0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
19 tayangan10 halaman
This paper demonstrates why the Construction of Peace in Colombia is a hopeful and workable approach, that requires complex changes and ongoing efforts. It is not attached to only one option, one solution or even one person. It cannot be achieved only from the top but neither from the grassroots levels. It requires the synergy of multiples efforts, different kinds of power, applied creativity and a clear direction.
This paper demonstrates why the Construction of Peace in Colombia is a hopeful and workable approach, that requires complex changes and ongoing efforts. It is not attached to only one option, one solution or even one person. It cannot be achieved only from the top but neither from the grassroots levels. It requires the synergy of multiples efforts, different kinds of power, applied creativity and a clear direction.
This paper demonstrates why the Construction of Peace in Colombia is a hopeful and workable approach, that requires complex changes and ongoing efforts. It is not attached to only one option, one solution or even one person. It cannot be achieved only from the top but neither from the grassroots levels. It requires the synergy of multiples efforts, different kinds of power, applied creativity and a clear direction.
UWE Student Number: 13970889 Online Training: Working with Communities in Conflict Taught by: Community Resolve (3401 words)
Is peace in Colombia out of our reach?
The current peace process between the left-guerrilla FARC and the Colombian government 1 to agree their disarmament has fostered the emergence of debates and discussions in many parts of the country. With the exception of a few people that are wanting the continuation of the war to keep their interests safe, many of us say to want to live in peace. However, we made the mistake of avoiding to talk about the negotiation in progress or losing time with useless blame discussions and confrontations between each other about what the government should do in order to fulfill peace, or which are the bad or the good guys in the negotiation process . The situation deteriorates even more our social relations. A common mistake is that nothing that we discuss allows us to dream, neither imagine a better future.
We are repeating once again the mistakes of the past: looking the fault on the other, believing that our viewpoint is the right one and even closing channels of communication with the people that think different to us. We try to reduce such a complex subject to one single solution and we become trap in it; in trying to negotiate something as big and complex that clearly doesnt have a unique and immediate response but which requires us to reflect at all levels and commit with multiples processes of change to transform our reality (Lederach, 2003, p.38)
Having said that, the vision I want to share in this essay, are my thoughts between a number of ideas about Conflict Transformation and Peace Building developed by John Paul Lederach - and the reality I had lived and perceived as a regular Colombian citizen. To do so, I will try to answer the following question is Peace in Colombia out of our reach? At some degree, these ideas have unblocked my frustration and apathy, but most important they have allowed me to imagine another reality and envision different ways of working and relating with others.
1 This process is advanced in the Havana, Cuba, since 2013 after 60 years of armed conflict. In order to address the question, the document is divided in four parts. The first part will present the idea of peace building as part of our everyday life, by showing strategies that can be applied by any citizen. The second part shows how the notion of negotiation might be mistaken as seen as a situation that relies on only one solution, while presenting another approach that seems neglected. The third part points out the importance of developing a strategic vision while consolidating a network of action, and the final part, address a vision of how the peace building process can gain momentum by addressing the problem of marginalization in underdeveloped areas.
Peace building as part of our everyday life.
It seems clear that not only the agreements generated in the Havana- Cuba peace talks, will drive Colombians to have a country in peace. Although it may generate important changes in the country at the political, legislative and military levels, we, all Colombians, must to start a process of change to end up with some cultural, individual and structural patterns that nowadays are perpetuating the conflict.
As Reychler pointed out Peace building is about complex change; it involves concurrent activities by many people in different sectors, at several levels and layers, and in different time frames. It is a multi-level, multi-sector, and multi-time activity. (2003, p. 3). It cannot be only built from above but need to be promoted and sustained from below. It starts from each individual being, by gaining the ability to see conflict as a potential process for change. (Lederach, 2003). I am aware that for us Colombians this is a difficult task to achieve. How can we see positive a conflict that has conducted so many deaths and suffering for more than 60 years?. I know it is not easy. However, it is important to clarify that conflict and violence are two separate things, that unfortunately in the Colombian case, they have been mixed and reinforced each other. Many scholars suggest that we should understand conflict as an inevitable situation; as part of our human condition (Lederach, 2003), which is prone to happen more often in countries like Colombia due to the existing social fragmentation and the strong social differences. Those are the result of our cultural diversity, political extremism and the large social inequalities that had also characterized other developing Countries. However, the conflict is not, by itself the negative part. The problem is the way we react to it. In my opinion, it is our conflictive behavior and indifference that makes the situation worst. Indifference, because we as spectators, had become used to the violence and even sometimes supported it 2 . Conflict behavior, because we continue reinforcing the cultural patterns that allows the conflict to escalate in our setting. We are not tolerant with differences and we tend to solve day-life struggles by imposing one unique view; however we hardly dialogue and search for alternative solutions. For instance, both issues can be challenged if we have the willingness and the right attitude to approach it. These changes are in our hands and can impact on the larger scale and to further generations. However, they require us to become more critically aware of our context and of ourselves, in order to guide our future actions.
It is possible to gain this context awareness by taking a broader view of the conflict that goes beyond our individual situation. Engaging with different groups and trying to understand the situation and views of the victims, the rebels, the government, and the friends that have different opinions - although growing up in similar conditions -, can allow us to hold a more complex view of the conflict and surely that will help to breakdown our indifference.
By looking closely the dynamics of the Colombian conflict, I have become more aware of the need to promote a non-violent advocacy for change, through the rejection of the culture and institutions of war and by supporting the existing non- violent initiatives. As Francis pointed out (2010), this is a fundamental requirement for conflict transformation to happen, especially if we take into the account that violence is not only an emotional behavior, but it is encouraged by a structured system in place. Violence only perpetuate violence and rarely solve problems (Lederach, 2004). In our case, it has led to the dehumanization of the war and even to our dehumanization (El Pais, 2013).
However, it doesnt mean that violence as an emotional behavior should be tolerated or limited to a physical damage. Many times we get used to blame or insult others creating psychological damage. Perhaps, we dont have this intention and our responses are just guided by anger and frustration. Furthermore in the same way, these negative behaviors are escalating the conflict, not only by creating new barriers but by reducing our capacity of directing the conflict to a positive outcome.
As Fisher pointed out, The challenge is to lower the level of reactivity and blame (Fisher, 2003), while at the same time we realise our own agency to transform the
2 By believing and voting for a military action, as the only way to get rid of the conflict current state. By thinking and being more conscious of our behavior, social values and cultural principles, we would take a critical approach and prevent that negative behaviors take advantage of the situation and ending up controlling us. The making of us is an ongoing process that could end up with positive outcomes when it is guided consciously. The more we know ourselves, the more positive our interactions will be with others. (Fisher, 2003).
Likewise, the more we know about this specific conflict, and think about new ways to transform it, the more we can develop an image of our purpose and find a direction.
Moving from looking at solutions to strengthening relationships
Not so long ago, my understanding of this conflict and how to approach it was limited to the belief that dialogue was the only strategy to resolve Colombias conflict. Nonetheless, deep in my thoughts, I was aware that this was only an idea that hardly could be made in practice. For me, it was nave to believe that all Colombians, could agree in the kind of country we all want. It was enough to observe a discussion between friends or politicians to see that what started in a dialogue ended up in a negative debate, almost a fight in which each part tried to gain the point including myself. As Hen pointed out, there is a common mistake of believing that dialogue is necessary in a conflict situation to reach an agreement. In reality, the aim of a dialogue is to find commonalities and a wider vision of the conflict, while at the same time we develop a sense of respect and understanding for the other. (Session 6). Dialogue is a fundamental way to promote constructive change but it is not the only mechanism (Lederach, 2013). By reading Lederachs ideas, I realised one fundamental fact. Conflict tends to escalate when communication is broken down and also when social relationships are not going well. His focus on developing relationships rather that concentrating merely on the content of the conflict show me that a peace building process needs to engage with different strategies and different layers at the same time. Before, I was wasting my time and energy by trying to find the political solution to the conflict. I dont know what I was thinking about. I am not a politician and I wont like to be one. This tendency to focus merely on the most controversial part of the conflict or in issues that are clearly not in our hands makes us to divert our responsibility for the current situation. I know we feel disempowered with this situation, but if we take a closer look of what Lederach propose, we can open ourselves to a more hopeful and workable approach to this conflict. Only by improving our existing relationships and challenging ourselves to break down the invisible barriers that prevent us to relate with other groups, we can stimulate positive changes. This is necessary, because this conflict has escalated and going around circles, in big part, due to the lack of social relationships between groups. Unfortunately, during this long lasting context of conflict we have created stereotypes about each other that do not allow us to see and think about others realities and points of view. Building good relationships across levels and sectors is the great soft strategy that should be encouraged by all. At the institutional levels, an effort needs to be done to create spaces for integration and interaction. However, not always a direct approach to foster reconciliation will work, more if it is only based on dialogue between two groups in conflict. As Chauhan (2009) suggests it is possible to encourage new relationships between strangers by using more fluid strategies of integration: for example by creating more public spaces and promoting activities around common interests such as: as sports, arts, festivals, among other things. Through my own experience I have verified why is important to build healthy relationships to overcome a conflict situation, and also, how easy is to develop them by sharing common spaces and interests. My family is a good example of it. We are a huge family, very diverse, but with strong ties among us. The success lies on the fact that we concentrate on developing activities and common spaces that reinforce our commonalities. During these interactions, we have developed a relationship to the point that we care a lot for the other; no matter how bigger our differences are, or what the problem or situation is. We try to prioritize our sense of community and social interest, thus looking for alternative solutions to the problem - including giving up our individual interests.
Thinking together and working in synergy
What I have been talking above is about how the construction of peace could be encouraged from rejecting violence and fostering integration. In other words, how changing behaviors and strengthening relationships are fundamentals for creating a positive approach to conflict and building peace. However, it is clear that we need more efforts than that to build a sustainable peace, especially in the post-conflict phase, where usually the Peace Building Process gains momentum. The post-conflict phase carries out huge challenges for local governments and social organizations, especially in designing a workable approach and bringing together all initiatives, resources and expertise in synergy to advance transformation in the long term. Lederach suggests the creation of and adaptive platform to coordinate the actions and approaches that will be carry out during this phase, while at the same time building a sustainable and inclusive network to foster constructive change in the long term. This is something that it is starting to be built in the Colombia 3 and that hopefully would gain momentum when resources become available after the peace agreement. However, it is important to point out that without fully involving the people at the grassroots level, the Peace Building Process will become a fragile top down initiative that will probably tend to fail. The post conflict phase is the opportunity to build the The Big Picture; in others words, to create the proper landscape and conditions for a real peace in place. This is the time to capture the resourcefulness of all Colombians to build together a strategic vision of the type of country we want to head on (Lederach, 2003,p.22). This suppose a very complex thinking that should interweave different perceptions and views of the theme, as it is clear that each discipline cannot deal alone with todays complexities. Therefore, for the purpose of this essay, It is reasonable to avoid looking at the big picture, because it is clear that a single lens is incapable of doing it. However, based on further research and thinking around how the post conflict phase should look like, I will present in the following section some guideline of action, which in my opinion would help to secure citizens support in the process while at the same time tackling the root of the conflict.
Starting on the right foot It seems clear that Peace is not only the absence of violence. Peace, as Galtung once commented, is the key to enable people to achieve their potential by providing the opportunities for self-realization (SGI) This is the best definition I found and perhaps the key issue to this conflict. Therefore, I would like to center this part of the essay in arguing why a developmental approach - as part of a
3 Initiatives such as the Coalicin de Paz from the central government and Reconciliacin Colombia from social institutions, academia, local governments and Private . development plan - is required in the post-conflict phase, in order to bring justice, secure citizens support in the long term process and tackling the root of the conflict. It cant be denied that the Colombian conflict is embedded into a larger structural problem, in which its unequal development is constantly fuelling the conflict. Only by having a quick look of the country, it is possible to discern that power and progress is concentrated in few people and areas, while there is a large percentage of the population still marginalized and with little opportunities to progress. Not surprisingly, they have been the more affected areas by the armed conflict. The needs theory suggests that some deep-rooted conflicts are about needs that are nonnegotiable rather than interests that are negotiable. The resolution of this kind of conflicts lies on restructuring society to meet those needs (Burton, 1990,b). This is part of the larger dis- course of no peace without development and/or no development without peace (Azar, 1990; Burton, 1990). The examples of South Africa and Northern Ireland show that integrated community development and conflict resolution strategies had helped to sustain peace in post-settlement contexts (OBrien, 2007). They have given priority to human needs and had avoided a top down approach (working in partnership with grassroots organization and NGOs) as it is clear that it increases conflict and discourages peoples participation. The way peace is settled down would lead or not its future sustainability. The post-conflict phase has the big challenge to show how the process of change would look like after the country has committed to the construction of peace (Reychler, 2003). It seems clear that as part of it, the government needs to start paying back the social debt to the excluded communities. It is a fundamental right that cannot be avoid anymore. Therefore, by directing most of the efforts and resources from the post-conflict phase on providing comprehensive interventions on those areas, with the final goal of improving peoples well-being and providing real opportunities for them to gain control of their lives, it is a good start to encourage transformation. However, this is not an easy goal to achieve, more if we take into the account that human development requires long term process, and the peace building process need to show short term results to secure citizens commitment in the long term. A focus on the development of infrastructure based on physical projects in those marginalized areas is an interesting strategy that should be taken into consideration, especially if it is focus on infrastructure for public services and/or for boosting their local economy. This is fundamental for two reasons: The first one is that by promoting the construction industry in those areas, new large numbers of jobs can be created (Collier, 2008) while a sense of justice is encouraged. At the same time, If citizens see concrete benefits and notable improvements in the circumstances of their daily life, they wont have the need to look for illicit means and sources to secure their livelihoods (OBrien, 2007) This will allow that a more substantial development process can take place in the long term. The second reason is that these projects can be the way of bringing people together around collective goals, even more if they encourage new ways of working and shaping relationships. Its construction, planning, design in other words its process, can be a good and a suitable space to incorporate a multidisciplinary approach that could include processes or participation (to extend real democracy), capacity building (to advance human development), community development (to foster reconciliation in society) and conflict resolution strategies (to transform cultural behavior patterns) amongst others. In other words, these projects can be seen as small scale laboratories to bring by practice and to the ground, what the country is looking to transform by law.
Conclusions
This paper demonstrates why the Construction of Peace in Colombia is a hopeful and workable approach but that requires complex changes and ongoing efforts. It is not attached to only one option, one solution or even one person. It cannot be achieved only from the top but neither from the grassroots levels. It requires the synergy of multiples efforts, different kinds of power, applied creativity and a clear direction. At the individual level, there are some simple but fundamental efforts that need to be done. They require our willingness and curiosity, to be able to discern the larger patterns of the conflict, while engaging with the search for individual changes to influence on the wider society. It was also a call at all levels to move from useless blame to engage in more positive approaches and deeper understanding of our situation. At the institutional level, the effort doesnt seem as simple and it definitely has complex challenges. Further cross disciplinary thinking is needed to find new ways of working, not only to maximize the impact of the resources available in the post- conflict phase, but also for finding a path of how we should develop. There is an emphasis on bringing justice in the post-conflict phase by directing most of the efforts and resources in development projects with a developmental approach in the most marginalized areas touched by the conflict. The focus on visible projects would allow using their processes of designing and construction to foster reconciliation and empower these communities, while its product shows a visible and needed outcome that could encourage peoples wellbeing while at the same time securing the support of the citizens for the long term transformation.
Bibliography
Azar, E. E. (1990). The management of protracted social conflict: Theory and cases. Aldershot: Dartmouth. O'Brien, C. (2007). Integrated community development/conflict resolution strategies as peace building potentialin South Africa and Northern Ireland.Community Development Journal, 42(1), 114-130. Burton, J. W. (1990). Conflict: Resolution and prevention (pp. 202-203). New York: St. Martin's Press. Chauhan, V. (2009). Creating spaces: Community development approaches to building stronger communities. Collier, P. (2008). The bottom billion. Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done. El Pas, (2013). Debemos reconocer que tocamos fondo. Available at: http://www.elpais.com.co/elpais/judicial/noticias/debemos-reconocer-tocamos- fondo-santos-sobre-informe-victimas-conflicto [Accessed 02 March, 2014] Fisher-Yoshida, B. (2003). Self-awareness and the co-construction of conflict.Human Systems: The Journal of Systemic Consultation and Management, 14, 169-182. Francis, D. (2010). From Pacification to Peacebuilding: a call to Global transformation. Pluto. Lederach, J. P. (2003). The Little Book of Conict Transformation.Pennsylvania: Good Books. Lederach, J. P. (2004). The moral imagination: The art and soul of building peace. Oxford University Press.
Reychler, L. (2008). Sustainable peace - building architecture in: Encyclopedia of violence, peace and conflict. Elsevier Science & Technology, Oxford, United Kingdom.