Ubuntu: Together we are one

Second in a series by guest author Mbaezue Emmanuel Chukwuemeka

Emmanuel
Mbaezue Emmanuel Chukwuemeka

It has been argued that civil societies have been at the forefront of efforts geared toward the growth and sustenance of non-violent struggle, particularly in Africa.

The pertinent question is: how close is civil society in Africa to adopting non-violent ways of settling conflicts?

To answer this question, we must first trace back the concept of non-violent struggle to the African Dispute Resolution mechanisms of the pre-colonial era. Studies have revealed that the various indigenous African Dispute Resolution mechanisms were not only peaceful in nature but also thrived on rebuilding and sustaining relationships among disputants.

Thus, diplomatic measures like negotiation, mediation, and restorative justice were not introduced to Africa by the West, as some might claim, but were already in use in Africa before the days of colonialism. For instance, let’s consider Ubuntu, originating from the Bantu people of the lower Congo.

Ubuntu, which means “together we are one,” promotes the sacredness and sanctity of human life. The concept emphasizes that individuals can only discover their true nature through relationships and interaction with others. Ubuntu accepts all people as members of the community of the living and promotes the spirit of love, care, tolerance, empathy, and accountability.

Similar to Ubuntu is the Ujamea principle, originating in Tanzania, which also promotes freedom, unity, and equality. The Tanganyikan people believe that it is only equality that can breed cooperation, and unity that begets peace and development.

Consider for yourselves these two questions: (1) To what extent did European settlers in Africa operate on the principles of Ubuntu and Ujami either in their homelands or in Africa? (2) To what extent are people likely to achieve non-violent resolution of conflicts if they do not operate on the basis of those principles?

Mbaezue Emmanuel Chukwuemeka has a Masters of Science in Conflict Management and Peace Studies from University of Jos, Jos, Plateau State. He is a member of Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators, and works as a paralegal counsel at the Legal Aid Council for the Federal Ministry of Justice in Nigeria.

Labor Day 2012 P.S.

Who hates organized labor, liberated women, and peace?

The war profiteers. The radical right. The power elite within the 1% who seek wealth over human rights, power over fairness, and profitable wars over global peace.

But they are in the minority. Even though they have frightened millions and lured millions into supporting the agendas that hide their greed, they are in the minority.

The majority of Americans:

  • overwhelming support equal rights for women and believe more needs to be done to ensure those rights
  • support the right of workers to organize (e.g., participate in labor unions)
  • support an international order based on international law, which, they believe, imposes constraints on the use of force and coercion
  • prefer negotiation and nonviolence to armed conflict[1]

This majority is not the “silent majority” enshrined by Ronald Reagan, but nevertheless is too often silent in these frightening times.

Don’t believe the hype of the radical right. Don’t buy into claims that big corporations making millions in profits are forced to “outsource” their work because organized labor in America makes “unreasonable demands.”

Don’t be lulled into ignoring the attacks on women’s rights, including voting rights, taking place in this country today. (See, for example).

Finally, ask yourself whether cutting social services, educational programs, and unemployment entitlements for the working class—and increasingly the middle class—while retaining George Bush’s revolutionary tax benefits for the wealthy makes your life better or makes America more secure.

The Occupy Movement of 2011 raised the right questions and offered some provocative solutions. Let’s not allow their demands to get lost in the shuffles of the 1% power elite.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

[1] See http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/ for more detailed results of relevant polls; also informative are http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/07/01/gender-equality/ and http://www.gallup.com/poll/157025/labor-union-approval-steady.aspx .

Simply incompatible with American principles

Review of Matthew Alexander’s How to break a terrorist: The U.S. interrogators who used brains, not brutality, to take down the deadliest man in Iraq

By Judith Prueitt-Prentice

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we are happy to publish a book review by Judith Prueitt-Prentice, who has a Masters in Family Studies,  a special interest in social justice issues, and took my course in the Psychology of War and Peace in the summer of 2011.]

“Torture is counterproductive to keeping America safe and it doesn’t matter if we do it or if we pass it off to another government. The result is the same. And morally, I believe, there is an even stronger argument. Torture is simply incompatible with American principles.” (Alexander, 2008)

The ticking time bomb scenario is a familiar theme in TV and film dramas featuring terrorists. Jack Bower, the reluctant FBI agent in the popular TV series 24 hours, races against the clock to foil deadly anti-government plots. He has a choice:  follow the rules, or beat the crap out of this week’s villain to get the codes to disarm the bomb. Nine times out of ten, the bleeding cowardly terrorist coughs up the codes with seconds to spare and New York, scene of the worst terrorist attack in US history, is made safe once again. Or is it?

In How to Break a Terrorist, Matthew Alexander (a pseudonym),  a seasoned solider, police investigator, and US Army interrogator, describes how he used soft interrogation styles, including knowledge of local culture, negotiation, and compassion, rather than “old school” fear and control, to gain information in hundreds of interrogations.

It was his information, Alexander says, that led to the location of Abu Musab Al  Zarqawi, suspected of being the number two man in Al Qaida, the terrorist organization blamed for the 9/11 attacks on New York’s World Trade Center.

Alexander is openly critical of the enhanced interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration. He believes more American lives have been lost in Iraq due to the use of torture than were lost in the 9/11 attacks.

Alexander’s  book is exciting. It describes webs of intrigue, lies told on both sides, and the often sad true stories of ordinary people who choose to become terrorists in a world of terror.