Showing posts with label peace and conflict. Show all posts
Showing posts with label peace and conflict. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Peace and Activism
Some of you might be interested in a new training program on peace and activism. Read on...The Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at Sydney University will be teaching an exciting new training course in the theory and practice of peace activism this year. The course will be taught in May-June over five intensive sessions (Fridays 10am-5pm). It will also include a 6 day trip to Queensland in July to participate in the Peace Convergence at the time of the 2009 Talisman Sabre US-Australian war exercises. Registration fee including travel from Sydney to Queensland is $500. For enquiries and registration contact arts.cpacs@usyd.edu.au or (02)9351 7686.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Inflexibility or Wither Empathy or the Absence of Reason
First, I have to apologise to Christalla for kind of stealing her thunder, but it was her fantastic and illuminating talk that gave me the inspiration to write this. Second, I will apologise to anyone who happens to read this (hopefully there is someone out there), because there are several threats running through it and I will do my best to bring these together in a coherent fashion.
Christalla's talk focused on intractable conficts and the socio-psychological barriers to resolution, which foster perpetuation even when the guns have stopped or are in a period of prolonged silence. When peace can not be reached or maintained, blame is laid at the political leaderships of warring groups. Whilst they are partly responsible, we overlook societal resistance at our peril. Christalla examined this with reference to the Cyprus conflict.
Yesterday, I witnessed first hand the socio-psychological dimension of intractable conflict in a small lecture theatre here in Perth, with relation to Israel-Palestine. A visting academic was here to present an Israeli position on the strategic dynamics in the Middle East and why Israel feels concerned for its safety and security: this is a position I can readily understand. His analysis, like that of most strategists/political scientists/analysts/military officials/intelligence officers, focused on arms races, foreign and military policies, and political rhetoric. This tends to be the focus when examining this and other protracted and intractable conflicts.
However, what struck me as I listened to the subtext, and observed the reactions of the audience, is that if this conflict, and others like it, are to be resolved, even if only to some kind of detente, then fundamental changes need to take place at the societal level - there needs to be both bottom up and top down approaches to conflict resolution and they need to take place in tandem. Only with a sense of equity, in suffering and injustice, can there be a genuine societal will for peace.
Now, I am going to preface the rest of my entry with a couple of qualifiers. The audience yesterday was primarily, dare I say it, overwhelmingly Jewish, and understandably pro-Israel. However, what I observed is not a behaviour that is exclusively Jewish/Israeli, as I have witnessed it in people of all persuasions, it just so happens that this is my case study, so to speak.
What I observed, both in speech and in body language, was a type of victimhood which gives rise to blindness to the suffering of others, a refusal to acknowledge self aggression or responsibility in the situation, a lack empathy for people on the opposing side, and a dehumanised sense of the other. It was displayed in sneers for any suggestion that Israel should shoulder some of the responsibility for the conflict, that they could be equally as guilty of attrocities as Hamas, or that Palestinians suffer as much at the hands of Israel as Israelis do at the hands of Hamas; and in cheers for any statements by the academic that vindicated and justified personal biases and inflexibility. I qualify this by acknowledging that I have met Muslims in possession of the same sense of victimhood and self-righteousness. Neither is helpful; both are destructive.
Even more so, this sense of victimhood silences and sidelines voices of reason, the one thing so desparately needed if this, and other, conflicts are to be resolved. There were two voices of reason yesterday, one Jewish (hi if your watching), one Muslim, who made the sobering, yet I feel, not well received, suggestion for understanding and empathy, to walk in the shoes of the other and to acknowledge that there is an equal sense of victimisation and suffering among Israelis and Palestinians alike. I talked to a couple of younger people after who shared this sense of reason and empathy, and who were concerned by the inflexibility shown by some members of the audience, particularly how this reflects on outside perceptions of the their community: they felt powerless to change these inflexible attitudes.
If there is to be any chance of bringing peace to the Middle East, and indeed to any intractable conflict, then more emphasis needs to be placed on confidence building measures, of the most fundamental kind. People need to be empowered, if you will, with a greater sense of empathy for the other; the other needs to be re-humanised; there needs to be more reflexivity in social discourse, of the kind that is critically reflective of the self and the other.
There has to be a point at which the other is no longer the other, but simply another.
Christalla's talk focused on intractable conficts and the socio-psychological barriers to resolution, which foster perpetuation even when the guns have stopped or are in a period of prolonged silence. When peace can not be reached or maintained, blame is laid at the political leaderships of warring groups. Whilst they are partly responsible, we overlook societal resistance at our peril. Christalla examined this with reference to the Cyprus conflict.
Yesterday, I witnessed first hand the socio-psychological dimension of intractable conflict in a small lecture theatre here in Perth, with relation to Israel-Palestine. A visting academic was here to present an Israeli position on the strategic dynamics in the Middle East and why Israel feels concerned for its safety and security: this is a position I can readily understand. His analysis, like that of most strategists/political scientists/analysts/military officials/intelligence officers, focused on arms races, foreign and military policies, and political rhetoric. This tends to be the focus when examining this and other protracted and intractable conflicts.
However, what struck me as I listened to the subtext, and observed the reactions of the audience, is that if this conflict, and others like it, are to be resolved, even if only to some kind of detente, then fundamental changes need to take place at the societal level - there needs to be both bottom up and top down approaches to conflict resolution and they need to take place in tandem. Only with a sense of equity, in suffering and injustice, can there be a genuine societal will for peace.
Now, I am going to preface the rest of my entry with a couple of qualifiers. The audience yesterday was primarily, dare I say it, overwhelmingly Jewish, and understandably pro-Israel. However, what I observed is not a behaviour that is exclusively Jewish/Israeli, as I have witnessed it in people of all persuasions, it just so happens that this is my case study, so to speak.
What I observed, both in speech and in body language, was a type of victimhood which gives rise to blindness to the suffering of others, a refusal to acknowledge self aggression or responsibility in the situation, a lack empathy for people on the opposing side, and a dehumanised sense of the other. It was displayed in sneers for any suggestion that Israel should shoulder some of the responsibility for the conflict, that they could be equally as guilty of attrocities as Hamas, or that Palestinians suffer as much at the hands of Israel as Israelis do at the hands of Hamas; and in cheers for any statements by the academic that vindicated and justified personal biases and inflexibility. I qualify this by acknowledging that I have met Muslims in possession of the same sense of victimhood and self-righteousness. Neither is helpful; both are destructive.
Even more so, this sense of victimhood silences and sidelines voices of reason, the one thing so desparately needed if this, and other, conflicts are to be resolved. There were two voices of reason yesterday, one Jewish (hi if your watching), one Muslim, who made the sobering, yet I feel, not well received, suggestion for understanding and empathy, to walk in the shoes of the other and to acknowledge that there is an equal sense of victimisation and suffering among Israelis and Palestinians alike. I talked to a couple of younger people after who shared this sense of reason and empathy, and who were concerned by the inflexibility shown by some members of the audience, particularly how this reflects on outside perceptions of the their community: they felt powerless to change these inflexible attitudes.
If there is to be any chance of bringing peace to the Middle East, and indeed to any intractable conflict, then more emphasis needs to be placed on confidence building measures, of the most fundamental kind. People need to be empowered, if you will, with a greater sense of empathy for the other; the other needs to be re-humanised; there needs to be more reflexivity in social discourse, of the kind that is critically reflective of the self and the other.
There has to be a point at which the other is no longer the other, but simply another.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Discussion Group: Why don't conflicts get solved?
Join us for the first Community Scholars discussion group Tuesday 3 March 2009 at 8.00 pm at the Tresillian Community Centre (corner of Edwards St. and Tyrell St., Nedlands). Christalla Yakinthou will lead a discussion looking at what lies underneath conflicts that are called intractable, and what becomes of a society that has been deeply traumatised by war. If you'd like to raise questions that would be of particular interest to you, please visit the discussion page on our forum.
Useful reading:
Characteristics of Intractable Conflicts by Jacob Bercovitch
- explaining intractable conflicts
The Peace Industry in Nepal, The South Asian
- a very brief snapshot at the proliferation of the peace industry in a conflict society
End of Mission Report, by Alvaro de Soto, ex-United Nations Under-Secretary-General
- an illuminating insider's perspective on the difficulty of building peace in deep conflict
All are welcome to attend.
Useful reading:
Characteristics of Intractable Conflicts by Jacob Bercovitch
- explaining intractable conflicts
The Peace Industry in Nepal, The South Asian
- a very brief snapshot at the proliferation of the peace industry in a conflict society
End of Mission Report, by Alvaro de Soto, ex-United Nations Under-Secretary-General
- an illuminating insider's perspective on the difficulty of building peace in deep conflict
All are welcome to attend.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Military Mama
‘Ever thought about joining the army?’ asked the man in uniform.
I didn’t know how to respond. Eventually I said ‘I have two small children’ thinking that that was more polite than saying ‘No way in hell.’
I thought having children would exempt me from his attempts to recruit me to join the US Army.
Instead he said, ‘All the more reason. Free medical and free dental.’
He said that he had been in the military for 11 years, and with 9 more years of active duty he could retire. I muttered something stupid about how he must be counting down the time. After we parted ways, he into the Army Recruitment office no closer to meeting his monthly quota of recruitments, and me continuing on this suburban highway, I thought of all sorts of things I should have asked him about himself, the places he’s been, and the choices he’s made.
The brief encounter with the US Army recruiter left me amused and saddened. Amused because as a 34 year old woman I don’t usually think of myself as the prime target for military recruiters. But then again, the US military is desperately in need of people to fight their wars, and have long ago abandoned the narrow criteria for enlistment of 18 year old boys.
I felt sad, too, because the idea that for some other mother of small children the promise of healthcare for her children would be enough for her to consider joining the US military. In fact, just this morning I heard a story on National Public Radio about a mother that was re-enlisting in the US Army in order to get needed medical care for her 4 month old disabled son. I can’t imagine what she is going through, the economic insecurity and concerns for her child, that she would be forced to re-enlist and most likely be sent to Iraq or Afganistan in order to provide medical care for her child.
No longer relying on arguments about fighting for your country or your patriotic duty, the US military now relies on promises of accessible healthcare for your kids in order to attract its recruits. Sadly enough, this may be incentive enough for people in desperate need of care.
I didn’t know how to respond. Eventually I said ‘I have two small children’ thinking that that was more polite than saying ‘No way in hell.’
I thought having children would exempt me from his attempts to recruit me to join the US Army.
Instead he said, ‘All the more reason. Free medical and free dental.’
He said that he had been in the military for 11 years, and with 9 more years of active duty he could retire. I muttered something stupid about how he must be counting down the time. After we parted ways, he into the Army Recruitment office no closer to meeting his monthly quota of recruitments, and me continuing on this suburban highway, I thought of all sorts of things I should have asked him about himself, the places he’s been, and the choices he’s made.
The brief encounter with the US Army recruiter left me amused and saddened. Amused because as a 34 year old woman I don’t usually think of myself as the prime target for military recruiters. But then again, the US military is desperately in need of people to fight their wars, and have long ago abandoned the narrow criteria for enlistment of 18 year old boys.
I felt sad, too, because the idea that for some other mother of small children the promise of healthcare for her children would be enough for her to consider joining the US military. In fact, just this morning I heard a story on National Public Radio about a mother that was re-enlisting in the US Army in order to get needed medical care for her 4 month old disabled son. I can’t imagine what she is going through, the economic insecurity and concerns for her child, that she would be forced to re-enlist and most likely be sent to Iraq or Afganistan in order to provide medical care for her child.
No longer relying on arguments about fighting for your country or your patriotic duty, the US military now relies on promises of accessible healthcare for your kids in order to attract its recruits. Sadly enough, this may be incentive enough for people in desperate need of care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
