Taking Peace Seriously

Can a large-scale corps of nonviolent peacemakers be organized and readily mobilized to intervene in areas of intense conflict? And if so, what should it look like? Not easy questions, yet many people are seriously asking them. Peace movement veterans, United Nations organization heads, institutional church leaders, and even members of the military are becoming increasingly convinced that a viable alternative to military intervention needs to be created.

So when nearly 200 people (almost four times the anticipated crowd) gathered in New York last November at "Seeds of Change: An International Consultation on a Global Peace Service," there was no shortage of ideas or enthusiasm.

The idea for the consultation was born when Bill Price of World Peacemakers joined Mary Evelyn Jegen from Pax Christi and Margareta Ingelstam from the Swedish Ecumenical Council's four-year venture "Toward a Global Peace Service." Through their research and exploration, they learned of others who were busy dreaming and crafting an analogous vision. Robert Muller of the University For Peace used the exact language of a "Global Peace Service" in his writings, and veteran activist Elise Boulding had been working on a similar concept.

Jean Martensen of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, upon learning of their work, immediately offered financial support to sponsor a conference. David Hartsough of Peaceworkers, who mailed his description of a possible international peacemaking team to 100 very receptive people last summer, learned of the Global Peace Service initiative and eagerly offered the extensive work he had already done toward the effort.

Throughout the three-day conference, discussions about a Global Peace Service's potential components and criteria were interspersed with stories of nonviolent intervention and peacemaking. Representatives from Witness For Peace, Peace Brigades International, and Christian Peacemaking Teams shared from their experiences in the field. All stressed the need for consistent training and clarity of purpose among peacemaking teams.

Retired Marine Maj. Barry Clark emphasized the need to deal constructively with the military on this and other issues. Erik Larsen from the Resource Center for Nonviolence shared his experience as a conscientious objector in the Gulf war and emphasized the need for an alternative to military service. Daniel "Nane" Alejandrez of Barrios Unidos in Santa Cruz, California, implored the group not to forget U.S. cities' needs for nonviolent peacemaking while they sought solutions to crises in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti.

Consensus was reached to start small and build up over time. All agreed that a specific intervention effort involving several groups would serve as both a model and a concrete example to gain credibility and support. Alongside of this, it was agreed that the many untold nonviolent peacemaking success stories must be compiled and given voice.

Aside from many great ideas, the weekend produced a steering committee that will draft a mission statement and task forces that will explore the areas of education, communication, fund raising, research, and organization building. David Hartsough through Peaceworkers agreed to serve as the contact person for the project. The current plan is to gather again with those who committed to work concretely on next steps. At that time the task forces will share input gathered from participating and relevant groups. Where, when, and how to develop the model for nonviolent intervention will be determined by that feedback.

Amid the shared values and vision at the consultation, there resounded a chorus of questions ranging from the principles behind the Peace Service to logistic concerns regarding the implementation of the vision. All agreed that a Global Peace Service by any name must be a cooperative effort that neither competes nor invalidates existing nonviolent efforts; but how this coalition would function was not outlined. Funding and administrative demands reveal the need for an oversight group, which in turn raises concern about organizations' ability to give up some individual control to this governing body. Lessons learned from faltered United Nations and governmental interventions did not go unheard, and concern about clarity of mission and purpose was voiced repeatedly.

Those involved are keenly aware of the complexity and potential difficulties ahead. Many more questions and tensions will arise as the tough realities of conflict situations are studied and the even tougher debates over alignment with governments, relationship with the military and conflicting parties, and what a Global Peace Service team can and cannot do in the field are encountered. But those involved are eagerly moving forward, trusting that the solid historical foundation of nonviolent peacemaking will guide their discernment.

For more information on the Global Peace Service, contact David Hartsough, 721 Shrader St., San Francisco, CA 94117; (415) 751-0302.