Tag: Peace

  • conflict, peace and international education 

    conflict, peace and international education 

    It’s that time of year again. On streets and in shops across the UK this, someone will have been be selling poppies. And today, on Remembrance Sunday, at War Memorials from tiny villages to Whitehall, people will gather for a period of silence. A moment to reflect, to remember. 

    For me personally, there is a family connection. My paternal great-grandfather was killed in WWI, leaving four young children. His name is on the vast Tyne Cot memorial in Belgium, one of 35,000 of the missing who died in the Ypres Salient after August 16, 1917, and have no known grave.

    But I also think of another memorial, the one I gathered around for the years I worked at Sheffield University. This is the moving tribute to the students and staff who lost their lives in two World Wars. 

    This carved stone monument at the University’s core was once located in the original library, and it contains arguably the most sacred and painful book in its collection – a Book of Remembrance.

    Sheffield University had its own battalion in WWI and it was almost completely destroyed on the first day of the Battle of the Somme in 1916. Some 512 young men lost their lives in a single day. I was once given permission to lift off the glass cover and open the book. It was shocking, each page crammed full of so many hundreds of names. 

    For many of those students, hopefully joining up and travelling to France was the first time they had been overseas, just as it was for my great-grandfather. He left his mining village on the unluckiest of journeys – first to Gallipoli where he was gassed, and then to France where he died in the mud. 

    Today, students have a very different opportunity for travel, for connection. A century after my great-grandfather died, I have travelled the world in peacetime thanks to international education. I’ve been to Delhi and seen the vast war memorial at India Gate with its eternal flame and walls of other names – Hindu, Sikh, Muslim. I have friends from China whose relatives long ago would have dug the trenches as part of as part of the 140,000 strong Chinese Labour Corps for the British and French armies.

    Remembrance Day isn’t a British only tradition – a whole world was drawn into those terrible events. 

    What international students teach us now 

    And I have international students friends who don’t need a poppy to remind them to remember because they come from countries with current experience of conflict. 

    Who are they? A refugee scholar from Syria working on environmental sustainability. A Gaza scholar who rejects the language of resilience and uses her research to build deep understanding. A friend in Singapore who has family in Russia and Ukraine. And the Afghan scholars who have become not only friends but family, those who teach us all that the peace to sit with your loved ones and share a meal is never to be taken for granted. That for young girls and women to access education, university, careers and have choices is a right hard won that must be cherished. Each of them is also my teacher. 

    As the world changes, nationalism grows and spheres of influence are fortified by economic and literal weapons, those who understand one another are more important than ever

    And this is also why I believe in international education. Peace takes understanding. It takes work. As the world changes, nationalism grows and spheres of influence are fortified by economic and literal weapons, those who understand one another are more important than ever. 

    It is a tragedy that language courses close because, as John le Carré said, learning a language is an act of friendship. But international education in all its forms is also what my NISAU friends call a ‘living bridge’.

    Whether it happens through traditional programmes of overseas study, short courses, institutional partnerships, TNE or internationalisation at home, global education offers a precious opportunity to meet in peace. To gain a perspective not only on what others think and how they see the world, but about yourself. 

    Why it matters that #WeAreInternational 

    When years ago we founded a campaign called #WeAreInternational , it was a statement not about a structure of higher education but about who we are and want to be. It doesn’t mean abandoning your identity, it means opening it up to possibility. That is in itself an education. 

    John Donne famously wrote that no man is an island but that we are deeply connected to one another, all of us connected to the continent. And when others are harmed, we are all diminished. That the bell that tolls for any life is ringing for humanity too. 

    On Remembrance Sunday this year, as we are urged never to forget, there is also an implicit call to action – not to wage war but to build peace. How do we do that? Nobody is pretending it’s easy, but I think the education we are privileged to support has a very human part to play. 

    I think of the words of my Afghan scholar friend Naimat speaking at City St George’s University of London to students earlier this week. As the minute’s silence begins on today, I will think of my great-grandfather Robert, the lost students of Sheffield University, and the words of this international student who knows of what he speaks. 

    To achieve peace at all times, we must do three things:

    1. Acknowledge the past: we must study and accept the hard lessons, the disconnected dots, and the mistakes of history.
    2. Act in the present: we must stand up against injustice wherever it occurs, recognising that a violation of human rights in one corner of the world eventually casts a shadow over all of us.
    3. Prioritise the future: we must commit to sustained dialogue – not just talk, but a genuine exchange of ideas where all voices, especially the most marginalised, are heard and valued.

    Dialogue, he says, is the non-violent tool we possess to sustain peace. It is how we convert fear into understanding, and resentment into cooperation. And international education offers a precious and powerful opportunity for both. 

    Source link

  • 100 Ways the Trump Administration Has Undermined the Environment, Human Rights, World and Domestic Peace, Labor, and Knowledge

    100 Ways the Trump Administration Has Undermined the Environment, Human Rights, World and Domestic Peace, Labor, and Knowledge

    The Trump administration, since returning to power in 2025, has escalated attacks on the foundations of democracy, the environment, world peace, human rights, and intellectual inquiry. While the administration has marketed itself as “America First,” its policies have more often meant profits for the ultra-wealthy, repression for the working majority, and escalating dangers for the planet.

    Below is a running list of 100 of the most dangerous actions and policies—a record of how quickly a government can dismantle hard-won protections for people, peace, and the planet.


    I. Attacks on the Environment

    1. Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement—again.

    2. Dismantling the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

    3. Opening federal lands and national parks to oil, gas, and mining leases.

    4. Gutting protections for endangered species.

    5. Allowing coal companies to dump mining waste in rivers and streams.

    6. Rolling back vehicle fuel efficiency standards.

    7. Subsidizing fossil fuel companies while defunding renewable energy programs.

    8. Suppressing climate science at federal agencies.

    9. Greenlighting pipelines that threaten Indigenous lands and water supplies.

    10. Promoting offshore drilling in fragile ecosystems.

    11. Weakening Clean Water Act enforcement.

    12. Dismantling environmental justice programs that protect poor communities.

    13. Politicizing NOAA and censoring weather/climate warnings.

    14. Undermining international climate cooperation at the UN.

    15. Allowing pesticides banned in Europe to return to U.S. farms.


    II. Undermining World Peace and Global Stability

    1. Threatening military action against Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea.

    2. Expanding the nuclear arsenal instead of pursuing arms control.

    3. Cutting funding for diplomacy and the State Department.

    4. Withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO).

    5. Weakening NATO alliances with inflammatory rhetoric.

    6. Escalating drone strikes and loosening rules of engagement.

    7. Providing cover for authoritarian leaders worldwide.

    8. Walking away from peace negotiations in the Middle East.

    9. Blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza, Yemen, and other war-torn areas.

    10. Expanding weapons sales to Saudi Arabia despite human rights abuses.

    11. Using tariffs and sanctions as blunt instruments against allies.

    12. Politicizing intelligence briefings to justify military adventurism.

    13. Abandoning refugee protections and asylum agreements.

    14. Treating climate refugees as security threats.

    15. Reducing U.S. participation in the United Nations.


    III. Attacks on Human Rights and the Rule of Law

    1. Expanding family separation policies at the border.

    2. Targeting asylum seekers for indefinite detention.

    3. Militarizing immigration enforcement with National Guard troops.

    4. Attacking reproductive rights and defunding women’s health programs.

    5. Rolling back LGBTQ+ protections in schools and workplaces.

    6. Reinstating bans on transgender service members in the military.

    7. Undermining voting rights through purges and voter ID laws.

    8. Packing the courts with extremist judges hostile to civil rights.

    9. Weaponizing the Justice Department against political opponents.

    10. Expanding surveillance powers with little oversight.

    11. Encouraging police crackdowns on protests.

    12. Expanding use of federal troops in U.S. cities.

    13. Weakening consent decrees against abusive police departments.

    14. Refusing to investigate hate crimes tied to far-right violence.

    15. Deporting long-term immigrants with no criminal record.


    IV. Attacks on Domestic Peace and Tranquility

    1. Encouraging militias and extremist groups with dog whistles.

    2. Using inflammatory rhetoric that stokes racial and religious hatred.

    3. Equating journalists with “enemies of the people.”

    4. Cutting funds for community-based violence prevention.

    5. Politicizing natural disaster relief.

    6. Treating peaceful protests as national security threats.

    7. Expanding federal use of facial recognition surveillance.

    8. Undermining local control with federal overreach.

    9. Stigmatizing entire religious and ethnic groups.

    10. Promoting conspiracy theories from the presidential podium.

    11. Encouraging violent crackdowns on labor strikes.

    12. Undermining pandemic preparedness and response.

    13. Allowing corporations to sidestep workplace safety rules.

    14. Shutting down diversity and inclusion training across agencies.

    15. Promoting vigilante violence through online platforms.


    V. Attacks on Labor Rights and the Working Class

    1. Weakening the Department of Labor’s enforcement of wage theft.

    2. Blocking attempts to raise the federal minimum wage.

    3. Undermining collective bargaining rights for federal workers.

    4. Supporting right-to-work laws across states.

    5. Allowing employers to misclassify gig workers as “independent contractors.”

    6. Blocking new OSHA safety standards.

    7. Expanding exemptions for overtime pay.

    8. Weakening rules on child labor in agriculture.

    9. Cutting unemployment benefits during economic downturns.

    10. Favoring union-busting corporations in federal contracts.

    11. Rolling back protections for striking workers.

    12. Encouraging outsourcing of jobs overseas.

    13. Weakening enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in workplaces.

    14. Cutting funding for worker retraining programs.

    15. Promoting unpaid internships as a “pathway” to jobs.


    VI. Attacks on Intellectualism and Knowledge

    1. Defunding the Department of Education in favor of privatization.

    2. Attacking public universities as “woke indoctrination centers.”

    3. Promoting for-profit colleges with predatory practices.

    4. Restricting student loan forgiveness programs.

    5. Undermining Title IX protections for sexual harassment.

    6. Defunding libraries and public broadcasting.

    7. Politicizing scientific research grants.

    8. Firing federal scientists who contradict administration narratives.

    9. Suppressing research on gun violence.

    10. Censoring federal climate and environmental data.

    11. Promoting creationism and Christian nationalism in schools.

    12. Expanding surveillance of student activists.

    13. Encouraging book bans in schools and libraries.

    14. Undermining accreditation standards for higher education.

    15. Attacking historians who challenge nationalist myths.

    16. Cutting humanities funding in favor of military research.

    17. Encouraging political litmus tests for professors.

    18. Treating journalists as combatants in a “culture war.”

    19. Promoting AI-driven “robocolleges” with no faculty oversight.

    20. Gutting federal student aid programs.

    21. Allowing corporate donors to dictate university policy.

    22. Discouraging international students from studying in the U.S.

    23. Criminalizing whistleblowers who reveal government misconduct.

    24. Promoting conspiracy theories over peer-reviewed science.

    25. Normalizing ignorance as a political strategy.        

    Source link

  • Is peace in the Middle East even possible?

    Is peace in the Middle East even possible?

    The State of Israel was created in 1948. The key word is created. While countries come into being in many different ways, such as violence, revolutions and treaties, the creation of the state of Israel was unique and has proven highly controversial.

    To understand the chaos that is now taking place in Israel and the Palestinian territories, one needs to return to that original creation.

    The British government ruled the territory known as Palestine under the League of Nations from 1922 until 1948. Already in 1917, the British government issued what is known as the Balfour Declaration which envisioned a Jewish state in what had been claimed a historic Jewish homeland.

    Jewish organisations had argued that the land called Israel has been the religious and spiritual center for Jews for thousands of years. While many countries recognized the new State of Israel in 1948, its creation did not effectively redress the dislocation of those who had been living on the territory that Israelis would inhabit.

    Following the end of World War II, European Jews who had been displaced during the Holocaust flocked to Israel. The United Nations divided the land into two states, one Jewish, one Arab, which further divided the Arab territory into three sections — the Golan Heights at the Syrian border, the West Bank at the Jordanian border and the Gaza Strip at the Egyptian border.

    The creation of deep divisions

    The division gave more than 50% of the land to Israel, leaving the Arabs with 42% even though they made up two-thirds of the population.

    This resulted in massive Arab displacement and is why the Jewish Independence Day of May 14 is followed by the marking of Nakba Day by Arabs, translated as “The Catastrophe”.

    Since Israel’s founding in 1948, there have been several outbreaks of violence between Israel and its neighbors. Among them were the 1948–49 War of Israeli Independence; 1956 Suez Canal Crisis; 1967 Six-Day War; 1973 Yom Kippur War; 1982 Lebanon War and various large-scale Palestinian uprisings known as Intifadas.

    None of these conflicts resulted in reparations for the hundreds of thousands of Arabs displaced by Israel’s creation, many of whom ended up in crowded refugee camps in Gaza, the West Bank and neighboring countries.

    Further inflaming tensions, Israeli settlers have continued establishing communities in the West Bank, which was conquered by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. The international community considers these colonies illegal, and some of the settlers have been found guilty of violence against the Arabs who live there.

    Working towards peace

    There have been several attempts to have peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors.

    The most important are the Camp David Accords of 1978 which was finally reduced to simple diplomatic relations between Egypt and Israel, and the 1993 Oslo accords which established formal relations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership, giving the latter self-governance over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Recently, there were talks about a larger regional agreement including Saudi Arabia.

    Then came 7 October 2023, when Hamas, an Islamist militant group, attacked Israeli settlers killing more than a thousand people, many of them women and children, and taking over 200 Israeli hostages.

    Israel’s response to the Hamas attack, which it justified as legitimate self-defense, has seen more than 32,000 Gazans killed with over 70,000 wounded, mostly civilians with many elderly and children. Much of Gaza’s infrastructure has been destroyed, including hospitals and humanitarian aid has been blocked. Fighting has continued for more than six months as Israel seeks to destroy Hamas and at the same time free the hostages.

    The emotions behind the conflict are extreme. The Israelis condemn Hamas as a terrorist organisation whom they argue are out to kill all Jews and destroy the State of Israel. Hamas, which was the official ruling organisation in the Gaza Strip, maintains that Palestinians have been reduced to living in an open-air prison since it took control of Gaza in 2005 when Israel disengaged.

    Israel and the international community

    The fighting in Gaza has raised many questions relevant to international humanitarian law. South Africa brought a case before the International Court of Justice in The Hague accusing Israel of genocide. The Court ruled that there was “plausible” genocide and ordered several provisional measures Israel must follow, among them increasing access to humanitarian aid.

    Beyond Israel, Hamas and the International Court of Justice, various resolutions have been proposed before the United Nations Security Council concerning a ceasefire. Although the latest resolution did pass, with the United States abstaining and not using its veto power, no ceasefire has taken place, although increased humanitarian aid is now entering Gaza.

    But the situation of the Palestinians remaining in Gaza remains precarious at best.

    The Israel/Hamas conflict has spread to other countries in the region, including Iran, which has long been a supporter of Hamas. On 1 April 2024, Israeli warplanes destroyed a building in Damascus, Syria, part of an Iranian Embassy complex, killing several Iranian officers involved in covert actions in the Middle East.

    Shortly after, Iran sent hundreds of drones and cruise missiles towards Israel, which were largely intercepted by Israeli and U.S. air defenses. Subsequently, several drones were downed by Iran’s air defense system near Isfahan, but it is not clear whether they came from Israel or other sources.

    What is clear is that there has been enormous international pressure to de-escalate the current situation in order to stop the Israel/Hamas conflict from growing into a regional conflict involving Iran and other countries, or even a more global escalation of violence.


    Questions to consider:

    1. How did the United Nations divide Palestine to create the state of Israel?

    2. What happened to the people displaced in 1948 when Isreal was created?

    3. What kind of compromises do you think might have to take place for there to be peace between Israelis and Palestinians? 


    Source link

  • Do fixed borders guarantee peace?

    Do fixed borders guarantee peace?

    The crumbling of the Soviet Union brought bloodshed. I remember covering clashes in Kyrgyzstan’s Osh province in 1990 between ethnic Kyrgyz, who were mainly animal herders, and ethnic Uzbek, who were mainly farmers, with very different needs and interests.

    Since then, disputes over grazing and water rights have also boiled over along the borders of Kyrgyzstan’s Batken region and Tajikistan’s Sughd region. In autumn 2022, in the worst fighting over the border since the fall of the Soviet Union, dozens were killed and thousands forced from their homes.

    It was after this that the leaders of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan started working on new demarcation lines. Now, after successful diplomacy to deal with the root cause of the problem, the two nations have agreed to shift their borders.

    “Negotiations have reached the final point and can be discussed openly,” Kamchybek Tashiev, head of Kyrgyzstan’s secret service, told the Kyrgyz parliament in March. “After parliamentary consideration, our presidents will sign the ratification.”

    Under the deal, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan will swap small areas of land and make better arrangements to share water resources. A number of disputed roads will be declared “neutral” and made available to both nations, according to the Defense Post.

    Which all goes to show that to secure friendship and good neighbourly relations, you sometimes have to define your boundaries.

    Recommended reading: “Prisoners of Geography” by Tim Marshall, an excellent account of how geography affects history and politics.


     

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why might there be disputes over borders?
    2. Why does the world generally agree that existing borders should remain untouched?
    3. What does the case of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan tell us about changing borders?

    Source link

  • Trump’s idea of peace in Gaza? Hotels and yacht clubs.

    Trump’s idea of peace in Gaza? Hotels and yacht clubs.

    U.S. President Donald Trump views Israel’s war on Gaza through the eyes of the real estate developer he was before he entered politics. 

    “We have an opportunity to do something that could be phenomenal,” he said at a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on 4 February. “And I don’t want to be cute. I don’t want to be a wise guy. But the Riviera of the Middle East.”

    He was talking about the possibility of forcing 2.2 million Palestinians from Gaza to make place for “the Riviera of the Middle East.”

    Elaborating the idea in social media posts and interviews, the U.S. president left no doubt that he saw one of the world’s most complex problems — the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — as a real estate deal.

    Trump explained that the United States could take over Gaza, a place where tens of thousands of people have been killed by Israeli air strikes and ground troops over the past 16 months. 

    Taking ownership of the conflict

    Israel has pummelled Gaza ever since 7 October 2024 when gunmen from the militant Hamas group stormed across the border, killed 1,200 Israelis and took more than 250 people hostage. 

     “I do see a long-term ownership position and I see it bringing great stability to that part of the Middle East and maybe the entire Middle East,” Trump said. “We’re going to take over that piece and we’re going to develop it, create thousands and thousands of jobs. And it will be something that the entire Middle East can be very proud of.”

    To make that possible, the people now living in the future Riviera must leave, possibly to neighbouring Jordan or Egypt, he said. 

    Leaders of both countries have rejected that idea, as has the Arab League, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres and a host of human rights groups.

    Conspicuously absent from statements by Trump and officials of his administration was the matter of international law.

    The thorny issue of international law

    The forced deportation of civilians is prohibited by an array of provisions of the Geneva Conventions which the United States has ratified. 

    Forced deportation has been considered a war crime ever since the Nuremberg Trial of Nazi officials.

    The International Criminal Court lists the kind of forcible population transfer visualized by Trump’s Riviera of the Middle East plan as both a war crime and a crime against humanity. (The United States is not a member of the court because it never ratified the Rome Statute on the court’s establishment).

    The legal and geo-political arguments triggered by Trump’s controversial proposal often leave out the collective trauma that shapes the Palestinians’ national identity and political aspirations.

    That trauma dates back to the violence preceding the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, more than 50 years after an Austrian Jew, Theodor Herzl, published a book (Der Judenstaat) that inspired the Zionist movement.

    A history of forced expulsion

    An estimated 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from what is now Israel during the war between Zionist paramilitary fighters of the Haganah, the forerunners of today’s Israeli Defence Force, and regular soldiers of six Arab countries. 

    Palestinians call that forced exodus the Naqba (the catastrophe). At the time, many expected to return to their homes once the fighting was over.

    A resolution by the U.N. General Assembly seven months after the formal establishment of Israel provided for a right of return for those who fled. A General Assembly resolution in 1974 declared the right to return an “inalienable right.” 

    Like all General Assembly resolutions, the 1948 vote was not binding, but it was explicit: “Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest possible date and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return…”

    Neither happened but the concept that those who left had a right to return has lived on for four generations, with hopes fading gradually but not entirely. There are still families who keep as heirlooms keys to the houses they fled in the turmoil of the Naqba.

    How history plays out today

    This history helps explain why today’s Palestinians in Gaza take seriously Trump’s proposal to resettle them all and their fear that any resettlement would result in permanent exile. 

    Trump’s “Riviera” proposal came as a surprise, apparently even to Netanyahu who stood next to him at the press conference. But it appears to have been a subject of discussion inside the Trump family for some time.

    At an event at Harvard university in February 2024, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, mused about the untapped value of the Gaza strip and its beautiful beaches. “Gaza’s waterfront property, it could be very valuable, if people would focus on building up livelihoods,” Kushner said. 

    He did not specify which people would do the building but his father-in-law appears to be determined that it would not be the people now living there. 

    Who, then? It’s one of many questions yet to be answered in the era of Trump 2.0.


    Questions to consider:

    • What is one problem Trump will have if he wants the United States to take over Gaza?

    • Why do many Palestinians take Trump’s threat of relocation seriously?

    • What makes the idea that people have the right to return to homes their ancestors were force out of complicated?


     

    Source link

  • Can regional leaders help bring peace to DR Congo?

    Can regional leaders help bring peace to DR Congo?

    Critics abroad and in Congo accuse DRC president Tshisekedi and his government of being distant, corrupt and ineffective and continually failing to meet promises or even talk to the rebels. 

    “I am exhausted with Tshisekedi’s governance,” said one Congolese citizen.

    There have been strong and repeated accusations by the United Nations and others that the M23, which is now part of the broader Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC), receives both funding and tangible support from Rwanda and its army, that it has been responsible for excessive violence — including reports of rape in a Goma prison last week — and that it has benefited from the increasing control of lucrative mineral mines in the region.  

    A multinational push for peace

    The actual truth is much more complex, nuanced and difficult to distinguish, especially given the direct involvement of national army soldiers on the ground, not just from the DRC and Rwanda but from other countries, such as Burundi, South Africa and Tanzania. 

    There are also about 14,000 UN peacekeeping forces in the region, as well as more than 100 other militia groups and even mercenaries from Eastern Europe. Rwanda recently ensured the safe repatriation of 300 of them back to Romania.

    And then there are powerful political and business leaders in the United States, Europe, Russia and China who somewhat cynically want to ensure the continued supply of precious minerals — such as cobalt, coltan and tantalum — for their cars, cellphones and computers. 

    On a more personal level, I live with my Rwandan wife and young son in a newly-built house just south of Rwanda’s capital city of Kigali, which lies only 150 kilometres away from the current conflict zone and which has been repeatedly threatened by DRC president Tshisekedi and leading government officials.

    Just last week, Rwanda’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, James Ngango, accused the DRC of amassing a stockpile of weapons — including rockets, kamikaze drones and heavy artillery guns — that are pointed straight at Rwanda.

    Fears that violence will cross borders

    My wife Merveille — whose father and three brothers may well have been murdered by some of the current FDLR militia fighters in eastern DRC — still has nightmares about them possibly attacking or even taking back Rwanda.

    A Rwanda security expert texted me that the threat to “attack Rwanda immediately” was real before the M23 rebels took over Goma and there are still concerns about large weapon stockpiles in South Kivu province. He added that if the M23 can now secure the regional capital of Bukavu and the nearby Kavumu airport “all security risks against Rwanda will be reduced/mitigated.”

    This will allay our personal concerns but we are still worried about the security of some close friends in Goma, who fell silent for five whole days after the M23 rebels took control of their city in late January but thankfully got back in contact right after power and WiFi service were restored.

    Daily life in Goma has returned to something like normal over the last week or so but the nighttime is different.

    One of our friends texted me on Tuesday: “Safety in Goma is degrading day in, day out. Getting armed looters at night. From this night alone we register more than seven deaths. A friend was visited as well. He let them in and his life was spared and his family. He said this morning that it was hard to determine their identity because they had no military uniforms but we all suspect they are they are the Wazalendo or prisoners who escaped from Munzenze prison. They come in to steal, rape and kill who ever shows resistance.”

    The Wazalendo — meaning “patriots” or “nationalists” — are a group of irregular fighters in North Kivu province, who are allied with the Congolese army and opposed to the M23.

    Our friend in Goma said that he still has enough security in his house but when asked about the potentially revitalised multilateral peace process, he said: “I am actually speechless right now, I don’t know what to think about all this. So much has happened.” 

    The weekend summit’s joint communiqué did call for an immediate end to the violence and for defense ministers to come up with concrete plans for sustainable peace measures, such as the resumption of “direct negotiations and dialogue with all state and non-state parties,” including the M23 that DRC president Tshisekedi has long tried to resist.

    Observers see this as a positive sign and there are renewed hopes — along with lingering doubts after so many earlier failed initiatives — that this unusual and timely degree of coordinated Africa-based action and support at the highest levels could mean that the fighting, killing and disruption may wane soon and a long-lasting, peaceful solution can be reached.

    In the words of the sadly-departed Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks of the UK: “The greatest single antidote to violence is conversation, speaking our fears, listening to the fears of others, and in that sharing of vulnerabilities, discovering a genesis of hope.”


     

    Three questions to consider:

    1. Why is the situation in Eastern DRC so difficult to sort out?
    2. Think of a time when you, someone you knew or someone you respected used “direct negotiations and dialogue” to achieve a positive outcome to a challenging problem.
    3. What would you say or do if you were one of the regional African leaders trying to achieve a sustainable, non-violent solution to the Eastern DRC crisis?


    Source link

  • IHEC Blog a project by David Comp: Rest in Peace Ruth

    IHEC Blog a project by David Comp: Rest in Peace Ruth

    Since February 2007, International Higher Education Consulting Blog has provided timely news and informational pieces, predominately from a U.S. perspective, that are of interest to both the international education and public diplomacy communities. From time to time, International Higher Education Consulting Blog will post thought provoking pieces to challenge readers and to encourage comment and professional dialogue.

    Source link