Difference between revisions of "Peace NGO Sector"
From NGO Handbook
(New page: ==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...) |
(→Issues) |
||
| (13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
==Introduction== | ==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. | + | 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 | + | 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. <membersonly> |
==History== | ==History== | ||
| Line 10: | Line 9: | ||
Civil society organizations have a long history of working for peace and resolving disputes, with organizations like the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) tracing their history back to 1929 (Gidron, 9). Some of the oldest organizations of the NGO movement - the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (founded 1864), the American Friends Service Committee and the Save the Children Fund (both founded 1917) – are still in operation today. | Civil society organizations have a long history of working for peace and resolving disputes, with organizations like the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) tracing their history back to 1929 (Gidron, 9). Some of the oldest organizations of the NGO movement - the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (founded 1864), the American Friends Service Committee and the Save the Children Fund (both founded 1917) – are still in operation today. | ||
| − | Early NGOs often focused on reconstruction and service-oriented work, with explicit policies aimed at keeping a position of ‘neutrality’ and non-intervention in politics (Fitzduff, 4). Their work was “dedicated to addressing the consequences of war on its victims”(Fitzduff, 4), but did not engage with political or structural issues. | + | Early NGOs often focused on reconstruction and service-oriented work, with explicit policies aimed at keeping a position of ‘neutrality’ and non-intervention in politics (Fitzduff, 4). Their work was “dedicated to addressing the consequences of war on its victims” (Fitzduff, 4), but did not engage with political or structural issues. |
After World War II, a new generation of NGOs such as the YMCA, CARE, and the Salvation Army “encompassed the globe in dealing with aid, war relief, and postwar reconstruction. The majority of these organizations were also service-oriented and avoided involvement in the politics of the regions in which they worked, as they perceived their work as distinct from the politics of the conflict”(Fitzduff, 4). | After World War II, a new generation of NGOs such as the YMCA, CARE, and the Salvation Army “encompassed the globe in dealing with aid, war relief, and postwar reconstruction. The majority of these organizations were also service-oriented and avoided involvement in the politics of the regions in which they worked, as they perceived their work as distinct from the politics of the conflict”(Fitzduff, 4). | ||
| Line 16: | Line 15: | ||
Starting in the 1960s and 70s, these organizations began to involve themselves more explicitly in policy and political questions, with influential organizations in conflict areas like Northern Ireland and Palestine coming into existence around the 1970s. (Fitzduff, 4) This period saw the emergence of major international NGOs like Amnesty International which “became active and vocal critics of states and multilateral organizations and their positions on war and conflict”(Fitzduff, 5). The organization Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), founded in 1971, “chose to step away from the classical Red Cross approach of a ‘silent neutrality’ and sought to put the interest of victims ahead of sovereignty considerations.” Through their process of “temoignage,” or testimony, MSF workers link their humanitarian work with speaking out against human rights violations, drawing attention to the political roots of humanitarian crises, and highlighting local and international responsibility. The shift of NGOs to more explicitly political campaigning can be attributed partly to the growth of pro-democracy movements which overthrew authoritarian governments in several countries around the globe during that period. | Starting in the 1960s and 70s, these organizations began to involve themselves more explicitly in policy and political questions, with influential organizations in conflict areas like Northern Ireland and Palestine coming into existence around the 1970s. (Fitzduff, 4) This period saw the emergence of major international NGOs like Amnesty International which “became active and vocal critics of states and multilateral organizations and their positions on war and conflict”(Fitzduff, 5). The organization Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), founded in 1971, “chose to step away from the classical Red Cross approach of a ‘silent neutrality’ and sought to put the interest of victims ahead of sovereignty considerations.” Through their process of “temoignage,” or testimony, MSF workers link their humanitarian work with speaking out against human rights violations, drawing attention to the political roots of humanitarian crises, and highlighting local and international responsibility. The shift of NGOs to more explicitly political campaigning can be attributed partly to the growth of pro-democracy movements which overthrew authoritarian governments in several countries around the globe during that period. | ||
| − | The post-Cold War period saw a shift from inter-state conflicts to intra-state conflicts. Between the end of the Cold War and 2004, there were 118 major armed conflicts in 80 different locations, the majority of which were civil wars. The NGO movement proliferated during this period, becoming increasingly involved in active peace building work in many conflict situations around the world (Fitzduff, 8). | + | The post-Cold War period saw a shift from inter-state conflicts to intra-state conflicts. Between the end of the Cold War and 2004, there were 118 major armed conflicts in 80 different locations, the majority of which were civil wars. The NGO movement proliferated during this period, becoming increasingly involved in active peace building work in many conflict situations around the world (Fitzduff, 8). |
| − | + | ||
| − | ==Methods and | + | ==Methods and Types of Peace and Conflict NGOs== |
| − | NGOs use a wide variety of approaches to deal with their work. Methods range from civilian monitoring and peacekeeping, early warning systems, participation in peace negotiations, addressing structural causes and consequences of armed conflict, educating for peace, and many other strategies (Gidron, 9). | + | Peace and Conflict NGOs use a wide variety of approaches to deal with their work. Methods range from civilian monitoring and peacekeeping, early warning systems, participation in peace negotiations, addressing structural causes and consequences of armed conflict, educating for peace, and many other strategies (Gidron, 9). |
| − | ==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). | ||
| − | Often, NGOs working in these areas engage in a variety of activities not explicitly connected to peace-making but are aimed at developing rapport with communities and extending their influence and trustworthiness, as well as providing important services. An example of this can be found in the Northern Ireland NGO Community Development Centre (CDC), a Belfast NGO which engaged in such activities during a period of intense tension and violence between Catholics and Protestants. As described by author Chris O’Donnell, the CDC had been involved in community projects such as literacy, unemployment, and alcohol abuse, as well as “facilitating joint projects with groups from both traditions in order to improve understanding, tolerance and respect”(O’Donnell, 80) through programs dealing with such issues as religion-segregated housing and lack of opportunities for young people. This base in the community was important as violence erupted around Northern Ireland and families were forced to leave their homes. The CDC then acted to find displaced families temporary shelter, as well as acting as the advocate on their behalf in dealing with government agencies. In the aftermath, the CDC published a report on the violence, taking into account the perspectives of both groups, while continuing to apply pressure on the government to deal with the needs of displaced families, using media attention to keep the government working on issues. O’Donnell concludes that “during an instance of sudden civil crisis, when there is an absence of effective governmental measures for dealing with victims, a local community organization with a reputation for trustworthiness, neutrality, and community advocacy can influence policy”(O’Donnell, 89). | + | Often, NGOs working in these areas engage in a variety of activities not explicitly connected to peace-making but are aimed at developing rapport with communities and extending their influence and trustworthiness, as well as providing important services. An example of this can be found in the Northern Ireland NGO Community Development Centre (CDC), a Belfast NGO which engaged in such activities during a period of intense tension and violence between Catholics and Protestants. As described by author Chris O’Donnell, the CDC had been involved in community projects such as literacy, unemployment, and alcohol abuse, as well as “facilitating joint projects with groups from both traditions in order to improve understanding, tolerance and respect” (O’Donnell, 80) through programs dealing with such issues as religion-segregated housing and lack of opportunities for young people. This base in the community was important as violence erupted around Northern Ireland and families were forced to leave their homes. The CDC then acted to find displaced families temporary shelter, as well as acting as the advocate on their behalf in dealing with government agencies. In the aftermath, the CDC published a report on the violence, taking into account the perspectives of both groups, while continuing to apply pressure on the government to deal with the needs of displaced families, using media attention to keep the government working on issues. O’Donnell concludes that “during an instance of sudden civil crisis, when there is an absence of effective governmental measures for dealing with victims, a local community organization with a reputation for trustworthiness, neutrality, and community advocacy can influence policy” (O’Donnell, 89). |
| − | The methods employed by NGOs to bring parties together are often creative and try innovative strategies, such as the Families Forum, an organization of Israelis and Palestinians who have lost children or other family members due to the conflict. One of their projects, named “Hello Peace”, provides Israelis or Palestinians with “a special number…[once dialed,] a computer will automatically connect them to someone on ‘the other side’ who has expressed a similar willingness to | + | The methods employed by NGOs to bring parties together are often creative and try innovative strategies, such as the Families Forum, an organization of Israelis and Palestinians who have lost children or other family members due to the conflict. One of their projects, named “Hello Peace”, provides Israelis or Palestinians with “a special number…[once dialed,] a computer will automatically connect them to someone on ‘the other side’ who has expressed a similar willingness to talk" (Barnea and Shiner, 498). According to the article, the conversations often start off as arguments but quickly will turn to more personal questions, “allows both sides to view the ‘other’ as human beings rather than nameless members of an impersonal mass” (Barnea and Shiner, 499). |
| − | 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.” | + | 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=== | ||
| − | + | Peace NGOs also encompass the wide variety of anti-war organizations. More recent examples include organizations opposed to the U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. NGOs like the American Friend Service Committee (AFSC), founded in 1917, use educational activities, awareness-raising, and mobilizing members in letter-writing campaigns to politicians to oppose war and explore alternatives. Other organizations, like the US-based War Resister’s League (WRL), employ more direct methods, organizing a counter-recruitment program that educates high schoolers about alternatives to joining the army. | |
| − | + | ===Research and Policy-Oriented NGOs=== | |
| − | + | Other NGOs will use research and policy recommendations to promote peaceful outcomes. Organizations like the UK-based Saferworld use research on issues such as the arms trade as well as the training of governments and civil society to provide alternatives to armed violence. The Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management in Berlin is another example of an NGO that combines original research on conflict origins and prevention strategies with policy recommendations and active support of workers in the field. Another notable example is The Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, a South Africa-based NGO. According to its mission, the “rebuilding of relationships…whether these are racial, ethnic, religious or gender-based…continue to play a critical role in the evolution of conflict and potential for violent perpetration and victimization in South Africa.” This should be accompanied by institutional transformation and a “’positive peace’…premised on more than just the absence of violence,” with social, political, and economic justice being key to a true peace. | |
| − | |||
| − | Other NGOs will use research and policy recommendations to promote peaceful outcomes. Organizations like the UK-based Saferworld use research on issues such as the arms trade as well as the training of governments and civil society to provide alternatives to armed violence. The Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management in Berlin is another example of an NGO that combines original research on conflict origins and prevention strategies with policy recommendations and active support of workers in the field. Another notable example is The Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, a South Africa-based NGO. According to its mission, the “rebuilding of relationships…whether these are racial, ethnic, religious or gender-based…continue to play a critical role in the evolution of conflict and potential for violent perpetration and victimization in South Africa.” This should be accompanied by institutional transformation and a “’positive peace’…premised on more than just the absence of violence,” with social, political, and economic justice being key to a true peace. | ||
==Peace and Conflict Resolution NGOs and the United Nations== | ==Peace and Conflict Resolution NGOs and the United Nations== | ||
| − | With NGOs now holding consultative status at the United Nations, “many of these agencies are now officially participating in United Nations conferences as well as organizing their own shadow conferences…increas[ing] the lobbying and policy leverage of these organizations considerably”(Fitzduff, 6). | + | With NGOs now holding consultative status at the United Nations, “many of these agencies are now officially participating in United Nations conferences as well as organizing their own shadow conferences…increas[ing] the lobbying and policy leverage of these organizations considerably” (Fitzduff, 6). |
The Panel of Eminent Persons on Civil Society and UN Relationships, a panel commissioned by Kofi Annan produced a report (commonly referred to as the Cardoso report) in 2004 which explored the current and future status of NGOs at the UN. Its findings were controversial in the NGO community, raising concerns that “the UN’s increasingly active interaction with business companies may crowd out its relationship with NGOs,” among other questions of access for NGOs at UN functions. | The Panel of Eminent Persons on Civil Society and UN Relationships, a panel commissioned by Kofi Annan produced a report (commonly referred to as the Cardoso report) in 2004 which explored the current and future status of NGOs at the UN. Its findings were controversial in the NGO community, raising concerns that “the UN’s increasingly active interaction with business companies may crowd out its relationship with NGOs,” among other questions of access for NGOs at UN functions. | ||
| − | As the Cardoso report pointed out, the level of NGO | + | As the Cardoso report pointed out, the level of NGO UN interaction has increased greatly over the last several years. In his article “Lessons from Campaigns of the 1990s,” the scholar Don Hubert argues that the 1990s saw significant NGO and UN coalition building and coordination in four major campaigns – to ban landmine use, the use of child soldiers, the movement to create the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the reduction of small arms use. The success of these campaigns was based on the building of coalitions between NGO networks and governments amenable to the causes, as well as being “further legitimized by the active support of various bodies of the United Nations (UN)” (Hubert, 561). Further, he says that the child soldier and small arms campaigns were less successful because of a less-inclusive environment - “the objectives have been defined by states, negotiations have taken place in closed-door sessions, and direct NGO involvement has been minimal”(Hubert, 562). |
John Clark argues in the same volume that the “breakthrough came as a result of an ad hoc global policy network of NGOs and governments…that took the issue outside UN forums, and only brought it back to the UN once sufficient support for the treaty had been achieved. For the UN to be fully relevant in the future, it must become able to service such iterative and informal processes directly” (Clark, 62). | John Clark argues in the same volume that the “breakthrough came as a result of an ad hoc global policy network of NGOs and governments…that took the issue outside UN forums, and only brought it back to the UN once sufficient support for the treaty had been achieved. For the UN to be fully relevant in the future, it must become able to service such iterative and informal processes directly” (Clark, 62). | ||
| − | There has also been an increased awareness of the importance of coordinating with NGOs in UN peacekeeping operations. In one report on the UN peacekeeping operation in Somali (UNOSOM) during 1992-1995, it was concluded that “from the experience of UNOSOM…the activities of NGOs go a long way to help or hinder a peacekeeping operation,” citing coordinated efforts between humanitarian efforts of the UN and NGOs meeting weekly to discuss efforts. It was not an entirely harmonious relationship, as “the agencies wanted to retain a certain amount of independence, on the grounds that political objectives might sometimes conflict with humanitarian ones…they had priorities … on how to spend their money, and they preferred not to be used -- or to be perceived as being used -- for political purposes.” NGO | + | There has also been an increased awareness of the importance of coordinating with NGOs in UN peacekeeping operations. In one report on the UN peacekeeping operation in Somali (UNOSOM) during 1992-1995, it was concluded that “from the experience of UNOSOM…the activities of NGOs go a long way to help or hinder a peacekeeping operation,” citing coordinated efforts between humanitarian efforts of the UN and NGOs meeting weekly to discuss efforts. It was not an entirely harmonious relationship, as “the agencies wanted to retain a certain amount of independence, on the grounds that political objectives might sometimes conflict with humanitarian ones…they had priorities … on how to spend their money, and they preferred not to be used -- or to be perceived as being used -- for political purposes.” NGO UN peacekeeping operation coordination was also seen as important during the transition of East Timor into an independent country, where “local NGOs in East Timor have been pivotal when U.N. troops need to communicate with the people in the war-ravaged communities.” |
| − | + | ||
==Issues== | ==Issues== | ||
| − | “Questions are increasingly asked about who elects the CSOs | + | “Questions are increasingly asked about who elects the CSOs [Civil Society Organizations]. To whom are they accountable? How can they prove they speak with authenticity for particular constituencies or on specific issues? What is their level of integrity?” (Clark, 68). |
| − | As the role of NGOs in conflict resolution and peace building increases, there has been increasing scrutiny and debate over the role that these organizations play in conflict situations. Some commentators see NGO and other grassroots efforts as being most effective at stimulating changes at the community level, while “primary responsibility for conflict prevention rests with national governments”(Barnes, 13). | + | As the role of NGOs in conflict resolution and peace building increases, there has been increasing scrutiny and debate over the role that these organizations play in conflict situations. Some commentators see NGO and other grassroots efforts as being most effective at stimulating changes at the community level, while “primary responsibility for conflict prevention rests with national governments” (Barnes, 13). |
| − | Governments have sometimes taken critical stances against NGOs | + | Governments have sometimes taken critical stances against NGOs. For example, Russia’s 2006 law requires foreign NGOs operating in Russia to “produce endless notarized documents, including passport numbers and home addresses and telephone numbers back in home countries” seen in response partly to the role of international NGOs in highlighting abuses in the breakaway region of Chechnya. |
| − | There are also questions of how international or Western NGOs interact with each other and with local organizations. There is a concern that international NGOs “shift debates on structural issues away from national parliaments (which can help to strengthen the accountability of governments) to international forums organized around multilateral agencies and inter-governmental meetings… | + | There are also questions of how international or Western NGOs interact with each other and with local organizations. There is a concern that international NGOs “shift debates on structural issues away from national parliaments (which can help to strengthen the accountability of governments) to international forums organized around multilateral agencies and inter-governmental meetings…[which] tend to be inaccessible to less wealthy [NGOs], especially those in the global South and for those with less experience or language skills for effective participation” (Barnes, 23). |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | One sensitive task for civil organizations is the need to take into account differing worldviews and even of the “culture of conflict” that conflicting parties have, which may differ from the intervening organization's ideas of conflict and its resolution (Fisher, 18). For “many cases of intervention, the third-party comes from a different (and often dominant) culture from that of the parties, who are often themselves from different cultures…” (Fisher, 18). Like the case of the UN Shir initiative in Somalia cited earlier, even seemingly well-meaning attempts can fall short due to misapplication of local methods or politicization of traditional forms of mediation. | ||
| + | |||
==Conclusion== | ==Conclusion== | ||
| − | Many commentators see “the growth and confidence of NGOs working in coexistence | + | Many commentators see that “the growth and confidence of NGOs working in coexistence in conflict resolution work [has] dramatically increased over the past three decades and that their influence on governments and IGOs [Inter-Governmental Organizations] is increasing” (Fitzduff, 1). NGOs “have been able to gain access, build relationships, and offer mediation services in situations where more formal diplomacy has not been immediately welcomed… War-torn countries also may be more receptive to organizations that have already provided humanitarian or development assistance to them.” Like the larger NGO movement, organizations working on peace and conflict resolution issues will continue to grow in size and number, and continue to arise in conflict areas. |
| + | |||
| + | Some scholars argue for increased linkage between local and international NGOs, that “the cries of local NGOs need to be amplified by NGOs with international constituencies, that collaboration by NGOs across national borders is helpful, and that mass-based organizations can yell louder and with greater effect than more narrowly focused groups, however worthy” (Gidron, 264). These linkages can then serve to defuse potential conflicts before they arise, as well as bring attention to situations where political, religious, ethnic, or economic causes create the conditions for armed conflict. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==External Links== | ==External Links== | ||
Latest revision as of 11:14, 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.
