Previous
editorials
Current editorial
February 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016 (supplement)
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December supplement
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
December 2012
November 2012
|
 |
 |
 |

These are regular editorials
produced alongside the corresponding issues on Nonviolent
News. |
Also in this editorial:
The “St Andrews agreement” of early November to
return to devolved government in Northern Ireland looked too
good to be true, and so it was, as difficulties emerged very
speedily over oaths, policing and the sequencing of events
to lead back to a reopened Stormont next spring. That said,
early indications from the St Andrews inter-party talks were
negative so almost everyone was taken by surprise at the positivity
when the talks were ending. The DUP is currently consulting
its own supporters and the unionist constituency and while
the main mood seems to have been to go for it, some strong
dissent has been voiced, as well as different interpretations
of the sequence of events necessary. Even if this falls apart
it is still an indication of how tantalisingly close the parties,
and in particular the Democratic Unionist Party, are to getting
back into business at Stormont. Meanwhile a debate has started
on how much ‘new’ money there is in a ‘peace
dividend’ investment package announced by UK Chancellor
Gordon Brown (if the Assembly restarts); the initial verdict
seems to be “some – but not a lot”.
There is no danger of sweetness and light descending
on Northern Ireland just yet though the journey has, even
now, been an exceedingly long one; as we have repeatedly said,
‘history’ will not stop just because there is
a devolved government at Stormont. If all the pieces are not
actually in place then perhaps it could be said that the pieces
of the jigsaw are in almost the right positions but not yet
joined up. Whether “St. Andrews” sinks or swims,
the day cannot now be far away when the Stormont assembly
is back and running, and Ian and Martin are FM and DFM respectively
before Ian Paisley hangs up some of his boots. It is always
possible someone will knock some of the carefully assembled
pieces of the jigsaw aside but, if this happens, enough of
it will remain in place that it is mainly a matter of political
will to overcome the last hurdles. However, in Northern Ireland,
as in many other conflict situations, it is not so much that
“where there is a will there is a way” but rather
“where there is a will there is a way out”.
It is to be hoped the British Stern report (compiled by Treasury
economist Sir Nicholas Stern) on global warming and its economic
effects is just what is needed to galvanise governments in
this and other parts of the world into radical change. The
Republic is one of the worst offenders in Europe in relation
to its 1990 greenhouse emissions, currently up 23%; no real
effort has been made to uncouple increased emissions from
economic growth – though it should be clearly stated
that sustainability is not just about carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse emissions, it is also about total consumption of
resources (e.g. metals and other resources). The UK has fared
somewhat better, its 14% decrease of greenhouse gases on 1990
being largely thanks to a higher level to begin with and the
decline and fall of King Coal but it has just as big a transition
to make.
Tinkering with a few windmills is not enough.
Nor is it any longer simply an ethical, moral and environmental
issue; it is now clearly stated as an economic issue, with
a stated economic cost, where action now could prevent greater
costs later on. A business as usual approach is predicted
to lead to temperature rises of 5C – 6C by the end of
this century and catastrophic effects; even by 2050 perhaps
200 million people could be displaced by floods or drought.
A temperature rise of just a couple of degrees could bring
water shortages for billions of people.
We need radical and joined up policies which
will deliver a sustainable future not just for our children’s
children but for our children and for ourselves. Nether Ireland
nor Britain can say they haven’t got the money to do
the job.
There are no longer any excuses whatsoever for
not dealing with global warming in a comprehensive manner.
‘Advocacy’ is one of those slightly
awkward words in the English language that many of us are
not quite sure what to do with. This comes partly from the
fact it is not always easy to say, and partly its connotation
of legal ‘advocates’ running around the place
in wigs and gowns. Yet advocacy, usually interpreted as taking
another’s issue and making it your own, is a key concept
in nonviolence and struggles for justice - and one which is
often ignored in some peace and mediation circles where the
emphasis is on transforming the general situation rather than
weighing in on one side. However, where the situation is very
one-sided, and/or there are clear issues of injustice, advocacy
may be the most efficient and effective means of resolving
the conflict and issues. That said, mediation theory would
also state that a mediation process may need to address power
imbalances.
Advocacy is different to other positive responses
to conflict in that is clearly choosing sides for someone
who is not obliged to do so. Other outside interventions include
acting as a mediator or arbitrator. If you are affected by
the issue concerned and get involved then you do so as a party
to the conflict rather than someone involved in advocacy;
the options for what you do may or may not differ, There are
many different aspects to advocacy and this piece only tries
to explore them briefly.
The classic and well defined advocacy model
of modern times is the solidarity group. It is very clearly
advocacy because those involved do not live in the situation
being addressed and may never have been there – the
Anti-Apartheid Movement comes to mind as one which was extremely
successful in getting regime change and democracy in South
Africa by 1994. South Africa was a situation where for years
many radicals and others saw only the possibility of violent
change. But through slow and dogged action over decades, pressure
for sanctions and resultant damage to the South African economy
– in alliance with movements for change within the country
– the situation was transformed without violence. Solidarity
movements raise the issue with their own governments and put
pressure for change in their home environment – there
was a time when eating an Outspan orange was a cardinal sin
– but may also provide practical and financial help
to those suffering in their area of solidarity. Solidarity
movements may be geographically –related (e.g. West
Papua Action today) or taking up more general issues (indigenous
people or freedom of conscience,).
In getting involved in advocacy in our own home
environment then the situation becomes somewhat muddier. Are
we someone affected by an issue, and therefore involved (“I
face water rate charges in Northern Ireland therefore I am
involved in opposing this double taxation which is getting
the water system into shape for privatisation”) or,
am I someone not affected who, seeing a glaring injustice
or cause that I wish to identify with, seek to get involved.
The lines here can be very blurred – and, in the end,
it may not matter too much.
What are the options in terms of involvement?
The sky is the limit. Here are just some of the options;
- An ‘ordinary member’ in a campaign.
You join, pay your sub, go to meetings and do whatever you
can or are expected to do.
- Funding. You assist the campaign financially
either through donations (perhaps being a passive member
who pays their subscription) or through active fundraising.
- Acting as a resource person through providing
contacts, training or other resources.
- Acting to put pressure within your own structures
for change on the issue, either directly if this structure
has the power to make changes, or indirectly if it is worth
pressing ‘your’ structure to put pressure elsewhere.
As a member of a campaign there are a million
and one things which you can end up doing, depending on the
nature of the campaign and the stage it is at (see e.g. the
summary of Bill Moyer’s stages of successful social
and political movements on the INNATE website, ‘Workshop
on strategising’ under ‘Workshops’). Being
an aware member who has an understanding of where things need
to go to achieve success is much more valuable than being
someone who simply follows the direction being taken, although
both are valuable; but this can also be a frustrating time,
aware of what is needing done but conscious of the fact that
others may not see the need or be willing to do anything about
it. Taking responsibility in this is just like if you are
an ordinary participant in a meeting and you see something
is needed (e.g. adequate ventilation – everyone is falling
asleep as a result of heat and lack of air) which no one is
doing anything about, then it is generally good to take upon
yourself the task to see it is addressed, this may entail
raising the issue or it may be directly opening a window or
door. Sometimes there is the danger of people asking “Who
are you to do this?” but the risk of this is better
than nothing happening.
So sometimes a ‘campaign’ within
a campaign is necessary, to try to steer it in a more effective
direction. The danger here is that you are seen as someone
with a different agenda or an agent or mole for a particular
political interest or group. Being involved in any group or
organisation may require skill and dexterity to contribute
to the general campaign but it is also vital to retain something
of your own individuality and be able to push for what you
see as essential.
‘An advocate’ or anyone else should
also not lose sight of what they know about conflict processes
and mediation in general just because they are working on
one campaign. Allowing the opponent to save face may be an
important factor in achieving a resolution; certainly looking
at, and remembering, the opponent’s needs may be crucial
in getting them to shift. Charting a possible course out of
the conflict for both sides may be an important role for you
to play in advocacy; this may include a chart of appropriate
responses at particular stages of the campaign – there
is no point in organising a demonstration when the matter
can be settled amicably by a letter (you do not need a sledgehammer
to crack a nut and, if you do, the result may not be what
you intended).
Advocacy is not always adequately explored within
the peace arena and it is a serious omission. It is putting
a label on something which probably all those reading this
have done at one time or another. We get involved in campaigns
and issues for many reasons but altruism, a genuine concern
for others, is a powerful factor for good; self interest should
not be spurned as a motivating factor but it is not what we
are talking about here. We need not to knock advocacy and
altruistic activism but to build it up and explore its possibilities.
- - - - - - - -
Eco-Awareness Eco-Awareness
Larry Speight brings us his monthly column:
The 2006 WWF’s bi-annual report of our
impact upon the Earth informs us that we are living well beyond
our means, consuming 25% more natural resources than can be
renewed naturally in a year. The report informs us that if
we continue our present way of life, by the year 2050 it is
likely that there will be large-scale ecological collapse.
Echoing the words of E.F.Schumacher in his environmental classic
Small is Beautiful, the report says:
“Effectively, the earth’s regenerative
capacity can no longer keep up with demand – people
are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn
waste back into resources. Humanity is no longer living off
nature’s interest, but is drawing down its capital.
This growing pressure on ecosystems is causing habitat destruction
or degradation and is threatening both biodiversity and human
wellbeing.”
The report reminds us that if everyone lived
as people in Ireland and Britain do we would need three planets.
Our levels of consumption, not to mention the expected catastrophic
affects of global warming, undermines the whole viability
of our way of life. A way of life many consider as inviolate,
ordained by God as embodied in the western idea of human progress.
So ingrained is our conception of how to live, of the meaning
of “the good life” that when politicians talk
about the health of the environment, they do so in business
as usual terms, that we should continue to consume and all
what that means in terms of taking overseas holidays and buying
food and other products imported from distant parts of the
world, they term they use is ‘sustainable development’,
blind to the fact that ‘development’ as understood
by our culture can never be sustainable.
What the WWF report is effectively asking us
to do is heed the graffiti I saw on a wall in Halifax, W.
Yorkshire a number of years ago. It said:
“Everything You Have Been Told Is Wrong”.
In other words, if humankind is to continue
into the distant future, and the rich biodiversity of the
Earth held in tact, then we have to rethink what it means
to live a meaningful life, of what it means to be human. We
have to weave a new cosmology, a new paradigm, for clearly
the one we live by is fatally flawed. Reconfiguring how we
live on the foundation of a different value system, a different
mythology, is probably too disturbing for most folks to do,
is perhaps beyond the capacity of the type of human we have
become after two centuries of industrialisation.
|