|
| Peace movements in peace building By: NORA AHMETAJ Non-state actors of civil society such as peace movements can make an important contribution to the prevention and transformation of conflicts by mobilizing people to act in accordance with a certain agenda. Through public debates, academic curricula, public speeches and negotiations peace movements communicate their agenda to a broader audience. Intervention of civil society peace actors into ethnic discourse between conflicting parties has been appreciated in recent conflicts in former Yugoslavia. In many situations, the civil society actors succeeded at ‘preventing violence’ or reducing tensions between conflicting parties or between dominant and subordinate groups, thus building bridges between different identities such as ‘us’ and ‘them’. When people share experiences, conversations, emotional involvement in different activities, they tend to shape common identities. Then a group identity can take the form of ‘self’, while the rest are the ‘others’. Peace movements are ideally committed to an inclusive identity, thereby avoiding taking sides in a conflict. For instance, many peace movements are often identified with an idealistic image as peace loving people, who are opposed to the elite. Mary Kaldor has referred to local people actors who strive for dialogue and are open to accept other identities as an ‘islands of civility’. These actors keep contacts across divides communities and identities. As such, their activities represent a potential avenue for solution of the conflict, and thus, should be strengthened by outsiders who want to support peace. The successes of peace movements are measured by its ability to bring conflicting parties together, start dialogue and enhance communication. The peace actors act as a truck-two driven force, and very often successfully. Here, the role of external actors such as western/donor governments, military power or diplomats can be significant but not a paramount. It is neither common, nor possible to keep a conflict locally and isolated from outside world, since civil society actors had gone global, argues Kaldor (2003). Without an external and international support, many peace and social movements would not have succeed in building dialogue, communicate with the ‘enemy’, advocate peace and non-violence, and bring social changes in politically instable countries. However, being an externally and financially influenced, peace movements are often seen as disloyal to a national cause. There are few more reasons why peace movements are not widely supported by people. For instance, peace movements very often are not seen as reflecting the basic values of a society since they consist of middle class, educated citizenry, and are widely identified with a concept ‘brought’ from foreign countries, most commonly western countries. This danger can never be eliminated, because peace making as a new concept in conflict resolution discourse, thus to many nations, peace making seams to have foreign values. On the other hand by denying themselves a clear identity, peace movements risk to be seen, as the ‘enemy lovers’, although the ‘enemy’ can be both internal or external. Once confronted with the wars, or when outsiders threaten the national interests of a country, the collective identity of peace movement, would be automatically distorted or shifted into a loyalty for a country. Identity as a concept for understanding peace movements Most often, the formation of identities within peace movements is either encouraged by inclusive identities or challenged by nationalist-identities. Ethnic identity has been a crucial factor concerning practices of exclusion and inclusion in peace movements. This leads to polarization of identities. In fact, Kaldor argues that there is no institution, which makes as sharp a division between ‘them’ and ‘us’ as conflict and violence. According to Taylor and Whittier, the biggest dilemma of peace movements nowadays, is the boundaries that are created between the group and the dominant society, the dichotomy between ‘us’ and ‘them, or ‘us’ and ‘other’. These boundaries can be easily found when oppressed groups fight against their suppressors. However, the problems arise when peace movements aimed at including as much as possible people together as ‘we-us’, they risk being turned from ‘self-we’ into ‘other-rest’. Mostly activists who strive to support suppressed groups by a dominant group that they belong face this dilemma. In any group of collective actors, drawing the circles that separate ‘us’ from ‘them’ is complex, and ultimately paradoxical. What gives peace movement a source of strength, a place from where to stand and sense of mobilization and protests to highlight inequalities is identity. Fostering alternative identities and accepting the ‘enemy’ line, is seen also as an attempt of peace movements to accept more constructivist perspective of identity. A striving for alternative identities must be a struggle towards the acceptance of multiple identifications. Peace workers proved that they could destabilize dominant identities through not only communications, collective actions, debates or negotiations, but also by the way how they negotiate their ethnic identities in their work, with an aim at deconstructing nationalist identities. Transformation of identities By fostering multicultural understanding, enhance communication between conflicting parties, thus recognize and accept differences, peace movements explain us how their identity is ‘jeopardized’ for the benefit of bringing peace to communities, not only locally but regionally and globally. Before going into debate with the ‘other’ identity, the peace actors strive to recognize identity of the ‘other’ before the transformation of both identities take place. Transforming identities though, is the first phase of conflict resolution process; the parties get a chance to express their anger and frustration and to give their interpretation of the conflict. Actors in the peace movements were aware of their capacity to socially construct identities but also to recognize other identity groups and to create solidarity through mobilization processes. Just as civil society is defined in relation to the state, peace movements are often seen as determined by the state structures they act within. Although the main objective of peace movements is not to challenge the state but to transform civil society, many peace movements turn to act against the state or are perceived by the state as they are mobilizing critical masses against the state. This is the case for example, when societies are suppressed by dictatorial or totalitarian regimes, and outside actors support the peace movements in such societies, peace movement then struggle to bring about change and remove the dictator from power.
|