Speech of Brian Starken
"Civil war and Conflicts. Mission as Reconciliation"
Public Meeting March 31. JPIC Commission USG/UISG

---

Introduction

estimated 2 million children have died in war, a further 4-5 million have been wounded or disabled, 12 million made homeless and 1 million orphaned or separated from parents. (UNICEF 1996). This hugh toll on the civilian population is probably one of the reasons why the study of reconciliation

has become important in attempts to secure peace.

A second reason is that the very nature of warfare has changed. Over the years, wars have been fought between nation states and between people who did not necessarily have to live in close proximity with one another. Today, the vast majority of armed conflicts around the world are intranational or internal, where conflicting groups are living very close to one another. The real or perceived enemy is no longer on the other side of the world but is perhaps in a neighbouring community or even in one's own community. Conflicts have become a living experience and are defined by the sharp formation of what we can call 'identity groups', within which people find their own security.

Almost two-thirds of present day armed conflicts can be described as identity conflicts. The unit of identity can be based in religion, geographic region or ethnic affiliation. Identity conflicts are more likely to have an historical dimension which will add to the complexity of any particular conflict. Identity groups in conflict situations, "live as neighbours and yet are locked into long standing cycles of negatively defined interaction. The conflicts are characterized by deep-rooted, intense animosity, fear and severe stereotyping." (Lederach 1995). This historical dimension to modem conflicts poses enormous challenges to peace makers.

In addition, another important aspect of modem warfare is the deliberate crushing of the social and cultural institutions which connect a people to their history, identity and lived values. In this sense the terrorisation of whole populations is used as a weapon in war and as a means of social control.

If this is true of the vast majority of the wars in today's world then it is easy to understand that the traditional 'diplomatic' approaches to conflict resolution are inadequate when dealing with identity conflicts that have impinged on and shaped people's lives for generations. If sustainable peace is to be achieved in situations where mistrust, fear and hatred have festered for a long time then new approaches to resolving conflict have to be found. It is against this background that reconciliation becomes a new dimension in exploring peace.

Terminology

It is important that we are clear about what we mean when we use the word reconciliation in relation to conflict. Let us look briefly at some of the concepts used by peace strategists. Some of them are very close in meaning to reconciliation and some can be considered part of the reconciliation process.

Conflict management and conflict settlement means the containment of conflict and the reaching of agreement between the parties which enables them to end an armed conflict. It puts to an end the violent stage of conflict behaviour. This suggests finality, but in practice conflicts that have reached settlements are often reopened later.

Conflict resolution is a more comprehensive term which implies that the deep-rooted sources of conflict are addressed, and resolved. This implies that behaviour is no longer violent, attitudes are no longer hostile, and the structure of the conflict has been changed. Here it is difficult to avoid ambiguity since the term is used to refer both to the process (or the intention) to bring about these changes, and to the completion of the process.

Conflict transformation is a more recent term which for some analysts is a significant step beyond conflict resolution but which may be considered as a development of it. It suggest the need for social and international transformation.

Peace making is the moving towards settlement of armed conflict or to conflict prevention, conflict resolution and peace building.

Peace keeping refers to the interposition of international armed forces to separate the armed forces of belligerents, often now associated with civil tasks such as monitoring and policing and supporting humanitarian intervention. (Miall et al 1998).

With this fairly wide range of terms being used in relation to peace what then of reconciliation?

Reconciliation is used by Miall and Co. as 'a longer term process of overcoming hostility and mistrust between divided peoples'. UNHCR refers to reconciliation as 'the consolidation of constructive social relations between different groups of the population, including parties to the conflict'. Reconciliation, in its widest sense, requires 'that the parties to the conflict develop a common understanding of the causes and nature of the conflict, and develop shared notions of responsibility'. (UNHCR)

Here we have what is probably the crux of the problem facing those in reconciliation work - is it possible for two bitterly opposing sides to come to 'common understandings' and 'shared notions'? We will come back to this question later. For the moment let us see if we as Christians can add anything to the debate on reconciliation.

Theology

As Christians we should have more to offer in the field of reconciliation.

I have to admit at the outset that I am not a theologian. Theology is best left to the experts. However, if we are to gain some insights into the work of reconciliation in situations of conflict, particularly as Church, we must look to the sources of our Christian inspiration. Much has been written on the theological concept of reconciliation. Much remains to be done on reconciliation as a unique Christian contribution to peace in a world torn asunder by conflict. Reconciliation is not specifically mentioned in the Old Testament. In fact, we get scant resources for our work there. The concept of reconciliation centred around maintaining the 'right relationship with Yahweh', which was achieved primarily by obedience and the offering of sacrifice. In and after the exile 'forgiveness' becomes a central theme in the O.T. Forgiveness was given but justice had to be done. We will return to the notion of forgiveness later. War, of which there is plenty in the O.T., is seen as an act of Divine Justice. These acts of war are always explained as acts of judgement, a punishment for infidelity, and are justified as such.

Perhaps if we understand shalom in the Biblical sense it will concentrate our minds better. Peace existed as long as the people recognised Yahweh as their king and acted accordingly. When they copied their neighbours and worshiped idols, depended on military might, had unfaithful priests and prophets, neglected and exploited the poor and, in general, lived contrary to the injunctions of the Book of Deuteronomy, shalom was lost.

When we move to the New Testament we see the fulness of God's reconciling work. St. Paul in 2 Cor. 5:18-19 reminds us that God reconciled us to Himself through Christ and passed on to us this ministry of reconciliation. Christ achieved this reconciliation at a very high price - through His death on the cross. The cross becomes the symbol of our reconciliation and evokes some very vivid images for us. Violence, suffering, death, blood, injustice, humiliation, separation, deprivation, ridicule, despair are all images we can easily associate with the cross. They are also very vivid images for people reconciling in conflict situations as they deal on a daily basis with refugees and internally displaced people.

Communication has made the world smaller. We are all familiar with horrific scenes from war-torn parts of the world - Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, and Palestine to name but a few. Yet, no matter how many film clips we see, no matter how many newspaper articles we read, nothing prepares one for the realities of war. The cross of Christ and the images it evokes are ever present in conflict situations.

A turning point in the teaching of Jesus is that he forgives unconditionally. His forgiveness makes it possible to restore broken relationships and to make a new beginning. Forgiveness is the antidote to violence and the necessary step in bringing about new and just relationships. Forgiveness is essential for reconciliation and must be central in our work for peace. We must, however, recognise that forgiveness comes from God. It is God who initiates and brings about reconciliation. We may well say that reconciliation in many of the conflict situations around the world today is impossible. We may well say that unconditional forgiveness is impossible in the wake of ethnic or religious conflict. Yet, to say that is to refuse to accept our responsibility for the ministry of reconciliation.

Certainly we are presented with an enormous task, but we must not forget that we are invited to co-operate in the work of reconciliation. Neither must we forget from whom reconciliation comes and who continues to guide it.

We read in Matthew Ch. 5 that unconditional forgiveness makes present the Kingdom of God. The ability to forgive unconditionally is always something of a miracle. We do, however, live in a fragile world and few victims of violence can forgive in this way. Since forgiveness is the gift of the Spirit it would be wrong for us to demand or force victims to forgive. By being co-workers in reconciliation we can, and must believe we can, assist aggressors to seek forgiveness and victims to forgive. (Lascaris 1995).

Forgiveness and Reconciliation

We must explore the concepts of contrition and forgiveness between aggressors and victims and acknowledge that the process of forgiveness depends on joint analysis of the conflict, recognition of injustices and resulting historic wounds, and acceptance of moral responsibility where due. (Montville 1993).

Montville is one of very few peace researchers to talk about forgiveness and he argues that forgiveness is something that has not been given much consideration in conflict resolution as it has, for example, in therapy. Since forgiveness is essentially spiritual in nature it is not so easy to explain in terms of conflict resolution. While considering the victims of violence we can at least look at some of the myths of forgiveness. Some of these myths, I believe, have come from our own Christian understanding and teaching on forgiveness.

1. Forgiveness means forgetting:

Remembering is essential for true forgiveness. The phrase ‘forgive and forget’ is a most inappropriate cliche for reconciliation and does not approximate to people’s experience. Sometimes we have no choice but to ignore or suppress our hurt simply because we are helpless in the face of injustice and denial becomes our only option. The bitterness and anger and humiliation we feel as a result of violence done to us is difficult to cope with If we keep these feelings submerged, the likely result is that they will surface in some form of displaced tension and other people will become victims of our violence. If we do not remember what has happened to us, and name it for what it is, we can end up inventing new ways of continuing the cycle of violence. The process of healing and recovery from violence is one that takes place in time. If we ask a victim to ‘forget’ we ask them to ignore their suffering or we are saying that we are unwilling to listen to their story.

Forgive and forget may be convenient for oppressors who are willing to forget the suffering they have caused. Forget the suffering and you forget the victim. If reconciliation is to take place it is important that the offenders too remember. Their recovery is dependent on their ability to accept and take responsibility for their actions and on recognising the effect of their actions on their victims.

2. Forgiveness means accepting the offence:

Naming the offence as harmful and unacceptable is essential to forgiveness and hence to reconciliation. The survivors must acknowledge that there has been injury before they can let go of the resentment they feel because of the injury. The perpetrators of violence must also acknowledge the injury caused before asking for forgiveness. In listening to the story, the conviction is formed that the use of violence and abuse of one another is unacceptable in healthy human relationships.

3. Forgiveness is automatic:

As humans our automatic reaction to violence is to respond with violence. Anger is a serious obstacle to forgiveness especially when it becomes an unconscious defense against further betrayal. We must state that anger, hatred and bitterness, which follow naturally from violence and abuse. Survivors have a right to experience such feelings and a right to express their pain. It is how they act on their feelings and their pain that is important. We must find a non-violent activity that will help them deal with their hurt The survivor needs some act that will help him/her move from where they are at. In this area there is currently much emphasis on the need for psychosocial rehabilitation for the victims of war. This development, if sensitively managed, can have significance for both individual and community healing.

4. Forgiveness is a quick and one time event:

By calling for hasty reconciliation we are not considering the suffering of the victim. Forgiveness takes time. There are conditions that make forgiveness possible. The survivors need to experience justice and some form of restitution by which the perpetrators of violence acknowledge responsibility for their actions.

5. Forgiveness means the relationship is reconciled:

Forgiveness is different from reconciliation. The victim may be able to forgive but that does not mean that the relationship is reconciled. Forgiveness is a prerequisite for reconciliation but it does not mean that reconciliation follows forgiveness. A relationship can be so completely broken by violence that it cannot be fully reconciled. The damage to a relationship cannot be undone but a new type of relationship may be possible once there is acknowledgment of guilt and forgiveness is given. A new future can be opened up for both parties. (Menonite Conciliation Service). (Schreiter 1992).

Categories of Conflict

There are different categories or phases of conflict which we need to look at and at the same time propose different types of activities we might engage in during these phases.

1. Latent conflict:

Latent conflict exists to some extent in most societies and can be expressed in a number of ways including discrimination, prejudice, tensions (racial, class, religious etc.), political and economic injustice, mistrust, displacement of tension (expressed in family violence, crime etc.), human rights violations, intimidation by police and armed forces. This phase is often characterized by denial of a problem by the authorities and fear on the part of the suppressed.

Activities during this type of conflict can be called pre-emptive strategies and can include advocacy work through Justice and Peace Commissions, human rights monitoring, providing safe havens and other support for victims, use of cultural festivals and various art forms to promote harmony, leadership training in conflict transformation, community peace committees, solidarity groups with peace leaders, counteracting false information, monitoring early warning signals to violence, pre-empting flash points.

2. Low intensity conflict:

Very often (but not always) low intensity conflict is a prelude to open hostilities. This phase is characterised by riots, sporadic fighting, destruction of property, exclusionary activity, anger, admission of a problem, polarization, repression and insurgency. We see the erosion of political legitimacy of the national government and acceptance of violent factional politics.

(Peace researchers, for want of better measurement, describe violent political conflict as a conflict with less that 100 deaths, low intensity conflict as a conflict with between 100 and 1000 deaths, and high intensity conflict as conflict with more than 1000 deaths. This sits a little uneasy with me).

Activities will include all the activities mentioned above and could include attempts at mediation. Perhaps this is a good time to say a little about mediation since the Church is often called upon as a mediator.

Most of us have probably engaged in some form of mediation in the course of our pastoral work, either in marriage counseling, community disputes or various other types of disputes. Libraries have been written on mediation and all I want to do here is make some very general points. Successful mediation is very difficult to achieve and since few disputes are completely similar we can only pose some of the variables that influence mediation outcome.

The characteristics of the parties must be taken into consideration and these include the nature of the leadership, the relative powers of the parties, and the nature of the previous relations between the parties. We must also consider the nature of the dispute. Disputes can be analysed in terms of duration, intensity and issues.

The timing of mediation can determine the success or failure of mediation. Certainly, to be effective, mediation must take place at the right moment, but there is no unanimity as to when that moment is. There are two schools of thought as to the timing of mediation intervention. One would suggest that the best time to intervene is early in the dispute before hostilities escalate to such a point that mediation becomes impossible. A second suggestion is that mediation can only be effective when a dispute has gone through some phases to a point where the parties show a willingness to moderate their standpoints. Generally, the longer a dispute goes on the less amendable it is to mediation. On the other hand research shows that a minimum amount of time is necessary before successful mediation can be attempted.

It is equally difficult to get any consensus on how many mediation attempts can or should be made to resolve a dispute. Certainly, the more attempts made at mediation the less likelihood of a successful outcome. A second or third attempt at mediation seem to have the best chance of success provided the mediator can build on the efforts of previous mediation attempts. There are also contrary views when it comes to linking mediation to the intensity of a conflict. Some suggest that the greater the intensity of a dispute the greater liklihood of successful mediation. This suggests that parties may accept mediation as a way of cutting losses. However, the very opposite view exists which says that the greater the intensity, the higher the losses, and so the more polarized the parties may become. In general, statistics show that mediation is more successful in low intensity conflicts.

We can also mention the characteristics of a good mediator bearing in mind that they are relative to the type of conflict being mediated. The most commonly mentioned include prestige, impartiality, intelligence, energy, patience, sense of humour, power of persuasion.

3. Escalation of hostilities:

This phase signals the onset of open conflict and sees an increase in fatalities and property destruction. There is increased militarization. There are disappearances and detentions. The infrastructure of a country begins to breakdown and services are disrupted. Displacement of sectors of the civilian population begins.

Activities in the field of reconciliation at this point are limited. Attention is directed more and more towards preparedness for and involvement in humanitarian response activities. Humanitarian activities normally include the provision of shelter (camps), food, medicine, clothing. Psycho-social response services may be needed as well as the development of coping mechanisms. Education services can be provided for displaced people and refugees. Liturgies and other religious services can be performed as a means of helping people to cope with their loss of property and loved ones.

Work in refugee camps and camps for internally displaced people is extremely important and also extremely demanding. The Church’s presence may be simply pastoral or we may be involved in humanitarian work. In preparing large numbers of refugees (or even small numbers) to settle in camp there are some things we should keep in mind. People who are displaced normally take with them what they can carry, which is usually very little. People will take valuables, heirlooms, money if available, a blanket, maybe a bucket and some cloths. Depending on the area of displacement shelter may be easily provided. Access to water is the first priority. Food and health services follow close behind. Once people are settled, and depending on the security situation, other services can be provided such as schools, adult education facilities, sports and so on.

Special attention must be given to vulnerable groups particularly women with small children, women who become heads of households and the elderly.

We should be aware that humanitarian relief can become part of a war time economy in many countries. l:)During war many normal economic activities cease and alternative economies emerge. Relief supplies can be manipulated by governments, commandeered by military, exploited by unscrupulous merchants and corrupt relief workers. In my experience, relief food is trouble from the time the boat arrives and you have to deal with customs officials, transport companies, storage facilities, security all along the line, registration of camp dwellers (which is never as simple as it might seem), food distribution and constant monitoring and verification. All along the line you are in a ‘no win’ situation. This might seem a bit pessimistic but the point has to be made. As in all humanitarian interventions, carefully examine your capacity to operate - before you become involved. The Church may be able to provide support services for major relief agencies. My advice here is to work with relief agencies that have a proven track record and, above all, don’t compromise your own credibility.

4. Overt conflict:

There is usually a prolonged period of open hostilities characterised by significant casualties, further displacement of peoples as war spreads around a country, complete disruption of services and increased dependency on relief support. Overt conflict can continue for years.

During war activities are limited and are determined very much by the security situation in the country. Conflicts are not static. They can change in nature very quickly and our programmes need to be flexible enough to adapt to these changes. Some pre-emptive reconciliation work can be done in camps where you have a reasonably stable population. This can include preparation for peace, exploring traditional and culturally appropriate reconciliation mechanisms, peace education and the formation of peace committees.

5. Cessation of hostilities:

This final phase of conflict is preceeded by a period of unravelling with a decline in hostilities as cease-fires are announced. Peace negotiations get under way and the terms of a peace agreement are drawn up. Any new activities at this time will include planning for post war reconstruction. People prepare for resettlement and the work of rehabilitation begins. Under normal circumstances, relief agencies and the host government will determine some sort of resettlement package for returnees. These are designed to help people through the first few months of resettlement and are rarely adequate.

6. Post conflict transition:

The work of post war reconstruction is essential to the building of sustainable peace. There is now the recognition that the signing of a peace treaty is the beginning of peace building. Basically, this is a period when a country tries to get back on its feet after a prolonged period of war. Much work needs to be done at different levels to repair the damage done by war, to implement the terms of a peace agreement and to redress the ills which brought the war about in the first place.

The Church can bring a vast array of resources and advantages to post war reconstruction activities. Primary among these is its presence and its network of institutions and personnel spread throughout the country.

Presence is important and we should point out that if the Church is not present with people and to people during conflict it will be exceedingly difficult for us to be agents of reconciliation in the post conflict period. The presence of the Church during a period of civil strife is vital as a sign of solidarity with and hope for its people. Presence depends on the security situation which is best monitored on the ground. We don’t ask people to risk their lives unnecessarily.

While presence is important, the quality of our presence is even more so. We can cite many examples of Church personnel who have risked their lives and given their lives in commitment to peace, justice and reconciliation. The Church has behaved exemplary in many war situations.

We can look to the Church in Chile, in Guatamala and El Salvador and recognise their work for human rights and in documenting a history of human rights abuses during the war, which allowed victims to tell their story. We can look the work of the St. Egidio community in brokering the peace in Mozambique. However, there are examples of war situations where the Church (or at least elements within the Church) were severely compromised. We can look at the Church in Argentina and its association with the government during the so called ‘dirty war’. A similar example could be the Church in Haiti. A recent Dutch government report on Rwanda indicated that the Church there would find it difficult to be accepted as an agent of reconciliation because of its complicity to genocide. The Church in South Africa found it necessary to apologise to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission because it felt it did not do enough to bring about the end of apartheid. The ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia and the involvement of Catholics could be cited as another example.

There were, of course, individuals and communities within the Church in these countries who continued to exemplify the love and compassion of Christ in the most difficult circumstances. I mention the failures to illustrate the need to constantly evaluate our own position and partiality in any particular conflict. It is important for the Church to maintain credibility with the victims of war. If we don’t have that credibility, which we have to earn in the first place, we cannot expect to gain the trust of the victims. Refugees and IDPs and other victims of conflict are often classified in numbers, which is very sad. They are, however, very perceptive when it comes to appreciating who has their best interests genuinely at heart.

We should not ignore the difficulties that beset indigenous Churches in situations of ethnic conflict. As religious we have a duty to support and assist local Churches and, through our interventions, provide example of good practice in conflict situations.

Problems for Governments.

Governments face a hugh uphill task in post war reconstruction once a peace treaty has been signed. We have already pointed out that the signing of a peace treaty is the first essential step in peace building. Much work remains to be done for sustainable peace to be achieved.

At a macro level the restructuring and strengthening of civil society with political, legal and institutional reforms are primary. We find, in most post war countries, that politicians are primarily concerned with the building up of political parties and preparations for democratic elections which are usually part of the peace treaty package. Even after elections the new government can remain weak while it tries to consolidate its power base and come to grips with the basics of democratic rule. Thus engaged they have little time to devote to, and very often have little expertise to engage in such things as demobilization of warring factions, revitalization of a spent economy, reform of the legal system, rebuilding government institutions, catering to the needs of returnees, redressing previous imbalances in such areas as access to land and access to a fair system of justice, investigating war crimes and, in general, implementing the terms of the peace accord. In these areas new governments need assistance from outside agencies and particularly from major donors such as the World Bank, the IMF, the European Union and friendly governments. The Church should also be involved at this level by actively advocating for necessary reforms, monitoring the democratic process and the implementation of the peace accord, keeping human rights on the agenda, preparing its own personnel to be actively engaged in building peace and by acquiring a greater professionalism with respect to post war rehabilitation work.

Truth Commissions.

Support for Truth Commissions and supplementing the work of Truth Commissions should also be an area where the Church can play a vital role. Truth Commissions have gained prominence in recent years as a way of addressing some of the issues of post war reconciliation. They have come some way towards healing the historical memory of violence and its consequences. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission is undoubtedly the best model available and one from which valuable lessons can be learned.

I recently read an article entitled ‘Some Truth - Little Reconciliation’. It stated that the proposed life of the South African TRC was far too brief to address even a small percentage of the submissions it received. The writer felt that a way forward would be for Churches and other humanitarian organisations to take up the work of the TRC to ensure that all the victims of violence could tell their story. Bearing that in mind it is worth while looking at the strengths of the TRC for future reference.

The Commission is made up of three different committees that deal with human rights violations, reparations and rehabilitation and amnesty. The TRC was set up in 1995 to probe human rights violations that took place in more than thirty years of aparteid.

The Commission does have its limitations and among these is the fact that it is not a justice tribunal. This leaves many South Africans aggrieved because they feel that murderers are getting off free in spite of the fact that the Amnesty Committee has been strict on the legal requirements necessary for granting amnesty. Those who apply for amnesty do not necessarily have to ask for forgiveness but they do have to reveal fully the circumstances surrounding their crimes. This is certainly a step ahead of the blanket amnesty granted in Chile and El Salvador. Amnesty will continue to be a delicate issue in peace negotiations. The fear of jeopardizing peace processes by not granting amnesty is strong, particularly where military regimes are involved. On the other hand, if amnesty is granted crimes go unpunished and the truth will not be published.

The Commission does not deal with the long term memory and can do little to change the structures of apartheid that still remain in place. The Commissions’s mandate refers to crimes committed since 1960 under apartheid but there are other truths and other reconciliations that also need to be addressed. The problem of ‘historical memory’ is not addressed. The success of the TRC in fostering reconciliation and uncovering the truth of South Africa’s history has yet to be assessed. The limitations of the Commission indicate that the work of reconciliation is far from complete in South Africa. Nonetheless, the lessons are there for the Churches and other organisations who will be involved in this work in the future. When we break into our discussion groups we will explore some of the issues surrounding truth, justice and reconciliation in divided societies. What we have said here will at least get us started.

There are many other areas in which the Church should be prepared to play an active role in areas of rehabilitation and where it has the necessary expertise. Examples could include the development of peace education programmes for various government departments and the training of health, social services and education staff to cope with psychosocial problems of trauma victims.

The Church at the Community Level.

It is perhaps at the micro level that the Church can have the greatest impact. It is at the local community level that reconciliation has to be lived out and it is there that the Church’s presence should have the greatest impact. To this end it is imperative to incorporate peace building activities into our pastoral work, into our work in education, health and development. Sensitizing our pastoral workers (including our priests and religious), our teachers, health workers, development and extension workers to the importance of reconciliation and equipping them with the necessary skills to carry out peace building tasks is vitally important.

Much work needs to be done in helping returnees resettle. The rehabilitation of schools, clinics, houses, farms, community structures is important work in helping a war affected community rebuild a sense of identity and in creating a sense of normality within the community. The reconstruction of community structures, to me is important since they provide a physical ‘neutral’ space where people can meet and acknowledge the past and create the future. This is particularly true among cultural groups whose identity is more community focussed and where recovery takes place more in the community context than on an individual basis. This whole process of recovery at a spiritual level is something that the Church should spearhead.

We have to be careful here. There is a great need to promote culturally appropriate and traditional healing mechanisms bearing in mind people’s ability to find healing within their own culturally defined milieu. The solutions must come from within, with help from people and organisations that are aware of the social and cultural realities on the ground. The process of reconciliation has to be one that the people ‘own’ and have control over, rather than a model that has been imposed from outside. What promotes reconciliation in one area may not be suitable for another area. We cannot barge in with preconceived ideas of how reconciliation might or might not work. We can perhaps, at best, try to facilitate reconciliation by helping people to build a new narrative, by culturally sensitive psychosocial rehabilitation programmes, by promoting justice and seeking to address the ills that brought on the violence, by encouraging local peace initiatives, by strengthening local reconciliation mechanisms, by helping people bury their dead, by providing support for traditional reconcilers, in a word, by using all available resources to promote reconciliation.

Support for war victims is also important. The most obvious victims are war wounded. Female heads of household and women who have had to assume new roles for which they may not traditionally have been prepared for, also need special attention. Widows and orphans, demobilized soldiers and demobilized child soldiers. Trauma victims, victims of land mines and the dispossessed. In a post war situation, where much work has to be done, the marginalized are often forgotten.

Principles of Good Practice.

An examination of the root causes of the conflict is essential and this involves a study of the social, political, economic, cultural and historical background to the conflict. Any underlying causes of tension that exist in conflict situations need to be explored. These may include economic competition, land pressure, ignorance, prejudice, cultural and ideological differences.

Good conflict analysis depends on the quality of our information gathering. The importance of good and accurate information cannot be over emphasised since it is on the information gathered that we make our analysis of the conflict which, in turn, determines the nature of our intervention. It is essential to know the type of information that is required within the context of the conflict. Conflict is a dynamic process and so our information gathering needs to be ongoing. We need to keep a broad base for gathering information. Limiting ourselves to one source of information may have disastrous effects for the programme. It is important to use culturally sensitive methods for gathering information. We should not assume that we know all the relevant information about a conflict simply because we are local to the area or are very familiar with it. Every conflict will have many different perspectives.

Interventions

It is important that we examine closely our own capacity to intervene in a conflict situation. We should look carefully at the resources, both human and physical, that we can put at the disposal of the programme. We should not take on a programme in reconciliation as an added extra and assign staff to it who are already fully involved in other works. We must be fully committed to the work of reconciliation, select suitable staff and, if necessary, ensure that they are adequately trained before they begin work.

Needless to say, no two conflict are exactly the same and so it is difficult to speculate on types of intervention. Our intervention will depend very much on the nature and circumstances of the conflict on the ground and on our own capacity to intervene.

In helping to identify possible interventions, particularly at the micro level, we could consider some of the following options. This is not an exhaustive list nor is it prioritized. They are some examples of ‘reconciliation’ activities that have been successfully implemented in various conflict situations.

Beatitudes of Reconciliation

Sisters of St. Joseph, Concordia, Kansas.

Bibliography:

Ball, Nicole, "The Challenge of Rebuilding War-Torn Societies", In Chester A. Crocker et al (Eds) Managing Global Chaos: Sources and Responses to International Conflict. United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997.

Curle, Adam, "Peaceamaking - Public and Private" In Woodhouse T. (Ed)

Peacemaking in a Troubled World, Berg, N.Y. and Oxford, 1991.

Forest, Jim, "A Dialogue on Reconciliation in Belgrade", In Baum,G. and Wells, H, (Eds), The Reconciliatin of Peoples; Challenge to the Churches. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, N.Y. 1997.

Hamber, Brandon, Dealing with the Past and the Psychology of Reconciliation. Public Address presented at the 4 International Symposium on The Cortributions of Psychology to Peace, Cape Town, 27 June 1995.

Ignatieff, Michael, The Warriors Eonor. Ethnic War and Modern Conscience.

Chatto & Widnus, London ,1997.

Lascaris, Andre, O.P. "The Intervetion of the New Testament", In Wicker, B And Lersal, F. (EDS), Humanitarian Intervention and the Pursuit of Justice, A Pax Christi Contribution to a Contemporary Debate, Kok Pharos Publishing House, Holland, 1995.

Lederach, John Paul, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, The United Nations Universitv, 1995.

Menonite Conciliation Service, Mediation and Facilitation Manual, Foundations And Skills for Constructive Conflict Transformation, Akron PA.

Miall, Hugh (with Ramsbottom, O and Woodhouse T.), Contemporarv Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and Transformation of Deadlv Conflicts. as prepared for publication 1998.

Montville, Joseph, "The Healing Function in Political Conflict Resolution" In Sandole and van der Merwe (Eds), Conflict Resolution: Theorv and Practice, Manchester University Press, 1993.

Schreiter, Robert J. Reconciliation: Mission and Ministrv in a Changing

Social Order, Orbis Books, Marvknoll, N.Y. 1995

Summerfield, Derek, The Impact of War and Atrocitv on Civilian Populations:

Basic Principles for NGO Interventions and a Critique of Psvchosocial Trauma Proiects, Relief and Rehabilitation Network, Paper 14, Overseas Developmet Institute, London 1996.

Commission for Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation
of the Unions of Superiors General,
Father Frans Thoolen, SMA
Via Aurelia 476,
00100 Roma
662.29.29