SEMINAR ON NONVIOLENCE - BONN, GERMANY

THE UNREPRESENTED NATIONS AND PEOPLES - ORGANIZATIONS/HEINRICH BOLL STIFTUNG (19-20 APRIL 1997)

Discussion Paper on

NONVIOLENCE AND CONFLICT. CONDITIONS FOR EFFECTIVE PEACEFUL CHANGE

Bonn, Germany, 19-20 April 1997

One of the primary goals of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization's (UNPO) is the prevention of violent conflict and promotion of the peaceful realization of legitimate rights and aspirations of nations, peoples and minorities. In showing its commitment in achieving this objective, the "promotion of nonviolence and the rejection of terrorism as an instrument of policy" is one of the five principles which form the basis of the Charter of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization.

Throughout the world today we are witnessing increasing numbers of nations and peoples trying to exercise their right to self-determination as provided for in the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenants on Human Rights, as well as the Covenant of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. This right provides for a democratic process for determining the desired political, economic, social and cultural development of a people, The routes taken are as varied as the backgrounds and circumstances of the peoples involved and often include the potential for conflict as shown by recent events in Chechenya, the former Yugoslavia, and many others.

Unfortunately, it is the experience of many that nonviolent approaches can be ineffective and are often met with a violent response. For example, in Nigeria, the Ogoni mounted a highly visible nonviolent campaign against the destruction of their natural environment by oil and gas companies, pointing out human rights abuses and asking for economic compensation. Once the campaign was successfully internationally, the military regime of Nigeria used brutal force to crush the movement. Another poignant example is that of Chechenya. The Chechen movement for independence was, from its inception in 1991, a nonviolent movement. It was successful in keeping Russia out without fighting. Then, even when Russian special forces were parachuted into Chechenya in 1991, they were pushed back without a single shot being fired, But in December 1994, Russia started one of the bloodiest wars of past decades to regain what it could not recover by political means. These are only two of a number of examples where peoples used nonv

iolence themselves, but their efforts were met by massive force and bloodshed.

On the other hand, the Solidarity movement in Poland and the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa were successful. Tibetans and Albanians in Kosovo have also achieved considerable international attention and support, at least in part due to the nonviolent approach of those movements. Why do some movements succeed and others fail? What are the conditions needed for nonviolence to be possible and to prevent outbreaks of violence?To encourage nonviolent approaches towards change and the resolution of conflicts, (Member) nations and peoples require assistance in the practical application of nonviolent action.

Besides looking at the practical question of the effectiveness of nonviolence, a number of issues need clarification by nations and peoples in order to promote nonviolent conflict prevention and resolution. These include:

- Definitions/understanding of issues related to nonviolence, violence and terrorism

- Positions regarding violence

- Positions regarding violent reaction to nonviolent action

- Roles to be played in the encouragement of nonviolence

It is the objective of this paper to raise issues for discussion on the above topics of violence and nonviolence to be addressed at a preparatory seminar in Born, Germany on 19.20 April 1997, bringing together leading figures in the field of nonviolence and senior UNPO Member representatives. The objective of this seminar is to initiate discussion and to distil some of the key issues that require indepth discussion and analysis. This subsequent discussion will take place in the form of an Relational Conference entitled, "Nonviolence and Conflict: Conditions for Effective Peaceful Change", to be held in Tallin, Estonia on 21-23 July 1997. In the organization of this conference, UNPO is building on its earlier conferences which explored issues relating to the use of force by governments, the meaning of self-determination, population transfer and, most recently, conflict prevention. The nonviolence conference program has been initiated in order to explore ways of making nonviolence more effective and to prevent

the outbreak of Violence. The program will also provide participants the opportunity to exchange practical experience and expert opinion on these issues. The intention is that seminar and conference participants will formulate concrete recommendations and action plans for more effective conflict prevention and resolution by nonviolent means.

IV. What is nonviolence?

As varied as the nations and peoples of the world community are the definitions and interpretations of the word "nonviolence". The term "nonviolence" has often been equated with the idea of pacifism, a non-active form of nonviolence. Dr. Gene Sharp of the Albert Einstein Institution has defined nonviolence as either, 1) the behaviour of people who in a conflict refrain from violent acts or, 2) any or several belief systems that reject violence on principle, not just as impractical. In this sense, nonviolence can be seen as being either pragmatic (based on the impracticality of pursuing a violent path within a conflict or a potential conflict situation), or principled (based on a belief system that rejects violence from an ethical standpoint, a moral stance). There are of course variations and combinations of these forms of nonviolence in that not all actions/reactions to conflict are purely one or the other.

With reference to pacifism and nonviolent action, Sharp has started that it must be clear that "pacifist belief systems, ata minimum, reject participation in all international, civil wars, or violent revolutions. Pacifists may support nonviolent struggle, or may oppose it m ethical grounds as too conflictual. The term "pacifism" should therefore not be used in relation to nonviolent struggles unless there is clear evidence that pacifists are playing significant roles in the conflict".

Sharp, alternatively, defines nonviolent action as "a technique of action in conflicts in which participants conduct the struggle by doing - or refusing to do - certain acts without using physical violence". He refers specifically to methods of nonviolent action including: 1) nonviolent protest and persuasion, e.g. symbolic acts such as vigils, marches, and display of flags; 2) non-cooperation, like social boycotts, labour strikes, and political non-cooperation; 3) nonviolent intervention, including sit-ins, hunger strikes, new institutions, and parallel governments, The basic idea behind the implementation of such methods being that, as Sharp describes, 'when people refuse their cooperation, withhold their help, and persist in their disobedience and defiance, they are denying their opponent the basic human assistance and cooperation which any government hierarchical system requires. If they do this in sufficient numbers for long enough, that government or hierarchical system will no longer have power". This

is, of course, only one view of nonviolent action.

Gandhi's "Ahimsa" and King's "direct action" can also be seen as employing active forms of nonviolence. Their methods were not to avoid conflictual situations by remaining passive, but to be able to approach these situations guided by principles of nonviolence that were aimed at the eradication of violent acts. Gandhi and King's approaches, and more recent definitions of nonviolent action such as that of Sharp, all tend to have at least one thing in common - the belief in the power of nonviolent action as a strategic manoeuvre that must be planned well in all its methods and tactics. This planning must not only involve the struggle, but also what is to come after - planning for the future, Though some of their applications of nonviolent action have been principled, some pragmatic, more often than not, a combination of the two has been applied especially referring to the campaigns of Gandhi and King. Initiating dialogue, negotiation and the provision of information are all invaluable means of enacting peacefu

l change. UNPO has already made great strides in its application of diplomatic action, negotiation, international campaigns, media campaigns, etc., which all should be included in a more comprehensive definition of nonviolent actions. Nations and peoples should arrive at an accepted understanding of the term nonviolence (nonviolent action), consistent with their understanding of violence, especially in the more "subtle" areas such as: threat of force, economic exploitation, destruction of bases of sustenance and national survival, drug trafficking, population transfer, destruction of the environment, blockades and provocation (such as between ethnic groups for a State's excuse to intervene). With this clearer understanding of nonviolence, possible strategies should then be discussed and practical means of application developed and implemented.

V. How (in-)effective is nonviolent action?

Non-violent action does not always lead to the desired result and can lead to just the opposite. Whereas in theory, nonviolencewould seem to be the best approach to potential conflict situations, serious questions arise as to its effectiveness. Unless it can be shown that nonviolence does and can work, chances are an increasing number of movements will turn to violence to achieve their goals. An analysis of the conditions necessary for the effectiveness of nonviolent action as well as those conditions that make nonviolent action ineffective, must he undertaken. For example, freedom movements in the Baltic States and South Africa were largely nonviolent and successful and Tibetans have managed to raise political pressure considerably through nonviolent activity but where does this lead and what can we make of these "success" stories? Questions that should be addressed include; in what cases has nonviolent action worked, where has it failed and where has it "provoked" a violent response? In each of these case

s, the factors leading to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of nonviolent action and the possible common denominators in specific cases should be identified.

VI. Is nonviolent action contributing to the creation of violence?

During the UNPO Conference on the use of force, Mr, Yusuf Salem stated that, violence is relative depending on who uses it. Even peaceful demonstrations can be said to be potentially violent and thereby justify the use of force as a preventive measure", In this sense, it has been argued that nonviolent action can at times be viewed as a form of provocation, almost an invitation for government repression, which may become even more likely when a movement is very successful. One example that could be elaborated upon is that of Kosovo. Governments can try to make nonviolent action impossible by imposing restrictions, inflicting terror and through the monopolization of the media. In this sense, government control of primary activities and resources can nuke things particularly difficult for minorities in that they can prejudice popular opinion such as in the cases of Rwanda and Nigeria. In impoverished societies that are dependent upon local elites and foreigners for basic necessities, nonviolent action can be

even more difficult to enact (e.g. in El Salvador). If overt repression by the government against popular civilian movements is considered counterproductive, other forms of "neutralizing" opposition forces are used, such as the use of private vigilantes to "terrorize the population into submission" (e.g. death squads). Mahoney has referred to this as the "privatization of the repressive apparatus" and the "privatization of violence". Examples of such government tactics include El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia and the Philippines, wherein, as S. Zunes claims, "the government it was argued, needed to combine repression with nominal civilian control of administration to help convert the population to its cause". Other examples include: Nicaraguan contra units, South African Zulu death squads with apparent support of segments of government police agencies, offenses by right wing settlers in the Israeli occupied territories against Palestinians engaged in resistance activities and death squad activity in Sri Lank

a. A current example of a similar action can be seen in relation to Papua New Guinea's employment of the services of the organization, "Executive Outcomes" which is an African based group of mercenaries, paid to fight when and where requested. Through thisexample we can see the privatization of violence and/or the globalization of yet another "service". The seemingly advancing processes of globalization, whether desirable or not, are electing much more than the marketplace. The ensuing opening of borders and calls for an increase in awareness of issues of identity demand new political, economic, social and 'cultural considerations. Governments predisposed to "traditional" methods of problem-solving, such as the threat/use of force, may have been successful in deterring some violent confrontation in the period prior to the end of the Cold War, but with the changing face of conflict, i.e,, an increase in intra- over- inter- national conflict, new approaches must be sought. Understanding and addressing what is

behind conflict and/or potential conflict situations and realizing the relevance of nonviolent struggle can be much more effective than violently dealing with the symptoms, potentially over and over again if the root of the problem is never addressed, This is a reflection of the hegemony of traditional methods of problem-solving that must be re-addressed. If nonviolent action is to replace the "quick fix", a new way of thinking is required for long-term. effective solutions. In looking towards prevention of violent (re)action towards nonviolent actions, items to be discussed are: how violent reactions from civilians can come about when they feel threatened by nonviolent campaign; who takes/should take responsibility for the violence that occurs as a result of nonviolent action taking place; and what can be done to prevent nonviolent action from resulting in unintended violence. One suggestion that has been offered is that of the Lidhja Demokratike e Kosoves (LDK): "It might be stated, with great certainty, t

hat successful movements sometimes lead to violent reactions by governments and also, that certain groups might feel threatened by the political pattern of nonviolent programs. An action that could prevent such a re-active formation might be taking aim to put the stress on the utmost clarification of the factual situation, means and goals of nonviolent programs that authentically exclude the likeness of the use of force toward these finding themselves as victims".

I.What is violence?

Violence is another word that has a subjective nature. Current definitions of international influence fail to fully describe the characteristics of a violent act. For example, there is no firm UN definition of the use of force in that it is not clear whether the word "force" also includes economic, political and other forms of pressure. What is stated is that "force" is condemned "in all its forms". This leads to the fact that every country and organization has its own standards, allowed by the subjective nature of such words as force and violence. UNPO Vice-Chair, Ms, Mililani Trask suggests that the most straight forward approach is to include economic violence and political violence in a definition of violence. Economic violence could include the actions of industrialized and consuming nations to access the natural resources of others. This could also be included in a discussion on the "incentives for violence". What other factors can be identified as potentially initiating violent conflictual situations?

It is necessary to discuss current understandings of violence, for example those of the UN and UNPO, the difference between overt use of armed force and oppression, and the threatof force, and to clarify whether issues such as economic exploitation, destruction of bases of sustenance and national survival and more "indirect" forms like drug trafficking, population transfer, destruction of the environment, and provocation (such as between ethnic groups for the state's excuse to intervene), are to be considered forms of violence, be they more subtle, For example, Mr. Menelaos Tzehos stated that, "....the methods used by the Albanian government on the Greeks: interception of basic food provisions, medical and financial aid, prohibition of religious practices, interrogation of schoolchildren, torture and exile" could also constitute a use of force, This discussion would build upon UNPO's definition of "use of force" established at a previous UNPO conference entitled, "Use of force by States against Peoples unde

r their Rule ". At that conference it was determined that the most commonly cited reasons for the use of force (are) lack of democracy, violations of human rights, denial of national aspirations including, in particular, the right to selfdetermination, and the economic exploitation of the land and resources of indigenous peoples (defined in a broad sense as being those peoples to whom the land belongs). The aforementioned can be seen as enveloping potential for conflict from either party. Militarization can also be seen as a strong motivator for the use of force as Mr. William Pace pointed out He said that, "the principal motivator for the use of force is the billions of dollars being spent on military weapons".

Categories of violence might include.. 1) armed violence - covert and overt use of force; 2) ethnocidal violence - imposition of legal and cultural regimes which eradicate the language, customs and religious practices of peoples resulting in their death and that of their culture and 3) tactical unarmed violence acts calculated to kill or eradicate peoples through mechanisms other than armed force such as starvation, interrogation, embargoes, dispossession and exploitation of land and resources providing sustenance to a people, etc

II.Can one distinguish violence from terrorism?

A. Schmid has offered a succinct reference to the subjective nature of the label 'terrorism' by stating that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", A review of current definitions and understandings of terrorism such as those referred to by the UN, US and the ILC, would be required in determining whether they are relevant to present day circumstances. Within such a discussion, it is important to determine the relationship between the use of armed force and terrorism e.g. if terrorism requires the use of armed force, which will perhaps be relative to the definitions ascribed to for the two terms. For example, on December 8, 1985, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 40/61 unequivocally condemning all acts of terrorism and loosely defining terrorism as acts "which endanger or take innocent lives, jeopardize fundamental freedoms, and seriously impair the dignity of human beings". This definition is not, therefore, restricted to the use of direct armed force. The UNPO Declaration of the Ha

gue (February 11, 1991) states that the "unprovoked use of all forms of violence by States against Nations and Peoples is to be condemned". In relation to a position on state and liberation terrorism,assuming that state terrorism would be included in this reference to violence, clarification is needed regarding forms of state terrorism (e.g. overt as well as coven forms such as the nonintervention of governments in campaigns of terror as well as pitting ethnic group upon ethnic group). The UN General Assembly Resolution No. 3034/XXVVII of 18 December 1972 for example, "limited itself to condemning acts of state repression and terrorism carried out by colonial, racist and foreign regimes that violate those rights and other fundamental rights and freedoms". Liberation terrorism often has &her objectives, for example, Schmid & DeGraaf have stated that, "in contrast with state-practiced terrorism, insurgent terrorists actively seek publicity". Cherif Bassiouni has argued that Psychological strategies employed by

liberation terrorists include: demonstrate vulnerability and impotence of the government, attract broader public sympathy by the choice of carefully selected targets that may be publicly rationalized; cause a polarization and radicalization among the public; goad the government into repressive action likely to discredit it,' present the violent acts in a manner that makes them appear heroic. Another gradation in terrorism is possible between terrorism as an instrument of policy, be it state or liberation terrorism, and separate acts of terrorism by states or liberation movements that, in general, do not support acts of terrorism or commit to terror activities as part of their political strategy. The hostage taking in West Papua could perhaps be cited as an act of liberation terrorism by a generally nonviolent movement.

III. UNPO's position regarding Member violence

In order to become a Member of UNPO, nations and peoples are required to commit to the principles of the Covenant. This includes the commitment to nonviolence. This requires a clear understanding of what is meant by violence, terrorism and nonviolence by the (potential) Members, and the level of this commitment needs to be clarified. As previously stated, many violent actions between States and peoples are caused by the denial of the right to self-determination. Violent (re)action may well be in the form of self defense against various gradations of oppression/repression, like direct violence or destruction of the bases of sustenance threatening a nation/people's survival. Examples include a blockade surrounding a people's territory where food, water and other supplies are cut off, and/or citizens of a nation or people are detained or incarcerated and denied food and medical supplies.

Pre-emptive use of force, sometimes referred to as "first strike capacity", is the application of force to prevent or forestall violence or bloodshed which is anticipated. A discussion of the "first-strike" option should take place as well as determining whether force is justified if it is provoked. This form of "selfdefense" is perhaps the most controversial in that it implies initiation of the use of force. The level of provocation leading to pre-emptive use of force should also be clarified. for any violent action by a Member movement, potential criteria for determining the position of UNPO include (but may not be limited to):

a) how central is the use of force to a Member movement inquestion, is it embedded in the policy, strategy etc.;

b) the movement's respect for and adherence to human rights and humanitarian law;

c) is force used to defend/preserve human rights;

d) the level of force applied, relative to the level of force which it tries to prevent or counterbalance;

e) previous efforts towards nonviolent conflict resolution.

An example of a combination of a number of these factors is represented by the "Just War" Criterion, which includes: a Just Cause (danger real and certain), competent authority (who is in charge), comparative justice, right intention, violence as a last resort, probability of success and the proportionality of ends.

Subsequent to determining UNPO's position regarding the use of force by a Member nation or people, the appropriate course of action should be established. Potential actions could include: - immediate information/reporting,

- demand cessation of Violence;

- provision/arrange for humanitarian and medical assistance;

- initiate a process of nonviolent conflict resolution;

- sanctions such as expulsion UNPO's position on terrorism is already determined in that it states in its Covenant the rejection of all forms of terrorism, forms of which should be clarified by these discussions

VII.Agents of influence (in the question of violence and nonviolence)

Parties involved in conflict are not limited to the primary parties, for example, indigenous peoples or minorities and the State, in that situations may also be influenced by others with a stake in international economic, political, social and cultural relations. It must be recognized that these influences can have a positive as well as negative impact on the conflict situation. In return, by recognizing the other players and their potential roles, the primary parties in the conflict situation may make use of these agents to enhance their interests. To that purpose, some central agents of influence and their roles need further discussion.

The media

As expressed in the article Journalistic Freedoms and Human Rights (OSCE 0DIHR Bulletin Vol. 3, No. 1), the "freedom of expression and information constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic system and has been re-affirmed in all human rights documents issued after WWII, without exception", but even in democratic societies, the media can be seen as being corrupt at times by the fact that media enterprises are primarily business enterprises - subject to the rules of the marketplace. This may enhance sensationalistic journalism with more emphasis m violence rather than on non-viol" actions due to competition for "entertainment value" which also may result in half-truths (for example some of the reporting during the Serbian-Bosnian war). Repressive governments are often in the position to use the power of the media more directly (propaganda, misinformation by press monopoly), whilst resurgent movements can gain media attention especially through acts of terrorism. As stated at anearlier UNPO co

nference on the use of force, (see also the UNPO Conference report on Conflict Prevention, 1995), in general, the complicity of the media in glorifying and perpetuating violence, rather than discussing it is a constant danger. It should be recognized that the (international) media can play an important role in encouraging nonviolent action by giving it as much coverage as it gives to violent action. In 1993, the Council of Europe passed a declaration, emphasizing the "significance of the media throughout Europe in combating racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, aggressive nationalism and the increase in violence as a means of resolving conflicts in society" and calling for voluntary self-regulation by the mass media regarding ethical rules in journalism. What other measures might be taken to ensure media support for nonviolent action?

The international community (governments, transnational corporations, UN, OSCE, etc.)

In circumstances where individual states are, for one reason or another, the chief backer of one of the primary parties in a conflict situation, combined with this state taking the lead in international intervention and/or support of international non-intervention, the objective position of the international community may not be guaranteed. Relatively recent examples include French activity in Rwanda and the US in Kuwait. Economic interests of transnational corporations with a base in those countries, as well as a government's interest not only in the economic but, of course, also the political effect, often plays a deciding role in the occurrence, escalation and/or continuance of a conflict situation. Transnational corporations alone may influence conflict situations, if only by their presence as it provides funds to the ruling party or by their impact on the environment as can be noted in the case of Shell in Nigeria. How, for example, in dealing with economic interests, can strategies be developed which p

resent some form of "win/win" negotiation/strategy? Other members of the international community such as the UN, the OSCE and international legal bodies, also play an important role in influencing conflict situations. Since, in relation to many moves for self-determination, international bodies such as the UN are limited in their mandate to react, (the UN as an organization based on relations between States - States that are tied economically to the military complex), the best hope of the promotion of nonviolent action at this time is through the promotion of human rights, In this sense, human rights issues, the linking of foreign aid to these issues, and the pressure asserted by, for example, the UN regarding the signing of human rights in instruments, can all influence how conflict is approached. (Re)actions such as arms embargo, economic sanctions and the withdrawal of diplomatic recognition (if imposed in a timely manner) can all be effective means of nonviolent action as supported by international sourc

es. The importance of diplomatic efforts through established human rights bodies and the development of new forums for the presentation of the current situations of nations and peoples cannot be stressed enough as potentially effective means of nonviolent action. In summary, the international community can assist nonviolent resistance by: 1) access to media facilities for the attached people, 2)transmission of news of the struggle to the outside world, 3) provision of food and medical supplies, 4) the mobilization of economic and diplomatic sanctions against the aggressors, 5) advocating for the adoption of international instruments and standards relating to the protection of human rights, and 6) developing regional and international mechanisms and programs for conflict prevention and resolution.

NGOs

In general, NGOs aim at nonviolent intervention and their influence in potential conflict could be seen as mainly dependent upon their success and resulting recognition in previous interventive action, Organizations like Peace Brigades International and their nonviolent intervention teams of international, volunteers have been viewed as remarkably successful deterrents. The Quakers Peace and Service's "Turning the Tide" program is another example of an educational initiative undertaken by an NGO based on principles of nonviolence, UNPO has itself been quite successful in the application of diplomatic actions and campaigns based on principles of nonviolence, enabling dialogue, negotiation and education regarding Member issues and the presentation of these issues hi the appropriate international fora, There are numerous examples of individual organizations aimed at education, training and promotion of principles of nonviolence (whether it be through methods of nonviolent action or, as through UNPO, efforts bas

ed on diplomatic dialogue), but, what other strategies on a local, regional or international level could be developed to support nonviolent action?

VIII. UNPO's role in encouraging nonviolence

Historically nonviolent actions have often not been recognized as such despite the fact that they have been used alongside violent action in many cases. There have not been many cases of conflict studied in which nonviolent action played a significant role. Three have: the 1944 general strike in El Salvador; the 1905 "first" Russian revolution; and the Danish resistance to Nazism during WWII. Although these movements did not succeed in the long term, the nonviolent sanctions by themselves should be judged at least as successful as the violent sanctions. The problem with these movements were the harsh conditions with little or no advanced preparation and lack of strategy, not only for tactics and methods of action at the time, but also for what was to come after. Strategy appears to be the key to successful nonviolent action. Recent examples where nonviolent actions have played an important role in the success of conflict prevention/resolution are South Africa, Palestine, and numerous Central European example

s including Poland and Czechoslovakia.

5. Zunes has offered a number of reasons for adhering to nonviolent action that could be discussed and expanded upon to enhance promotion of the principle:

*the increased realization that armed resistance tends to push undecided elements of the population towards the government, since the government can then justify its repression, while repression against unarmed resistance movements usually createsgreater sympathy for the regime's opponents

*unarmed movements allow for larger numbers of participants taking advantage of a popular movement's majority support, since almost everyone can participate in unarmed movements

*a growing concern over the impact of militarism on post revolutionary society harms efforts at unity, democracy, independence and development

*the dramatically increased costs of (counter-)insurgency warfare.

UNPO has the unique potential to stimulate the use of nonviolent action as a means of conflict prevention since it deals with the people and the movements who are often at the center of controversial issues involving political, cultural or economic rights of minorities and peoples. This can be achieved via a number of routes, that include (but may not be limited to):

1.education and guidance of Members in the potential of nonviolent action and the encouragement of the use of nonviolent action in conflict prevention and resolution (seminars, workshops, training possibly in combination with other organizations and institutions that promote nonviolent action, etc.). This could include education in short-term and long-term strategic planning in nonviolent action;

2.contribute to the prevention of violent action by detecting early signs of tensions and potential conflict;

3.assist the media in objective reporting with increased emphasis on nonviolent actions;

4.influence the international community (governments, transnational corporations, international bodies (UN etc ), and NGOs in matters of policy, dialogue and interventive action),

Eteki-Mboumoua said that, "there is necessarily a dialogue in nonviolence, because through it you wish to convince the other party and to bring him to discover in you not his adversary but a man like him". Perhaps this is the most basic lesson that must be learned by the entire international community. There are no "quick fixes" that load to long-term solutions. It is a matter of understanding which can only be accomplished through dialogue and a commitment to peaceful change.

IX. Follow-up

This paper is the first step towards the development and compilation of ideas related to issues of nonviolence. It's main objective is to examine the conditions necessary for effective nonviolence. The intention is that the issues discussed and recommendations for further action will be recorded during the preparatory seminar. It is hoped that these discussions will enable dialogue that will encourage clarification of working definitions for violence, nonviolence and terrorism, and to formulate policies and procedures regarding and based on principles of nonviolence. Taken into consideration should be the eventual formulation of a clear and practical UNPO policy line on nonviolence and procedures to be developed to formalize the level of commitment of Members to nonviolent action. A project plan for the stimulation of nonviolent action as a means ofconflict prevention/resolution, including education of nations and peoples in the potential of nonviolent action, assistance in the dissemination of information a

nd in influencing the international community, should be developed and implemented.

During the seminar, at the end of each session, a list of potential issues an that session's topic will be presented for discussion, opening the floor for recommendations as to follow-up. This is intended to serve as a focal point for continued research and the presentation of issues for the July Conference. In looking towards the Conference, it is important to focus not only on the position and policy of UNPO as an organization, but also to develop ways and means for governments and other members of the international community to contribute in establishing the conditions necessary for effective, long-term, peaceful change. We cannot presume to solve all of these issues in one meeting and this paper by no means covers an of the possible discussion points related to the topic of nonviolence. It is hoped that the seminar will be a stepping stone, a narrowing of the enormous task of finding ways of encouraging nonviolent action in the world community by starting with those already committed to peaceful change.