Hi,

 I am new to online discussion, so please excuse my ignorance.

 I  very much like to be part of this discussion so could you please let me know if I understood the topic correctly? 

Is "Unarmed accompaniment"= someone whom gives protection to another person working in the conflict region?

Using tactics like "Hey, beware I am watching him (the human right defender), so if anything happen to the guy I would know its you (the culprit).

If my understanding is correct. Does this means that Unarmed accompaniment actually know who is the culprit? If so, my question here is why the tactics work? Why do the culprit actually fear the "Unarmed accompaniment" threat to tell? 

I apologize if this is a very childish or basic/irrelevant questions.

Kiradit

Dear experts,

I read with interest that there are over 80 organisations world wide providing accompaniment - I would like to get in touch with organisations working in Africa: could someone guide me?

David G: I am aware of Nonviolent Peaceforce's plans/project in Uganda - where do your activities stand at the moment?

My feel is that accompaniment is not much used in Africa - if that's correct, why would that be? do contexts on this continent (e.g. Zimbabwe, Gambia, Ethiopia, Sudan-Khartoum) not lend themselves for it? are providers not familiar enough with the contexts and backgrounds? Or am I not looking in the right direction?

Many thanks, arend98

Hello to everybody.

First we would like to present ourselves as we would like to take part in the discussions althrough the week.

 My name is Zsuzsanna Kacso and I am participating in this discussion together with my colleague Corina Simon. We both work at the Peace Action, Training and Research Insititute of Romania (PATRIR).

PATRIR is interested in this tactical discussion as we are a member organisation of Nonviolent Peaceforce and the European Network of Civil Peace Services.  In the recent months we have developed what we call a  "Competency Framework" for peaceworkers engaged in their own community, presenting skills and knowledge necessary in the filed of peacebuilding and conflcit transformation. We would like to share these information and see how to better integrate them in the field work (i.e. unarmed accompaniment) and find viable assessment methodologies for these skills and knowledges.

Zsuzsa and Corina

I wanted to make sure that all participants in this online discussion understand that I am here mostly as a 'figurehead'. Nonvioent Peacefore is composed of eighty member organizations on all continents. We have a couple dozen unarmed civilian peacekeepers deployed in Sri Lanka and the Philippines. We have regional coordinators in six locations as well as other staff and volunteers widely spread. All of these are invited to participate and many of them will, I hope, identify themselves as Nonviolent Peaceforce contributors to this discussion.

David Grant, Strategic Relations Director

Nonviolent Peaceforce - Washington DC office 

It can be very useful for organizations to understand how their different tactics can compliment each other to more effectively further their goals. As David mentions in his post: Another aspect that is states, "Human rights work has tended to 'naming and shaming'. That is the very useful nonviolent 'stick'. Non-partisan civilian intervention in violent conflict tends towards 'truth and reconciliation'. The equally useful nonviolent 'carrot'."

This is a very important issue to raise and for organizations to examine. We can sometimes get into the mindset that our partner organizations or those organizations that we build collaborative relationships with must be implementing the same tactics that we are to be considered our allies in the work. We are missing tremendous opportunities when we limit ourselves in that way.

Take for example an organization that is trying to build a working relationship with a military commander on the ground to enhance community safety, the organization may not be in the best position to take a hard "naming and shaming" stance because it can undermine that delicate relationship builing process. But one of their partner or collaborative organizations could certainly take that hard stance to ensure that specific situations and actions are brought to light and addressed. This "carrot and stick" tactical approach carried out by two different organizations can make it possible to develop needed relationships on the ground while maintaining accountability for actions.

It would be great to hear more about the diversity of partnerships and collaborations needed to make unarmed accompaniment effective - at the local, national and international levels.

Nancy Pearson, New Tactics Program Manager

David,

I think your distinction between the human rights approach and the nonviolent civilian intervention approach is much oversimplified - and some of the best evidence for this comes from the experience of accompaniment organizations once they really establish themselves on the ground: there is a tendency to gravitate towards a great many of the same practical activities and impact regardless of the diverse range of apparently different philosophical bases (which is not as diverse as some of their rhetoric might suggest, if you really look at the commitments of the individuals involved, where you will often find both approaches prominent.) .

It might be useful to elaborate on the distinction you make. Are you suggesting that accompaniment of (potential) victims serves a reconciliation purpose if done in a certain way? I am dubious, but interested. If one's fundamental objective is to have a reconciliatory impact on abusers, protective accompaniment would not be the logical way to pursue it, because it has so repeatedly proven difficult-to-impossible to create an external image of non-partisanship while engaged in accompaniment of particular groups or people.

In some situations there may be 'reconciliatory' by-products of the accompaniment role, but it is rare. It is probably more common that the presence of accompaniment is viewed by abusers as somewhere between a threat and an inconvenience - either of which impacts might have some protective value, but are not likely to contribute to reconciliation (assuming reconciliation is a relevant outcome in the given circumstances.)

I have interviewed quite a few military and government authorities, even armed group members, about their perceptions of accompaniment processes. They are often respectful - sometimes for diplomatic reasons; in one case I even felt like a Guatemalan General was actually honestly expressing respect for our willingness to take such high risks, something he considered analagous to the his commitment as a soldier. On the other hand they are sometimes angry, defensive and perceive us to be further polarizing local relationships. Even in the respectful case, I wouldn't stretch this to the point of saying it was a "reconciliatory' role.

There are many other organizations engaged in mediation and reconciliation in conflicts, and these are also a form of nonviolent conflict intervention. But usually a reconciliatory approach requires great care about projecting a non-partisan image, in order to keep the idalogue open with all parties. These are generally not organiziations doing accompaniment.

PBI has been involved in both approaches. PBI had a five-year project in Haiti in the 1990s of training and support for the development of capacities for nonviolent conflict resolution. Interestingly, though, this was not a project that put a heavy focus on accompaniment. In North America in the 1990s, PBI had a project focused on dialogue and reconciliation in some violent struggles involving native peoples in Canada and the US, but again this was not mixed with protective accompaniment. The problem I see is that once we say we are having a protective impact, here is an implicit accusation perceived by other parties. it is not easy to overcome.

-Liam

- Liam 

Hello Liam and Everyone,

 Thank you for your response. So basically for this tactic to work we need to know or atleast have some idea who are behind the violence.

I also understand from the discussion that being accompaniment , in a way helps take pressure of confrontation off the direct organization working with the local institution (either government or the culprit itself). Which can be challenging.....

Than also that this tactic might not work everytime if the culprit does not ease to international pressure. For example, I am not sure how much news was broadcast in Thailand during the Polpot's regime. Why no strong action were taken when 2 million people were being killed within just 3.8 years. Similar to what might be going on in Africa?

Also given the new way terrorist are working, they have changed I believe. Most 'do not' wish to take direct responsibility for their action anymore. The fear of 'unknown' seems to work best for them. It induces both fear and helps confuse the attempt from authority to resolve the conflicts.

I am in Thailand, everyday people (most of whom are normal citizens) are being killed or injured on a daily basis. The violence have continued for 4 years already and it is still a big mystery who exactly is responsible for the action. Plus I wonder if this unrest is known at international level.   

Throughout this discussion, I would like to gain as much knowledge as possible on this or any other tactics that might fits the situation of unrest in Thailand. I belive every problem is new and unique so we should approach it individually. But I also believe that Human being can be different but similar as well. So does the nature of conflicts and its solution.  

Regards,

Kiradit

Greetings from Guatemala. 

I work with Nonviolent Peaceforce as the coordinator of our 4 person team accompanying human rights defenders here. 

Responding to some of the issues raised from the perspective of recent field experience:

Perpetrators:  Here the violence is quite diffused.  Years ago it was fairly clear that pressure applied on the government would reach the perpetrators for the reasons Liam listed (embarrassment, international witnesses, bad publicity, political setbacks etc.).  Now the violence is generalized and the perpetrators are often organized crime, narco traffickers, independent security forces, some paramilitary and govt. security forces, and police.  The government is complicit in allowing almost complete impunity.  There are roughly 5,000 murders a year for which less than 2 % are even taken to the stage of a trial.  

Risk Analysis:  Human Rights Defenders have more than the usual guess work to do in this context.  They watch patterns of activity, the frequency and nature of threats, and try to weigh the odds.  They are often unsure whether those who threaten them have any higher authority to which they respond.  More likely, because organized crime has so effectively infiltrated the government, they (the perpetrators) exercise control over the government officials.  (Similar to military governments of the past in that sense.)

Emphasis for Accompaniment:  In this context, the emphasis for accompaniment has been on imparting a sense of security to the defenders so that they can continue their work.  They don’t feel alone, which can be a big factor, so they carry on.  It is extremely hard to judge whether there is a deterrent factor to anyone who might be watching our accompaniment.

Other Experiences?  I would welcome comments from anyone who has experience with accompaniment in this kind of generalized violence where it’s difficult to point the finger.  The war is officially over, but the death rate is about the same.  Assassins know the state institutions are so weak, they have a 98% chance of not even being bothered. The levers of power have not felt sufficiently embarrassed to strengthen their institutions or it’s not in their interest. 

(The exception may be the novel opening to an International Commission Against Impunity, which will be staffed by international experts and nationals for two years.  They will try to get a handle on organized crime and its process of infiltration.)

Betsy Crites

Nonviolent Peaceforce in Guatemala

Warm greetings from Sri Lanka!

I am involved in "the amazing gift of providing unarmed protection" in Sri Lanka, working with the Nonviolent Peaceforce (NP), as a Field Team Member. NP provides international nonviolent protection using three of the four main Third Party Nonviolent Intervention (TPNI) methods, namely, presence, monitoring/observation and accompaniment. Inter-positioning, being the fourth, has not been utilized.  

 Hitherto, I have seen presence and unarmed accompaniment as two different tools in the 'toolsbox' of TPNI methods, though intertwined...and NP is consciously and strategically using unarmed accompaniment in our work in Sri Lanka. We have found this tactic to be critical to the overall impact of our project.

Liam's use of the term "Community Accompaniment" to reflect the image of "...accompanying an entire cummunity that may be under duress by making their presence visible there..." is good learning for me personally. Thanks, Liam!

Would gladly share my unarmed accompaniment experiences as the discussion unfolds...

Kingsley Ayettey

Field Team Member

Nonviolent Peaceforce Sri Lanka

It's important to understand exactly what nonviolent accompaniment is.  It is different than what is usually called nonviolence.  It is actually peacekeeping.

Peacekeeping is part of the triad of active peace -- peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding.  Each of these have different definitions, though there can be some overlap.  Sadly, you will often see these terms used interchangeably, reflecting that the general knowledge of peacemaking in modern societies is poor.

Peacekeeping can also be distinguished by noting what it is not -- it is not, for example, what the United Nations does with its 'peacekeeping forces'.  It has nothing to do with arms or armed intervention.  It is not police work.  It is, on the contrary, PRECISELY nonviolent accompaniment!

But it is not what is called nonviolence!  Nonviolence is active resistance or passive resistance.  At least those are the two things which are usually called 'nonviolence'.

Nonviolence is a risky term to use because it is a double-negative.  This is why Gandhi christened the term 'Satyagraha', meaning steadfastness in the truth.  Double-negative terms don't say much -- they say only what a thing ISN'T.  In peacemaking, there is an absolute necessity to say what it IS, hence the Triad of Active Peace.

 Keeping the focus on the Triad of Active Peace, where it belongs, and understanding the distinctions between the three elements -- peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding -- enables us to understand that 'nonviolent accompaniment' is actually peacekeeping. 

John Wilmerding

Quaker Peacemaker

John Woolman College

IFOR ( International Fellowship of reconciliation) and WPP (
women peacemakers program) are very involved in Action non violence. WPP is
raising the issue on Gender and peacekeeping, we had received testimonies from
women activist asking for special approach in peacekeeping. I wanted to know
from the people who are in the field your opinion about approaching Gender in
the peacekeeping and unarmed forces.

Are there special needs to women and to men in the
communities? How are you approaching them?

Thanks,

Cristina Reyna
Gender Officer
Ifor/WPP
c [dot] reyna [at] ifor [dot] orgwww.ifor.org/wpp

 Again...greetings from the beautiful island, Sri Lanka!

For the tactic of unarmed accompaniment to be effective, a fertile ground of 'acceptance' must prevail in the 'environment' in which the accompaniment is taking place. The security risk of the tatic is reduced if the accompaniment organisation is 'accepted' by all the actors in the conflict. 'Acceptance', therefore, becomes a key strategy in the tactic, unarmed accompaniment.

In Sri Lanka, Noviolent Peaceforce's own security is mainly based on 'acceptance' as an 'independent outsider'...our impartial and discret role enables us to attain this feat. David Grant substantiates this in his post: To speak or not to speak...

Jan Passion pointed out in his post: Dissssociative and PK and PB and other defnitions, NP 's dual role of peacekeeping (outside presence) and peacebuilding (facilitative presence)..."doing much more than just accompaniment, NP is doing some deep relationship building with multiple stakeholders, and doing confidence and relationship building and much more of the deeper and longer-term type work..."

David Grant also mentions in his post: Regarding the 'carrot', not the 'stick'  how NP's 'standing-with' activities in the communities have helped some local peacemakes to expand their work. This has enhanced our 'acceptance' !

Neverthless, Nonviolent Peaceforce will only recommend unarmed accompaniment where the risk presented to Field Team Members' lives is both 'measurable' and 'acceptable'. 

Kingsley Ayettey

Field Team Member

Nonviolent Peaceforce Sri Lanka

Hello all,

I work for New Tactics, and want to make participating in this discuss as easy and straightforward as possible. There is a way for you to 'collapse' all the comments made in the discussion so far, so that you only see the Subjects of each comment (as well as the author of the comment). Here is how you do that:

At the bottom of the discussion page, you will find a place that you can 'Post a new comment'. Just above that box, there is a place for you to change your 'Comment viewing options'.

It will most likely be set at "Threaded List - expanded" and you can change that to "Threaded List - collapsed" and then use the "Save Settings" button. This will collapse all the posts to only their Subject headings and author. It will look something like this:

Clarification on Defination by kiradits

who is the culprit? by liam

Another aspect that is by DavidGrantNP

Accompaniment in Africa by arend98

etc etc

This is helpful in viewing what kinds of smaller conversations are currently being discussed, without having to dig through everything that has been written!

Let me know if you have any questions - kantin [at] cvt [dot] org.

Kristin

It feels like a lot of the focus of this discussion has been on
what we as peacemakers (or peacekeepers, or accompaniers, or whatever
we choose to call ourselves) can do to bring about peace. I think
when we focus on the role of accompaniers, we ignore a much more
important dynamic: the role of communities in constructing their own
peace.

My role as an accompanier is to create a safe space where
threatened communities can organize themselves and work to bring
about peace, in the way that they choose.  The communities we
accompany here in Colombia have lived the armed conflict for years
(for most Colombians, the armed conflict has gone on their entire
life), they understand the complex social and political environment
they're operating in much better than I will no matter how much I
study, and they're more invested in the outcome of peace than those
of us who can simply choose to go home if the work gets too hard.
The communities we work with have all the ideas, experience and
skills necessary to construct the conditions of peace; they really
don't need that help from us. What our accompaniment is able to
provide is the security and the political maneuvering room for
communities to carry out their own peacemaking work. For us to think
that we know better than Colombians how to construct a Colombian
peace is at best presumptuous, and at worst, racist.

Another way we try to defer to the wisdom of the communities we
accompany is in the decisions we make about speaking out against
human rights abuses (as referred to by Sarah in her post To
speak, or not to speak... and to whom?). It's not always clear
that speaking out against the human rights abuses we observe is the
best path; occasionally speaking out can antagonize an armed actor
and in fact result in greater risk to a community. When we deal with
these questions, asking the community what they prefer is almost
always our preferred solution. Communities at risk are incredibly
acute at analyzing the threats that face them, so I rarely feel like
I need to second guess their assessments. If they think it's safe
for us to speak up, we do. If they prefer we remain quiet, we do
that too. Admittedly, sometimes we have to make quick decisions in
the field about speaking out, so we don't always have the luxury of
community consultation. Where we do, we always try to let the
community decide if they want us to speak out. It also helps us make
the quick decisions if we have been in ongoing dialog with the
community about what kinds of things they want us to confront, and in
what situations confrontation feels too risky.

Nils Dybvig - Christian Peacemaker Teams - Barrancabermeja, Colombia

I have read the inputs of several people and I am impressed by the deep insights they have shared. Clearly, there are various interpretations and choices about “tactics”, or, if some would prefer, options for unarmed accompaniment to protect HR defenders, and/or  non-partisan peacekeeping work in support of peace processes. The exchanges reveal a spectrum of actions open to organizations as to their appropriateness and objectives. I believe the interplay of theory and ground experiences will help inspire and guide us in our future endeavor, in relation to realities we all face.

I take the liberty of entering this message, sent by Nonviolent Peaceforce's headquarters in Brussels:

I’d like to draw your attention to new conclusion of the EU Council on the European Security and Defense Policy (partly as the result of NP speeches to the CIVCOM) we have now a reference to NP as one of NGOs that was consulted by the Member States’ representatives working on the civilian aspects of ESDP and we have also the Civilian Peacekeeping clearly mentioned (see below).

This is important because this document is the final official document endorsed by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of 27 EU Countries and also by the Chief of State and Government in the last December European Council.  So it’s  a recognition of our work. The same document is available in 22 languages.

This is the quotation (pag 26 of the English version):

=================

“XII. Co-operation with Non-Governmental Organisations

99. To enhance the dialogue between NGOs and the members of Council preparatory bodies,

the Presidency regularly invited NGO representatives to give briefings to members of the

Committee for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management in accordance with the

Recommendations for Enhancing Co-operation with NGOs and CSOs. Representatives from

a variety of international NGOs (such as the International Centre for Transitional Justice,

Saferworld, Interpeace, and Nonviolent Peaceforce) presented briefings on Afghanistan,

Kosovo, Guinea-Bissau and Civilian Peacekeeping. Particular care was taken to ensure that

NGO input would be given during the early stages of the planning phase for civilian ESDP

missions.”

=================

Using the term 'mainstreaming' also reminds me of the conference held in November 1993 at the United Nations Church Center. As I recall the title of the conference was "Mainstreaming Peace Teams". At it, the director of the UN Volunteer Corps stood up and pleaded for nonviolent intervention in Rwanda and Burundi. We did not -- at that time or, unfortunately, now -- have capacity to quickly deploy large-scale. It was in April 1994 that the genocide in Rwanda happened. 

Early warning mechanisms are even better now than they were then. The mesage about from the EU, as well as from other sectors (as Anthony Kelly reports), indicated recognition is increasing. But obviously the wheels of change grind very slowly to create the political will and requisite finances. 

David Grant, Strategic Relations Director

Nonviolent Peaceforce - Washington DC office

 I haven't responded to this post for a couple of days because it has to do primarily with research. We've had our hands full with implementation.

We do our best to make sure that our peacekeeping teams are balanced in gender, geography and ethnicity. What I personally hope we can do -- especially when we reach our large-scale goals -- is to have teams with specialties.  That could include units that pay particular attention to the role in violence played by various categories: of identity such as 'gender', 'age', 'religion', 'class', and of modality such as 'cultural arts',  'communications', etc. It  would be a lot easier, probably, to do this suggested research under those circumstances.  Of course no one disagrees about the importance of identity in all aspects of our work.

David Grant, Strategic Relations Director

Nonviolent Peaceforce - Washington DC office

Anthony Kelly asks about the process of mainstreaming protection within the wider humanitarian ommunity. What a huge issue - I think it would take us a bit to far away from our focus here on the tactic of accompaniment. I will make a few comments on it, but try to tie it back to our theme.

You mention the ALNAP Protection Guide. This guide was actually published by the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, the same institution through which I published the more recent "Proactive Presence." You might also be interested in knowing that that ALNAP Protection Guide, which has been very widely used by the humanitarian community, was based on a pilot publication drafted by Hugo Slim and Luis Enrique Eguren - Luis Enrique comes from a long background in accompaniment work within PBI, was one fo the founders of the PBI project in Colombia, and also a founder of "Protection International" a new NGO in Brussels which until recently was teh Brussels European Office of PBI's "Mainstreaming Protection Project." (I recommend their web-page www.protectionline.org where you can find a wide variety of resources on protection of human rights defenders and IDPs.)

Accompaniment is a fairly small piece of the field protection reality - the humanitarian community is engaged in a wider range of protection activities, and has thousands and thousands of people deployed in difficult conflict zones to do this diverse work. In a few cases these organizations do accompaniment explicitly, in others it is an implicit impact of a field presence serving a different function. And in many cases, for lack of a conscious analysis of potential protective impact and lack of training in protection training staff, optential protective use of their huge human resources in the field is missed.

Even though accompaniment work is still so quantitatvely small out there, I think that Luis Enrique's involvement in the ALNAP manual, and the impact of Proactive Presence on the more mainstream humanitarian and human rights community as well, and in general the growing recognition of our organizations in this community of bigger actors is a illustration of something important: the rigorous,  conscious and very ground-based way in which our organizations are analyzing and using our presence, and learning directly and humbly from the people and communities we accompany on the ground, is something that many people in these other institutions are seeing as an important thing to learn from. not because they aren't already doing some of the same things, but rather because so much of the protection work they are doing is being done without conscious analysis and evaluation.

There are a lot of great people out there, deeply committed and politicized by working in the field up close to victims and courageous activists, who are working in institutions whose public face may never invovle an explicit treatment of "protection", much less accompaniment. The current expansion of discussion of practical protection impact is giving these committed field workers support and reinforcement to push their own institutions to take more coherent and conscious approaches - in some cases in order that the good protection work they are already doing will be acknowledged and better supported at an institutional level.

Another resource I would recommend to those intersted in humanitarian protection action are the many resources and studies being put out by teh Humanitarian protection Group of the Oveseas Develoment Institute in London.

- my best

Liam 

One provocative framework for me for thinking about
nonviolent accompaniment has been a comparison between my commitments to
Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) and the commitments my sister has made to the
military.

In our family, I am the “peacenik” who demonstrated against
the Iraq War, while my sister joined the National Guard soon after 9-11, though
she has not been called into active duty. This is not a comprehensive
reflection, nor is it a simple comparison and contrast, as we serve in
different contexts.

Some of the parallels in contrast to my sister … She gets
money for college; I fundraise to serve. I’m a song leader at rallies; she’s a
cheerleader for her unit. She endured boot camp; I did a delegation and trained
for a month. In training, we both crawled on our stomachs to practice escaping
bullets. She suffered burns from a shell casing; I spent a night in cold jail.
I mourned the loss of Tom Fox, but marveled at how few deaths CPT has faced in
its work in conflict zones; my sister mourned lost soldiers who were dispatched
while she got to finish college.

We both consciously decided to be dedicated and we have gone
at it with all our energy. Both our lives could be placed in risky situations
for causes we care about. It’s not that we are seeking danger and risk, but
it’s the cause that brings us to potential threat.

While it’s true that we both enter risky situations, there
is an ironic security in the vulnerability of unarmed accompaniment. Soldiers
with guns are targets, thus their power makes them vulnerable. Teammate Erin
Kindy encountered some armed soldiers in the Colombian countryside. She
explained to them, “I am worried for your safety because you are in more
danger of being targeted by other armed groups because you have guns.”

For nonviolent accompaniers, our
sources of security come in more vulnerable forms through connection to local partners, through being
known, through recognition of our work for peace, through our watching eyes and
communication to international channels. We are not a threat, and if we are a
threat to the status quo, those who would harm us might count the cost of
causing us harm when our organization and partners would raise an international
stink as we would do for Colombians. It is through connection, no power over
others that brings us security.

In my next post, I reflect on the risks we face, as illustrated in the death of our own, Tom Fox in Iraq.

Waiting for peace,

Charletta Erb
Christian Peacemaker Teams - Barrancabermeja, Colombia

Compliments!

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, alias Mahatma Gandhi, tells us:                                       "If the method of violence takes plenty of training, the method of Nonviolence takes even more training"        

The "Triad of Active Peace" - peacekeeping, peacemaking and peacebuilding (courtesy of John Wilmering), is a slow iterative process that requires significant follow-ups and support after the initial set of "activities".

Unlike "the dialogue-based approaches of peacemaking and peacebuilding" (Anthony's post: Dissasociative), unarmed accompaniment as a peacekeeping method...though parochial it may seem...is a a very fulfilling act and tatic. It has a sudden major impact!

The successful completion  of an unarmed accompaniment "contract" brings great satisfaction to both the accompanier and the accompanee. To the accompanier, it is a relief of joy and satisfaction to do a "concrete good" in the midst of peacebuilding, peacemaking, and peacekeeping work, the impact of which, is often slow and less clear. To the accompanee, it is the end of a hazardous journey and the the beginning of life in safety.

Specifically, I am alluding to unarmed accompaniment provided to at-risk individuals and/or families such as, Human Rights Defenders, "surrendees" and/or 'escapees", etc..., from an unsafe environment to a safe place.

 A christian religious leader Nonviolent Peaceforce (NP) successfully accompanied had this to say: "Thank you for lighting my world with your presence (accompaniment). With NP, even the dark shadows of doubt and death disappear".

On the contrary, community accompaniment --in addition to the challenges mentioned in Nils Dybvig's post: CPT's use of the community accompaniment model -- requires hundreds of acts, often mundane, to create. It is painstakingly slow work. It is incremental..clearly visible impacts are often slow to emerge, and subtle. It is a process that requires sustained efforts to document the effects of the work, usually, a building of slow effects.

I quite agree with Anthony that, community accompaniment, "if carried out effectively and for long enough, eventually allows enough safety and political space the actors in conflict to develop peacemaking and peacebuilding type initiatives". My point: it is a process that takes "long'" time to mature and show impact.

These are the sober reflections on the ground experiences of one Nonviolent Peaceforce "practitioner" in Sri Lanka. Thank you all for your enriching and thoughtful exchanges...

Magda van der Ende tells us:                                                                                                            "A tiny pebble can cause endless circles in water, and have a continuing impact on the water"  ...indeed, soft whispers of hope and encouragement!

Unarmed Accompaniment is not a fairy tale...it is salutary experience!

Kingsley Ayettey

Field Team Member

Nonviolent Peaceforce Sri Lanka

Thanks Michele and Nancy for sharing your views and experiences on the topic of violence against women in conflict situations. There are lot of reflections we could share about that ... but I'd rather focus on highlighting, for the purpose of this discussion, that women are not always or not only victims (as the stereotype portraits "women and children" as the "most vulnerable" victims of war). Women are also and mainly active and positive AGENTS, during and after conflict, and they perform key roles in community reconstruction, rebuilding of the social fabric, bridging accross divides, etc., with incredible resilience, strength and generosity. The problem is that those contributions are rarely given attention by mainstream (male) political actors when negotiating peace agreements, discussing security issues, setting reconstruction programs, delivering humanitarian aid in refugee or displaced camps, designing health/economic/educational programs... etc.

Coming back to the specific topic of this forum, I'm sure we all have experienced that, when we are in a conflict setting, and we as international observers go into a community to discuss the situation there, to identify the needs and threats, and the resources people have: who do we talk with? Who are the leaders that approach us to tell us what's going on and what they want from us? The leaders we discuss with, negotiate, agree, support, etc. are almost always MEN. That is usually what local culture states in the communities we accompany, and of course we want to be respectful of that culture... The risk is that in doing so, without awareness and provisions to reach out to the women, in fact women's needs and interests, views and analysis, particular situation, and specific, unique contributions often go unknown, unheard, and not paid attention to... And we all miss the opportunity to include their knowledge, experiences and amazing contributions in the design and implementation of our accompaniment/peacekeeping/peacebuilding programs...

In that sense, I'd reply David that it is not only a matter of paying attention to include diversity (in terms of gender and other aspects) in the composition and performance of our teams... (although it's an important first step, certainly). It has to do more with putting on a special lens (in this case, gender lens, but also class, race, ethnic, cultural lens as well) to see through that lens all the aspects of our work and of the reality we work with/in (particularly, the power dynamics, and how they determine the access to and control over information, resources, etc. within the community or the organisation), and to act accordingly...

Indeed, we are very happy that PBI, like WPP/IFOR, is currently going through a process of recognizing the importance of mainstreaming gender and diversity at all levels of the accompaniment and civilian-based peace work... and we look forward to deepening our exchange and collaboration with them in the process of our pilot project.

It would certainly be great if you CPTs are also interested and willing to exchange on these issues, departing from each one's practices and experiences (especially in such challenging context like Colombia)!

Maria M. Delgado

Dear Charletta,

Glad you resonated to a bit of what I posted.

I often have led workshops where I ask people to state what is needed to run an armed military and what is needed to run an unarmed peace force. The lists match almost completely. The only major exception is "willing to kill" versus "not willing to kill". We need to remember that the highest ideals of people in the military are no different than our own: love and protection of others, of land, of creation.

David Grant, Strategic Relations Director

Nonviolent Peaceforce - Washington DC office

Thank you for shaing this book reference. Please do let us know what your follow-up with the communities reveals so we can share those new ideas and strategies with others. I have no doubt that women have found some tremendously creative strategies. As Maria wrote in her post, "Women are not only victims, but agents!" women are resilient, resourceful, strong and determined actors.

Nancy Pearson, New Tactics Program Manager

Dear all,

i work with Nonviolent Peaceforce in Sri Lanka since few weeks and i read with pleasure all your comments in this interesting discussion. As this is the last day i would like share with you a small comment about my vision of unarmed accompaniment.

My contribution is referring not so much to the political side of this tool, that is very important obviously, but more to the “human inner side” of this, or i should say is referring to the inner source of Nonviolence, that is also important for me in the unarmed accompaniment, at least the one that NP wants to realize. Gandhi said in his autobiography that a Satyagrahai has to believe that God stay inside the hearts of everyone and a man live freely only when is ready to die, if necessary, by hand of  his brother but never to kill him. What i am speaking about is the concept of Trust, the fact that every peace worker has to start with her/his inner source for peace, believing that this beauty source is inside everyone. This is the base for me for Nonviolence, the base for transformation of conflicts and so also for proactive presence and unarmed accompaniment.

As Ramu Manivannan said Nonviolence is both universal and specific. Peace and harmony as tendencies have a more pervasive, stable and universal foundation in the social psychology of human beings and operate as pre-requisites of any process of institutionalization of the structure of society.Thanks to give me the possibility to share with you this toughts and stay well.Maurizio Geri

There’s already
been some important discussion about methods of training for unarmed
accompaniment. I’d like to throw in the idea of role plays. I’m sure many organizations
represented here are using role plays in trainings. I trained with CPT nearly 4
years ago and the experience of the role plays sticks in my head the most. We
used role plays to explore some high tension scenarios in which CPTers have
found themselves over the years.

The
experiential aspect of these exercises is critical in training our bodies to
respond nonviolently in situations of conflict. Many of us have probably seen
the videos of US civil rights activists using role plays to train each other
for sit-ins in the 50’s. What are others’ experiences with role plays as a tool
for training?

I've also experimented
with role plays in outreach. I presented on Colombia after returning from a
stint with the team a few years ago. Along with the standard photos and a talk,
I occasionally invited audience members to participate in a role play. The scenario
was drawn from our accompaniment work when an illegal armed group demanded food
from a community member I the presence of CPTers. The role play provoked quite
a bit of good discussion in the audience. It also appeared to have lasting impact
on some participants. A few months ago, I received an email from a friend who
participated in one of these role plays more than two years ago. She commented
on the impact of the role play:

“…It was a very powerful experience when you
asked us to act out a situation. What remains with me is the feelings. And the
recognition that with proper training, I might be able to help, and also how
significant it is for us to use our 'power'… to protect rather than dominate.”

As I
prepare to return to the US
next month, I’m looking forward to trying out role plays again in
presentations. What other creative recruitment tools have folks found useful in
their outreach or recruitment?

Tim Nafziger
Christian Peacemaker Teams - Barrancabermeja, Colombia

It would be helpful for those you in organization that provide accompaniment to give insights into the processes you take for determining what people and/or communities that request accompaniment are actually provided with accompaniment.

Are there certain elements that accompaniment organizations look for to be in place before deciding to provide that accompaniment? Is so, what elements seem to provide the best match?

Are there also certain characteristics that accompaniment organizations are seeking in the people who request to serve in the capacity of accompaniment?

Thank you for sharing your insights in this area.

Nancy Pearson, New Tactics Program Manager

Nancy,
Here are some notes/guidelines that we have used when thinking about
accompaniment that reflects some of our processes and planning.  Some of these answer parts of the question you are posing....    No doubt a few of our teams will
likely have updated and/or revised these guidelines, depending on the
country and the dynamics in for a particular team or a particular
conflict.

Paz,   Jan

On making the agreement
    *    Communicate
with your team and the head office before agreeing to an accompaniment.
*    Either we -- or a trusted partner/neighbor in the
community -- need(s) to already have a relationship with the family or
individual requesting accompaniment (hereafter on referred to as
“client”).
*    Ask ourselves whether there are any other agencies
that could be doing the job being asked of us.
*    Let client know of our confidentiality policy --
no identifying information goes outside of NP unless we get permission
of the
client.
*    Talk about the situation long enough to get a
sense that we can meet the client's needs.
*    Talk about what will happen at the other end of
the journey -- i.e. introducing a client to their next “host” (if
relevant)

    *    Have an exit strategy.  Be
clear (with each other on the team as well as with our client) before
we begin,
where our responsibilities end.  Is protection needed for family
members
on the return trip?  Where is a safe place to separate?
*    Confirm that our clients have given up violence
and that nonviolence is expected to be upheld throughout the time that
we are
supporting them.
*    After developing the plan, talk about how if the
circumstances change, we may have to begin again with a whole new
agreement -
even with a decision about whether or not to continue.
*    If our plan requires participation of partners,
don't finalize the agreement until checking with the partners.
*    Remember to inform key partners (if any) who need
to be informed about what we're doing  (after checking with the client
to
be sure it is okay with them to give information).
*    At least two team members should
always be present through any part of the accompaniment, but these may
not
always need to be the same two.

Preparation for the journey
*    Keep in mind potential emotional needs of our
client from the time we first meet throughout the duration of the time
we are
providing support.
*    See that the family has taken into consideration
security needs of the client until the journey begins - where is a safe
place
for them to stay, where to meet and how to begin the journey, etc.
*    Keep in mind potential sensitivities and concerns
about being seen with foreigners when going and coming.

    *    It may be a good protocol not
to begin the journey at the NP office.
*    When deciding how many team members are needed,
more is better than less for making good decisions but we also need to
take
into account other needs/demands on the team and whether it is an
adequate use
of team resources.
*    Consider carefully who to use for a driver. 

    *    Bring food, water, and
satellite phone.  It may be best not to stop until out of a particular
area

    *    Decide route attempting to
minimize checkpoints and consider what you will say if asked at
checkpoints if
the client doesn't have an ID.

Communications
    *    Need a better way to communicate securely with
head office and each other. 
*    Consider what kind of information to share and
what not and to whom.  Ask what the client wants and also provide
information on a "need - to - know" basis.
*    When communicating with outside agencies like the UN,
we need to ask our client if it's okay to pass this information on.

Decisions
*    Take direction from the people we are serving -
the person being accompanied and their family members.  Listen to their
wishes and will.
*    Withhold giving our own opinions or advice. 
When asked, turn it back to the client by saying something like: What
do you
think? What are your ideas? 
*    Our agenda is to support our clients in their
agendas.
*    For decisions within the team, always
designate one team member to be the decision - maker when a decision
needs to
be made quickly. 
*    For team decisions, strive for consensus. 
Second possibility is to call head office in case of tension or
confusion - if
there's time.  Otherwise the designated
decision - maker must make the decision.
*    Generally, decisions should be made as local to
the implementation as possible - the team implementing the
accompaniment with
their clients.
*    Especially when discussing decisions about safety,
the clients need to be included in those discussions and decisions.

NP support for NP field teams with regard to accompaniment
    *    Identify designated drivers who might be on
call if a field team doesn't have one.
*    Do some role-plays around accompaniment at an
upcoming training/team meeting.
*    Create a checklist for what to bring on an
accompaniment journey.
*    At this point, no specifics about any
accompaniments should go out in any reports, talks, or articles outside
of NP
beyond a statement that we have provided accompaniments to some people
who have
felt in danger.
*    We might be able to share lessons learned provided
the way we talk about these doesn't reveal any specifics about any of
the
cases.
*    Guidance is needed on how to use interpreters
specifically for accompaniments.  Keep in mind implications of using
interpreters in terms of many of the points made above.
 

Jan
Passion -- Programme Officer, Nonviolent Peaceforce

Christian Peacemaker Teams - Barrancabermeja, Colombia

I've been thinking about the ideas
for evaluation shared by David and Nancy
earlier this week, as well as Nancy's
question about how to develop a community contract for accompaniment, and
thought I should write about our work towards a process.

When CPT was first invited to do
accompaniment work in Colombia
in 2001, we worked with one very threatened community, and our teams' focus was
on intensive physical accompaniment. In
those days the team didn't worry much about evaluation – people we knew were
being killed or threatened and forced to displace, and it was clear that our physical
presence reduced the risks to those communities. The level of conflict in that original
accompaniment area has reduced. Some
would credit our accompaniment, others would suggest that the political context
has changed, or armed groups have moved their focus somewhere else. So my first question is if anyone has ideas
for proving causation: of the many factors that may have resulted in reduced
violence, is there a way we can single out the effect of accompaniment?

Once the situation in the initial community
we accompanied here in Colombia
was calmer, we began reducing our presence there somewhat, allowing us to
expand our work to other communities.
We're now in the position of having to consider new requests for
accompaniment, and also to evaluate the need for accompaniment in communities
that we have been accompanying for a while.
One of the hardest questions we face is: when should we stop
accompanying a community?

We've had to start developing our own tools
to assess these questions. We have a
community profile that we're working to fill out with each community we
accompany, identifying the strengths of the community, the threats facing them,
and our best analysis as to the potential protective effects of accompaniment.
We're also developing some tools (workshops, interactive presentations) for
introducing CPT and accompaniment to communities, as well as for helping the communities
tell their story to us. The tools we're
creating are still in development, but I'd be happy to share some of what we've
done so far if others think it would be useful.

Nils Dybvig, Christian Peacemaker Teams - Barrancabermeja, Colombia

hello everyone! its my first time posting to a discussion, ever so please excuse my awkwardness. i was a field volunteer for peace brigades international for 2 years (including language training) in Indonesia and now am on our training committe to train potential volunteers to join PBI.

i have been trying to catch up on all the past posts, and most comments leave me short of breath in excitement about this discussion happening. truthfully, though, i would much rather sit around a kitchen table and chat about this with all of you and a pot of tea.

anyway, i wanted to tell a little story of my time as a field volunteer in Wamena, West Papua, Indonesia. we were the first non-religious forgienrs to establish a long term presensce in this town of Wamena and were trying to socialize the work of PBI. it seemed that people were actually so afraid that they were rarely even doing HR work - only a very very few were willing to risk it. so we were going from village to village over the course of a few months to 'socialize' the work of PBI - in case there were any people wanting to do HR work out there but too afraid to step forward, and in these villages the only way folks would have heard of us is if someone walked there and told them.

so, we took a bus and a walk and presented the work of PBI in a small village, a bit unsure of exactly who was in the audience but sure that there were village elders, young people and police informants. no problem, PBI always works transparently so we had no secrets to keep. after shaking many hands and thanking folks for letting us present we headed back to town.

the next morning, at 7:30 am a loud knock rang out from our front door. now, most people in Wamena know that the 'bule' (foreigners) sleep late - we open the office at 9am. but a teammate answered in his pajyamas to find a man from the village we presented in yesterday at the door. he roused the rest of us and we met in the living room.

this man was a village elder (he had 12 pigs, and was therefore also very weathy) and had been up by the fire all night after our presentation and finally decided to walk to our house at about 3am, and had just arrived from walking. he had brought along a young man to translate becuase he only spoke the local dialect, not Indonesian which is the language we were speaking.

he said "my children. i have come to tell you of my suffering and thank you for being here. i cannot tell you all the things i have endured but it is so important that you are here, that you care about our safety. i feel safer today in my village knowing you are here" (im quoting from memory here)

its a simple story, really. but this was a village that had endured great suffering at the hands of the military and police in the past generations. this man knew to be afraid, and the presence of a PBI house a 4-5 hour walk away made him feel more safe.

this is one of the reasons PBI tries to maintain a long term presence in an area, doing a long assessment before opening an office or house to ensure that we will have a positive effect on opening up space for peace.

wow! that was a long post, and i hope you all dont mind. i have lots more to say about the work of PBI and the power of nonviolence, so thank you for opening the discussion and sharing so much knowledge

damai,

peace,

sarah

Nancy -

yes I should have mentioned this is just one type of accompaniment model and guidelines for such a model.  NP Sri Lanka has both similar and different methods than NP-Guatemala or NP-Philippines.  I suspect that each NGO may provide different types, both in the same country and between country projects...   24/7 accompaniment is a whole different situation, as it accompaniment, or presence in a community.  I would welcome more stories from others about experiences, successes, lessons learned from other accompaniment models.   

Jan
Passion -- Programme Officer, Nonviolent Peaceforce

Dear participants,

Please receive best wishes and a few humble
contributions from Bolivia. I'm sorry to have stepped in so late in
this interesting debate but I'm glad to still be in time. Acción
Andina, the Bolivian organisation that I work with for 14 years, is one
of the 80 Nonviolent Peaceforce's Member Organisations. This platform
organisation was created in 1992 and at the time one of its main
reasons of being was the accompaniment of coca growing communities and
other  victims of the War on Drugs (imprisoned families, for
example). In later years we broadened our focus. Today, one of our main
focal points is the articulation and strenghtening of local capacities
in dealing with a growing tendency to use violence not only
structurally (in daily life) but also tactically during political
events.

After reading most of the posted blogs, I wish to share
some thoughts from our experiences. My first comment is the need, in
any international debate, to recognize and emphasize  the
existence of local peace-keeping capacities. Although I'm sure
that  members of international organisations working in the field
of unarmed civilian accompaniment usually agree on the prevailing
importance of local peace work, I also feel that this local work is
often being visualized as mostly related to "peacemaking" and 
"peacebuilding", and less so to "peacekeeping". I have not seen much
mention of and reflection on local experiences of protective
accompaniment, and I'm sure that, as in Bolivia, there must be many in
other countries as well. Please tell me if my perception is wrong.

I
do understand that international civilian involvement often focuses on
those regions where that kind of presence is dearly needed. I think
though, that the developing international debate on the Bolivian
situation clearly shows how underestimating the role of local civil
society might dangerously result in the prevailence of proposals of
international support or intervention. In the Boliviansituatiion, what
I see as most needed on the other hand, is to support initiatives that
could help better articulate our local endeavours.

Secondly,
although related to my first point, the wish to clearly distinguish
Peacekeeping from Peacemaking and Peacebuilding, becomes even more
challenging if we focus on these local initiatives. In fifteen years of
accompaniment, Acción Andina's activities have necessarily involved all
these, and the question of where to put the focus in each situation
heavily depended on our analysis of needs and processes. This surely
depends on choice, and I do not wish to propose changes in the choices
of our international involvement, but within Nonviolent Peaceforce, it
does pose a pending challenge in terms of how to articulate the
international work with the local activities (up to what extent it is
possible to show ourselves as really being non-partisan?).

Third,
our relations to the military. Although  I agree with David that
"they" are not "our" enemies and I read Charletta's reflections about
herself and her sister with great interest (my father is a retired
military officer and although it took us several years, we've luckily
managed to become very close again), I think that in thinking about and
considering mainstreaming, "we", interested in the use of  unarmed
civilian protective presence, have to prioritize improving our own
language (the meaning of concepts to us and the communities that we
work with) in stead of just making ourselves more understandable in
"internationally accepted"  terms. This in not unimportant, but
should only be a part of our efforts to creatively reinvent the
international public space of protective accompaniment, in close
connection to what is important to the peace work of the local
communities that we work with. I very much appreciate some of Liam's
contributions that I've read, and would like us to somehow systematize
our collective wisdom on this, and dig deeper from there.

As a
quick comment on Betsy's mention of situations in which it is most
difficult to identify the source of violence. In Bolivia, we are facing
a situation in which powerful elite groups lead the forces that oppose
the threat of structural changes that are supported by strongly
organized popular sectors, deeply connected to the  indigenous
majority. A racist element has become present in many public
manifestations of political violence. Attacks are often secretly
planned by small groups and  have thus become less predictable.
Also, the popular social movements face the fact that "their"
instruments of nonviolent struggle for justice (hunger strikes,
marches, etc.) are being tactically used by opposition, They understand
that they need new approaches. It is interesting to see how older
leadership styles, often pretty much based on male dominance, are more
liable to choose violent means to oppose violence, while it is often
the women that successfully introduce nonviolent approaches. This is an
ongoing debate of great importance, and it clearly shows how men and
women not only experience violence differently, but also act
differently on violence.

OK, I'm sorry if this has become a rather long contribution. Best wishes from Cochabamba, Boiivia.

Theo

Dear Friends,

I want to let everyone know that even though our designated time period for our featured resouce people for this discussion has concluded, we can still continue these wonderful in-depth exchanges that have been taking place.

As Kristin indicated in her post "Re: a story - keep the dialogue going!" you can continue this discussion or even create a group on this New Tactics website for those especially interested in further discussing the topic of 'Unarmed Accompaniment'.

The New Tactics staff is ready to provide assistance and we welcome your feedback and want to respond to your needs to make this website useful to you!

Cochabamba, January 31, 2008

Dear Nancy,

Thank you for
responding to and welcoming my earlier contribution from Bolivia.
I'm thankful too for the possibility to continue this multi-logue (it is
really much more than a dialogue).

Nancy, you mentioned your
interest in deepening our reflections on the specific strengthes of
women's contributions to dealing with violence. The Bolivian
sociologist Silvia Rivera recently wrote an article called: "Violence
and interculturality" (the complete article in Spanish: Violencia e
interculturalidad", is available on the internet).

In her article Rivera describes how indigenous women in the
Andes have always played a central role in defining the relations of
their communities with "external and unknown forces" (the violent
domination of Spanish colonizers among them). She refers to the term
"ritualists of the margins", used by the anthropologist Joseph
Bastien: "men have specialized in the rites that take place in the
civilized center of the community, whereas women have specialized in
the rites of the margins: at the riverside or in the altitudes where
the animals are pastured, (which is to say) in the border areas between
culture and nature, where the community enters in contactwith external
and unknown forces. This is where women -like in their weavings and
songs- domesticate the savage".

I find this comparison of
the art of building human relations across cultural differences with
the creation of weavings and songs particularly powerful. In the
conclusion of her article, Rivera writes: "To me, describing ethnics as
a (geographic) map is a male lecture, whereas ethnics from a female
point of view could easily be compared to a weaving, because of its
intercultural nature. In their weavings, the women incorporate elements
of "the other" (the unknown), in order to domesticate, to soften them,
and this is a female act by excellence."

I 'm very interested in hearing what you and other participants think of this interpretation.

Warm greetings,

Theo

Dear all,

 I must say this is the most interesting piece of all the tactical notebooks that I have been reading. I apologize for coming on this later but before I add my two cents to the ongoing discussion please allow me to briefly introduce myself.

My name is Mohammed Ademo alias Damee (preferred family name). Originally from the country that today we know as Ethiopia, an ethnic Oromo. I am an undergraduate student at the University of Minnesota and a volunteer intern with New Tactics Project.

I took greater interest on this subject because my experience suggests lack of access/information about the presence of such humanitarian work. And also a desperate need for such non-violent intervention there is.

Five years ago I when I was still a college student in Ethiopia, my colleagues and I protested on the streets of Addis Ababa. For a simple non-violent act as asking to meet with regional government administrators to discuss the issues that we had as Oromo students some 300 of us were rounded up and taken to a police barracked. No one knew what happened to us, nor did we know whom to contact or how. Not for its historic significance but for our unjust treatment, that incident became history unnoticed by all including the human rights community. Had I known about this at that time, at least the word would have gotten out to the media or human rights groups such as this one.

On a similar raid in may 2004 prominent leaders of the Oromo self-help association called Macha-Tulema were rounded up, their office was shutdown, non-profit license revoked and 40 years of documents/records were confiscated. This is widely reported by almost all human rights group and the Ethiopian government admitted the incident alleging the organization link to Oromo Liberation Front – an unlawful (according to Ethiopian government) guerilla organization that fights to enable Oromo people (40 million of Ethiopian population) masters of their destiny.

These respected leaders spent over 3 years in highly guarded federal prison with no founded charges against them besides trumped up charges of assumed links with OLF. If they had unarmed accompaniment the government wouldn’t deny confiscating the associations properties, their fate wouldn’t remain unbeknownst to the world etc. These are just two examples of every day trials of the Oromo people. Oromo students in higher education are very vulnerable to similar abuses, two of my former classmates dying in federal police only this year.

Due to the widespread nature of the threat and with almost anyone who spoke up against the government policies/practices being a suspect and then being at a greater risk of imprisonment and torture, I would like to know how unarmed accompaniment on volunteer basis can be sustained in places like Ethiopia.

And also where the regime is known for intentionally murdering civilians and blaming the opposition for it, what would be the guarantees for the security/safety of the volunteers?

Nonetheless, I enjoyed reading everyone's comments and inspired by the work eachone of you are engaged in.

"I regard myself as a soldier, though a soldier of peace" Mahatma Gandhi

Freedom for all Oppressed Nations!! 

Hello friends,

I wanted to be sure to add to the discussion this information about the Featured Discussion resource, Side by Side: Protecting and encouraging threatened activists with unarmed international accompaniment, by Liam Mahony.

One of the useful diagrams featured in Liam's tactical notebook provides an good visual for how international presence serves as a deterrent against the use of violence. The diagram, "Intervention Pattern: 3 - Use of accompaniment to disrupt all levels in the abuse process," illustrates the various points of potential intervention carried out by those who provide accompaniment.

Liam's tactical notebook provides an excellent resource for organizations already in the field providing unarmed accompaniment as well as for those who are interested in this life-saving tactic.

Nancy Pearson, New Tactics Program Manager