Author Archives: Wairimu Wanjau

What can peacebuilders learn from youth climate activists? This was the main question driving the lively debate at our session with Humanity United at this year’s Stockholm Forum for Peace and Development.  

The annual conference took place from 23 to 25 May under the theme: ‘From a Human Security Crisis Towards an Environment of Peace’. It is co-hosted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

Our session focused on the impact of youth climate advocacy movements, like the ‘Friday’s for Future’ movement founded by Greta Thunberg and what, specifically, we can learn from their success to galvanise peace work. The speakers also discussed opportunities and challenges to strengthen collaboration between climate and peace movements.  

The panel, comprising seven speakers from activist, policy and academic backgrounds, explored ways to increase support for youth movements at the intersection of climate change, conflict, peace and security. They agreed more needs to be done to create space for young people to take part in decision-making and facilitate opportunities for youth movements to exert more influence. 

Cindy Kobei, from the Ogiek indigenous community of the Mau Forest in Kenya, said it is vital to mobilise young people and inform them about challenges relating to peace, security and the planet, and link these issues to their lived realities. She spoke about the extensive knowledge and experience of indigenous communities and the importance of involving these communities in programmes and decision-making processes. 

“Indigenous communities are at the intersection of conflict and climate change and have tremendous knowledge on how to embrace these challenges, so they need to be involved in every step of the way,”  she said. 

According to Shady Khalil, Founder of Greenish, young people are mobilised and will act with urgency if they get the support they need. Greenish, an Egyptian social enterprise, focuses on informing communities to help them develop their own solutions to climate-related challenges.

“We raise awareness among people that there is a problem. We do not solve the problem but we create attention for the issue,” Shady said, referring to the work of his organisation. “We let people come up with solutions themselves.”

 “A culture of peace unites as we are all collectively preventing violence, violence against others and violence against the planet,” observed Iguehi Omole-Irabor, a peace researcher and practitioner focused on communities in the Lake Chad Basin Region and Nigeria. 

Iguehi referred to growing conflict among pastoralists in rural and remote communities as drought and desertification worsen and natural resources decline. She stressed the importance of involving local communities at the early stages of the design and implementation of programmes to address conflict and environmental degradation. 

From a donor and policymaker perspective, Mariko Peters highlighted the failure of   Institutions to tackle the climate and peace challenge even though both threats have been around for a long time. Revising dysfunctional institutions that are not responding to contemporary challenges will be crucial moving forward, she said. 

Opening up lobbying opportunities, going beyond tokenistic engagement and allowing youth activists to have more agency in decision-making spaces were points raised by Catarina Fabiansson; Senior Advisor in Human Security at the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). 

Speaking on behalf of USAID as Director of the Democracy, Rights and Governance (DRG) Center, Rosarie Tucci discussed the risks and opportunities related to the role of technology in youth activism and movements. 

Rosarie highlighted USAID’s new, “ innovative” climate strategy, which, she said, empowers youth to lead climate action. A lot of opportunities will come out of this strategy, she pointed out, noting that climate change cuts through political apathy and brings people together in a way other issues do not. 

She also emphasised the importance of building “coalitions across divides” and that donors and policymakers need to play a facilitation role to “create space for youth activists rather than dictate the space”. 

Bringing climate issues and regional perspectives into global debates and supporting  young people to influence international processes were the focus of questions from the audience. Education, capacity building at the grassroots level and bringing local communities up to speed about what is going on at the global level were among the priorities suggested by the speakers.  

In terms of influencing international processes, the speakers talked about holding national representatives to account who attend critical meetings and setting demands for larger youth representation at global forums like the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP), and the Stockholm +50 international meeting. 

Concluding the session, Bryan Sims, Senior Manager of Peacebuilding at Humanity United, said it is well known that inclusive peacebuilding leads to more positive outcomes. Movements are rooted in communities, he noted, and can shift power and popularise new views. Climate change movements leverage innovative solutions to local and global climate and peace challenges, he said. 

You can read our Stockholm Forum blog here.

We extend our thanks to the speakers: 

Catarina Fabiansson; Senior Advisor in Human Security, CAAC and YPS; Sida. Catarina focuses mainly on Youth, Peace and Security and Children and Armed Conflict. 

Shady Khalil, co-founder of Greenish, a social enterprise focused on educating communities about the environment and empowering them to develop solutions. 

Cindy Kobei, Indigenous Peoples Rights Activist and Chair of Tirap Youth Trust. Tirap, which  means “safe haven”, is an indigenous youth-led organisation, focused on developing the capacities of the Ogiek community members through capacity building programs and advocacy in Kenya. 

Iguehi Omole-Irabor, Independent Consultant, focused on the intersection of conflict, food security and climate change in Nigeria and the Lake Chad Basin region

Mariko Peters, European External Action Service. Senior Peace and Conflict Advisor, Conflict Prevention and Mediation Support. Mariko is a Dutch diplomat by background and former green politician and human rights lawyer.

Bryan Sims, Senior Manager, Peacebuilding, Humanity United. Bryan leads Humanity United’s Nonviolent Action and Inclusive Peace Process strategy. 

Rosarie Tucci, Director of the Democracy, Rights and Governance (DRG) Center at USAID. Rosarie has worked in a variety of key positions supporting human rights and issues disproportionately affecting excluded populations.

Caroline Varin joins Inclusive Peace this month as the new Head of Research. She shares her perspectives and priorities in the role: 

“The next generation of peace researchers has a markedly different approach than academics of the post-WW2 era, and I expect they will introduce more in-depth and inclusive analysis into peace and conflict studies. 

We are seeing a rise of new voices, especially from the non-Western community, whose experiences, history, and culture have often been ignored in analysis. This has been a major limit to our ability to understand peace and conflict globally and locally.

A top priority is to make a concerted effort to consult with and include the other voices and perspectives in peace research.”

Biography

Prior to joining Inclusive Peace, Caroline spent ten years as a Senior Lecturer at Regent’s University London, where her research focused on Security and Conflict. She has published 6 books, including Boko Haram and the War on Terror (ABC-Clio 2016), Violent Non-State Actors in Africa (Palgrave 2018), Security in Nigeria (Bloomsbury 2020) and Global Security in Times of Covid-19 (Palgrave 2022). 

Caroline is also co-founder and CEO of educational charity Professors Without Borders, and has published a book on teaching games for adult learners (Routledge 2022). She is a member of the Geneva Consultation for Security Policy and has previous experience working in Intelligence Analysis, the Swiss armed forces and the UNHCR.

Caroline holds a PhD in International Relations and an MSc in Comparative Politics from the London School of Economics, an LLM in International and European Law from Università di Bologna and a BA in Political Science from the University of Pennsylvania. She is currently completing an MBA in Educational Leadership from Tampere University.

To mark Eid, Ahmed Ahmed reflects on concepts of peace and inclusion in Islam and the period Ramadan as a time of spiritual and religious reflection that throughout history has galvanised people to end conflict and lay down arms.  

Ahmed Ahmed is a traditionally trained Islamic scholar from the UK. He completed his studies of the Islamic sciences at the Dar al Mustafa Seminary in Tarim, Yemen in 2019 with a specialisation in Islamic Jurisprudence. His research interests include Islamic Theology and the history of Islam on the Swahili Coast. He is currently a research assistant at the faculty of Islamic Theology at the University of Osnabrück where he is pursuing further studies in Islamic Theology.

What is the connection between Ramadan and peace? 

From a theological perspective, the month of Ramadan has a specific connection to the revelation itself, the Quran, that Muslims believe is the revelation from God. There are several passages in the Quran that speak about Ramadan and its connection to the Quran itself. For example, the month of Ramadan is the month in which the Quran was revealed, and this is commented on by scholars that point out that of course the Quran was revealed to the Prophet Muhammed, Peace Be Upon Him, in several stages. We can say the revelation is entering the world or the spiritual atmosphere of the world in this month of Ramadan as the month of Quran.  The month Ramadan as the month of the Quran contains within it the Night of Power. In one of the passages of the Quran, it describes this Night of Power as being one where the angels greet the believers with the word “peace”. 

There is directly a connection between Ramadan, the Quran and the concept of peace. These people that are being greeted are the ones that have a specific quality which in Arabic is called Taqwa, which is God consciousness. This Taqwa is also referred to in connection to the month of Ramadan, in one of the verses of the Quran. The Quran says that the fast in Ramadan has been prescribed on believers and on nations before Islam, Jews and Christians and others. So fasting is a ritual that God has prescribed on the believers so they may increase their God consciousness. 

This concept of Taqwa is one that is central to Ramadan as well. These people that have this quality of God consciousness, whom the angels greet with the word peace, also God himself Allah, subhanahu wa ta’ala, greets these people with the word peace. For example, in the chapter named ‘Surah Ya Sin’, there is a verse “Salamun qawlan min Rabin Rahim”, “peace is the word from the most merciful Lord”. There are many other indicators which connect Ramadan to peace and that connect the people of Ramadan who have attained the quality of God consciousness through the fast to the concept of peace and the guardians of peace of paradise who come in the afterlife. 

What differentiates Islamic peacebuilding from other frameworks? 

I think it’s twofold, at least from a theologian’s perspective. Firstly, in the sense that any Islamic framework is a God-centred framework, so any intention behind it, any way it is framed, any goals that will be set are ones that will have God in the centre frame. This is not just an individual concept or goal, it is a social one. So, in Islamic society, the main goal we can say is to provide a social sphere where every individual has the same opportunity to access God and his revelation and benefit from it. So that’s on a purely theological basis. 

Secondly, Islam as a religion has very complex, powerful ethical and legal frameworks within it. So, these ethical and legal frameworks based on the life example of the Prophet Muhammad, Peace be Upon Him, which are quite unique to Islam, provide us with a framework for our goals and the ways we shape our institutions for the way we organise society; for the way individuals interact with other members of the society and so on. These  would be the general points about what differentiates an Islamic peacebuilding framework or an Islamic framework for anything. This doesn’t mean there won’t be overlaps with other peacebuilding frameworks. Generally, for some of the definitions of peace and justice and others there can be many overlaps even though we find cultural relativism in everything, but the main thing is, firstly, God-centred for individuals to access God and these frameworks of how we handle things, how we define things and how we interact with others. 

In Islam, all individuals should have equal access to God, so what bearing does this have on inclusion?  

From the core, Islam is a communal religion so many of the rights and rituals and practices that are unique to Islam require a communal effort. For example, from the prayer that is done in the communal setting to burials which have communal rights, to the fast when people are fasting for Ramadan and the alms tax, providing for the poor. These are all necessary communal things. The religion does not function without a community. 

The legal and ethical frameworks that have been taken from the Quran and life example of the Prophet, Peace be Upon Him, all have developed organically from bottom up, so it is not like someone brought a unique philosophical idea which was then implemented by government and that was pushed on the people. Rather, what happened was that traditional scholars in traditional Islamic fields were part and parcel of the societies and the communities in which they were living. The problems and solutions were coming from these communities themselves and were then expounded upwards. This gives us the framework for better input into governmental structures. Everything comes from the bottom up. 

This is where it is important to examine civil actors in society rather than governmental and institutional actors. This is why inclusion is not just from a theological perspective. Of course, if we talk about the theological perspective, the Quran talks about different peoples, different religious groups coming together for common ground to work together. The Quran mentions gender disparities in society and how these should be addressed. These are all things the Quran mentions to allow for a more level playing field, and because it is God-centred the main goal is everyone has better access to the Divine within the social context. 

I think it needs to be reiterated that civil actors are the most important ones as they are the actors on the ground connecting or dealing with Islam and Islamic law, and they are the people coming up with real answers, real solutions, moral, ethical conclusions for real issues that overarching frameworks cannot perceive or take care of. 

What are your priorities during Ramadan? 

I think personally that Ramadan is a space and a school for the religious and spiritual development of people. So that is the main goal. If there are people that wish to have an impact on a peace process or anything to do with alleviating some of the pain in the world, then this is the perfect time to do so because it targets, through the fasting and an increase in ritual prayer and worship, it targets the soul of the individual and it targets the sicknesses that prevail in our hearts. 

I personally like to research the impact of traditional Islamic leaders and scholarship in how civil society has functioned throughout Islamic history. And, I see that Ramadan as a time period has been a massive catalyst for this work to be pushed. I can give examples such as Southern Yemen or Indonesia of Ramadan being used to end conflict and put weapons down.

In this blog, Dr Thania Paffenholz critiques the West’s polarising response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and advocates for reform to ensure the participation of different actors in the pursuit of peace.

As Russia’s brutal attack on Ukraine and the targeting of civilians continues and reports of war crimes mount, the international community is struggling to find effective solutions to broker a ceasefire and move towards a peace agreement.

This evolving crisis is exposing flaws in international diplomacy and peace and security architecture, shaped in the image of the West following World War II. It is revealing and catalysing a new world order, which demands the West rethink approaches to global peace. 

At the outset of this war, a familiar rhetoric took hold, the West drawing sides between “tyranny” and “freedom”: it is not only war in Ukraine, but also a fight between democracies and autocracies, as US President Joe Biden said in an impassioned speech delivered in Poland in March.

West’s polarising response

The West’s response to Ukraine has revealed entrenched bias, hypocrisy and racism within outdated systems. Support for Ukraine poured in when humanitarian crises raging in Tigray and Yemen have not received a fraction of the funding or attention.  This has caused further divisions and tensions between the West and the rest of the world and jeopardises future opportunities for peace.  

So how can Europe and the US move on a path from confrontation and polarisation to dialogue and ultimately cooperation with Russia without stopping to support the people and the government of Ukraine? To reach a ceasefire and move to a peace agreement will require meeting Ukraine’s needs and pushing for a broader deal allowing for Western and Russian security interests. 

Outdated systems 

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) was set up after World War II to stay in dialogue with Russia. The UN Security Council was founded to secure world peace. Indeed, Russia was serving as the President of the UN Security Council, and their ambassador delivered a speech to that same audience on the exact day of the invasion. This is a tragic symbol of the futility and limitations of the current international peace and security architecture. 

Protest against Russian invasion of Ukraine on the Wenceslas Square in Prague, Czech Republic. Photo: Matyas Rehak 2022

In 2012, the EU received the Nobel peace prize for the project of a peaceful Europe. However, we see that the instruments of peace and security in the world, the UN and in Europe the OSCE are not fulfilling their potential. If these bodies are not functioning to the level needed, we need to re-negotiate the peace and security architecture in Europe and the world. 

New space for dialogue

It does not mean we need to abolish all existing systems, but we might need to renegotiate the terms and conditions of the existing ones and start new ones. It is vital to give space for an emerging world order in which countries in the Global South take a lead role.  This would mean setting up new constellations and spaces for security and peace dialogues. 

Part of this will also involve a deeper reflection on the role of organisations such as the OSCE, and whether the current escalatory rhetoric and mobilisation will deliver a more stable, peaceful future in both the short term and longer term. 

Perpetual peacebuilding

Overall, this should be informed by what I call Perpetual peacebuilding, a never-ending, constant process of renegotiating the social and political contract within and between states. It also requires a more dynamic multilateral approach to peace and security, not one that becomes fossilised or dysfunctional due to geopolitical shifts and growing multipolarity, but one which embraces this messy reality and seeks cooperation and compromise, rather than consensus. 

Unfortunately, a peaceful settlement in Ukraine is not going to happen easily, nor quickly, nor in a manner that will appease all sides. Compromises, including elements of Ukrainian sovereignty, will be required. 

The history of peacemaking in Europe and beyond shows us that there are broadly two roads which can be pursued. In seeking to put an end to the violence, all sides reach an agreement which barely holds and creates grievances on one or both sides that sow the seeds for future conflict.

The second option is to seek an agreement that catalyses immediate security needs with a comprehensive ceasefire agreement and a broader set of changes around how the West and Russia address peace and security through dialogue spaces. This would involve creating platforms for collaboration, compromise and non-violent resolution of disputes that are open to realpolitik and lessons from existing spaces that did not work. 

This is a moment in history to acknowledge and attempt to fix the flaws in an outdated global peace architecture. This a moment to start new dialogues between the West and the rest of the world.

 

 

 

 

 

We meet Tecla Namachanja, a renowned peacebuilder, specialised in transitional justice and social trauma healing. Drawing on decades of experience, she provides insights on supporting communities who have suffered violent conflict and human rights violations in Kenya through various mechanisms. 

Tecla Namachanja Wanjala, is a globally recognised peace practitioner with over 30 years of experience. She specialises in matters related to Transitional Justice, Social Healing and Reconciliation. She is the former Chairperson of Kenya’s Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC), holds a PhD in Peace and Conflict Studies from Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, and is the Founder and Team Lead at Shalom Centre for Counselling and Development. 

What inspired you to work on reconciliation and transitional justice? 

I come from Bungoma, which is considered to be one of the marginalised regions in Kenya. So, when growing up and watching my mother and other women suffering, I wanted to…I joined social work, this developmental profession, because I wanted to support women in areas of livelihood, improving livelihoods. When I graduated from my colleague in 1991 and I searched for employment in my church, the Catholic diocese of Mombasa, where we were living then, instead of being sent to work with the women, I was sent to work with Somali refugees. If you remember in 1991 that is the time that Somalia disintegrated. So, I was sent in a refugee camp to support 30,000 Somali refugees and what the church did was to support supplementary nutrition for children under the age of five years and older people aged 60 and above. I also taught Kiswahili to the young students and pupils. The coastal areas being Swahili-speaking, we wanted the children and young people to communicate with the locals. 

So in 1991 I worked in Utange refugee camp and in 1992 when Kenya experienced ethnic clashes, also known as land clashes, related to the general election, I was sent to work in internally displaced persons camps as a relief and rehabilitation coordinator. I supported 40,000 IDPs with relief food and medical care. I must say that while working with the refugees and IDPs, victims of ethnic clashes, that I experienced the injustices that communities in Africa and in my country experience. To start with the violent conflict was about land. The IDPs were evicted from their land because the people who consider themselves indigenous to where the IDPs were evicted from believed that the communities who settled there were favoured by the government settlement structures. This land was formerly annexed by the colonial regime, the so-called white islands, and so after independence, the communities felt an unfair process was used to resettle communities. 

It was here that I experienced the impact of physical violence but also the impact of structural violence and that is the reason that when the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission  (TJRC) was set up to deal with transitional justice, I embraced it and applied to be a part of it. This is one area that encouraged me and another area that encouraged me was during the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission when I was working under a national umbrella called the Peace and Development Network, I think there was an institution that facilitated peacebuilders from Africa to go and witness the truth-seeking process in South Africa. When I went there, I was encouraged, especially when I visited the  communities, I saw how they were joining with the process, facilitating dialogue in the communities. At that time, I had no idea my own nation would set up a truth-seeking process. 

Another area that encouraged me was when I went to university from 2000 to 2003 and that is where I took a Masters in conflict transformation and peacebuilding. I took a course in restorative justice by Howard Zehr. I really liked the concept of restorative justice, so when I came back to Kenya in 2003, this is the period that Kenya thought we were in a transition after dislodging a long dictatorial ruling party, Kanu, from leadership. Kanu had ruled Kenya from independence to 2003. It was only in 2003 that the coalition allowed for a multiparty form of politics and through competitive ways Kanu was dislodged from leadership. That is the time that we Kenyans thought we had reached a transitional moment and so as one of the strategies to deal with the past, the leadership commissioned a task-force to go around the country to find out if Kenyans preferred a truth and reconciliation commission as a way of dealing with its past. When I came back and I started to catch up and read the newspapers, I realised the discussions, the town hall discussions, were very heated. In fact at one point, they almost got violent. 

So when Kenya set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I thought that having worked with the communities and knowing that while at the community level the line between the victim and the perpetrator is so blurred and it keeps on changing, I wanted to be part of this transitional justice so that I can give my contribution to see how Kenya can impress restorative justice as part of the justice mechanisms when it comes to dealing with the past. 

Why is transitional justice an important topic in Kenya? 

Transitional Justice is a mechanism for a country emerging from a painful past, maybe caused by repressive regimes or a violent conflict. It is put in place to help that country deal with the past. And, in most cases, transitional justice mechanisms are put in place when the country believes that it has emerged from that past and it’s ready to move forward in a more democratic space. The mechanisms are put in place so that the country helps its citizens to put behind the pain of historical injustices and gross violations of human rights that its citizens have faced in a previous regime, so that they are in a more democratic environment that upholds human rights.  

For Kenya, we acknowledge our painful past, right from the colonial regime and onwards in the subsequent regimes that took over power after independence. Kenyans continued to suffer from the regressive regimes, especially the one party regime and under the constitution that only allowed one party to contest for election. Among the injustices Kenyans faced were massacres, assassinations, torture, an unfair judicial and parliamentary system, police brutality and politically instigated violent conflicts. 

When did the moment of reckoning come in Kenya? 

For us, the moment of reckoning came during the 2007-2008 post electoral violence. Thanks to the mediation process, led by the late Kofi Annan and a team of eminent African leaders, who medicated and came up with a peace agreement that was signed. And so as part of the peace agreement they proposed for Kenya to look into its historical injustices and gross violation of human rights because during the 2007-2008 conflict, the way communities fought each other and the reason the conflict flared up was over a contested presidential election. The more we viciously went against each other, we realised the rage and the anger that we faced against each other was beyond surely a stolen election. It was at that moment we realised the historical injustices, the gross violations of human rights, the cycles of violence we have experienced since especially embracing the multiparty politics has left bitterness among Kenyans against each other. 

Can you tell us about your role as Chairperson of the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission?

One of the proposals was for Kenya to set up a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission, where I was part of that process. The mandate of the Commission was to investigate historical injustices and gross violations of human rights that the country faced from independence in 1963 to 2008 in February when this peace agreement was signed by the principals of our coalition government. We invited these affected people who had experienced historical injustices and gross violations of human rights to come forward in a statement-taking process to state the violations they may have suffered. I remember we came up with around 40,000 statements from Kenyans who wanted to be a part of this process. Out of the 40,000 statements, we selected around 1000 of them and conducted hearings. What truth-seeking processes during the transitional justice do is to paint a global picture of the violations under investigation. So through the selected cases, we conducted hearings in almost every county. During these hearings, the survivors came forward and shared their painful stories with the rest of the Kenyans, and we invited the people that were adversely mentioned to also come forward to state their case and share their story. 

I remember asking, because I was in charge of the Reconciliation Committee and at each hearing, whenever I attended, I asked the witness what she or he expected out of this process. Some really acknowledged the fact they were given a chance to share their painful stories. I remember a woman who suffered during one of the massacres that took place in Wajir. She was raped in the process. I think the massacre took place in 1984. We wanted to give her a chance to be a witness anonymously and she said no. She said: “I want the world to know what happened to me because whatever happened to me, happened in public.” And she stood there and shared everything she had suffered. And after she had shared, she said: “Now I can rest because I thought I was going to my grave with this pain.” 

Elders Circle meeting on preempting electoral violence held in Mt. Elgon, Bungoma County, Kenya. February 2022. Photo: Tecla Namachanja 

And after the hearings, we came up with a report and for Kenyans this is a historical report because I know before the Truth Commission was set up, many investigations by human rights groups had taken place but the fact that the government set up this commission under an act of parliament was an acknowledgement that yes, we were coming from a painful past. It was an affirmation that yes, some of the segments of the population had suffered and we needed to confront our painful past in a space where we could talk to each other. We expected after that that reparative measures were going to be put in place. 

Were your expectations met in terms of outcomes from the process? 

Many people acknowledged that the process was very important. Many people acknowledged that for the first time they got to hear in public what the victims had suffered. Some communities acknowledged that they were not alone in their suffering, especially when they heard from other communities. The report we came with, we came up with recommendations and according to the mechanism that set up the truth commission and after completing the work, we were to hand over the report to the president, which we did. The president was expected to hand over the report to parliament, which he did. Parliament was expected to debate the findings and recommendations in the report, which they did not do…The report is stuck in parliament up to now. So this means most of the recommendations in this report have not been implemented. 

I was also wondering why the report was stuck in parliament for a long time and I was bitter because at one point when the commission faced leadership challenges I took over the commission as an acting chair and steered the commission for about 18 years. I became the face of this commission. For a long time, I lived with a guilty conscience from promising so much to the survivors, having elevated their expectations. Before the TJRC, there were many reports that had been written by human rights groups with regards to the violations that Kenyans had suffered, but this was the first official institution sanctioned by the government.

In 2018, I was invited to be a research fellow and during this time I reflected on why nations set up truth seeking processes, yet when it comes to implementing the recommendations from these reports, it becomes a tall order. I did some research on how Germany is dealing with its past. I interviewed the chairman of the former Canadian Truth Commission. I interviewed a colleague from the South Africa Truth Commission and someone from Brazil. What I learned is when nations set up truth commissions, at times they face some challenges and one of the challenges is the moment of transition. I think when a nation is in total transition and leadership is completely changed, it becomes easy. Especially if the new leadership is one that comes with a decision to look into the country’s painful past. 

But with governments of national unity, like the one embraced by Kenya,. I doubt that we were ready to face ourselves in the mirror and look at what happened. At one point, I thought this commission was imposed by the peace accord. I doubt that it evolved from within. Because as I say it was parliament to sanction the implementation of this report. Among the parliamentarians, when you look at the report, they were adversely mentioned by the survivors as among the people who perpetrated the historical injustices…When a country is not in total transition and we have leftovers from previous regimes in government, it becomes very hard for them to sanction the recommendations of the Reconciliation Commission. I think that is what we experienced in Kenya. 

I think Kenya was the first commission that included the justice component. Ours was the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission, and when you look at the objective first to promote peace, justice, national healing and reconciliation among the people of Kenya. 

Because maybe where we are coming from in Africa, when we think about justice, in most cases it’s about retributive justice and that is where most of the leaning was when it comes to the recommendations. So the justice component really interfered with the implementation of this report, especially where we recommended further investigation leading to prosecution. I think South Africa did not have that. When you look at our mandate also, there was hardly any space for amnesty because it prohibited us recommending an amnesty for crimes against humanity, which was the majority of the crimes. 

Why the report is stuck in parliament is that we have perpetrators still in leadership if it is not them themselves, it is their relatives or their networks and so the TJRC report is considered a hot potato. 

What would you have done differently in the Commission? 

There are various transitional justice mechanisms, truth-seeking is just one of them. When you look at the mandates of these truth commissions, there is a tendency to land everything in one basket which does not really help; recommending reparations, recommending further investigations leading to prosecution, recommending an amnesty even when the mandate does not allow. Looking at the structure from the national all the way to the community level, I think that is where the challenge is. I think it is good to separate these mechanisms. 

For example, Kenya had a chance maybe to put up a hybrid court like what Sierra Leone did to deal with issues related to legal justice. Of course we had the ICC process but the ICC process only looked at the people who held the most responsibility for the violence that took place in Kenya. I think apart from the ICC, we should have had a hybrid court to deal with the perpetrators of gross violations of human rights or crimes against humanity. Then we should have left the truth-seeking process for what it is; to focus on the victims, the survivors – truth and reconciliation, truth healing and reconciliation. So that really this commission can facilitate healing and reconciliation among the people of Kenya. Because of our mandate of the legal justice component, the truth commission was sort of a monologue. It was just for victims to come and share their painful experiences. The adversely mentioned people hardly helped the victims because what they should have done was to acknowledge their role so the victims can forgive them and move on. But because of that legal justice component, the retributive justice component, those who come before the commission were there to deny their role in the injustices, pass the buck to the higher level…or justified their role in the perpetration of the injustices that took place. 

What is ongoing in truth-seeking and reconciliation in Kenya? 

Transitional justice is a journey and I think Kenya, with all the challenges…Kenya has been on the journey. It has set up reforms, starting with the constitution. In the new constitution, we no longer have one party, it is multiparty. There are clauses about integrity, even when it comes to holding public office. Nowadays, when you apply for any job in Kenya, the number of papers you have to produce, there are so many, from the anti-corruption body, a certificate of good conduct…You have to show you are a person of integrity before you can be interviewed for any top position in Kenya. Kenya has put in place the judiciary reform measures and this is part of the transitional justice; all judges, I don’t know if magistrates also, they have to go through the vetting process. Kenya has put in place police reforms to prevent police brutality. There is even a body to oversee this. Since the signing of the peace accord, Kenya is on the journey of transitional justice and it’s not a one-off activity but it is a continuation. I know some of the recommendations in the TJRC report are being implemented, For example, we have the Land Commission. I know some of the recommendations by the Truth Commission are being implemented by the Land Commission. Kenya has the National Commission of Human Rights, an independent body that continues protecting and observing human rights. Kenya has a National Cohesion and Integration Commission to foster national healing and reconciliation. So we have government institutions that were formed as part of transitional justice and they are continuing.   

In 2019, when I came back from my year as a fellow in Berlin, I said I can continue mourning why the report is still stuck in parliament and not being implemented. Or I can, as a resource person in peacebuilding, trauma healing, transitional justice, pick up the low hanging fruits and start implementing some of the recommendations of the commission. I selected trauma healing. Truth commissions re-traumatise communities. In this report, to paint a global picture, we selected a community from Mount Elgon as a case to show the ethnic violence. In the recommendations, we came up with recommendations about memorialisation, setting up trauma-healing institutions and helping communities deal with their traumatic experiences from violent conflict. This is what I’m doing. Yes, Kenya is on the journey of transitional justice. I think civil society needs to come on board more to support this journey of dealing with the painful past.

The news agenda plays a major role in ways in which conflict and peace processes are perceived in the world. Our Peace Process Support Coordinator, Alex Shoebridge reflects on media coverage of Ukraine and the consequences for other global conflicts. 

The double standards and underlying racism of some of the coverage from Western media outlets on the war in Ukraine has not gone unnoticed by critics and media on the African continent, in China and the MENA region, as well as by Inclusive Peace partners in those same regions. Countries outside Europe hosting large refugee populations or experiencing internal violent conflicts have seldom received the same sort of sympathetic and compassionate coverage and response. The international solidarity afforded to Ukraine is not afforded to conflicts in places like Ethiopia, South Sudan or in the Sahel region. 

The fact that a war in Europe and images of blond-haired, blue-eyed, and Christian refugees  fleeing to Western Europe, receives maximum attention from Western media outlets is not surprising in itself, but it also has consequences for how EU countries support and perceive other conflicts in the world and forced displacements that follow. The implicit racist elements in the response shapes the public opinion which again directs donors’ and policy makers’ attention and priorities. International aid is now being redirected away from African, MENA or Asian contexts to respond to Ukrainian refugees and welcoming policies are being uniquely tailored for Ukrainian refugees – in sharp contrast to the reception that those fleeing from Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia or other conflict contexts receive. 

While it could be easy to dismiss this coverage as isolated instances divorced from wider political realities and inequalities, it is perceived as just the latest example of global inequalities and underlying racism which governs the relationship between the West and the rest of the world. There are also perceptions of a certain hypocrisy about the West’s insistence on Ukrainian sovereignty after years of violence following stated regime change objectives across the Middle East, where sovereignty was seemingly less valued. This has implications for how the West is perceived and received in terms of engaging in and supporting peace and political transition processes. In countries like Ethiopia, the public opinion now turns its back on Europe and Ukraine and leans towards China and Russia.

Much has been made of the economic impact of the war in Ukraine, but less attention has been paid to the political ramifications facing the West in how they engage in peace and political transition processes in other parts of the world. Explicitly racist coverage and policy responses will only serve to further undermine credibility and entry points to support national actors – whether it be governments, opposition groups or civil society. This holds risks of violent conflict enduring for longer, to the detriment of the civilian populations in these contexts, and further undermining the ability of the West to support conflict resolution, mediation, and peacebuilding efforts in such contexts.

Inclusion has for over a decade been a buzzword in the peacebuilding field. We know when inclusion works, peace agreements are more likely to endure if youth, women and diverse minorities take part.

Inclusion is now central to the implementation of normative policy frameworks such as the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, the Youth Peace and Security agenda (YPS), and the Sustaining Peace resolutions. 

Even though these frameworks have inspired more inclusive peace and political transition processes, there is an overfocus on inclusive processes and a neglect of what it actually means to reach an inclusive outcome. 

What do we mean by inclusive outcomes? This is a society in which conflicts are resolved without violence or discrimination, where all members are equally able to access their full human rights regardless of their gender, age, ethnicity or religion, disability, gender identity or sexual orientation. 

There is a general focusing on breaking down the barriers to inclusive processes, instead of looking into opportunities and approaches to enable inclusive outcomes. Inclusive processes are difficult enough to achieve, and if we lose sight of the goal – a peaceful and inclusive society – and focus only on the inclusive aspects of a process, time, energy and money might be wasted. 

Examples of inclusive processes that have resulted in inclusive outcomes are rare – exactly due to the lack of attention to inclusion beyond the process itself. However, there are instances when inclusive processes have led to inclusive outcomes. 

As a result of Nepal’s peace process, quotas have been implemented to increase representation of women and disadvantaged ethnic and caste groups as a part of the country’s legal governance structure.  Record numbers of women and representatives from disadvantaged groups were elected in the 2017 elections. 

In South Africa, mechanisms of the peace process gave rise to meaningful public participation. Members of civil society organisations, including trade unions and women’s organisations were included in power-sharing executives as representatives of the major political parties and exerted considerable influence. The newly-elected parliament was broadly representative and was committed to civic politics and inclusion as a guiding principle. This enabled the inclusion of political and ethnic minorities in all decision-making organs and substantive civil society input to other facets of the peace process, notably the Constitutional Assembly and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was initiated and headed by prominent civil society and religious leaders. This approach laid the foundations for a more progressive and inclusive governance structure for the country going forward. 

The examples given demonstrate that inclusive outcomes are possible, so what needs to change in peace and political transition processes to make this happen? We know a shift of focus in peacebuilding and peacemaking is needed, but how can this be achieved? 

First and foremost, we see that there is a need to focus not only on women’s participation, but participation by all groups that constitute a society – so not only privileged groups in urban centres, but also groups from different ethnic, religious and geographic backgrounds that make up the full picture of a country’s population, including older people and representatives for the growing youth segments of many conflict affected contexts. 

The cases of South Africa and Nepal provide examples of how an inclusion formula can establish a framework for a maximalist approach to who is participating and how in the future of decision making in all aspects of society and politics. It outlines the standards of participation not only in the peace process but in a country’s governance structures and socio-political sphere in the long term. And truly inclusive participation is not only achieved through implementing quotas for individual specific groups – such as women, youth and ethnic or religious minority groups –  but through broader affirmative action and representative diversity criteria reflecting the makeup of a society which are incorporated into every day formal and informal institutions. 

It is vital to apply a holistic approach to inclusion from the initial design stages to final outcomes. In our recent work to support partners working to influence the National Dialogue process in Ethiopia, we identified some insights to push for inclusion and influence in the early stages of a political transition process. They include the need for early action to boost prospects for sustained engagement and influence; building effective coalitions and making sure external support matches coalitions’ needs. Without these key ingredients, inclusion in both processes and outcomes will be hard to reach.

We share insights from our ongoing process support work in Ethiopia, which includes collaboration with women’s rights organisations and networks to increase women’s representation and influence in the National Dialogue process. 

Over the past few months, Inclusive Peace has worked closely with an emerging coalition of women’s rights organisations and networks in Ethiopia that all seek to push and shape women’s engagement and influence in the forthcoming National Dialogue process.

Recently, we participated in a two-day workshop organised by TIMRAN, which brought together key networks and organisations such NEWA, EWLA, Setaweet and a number of other women’s organisations working across Ethiopia. At the workshop, Inclusive Peace shared a number of key insights from comparative evidence for discussion around what works and what doesn’t when women’s rights groups and their supporters push for women’s engagement and influence. 

Early action boosts sustained engagement and influence 

Since the Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission was recently established, there has been a surge of interest from across Ethiopian civil society to better understand and engage in the process.  In recent months, different groups of women active in civil society have sought to mobilise and influence the design of the dialogue. For example, they have sought to influence the nominating process for appointing members of the Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission. However, they have found the process frustrating because of the limited window of opportunity given to women’s groups to participate. 

Building on their contribution to the process, a broader set of women’s organisations and networks have come together to develop a women’s agenda outlining a set of common positions, proposals, and areas where the coalition intends to contribute and engage in relation to the National Dialogue process. Such early actions are a good start – though good results are not guaranteed and require ongoing efforts. 

When looking at comparative examples, early action boosts the prospects of achieving sustained engagement and influence in National Dialogue processes. In Yemen, for example, advocacy efforts by Yemeni women activists and women-led organisations contributed to the adoption of a progressive “inclusion formula”, which guaranteed significant participation of women, as well as youth and other groups, in the different structures of the National Dialogue. 

Coalitions are key

Experiences from South Sudan to Cameroon show that the ability to collectively organise and engage on the basis of common positions can be the difference between effective women’s engagement and influence in National Dialogues, and frustrated, fragmented efforts. 

During the South Sudan R-ARCSS negotiations, multiple women’s organisations approached the IGAD-led mediation team, only to be turned away and encouraged to organise and present a united front. Fissures within women’s civil society movements can often undermine these efforts, although in many instances, despite these inherent differences, it is possible to work towards a “women’s agenda” or set of common positions and demands. Beyond having a potentially greater influence in the process itself, coalitions are also able to connect to wider segments of society, which can be key in ensuring public awareness and support. 

Many emerging coalitions form too early and are too concerned with governance structures and ways of working, which can slow momentum and divert attention away from key questions: What can we do together? How do we organise? While the latter is a critical issue to address, it often becomes clearer once the coalition has more experience of working together and as details about the National Dialogue process emerge. In short, form should follow function when it comes to building an effective coalition. 

A workshop led by Timran, a civil society organisation in Ethiopia dedicated to women’s participation in politics and public decision-making. Photo: Alexander Shoebridge (2022)

External support should match the coalition’s needs 

There is significant willingness and interest from donors, INGOs, and UN agencies to support women’s engagement in and around National Dialogue processes, such as the one in Ethiopia. However, it is critical that such support is demand-driven. External support and skill-building can be valuable for advancing civil society’s engagement and participation inside and outside of the National Dialogue, but the support is unfortunately often pre-designed by INGOs, UN agencies, and donors rather than responsive to needs within. 

Stakeholders in a National Dialogue do not automatically know what kind of support and capacity building they need, as this is often their first experience. While many INGOs or UN agencies have standard training modules – negotiation skill training, issue-based training such as constitution development, conflict analysis, etc. Support often results in a focus on ready-made outputs like training workshops and consultations that might not be needed at this stage of the process and can hinder the effectiveness of actors engaged inside and outside the National Dialogue, as these actors have less time and focus on the most relevant strategies and needs. 

Ethiopian civil society, particularly civil society engagement on peacebuilding issues such as national dialogue, remains nascent and emergent. A needs-based and humble approach in which donors and external actors (such as INGOs and UN agencies) should engage with civil society in the coming period will be critical in shaping the future trajectory of Ethiopia’s civil society. 

There have been a series of global commitments in recent years where donors have agreed to pursue more flexible and adaptive funding and direct a greater proportion of funding to local actors. And it is much needed. Globally, 0.2 percent of bilateral funding to conflict-affected contexts is received by women’s rights organisations and almost half of youth-led organisations operate with an annual budget of less than USD 5,000, most of which is mobilised through local donations (GPPAC, 2020). Most bilateral and multilateral donors commit to the Grand Bargain on Humanitarian Aid, which set a target of 25 percent of funding allocated to national actors. 

In Ethiopia, there is now an opportunity for donors to use their support to the National Dialogue to translate these commitments into practice. There is also an opportunity for local actors to remind donors about these commitments and communicate to INGOs and their donors how the support should be shaped to respond to women’s coalition needs. 

Moving forward

For Inclusive Peace, it is a real privilege to continue to accompany and support the work of Ethiopian women’s rights organisations and activists as they look to engage in and influence the National Dialogue process. The coalition is now moving ahead with advocating for the common Women’s Agenda, which sets out proposals for how the National Dialogue can take shape, while also presenting a set of areas where the coalition themselves see their added value and contribution. 

It remains to be seen to what extent these ideas will be taken on board, but the energy and determination women activists have shown coming together augurs well for the future, their leadership and influence both in and around the National Dialogue and beyond.

Each month we bring you a selection of key peacebuilding dates in the month to come. Here are a choice of selected May events and observances. 

03 May: World Press Freedom Day

World Press Freedom day is celebrated through a 4-day conference, hosted by @UNESCO and the Republic of Uruguay from the 2 to 5 May under the theme “Journalism under Digital Siege”. The workshops will reunite relevant global stakeholders to explore the digital era’s impact on freedom of expression, the safety of journalists, access to information and privacy. Inclusive Peace supports this international call to governments to respect their commitment to press freedom and joins efforts to develop concrete solutions to address the threats posed by increased surveillance to press freedom and privacy.  https://en.unesco.org/commemorations/worldpressfreedomday

03-05 May: Bologna Peacebuilding Forum

The Agency for Peacebuilding (AP) holds the 4th edition of the Bologna Peacebuilding Forum, a major event in Italy and Europe for the sector. Under the theme, ‘Reimagining Conflict Prevention’, the conference seeks to strengthen the network of peacebuilding scholars and practitioners to improve policy-oriented research and fieldwork, and reach new audiences. 

21 May: World Day for Cultural Diversity for Dialogue and Development

In 2002, the UN General Assembly declared May 21 to be the World Day for Cultural Diversity for Dialogue and Development in resolution 57/249, “affirming culture’s contribution to the three dimensions of sustainable development, acknowledging further the natural and cultural diversity of the world, and recognising that cultures and civilizations can contribute to, and are crucial enablers of, sustainable development.” 

The 4 goals of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions guide the celebrations and actions taken around this observance.

23-25 May: Stockholm Forum

The hybrid 2022 Stockholm Forum on Peace and Development is co-hosted by SIPRI and the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs under the theme ‘From a Human Security Crisis Towards an Environment of Peace’. Inclusive Peace will host a session with Humanity United on Monday 23 May at 17:30 CEST to explore what peacebuilders can learn from climate activists and how these movements can collaborate more: Fridays for peace? What youth peacebuilders can learn from global youth climate advocacy. Check out this page for more information and the official registration dates here.

Read all news

Each month we bring you a selection of key peacebuilding dates in the month to come. Here are a choice of selected June events and observances. 

01 – 30 June: Pride Month 

For the month of June every year, LGBTIQ+ communities around the world celebrate their   influence and contribution to diversity, inclusion, justice and human rights globally. During the month celebrations and events take place around the world. June was chosen as Pride Month because the Stonewall Riots took place in June in 1969 in the US.

15-16 June 2022: National Dialogues Conference 2022 

The National Dialogue Conference is an inclusive space for joint reflection and in-depth discussion between the invited practitioners, stakeholders, and experts working with peace mediation and dialogue processes in different contexts. It is hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Finland, The Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers, Finn Church Aid, Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Mission, and Martti Ahtisaari Peace Foundation. The conference will take place Helsinki, Finland. 

19 June: International Day for the Prevention of Sexual Violence in Conflict

The General Assembly’s 2015 resolution proclaimed 19 June as a day to condemn and call for the end of conflict-related sexual violence, including rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy and enforced sterilization and to honour victims, survivors and those fighting to end these most horrific of crimes.

20 June: World Refugee Day

World Refugee Day is celebrated every year on 20 June to honour refugees around the world and to bring attention to people’s diverse perspectives, experiences, achievements and challenges. This year the focus will be on the right to safety. 

“Every person on this planet has a right to seek safety – whoever they are, wherever they come from and whenever they are forced to flee.” UNHCR

Read all news