Back in February there was a coup in Chad where my folks were. I wrote an article about it which circulated a bit around people who had a direct link with my parents. I sent a copy into Relevant Magazine and never heard back from them and nothing showed up on my feed that they had published it. But, today, by sheer chance, I found they already had. You can read it here.
Archive for the 'conflict & peace' Category
the country was chad…
May 3, 2008a bad day for africa
February 3, 2008I’m waiting for news on my folks in Chad – a country in the midst of armed rebellion. It’s been two days with no contact, but I’m working on the premise that no news is good news. Actually, this is probably a very good premise because as my Mum is American and my Father is British, any reports of deaths to ex-pats would immediately garner international attention. It is likely, instead, that they are being escorted out of the country by the French military. In reality, it’s hard to know what is happening as all the major news stations are going round in circles on the story – showing the same grainy footage, interviewing correspondents in other countries. Chad is a black hole of communication.
Clearly, I am most concerned for my parents safety. Dad has to decide what to do about his team but I am confident he is in a good position to make a decision – he has lived through attempted coups before and he is an experienced hand in Africa. But, as ex-pats they are getting the full support of their embassies and the best advice and service from the French military. I should be (and I know they will be) most concerned for their Chadian colleagues and friends. Thousands are said to be streaming over the rickety bridge out of town over the Chari and into Cameroon. Their lives are in much more precarious positions.
The cost of African life is so cheap. The news coming out of Chad was that bodies are strewn across the capital because of the fighting. Each body was once a person with a family, hopes, desires, fears and each death is equally significant to God as the death of a named and badged Westerner, but the news reports gloss over details to concentrate on the plight of ex-pats. In some ways this is natural – the BBC and CNN are broadcasting to their audiences. The news from Africa today included more reports casualties of the Darfur unrest, Kenyan riots and an earthquake in the great lakes region which will have killed 30 or so in Rwanda. These stories are just numbers, and for most people they are lumped together into the big problem that is “Africa” even though each situation is unique, involving individuals with particular needs, characteristics, languages, beliefs and interests who would never have expected this day to be their last when they woke up.
If African life is cheap to us in the west, it is equally cheap to those in Africa. Death – be it from violence, illness, AIDS, malnutrition etc. – is a much more common fact of “life” to Africa’s poor than it is to us. Children die, but the hope is some will live. Africans are used to death and are familiar with it’s ways. The pain it causes is just as real, but sometimes Africans are better equipped to deal with and move on from the catastrophes before them. This was my experience in Sudan, at any rate. When my newborn brother died in Kijabe, Kenya in 1982, Mum and Dad were forced to deal with the loss in an African way by talking it out in the midst of community. They say it was the hardest but most therapeutic form of therapy they could ever have undertaken.
What I would like to see is an elevation of the price of life for Africans. The BBC and CNN and all the rest are trying hard to get under the skin of real people in real places – more of this, please. Strangely, I think I would also like to see a more sobre awareness of the price of life for wealthy Americans and Europeans. Of course, every life is totally precious – but life is fragile and death happens to all of us at some point and maybe we need to start talking about it and stop pretending we will live forever.
angry about peace
January 17, 2008I wrote this in 2005, at the start of degree course.
Monday morning, 17th October, York University. I’ve just stomped to a nearby computer room to vent spleen about my first lecture in a course taught by Roger McGinty and Alp Ozerdem entitled ‘Conflict & Recovery’.
Today we heard from Roger McGinty (RM). He began his lecture by opening up discussion on the topic of ‘peace’. Some murmurings of discontent from us rabble. This was our first lecture, it was early on Monday morning, and we were not firing on all academic cylinders. Still, we were encouraged to offer definitions for ‘peace’. Being a Christian, and having attended two talks on Sunday evening from Michael Schluter on Christian views of development, perhaps I was better placed than my colleagues to be one of the first to chip in.
I offered: “Peace is – harmonious relationships with God, with others, with the world”. I explained further, “By world I mean our natural resources and environment”. RM said he liked this definition as it centred on relationships to understanding peace. He pointed at my definition which he had written on the board. “Peace with God – that is if you believe, of course. This is optional. Peace with others – this is crucial”. I felt my blood temperature rise slowly. In my opinion, BOTH were crucial.
Some other definitions came from the floor: “Peace is the absence of direct/indirect violence”, “an idealistic notion/utopian”, “Peace is contentment (that is, subjective)”, “Goodwill”, “Freedom in the absence of conflict”… as the discussion progressed we began to think about quality vs. quantity in peace, sustainable peace, structural peace. This last term – structural peace – seemed to me quite a good way at describing how my department and the academics around me viewed the problem of peace. It adds up to: if we can fix the social structures of our world in a certain way, we can attain a manageable sort of peace. Good politics therefore, becomes key. It becomes our saviour.
RM then lectured for a short while. He asked further questions about the subject of peace. I have listed them below, with his suggested answers. I have included my thoughts as a Christian after each one.
Does ‘peace’ have any inherent values? You have to ask, “Where do ideas come from?”. Ideas are socially constructed in a particular time and place. We need to look at the Champions/Advocates of Ideas. Al Qaeda: “If Pres. Bush & PM Sharon are men of peace, then we are also men of peace”.What is peace’s meaning here? So, peace has NO core value.
DM: In response to RM who is basically – and typically – advocating a deconstructive analysis of the concept of peace, I would suggest peace as an inherent value resting on the quality of our relationship with God (through Christ), and with each other, our communities, our world. This is the basic root of all peace.
Is it a universal concept? The concept is common across the world. Everybody has some ideas about what peace is, but its meaning is not agreed universally.
DM: Yes, peace as defined by the Bible, is a universal concept. All can attain real and inexplicable peace for this life and the next through Christ.
Is peace a process or an object? Is peace a commodity? Can it be “created”? No, it is a relationship, a process, a practice. There is no solution to conflict, only the management of ongoing relationships. A holistic notion of conflict (as inherent in social relations everywhere), results in a holistic notion of peace.
DM: RM’s response could be a chapter from Ecclesisastes. He is absolutely correct about the conclusions he must draw from his own worldview. But by including God in the equation, for me, Peace is both a process and an object. We look forward to a coming day of real peace that will be realised in heaven. God is in the process of making peace for those that believe (by justification & sanctification), and we are practitioners of peace (in all senses) through a ministry of reconciliation.
At this point, I began to get squirm in my seat. I wondered if, as a result of our radically different ideas of peace, a course on Conflict & Recovery as taught by people like RM was really for me. In actual fact, I think it is – my MA teaches me about the world, its own solutions for itself, fallenness. Time and again this validates what the Bible already teaches about the nature of humanity. More positively I will also learn skills that I can build on in a Christian way. I must continue to run what I am taught alongside a Biblical track that helps me strengthen my own thoughts.
Moving on, RM highlighted the basic standpoints on thinking about peace. There are three overlapping main starting points:
1. Religion / Spirituality. People are sacred, this is divinely ordained. We should be involved in humanitarianism, solidarity, empathy, identification because of this.
2. Appeals to Humanity. Revulsion of violence toward Humans. Results in “rights” to the “individual” as the unit for defining people.
3. Sustainability. Realist view. Lets keep the system going. Do what we can to keep the show on the road. Compatible with ecological peace, sustainable development.
My first thoughts; but where does a “revulsion of violence toward Humans”, as in Pt.2 come from? Is it not, because we cannot escape the conclusion that “people are sacred”, Pt.1? I think British society, even academics, are less atheistic than they think they are.
Interestingly, RM then asked another provocative question: “Why do we want peace?” Various ideas were offered from the floor, but many of our number stumbled. RM noted that peace has “a higher marginal utility” than conflict. In other words, we can do MORE with ourselves as people when there is peace as opposed to war. But why do we care about other people’s peace? Again, little meaningful comment from the class. RM admitted it was a trick question, “It is like asking: Why does a child like chocolate? Answer: I don’t know. Stop talking and give me some chocolate”.
One reason, I suspect, is to do with Pt.1 above. Our religious heritage teaches us to see people as ‘sacred’, therefore, helping them at times of need. Also, God has designed us as feeling, caring creatures that are desperate for meaning in our lives outside of ourselves.
However, RM did not see things this way. He added, “Peace maximises self-esteem”. Talking about peace, trying to broker peace in far away lands makes us feel good about ourselves, gratifies, gives us meaning. This rather bleak, and self-serving view, I admit, is true for me also. Doing an MA in CGD is “cool” – it feels nice, helps me think I am making a difference. However, as a Christian I can point to an external motivation – a Biblical mandate to seek peace for its own sake because I love a God of peace, and I love my neighbour as myself. I wanted to say something about this, but RM did not see my hand go up.
In an ironic twist to this tale, somebody complained about too many questions for a Monday morning. RM took up the gauntlet about his forthright lecture style. “I could read you a Biblical chronology for an hour – but that would be boring. At least, I’m trying to keep you awake!”. In actual fact, my recent readings in Kings and Chronicles are full of Biblical chronologies. I suspect these passages have more to offer on the subject of ‘peace’ than Dr.McGinty’s own textbooks. I felt hot and flustered. I wanted to throw my chair across the room. But I’m glad I didn’t. It would have alienated me from my classmates on day 1, I would probably have been disciplined by the University and, ultimately, it simply would not have been very peaceful.
samaritan woman (notes)
January 17, 2008Samaritan Woman
1. Culture Conversation. Cultural issue – water / women. He broke barriers in order tyo start a dialogue. Cultural sensitivity vs. desire to reach out. Balance. Vulnerability, asks for something.
Turns it around. Says things that demand a response. Faith/ doubt Z
2. Old Problems. Common past. Muslims/ Jews.
3. New Solutions. Offers something new/different. Everybody wants this. Move beyond agreement.
Jesus – words of knowledge. Things that stick.
4. Community Changed. Effect on their respective communities. Amongst the disciples – an encouragement to reap now. Amongst the Samaritans – many believe. The result was bigger than the sum of its parts. A bigger picture, a bigger vision, a bigger idea of who God is.
a model of conflict resolution
September 8, 2007We’ve all grown to love the Spanish animated childrens series Pocoyo. It really is like nothing else on TV for kids. It is stylishly, creatively and intelligently produced. Minute attention to detail is the norm – in the sound effects, the plot, the animation. Best of all Pocoyo is untainted by adult notions of political correctness. He is always falling out with his friends, behaving impetuously and sometimes selfishly but he (and the other characters) all manage to learn from their experiences and get on with life… In that respect, I feel Pocoyo has more to teach kids about behaviour and the reality of growing up than some other recent shows such as Toddworld, Caillou or Poko which preach banal niceties that don’t marry with the real world.
In the episode embedded below, Pocoyo falls out with Pato after the pair try to build a castle. Pato is prone to bouts of anger sometimes due to his perfectionist nature (blocks should be built methodically, one should always stay clean). The conflict, how it starts, is carried out and resolved is an very apt model of how conflicts develop in our own lives and in the wider world. John Paul Lederach, a Mennonite Christian who has written widely on peaceful solutions to conflict, has dissected the paths of conflict in his many analyses and I think he would approve of the authentic stages that Pocoyo and Pato experience. And the arrival of Ellie the Elephant to “seal the deal” on helping the two make friends again is a wonderful example of effective third party intervention to broker peace.
So here is a model of conflict and it’s resolution as explained through Pocoyo:
1) Two parties provide different functions to the completion of a task. A dispute arises because of a lack of resources. This is not the fault of anybody, but the first party’s attempted solution provokes anger in the second party. This reaction escalates matters as the first party feels anger was an unjustified response as they (the first party) were only trying to resolve a common problem. This conflict, formed over this minor set of issues, could be resolved at this early point but both parties retreat and stand off, drawing an imaginary line of conflict.
2) The two parties build a wall (physically, but it symbolises the psychological wall they are erecting) between themselves, ironically a wall they both cooperate over constructing. A common friend, a third party, arrives on the scene. Both parties seek the undivided attention of the third party at the expense of the other. Both parties abuse their relationship with the third party (by using it to score points over the other) to such an extent that the third party departs, leaving all relationships severed. A conflict that started between two parties has adversely affected neighbouring ties.
3) Both parties are now so embroiled in the conflict they cannot see any alternatives other than to wage a war of one-upmanship with the other. They do this by displaying their possessions as a sign of their wealth, happiness and contentment. In reality, these are hollow gestures for both sides who, after some time, realise that, without the other, their enjoyment of the things they have is diminished. At this low ebb, the first party pauses, reflects and finds by chance a momento from the shared history of cooperation between the two parties. This momento provokes a deep sense of loss. Unintentionally, this momento is seen by the second party. Both are remorseful but neither has the strength, or even the know-how, to start moving the process in a positive direction so as to make amends.
4) At this point, a third party is needed to provide a roadmap out of conflict to peace. The first problem – the wall – is unlikely to be removed by either the first or second party. It is too big, carries it’s own history and would be a symbol of humiliation to the one who attempted to dismantle it. So, the third party dramatically removes the wall providing the chance for both sides to see each other’s pain and despair. Still, both sides, tired from the conflict, are unsure how to even open communication lines once again. Again, the third party intervenes and demonstrates the actions that need to be implemented. Both sides embrace and the conflict (for now!) resolved.
The question is, will Pato and Pocoyo embark on a course of post-conflict counselling complete with anger management courses? Will Ellie take her evident skills as a broker of peace to the next level and perhaps take some formal training?
real peace
September 6, 2007Real Peace, (distributed within) A Rocha International – Christians in Conservation, September 2004
“The animals are all gone. The birds have flown away”. This was how a missionary described the blank silence of the outback.
We were on our second day driving north into the interior of dense forests and fertile plains. Aside from domestic animals and cattle, all we had seen was a monkey.
In April 2003, I had the immense privilege of journeying into war ravaged southern Sudan as part of a short-term mission team. The church of Sudan has experienced revival in the face of obstinate persecution. We visited one diocese of the Episcopal Church of Sudan, situated in a place called Rokon. Witnessing, learning from and engaging with the resilient Christians of the south was a high honour. But my time there was illuminating for many other reasons. I learned new lessons about the devastation of protracted conflict, and what it can do to a people and their land.
It was obvious early on in our stay, that Sudan’s bitter civil war had undoubtedly decimated all aspects of human life. Most schools, large houses and churches had crumbling walls and splintered tin roofs. As we journeyed on sandy roads, our driver – himself, an ex-mercenary who had fought in the middle east and North Africa – would point out trees with inscriptions in the trunks. Crosses and skulls etched into the bark bore witness to killing fields, graves and minefields. In our brief visit of two weeks, I did not meet a single individual who had not lost close family members to war. Many widows had lost husbands and sons to forced conscription into Southern Armies. Young people had not seen their parents in years. They were assumed dead, or displaced across the front line.
Sudan’s loss is not just human, however. As we were reminded, “the animals are all gone”. According to the Sudanese, the big game – elephants, large cats and cattle – in a bid to escape the “noise” of war have settled across the borders in DR Congo and the Central African Republic. Years of violence have resulted in a rampant gutting of Sudan’s wildlife and environment. The plush equatorial forest, rich in tropical fruits, insects, animals, birds and complex eco-systems have been raped in the see-sawing of the war’s front lines. Anything moving has been killed and eaten. Anything growing has been chopped down for food. A whole generation of Sudanese have experienced nothing other than armed conflict and so, unsurprisingly, have little education or incentive to work the fertile land for themselves. One young man summed it up: “What’s the point? Everything we grow would be taken by soldiers anyway”.
Conversely, the thrilling signs of reconstruction and renewal that even in 2003 were becoming more pronounced had an obvious environmental dimension. The development work undertaken by the concerned and enterprising local Bishop we were visiting was a marvel to observe. Primary education (with a school for orphans), fledgling healthcare, diocese-wide church projects and Mother’s union groups were slowly lifting this community out of despair. Africans are tied to nature in close and obvious ways, and the improvement in human conditions was mirrored in a resurrection of the natural surroundings. A few optimistic farmers had begun tending their corn, mango and sorghum crops once more. Litres of wild honey had been procured from local hives. Furthermore, the compound that made up the administrative centre of Rokon was teeming with animals. Domestic animals perform important functions in African living arrangements. Cats provide pest control. Chickens are a source of meat and eggs, but also offer excellent protection from scorpions and small snakes. Dogs keep watch. Slowly, community, in the widest possible sense, was returning to this patch of scorched ground.
George Carey visited Sudan on numerous occasions during his tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury. On one occasion, he spoke in Southern Sudan on the subjects of peace, forgiveness and reconciliation. Extraordinarily, a white dove descended and landed on his staff whilst he spoke. For the Sudanese this was highly significant. Apart from the obvious biblical parallels, this small event pointed to a hopeful future. As one Sudanese man put it: “When the birds and animals return – then we will know there is real peace in Sudan”.
For my part, I realised afresh that the gospel to Sudan was not simply about the restoration of the individual. It was also about the restoration of the communal, and the environmental. Good news to all creation is not exclusively human news. These truths I gleaned demonstrate the importance of organisations such as A Rocha in filling a gap in our world mission focus. A Rocha exists to point us to the panoramic vision of God as Creator-Sustainer of our entire planet.
As I exchanged the dusty roads and pit latrines of Sudan for the Western comforts of England, I made a silent promise to keep the flag flying in my own little corner. Conservation, stewardship of natural resources and environmental concern must be essential steps to the furtherance of God’s Kingdom of Peace.
beyond random 