Dr. Johan Galtung on the conflict in Nepal
Sage
Dr. Johan Galtung suggests for revision of constitution
People's Review, 22-28 May 2003
BY OUR REPORTER
For Dr. Johan Galtung, Professor at the University of Peace
Studies, Hawaii, the prerequisites to peace are building a just
and equitable society.
Speaking at a talk programme on 'Transformation of Conflict:
Human Rights Approach' on May 19, he said Nepal needs and
cultural and social revolution, and recommended building an
equitable society through proportional representation and fixed
quota system to uplift the downtrodden.
In his keynote speech, Dr. Galtung said of the three suggestions
made by many - constitution amendment, constitution revision and
new constitution - he favoured the second option, saying the
problem that Nepal is facing is not a problem of a certain group.
But, the frustration of any excluded group could have violent
repercussion.
He said it is important to switch attention and move from
negative to positive, and added that it was equally important to
go beyond what the political parties have been saying and not to
mistake ceasefire with peace. "Solutions are expected through
ceasefire. When that does not happen and parties see no light at
the end of the tunnel they become frustrated. That tends to
result I regrouping, consolidating allies, brining in more arms,
and could lead to unmitigated disaster," the professor said.
At the programme, organised by the Nepal Council of World
Affairs, UNDP Resident Representative Dr. Henning Karcher said he
found Dr. Galtung theories about direct, structural and cultural
violence very convincing, and would agree that Nepal's society is
characterized by structural violence in many forms.
He said, "While the conflict in Nepal has political, ideological
and even geo-political dimensions, its main root causes are
social and economic, related to frustrated expectations that came
with the advent of democracy, related to abject poverty that
persists for a large percentage of the population, related to
poor and inefficient delivery of social services in areas such as
education and health, and related to inequality, exclusion and
discrimination."
The UN Resident Representative said that one of the greatest
challenges lies, therefore, in addressing the structural element
of violence in the current peace, the nine-tenth of the iceberg,
which are not as clearly visible as that over 8,000 people who
have lost their lives through direct violence.
Dr. Karcher said that unless and until all stakeholders make an
honest effort to jointly analyze and jointly address the very
root causes of conflict, which lie in inequality, exclusion,
discrimination, poverty, unemployment and inadequate governance,
the deep and festering wound of the conflict would continue to be
there and make itself felt again and again.
He said although it is generally accepted that peace and
development are two sides of the same coin, he said he believed
that without respect for human rights there can be no peace and
without peace there can be no observation of human rights.
He said that his main message was that as the peace process
advances, human rights should not be seen as an optional extra.
"In the case of Nepal today, we, in the UN System, are convinced
that the promotion and protection of human rights are the key to
strengthening the broader peace process. "Without this, the
prospects would be bleak. He, quoting Nelson Mandela, said that
the neglect of human rights is a sure recipe for disaster.
He called His Majesty's Government and the Maoists agreeing to
work towards the signing of a Human Rights Accord as a part of
the peace process as a positive step. He said the Human Rights
Accord will not solve all the problems, but it is a key and
feasible first step.
In his welcome remarks, Secretary-General of the NCWA Himalaya
Kumar Singh said there could not be a better occasion to discuss
on 'Transformation of Conflict: Human Rights Approach', when the
government and the Maoists were engaged in negotiation, and two
rounds of talks already been concluded, to find a durable peace
in Nepal after seven years of violent insurgency.
He said conflict transformation might be defined as a process
encompassing 'structure-oriented long-term peace building
efforts, which aim to truly overcome revealed forms of direct,
cultural and structural violence, with outcomes acceptable to the
parties in conflict.
Other speakers at the talk programme were Nayan Bahadur Khatri,
Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission, and
president of Nepal Council of World Affairs Keshav Raj Jha.
There was a question and answer session, and the vote of thank
was presented by Sushil Pyakurel, member of NHRC and Prof. Gopal
Prasad Pokharel, vice president of NCWA gave the concluding remark.
Sage
Root causes of Nepali Conflict are social and economic
Dr. Henning Karcher, Resident Representative UNDP, Nepal
[In The Telegraph Weekly, 21 May 2003]
For quite sometime I have been an admirer of Professor Galtung's
writings on the subject of conflict. In particular, I find his
theories about direct, structural and cultural violence very
convincing and would agree that Nepal's society is characterized
by structural violence in many forms. While the conflict in Nepal
has no doubt a political, ideological and even geo-political
dimension its main root causes are social and economic, related
to frustrated expectation that came with advent of democracy,
related to abject poverty that persists for a large percentage of
the population related to poor and inefficient delivery of social
services in areas such as education and health and related to
inequality, exclusion and discrimination. A large percentage of
the population of Nepal, in particular Dalits and members of
ethnic groups feel that they are politically and economically
excluded, unable to contribute to decisions that affect their
lives and unable to benefit from the economic advancement of the
nation. The 10th Five-Year Plan says it more clearly and better
than I could ever formulate it.
In the current peace process one of the greatest challenges lies
therefore in addressing the structural elements of violence, the
nine-tenth of the iceberg which are not as clearly visible as
that over 8000 people who have lost their lives through direct
violence. Unless and until all stakeholders make an honest effort
to jointly analyze and jointly address the very root cause of
conflict which lie as I mentioned in inequality, exclusion,
discrimination, poverty, unemployment and inadequate governance,
the deep and festering wound of the conflict will continue to be
there and make itself felt again and again.
It is now generally accepted that peace and development are two
sides of the same coin. Without peace there is no development and
without development no peace. Similarly I would say that without
respect for human rights there can be no peace and without peace
there can be no observation of human rights.
Let me now move to some specific issues related to conflict and
human rights as they present themselves currently in Nepal.
My main message to you today is that as the peace process
advances, human rights should not be seen as an optional extra.
We in the UN system have seen time and time again that the
respect for human rights is central to ensuring stability. In the
case of Nepal today, we are convinced that the promotion and
protection of human rights are the key to strengthening the
broader peace process. Without this, the prospects would be bleak
indeed. As Dr. Harka Gurung recently reminded us, Nelson Mandela
famously said that the neglect of human rights is a sure recipe
for disaster.
Earlier this month, His Majesty's Government and the CPN-Maoists
both agreed to work towards the signing of a Human Rights Accord
as part of the peace process. I see this as a very positive step
and congratulate both sides on this important statement of principle.
Why is Human Rights Accord a crucial step? In March we all
welcomed the signing of the Code of Conduct and particularly the
fact that it contained no less than 10 clauses related to human
rights including a general declaration that there would be no
hindrance to the people's enjoyment of their fundamental rights.
But it is now over the 2 months since the signing of the accord.
There is a pressing need to put in place a credible, independent
and efficient mechanism for monitoring the respect of the code. A
clear Human Rights accord should provide a series of priorities
in the field of human rights with the clarity, which is needed,
if monitoring is to be feasible.
A Human Rights Accord would further provide a series of great
opportunities. It will allow the two parties to sit down together
in a space facilitated by the NHRC, to talk frankly about their
concerns. It will provide them with the opportunity to agree
confidence-building measures, through the increased respect of
human rights. As the Parties build mutual confidence through
measures to protect human rights, this will calm the tension
which Nepal currently is suffering and make it easier for them to
address boldly the issues which are obstacles to peace. This may
sound ambitious but with the destiny of the country at stake, kit
is the duty of us all to think and act boldly on behalf of the
future generations.
There are precedents for this. After a decade long war in EL
Salvador, which left over 70,000 dead in a small country of only
some 5 million people the government and the opposition signed a
human rights accord in 1990 which was implemented more than a
year before the final peace agreement. All those involved in the
process agree that the well respected monitoring of the human
rights accord helped to neutralise those who wanted to see the
peace process fail. It also helped avoid the spiral of mutual
accusations over violations of the ceasefire. In short, it helped
stabilize the broader peace process. A similar model was followed
in Guatemala to end the 30-yaer conflict, which had left over
200,000 dead. Again, a human rights accord was instrumental in
the achievement of a lasting peace.
Those engaged in the peace process here should look carefully at
the continual reports in the press of accusations of violations
of the ceasefire and code of conduct. Now is the time to reach
some practical agreements on human rights and the mechanism for
monitoring them. Any human rights agreement is only as strong as
the mechanism in place to monitor it. Whatever mechanism is
decided upon. It will have to be credible, speedy and impartial.
This will require monitors with training to ensure quality work
and a uniform methodology. It will require mobility and good
communications so accusations can be assessed and reported on to
the parties as expeditiously as possible. It will demand a
capacity at the national level to assess and analyze the
information received from the different regions so the monitoring
body can reach well-founded judgements and make useful
recommendations. But even the best monitoring body requires a
clear mandate. Our experience shows us that it is essential to
make sure that any human rights accord is at least as clear as
the existing commitments of the Parties and must be based on
established international standards. The human rights agreement
should go beyond just a statement of good intentions; it should
be a document that enables practical monitoring. The agreement
would be an opportunity for both Parties to clarity their
understanding of human rights in practice. It will be an
opportunity to inform the Nepalese public of the stance of the
Parties in regard to human rights. It will also be an opportunity
for the leaders of the Parties to make it clear to their forces
that they must abide by the Common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions which sets out the duties of combatants in a
non-international conflict to protect civilians. A human rights
accord would be the ideal way for the leaders and negotiations to
spell this out clearly and specifically to those under their
orders. I also want to stress that whatever mechanism is finally
agreed on by the parties to monitor such an agreement it will
need to have the resources, both financial and technical, to
carry out the job assigned to it with credibility.
The Human Rights Accord will not solve all the problem but it is
a key and feasible first step. There are many big issues o be
resolved; before a definitive peace is signed, for example, it
will be necessary to address the issue of past human rights
violations and what mechanism would best deal with them. The
challenges are many; I sincerely wish the peace negotiators well
as they embark on this historic enterprise of leading Nepal into
a new era of peace and development. (Remarks made by the author
on 19th May 2003 at a program jointly organised by NHRC and NCWA.
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/englishweekly/telegraph/2003/may/may21/national.htm
Sage
BETWEEN THE LINES: Solving conflicts means transcending them
Published on May 17, 2003, in The Nation, Bangkok
It took three exercises for some 50 participants at a recent
workshop on conflict transformation to eventually come up with
some "creative" resolutions to satisfy Norwegian peace professor
Johan Galtung, who had given them some examples of conflicts to
solve.
Like many parties in real conflicts, most participants were
locked in a "mental prison" and thus could find no way out,
explained the towering 73-year-old professor.
A mediator, social scientist and prolific writer, Galtung
organised a workshop as part of his training system on peace and
conflict transformation during his recent visit here. The
workshop was co-sponsored by the Peace Information Centre, the
Foundation for Democracy and Development Studies, and the
Southeast Asian Press Alliance.
While his speech cost far less than Michael Porter's, the
professor greatly entertained his audience both at the workshop
and later at a public lecture at Thammasat auditorium. Here he
listed 15 contradictions that he forecast would lead to the
decline and fall of the US empire in 20 years.
In the first exercise at the workshop, participants were torn
between being honest and compassionate. The test was to comment
on a 43-year-old mother who is seeking her daughter's opinion
about a dress she was going to wear to a high school reunion.
While the dress fit her well 25 years ago, it is now much too
short and tight.
"Mom, you look just perfect whatever you wear, regardless of what
others might say," said the first group. The professor quickly
denounced the answer.
"Mom, you're wearing a dress that I have never seen before. I am
so surprised," said another group who were blamed for avoiding an
answer.
"Mom, it would be just perfect, if you had worn it 25 years ago,"
said the third group, trying to be honest. But this hurt the
mother badly. So did: "Mom, I suggest you don't wear it in a
public place."
"Mom, I have to read for my exam. I have no time," said another
group, trying to escape the question.
The last group seemed to get closer to the right answer. They
suggested that the mother and daughter alter the dress a bit so
it fits the mother better.
Much better answer, but not yet perfect, the professor said.
Considering the participants hopeless, Galtung showed them a
possible answer.
"Mom, you have an extraordinary personality, and the blue dress
[another dress] underlines that personality very well."
The mother was pleased and agreed to change the dress.
The clue here is to go beyond "the dress", explained Galtung,
wearing his most favourite blue shirt.
Most of the answers to many conflicts are either too extreme,
involve too much compromise, or simply are an escape, he said.
"These kinds of answers that are either or, neither nor, or
half-half won't work," he added.
What is needed is to expand the most apparent two to three
resolutions to about five, said Galtung, who is also a mathematician.
"We have to come up with answers that are 'both and', which is
the transcendent one," said Galtung, whose TRANSCEND organisation
networks some 200 scholars and practitioners in development and
peace building.
Galtung called a transcendent resolution "conflict literacy". It
always brings in something new and creates new reality.
Identifying parties to the conflict and their goals, considering
the legitimacy of those goals, and finding the bridge between
legitimate goals are the logic of the transcendent method, he said.
Citing the 1941-1995 conflict between Ecuador and Peru over a
500-square kilometre disputed area up in the Andes mountain,
Galtung said the conflict led to both war and negotiations
between the two countries. Experts in international law had been
consulted, and the military approach had also been used, yet to
no avail.
"That's why the work of a mediator is necessary. You cannot
expect the parties in the conflict to find the resolution
themselves. The Ecuador-Peru conflict took 54 years to be solved
because negotiators were blocked in their own 'mental prisons',"
said Galtung, a consultant to several United Nations agencies.
The resolution came in August 1995, provided by Galtung to a
former Ecuadorian president whom he met at a peace meeting in
Guatemala. The disputed area later become a bi-national zone and
later a bi-national park. How did he come up with that
resolution? "Listen not to what people say, but what they do not
say."
Drawing from his knowledge and his experience as a mediator in
several trouble spots from Sri Lanka to the former Yugoslavia,
Galtung said it is important for a mediator engaging in any
dialogue to remain calm, always end sentences with a question,
and have something to offer.
Observing the "lack of creativity" among many participants in the
workshop - themselves promoters of peace and human rights - in
their resolutions to given conflicts, Galtung sought an
explanation in the context of Thai culture as he has observed
that ancient cultures often block creativity.
Perhaps Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra should consider
inviting the professor to provide his administration with some
creative resolutions for such unresolved conflicts as the Pak
Mool dam.
Mukdawan Sakboon
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/page.arcview.php3?clid=11&id=78845&usrsess=1