I’m having this very weird life these days. My main task is to complete the last revision of my book manuscript on peacebuilding in Africa– title as of now: Amnesties After Atrocity? But then events in Iraq and Palestine keep sucking me back in so I have to take a little time out from Africa and write something or do something regarding Hamas, or the Saddam trial, or whatever.
Meantime, about 70% of my consciousness is still in Africa… From which space I have sent out occasional messages to world along the way, regarding issues of burning but more general concern.
Well, here’s the latest message. It’s from Mozambique. (Did I tell y’all that I “nailed” the South Africa portion of the book last Friday, and have since then been sailing up the eastern coast of the continent a little… Oh my, what wouldn’t I give to be back on those beaches and eating those giant prawns, and chilling a bit with all those lovely people in Mozambique right now?)
Mozambicans are so darn’ wise! They could give lessons to everyone in the world on how to end nasty internal conflicts, and how, after the war, to set about building a new life based on love and cooperation. But they are modest people, so they don’t jump up and down saying, “Hey everyone! Look at what we did! We can show you all how to do it, too. You should all do things the way we suggest!” (That role is already taken– by the Bushies.)
But I digress. Sometime, I should really pull together all the many “lessons in effective peacemaking” I learned from my colleagues and friends in Mozambique. But for now– with special reference to the situations in Iraq, and Israel/Palestine– I have this one…
It comes from Cardinal Alexandre Dos Santos, a lovely, gentle, almost coal-black elder of the Catholic church in Mozambique, who played a key intermediary role during the peace negotiations that in 1992 brought to a definitive end the extremely harmful, atrocity-laden civil war that had afflicted the country for more than 15 years.
When I interviewed Do Santos in 2003 he recalled that an important aspect of the peacemaking work he and his colleagues undertook in the build-up to the 1992 General Peace Agreement had been to stress the need for a forward-looking rather than backward-looking perspective. “You can’t solve anything if you speak about the reasons you are fighting,” Dos Santos said. “You need to just try to find the way to get peace. You want to speak about the way to find a meeting of the minds, not speak about the differences… I told people, ‘We are not here to discuss the reasons, or the past, but the way to get peace!'”
Re-reading Dos Santos’s words in my Chapter Four here led me to reflect a bit on a fairly broad theme in the field of “transitional justice” today. TJ is the (recently defined) field of endeavor whereby communities/countries that are emerging into a more democratic order while still reeling from the effects of recent atrocious violence seek to “deal with” the effects of that violence in a way that will strengthen the march toward democracy. (More or less.) They nowadays tend to try to do so through war-crimes courts, or truth commissions, or whatever…
But one of the problems in the application of TJ principles in recent times, it seems to me, is that too many ultra-eager TJ advocates and practicitioners try to “jump the gun”, and start trying to institute TJ process even before the underlying, essentially political issues that lie at the heart of the conflict being fought over have been resolved. There is, for example, the current attempt to use war-crimes prosecutions against leaders of the anti-government insurgency (but not against government people) in northern Uganda– while the political causes of the insurgency have still not been resolved…
And in Iraq, there’s the attempt to try Saddam Hussein– at the same time that the political causes underlying the insurgency there are, obviously, still far from resolution.
And regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, of course we have all the extremely lengthy and contentious attempts to point fingers at one side or the other, right now– including in the Comments discussions here– at a time when perhaps we should all be taking Cardinal Dos Santos’s words to mind and saying, “For now, the important thing is to focus on what unites us, not on what divides us.” A time for “looking back” and trying to wrestle with the rights and wrongs of the past, may (or may not) come later. But for now: How can Palestinians and Israelis find a sustainable political formula by which they can coexist, in peace? How can Iraqis find a formula by which they live peaceably together without foreign intervention? … Surely, those should be our focus.
And to inject a backward-looking, and quite prematurely applied, TJ intervention like a war-crimes trial into the situation in Iraq at this time is quite wrongheaded and divisive.
30 thoughts on “Ending insurgencies, building peace”
Comments are closed.
Mr.Whitbeck is 100% right. If anything can help I/P, it is change of narrative, systematic search and replacement of negative hostile concepts – starting from “infrastructure of terror” – by more constructive ones. As for generic calls for “peace”, “tolerance” , etc, they will never work. Needless to say, it can’t be easy because maintaining hostile stereotypes is exactly what black PR machine is supposed to do.
ANews. John V.Whitbeck. De-Demonize Hamas, Support Democracy
If one views the world through the eyes of Israeli and Western governments and media, one is likely to believe that the primary obstacle to Middle East peace has for the past several years been Fatah’s failure to “dismantle the infrastructure of terror” and has now become Hamas’ desire for the “destruction of Israel”.
What does “dismantling the infrastructure of terror” mean? What “infrastructure”? Roads? Bridges? Office buildings? Given the distinctly personal and low-tech nature of the acts characterized as “terror” in the Palestinian context, “dismantling the infrastructure of terror” sounds rather like tearing arms and legs off people.
What was surprising was that the former Palestinian leadership did not point out the absurdity of this demand, choosing instead to issue public assurances that it would love to do so and would when it could, thereby implicitly accepting the Israeli and Western argument that the Palestinians, uniquely, have no right to resist occupation – reason enough (even if there were no others) for them to be voted out of office.
Concepts and aspirations may be formulated in positive or negative ways. The “destruction of Israel” is clearly a negative formulation. The “creation of a fully democratic state with equal rights for all” in all of Israel/Palestine could be a positive reformulation that would be recognized by the world as just and offer genuine hope for peace and reconciliation.
John V. Whitbeck, an international lawyer, is author of “The World According to Whitbeck”.
Helena, I think you might consider starting a separate counter for the number of days between Hamas’s election victory and the formation of a Hamas cabinet. Abu Mazen and the Egyptians seem willing to wait until Hamas turns into a Fatah clone before they act. No doubt they have the approval of Washington and the Quartet, which more than ever looks like a front for U.S. policies. Doesn’t anyone have any imagination here, or, dare I say, respect for the will of the people?
Henry
Whitbeck is, flat out, wrong in his assertion that there is no such thing as a terrorist infrastructure. Consider, for instance, what you need to do for a successful suicide bombing:
1) You need to recruit and prepare the bomber (a process which isn’t especially quick)
2) you need to get the materials for the bomb
3) you need to make the bomb, and store it (especially if you’re making bombs for several attacks)
4) you need to get the bomb to the bomber or to a point where he can pick it up.
5) you need to get the bomber to the target point, possibly picking up the bomb en route
All of this is in the face of IDF/Shabak interdiction attempts*, checkpoints, and so on. A “non-suicide” bomb requires fairly similiar steps.
All of this requires time, money, facilities, and personnel – and ultimately, an organization. As well, most of the latter need a certain expertise – you don’t pick up a bombmaker off the street, for example**. Shooting attacks require less resources, but if you want to do any real damage, they still take some organization and planning.
All this is the infrastructure – and it can be dismantled. Money flow can be blocked, materials and facilities can be cnfiscated or destroyed, personnel can be arrested, and organizations disrupted or shut down.
I think it’s also interesting that he considers “dismantling the terrorist infrastructure” to be equivalent to “renouncing the right to resist occupation” – is he sayng terrorism is a necessary part of such resistence?
*incidently, the disruption of this process, especially the transfer parts, is why the IDF maintains checkpoints between Palestinian towns.
**While the theory behind building a bomb isn’t that complicated, building one that will reliably go off when you want and (especially)won’t go off when you don’t want (something they don’t always get right), as well as being concealable, isn’t quite that simple.
How do you dismantle the terrorist infrastructure?
Maybe you can’t dismantle it completely, but Israel has done a pretty good job over the past few years. Suicide bombing, at one point a regular occurrence, is a rarity.
The removal of terrorist leaders, the building and enforcement of checkpoints, the wall, etc, have all contributed to this.
Still, it is equally true that none of this is a perfect seal. And that in order to further reduce the chance of terror, some sort of political solution will have to be reached. More important, a political resolution is the right thing to do. No one wants the status quo to continue for 40 more years, even if Israel could effectively keep terrorists out.
in Iraq, there’s the attempt to try Saddam Hussein– at the same time that the political causes underlying the insurgency there are, obviously, still far from resolution.
Yes you right Helena, this deliberate case here using Saddam trial as cover up for the Zalmi and US involvements to shape the politics side in Iraq to be what US like.
However this is not the only case that US used Saddam to gain usefulness.
All we recall 1990 Gulf War when Saddam left in power and used as “ Lion in the Gage” to push toward massive weapons deals with Gulf states and also used to built their military presence their on claims that Saddam if their if left them you all will be eaten by him.
Same scenario now playing with Iran nuke and we see US mangling with one member of EXIL of EVIL and we know the concerns that Gulf States rise to US although they had bad experience with Iranians that they occupied three Islands from Bahrain, US did nothing to them despite that US the best friends and there are many Military deals and protocols to protect those Friendly Regimes
“you might consider starting a separate counter for the number of days between Hamas’ election victory and the formation of a Hamas cabinet.”
We must not fall into the trap of holding Mideast polities, largely new to democracy, to the same standard of expertise with democratic institutions such as the electoral process and freedom of expression that we routinely apply to experienced democracies like Denmark.
freedom of expression that we routinely apply to experienced democracies like Denmark.
Oh Yah, David Irving and others, who is Holocaust denial his right of “freedom of expression” is suppressed in the most experienced democracies in the west UK, Germany, France, Australia to give speeches and join conferences a round the world, respecting the concerns from Jews communities there in those experienced democracies which I am supporting this action but when it is coming to Islam and Muslims communities it purely “freedom of expression” moreover publisheing a book with those shameful and hideous acts on 26 January 2006 to be read in each schools around Denmark to lets the kids to know the Sick minded thinker their about Islam Values and culture.
David Irving arrested at gunpoint in Austria
November 11, 2005
It comes from Cardinal Alexandre Dos Santos, a lovely, gentle, almost coal-black elder of the Catholic Church in Mozambique
Helena I had one concern here.
When I see many those Christian /Churches programs on the TV shows its pick my attention that there are splits between white’s church and Black church.
For example Dr. Robert H. Schuller mostly dominated by Whites follower, where Dr Dollar Black followers.
Can give your thought about that?
Consider, for instance, what you need to do for a successful suicide bombing: 1) You need to recruit and prepare the bomber (a process which isn’t especially quick) 2) you need to get the materials for the bomb 3) you need to make the bomb, and store it (especially if you’re making bombs for several attacks) 4) you need to get the bomb to the bomber or to a point where he can pick it up. 5) you need to get the bomber to the target point, possibly picking up the bomb en route
Sure, I perfectly understand all this! The trouble with “terrorist infrastructure” is that it suggests that bomb making needs some special advanced infrastructure. But, technically, all these activities are not that different from home and car repairs.
The problem is, it is absurd to talk about some special “repairs infrastructure”, so the notion of “terrorist infrastructure” makes no sense.
Salah, good question… With regard to Cardinal Dos Santos, I guess by mentioning his skin color I was just trying to convey that he is an indigenous Mozambican Christian, not a missionary from the west. Normally, skin color or other aspects of the way person looks are not the first things I’d note about someone.
Regarding the broader phenomenon you write of, in the US there are some mixed-race churches but most churches are fairly much (but not completely)segregated by race. Mainly, I think, because of the strong social role that churches have historically played here.
My own church (though we call it a “meeting”) has mainly “white” members, though we have some great African-American members.
Yes Helena, but upon review, you must admit calling someone “a lovely, gentle, almost coal-black elder…” can easily be read by someone as incredibly patronizing and racist.
Do you think so? In most church communities I know, majority-white or majority-black, to call someone a “lovely, gentle elder of the church” would be seen as honoring them. Do you think specifying Cardinal Dos Santos’s skin color– in the context of writing about the incredible achievements of the church in Mozambique– changes that? Why?
Yes Helena, but upon review, you must admit calling someone “a lovely, gentle, almost coal-black elder…” can easily be read by someone as incredibly patronizing and racist. Posted by Joshua at February 3, 2006 06:12 PM
For Quakers, it must be perfectly OK. But for Muslims and Judaists, not necessarily. This is why avoid any religious dsicussion of political conflicts.
in the context of writing about the incredible achievements of the church in Mozambique– changes that?
Precisely because the man’s skin color (nor indeed his ‘indegene’ status) adds nothing to his virtue or achievements and shouldn’t be treated as some kind of compliment. Would you introduce him at the podium this way? Of course it’s patronising and racist.
Of course it’s patronising and racist.
This is not rational argumentation of any kind, just generic political cursing.
generic political cursing.
I’m sure Helena doesnt imagine herself immune to racist or patronising beliefs (who is, really?) and the observation isn’t meant as an insult.
Henry, you should try complimenting (in person) the “coal blackness” of anyone you admire for better reasons. maybe you’ll learn some more interesting curses than what I’ve written here.
The point is:
— I am not a quaker.
— Quakers’ argumentation does not necessarily make sense for me. I am not responsible for it in any way.
— I can’t question quakers’ argumentation, if a quaker says something, he must be right in his own terms.
— I am sure Helena is not racist.
— You make no points, just cursing.
Wake up fellows, there is more to learn from this episode than in 10 books of ME pseudo experts.
Get out from you gave David instead hiding under and be truthful with your bathetic post.
Whom you call “Insurgencies” you went to their country and destroy their state what you expected rush you with flowers David? Be honest and speak the truth.
When they coming to your cave you hide then call fights them if they find you cave as Bin Laden.
Religious Martyrdom Is a European Ideal, Too
It seems the average american is completely ignorant of the basic facts of geography and politics.
Sure, I perfectly understand all this! The trouble with “terrorist infrastructure” is that it suggests that bomb making needs some special advanced infrastructure. But, technically, all these activities are not that different from home and car repairs.
The problem is, it is absurd to talk about some special “repairs infrastructure”, so the notion of “terrorist infrastructure” makes no sense.
The individual steps are not – in theory – much above the level of auto repair, that is correct. But as I noted in my footnote, building a bomb which will explode when and only when you want it to is not a trivial task – and the expertise to do that is not especially widespread. You also need to recruit the bomber and then prepare him and keep him “primed” – sometimes for a considerable length of time. This requires its own expertise. Don’t forget that you need someone to connect all the everyone together – if the way to contact a bombmaker (or a “transporter”, or anyone else in the chain) is commonly known, Israeli security will snap him up – and that this must be done in a clandestine fashion – something which requires another form of expertise.
Nevertheless, another look at your analogy is instructive – because there is a “repair infrastructure”, even though you don’t generally think of it like that. You have the suppliers of parts, the schools which train (some of) the mechanics, their shops – depending on what level you’re looking at, you can include the mechanics themselves – all this forms a support structure. The only difference for purpose of this analogy is that auto repair shops don’t have a goal beyond auto repair and don’t need to function clandestinely, which means they don’t need an overarching organization.
yawn
Dismantling the Infrastructure of Terror
What this boils down to, or what is used to boil down to, giving the PA a monopoly on violence. That is, giving the PA sole control of military forces. This in turn means (or meant) completely disarming Hamas and Islamic Jihand and the Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades and Tanzim and so on.
Whitbeck’s idea that the phrase has no meaning is either ignorance or dishonesty. Agreed, the meaning is not obvious to somebody who isn’t familiar with the issues.
One of the obstacles to negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis is that the main Israeli demand is a stop to the violence. Arafat would simply reply that his people weren’t bombing Israel, it was those other guys. Since the PA couldn’t give anything, they couldn’t get anything from the Israelis either. So “Dismantling the infrastructure of Terror” was an essential part of the formula for peace.
Now that Hamas is in charge, the formula still means that the PA has sole control of military forces, but puts the Hamas leaders in charge of those forces.
If Helena’s formula for ending insurgencies and building peace was strong, there probably wouldn’t be such wars in the first place. Forgetting the past pretty much means redefining who you are and what you believe in. This happens about as fast as religion leaves human societies. Religion has been a part of human society since the beginning and shows no sign of departing. Maybe forgetting some of the recent violent past is possible.
and to try, through engagement, to encourage it to adapt its aspirations
And this is exactly what’s being done. HAMAS is being encouraged by the rest of the world to drop its eliminationist and racist platform in exchange for recognition. That’s called politics. Whitbeck implies the PLO’s recognition was arbitrary when in fact it hinged on the very same demand, which was ultimately fulfilled.
The ‘accountability’ entailed by democracy means that Palestinians are responsible for their government, which is itself responsible for engaging its neighbors and the rest of the world constructively. It doesn’t mean the world at large should embrace whatever ideology has prevailed at the polls. It doesn’t make “the West” responsible for massaging HAMAS’ uncompromising statement of priciples into something more palatable.
The responsibility of “de-demonizing” HAMAS lies with HAMAS itself and the Palestinians who voted them into office, not with Israel or “the West.”
Long live Denmark, long live freedom of expression in JWN and everywhere.
Another example of “freedom of expression”.
Coulter jokes about poisoning Justice http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-27-coulter-stevens_x.htm
Freedom of expression is sacrosant in some places; that is when the faithful are chanting:
(Iran) DEATH TO AMERICA!
or
(Gaza) DEATH TO DENMARK!
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
قــــال اللــــــه فــي كتــابــه الـكريـــم
إن شـــانـئك هــو الابـــتر
صــدق اللـــــه العـــــظيم
عمل ليومك كأنك تعيش ابدا واعمل لاخرتك كانك تموت غدا
I gathered a few relevant thoughts from a book I just finished titled “Shake hands with the devil” by Romeo Dallaire, about the 1994 tragedy in Rwanda. He noted that in the lead-up to the genocide, hard-liners like President Habyarimana were pushing for an amnesty, in the Arusha accords, for crimes committed during the civil war. The opposition rebel army, however, refused to even consider such an amnesty.
Dallaire felt that such an amnesty could have helped in preventing the genocide. One of the factors causing the genocide was the paranoia among the Hutu hard-liners that the Tutsi-dominated RPF were intent on destroying them, once they arrived in Kigali. And the RPF intransigence on amnesties seem to support that fear. Dallaire felt that if the international community had pressured the RPF, amnesty provisions could have been added, and more Hutu hardline leaders could have resisted the pressure of the extremists.
Amnesties go against Western sense of justice. I, myself, feel angry about the fact that many Latin American death squad leaders walk around with impunity. Of course, for the most part, it is none of my business how a people arrive at a peaceful settlement. But, still, I think that even for the people involved, amnesties must feel unjust. And sense of injustice is one of those factors that seems to perpetuate violence.
I wonder whether a South African type Truth Commission could have been a reasonable compromise between the RPF and the Hutu hardliners that would have let the hardliners feel more secure about integrating the RPF into power, while at the same time giving people a feeling that somehow justice was served.