Difference between revisions of "Peace NGO Sector"
From NGO Handbook
(→Methods and Approaches) |
(→Conflict Prevention and Resolution NGOs) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
==Conflict Prevention and Resolution NGOs== | ==Conflict Prevention and Resolution NGOs== | ||
| − | Organizations involved in this work will use a variety of methods to ameliorate or end existing conflicts | + | Organizations involved in this work will use a variety of methods to ameliorate or end existing conflicts and to peace build or lay the groundwork to prevent future conflict. Many grassroots, locally-based NGOs use their local connections to devise strategies unique to the situation. Organizations working on conflict resolution and peace building can be found in almost every conflict situation around the world, including Sri Lanka, the Former Yugoslavia, Aceh in Indonesia, Israel and Palestine, and many other conflicts. |
Some organizations will use traditional and local conflict resolution methods to deal with conflicts, which may provide a more familiar and effective negotiating space than other models imposed from the outside. For example, in pursuing negotiations between politicians from Somalia, the UN used the traditional model of the Shir – “a bottom-up, inclusive process, supported and sponsored by the community…Elders who are experienced mediators and trusted by the community are chosen [to act as mediators]”(Malan, 451). In this instance, the negotiations failed, possibly due to the choosing of politicians over community elders, as well as absence of community input (the meetings took place outside of Somalia itself) (Malan, 452). | Some organizations will use traditional and local conflict resolution methods to deal with conflicts, which may provide a more familiar and effective negotiating space than other models imposed from the outside. For example, in pursuing negotiations between politicians from Somalia, the UN used the traditional model of the Shir – “a bottom-up, inclusive process, supported and sponsored by the community…Elders who are experienced mediators and trusted by the community are chosen [to act as mediators]”(Malan, 451). In this instance, the negotiations failed, possibly due to the choosing of politicians over community elders, as well as absence of community input (the meetings took place outside of Somalia itself) (Malan, 452). | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
The negotiation of peace deals and reconciliation in the Aceh region of Indonesia was also facilitated by the work of peace and conflict resolution NGOs. Starting in 2000, the Henry Dunant Centre (HDC) brought members of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and the Indonesian government into peace negotiations. For the first time, the GAM was recognized as a legitimate negotiator and brought into internationally-brokered negotiations (Kay, 2). Strained relations between the two parties meant that the role of the negotiations was not to end the conflict entirely, but to “facilitate negotiations for a peaceful solution by promoting trust and confidence between the two groups.” Part of the agreement reached placed independent human rights observers on the ground, who would act as a reference point for complaints, as well as monitor security and investigate violations. The monitors were representatives of HDC itself, rather than from the UN or another body – “in an unusual and potentially significant way of resolving conflict, HDC [had] agreed to be directly responsible for the implementation of the agreement they assisted in creating” (Kay, 3). Talks monitored by the group Crisis Management Initiative took place in Helsinki, eventually leading to a peace agreement signed by the two parties in August of 2005, with an independent EU organization monitoring the implementation of the agreement on the ground. | The negotiation of peace deals and reconciliation in the Aceh region of Indonesia was also facilitated by the work of peace and conflict resolution NGOs. Starting in 2000, the Henry Dunant Centre (HDC) brought members of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and the Indonesian government into peace negotiations. For the first time, the GAM was recognized as a legitimate negotiator and brought into internationally-brokered negotiations (Kay, 2). Strained relations between the two parties meant that the role of the negotiations was not to end the conflict entirely, but to “facilitate negotiations for a peaceful solution by promoting trust and confidence between the two groups.” Part of the agreement reached placed independent human rights observers on the ground, who would act as a reference point for complaints, as well as monitor security and investigate violations. The monitors were representatives of HDC itself, rather than from the UN or another body – “in an unusual and potentially significant way of resolving conflict, HDC [had] agreed to be directly responsible for the implementation of the agreement they assisted in creating” (Kay, 3). Talks monitored by the group Crisis Management Initiative took place in Helsinki, eventually leading to a peace agreement signed by the two parties in August of 2005, with an independent EU organization monitoring the implementation of the agreement on the ground. | ||
| − | In Sri Lanka, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has carried out actions relating to peace building, such as keeping displaced persons under observation to prevent further violence done to them, acting as an intermediary between the government and the rebel Tamil Tiger army (LTTE), and conveying confidential messages between the two parties. In Neelan Tiruchelvam’s study of the ICRC and other NGOs working in Sri Lanka, he pointed out that “the international community has been permitted to intervene on the issues relating to humanitarian relief, displacement, human rights, and reconstruction…[but] has not, however, been encouraged to help facilitate political contacts between the LTTE and the government or address issues relating to a durable political solution”(Tiruchelvam, 162). This can be contrasted to the large role of international mediators and institutions in brokering a peace deal in Aceh, Indonesia. | + | In Sri Lanka, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has carried out actions relating to peace building, such as keeping displaced persons under observation to prevent further violence done to them, acting as an intermediary between the government and the rebel Tamil Tiger army (LTTE), and conveying confidential messages between the two parties. In Neelan Tiruchelvam’s study of the ICRC and other NGOs working in Sri Lanka, he pointed out that “the international community has been permitted to intervene on the issues relating to humanitarian relief, displacement, human rights, and reconstruction…[but] has not, however, been encouraged to help facilitate political contacts between the LTTE and the government or address issues relating to a durable political solution”(Tiruchelvam, 162). This can be contrasted to the large role of international mediators and institutions in brokering a peace deal in Aceh, Indonesia. |
| − | |||
==Anti-War NGOs== | ==Anti-War NGOs== | ||
Revision as of 10:48, 5 August 2008
Contents
Introduction
Peace and conflict resolution NGOs are non-governmental organizations which work in areas “relating to the reduction and elimination of destructive conflict,” or in another definition “promote peace, reconciliation, and coexistence” (Gidron, 3). Organizations under this broad category use a variety of approaches and methodologies to work on international, intra-state, or local conflicts.
Like the larger NGO world, organizations working on peace and conflict resolution issues are a heterogeneous group, varying widely in size, approach, and commitments. Peace and conflict resolution NGOs often draw upon common activist strategies–-ranging from petitions, letter writing, direct action and civil disobedience to diplomatic talks, treaties, and policy recommendations, as well as education, media coverage, and raising awareness in the general public--to further their work. Many organizations use a combination of these methods.
To read the rest of the article, please log in using your WANGO membership username and password (using the log in at the top, right-hand corner of the page). Not a WANGO member, but would like full access to the articles in the NGO Handbook? Join WANGO (http://www.wango.org/join.aspx) as an organization or individual member or purchase a year subscription for $30.
