Good afternoon.
Thank you for coming and for caring about how we can save more lives and reduce conflict in the world. It’s not a small undertaking and we will need to have many such gatherings before we being to reap the hoped-for rewards.
In 1983 when I began this kind of work, the notion that unarmed civilians might have a deterrent effect in another country in conflict was hardly on anyone’s agenda. The wars in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala were heating up.
In that year a group of US citizens concerned about their government’s policies in the region founded Witness for Peace. It was one of the first to experiment, though somewhat accidentally, with third party nonviolent intervention.
It grew out of an experience in Nicaragua when a delegation of North Americans visited a village on the border of Honduras. People were still burying their dead after an attack by the US-backed Contras who were carrying out cross border raids. In the conversation one of the delegates asked the villagers if they thought there would be another attack. The villagers responded --- “They won’t attack while you’re here”.
That an unarmed presence alone could deter violence struck the imagination of the group. War is not always a logical process. Nevertheless, it did make sense that an armed group that depended on US funding would not want to risk bad publicity by harming US citizens or committing atrocities in front of international witnesses.
Witness for Peace undertook to test this hypothesis. Over the next 10 years we recruited three thousand North Americans to go to the war zones of Nicaragua, both for short terms of 2 weeks and for 1-2 years for the field team. During that time we didn’t ask how many people it would take to make an impact, we simply recruited as many volunteers as we could.
Though Witness for Peace makes no claims about the numbers of lives saved, we have ample evidence that our presence was protective and frequently altered the dynamics in the local communities to diffuse the tensions or to strengthen local peace efforts. In the ensuing years, Witness for Peace has shifted its focus to changing US policies in Latin America.
Meanwhile, other organizations have taken up the specialty of civilian protection and now, after having worked for Nonviolent Peaceforce in Guatemala, I can say that the theory and practice in the field have advanced considerably.
What I believe has carried unarmed civilian peacekeeping to the next level, and were the reasons I joined this effort, are four approaches that are promoted by Nonviolent Peaceforce:
1) the idea of larger numbers on the ground. It may seem obvious because when troops are called for the numbers are in the thousands, but it hadn’t been tried with unarmed trained civilians. Witness for Peace rallied the largest numbers I’d seen to date, but the vast majority only stayed for two weeks and they were only trained for 2 days. And they were amateurs for the most part. Which is why the second element was important
2) to field a professionally trained and well paid force. Large numbers of well trained and supported professionals held the promise of an effective presence for long enough to influence the dynamics on the ground --such that violence would be reduced and the idea that violence alone could resolve the conflicts would be reduced. Granted this is not a low budget proposition, though compared to the current methods of armed peacekeeping, it’s a bargain.
Nonviolent Peaceforce requires several weeks of training with a more thorough analysis and practice of unarmed peacekeeping, higher compensation for field personnel, more technologically sophisticated communications and logistical support, all necessary in order to develop civilian peacekeeping professionals who will stay in the field long enough to learn how to skillfully manage the complex scenarios and crises they may face in volatile regions.
3) The third factor that was brought into the mix was the idea of developing a rapid response capability.
This was tested on a small scale in Guatemala last year. A human rights leader and her staff had their office broken in to and valuable information stolen. This coincided with a series of attacks on the offices of other human rights workers plus the election campaign period, which always involves a spike in violence. She requested accompaniment for the period before, during and after the elections, a total of 10 months.
Responding quickly, in most cases, can make a crucial difference to people facing violence. Nonviolent Peaceforce was able to place a 4-person team in Guatemala within 6 weeks of her request. We know we can do it. With our next rapid deployment we hope to send a larger team in an even shorter time.
Before continuing to the 4th point, I’d like to share a little more with you about our Guatemala project:
Our work there was to accompany these women as they went about their work, particularly traveling in the countryside, which can be dangerous. Some of them had been on the verge of quitting from the tension and fear, but with our presence they continued to go out and take testimonies of human rights abuses.
In this same time period, our team also accompanied a group of internally displaced persons who were attempting to negotiate the terms of their return. We accompanied them and their advisors while they were in the capitol visiting government offices, and then accompanied them on the bus trek back to their village. We visited their village several more times to assure that they were safe and we reported concerns to the Human Rights Ombudsman’s office.
After 10 months Nonviolent Peaceforce had fulfilled its original commitment, the country seemed somewhat stabilized with the peaceful transition to a new government that was emphasizing development over harsh security measures. We felt we could leave in good conscience and indeed since that time, the people we were with have not received threats or harassment.
In that time our team developed a network of relationships, several of whom asked us to remain. Some had specific and crucial needs such as accompanying witnesses who were testifying about the genocide.
One group called Actors for Change is working with women who were raped and enslaved during the war. The organization was justifiably anxious about their security.
The phenomenon of femicide where women are being killed and mutilated has left Guatemala’s women feeling very vulnerable.
Armed protection for women human rights defenders is rarely an option, but even if it were, they would not feel safe. Armed security personnel come out of a history of armed conflict, which is to say they carry the mentality of dominance and/or are people trained to kill rather than protect. Also, many believe these guards are more likely to attract other armed attackers rather than deter them.
I came to understand how trained unarmed civilian accompaniment would be much preferred by these women and could probably be more effective.
4) The fourth idea that impressed me about what Nonviolent Peaceforce was trying to do was to bring the knowledge and experience that’s been accumulated and is still being tested, to the attention of international bodies and transnational institutions, which is why we are in NYC during these days.
So these objectives, to field larger teams, professionally trained and paid, able to respond on short notice where necessary, and supported by international civil and governmental institutions, have carried the practice into a whole new realm.
With these, I believe unarmed civilian peacekeeping has the greatest possibility of anything on the horizon for reducing conflict and saving lives.
My hope is that together we may find a way to make it a widespread practice. Thank you.