|
| |
A letter written by Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen, Co-Director of TRANSCEND and Director of the Coalition for Global Solidarity and Social Development, as part of a discussion with social activists and peace workers world-wide.
Peace by Peaceful Means
Dear Friends,
The discussions which have taken place over e-mail over the past few days have been extremely interesting. I have just returned from Oslo where the 100th anniversary of the Nobel Peace Prize was being celebrated. The obvious contrast between the rather elite 'suit' dominated celebrations in Oslo and the realities of what is occurring in the world today was stark.
Questions of strategy, tactics and visions for how we work to bring about change, to transform all forms of violent conflict -- direct, structural, and cultural -- and to empower, mobilise, and involve people in a mass, broad-based movement for peace and to build the alternatives we are looking for, are vital.
In Norway alone, to take one example, perhaps 80% of people think what is happening now in and over Afghanistan is wrong, either completely or at least in part, and yet all they hear from the media, academics and politicians is constant support and acclaim for the 'justness' of this war (or indeed, any war in which it is 'we' against 'them'). Small groups of people and 'NGOs', in Norway as in every single country, are trying to bring forward alternatives, to raise their voices, and to protest/oppose what they think is wrong. While these organisations are in every case much smaller than our governments and militaries going to war, they often represent the social majority. A major challenge they face, however, is how to reach out to people, how to involve people, and how to develop alternatives which make sense to people tired of war and violence (whether of the kind we are seeing in Afghanistan, or of a global economic system killing 100,000 a day).
Negative slogans and opposition to what is wrong is not enough however. It is not enough, but it is necessary. 'Basta!', 'Enough!' was perhaps the most 'revolutionary' cry of the last decade, and still is in many parts of the world. The simple, courageous act, of standing up when we see that something is wrong, and stating that it is wrong, not cooperating with it, can be a powerful and evocative symbol. When we are having our conferences, discussions and meetings in whichever city, town or village of the world we may be found, we should always remember that the vast majority of people in our own city, town or village, as well as the entire rest of the world, have no idea that we are there, meeting. The vision, hope and ideas which bring people to these conferences are, in the vast majority of cases, kept marginalised, on the periphery. Yet that is also part of our own responsibility, technique and methods. Basta! became a cry to inspire millions, because those who said it lived it, refusing to cooperate any longer with what they know to be wrong. While Basta! may be the most revolutionary cry or word today, transforming all forms of direct, structural, and cultural violence is the greatest challenge.
The two are inclusive and complementary, not exclusive. We need to state clearly our opposition to violence, war, injustice and exploitation (the 'peace movement' has often been willing to do the first two, not always as willing on the last two), and we need also to build a constructive, positive programme. It is not only a question of what we are against, but what we are for. When we criticize what we think is wrong, people will also want to know what we think could be done instead. In these cases, our answers must seem real and viable to people.
The 'anti-globalisation' movement is therefore also a social justice movement; 'non-governmental organisations' should also be people's organisations or people's movements; and one of our challenges today will be to build upon the growing 'anti-war' movement, transforming it also into a peace movement. A step further, as many social and peace activists have recognised, will be to link the peace and social justice movements.
Slogans and messages are important, as are practice and vision. It will not be possible today to unite broad numbers of people around issues which they feel are too abstract and divorced from them. The 'abolish the debt' campaign/movement was successful because people were able to see the clear linkages between debt and the effective colonisation and enslavement of countries and people across the south, as well as the incredible suffering and destruction it brought. The Jubilee 2000 'campaign' however, unlike the Jubilee South movement which continues today, did not reach its objective of having the debt cancelled. Instead, while many people around the world believe the problem has been solved, the debt-system and the burden it places upon countries has become even more extreme. Going from 'campaigns' to movements will also be important, though even here it is not a question of 'either/or' but 'both/and' with individual campaigns extremely useful and effective at times for involving people, raising awareness and mobilising around specific issues, strengthening further the broader movements of which they may be a part.
Today, a movement for demos kratos is necessary, and vital for any movement or work towards peace. To speak about the United States or any government in the world today as a 'democracy' is a ridiculous farce. They are highly elite dominated systems built upon massive structures and cultures of violence, and willing to use overwhelming (Powel Doctrine) violence when necessary to enforce their needs and/or interests. At best they may be demagogia's, where elites maintain power by promising the people what they will do for them (we call this 'elections'), but they are not system's or societies built upon people's power, demos kratos. Decisions to go to war are made by tiny numbers of people. Our economic and political policies are constructed for us, often to the detriment of the social majorities who are told to 'leave well enough alone' and trust in the experts. This is sometimes as true of politicians as it is of non-governmental organisations who themselves frequently prefer the conference halls and well-funded projects to actually working democratically with people as part of the people themselves. An alternative today, what Johan Galtung has called for, with 10,000 dialogues, meetings, discussions at every level, focussing not only on what is wrong, but also on what we want therapy, ideas, alternatives. In one form or another many of these dialogues are taking place. In a way they are therapy for the massive amounts of violence we are all being exposed to today, in our cultures, in our world, on our television sets or in the speeches of our 'democratically elected' rulers (the question, for those who do not support their policies, should not be 'who put them in power' -- though this is also important -- but why haven't we removed them from power yet_). They are also empowering, if we take the step beyond saying what is wrong to what could be done_, what should be done_, and then go further to discussing what I/we can do about it.
Mobilising people for peace today is not simply about a slogan (though coming up with clearly expressed messages in a few words will of course help us to link people together and raise awareness). What is necessary, beyond any single issue or top-level strategy for how to change the world, is the process. The way is the goal. Perhaps the greatest achievement of the social justice/anti-globalisation movement is that it has mobilised, involved, and empowered millions of people around the world in discussing, thinking about, and acting upon the realities around them. On the streets of Seattle, Praha, Okinawa, Melbourne, Gotheburg, Washington, Quebec, Genoa, Ottawa, people, many of whom refuse to vote, have been discussing foreign policy, domestic politics, people to people movements, and all the issues which politicians and well-established NGOs are not able and often not willing to discuss with people. We have our 'manifestos', our policies and plans which we wish to put forward in the name of people, often addressing them to 'politicians' and 'elites' believing, in a fundamentally undemocratic way, that they will be the ones to bring about and implement change for us. This is not to say that that is not an important level which we also need to work at. The broader vision here is both/and, not either or, in terms of strategy as well often of vision. We also need, however, to be willing to take part in the much slower, more timely, and more empowering process, of tens of thousands of dialogues together with people, communities, and organisations at every level.
Solidarity today is being built upon and carried further into alliances not just supporting people in their struggles for social justice, peace and freedom, but carrying forward those struggles ourselves in our own communities, our own towns, cities and villages. If we wish to change the injustices taking place in the world today we must of course work on a global level, but we must also work, just as importantly, within our communities. Again, both/and rather than either or. We should also be wary when we say 'we must begin here', or 'this must be done first!', even when the message is very positive and constructive. 'We must begin with the individual!'. 'We must begin by changing society!'. 'We must begin with a culture of peace!'. 'We must begin by ending the debt!'. All of these, and the many others put forward, are extremely important issues. They are also all linked together. Again, both/and. Exclusive and elitist visions will only serve to further fragment our efforts, creating division and separation where what is needed is dialogue, solidarity, cooperation and alliances between movements/organisations which often take diverse strategies and approaches to addressing deeply interlinking injustices and structures and cultures of violence. Conscientisation (raising awareness, often political awareness -- but also social, cultural, economic), organisation (we can do more together than we can apart, and it is necessary to organise -- though in many different ways -- to be able to bring about changes, both against what we think is wrong and for what we think is right), mobilisation (bringing in more and more people, involving people in dialogues, discussion, action, and work for change/transformation), and empowerment (I/we can, rather than 'I/we can't'; also important recognising the power we have to bring about change, rather than simply accepting existing, often extremely violent, power structures and believing that change can/should/must be implemented by those 'in power', whether slave owners, men, politicians, or fuhrers) are all necessary.
A guide for this, and for ourselves as movements, organisations and individuals might be to be
Critical -- not simply accepting what is happening but questioning it, recognising what we think is wrong, and also open to criticism of ourselves and what we are doing from others, not simply accepting things as 'given', 'natural', unchangeable ('TINA' -- there is no alternative, is one of the most deeply undemocratic and disempowering messages, frequently given by our 'democratically' elected elites/rulers);
Radical -- according to the original etymology 'to go to the roots'. Often NGOs (as well as much western medicine and political strategies) are satisfied with dealing with 'effects', 'symptoms' and fail to go to the roots of the problems or structures we are dealing with. We cannot afford this today, or we will simply serve to reproduce sickness, disease, and injustice on ever broader scales. It is necessary, therefore, to go to the roots, to see what lies beneath, behind, if we are to be able to bring about true transformation, healing;
Creative -- also very important today. Not simply accepting old methods, techniques, slogans, ways of organising (though these are also all very important and should be learned from), but willing to be creative, to search for new approaches, new ideas, and also new therapies to transform direct, structural and cultural violence;
Constructive -- as many have suggested, we need to go beyond what we are against, and also create what we are for. Part of being constructive is recognising our own power. It is itself an empowering act. Recognising, realising, building our ability to think, dream, create ourselves the type(s) of communities/world we want. Mobilising people for what we can do together, not simply for what we are opposed to being done by others. And;
Honest -- with ourselves, with each other, to our goals, aims, vision. Unity of means and ends. People can feel when their is honesty in a movement/organisation. If it is not there, they will be sceptical and will not become involved. If we wish to be truly democratic, and truly empowering, we must also be honest, in our goals, our methods, our vision, and with ourselves and each other. Speaking all day at a conference about poverty and then eating a US$100 meal is not necessarily honest. Opposing the horrible poverty 3000 km away while ignoring the horrible poverty many live in in our own towns/cities/villages is not necessarily honest. Talking about 'democracy' but expecting people to simply join our movements and accept our slogans without dialogue, discussion, and mutual respect/empowerment, is not necessarily honest. The challenges are great, and they are ones we must live up to.
Also, for I will not say finally, we cannot simply wait until the end of the road for our alternatives, just as we cannot wait until wars or violence have ended before we begin peacebuilding and conflict transformation. True empowerment will come from building our alternatives, our alternative visions, social orders (or lack of order/structure), communities, and way in our lives, in our communities, in our struggles and movements, here and now. This is being done in every corner of the world. It is part of the regeneration, revitalisation, and empowerment of people -- demos kratos and peace by peaceful means.
At the end of January and in early February 2002 the second World Social Forum will be taking place in Porto Alegre, Brazil. This is an international meeting, a solidarity of hope, where people from many different backgrounds, visions, dreams and realities come together, where workers from South Korea meet with Mayan Indians, where students and NGO activists from the United States and France meet with landless movements from Brazil and South Africa, where villagers from the Himalayas struggling to protect their seeds meet with teachers from Norway. It is a meeting where tens of thousands of dialogues take place. Where we learn from each other, from our dreams, our hopes, our visions, and our lives and struggles for what we are working for. Those who come are united in saying Basta!, enough!: enough to injustice, to war, to violence, to disempowerment, to exploitation, to destruction of the environment and our earth, to destruction of our communities, our children, and our dreams for tomorrow. And they celebrate our diversity, and the many different things we say yes to, seeing our diversity as a strength, as well as beautiful in itself.
This then, is also an invitation to Porto Alegre, and an invitation to tens of thousands of Porto Alegre's, of dialogues in every home, school, office, community, of internationals of hope.
In peace, in struggle,
Kai Frithjof
|
|
|
