official and unofficial mediation platforms

4 Interfaith dialogue as a medium of peace building: official and unofficial mediation platforms

Georgios Gaitanos

Head of the Department of Theology & Culture, Lecturer of Religious Studies, University College Logos, Tirana Corespondence: e-mail: gaitanosg@yahoo.gr

Abstract

Peace building is a tough process that requires constant negotiation, mutual concessions and respect for each side. After the end of the Cold War, peace building changed systematically as the global context changed dramatically. Various theories on the peace building process have been established and of particular interest are approaches to mediation and reconciliation. The paper’s goal is to emphasize formal and informal actors working in peace building, and highlight new platforms and perspectives through interfaith dialogue. National or local governments and UN committees are important players in negotiating their peace building actions. Nonetheless, the presence of NGOs and the voluntary work of civil society are instrumental in the success of the peace process. In particular, fresh ideas and their immediate solutions to everyday problems have shown a way to normalize particularly difficult conditions.

Keywords:

peace building, NGO, UN, interfaith dialogue, mediation. Citation: Gaitanos G. Interfaith dialogue as a medium of peace building: official and unofficial mediation platforms. Theology & Culture. 2020; 1(2): 5563. Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34053.99049

Introduction The definition of the term “Peace building”

Peace building is a broad field that encompasses a multitude of activities in a variety of fields, including human rights development, observation and enhancement, citizen advocacy, training, negotiations, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs, and reconciliation, which include post-war reconstruction through the presence of various formal and informal actors (Reychler & Paffenholz, 2001, 284). The purpose of peace building is to rebuild specific political institutions with sustainable relationships. The function is to create lasting peace between the former warring parties. The long-term orientation, which is based on expectations for security and peace building efforts, promotes and facilitates change or institutional reform by avoiding marginalization or empowerment between the conflicting parties (Jeong & Ho-Won, 2005, 21).

1. NGOs in the modern field of Peace building

It is characteristic that on several occasions governments have refused to deal with regional issues related to religion, culture or nationality in international conflicts. Governmental approaches had a culture of coercion and repression and therefore failed to stop violence. That is why there has been a rapid increase in NGOs worldwide with significant successes in security, peace and business since 1990 (Kang, McDonald & Chinsoo, 2009, 13, 14). The New Orientation of Non-Governmental Organizations is to ensure a long-term sustainable presence and activation in conflict situations by promoting peace through unity, reconciliation and peace alliances (Kang, McDonald & Chinsoo, 2009, 200).

Through the peace building process, the capacity of many NGOs was to create a safe environment by achieving growth in war-torn communities working on the causes of conflict and on the basis of societies, producing positive results. For example, NGOs provide food, building materials, medicines, and other services to meet humanitarian and economic needs (Jeong & Ho-Won, 2005, 215).

2. Official and Non-official actors in the modern peace-building process

Of particular interest are the characteristics of the factors involved in the issue of mediation for peace-building. The actors are those at the state level (governments and international or regional organizations) and those at the level of civil society (international or local Non-Governmental Organizations or independent citizens). When states are converted to mediators (Track 1) they use a unique approach to mediation, whereas when civil society is converted to mediators (Track 2) they converge on a variety of approaches (Reychler & Paffenholz, 2001, 75).

What was right was to combine and integrate the approaches of Track 1 and 2, as using both approaches would obviously lead to better results in mediation and peace building. However, the timing of approaching the appropriate factor during conflict or war is crucial, as complementary approaches try to identify the most effective mediators at any given time (Reychler & Paffenholz, 2001, 79).

Track 1 diplomacy is influenced by the interest of states and is carried out by governments by the coercive use of their legal and official power through the management of bureaucracy and the use of power in their own interests, while also having the resources needed to promote a peace building process. Track 2 or Citizen Diplomacy has the capacity to promote peace through the involvement of a wider range of activities in civil society. Citizen Diplomacy emphasizes the responsibility of resource holders and faces the challenge of bringing together all the actors to build a lasting peace. Formal and informal diplomacy creates communication and effective cooperation opportunities in the peace building process in the international network mechanism (Kang, McDonald & Chinsoo, 2009, 14, 15).

According to this rationale, Track 1.5 processes are basically categorized as designing a method that uses a problem-solving approach or dealing with an interactive conflict under the guidance of an international NGO resolution process with the usual intervention of mediators and agents in the region. The latter view holds that Course 1.5 has a “consultative” involvement in an effort to cultivate new visions in the hope of motivating all hostile parties from the warring parties to focus on mediation for a solution (Wolleh, 2007, 2).

But there is also the Community-based or People-to-People concept of

Track 3 diplomacy, which is implemented by hiring individuals and private groups to facilitate collaboration, as well as tolerance between hostile groups, while promoting the idea of understanding, which signifies building trust within the warring groups. Various approaches are of course used to achieve non-violent results, including public education, citizen advocacy and events such as conferences and workshops, with the aim of seeking to some degree of “reconciliation, relief, and problem solving and mediation level” (Turk, 2006, 5).

The interest in peace building efforts by NGOs or informal actors, such as academics, religious institutions, and humanitarian organizations, is usually evident. Of course, intentions, motives and goals can vary substantially, but in practice they help to create a sufficiently neutral environment, facilitating conflict resolution, where conflicting parties will feel less constrained by any governmental influence (Sriram, Ortega & Herman, 2009, 72).

Informal organizations have the capacity for immediate and adaptive responses, but they also have the potential to meet, mediating at the leadership level between the conflicting parties, as they have an extensive network of contacts at regional and international level. For example, the Center for Humanitarian Dialogue has worked for years in Nepal developing dialogue with the Maoists and facilitating communication with the government. Also, the Center for Humanitarian Dialogue facilitated public dialogue processes in the Republic of Central Africa (Griffiths & Whitfield, 2010, 19).

3. The effectiveness of informal diplomacy to international conflicts

Informal mediation is a voluntary process, also called “private”, “civil” or brief mediation. Informal mediation is voluntary and therefore not paid. As a result, there is no profit, no personal benefit, no established interest, but there is a humanitarian motivation, as informal mediators believe in confidential procedures and are committed to them in the long run (Curle, 1986, 10). This kind of mediation is carried out by various actors, such as religious organizations (Quaker, Mennonites, Vatican, Anglican Church), academics, international or local NGOs, professional associations and concerned citizens. Such cases, to name a few, were the San Egidio Community when it effectively participated in the impact of the Peace Agreement in Mozambique, and the dispute between Argentina and Chile over the Beagle Canal, where the Vatican facilitated an informal role at the framework for the final agreement.

Also, mediators can meet face to face on both sides and set up communication bridges (Mitchell, 2008, 98, 100, 101).

In informal mediation, there are a variety of mediation approaches that are related to their effectiveness. The approaches are long-term relationship-oriented because they aim at rebuilding damaged communication and relationships between the parties. According to problem-solving approaches, workshops seek to improve relations between the parties to the conflict and to advance the cause of the conflicts. Effectiveness depends on having a series of problem-solving workshops with the same goals and mediators (Gkrekas, 2014, 90).

Complementary approaches bring formal and informal mediation to different phases of conflict escalation, as they seek to identify the most effective and appropriate mediation at the moment. The contiguity development model with a third party intervention is implemented to make mediation more effective and the most important element is to have the appropriate third party intervene at the right time. Also, in the practice of mediation, different types of mediators can participate at the same time. But there are other contiguity approaches that say it is not important if mediators are effective but who is most effective at different stages of conflict escalation. Finally, mediation can be even more effective with the appropriate support and cooperation of the actors. These approaches contribute to, and actually investigate, how mediation is more effective in international conflicts (Reychler & Paffenholz, 2001, 78, 79).

4. The role of religion in conflicts and the process of peace building in theory and modern perspectives

The international academic community in political and social sciences is promoting the study of peace in the field of religious studies. Many scientific theories interpret the relationship between religion and national formation as the definition of national culture in its socio-political context. The experience of the war zones over the last decades has cultivated a constructive approach as an analytical tool. Scholars point out that religion is related to the national, cultural and geopolitical agenda as it has historically been. Furthermore, the human rights perspective can provide a multilateral approach within a political and religious context (Omer, 2011, 475).

In the modern era there is a need to understand the role of religion in the

peace process, by developing a successful understanding of global cultural and religious movements. For example, the Shiite revolution in Iran (1978-1979) and the political awakening of the new Christian Right in the United States in the 1980s are indicative of the dynamics of religious movements. In addition, the influence and relationships of the religious dimension of Hamas (Sunnis), Hezbollah (Shiites), Gush Emunim (Judaism) and al-Qaeda are evident in global conflicts (Appleby, 2009, 1).

Given these movements, leaders such as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Presidents of the United States George W. Bush and Barak Obama have recognized the importance of religion and their constructive role in political and socio-cultural expressions. In fact, President Obama set up the White House on the “Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships”. It seeks to expand the capacity of states and communities to effectively manage diverse needs and to communicate with inter-religious domestic groups (Appleby, 2009, 2).

We also need to highlight the position of religion in the globalized world. International travel, communications and migration have resulted in interplay between cultures, religions and peoples. Every religion expresses its content and attitude through online or electronic networks worldwide. This connection even has a negative effect, since extreme religious groups can communicate worldwide, but on the other hand there is a positive outlook through electronic communication as it can influence and support joint peace efforts and dialogue (Gkrekas,2014, 107). In addition, these global religious movements may have more active social and political engagements with deeper and greater effects or reshaping of culture, given that religion represents moral principles, values, religious formalism, and humanitarian sensitivity, expressed in a variety of actions (Appleby, 2009, 3).

In the modern world, religious movements can polarize society in extreme expressions and tendencies, as fundamentalist impulse is a tendency that takes a rich and varied cultural and spiritual tradition and confines it to a narrow set of principles that can be used for political purposes as a means of expelling external factors, which are considered threatening and subversive (Funk, 2007, 8). For example, the relationship between Islam and the Western world over the last two decades has influenced this fundamentalist tendency in a state of intolerance or understanding of Western politicians and Muslims.

On the other hand, a growing network between the Islamic and Western worlds has been developed in the context of peace building in recent years.

These initiatives are moving towards reconciliation through building alliances and networks (Funk, 2007, 3). Reconciliation and peace building efforts are supported by cultural exchanges, tolerance and peaceful coexistence. In this case, religion cooperates with the political system through confidence in joint efforts in the new multicultural global society. In addition, these peace building initiatives contribute to partnerships between universities, NGOs, religions and political movements through the use of new technologies and modern media.

Conclusion

In conclusion, scientific approaches provide an appropriate basis for understanding the relationships between religion, culture, politics and social reality and how these elements act before and during peace-building approaches. In today’s ‘globalized’ world, there is an escalation of religious influence with ambiguous expressions. Dialogue on peace initiatives has had positive effects, such as an extensive reduction in polarization. Politicians and some religious leaders have understood the importance of religious issues and promoted a modest network and alliances between religious leaders, politicians, and other civil society institutions in their efforts to build peace.

Appleby Scott R. (2009). “Globalization, Religious Change and the Common Good”, Journal of Religion, Conflict and Peace, 3.1 Available at http://www.religionconflictpeace.org/article/religion-policy [Accessed 15 March 2011]. Curle A. (1986). In The Middle: Non-Official Mediation in Violent Situations. Peace Studies Papers No.1, London: Berg. Funk Nathan C. (2009). Religious and Cultural Dimensions of Peacebuilding, Journal of Religion, Conflict and Peace, 1.1. Available at http://www.religionconflictpeace.org/node/15 [Accessed 15 July 2011]. Gkrekas A. (2014). International Actors in Peace Processes, The Role of Organizations and Religion in Global Practice, Thessaloniki: Ostracon Publishing. Griffiths, M. & Whitfield, T. (2010). Mediation: Ten Years On. Challenges and Opportunities for Peacemaking, Geneva: Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. Ho-Won, Jeong (2005). Peacebuilding in postconflict societies: strategy and process, Boulder: L. Rienner. Kang, Sungho, McDonald, John & Chinsoo, Bae (2009). Conflict resolution and peace building: the role of NGOs in historical reconciliation and territorial issues, Seoul: Northeast Asian History Foundation. Reychler, Luc & Paffenholz, Thania (2001). Peacebuilding: A Field Guide, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Mitchell, C. (2008), “Mediation and the Ending of Conflicts”, in Darby, J & MacGinty, R (Eds.), Contemporary Peacemaking. Conflict, Peace Processes and Post-War Reconstruction, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Omer, Atalia (2011). “Can a Critic Be a Caretaker too? Religion, Conflict, and Conflict Transformation”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 79(2): 459-496, DOI 10.1093/jaarel/lfq076. Richmond, Oliver (2008), “The UN Liberal Peace-building: Consensus and Challenges”, in John Dardy & Roger Mac Ginty (eds.), Contemporary Peacemaking, Conflict, Peace Processes and Post-War Reconstruction, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Sriram, C., O. Martin-Ortega & Johanna Herman (2009), War, Conflict and Human Rights: Theory and Practice, London: Routledge. Turk, Marco (2006). “Cyprus Reunification Is Long Overdue: The Times Right

for Track III Diplomacy as the Best Approach for Successful Negotiation of This”, International and Comparative Law Review 28.2. Available at Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr/vol28/iss2/1 [Accessed 8 November 2019] Wolleh, Olive (2007). Track 1.5 Approaches to Conflict Management: Assessing Good Practice and Areas for Improvement, Berlin: Berghof Foundation for Peace Support.