Introduction
And so to Dublin for a meeting with our old friend, Con Flict. In this case, a mainly western European conference on conflict prevention, the first of 15 being held in different parts of the world feeding in to a big one at the UN in New York in July 2005. A Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (*1) was formed following the UN Secretary-General’s Report on the Prevention of Armed Conflict in 2001, and this conference was part of its consultation process.

I find that attending international conferences in my own country is an interesting experience because away has come home and the familiar and unfamiliar interact in a fascinating way, things look and feel different than being outside my home island. In this case the event was sponsored by the Irish EU Presidency and it was happening in the salubrious environs of Dublin Castle. Very nice. I had conferenced there before but never banqueted in the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, You could get used to the style and the wine flowing freely but I won’t, fortunately or unfortunately. I would have liked there to have been more Irish people present but looking through the attendance list (with about 30 from Ireland) this may be as much that people didn’t, or weren’t free, to turn up as that they couldn’t get places (though I did hear this was the case for one or two people from the island).

The support from the Irish government is very welcome, for conflict prevention and for the conference itself (both Tom Kitt and Brian Cowen spoke at it), but this is the self-same Irish government which has backed the USA to the hilt in its war in Iraq by providing unbridled use of Shannon airport. Conflict prevention? That would be very nice, thank you.

Working groups and Action Agenda
There were eight working groups (which met for three sessions) on different aspects of conflict and conflict prevention, and these fed into the Action Agenda plenary process (see below). An initial draft had been circulated beforehand. Groups included ones on education and promotion of a culture of peace, development and peacebuilding, involvement of civil society in EU civilian crisis management, EU Common Foreign and Security Policy, interaction between the UN and civil society, and interaction between governments and civil society. Also included was a working group on the Irish/Northern Irish peace process and it was illuminating that just two out of two hundred or so people from outside the island came to that (a 1% attendance). In these circumstances you may find yourself wanting to go to several different groups but you’re likely to choose the one which is felt to be most relevant to you personally. And the one on Ireland got 1% of the foreign delegates attending. This is fair enough and I am simply pointing out the fact that analysing the past and present remnants of the conflict in Northern Ireland is not top or even middle on most people’s list (though some of those present would have studied it and visited before); we have had our day in the glare of the international media and we can be grateful it is over. Norn Iron doesn’t register these days on the Richter Scale of Conflicts, and we can hope that no seismic shift will put it back on.

But there are still issues to be dealt with, and one included in the ‘Dublin Action Agenda’ was for learning from the Irish, and other similar situations in Europe. The Northern Ireland working group gave examples of work in the divided land that is Northern Ireland - on a Belfast interface where cooperation across the divide has been an important development locally, on monitoring done by Mediation Northern Ireland in areas where violence could break out, and mobile phone networks to communicate across interfaces to dispel rumours and assist cooperative conflict intervention.

‘How many cookies can the Big Bear eat on an empty stomach?’ is an old children’s riddle (Answer: One. After that its stomach isn’t empty any more). But the similar real problem dealt with in the working group is that if effective cross-community and interface conflict prevention work is dealing with problems which would otherwise surface as violent confrontation, how can those involved ‘prove’ their need for ongoing funding and support? It may seem that everything has just ‘died down’ and that support is no longer needed. The absence of conflict may seem to point to the absence of any need to deal with potential conflict. Proving you caused the absence of something is not for the absent minded.

The plenary process regarding the ‘Dublin Action Agenda’ adopted by the conference was a fascinating exercise. Trying to get consensus in such a large and varied gathering was a major achievement in the time given. Catherine Barnes and Simon Fisher as the facilitators had a massive job to do and sometimes I was amazed by their agility and deftness in dealing with real issues, sticky points, and often uncertainty. Finding the right words was a bit like building a haystack shape made out of needles having first found the needles in individual haystacks. It was done with a mixture of straw polling, taking comments (principled objections and if necessary other points), making decisions on the spot or referring it back to drafting groups. It might seem that conflict-dealing organisations putting together a statement on conflict is a bit like the Christian churches proclaiming themselves against sin; you might expect them to do it, no one is surprised by anything said, and it’s totally ineffectual. But the Action Agenda had many concrete recommendations; how many will be implemented remains to be seen but they have been laid down in print.

I found the draft Action Agenda difficult to relate to at first. Getting a ‘global vision’ together even for people from part of a continent is difficult. And there are now so many people doing so many different things that getting a handle on it all can be difficult. If I think internationally then my thoughts are not usually at that programmatic and detailed level. But the words of the drafts began to mean more as they were visited and explored. It is impossible to summarise given that it is in itself a document which has been compacted; it will be on the European Centre for Conflict Prevention website at www.conflict-prevention.net quite shortly, and I would suggest a visit to read it yourself (*2). Guiding principles include building a ‘Culture of Prevention’ and ‘Culture of Peace’, multilateralism, a new partnership between civil society, governments and Inter-Governmental Organisations, the primacy of local ownership (“Primary responsibility for conflict prevention rests with local actors”), learning from practice, and accountability. The Action Agenda makes recommendations to Civil Society Organisations, Governments, the European Union (this was primarily a conference of people from the EU area), and the United Nations. It also suggests public awareness raising in Europe “both to raise awareness of the impact of conflicts and to build confidence in civilian alternatives to military intervention.”

Setting parameters
In the ‘Northern Ireland situation’ working group I raised a point about something implicit in the approach of the working group (and, I should add, the whole conference). The working group was titled “CSOs (Civil Society Organisations), transitional violence and conflict-sensitive development: Lessons from conflict management techniques in Ireland, North and South”. The title of the conference was “The role of civil society in the prevention of armed conflict”. My point was that we were looking only at mediation and meditative-type behaviour, and not at advocacy. A comment in the group was that mediation should include advocacy; this is partly true, a mediator who finds a great power imbalance should try to redress that balance, for example.

But I was thinking of various kinds of advocacy including solidarity models and I would feel that in dealing with conflict no one model should automatically have pre-eminence. Many of those present might not have felt theirs was the only game in town, but in not being explicit I felt the edifice fell into considerable danger of giving that impression. It would be simply wrong to assume that third party/meditative behaviour is the only way for someone from ‘outside’ (or an insider feeling outside) to deal with an issue without violence. As a believer in the power of nonviolent action it would be remiss of me to ignore this area. If we think of how the South African or East Timorese situations were resolved, international solidarity with the people oppressed was of very great importance. And if we think of how violence de-escalated in Northern Ireland, and why, then a key intervention to republican, and to some extent, loyalist paramilitaries could have been to assist them explore non-violent ways of working before they started doing that themselves. So, I am saying solidarity and advocacy can be as important as, or more important than, mediation and more impartial third party interventions, certainly at particular stages in a conflict.

Where to get involved is a difficult question; it depends on an individual’s personality, political views, the power situation between sides, the stage in the conflict, the support they have from any group they belong to, and so on. One of the exercises I use as a nonviolence trainer is to get people to map different activities they are involved in on two axes; one is a partisan/non-partisan axis (the other from pragmatic involvement through to moral/ideological commitment). In terms of my own involvement I find myself occupying quite a wide space. Of course in certain tense and difficult situations, acceptability as an impartial figure may be compromised by other involvements of a more partisan nature, but that is something we have to live with, be aware of, and take into account as necessary.

The point in relation to the conference is that we were talking about third-party, relatively non-partisan and meditative type behaviour. This is an area of vital importance. But it is better to be explicit or we risk writing off other responses. However I do not want to be seen to be criticising a giraffe for not being an antelope (and civilian peace services, for example, would major in standing with oppressed groups at risk); both giraffes and antelopes are beautiful in their own way. It should be noted that there was a working group on ‘Advocacy and lobbying’ in the conference; I may be mistaken since I was not at it but it looks like this was advocacy and lobbying within the context of the United Nations system and international conflict prevention, as defined elsewhere within the conference context. (*3)

Talks
What was the vision and the reality coming across in talks? Here are just some snippets. Matt Scott spoke of seeking a sustainable and credible grassroots network of conflict prevention professionals (worldwide) akin to global networks on AIDS etc. Mari Fitzduff (*4) spoke of NGOs mirroring the regionalisation of cooperation and power but being more trusted than governments, politicians or businesses. They needed to connect with power, influencing politicians and leaders (though she did say “Talking to politicians about conflict prevention is like talking to teenagers about pensions.”); a shift away from the $800 billion for the military could allow people to get the resources they need, adding alternatives to military policies.

Dan Smith spoke of how post-9/11 agenda issues do not predominate in the world. The relatively unrestrained US power projection post-9/11 holds no solution to its dilemmas; how can you have a war on terrorism, which is a tactic? Terrorism was first used by governments and is typically used by weaker parties in a conflict. ‘Retaliating first’ is a dangerous strategy, he said, leading to selective attitudes to law and rights and undermining society building; it diverts resources from the real problems. He outlined some thoughts about human security, that it should be an integrated view with social inclusivity and political integration.

Cornelio Sommaruga spoke of “insane fundamentalists including market fundamentalists”, and the complementarity of human security as well as state security. Human security had to deal with diverse circumstances including poverty, exclusion, violence (e.g. through small arms and landmines), and trafficking of women and children. Spiritual and human values should be at the centre, he said.

Sridhar Khatri spoke of 18 identified armed groups and conflicts, most of a transnational character, in South Asia, some going for over a decade and one (Naga) for over 55 years; these conflicts are ignored despite a death toll exceeding that in the Middle East conflict.

Birgitta Dahl quoted Kofi Annan at the first UN conference after 9/11, that all the items that were on the agenda are still on the agenda. She spoke of the need for the UN to emphasise the role of leading and facilitating partnerships and coalitions in conflict resolution. The problems of democratic deficits needed to be addressed.

The South African Foreign Minister, Nkosazana Zuma, spoke of developments within the African Union to deal with conflicts, though she seemed incredibly (sic) optimistic in stating that all conflicts on the continent were being attended and in process of being resolved. Leonardo Simao, Foreign Affairs Minister for Mozambique, chair of the African Union, added more detail on dealing with conflict in the African situation.

Justin Kilcullen of Trócaire hit various nails straight on the head with a quick global review, on disengagement from poor countries after the end of the Cold war, on the decline in European aid, the fact that Millennium Development Goals won’t be met on current trends. The EU policy on combating terrorism raises more questions than answers, he said; what does it mean to include counter-terrorism in all agreements? And he pointed to a possible shift from poverty programmes to security programmes on the edge of Europe. A ‘Coalition against poverty’ is long overdue; with the end of poverty, peace is possible, he concluded.

Closing remarks
‘Caucuses’ (as opposed to Caucasus) present included a number from the European civil/ian peace service network, who had their own meeting in Dublin prior to the start of the Castle conference; the Dublin Action Agenda included a number of references to civil peace services and calling for support from governments and the EU (*5). One of the things touched on in plenary was the lack of action over the UN Decade for a ‘Culture of Peace’ (*6) and this was also covered in the Action Agenda.

Over lunch and dinner I told numerous people about the Irish English-language phrase, ‘Castle Catholic’, and its origins with our location (it refers back to the time of the British administration in Ireland being based in Dublin Castle, and ‘Castle’ Catholics were those who supported the British or were in their pay; while it is a historical term it is still in fairly common usage). It is a little derogatory phrase referring to a past conflict which echoed in my ears there in the corridors of Dublin Castle.

The conference ran quite smoothly, thanks to preparation by various people including the European Centre for Conflict Prevention, Cooperation Ireland as the local partners (especially Garrett Casey there), and the Irish government. I am always amazed at the work international events take. There was a lot happening in a couple of days and while the Action Agenda pulled many things together, there was simply not time to process many things. And of course then there was the networking; it is always good to meet old friends and try to understand new acquaintances.

The old adage that you should ‘Never trouble trouble before trouble troubles you’ is a piece of common or folk ‘wisdom’ which is not necessarily so wise. Certainly when it comes to community, ethnic, national and international conflicts it is always better to trouble trouble before the trouble escalates to such a degree that you get rather more trouble than you bargained for. I hope that this Dublin conference made a small contribution to thinking, planning and acting globally on the issue.


NOTES
*1 The goals are defined as; lTo explore fully the role of civil society in conflict prevention and peace-building lTo improve interaction between civil society groups, the UN, regional organisations, and governments. lTo strengthen regional and international networking between conflict prevention actors.
*2 The European Centre for Conflict Prevention (Executive Director, Paul van Tongeren) in Utrecht holds the International Secretariat of the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict. Korte Elisabethstraat 6 / PO Box 14069, 3508 SC Utrecht, The Netherlands. Ph. +31-30-242 7777, fax +31-30-236 9268. e-mail info@conflict-prevention.net and web www.conflict-prevention.net
*3 The Dublin Action Agenda was fairly forthright when it came to the ‘War on Terror’: “We see some of the strategies deployed in the ‘War on Terror as counter-productive because, by further entrenching cycles of violence, they risk being ultimately self-defeating. The ‘War on Terror’ can also be used as a cloak under which CSO actors, including those who promote human rights, are targeted.”
*4 Mari Fitzduff’s book, co-edited with Cheyanne Church, on “NGOs at the Table: Strategies for influencing policy in areas of conflict” is being published by Rowman and Littlefield, 216 pages, ISBN 0-7425-2849-9 at £20.95/¤35.94. This examines “a number of NGOs, diverse in size, location, and financial means, that have successfully influenced both policy and program development in conflicts throughout the world.”
*5 The background statement includes: “Historically, the emphasis has been on strengthening the institutional capacity for military response. The emphasis now needs to be on strengthening the institutional capacity for non-violent civilian response.” In the recommendations to governments and the EU, it quite clearly and explicitly calls for support for civil peace services.
*6 The relevant recommendation to the United Nations, in the Dublin Action Agenda, reads: “In the area of ‘Culture of Peace’, the main challenge is to implement effectively UN General Assembly Resolution GA/RES/53/243 and the Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace. There has been a gap between the intentions expressed in the resolution and its implementation. We appeal to the UN to ensure that intra- and inter-agency co-operation is maximised and that national governments take a leading responsibility in implementing it, both in terms of policies and funding.”

TOP