GSoA International Meeting on Civil Peace Service |
 |
Civil ‘Countervision’
Civil Peace Service (CPS) is not an invention of GSoA; peace activists in many countries are concerned with finding non-violent means to resolve conflict. Six of them met in Berne on March 22, 1997, for an exchange of ideas with GSoA.
By Renate Schoch
Political concepts of peace work as well as questions surrounding the organization of a CPS were discussed at the international GSoA meeting. The widespread phenomenon of everyday violence is not acknowledged by political leaders because it cannot be fitted into the ongoing military schemes, criticized Roland Brunner (GSoA) in his introduction. Peace work is carried out against a background of ever-present violence, confirmed Vesna Terselic (Anti-war Campaign Zagreb). The myth of the controllability of the violence potential is embroidered further at the national and international level. This controllability myth is a rulers’ myth, according to Ueli Wildberger (Peace Brigades International), and one that compels us to create a ‘countervision’ seeking to resolve conflict by non-violent means. The CPS supports the peace process at the base, thereby challenging the official logic of diplomacy. The goal of every civil intervention must be to empower the powerless, to enable them to negotiate their own self-determination.
Small Steps
Marco Tackenberg and Paolo Gilardi (both GSoA) question the fact that discussions regarding the CPS fail to touch on the structural causes of violence. How can a Swiss CPS intervene in Zaire when Switzerland has for decades supported the criminal plundering of that country by its dictator.
That would be the traditional leftist position and largely open to question, objected Vesna Terselic. The grand ideas for a just world must not be allowed to stand in the way of realizing some small steps. By offering them small steps, people can be moved to action, and only action brings about change. Hans Hartmann (GSoA) added that structures can be changed when people are empowered and bolstered to intervene in their own affairs. The opportunities for the CPS lie in the range of possibilities for widening the scope of political action by local groups. The radical separation of politics into ‘ideology’ and ‘structure’ is untenable.
Quality before Quantity
In the discussion of how to organize the CPS in concrete terms, the experiences of Ueli Wildberger and Pete Hämmerle (International Fellowship for Reconciliation, Vienna) were extremely helpful. In the individual mandates the vital factor is where the decision-making power lies. Who decides what requests for CPS intervention are to be accepted? CPS intervention requested by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) must definitely be given real consideration, since governments tend to make agreements at the diplomatic level, bypassing the people involved. In addition, there is no need to set up a huge organization; a few well-trained CPS volunteers can set in motion a great deal more. An aspect of this training, for example, is to make it clear with every intervention that the people in conflict must formulate their own requirements and that the CPS shall not assume the work of local NGOs. Piero Maestri (Golf Committee, Milan) pointed out that a CPS may not take on humanitarian tasks, but must carry out peace-connected functions.
The exchange of ideas concerning the project will continue. On September 21st & 22nd a weekend of discussion will treat the topics of ‘Who benefits from what peace service’ and ‘Big problems - small peace service’. Further details are given in the next issues of the GSoA newspapers. An international meeting is also planned for the GSoA General Meeting in November.