Tag: violence

Truth & Reconciliation, Part 1

Posted on by kathiemm
Mujahideen in a parade after they forced the US to retreat out of Fallujah in May 2004
Mujahideen in a parade after they forced the US to retreat out of Fallujah in May 2004.
Photo by Dahr Jamail, used with permission.

This is the first of three posts on Truth and Reconciliation by guest author Ross Caputi.

Truth and reconciliation projects have proven to be a powerful ways of bringing closure to communities affected by violence, healing the psychological wounds inflicted by war, and taking the first steps towards bringing communities that have been torn apart by violence back together.

The most successful application of this idea of post-conflict restorative justice is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa after the abolition of Apartheid. Many have attempted to apply this model to other conflicts involving protracted inter- and intra-group violence. Some have even tried to use it as a way of ending ongoing violence, as in the case of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

However, much of the success of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa can be attributed to the fact that Apartheid had been abolished. The unjust system that had been fueling oppression had ended, creating an opportunity to build a new society based on equality, human rights, and dignity.

We at Islah believe firmly that reconciliation is not possible while violence and violent systems are ongoing and sustained. Furthermore, it is insufficient for reconciliation projects to try to affect cognitive, emotional, and behavioral changes in groups and individuals alone in order to achieve reconciliation. Dialogue, exercises in forgiveness, and the fostering of attitudinal and perceptual shifts about the conflict do not address the structural injustices that drive conflicts.

Reconciliation cannot lead to resolution; it can only be a result of resolution. Furthermore, the form of resolution called “peace,” is not desirable if the structural injustices that caused the conflict remain in place.

Ross is currently on the Board of Directors of ISLAH. He is also a graduate student and a writer. In 2004, he was a US Marine in the US-led occupation of Iraq. His experience there, in particular his experience during the 2nd siege of Fallujah, compelled him to leave the US military and join the anti-war movement. His activism has focused on our society’s moral obligation to our victims in Iraq, and to the responsibility of veterans to renounce their hero status in America.

Does nonviolent resistance work? Part 2a

Posted on by kathiemm
Rally at Ft Meade for Bradley Manning
Rally at Ft Meade for Bradley Manning
Photo used under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

The next three posts are Part II of a series of posts in which Dr. Ian Hansen shares his thoughts on nonviolence.

See also Part 1a, Part 1b, Part 1c, Part2b and Part2c.

In March 17, 2014 post, I suggested that in their book Why Civil Resistance Works Chenoweth and Stephan provide  good evidence that:

  • relatively nonviolent movements are more likely to achieve their goals than exclusively violent movements, and
  • nonviolent movements are less likely to bring to power the type of people who drag their nations into bloody purges and genocidal-scope mass killings.

That said, recent history reminds us that nonviolent uprisings against brutal governments (e.g., Libya, Syria) can stir up mass participation with some significant likelihood of tilting towards violence (particularly if the state responds to the peaceful protests with psychotic carnage).

Moreover, mass movements in strategically important states (like Syria and Libya) also tend to attract the meddling interest of large regional powers—as well as global imperial powers—and this meddling can tilt the probabilities even further towards mass carnage.

The prognosis for exploited and manipulated nonviolent revolutions is probably still better than the prognosis for exploited and manipulated violent revolutions, though perhaps not better than the prognosis for cleverly innovating some new form of rebellion that authoritarian and imperial forces are not so confident about co-opting or disrupting.  The hacktivism of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden may be an example of this kind of avant garde rebellion.

Still, transforming the relations of power will require more than simply exposing the vileness of current state policies on the internet.  Tunisia may owe the tinder-striking moment for its revolution in part to Chelsea Manning’s whistleblowing courage and wikileaks’ reportage, but it still had to make a revolution in the streets.  The Tunisian revolution was televised (and tweeted) but it was live too, and without the live part it would not have succeeded.

Ian Hansen, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences at York College, City University of New York. His research focuses in part on how witness for human rights and peace can transcend explicit political ideology. He is also on the Steering Committee for Psychologists for Social Responsibility.

Intolerance, cohesion, and killing in religion, Part 1

Posted on by kathiemm

By guest contributor Emmanuel C. Mbaezue

Confrontation between mounted archers by Tabriz, 14th century.
Confrontation between mounted archers by Tabriz, 14th century. Image in public domain.

“Terrorists and Peacemakers may grow up in the same community and adhere to the same religious traditions. The killing carried out by one and the reconciliation fostered by the other indicate the range of dramatic and contradictory response to human sufferings by religious actors.” (Scott Appleby, 2000)

Appleby’s quote reflects the ambivalence inherent in religion. Though on the one hand, religious leaders have condemned acts of religiously motivated violence, on the other hand they have also failed to contain the frequency and scope of such acts. According to Little (2007), rather than playing a soothing role in response to societal problems of violence and murder, religion itself seems to contribute to violence in the world today.

Furthermore, the current preponderance of religious violence has presumably been stirred by religious leaders. Most of them have deviated from their spiritual calling and have sometimes deliberately created crisis situations in order to abrogate existent religious laws.

To understand how they are able to accomplish this, we must examine the two practices responsible for the violence-prone nature of religion: fundamentalism and extremism.

As defined by Appleby (2000), fundamentalism is a specified pattern of religious militancy by which self-styled true believers try to: (a) resist the extinction of religious identity; (b) fortify the borders of a religious community; and (c) create viable alternatives to secular structure and processes. The fundamentalist’s main goal is to protect his religious identity while competing with secular authorities, without necessarily employing violent means.

Extremism on the other hand can be viewed as the deliberate use of violence to “purify” society while fighting against external forces. While the fundamentalist does not necessarily see the use of violence as a means to an end, the extremist believes that violence is not only necessary, but also a legitimate way of maintaining order.

REFERENCES

Appleby, Scott. (2000). The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence and Reconciliation. Maryland, United States of America: Rowman and Little Field Publishers.

Little, David, ed. 2007. Peacemakers in Action. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Emmanuel Chukwuemeka Mbaezue 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.

Learning peace

Posted on by kathiemm

September 21 is the annual United Nations International Day of Peace. The theme for 2013 is peace education.

Mural of children dancing
“Dancing Children” wall painting by Rami Meiri. Used under CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reminds us, “It is not enough to teach children how to read, write and count. Education has to cultivate mutual respect for others and the world in which we live, and help people forge more just, inclusive and peaceful societies.”

Where do children learn respect—or disrespect—for themselves? Where do they learn respect—or disrespect—for others?  Where do they learn how to work and play together with—or reject and dehumanize–people with different backgrounds and experiences?  Where to they learn about justice or injustice, nonviolence and violence?

Our answer: in our homes and in our communities—including our schools, our sports teams, our religious communities.

Several wonderful peace and conflict resolution programs are available to our nation’s schools—for example:

  • The Peace Corps Coverdell World Wise Schools program, which offers guest speakers and many valuable resources.
  • The Peace Education Foundation also provides many valuable materials to schools in the U.S., and beyond.
  • The United Nations has recognized sports as a valuable tool for building relationships across differences.
  • And while we all recognize that religion is sometimes used as a tool and a justification for violence, all of the major religions have programs promoting peace. For an excellent resource, see Beyond Intractability.

Finally, think about how much better off the world would be if initiatives such as these were not necessary to offset the messages of fear, hate, and distrust taught in so many homes for so many reasons. 

 Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology