|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
CONFERENCE SUMMARY February 19-20, 1999 The two day conference on "Promoting Justice and Peace Through Reconciliation and Coexistence Alternatives" convened in Washington, DC on February 19-20, 1999. This conference was sponsored by American University’s Center for Global Peace and the Abraham Fund. Over twenty scholars and practitioners with experience in different regions of the world and with diverse expertise were present to discuss the relationship between justice, reconciliation, and coexistence. The scholars explored these concepts by addressing the following questions:
The conference was structured to answer these questions in two parts: 1) the first half of panels explored the theoretical and conceptual aspects of the relationship between reconciliation and coexistence, and 2) the second half of panels were devoted to specific case studies relating to different conflict areas, levels, and regions. As both the first presenter and keynote speaker, Johan Galtung set the tone for discussing the theoretical and conceptual aspects of these questions. His approach to answering these questions was very methodical as he began by defining justice, peace, and reconciliation. A simple definition for justice is 'to each party his due.' Galtung advocated what he termed to be a 'democratic concept' which leans towards parity, equity, and equality. Such a concept extends beyond heads of state C it is a deeper process which emerges from the people involved in conflict themselves. Next, Galtung tackled the question of what peace is. Briefly, he described it as a 'capacity to handle conflicts nonviolently and creatively.' Peace is a lofty goal as it also requires the components of justice: parity, equality, and equity work in unison. After establishing definitions of peace and justice, Galtung was prepared to explore the central concepts of the conference: reconciliation and coexistence. Reconciliation emerges after a conflict as the parties involved undergo a process of healing and closure. Coexistence promotes peace when it is 'active coexistence.' That is, coexistence must extend beyond tolerance to building relationships so that conflict resolution is possible. Active coexistence is a useful concept because it promotes respect, dialogue, curiosity, delight in diversity, and plurality. Several other scholars were involved in discussing the conceptual framework of peace, justice, and reconciliation. Among these were Mica Estrada-Hollenbeck who focused on reaching justice through reconciliation as opposed to arbitration; and Marc Gopin who spoke of using forgiveness as a way of facilitating conflict resolution in religious cultures. Also, Eugene Weiner explored coexistence work in his presentation, Louis Kriesberg devoted his presentation to mapping out different kinds of coexistence and the role of reconciliation and justice in such movements, and Mohammed Abu-Nimer focused on the limits and possibilities of various coexistence models. The second half of the conference agenda was devoted to case studies in which these concepts confirmed and adapted to real life the theories discussed earlier. Dr. Hizkias Assefa led this portion of the conference by sharing his experience building peace in Ghana during the Guinea Fowl War that broke out in February 1994. This war, which began as a fight between two people in a market place, involved seven different ethnic groups, caused the deaths of 10,000 people, displaced 135,000, and destroyed hospitals and schools. Assefa emphasized that the fight in the market place was only the tip of the iceberg underneath which were deeper issues of land ownership, inequality, competing claims of identity and rights, discrimination, and prejudice. Dr. Assefa began the peace building process in Ghana by meeting separately with the various ethnic groups and providing a forum in which they could tell their stories. These town-meeting sessions were very cathartic and served as a good first step along the path of reconciliation. Assefa was able to recognize, through these meetings, who the 'voices of reason,' or bridge builders, were. The next step was to bring together the bridge builders from each ethnic group to share their losses, feelings, and experiences. Although it was tense at first, eventually people began talking about reconciliation in a way that included various religious perspectives. Once apologies came forth the dynamics of the dialogue changed. A transformation took place as enemies were perceived as fellow human beings. It was at this point that all parties recognized the possibility for peace. The last steps of the reconciliation process in Ghana required follow-up plans to educate and organize those who were not previously involved. Slowly, this process began infiltrating into communities and more formal structures in society. Most importantly, Assefa emphasized that this peace cannot be maintained unless the dialogue is given the opportunity to deepen and address the socioeconomic and ideological dimensions. After reconciliation concrete plans and solutions as to how to maintain peace must be drafted. Also essential to the reconciliation process, this peace must be owned by everyone, not only leaders. Other panelists shared their case studies and personal experiences related to reconciliation and coexistence. Among these were Hugo van der Merwe who presented on lessons from community reconciliation in South Africa; Ron Fisher who explored the social-psychological processes involved in conflict resolution; and Lisa Shirch who discussed the psychological and cultural dimensions of conflict and how to take cultural identity into account. In addition, J. Lewis Rasmussen presented on the importance to engage official negotiators/political players in the process of post-settlement peace building during the process of reaching a political settlement to a conflict; Joseph Montville discussed the importance of taking history and human needs theory into account when implementing and designing conflict resolution intervention strategies; Amy Hubbard shared her research and case studies on how to understand majority and minority participation in interracial and interethnic dialogue; and Brendan McAllister discussed community mediation and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. All presenters agreed that in a given conflict there are always issues of injustice. Therefore, justice is a necessary condition for reconciliation. However, justice must be achieved while at the same time enhancing harmonious coexistence. Coexistence is the element which sustains peace. The role of religion and tradition are essential to the process as well. Neither should be marginalized or bypassed, rather concepts and teachings from each should be used as building blocks of reconciliation. Religion should only be allowed a role which helps the reconciliation process, not one which hinders it. Further, both reconciliation and coexistence must address interracial and interethnic differences so that parties may gain mutual understanding and so that the dialogue can deepen to address ideological, socioeconomic, inequality, and injustice issues which are at the heart of conflict. Again and again, the panelists emphasized the importance that the peace process be inclusive, that the ownership be shared. To reiterate Galtung and Hiskias' points, active coexistence --- which extends beyond tolerance to community building --- is essential to sustaining peace after reconciliation has been attained. Note: A published book of the conference papers of all presenters will be available soon. Please contact the Center for Global Peace to learn about how to obtain a copy: salima@american.edu |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
© 1998- 2000 American University
|
