|
|
Peacebuilding in
Southeast Asia: Overview, Observation, and
Way Forward
by Kamarulzaman Askandar
Regional Coordinator
Southeast Asian Conflict Studies Network (SEACSN)
Coordinator, Research and Education for Peace
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Email: zam@usm.my
Introduction: Peacebuilding and Peacemaking
Peacebuilding is important because we live in a world
where peace is still considered a luxury. There are still
many unresolved conflicts in the world. Southeast Asia
is no exception.
Peacebuilding is something that does not stand alone.
It is part and parcel of the process of "making" peace.
If peacemaking is the act of "resolving" or "settling" conflict
situations, then peacebuilding contributes to peacemaking
by helping build the basic foundation that is needed
to bring peoples and groups in conflict together. It
helps the conflict resolution process, and this process
helps peacebuilding back in return. There cannot be conflict
resolution without peacebuilding efforts, and likewise
we cannot build sustainable, long term peace without
the conflicts being resolved, or at least attempt to
resolve it. There have been many situations where conflict
resolution has failed because the foundation necessary
for peace which could be provided by the peacebuilding
process has not been properly laid out.
To be a peacebuilder, one must be a conflict re solver
too. One must know what one is doing there in the first
place. What is the agenda? What are the objectives? One
must understand how a conflict resolution process evolves
and what are the pitfalls and challenges ahead. One must
know how to "map out" and analyses a conflict
situation, know the background, identify the problems,
as well as all the actors. Building and maintaining trust
with the stakeholders is important and part of building
the foundation. Lastly, in this kind of work, one must
also know how to negotiate and mediate. You'll never
know when this will come in handy. And more likely than
not, one will have the chance to practice this skill.
Peacebuilding and Conflict Situations
There are universal elements and problems of conflict
situations that can be observed everywhere, which must
be understood for peacebuilding to work. They include
the following observations about conflict situations.
Firstly, it has been generally observed that the majority
of armed conflicts are in the developing world.
This present a double jeopardy scenario for most of these
places where they are expected to go through the process
of nation building and developing the country, while
at the same time solving conflicts which have mostly
their roots in the nation's history or at least the period
prior to independence for most of them. Two issues have
also contributed to this problem - development and democratization.
Economic development (or lack of it) has been cited as
a major problem for peacebuilding. Conflict areas are
usually the poorest areas in the country. Poverty is
usually rife and divide between the haves and have-not's
is usually substantial. As for democratization, it can
be observed that many of these countries are going through
a transitional stage where democracy is a goal but attaining
it has presented problems for the countries. Even when
democratic institutions have been successfully built,
implementation of policies continue to be a problem,
and numerous governance issues like equality, transparency,
and corruption continue to plague the country, resulting
either in a rejection of the state or the questioning
of legitimacy.
The second general observation is that most of these
conflicts are of the intra-state type,
meaning that they are within the boundaries of these
states. Many of them however, have been internationalized due
to the nature of the conflicts, "outside" interests,
and internationalization by one or more of the conflict
parties to get international attention and support. Many
of these conflicts have also been known to cause regional
instability, for a number of reasons. One is the fact
that in a small area like Southeast Asia for example,
there are interconnectedness between
some of the groups in the sense that the groups fighting
a rebellion usually have kin groups across the border
in a neighboring country that have been known to help
the cause directly or indirectly. These support groups
have been known at times to prolong and escalate the
conflict. We also see the flow of not only people but
also money, and in some cases weapons, as branches sprouted
where the displaced peoples settled and there continued
a feeling of the need to help the struggles back home.
We see parties moving across borders to escape the war
in the homeland and inhibiting neighboring countries
as refugees, displaced peoples, or other types of immigrants,
causing in many cases problems with the local communities
and strained relations between governments of the countries
involved.
It can also be observed that many of these conflicts
are more related to communal and inter
communal conflicts. Cohesion and identity tend
to form within narrow lines and demands are usually made
along these lines, hardening positions and making resolution
even more difficult. There also tend to be factionalization and
diffusion of power, making it difficult sometimes to
determine who are the actual leaders, as well as causing
difficulty in assessing the ability of leaders to control
actions of their followers. These conflicts tend to be "protracted" and "intractable",
and we have to be ready for long drawn battles both on
the fighting grounds as well as at the negotiation tables.
Victims in this type of conflict tend to experience deep
long-term fear and have direct experiences of violence.
They are usually vulnerable and are easily manipulated
by the major contenders, despite themselves being stakeholders
to the conflict situations.
Lastly, it is well known that in these conflicts, formal,
governmental, and international mechanisms are limited.
Governments, in many cases are parties to the conflicts
with their own sets of interests. International intervention
at peacemaking is largely frowned upon except in cases
where the governments feel that it is to their own interests
to invite third party intervention from outside. Even
then the scope is usually quite limited in terms of mandate
and time (and numbers if the action involves peacekeeping
operations). This is why peacebuilding is needed, and
this is why peacebuilding needs to involve also tracks
two and three, apart from the formal first track.
Hence the challenges for peacebuilding:
it needs to address conflict situations as
they are presented today. It needs to take into account
the "protractedness" of conflicts and develop
a comprehensive, multifaceted strategy for
ending violence and achieving and sustaining reconciliation.
It needs to acknowledge that protracted armed conflict
is a system that must be transformed by taking a comprehensive
approach to the people who operate it and the setting
in which it is rooted. It needs innovative ways to
transform international culture based on poorly developed
mechanisms with commitment to arms production and accepts
availability of weapons as legal and legitimate. It also
needs to help in the process of conflict resolution by building
and sustaining the foundation for peace; building
trust where none existed; and provide the incentives
to prevent newly emerging minor armed conflicts from
becoming full scale wars.
Peacebuilding also heavily relies on reconciliation of
conflicting parties. It involves the human dimensions
of conflicts. In many cases the conflicting groups live
in close proximity of each other, and in many instances
within even the same neighborhood. The victims usually
have direct experiences of violent trauma which is associated
with the perceived enemies, and tied to a history of
grievances and enmity over generations. Severe stereotyping
is evident and the conflicts are characterized by deep-rooted,
and intense animosity of the perceived enemy. As such,
reconciliation is needed as a way out of the status quo
- moving away from the issues towards a frame that focuses
on the restoration and the rebuilding of relationships.
Reconciliation helps promotes encounter between open
expression of the painful past and a search for articulation
of long-term shared and interdependent future. It provides
place for truth & mercy to meet.
It is concerned with exposing what happened but at the
same time letting go in favor of renewed relationship.
Lastly, it recognizes the need to give time and place
to justice and peace.
General Strategies of Peacebuilding
The following are some of the general strategies of peacebuilding.
First of all, a general "peace inventory" needs
to be developed. This can be done as part of the conflict
mapping exercise, but it should also entails a more careful
look at the "peace" side of the conflict analysis,
focusing on the management and resolution of the conflict
situation. For example, we need to know who is doing
what kind of peace activities, where, and to what degrees
of successes or failures. This can be done by doing data
gathering, joint research which involves the stakeholders,
or by convening a conference (a peace conference or peace "donors" conference)
with contributions by all those that have been working
on this issue. Then we need to create better
channels and coordination, both "vertically" and "horizontally".
Trust needs to be established and built upon,
information needs to be relayed and shared, and activities
need to be coordinated. Many a time we have seen problems
of communication and coordination, not only between the
parties but also involving the donors and peace "builders".
Secondly, strategic resource groups are
very important for peacebuilding efforts. If they do
not exist, they need to be created. These groups can
involve a variety of focus areas like conflict resolution,
relief and humanitarian activities, law, economy, development,
peacebuilding itself, and post conflict reconstruction.
They should at all levels involve the stakeholders including
the civil society and representatives of the victims.
Linkages must be made between internal and external groups
to provide support where support is needed (at the very
least moral or emotional support, but hopefully can also
involve financial and other resources), and to advice
on strategies and activities. These linkages can also
contribute to advocacy for peace and to raise awareness
at a higher level. The most important thing about these
groups is that the roots must be local and must be generated
from the soil of the conflict. Capacity building
and empowerment of peacebuilders through education,
training programs and so on are very important and must
be planned for and implemented. Strategic planning which
plans for short, intermediate, and long term programs
must also be made. There must also be periodic evaluations
of these programs and projects to ascertain their impacts,
effectiveness, and continued suitability. Most likely
many of them would have to be adapted as time goes by.
We must also be on lookout for the availability of mechanisms
that might help us or the creation of new ones when and
if the needs arise. Basically, it involves asking questions
about the issues and making plans to answer these questions,
from the crisis period all the way to the future or generational
period.
Next we will go into the regional specificities
of peacebuilding, focusing on the Southeast
Asian region. There have been a multitude of peacebuilding
activities involving both local and international partners.
International peacebuilders have come in to the region
through various programs, mostly developmental, humanitarian
and relief in nature, but has also involved capacity-building,
educational or academic, and advocacy type activities.
They have also tended to focus on areas and issues of
interest to them. The United Nations and its various
agencies has been a popular umbrella for peacebuilding
efforts. Two notable cases have been Cambodia and Timor
Leste. Conflicts areas, where the conflict is still hot
and ongoing, like Southern Philippines, Aceh, and southern
Thailand have more or less been neglected by this international
body, although there are some agencies like the UNDP
that have been involved in southern Philippines on a
number of projects. It is for this reason that we need
to stress the need for the involvement of peacebuilders
especially international ones working together with local
peacebuilder as well as the peacemakers involved to create
a sustainable peace.
In general, peacebuilding activities have not been really
smooth sailing in the region. Despite the push for peace
from various stakeholders and donors, there have been
nagging problems with peacebuilding activities in Southeast
Asia. The basic one includes the lack of willingness of
the main parties to resolve the issues. This can be seen
at various times in both Aceh and Mindanao. For example,
the arrest of GAM negotiators by the Indonesian authority,
the latest one while they were coming to Tokyo for the
negotiations.
Furthermore, many of the conflicts have not actually
been resolved despite the signing of agreements between
the parties. Despite signing the COHA agreement in 2002
the conflicts went on and eventually escalated with the
implementation of martial law in Aceh a few months later.
In Mindanao, the implementation of the Tripoli Agreement
and the creation of the ARMM did not result in ultimate
peace simply because there are other factions and groups
of the Moro's that did not accept the terms of the agreement
and the creation of the ARMM. For peacebuilders, all
these constitute a nightmare.
The second is when the parties involved are not
sure of what they really want. Those that want
to help might be getting mixed signals about the willingness
to resolve. Facilitators and mediators, and even peacebuilders,
might be fed with the wrong information or not enough
information by the parties. The third party will already
made assumptions about the positions of the parties as
part of the preparation exercise. But these assumptions
still need to be checked, clarified, and confirmed with
the parties. Unsure demands always make it difficult
for the third party to figure out the real positions
of the parties, and to work out a strategy that will
help satisfy the interests and needs of the parties.
They cannot really work to give something to the parties
if that is not what the parties really want. For example,
working on limited autonomy as a possible solution when
what the party really wants is independence.
The two problems above are further enhanced when you
have a situation where there are intra-party
dynamics at work which make it difficult to
address the situation of who to work or deal with. Or
that there are internal rifts within the parties and
groups opposing the process may decide not to cooperate
or even sabotage the process. The two case studies, Aceh
and Mindanao, clearly show this difficulty. In both Aceh
and Mindanao, all parties had internal problems that
affected the peace process. For example, there were rifts
between the civilian authority (president) and the military
leaderships on how to go about the process. This happened
in both areas. This also happens to the other side. The
MILF, despite being the largest group fighting in Mindanao,
does not really represent all the Bangsamoro groups.
There are others, such as the MNLF and the Abu Sayyaf
group which have their own interests and agendas. The
same with the GAM. It does not represent all the Acehnese.
Even within GAM there are factions - the local commanders
leading the fight in Aceh, and exiled political leaders
in Sweden and Malaysia. For external peacebuilders, this
also presents a major headache. Who among the local partner
should be chosen as the local counterpart? Are they reliable
and have the drive and commitment to sustain the activities?
In many cases external organization have tended to choose
big NGOs as their local partners without realizing that
there are other smaller and "localized" ones
that can do a better and more effective job. Intra group
fighting and competition also adds to the problem. For
example, in Mindanao, the major Moro groups have a history
of clannishness, and sticking with their own groups like
Maguindanao, Meranau, Tausug and so on. In some areas
fighting between clans and families is not uncommon.
Then is the question of timing or entry into
the process. When is the conflict deemed right
for intervention? This is a difficult question to decide
given a number of factors including national interests
and sovereignty; the practices of non-interference and
nonintervention; past experiences with intervention and
their successes or failures; the seriousness of the conflict;
the level of violence; the level of human sufferings;
and our "responsibility to protect". Do we
wait for an invitation from the parties, or until the
conflict has reached a "hurting stalemate",
or even until human sufferings have reached an intolerable
limit? (btw, how do we measure the limit?). This also
raises a very difficult issue of ethics. If this is difficult,
so is the question of when to leave. Many times, there
are no clear "exit plan" and the peacebuilding
efforts have been affected because of this. The activities
are simply not sustainable because the capacity building
process is not completed or the donors have come in half
heartedly and have decided to move on to other issues
or areas.
Other problems from the experience of Southeast Asia
include excessive meddling on the part
of external donors who come in with their high expectations
and a massive bureaucracy. For example, there have been
numerous complains about donors wanting to set the agenda
and demanding organizational changes before fund is released,
as well as the common ones of having to waste their time
writing reports after endless reports to satisfy the
donors. Local partners are also always wary of the intentions
of donors and external partners. For example, they have
complained that at times they feel like they are being
used by these partners, either as source of information,
or for information gathering, or to test out new strategies
before they are applied or implemented on the ground.
It is common knowledge for them that external partners
have their own agenda too and it depends on how both
sets of agendas, their's and their partners? can be simultaneously
achieved. Local sensitivities thus need to be taken into
account. They are of two different levels. The first
one involves the governmental level. The principle of
non-interference and non-intervention is very sacred
to the governments of SEA. Outside involvement, even
if they are for the purpose of peacebuilding, is not
always welcomed. The other level is the one mentioned
earlier about taking into account local sensitivities
when doing peacebuilding work. This includes in areas
of traditions and religion. It has been mentioned earlier
about the independent-mindedness of the parties in the
region including the government and other stakeholders.
The governments want non-intervention and the people
want to be increasingly involved in the decision making
process. This presents the kind of change that is going
through the region, where on one hand the patronage system
still is important and leaders are respected and followed;
but on the other hand we see that this has been increasingly
challenged by the demands for inclusion, mostly led by
younger generations who are more forward minded and willing
to take the risks. Cases in point, Mindanao and Aceh.
Peacebuilding efforts in two of the most serious conflict
areas in the region, Aceh and Southern Philippines, have
been going on for a long time. This is owing to the involvement
of their civil society which have by and large, been
quite strong, especially in Southern Philippines.
Peacebuilding activities in Mindanao have
included many activities done at various levels by various
groups, governmental and non-governmental. These activities,
especially those involving elements of the civil society
have mainly focused on raising awareness about the conflict
situation, locally, nationally, and regionally; relief
and humanitarian work; education; research; trust building;
consolidation of the various groups. There have been
active participation of non-governmental organisations
in Mindanao involving groups such as the Initiatives
for International Dialogue (IID), and the Bangsamoro
Development Agency (BDA) among others. The first is representative
of advocacy type organizations promoting awareness and
pushing for peace. The second was created by the MILF
during the peace talks in Malaysia to support developmental
programs that can act as a catalyst for peace in Mindanao.
At the moment the BDA is working with the World Bank
to draw up a needs assessment program as the foundation
for peace on Mindanao. Peacebuilding activities have
also been carried out by grassroots level organizations
which usually include a coalition of local NGOs and interest
groups combining their efforts and act as pressure groups
on the conflict parties and help sustain people's interests
in pushing for peace. These groups include coalitions
such as the Mindanao People's Caucus, the Bangsamoro
Consultative Assembly, the Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil
Society (CBCS), and the Mindanao Peaceweavers. Research
and academic programs have also been useful as tools
for peacebuilding and are manifested through various
peace programs on campus of various universities such
as the Notre Dame University in Cotabato City and the
Southern Christian College in Midsayap, as well as non
university based programs such as the Institute of Bangsamoro
Studies. Religious groups have also been active and a
notable activity of interfaith dialogue include the Bishop-Ulama
Conference which stresses that peace is something that
involves all religion. Lastly, members of the civil society
have also been included as observers at the peace talks
between the GRP and MILF in Malaysia and this trend is
set to continue.
In Aceh, members of the civil society
have also been active in peacebuilding activities. Their
activities however have been hampered by the nature of
the conflict and the continuing seriousness of clashes
between the armed parties, the RI and the GAM. Among
activities that have been carried out in Aceh include
the raising of awareness and advocacy, especially nationally
and internationally; capacity building and education;
research and data gathering, especially about human rights
abuses done by both warring parties; peace education
and peace studies. They can also been divided along these
lines based on their focus areas. Examples of groups
that have been active include the Coalition of the Human
Rights NGOs; the Legal Aid Organisation; People's Forum;
and the Central Referendum Information Association among
others. Other groups include the Aceh civil society task
force and the newly created Aceh Institute, which is
a coalition of academics focusing on the immediate task
of getting peace and post-conflict reconstruction. The
nature of their activities has been more clandestine
in nature compared to their counterparts in the Philippines.
There have been many cases of civil society members being
harassed and even murdered while doing their jobs. This
has resulted in feelings of fear among the civil society
and many of them have in fact fled to other parts of
Indonesia as well as overseas for their safety. Many
however continue to do their work under different umbrellas.
Conclusions: Some Reflections and Recommendations
for Peacebuilding in Southeast Asia
There are still a number of conflict issues around the
region that needs resolving. They are of different types
and stages. A few observations from the trend of conflicts
in the post-cold war era suggest that inter-state
conflicts still make up quite a significant
number of conflicts in the region, with land border being
the major issue in contention in the majority of the
conflicts. For example, the Sabah claim by the Philippines;
border dispute between Thailand and Malaysia; and competing
claims to the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea
involving Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines,
Vietnam, Taiwan and China; the territorial dispute between
Malaysia and Singapore over Pulau Batu Putih (Pedra Blanca),
an island about 55 km east of Singapore in the Straits
of Johor (as well as host of other issues between the
two countries like water, the CPF etc). Also, since the
security environment of the area is essentially maritime,
another issue for inter-state conflicts is maritime boundaries
and offshore territorial claims such as the boundary
dispute between Indonesia and Vietnam on their demarcation
line on the continental shelf in the South China Sea,
near Natuna Island, as well as the more recent one involving
Malaysia and Indonesia over Ambalat island in the Sulawesi
sea. These inter-state type conflicts have been mostly
handled bilaterally, or using the preventive diplomacy
strategy of ASEAN. In some cases, like the conflict over
the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan between Malaysia and
Indonesia, and over Batu Putih Island, a third party,
the International Court of Justice, has been given the
mandate to mediate.
The Southeast Asian region is mostly rife with intra-state
conflicts. Examples of these intra-state conflicts
are armed communist insurgencies in the Philippines,
led by the New People's Army (NPA); the various self-determination
type movements including in Southern Philippines, involving
the government of the Philippines (GRP), the Moro National
Liberation Front (MNLF), and the Moro Islamic Liberation
Front (MILF); the Malay-Muslim self-determination movement
in the Southern Thailand provinces of Narathiwat, Pattani,
and Yala; in Aceh in northern Sumatra, Indonesia, led
by Gerakan Aceh Merdeka or Free Aceh Movement(GAM);as
well as in West Papua, Indonesia, led by the Organisasi
Papua Merdeka (Free Papua Organization). There are
also the problems of spillover from the independence
of East Timor, especially refugee problems along the
border between east and west Timor; communal conflicts
in various parts of Indonesia such as Maluku and Kalimantan;
and finally the Muslim fundamentalist threats in Malaysia,
Indonesia and Singapore, allegedly under the auspices
of the Jemaah Islamiah, based in Indonesia but
with memberships throughout the region. The conflicts
mentioned here are the more serious ones. There are other
issues, less serious but with the potential to disrupt
the peace in the region, like environmental issues, poverty,
governance, human rights, and justice.
As a way forward, we should focus on the following areas
to improve peacebuilding in the region.
Firstly, we must acknowledge peacebuilding
as the foundation and an integral part
of the conflict resolution process and of peacemaking.
We need to look again at a number of things including
the need to start peacebuilding process as soon as possible
and not wait for conflict resolution and peacemaking
to end before starting it. We must be proactive in
our ways. There must be pressures put on the conflict
parties to resolve the conflicts and peacebuilding can
be the foundation for this. Peacebuilding takes a long
time because it involves changing the mind set and attitude
of the people, which includes the parties and other stakeholders
such as the victims. The context could change but attitudes
and behavior does not change as fast making peacebuilding
necessary. Integral to this is building trust with
the parties. If parties do not trust us, they will not
allow us into the process. Trust builds over time and
over a number of activities. These activities can either
be "sponsored-activities" or "joint-activities",
depending on the nature of the conflict situations and
relations between the parties involved.
Secondly, and closely connected to
the first one, is the need to balance between
internal and external interests, and to be sensitive
to local ways of doing things. Each one of us has our
own agendas and objectives. The challenge is to find
meeting points for these agendas. Where they meet, focus
should be enhanced and activities intensified. We need
to be aware that especially in Southeast Asia, the parties,
including those we are trying to help tend to be very
suspicious and independent minded in many ways. Most
of the time, they have their own plans and don't like
to be told what to do and how to go about doing it. Too
much meddling, no matter how well-intentioned it may
be, may cause problems between the donors and the receivers.
Thirdly, and following form the second
point, the inclusion of all in any type
and level of decision making is very important. Everybody
needs to feel that they are part of the solution and
not merely spectators, or even worse, only part of the
problem. Capacity building for the stakeholders,
especially for members of the civil society involve in
peacebuilding activities is important.
Fourthly, there is no clear indication
on whether peace or justice is
more important in the region. In some countries like
Cambodia, it can be argued that justice plays second
fiddle to peace, but this can simply mean that the people
are exhausted with conflicts and war and are willing
to sacrifice justice if it means peace can be achieved.
However, this may not be the case in the two cases we
discussed in this paper. Justice seems to be as important
as peace (if not more) especially since too much has
been lost and too much is at stake. To them justice is
important, if not peace would not come. The same goes
for the question of peace and development. Some conflict
groups, especially those fighting for self determination
have argued that they fight out of duty; not to get development
or material wealth but for peace and justice. To them
the important issues are identity, sovereignty, and justice.
Fifthly, there are also different schools
of thought regarding institutions and institution-building as
part of the peacebuilding process. For some, the stronger
the institution is, the more functional the process would
be, while others think that one should start by empowering
the people so that they can participate in nation-building.
In Aceh, formal institution for peacebuilding is weak
and there is also a continuous need for capacity building
as well. In Mindanao, they are both stronger but the
process has been hampered by lack of coordination and
the perceived insincerity of the parties.
Lastly, the question of reform - institutional,
social and economic reforms. To many peacebuilders,
this is a necessary outcome of peacebuilding efforts.
Such reforms will put in place the foundation to sustain
peace in the long term and prevent a recurrence of war
and conflict. They are still sorely lacking in the region
and must be enhanced. More research needs to be done
in this field to determine the focus.
In assessing the outcome of peacebuilding, one could
look at the economic, political and social aspects of
the international, internal, physical and psychological
impacts. Indicators can include levels of suppression
or acceptance, level of relationship, and the development
of knowledge and capacity. It can be suggested that assessment
can be made on how/which approach is more successful,
namely their impacts on three levels - individual, society,
nation-building, and on positive or negative reinforcements.
As shown from the two case studies (and in fact more
can be learnt from comparisons which include Cambodia
and Timor Leste as well), there is room for contextual
differences in the Southeast Asian cases and lessons
can be learnt from them.
Finally, some specific recommendations on future
programs and activities can be made.
- Capacity building for members of the civil society.
Organising training's in conflict resolution and
peace advocacy.
- Building a post-graduate study program in "Peace
and Conflict Resolution".
- Creating "peace studies" centers throughout
the region. Joint collaborative work between these
centers. Creating a group or network of like minded
scholars and practitioners, and providing them with
a platform to exchange ideas. A network of peacebuilders.
- Creating a regional "Peace Studies Center".
- Promoting peace education and creating peace education
programs.
- Enhancing research on conflict issues, their causes,
and conditions for their resolution.
- Bringing forward local and indigenous ways of
conflict management and resolution.
- Do "conflict-impact assessments" projects
in conflict areas to ascertain what the impact of
the conflicts has been on the people themselves.
And what do they really want.
- Organising dialogues between the conflict parties.
Especially the second and third level officials. "Problem
solving workshops".
- Organising "scenario-building" workshops
for second and third level members of the conflict
parties and the civil society. Imagining of the future
and alternatives to violent means.
- Development projects to alleviate poverty which
can be a cause of conflict in many areas. "Life
skills" training's etc.
- Focusing on environmental issues. Creating early
warning systems and "disaster management" bodies.
Enhancing capacity of involved personnel and exposure
to strategies and mechanisms from other experts.
- Promoting peace journalism. Training's for journalists.
Footnotes
1 Speech given at the Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA) Seminar, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
April 8, 2005.
Content
|
|
|
|
