflict. Out of these experiences has grown a new wave of deliberate nonviolent
intervention carried out by some twenty or so organizations around the world: Peace
Brigades International (PBI), Witness for Peace, Christian Peacemaker Teams, Balkan Peace
Teams, International Fellowship of Reconciliation, Helsinki Citizens Assembly,
International Alert, SIPAZ (Servicio Internacional para la Paz) and others took their
permanent place along side ad hoc projects (like Cry for Justice in Haiti). Peace teams
are working at present in Colombia, Mexico, Guatemala, the Balkans, Israel/Palestine and
Nicaragua.
The decade of the 1980s was important for the
development of peace teams. During this period, a number of NGOs like the religious-based
Witness for Peace and the nominally secular Peace Brigades International, saw action in
Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Sri Lanka and Quebec. A small PBI presence in
Guatemala, whose "protective accompaniment" deterred the assassination of key
human rights workers and supported the creation of a small "space for peace" in
that embattled society, contributed greatly to the subsequent re-emerging of a democratic
society and the peace process.
In 1985, Guatemalan women from Grupo de Apoyo
Mutuo (GAM) requested that PBI provide 24 hour nonviolent accompaniment for their leaders
after two of its members had been assassinated. Much of Guatemalan civil society had been
wiped out by the military at that time, leaving most of the citizens too terrified to act.
For the next four years, PBI provided "unarmed bodyguards" around the clock for
GAM’s leadership. No more group leaders were killed, and the courageous women were
able to carry out their work. This encouraged other citizen groups to emerge and begin
rebuilding a democratic society. GAM leader Nineth de Garcia told The New York Times:
"Thanks to their presence, I am alive. That is an indisputable truth."
This one episode — and there are many
like it — gives a glimpse of the potential for nonviolent intervention. Yet, when war
erupted in the Balkans, the world lacked a credible, coherent, and comprehensive response.
While some international activists bravely carried out nonviolent strategies with the
people of the Balkans (and are still doing so), many others could think of nothing better
than to go along reluctantly with the NATO response. The situation epitomized the
increasing dilemma of the international community when the only widely known alternatives
are to do nothing or drop bombs.
Kosovo highlighted the need for substantial,
well-organized, international support for the local nonviolent movement. Kosovar Albanian
President Ibrahim Rugova was asking for international support of the nonviolent movement
in Kosovo as early as 1991. There was no substantial response. Alberto L’Abate,
Italian activist and a Balkan veteran, believes that 1,000 international peace workers in
Kosovo by 1995 could have played a significant role in averting the violence that exploded
in 1998. Their activities could have included protective accompaniment, active support of
local nonviolent actions, and training and capacity building of nonviolent and democratic
institutions. Nonviolent activists could have also organized international support and
media attention for the local nonviolent movement, making visible the possibilities for
peaceful resolution.
What has yet to happen is the creation of a
standing, trained, non-violent "peace force" (presumably under some global
auspices.) Such a peace force would deploy to regions of serious conflict and demonstrate
that there is an entirely different way to respond to such human tragedies than by
ignoring them (as in Rwanda) or bombing one or the other combatant into uneasy submission
(as in Iraq and Kosovo), both leading to untold and seemingly endless human suffering.
The Global Nonviolent Peace Force represents
an alternative to massive military intervention that many people hope for, but does not
yet exist. Building on important peacemaking work throughout the world, this Peace Force
will bring peacemaking to a dramatic, new level. It will be a key component in the
development of a strategic, cohesive, efficient, and effective nonviolent response to
brutality and threats of genocidal violence.
As the international peace community gained
experience and delivered success with third party nonviolent intervention on a small scale
(teams of 3-10 members), the vision of a global nonviolent peace force that could perform
larger scale interventions began to emerge. Two international consultations, held in 1994
and 1995, were convened to further develop the idea. In May 1999, at the Hague Appeal for
Peace, the Peace Force concept took a dramatic step forward when 9,000 activists from 100
countries led by peace champion Ms Cora Weiss drafted a proposal stating among other
things that "peace is a human right" and "it is time to abolish war."
At this meeting, two North American activists, Mel Duncan and David Hartsough, agreed to
commit their organization and personal efforts to building the broad-based support and
organizational structures necessary for the realization of this vision.
In barely a year this proposal has caught the
imagination and enlisted the energies of thousands of people around the world, many of
them with considerable experience in cross-border nonviolent intervention. The Hague
proposal has been reviewed, discussed, and critiqued by hundreds of nonviolent activists,
scholars, military veterans and government leaders from various parts of the world. These
discussions lay the groundwork to mobilizing and training an international nonviolent,
standing peace force.
The Peace Force will be sent to conflict
areas to prevent death and destruction and protect human rights, thus creating the space
for local groups to struggle nonviolently, enter into dialogue, and seek peaceful
resolution. Can we not initiate a similar approach in Nepal to get rid of the current
trouble?
(The author is Executive Director of INHURED
International, Nepal)
Other Stories
|
