• what we are doing - moving beyond protest
• the need for human security
• new ways to bring about security - a toolbox for change
• NGO Peace & Security Liaison Group
promotes a positive alternative to the traditional, tried, tested and failed military model of security based on violence and threats of violence.
Peace is not achieved by increased investment in, and preparation for, war. If we want peace we have to make preparations for peaceand invest in nonviolent solutions to conflict. The endless cycle of violence of security based on military violence and threat can be broken by non-military security initiatives and achieve a real human security.
The UK has a wide range of experts in non-military security approaches and techniques. By the UK government's own admission, non-military security is more effective and cost-effective at providing long term security for us. Despite this the Ministry of Defence spends just 2.3% of its budget on conflict prevention - the rest goes on war and getting for the next war.
For conscientious objectors to war there is the advantage that they can pay for non-military security with a clear conscience. During both world wars and until the end of conscription in the late 1950s some conscientious objectors were able to perform a kind of 'alternative service' which allowed them to contribute to safety and security without being complicit in killing. By enabling conscientious objectors to pay a portion of their taxes into a non-military security fund a present-day conscientious can pay taxes for their alternative service with a clear conscience.
There are a number of ways of working for changes to the current military approach to security. These include protesting military actions and arms purchases, writing protest letters to government, signing petitions and forms, and joining organizations that campaign and work for peace. The focus of these activities is often demonstrating what is wrong with the current model and campaigning for particular decisions to be reversed.
There is a lot more we have to do to offer concrete positive alternatives to the current model of security. Before the ideas and techniques are likely to taken on board in government as the logical first option in a conflict situation, there needs to be a critical mass of people both within the peace movement and in government who have a very strong grasp of a new model of security.
Over time, they can work together to bring about a cultural shift in the way security is perceived and solutions sought. This process has of course begun in the peace community, but it has moved much further in the environmental and justice communities and we have a great deal to learn from them.
We can begin, one at a time, to add a new element to our current activities – one that focuses on a positive approach by:
1- learning what works well in conflict situations so you can explain it to others
2- spending time informing friends and neighbours both inside and outside the peace community; people are much more open to hearing about what can be done rather than a statements against current models
3- writing letters to elected representatives and government officials that highlight the alternatives – and take the open, dialogue based approach necessary for something this complex
4- entering into dialogue with existing peace organizations to advocate for improved communication regarding alternatives
5- in conjunction with your local NGO or community group – elements of civil society – developing campaigns (petitions, public demonstrations, etc) around these new ideas
6- taking the new courses offered by many universities in peace and conflict studies
7- joining paid or volunteer civilian groups going to conflict situations to work for peace (or supporting those who do)
Back to the top
If we begin to think of security as something that ensures that people are safe and free from fear it is easy to understand how the current military model has failed to provide security. And it has failed for a long time - no more so than in the whole of the twentieth century and the start of the twenty-first.
There are, of course, many security models, and many of them are changing quickly in response to the new international realities of rapidly advancing technology, increased potential for biological and chemical weapons use, greater economic disparities, American hegemony, and terrorism.
Human Security, takes a global perspective that focuses on civil society. It asks the question, “what do we need to be secure from, and who needs that security?” The basic premise is that all people have the right to freedom from fear, and freedom from want. Because this is applied globally, it challenges many aspects of current political, economic, and military realities.
While it may sound too idealistic to be taken seriously, some very good work has been done in the last 10 years to pragmatically advocate and develop this holistic approach. It combines the three primary elements of civil society discourse; peace, ecological work, and development/justice. While there is no country which presently operates purely from this paradigm, the multi-faceted approach of the Scandinavian countries serves as a good model, particularly since September 11, 2001.
A review of the Ministry of Defence website will reveal an awareness of the need for many aspects of human security including conflict resolution, peacebuilding, close links with development, and a holistic approach to terrorism. The general term favoured by the MoD is Peace Support, and it is best expressed in the Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP). The Pool (coupled with a similar project focussed on sub-Saharan Africa) is a cross-departmental initiative combining related projects of the Ministry of Defence, Department for International Development, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Projects include election monitoring, security sector reform, and post-conflict dialogue, and are staffed by civilians, military personnel, and NGOs.
The UK government is doing some work for peace around the world, which is something many conscience members would support. There are problems, however, that need to be addressed and can form part of potential campaigning efforts. They include the government’s continued reliance on military strength in its relationships with other nations, some questionable “peace support” spending, budget realities that do not match policy statements, using force to address most elements of terrorist activity, and viewing civilian strategies as optional “add-ons” to military efforts
Back to the top
The various methods used to avoid violent conflict are complex and are normally most effective when used in combination. That means that there are no simple, quick fixes, but there is real potential for input from different groups and individuals with very diverse voices.
Traditionally, we have viewed violent conflict as something to be addressed using one primary tool (the armed forces – a hammer of sorts – applied directly or, more commonly, through the threat of its use) as well as a few others kept close at hand (diplomatic efforts, etc). If, however, our society and our government could begin to see the mechanisms to address violence as a fully equipped toolbox, the potential for real (and nonviolent) change increases significantly.
Each of the tools below will be applied to the current reality in Zimbabwe - one of many global trouble spots. The media has begun to make us aware of the terrible events that have plagued Zimbabwe over the last few years as Robert Mugabe’s government has completely deteriorated and people have suffered in countless ways (largely at the hands of the ruling ZANU-PF). If you spent some time in Zimbabwe, you would be well aware of the inadvisability of a military attack to deal with the problems. Something else is clearly needed.
1- Civilian Protection
Trained units of civilian volunteers are mobilized to areas where there is significant tension, an idea that is growing in popularity throughout the world.
This would serve to make Mugabe aware that the eyes of the world are on him and his administration.
2- Control of Arms and Weapons Control
The UK is one of the world’s biggest arms exporters, including to the developing world. Lower sales and greater control would result in less weapons getting into the hands of existing and potential combatants.
If the Zimbabwean army had limited access to everything from torture instruments to planes, there would be a reduced potential for violence. Similarly, if the former military members who commit many of Zimbabwe’s political crimes had sufficient incentives to hand in their weapons, lives would be saved.
3- Trained Inspectors
Inspectors are deployed to look for torture, rape, killing, and ethnic cleansing - and report back to the government (or governing body) that commissioned them.
Sadly, this would be particularly useful in Zimbabwe as reports of rape, torture, and disappearances are numerous but largely ignored by Western media.
4- Law Enforcement
As demonstrated in the UK involvement in Sierra Leone, a properly trained and supported law enforcement and judicial system can make an enormous difference.
In Zimbabwe there is currently no accountability for any political crime, allowing the ZANU-PF militias to act with impunity.
5- Bringing Warlords and Militias Under Control
NGOs, diplomats, properly supported local leaders, and in some cases the armed forces have been effective in bringing such parties to the negotiating table.
In Zimbabwe, the primary militias (including the infamous youth gangs) are arms of the ZANU-PF, so discussions must begin there.
6- Back Channel Diplomacy
Back Channel (otherwise known as Track II) diplomacy is the process whereby individuals or NGOs work behind the scenes when traditional, public diplomacy isn’t working.
In Zimbabwe, the government will not admit to its role in the violence and economic problems, thereby severely limiting efforts to address them. An unofficial dialogue could open the door.
Mediation Training
It is important that local people serve as build bridges between official and unofficial stakeholders. However, in many cases they do not have skills necessary for this challenging task.
In Zimbabwe, a great deal can be learned from their neighbors in South Africa – but funding is necessary.
8- Reconciliation Committees
There have been a number of these throughout the world in recent years, including in South America, and famously in South Africa.
Once again, with sufficient funding, African training would clearly be available to the victims – and the perpetrators – of violence in Zimbabwe.
9- Support for Civil Society and its Opposition to the Government
In countries where the problem is, at least to some extent, the government itself, support of civil society organizations and other voices of opposition are key to change.
In Zimbabwe, there is a broad diversity of groups that has been victimized for such small acts as feeding people in towns that voted against the government in the last election.
10- A Free Press
Even thought we are aware of such problems in this country as the under-funding of the BBC and the existence of media conglomerates, there are alternatives, even if some of them require access to the internet (which is an option for most in the UK).
Thanks to Deanna Douglas (2004) for this article
Note:
Oxford Research Group and PeaceDirect's 'Cutting the Costs of War' by Dr Scilla Elworthy is the source of many of the general concepts above. For further information, see www.peacedirect.org
Back to the top
A group of NGOs brought together by in February 2004.
The NGO Peace and Security Liaison Group (PSLG) brings together NGOs engaged in peace and security issues. The group works to establish mechanisms for policy dialogue on security-related topics between NGOs and the UK government though regular, informal meetings with government officials.
The PSLG aims to provide a common forum for meaningful policy dialogue with government to establish relationships and develop broad-ranging and holistic approaches to peace and security issues.
The fourteen organisations that make up the PSLG bring together considerable knowledge, experience, and expertise from the peace and security segment of UK civil society.
Their fields of interest and expertise span conflict prevention, conflict resolution, peace building, arms control, and disarmament, international security and governance. Their remits include advocacy, research and campaigning.
Many of the member organisations already have relationships with one or more elements of government, often focusing on specific issues, but they also see a role for an expanded and more coordinated engagement with government policy.
The group is responding to the interest shown by the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development in developing consultative relationships with NGOs in the peace and security field.
In 2003, when the PSLG first took shape, both the FCO Strategy Paper and the MOD White Paper called for a closer working relationship with NGOs to integrate the various aspects of peace and security work. The Global Conflict Prevention Pool, working on an interdepartmental basis, also called for similar initiatives.
Recent government initiatives on conflict issues, particularly on post-conflict reconstruction, have also engaged with NGOs.
The PSLG is developing a pattern of regular meetings with government, each of which is based on a round-table approach to discussion on a theme agreed mutually in advance.
These conversations may address security and peace issues generally and involve all members of the group, or be more focused discussions involving a smaller group of NGOs with relevant expertise.
We are committed to senior level representation (directors where possible) from the NGOs, and hope to meet comparable personnel from the government, including staff from DFID, FCO, and MOD. We expect to conduct all meetings under the Chatham House rule.
Possible topics for discussion with this Group include:
- Conflict prevention policies, as reflected in the Global Conflict Prevention Pool (and the Pools more generally),
- Public Service Agreements (and similar policy statements) regarding the relationship between conflict prevention and policies on issues such as poverty eradication,
- UK responses to the current security environment including arms control, non-proliferation and terrorism
- Other areas of interest include: weak and failing states; post conflict reconstruction; coherence of government policies on security, conflict prevention and resolution; and the UK’s role in EU conflict prevention and management policies.
Neither the individuals nor organisations involved hold the same perspectives on all relevant issues. The PSLG seeks opportunities for dialogue with HMG (as well as with each other) from a common engagement with peace and security issues. It offers information and analysis based on research, surveys, and field experience.
The group is coordinated by a Networking Officer (three days a week, based at Conscience – the peace tax campaign), and a Support Group, which guides policy based on agreed principles.
For further information contact:
Networking Officer, NGO Peace and Security Liaison Group (PSLG)
projects@conscienceonline.org.uk
(listed alphabetically)
For further details on the areas of expertise of each organisation, and regions in which they work, please contact the PSLG Networking Officer.
is an independent research organisation that analyzes government policies and promotes public awareness of defence, disarmament, military strategy and nuclear policies in order to foster informed debate.
www.basicint.org
is working for the reduction and ultimate abolition of the international arms trade, together with progressive demilitarisation within arms-producing countries.
www.caat.org.uk
campaigns non-violently to rid the world of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and to create genuine security for future generations.
www.cnduk.org
serves as an international resource for local organisations pursuing peace building and conflict resolution initiatives.
www.c-r.org
campaigns for the legal right for those who have a conscientious objection to war to have the military part of their taxes spent on peace building initiatives.
www.conscienceonline.org.uk
is an independent, international non-governmental organisation that works at local, national, regional and global levels to generate conditions and processes conducive to the cessation of war and the generation of sustainable peace.
www.international-alert.org
is a health professionals’ organisation challenging barriers to health that highlights the health impacts of violent conflict, poverty and environmental degradation, and with others act to eradicate them.
www.medact.org
undertakes and disseminates research on key security issues to inform dialogue with decision makers and public debate. Current work focuses on three broad areas: nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation; UK defence and foreign policy; and global security in the changing international environment.
www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk
is an initiative to fund the resolution of conflict and the prevention of war.
www.peacedirect.org
works for the alleviation of human suffering caused by violent conflict through the promotion and encouragement of civilian strategies for the prevention, management and resolution of conflict.
www.peaceworkers.org.uk
represents the Religious Society of Friends in Britain on issues of peace and justice and undertakes peace building work in Israel/Palestine, the former Yugoslavia, Uganda and South Asia.
www.quaker.org.uk
provides advice, cross-cultural training and longer-term support to people who are working for peace, development, rights and humanitarian assistance in societies which are affected or threatened by violent conflict.
www.respond.org
is an independent non-governmental organisation that works with governments and civil society internationally to research, promote and implement new strategies to increase human security and prevent armed violence.
www.saferworld.org.uk
is an independent membership-based non-governmental organisation that undertakes research, advocacy, campaigning and education in support of principles and work of the United Nations.
www.una-uk.org
Back to the top
