Education for Peace Program

Meeting of Government Experts to Design a Draft Program of Education for Peace in the Hemisphere

EDUCATING FOR PEACE AND DEMOCRACY

(Information Document presented by the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy of the OAS General Secretariat)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. FORMAL EDUCATION 1

• Seminar/Workshop for MERCOSUR Countries (1995) 2 • First Central American Seminar/Workshop (1997) 2 • Second Central American Seminar/Workshop (1998) 3

III. PREPARATION OF YOUNG LEADERS 4

IV. DIALOGUE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION 5

• PROPAZ (Guatemala) 6 • The Peace Commissions (Nicaragua) 8 • MICIVIH (Haiti) 11 • Bloque Samoré (Colombia) 12 • Courses on Conflict Analysis and Management 13

V. OTHER ACTIVITIES 13

VI. CONCLUSIONES 14

EDUCATING FOR PEACE AND DEMOCRACY

I. INTRODUCTION

Although meaningful democratic political culture is now clearly taking hold throughout the countries of the Americas, it is not yet fully consolidated. Phenomena such as corruption, drug trafficking, violence, terrorism, social alienation, and the persistence of critical levels of poverty, represent a daily threat to the advances made over the past twenty years.

Given the intertwining nature of peace and democracy, any obstacle to the development of democracy in the Hemisphere also affects efforts being made to maintain peace both within and between nations. The peaceful resolution of conflicts demands, among other things, full respect for the rules on which democracy is based.

Recognizing the import of these challenges, the Organization of American States (OAS) has focused efforts on two critical areas in recent years: a) working with member states on efforts to confront and neutralize any threats to the continuity of democracy, and b) promoting the sustainability of democracy over the long term by strengthening democratic political culture.

The strengthening of democratic political culture implies, among other things, the internalization of the values, beliefs, attitudes, behavior and practices inherent to the system of democracy. These include respect for the law, mutual trust and respect, tolerance, solidarity, participation, the peaceful resolution of conflicts, and a sense of ethics and probity. Furthermore, all social players and authorities must be committed to the system. The formal education system certainly has to inculcate and promote democratic values, but other social institutions, such as the family, community groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and the media must share the responsibility.

With all this in mind, the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy (UPD) of the OAS General Secretariat has developed a wide range of programs and activities with governmental educational institutions and civil society groups. The aim is to foster and disseminate know-how, methods, techniques, and all other capacities related to the transmission of the values and practices inherent to democratic political culture, especially among young people.

UPD activities can be divided into three areas: formal education, training of tomorrow’s leaders, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

II. FORMAL EDUCATION

Considering the decisive role that formal education plays in promoting democracy and democratic values, the OAS General Assembly of June 1991 recommended that member states make civics courses a part of the regular school curriculum, especially at the primary level. The purpose of this is “to foster a sense of participation in community affairs and to guide students in fulfilling their responsibilities as citizens, making them aware of and ready to defend their rights and preparing them to perform their duties” [AG/RES. 1087 (XXX-O/91)]. In June 1993, the General Assembly passed a resolution calling on the General Secretariat to examine the availability of economic and technical resources to support member states interested in incorporating education for democracy into the various levels and modalities of their educational systems.

It is in this context that the UPD has been advancing a number of initiatives to develop education for democracy programs and activities for the formal education system. From 1995 to 1998, the UPD organized three regional seminar/workshops to bring together representatives from ministries of education to share and discuss ideas. The first was in Asunción (Paraguay) and brought together ministry of education officials from the MERCOSUR countries. The 1997 and 1998 meetings brought together Central American vice-ministers of education first in San José (Costa Rica) and then in Managua (Nicaragua).

Such actions received the backing of national leaders at the Second Summit of the Americas, held in Santiago (Chile) on April 18-19, 1997. The plan of action approved at that summit urges governments to “include in educational programs, within the legal framework of each country, objectives and contents that develop democratic culture at all levels, in order to teach individuals ethical values, a spirit of cooperation and integrity. To that end, the participation of teachers, families, students and outreach workers will be stepped up in their work related to conceptualizing and implementing the plans for shaping citizens imbued with democratic values.”

Seminar/Workshop for MERCOSUR Countries (1995)

In collaboration with the Ministry of Education of Paraguay, the UPD organized a regional seminar/workshop on education for democracy in Asunción from October 4 to 6, 1995. Ministry of education officials and experts from MERCOSUR countries and from Chile attended the event.

In the final declaration, delegates stressed the importance of developing and improving the education systems of the countries of our Hemisphere in order to ensure equal opportunity to all sectors and members of society. The declaration went on to say that to truly transform education into an instrument for promoting democracy, two basic conditions are essential. First, both the state and civil society must be committed to providing access to education to all and to keeping students in school. Secondly, management should be made more democratic at all levels of the formal education system. The declaration also says that the state, as guardian of the common good, should work with educational NGOs and related groups to promote and establish support networks.

The declaration goes on to stress that education for democracy should not be seen as a separate subject area, but as a basic component of the curriculum.

First Central American Seminar/Workshop (1997)

In 1997, the UPD and the Ministry of Education of Costa Rica jointly sponsored a meeting very similar to the one held in Paraguay, but aimed at the countries of Central America. The Central American Seminar/Workshop on the Teaching and Learning of Democratic Values in Formal Education Systems was held in San José from August 6 to 8, 1998. The vice-ministers of education of the sub-region there stressed the need to strengthen education for democracy in their education systems “in order to improve living conditions and contribute to the full social development” of the countries of Central America.

In the Declaration of San José approved at the meeting the participants agreed to:

1. Support the establishment and development of the Central American Regional Cooperation Program for Education for Democracy. 2. Urge the OAS to cooperate individually and collectively with Central American ministries of education in the execution of plans, programs, and projects that foster and strengthen the teaching and learning of democratic values and practices. 3. Hold another meeting of Central American vice-ministers of education to work on a plan of action and activities for a regional project on democratic values.

Among other justifications, the participants stated that they had taken into consideration the need to:

1. Establish “a node for the coordination of regional actions” to systematize and share information on projects carried out in the various countries on the teaching and learning of democratic values. 2. Foster a joint commitment on the part of universities and ministries of education to include the teaching and learning of democratic values in teacher training programs. 3. Integrate training, skills upgrading and refresher courses for teachers in the area of democratic values. 4. Promote and strengthen teaching methods “that are conducive to the internalization of the highest values of democratic coexistence and human progress,” within the framework of national education policy. 5. Promote the integration and consolidation of ethical and moral values in the curriculum of the formal education system in order to strengthen democracy at the local, national, and regional levels. 6. Facilitate general awareness, self-knowledge, and the active participation of educational communities in the safeguarding and conservation of democratic values through the elaboration of curriculum proposals.

The signatories also declared that they are convinced that more ways should be found to raise community awareness of the need to place just value on “the meaning of roots in the context of cultural pluralism.” They called on the media, political institutions, and civil society to work together on the transmission and learning of the ethical and moral values underlying democracy. The declaration also states that “reconnecting school and family” is essential to opening up the channels that will allow democratic values to be put into practice.

Second Central American Seminar/Workshop (1998)

In line with the mandates established by the Second Summit of the Americas and in cooperation with the Ministry of Education of Nicaragua and the Center of Education for Democracy, the UPD hosted a second Central American seminar/workshop in Managua on September 23 to 25, 1998 under the title “Regional Project for Central American Cooperation in Education for Democracy.” The objectives of this meeting were to examine what had been done in the field of education for democracy in the region, study the need for the integral development of education for democracy programs in the countries of the region, and identify potential areas for horizontal cooperation within the framework of a regional education for democracy action plan. The meeting was attended by vice-ministers of education, officials in charge of teacher training in national ministries of education, directors of university programs and other higher education programs, representatives of NGOs and experts in education from around the region.

The final declaration reiterated the need to establish “a node of coordination” for regional activities. Such a facility would help in systematizing and exchanging information on projects for the teaching and learning of democratic values in Central America. The declaration follows this up by making an urgent call for the development of regional programs to support training, skills upgrading, and refresher courses for teachers in the area of democratic values and practices.

The declaration further stresses that formal education curricula, including those followed for teacher training, should promote the teaching and learning of the basic values essential to making democracy stronger at the local, national, and regional levels. Innovative methods that facilitate the internalization of such values should be emphasized. The document adds that it is necessary to foster “a commitment and a closer working relationship” among institutions of higher education and ministries of education in order to incorporate the teaching and learning of democratic values in teacher training programs. The declaration also recognizes the need to bring the community (including the family) and the formal education system into closer contact with each other, stating that in this way it is possible to forge links that foster joint efforts to promote democratic values and practices.

Against this backdrop, the vice-ministers agreed to carry out a number of activities as part of a regional action plan and requested OAS assistance in doing so. The following areas were cited:

• Joint comparative research on the design and development of curricula and teaching materials for the training of teachers and trainers in the area of democratic values and practices (with results to be published). Research on methodologies for teaching and learning democratic values. • Regional meetings and workshops to examine research results and to exchange information and experience on teacher training. Such meetings should include representatives of ministries of education, teacher training institutions, and colleges and civil society organizations. • Annual regional courses rotating among countries. These would be on the training of teachers and trainers and could focus on questions such as curriculum design, development of classroom materials, the use of different teaching and learning methods, and evaluation of the impact of civics courses. • Creation of a regional center and/or network of institutions and experts to facilitate communication and regional cooperation. The idea here is to offer services related to technical assistance, information exchange, and teaching materials, to disseminate new know-how in the field of education for democracy, and to compile a database on experts and institutions working in this area, among other things.

III. PREPARATION OF YOUNG LEADERS

Although since the 1980’s democracy has been on the rise in Latin America and given the highest priority in the inter-American system, democratic values, practices, and institutions have not yet sunk deep roots in the countries of our Hemisphere. In fact, their debility is one of the main obstacles to the consolidation of democracy and peace in the region. Considering that the younger generations represent the future of the peoples of the Americas and the foundation on which democratic political culture must be built, they should be encouraged to become involved in democratic processes and institutions. With this in mind, in 1998 UPD began to work with member state academic and governmental institutions to create a number of sub-regional courses in this area.

The premise was that modern democracy requires leaders who in addition to vocation, charisma, eloquence, and dedication, have the substantive and specialized knowledge needed to analyze and understand the reality and complexity of political processes. They should also be deeply committed to democracy, be capable of transmitting a political vision that appeals to people and know how to proceed in consonance with that vision.

These courses aim to help young people acquire and develop theoretical and empirical knowledge on how democratic institutions work. Emphasis is placed on the importance, meaning, and validity of the fundamental principles, practices, values, and institutions of democracy. In addition, the courses intend to create expertise in modern political techniques, instruments, and practices considered indispensable to public administration and political leadership. These include, but are not limited to, communications and negotiation strategies and techniques, the organization of political parties and preparation of electoral campaigns, survey design and use, the organization, administration, and monitoring of elections, and handling of statistics and databases. The courses also are designed to foster an exchange of opinions and experience among young people and to instigate a dialogue on democratic values and practices among young leaders from all political and social sectors of OAS member states.

These courses are held annually and rotate among sub-regions of the Hemisphere. They are geared to people under 35 years of age working in academia, the media, political parties, and civil society organizations. During sessions participants have a chance to examine and debate topics such as the theory and practice of democracy, the roles of executive, legislative, and judicial branch bodies, the electoral system, the role of political parties, the media, NGOs and academic institutions, and the significance of the basic values of democratic political culture. Recognized experts from around the region lecture and lead discussion on these and other topics.

Two courses have already been held in the Southern Cone (Argentina and Paraguay), two in Central America (Costa Rica and Guatemala) and two in the Andean Region (Ecuador and Colombia). Parties involved included: The Institute for Training in Politics of the Interior Ministry (Argentina); The Vice-Minister for Youth, the Catholic University and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (Paraguay); the Center for Consultation and Promotion of Elections and the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights – CAPEL/IIDH (Costa Rica); the Institute of Political Studies – INSEP (Guatemala); The Andean Parliament and the University of Cuenca (Ecuador); and The Galán Institute for Development and Democracy (Colombia).

IV. DIALOGUE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

In the current context of consolidation of democracy, OAS member states have often felt the need to broaden opportunities to participate in public life and to deepen the dialogue between the state and civil society. In this way any conflicts that may exist between those who govern and those who are governed can be resolved peacefully. Aware of the dangers of intransigence, mutual distrust and the absence of any ongoing dialogue, governments throughout our Hemisphere now foster efforts to build social and political consensus. To this end they are developing mechanisms for the prevention and/or peaceful resolution of conflicts, including conflict analysis, mediation, conciliation, negotiation and dialogue facilitation.

Through bilateral and regional programs, the UPD has made a significant contribution to strengthening democratic institutions and preventing conflicts in many countries of the Hemisphere. UPD programs include:

• The Culture of Dialogue: Development of Peace-Building Resources in Guatemala (OAS-PROPAZ): • Peace Commissions in Nicaragua; • Program for Conflict Resolution and Reduction of Violence of the International Civilian Mission to Haiti; • Project on the Bloque Samoré in Colombia; • Regional courses on Conflict Analysis and Management in various countries of the region.

The experience gained through these efforts has contributed to UPD developing methodologies, conceptual frameworks, instruments and human resources in training and conflict prevention, resolution, management, and analysis, as well as in collective decision making and strategic planning for peace.

PROPAZ (Guatemala)

“The Culture of Dialogue: Development of Peace-Building Resources” (PROPAZ) is a program that the OAS started working on in 1995 upon a request from the Government of Guatemala. The aim of the program is to enhance the capacity of both the government and civil society to pursue dialogue and resolve conflicts peacefully. After the Guatemalan government asked the General Secretariat to include this program in the activities being carried out as part of the peace, democracy, and national reconciliation process, PROPAZ was incorporated into the OAS Special Program for Support to Guatemala in 1996.

Since then PROPAZ has focused its efforts on lending support to the national joint commissions and other specialized bodies set up under the peace agreements in the fields of educational reform, citizen participation, official recognition of native languages, and land ownership rights of indigenous peoples. To this end, PROPAZ has created joint forums for dialogue between civil society and the government outside of the ongoing formal negotiations process.

The main goal of the Culture of Dialogue Program is to help create the conditions and institute the processes needed to pass from a culture of confrontation to one of dialogue. It lays stress on training people from all levels of society in areas such as communication, negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and conflict analysis and resolution. The strategy pursued is one of building national capacity in these areas so that the conflicts still present in Guatemalan society can be confronted peacefully. The program concentrates efforts in three areas: facilitating informal dialogue, training people in the peaceful resolution of conflicts, and providing technical assistance for strengthening the institutions that act as counterparts in the program.

More specifically, PROPAZ aims to:

1. Build the institutional capacity of certain governmental bodies to respond positively and effectively to any problems that may generate conflicts. 2. Strengthen the capacity of certain civil society organizations to take a constructive approach to problems that may generate conflicts. 3. Support the creation and/or development of intersectoral mechanisms to facilitate the participation of both governmental and civil society groups in efforts to find peaceful solutions to the key problems affecting Guatemalan society today. 4. Build human resource capabilities in mediation, negotiation and dialogue facilitation. 5. Share the lessons learned and methodologies and learning materials developed by PROPAZ in Guatemala with any national or international parties interested in peace building.

The program favors a participatory approach. National counterparts develop processes for conflict analysis, dialogue, negotiation, consensus building and/or participation. This can be done through formal or informal arrangements. The program will facilitate or support these efforts. PROPAZ works directly with the Guatemalan parties responsible for developing frameworks or guidelines for treating conflicts.

The program is divided into four action areas: intersectoral, state, local, and human resource training.

Intersectoral Area. The goal of this action area is to create channels and/or forums for the analysis, discussion, negotiation, proposal elaboration, and general treatment of the main sources of conflict in the country (land, work, and displacement of people). The intersectoral area thus makes possible the organized participation of the main state and civil society players in discussions on the main areas of conflict and also offers them any necessary training. So far this area has facilitated dialogue among governmental institutions (such as the Presidential Office of Legal Assistance and Resolution of Land Conflicts–CONTIERRA, Fund for the Earth–FONTIERRA, and the Institutional Commission for the Development and Strengthening of Land Ownership–PROTIERRA) and between those institutions and other governmental agencies and civil society organizations (such as Coordinating Committee of the Organization of Mayan People of Guatemala–COPMAGUA and the National Coordinating Committee of Peasant Organizations–CNOC). The aim of these efforts is to establish an ongoing, constructive dialogue.

State Area. The goal of this action area is to strengthen the capacity of strategic and operational state institutions, making them better able to appropriately respond to conflicts and the elements giving rise to them. The activities carried out include work on land questions with PROTIERRA and CONTIERRA, on labor issues with the Ministry of Labor’s School for Conciliation and Mediation, and on justice matters with the Modernization Commission of the Judicial Organization.

Local Area. The goal of this action area is to help develop an infrastructure for peace at the municipal level through governmental and/or civil society organizations. Training in communication skills and conflict analysis has been provided for 60 assistant vice-mayors in the department of Rabinal, in support of efforts to improve relations and communications between local authorities. In this same department, PROPAZ has offered a number of training programs for directors and technical officials of the so-called Municipal Technical Units. It has also supported efforts to improve inter-institutional relations between different local governmental bodies.

Human Resource Training Area. The goal of this action area is to develop domestic capacity in the specialties of dialogue facilitation and multilateral negotiations in order to establish viable institutional mechanisms and create a body of people trained in how to effectively confront situations of conflict. PROPAZ developed an intensive training program on intersectoral conflict management for individuals from all sectors of Guatemalan society. As part of these efforts, the program fashioned a study plan on “Designing and Facilitating Processes of Rapprochement and Dialogue,” the first stage of which was implemented in the first half of 1999. The immediate objective was to train people from all sectors of society to facilitate negotiation and dialogue either between groups from the same sector or between different sectors. The course was designed to assure that those successfully finishing it would have the specialized knowledge and skills needed to foster, design, and facilitate participation and decision making. Those taking part in the course were chosen on personal merit. The selection process was rigorous and included submission of essays and analytical papers.

Through the School for Conciliation and Mediation, PROPAZ also offered training in negotiating techniques to a group of top officials of the Ministry of Labor and Social Promotion. Work was also carried out with Landívar University on training courses for university teachers and NGO representatives.

PROPAZ is unique in that it takes an integrated approach to peace building. It combines the development of specific skills (communication, negotiation, mediation, consensus building) with the creation of forums or channels that parties in dispute can use to resolve their differences. The PROPAZ approach embraces the human, cultural and structural dimensions of the process of peace building.

The Peace Commissions (Nicaragua)

The Peace Commissions are independent civil society groups promoted by the International Support and Verification Mission (CIAV/OAS) / in Nicaragua since 1994. Their goal is to spur civil society participation in the promotion and protection of human rights and the peaceful resolution of conflicts in areas with the most severe problems. The commissions are comprised of rural leaders and work mainly in four areas: mediation, investigation of alleged human rights abuses, promotion of human rights, and facilitation of community projects.

One reason that the commissions were created was that there were no state or civil society groups in these areas of the country that could take on the tasks of investigation, conflict resolution, and mediation that until then were being carried out by CIAV officials.

CIAV identified the areas in post-war Nicaragua where the most violence and greatest number of conflicts existed. This implied identifying the areas with the greatest number of military confrontations and human rights violations. Then CIAV had to identify the individuals most likely or known to organize, no matter what groups they may have belonged to during the conflict of the 1980’s. Next the individuals so targeted were invited to attend training seminars on human rights, citizenship education, and techniques for conflict resolution. Between 1994 and 1996, 852 workshops were held.

During the workshops themselves, the OAS advised participants on various ways the future peace commissions could be organized in accordance with the criteria and needs of each group. Each commission was thus fashioned according to the concerns of its members, the specific needs of its communities and the unique conflicts they faced. In general, the commissions had a lead coordinating committee that was elected democratically and various working parties charged with carrying out specific tasks.

In order to assure the continuity of the peace commissions after the withdrawal of CIAV, the OAS sought the involvement of long-standing Nicaraguan institutions, such as the Catholic Church. In this way CIAV hoped to enlist the support of national institutions that were very much present and respected in conflict areas. Today the peace commissions are inter-linked and compose a network covering all the areas previously affected by the war.

Functions of the Peace Commissions. As previously stated, the peace commissions work in mediation, investigation of alleged human rights abuses, promotion of human rights, and facilitation of community projects.

Mediation. The peace commissions give the people of the most isolated areas of the country a local mechanism to settle disputes. Their presence deters violence and fosters respect for institutions. The commissions have intervened in a wide variety of conflicts, including ones related to farming, the presence of armed groups, and politics and ideology. In regard to conflicts involving irregular armed groups and state forces, actions carried out by the peace commissions have been especially important to easing tensions. In this way the commissions have brought stability to communities that previously were subjected to great and constant violence.

Investigation of Human Rights. The peace commissions accept complaints on violations of human rights from rural dwellers. They investigate the case as appropriate and according to the results, can undertake procedures before the nearest judicial and law enforcement authorities. In this way, the commissions act as a link between the community and authorities. Moreover, this system has helped make up for the shortage of judges and law enforcement personnel in these parts of the country, acting as a local control and deterrence mechanism vis-a-vis excessive use or abuse of authority or other violations.

Promotion of Human Rights. The peace commissions play a fundamental role in disseminating information on and familiarizing the local population with human rights. This task is all the more important in areas that have had a long history of warfare and thus still suffer from a culture of confrontation and intolerance.

Facilitation of State or NGO Projects. The peace commissions also facilitate the execution of State or NGO development and institutional strengthening projects. This is an especially significant part of their work, as it has allowed them to take on new functions related to community development. Given the grave economic and social needs of these areas, the peace commissions contribute to improving the living conditions of the general population by facilitating projects. And seeing how difficult it is to access these zones, many of the projects carried out in recent years would most likely not have seen the light of day without the assistance of the local peace commissions.

Achievements of the Peace Commissions. The work of the peace commissions in what were conflict zones of the country has helped people see that the use of arms is not the way to solve community problems. Local participation in negotiations and mediation efforts has helped adapt the process to the specific realities on the ground. Although the initial purpose of the peace commissions was to safeguard human rights and mediate in conflicts, they gradually became the most prominent community-based group. They took on new roles, acting as intermediaries between local communities and national authorities, as promoters of local development projects and as facilitators for the execution of community projects.

The work of the commissions made demilitarization of populated areas of the old war zones possible. That in turn facilitated a reduction in violent responses to situations of conflict in many municipalities. Actions initiated by the peace commissions led to cease fires, demobilization of various groups that had re-armed and the release of hostages. / By taking and investigating complaints about human rights violations and then undertaking proceedings before the competent authorities, the peace commissions contributed to reducing such abuses. /

The peace commissions have also lent support to the Supreme Electoral Council in voter registration campaigns in isolated areas. / They have worked with the army in demining remote areas / and aided local people in obtaining land deeds. / The peace commissions have also lent support to both state bodies and NGOs in the development of infrastructure, housing, health and environmental projects in isolated communities.

In sum, the activities of the peace commissions have had a multiplier effect. The success of the first commissions led to more being set up in other parts of the country. Over time a national network of commissions was woven. Remote communities were direct beneficiaries of this process, as it aided them in overcoming their isolation. Today some 1,000 people serve on 180 peace commissions and sub-commissions that comprise a national network covering municipalities throughout the conflictive or potentially conflictive zones of Nicaragua. The various commissions are linked by radio communications, allowing them to exchange information at any time. MICIVIH (Haiti)

The International Civilian Mission in Haiti (MICIVIH) was created by the OAS and the United Nations in February 1993 as part of an international effort to resolve the Haitian political crisis caused by the coup d’état of 1991.

The mandate given to the MICIVIH mainly centers on the defense and promotion of human rights and support for the consolidation of democracy and efforts to strengthen institutions. In 1997, however, a comprehensive program for the peaceful resolution of conflicts was initiated with the support of UPD. The program’s principal goal was to build institutional and individual capacity in Haiti as a way to contributing to basic and lasting social change. The main focus was on the development of techniques for effective communication between critical segments of the population, such as police, youth, judges, local leaders, peasants, and authorities at all levels.

Specific Programs. Five separate training programs were set up: peaceful resolution of conflicts for peasants, peaceful resolution of conflicts for members of the police force, peaceful resolution of conflicts for representatives of civil society, mediation for judicial authorities and reduction of urban violence.

Training in peaceful resolution of conflicts for peasants. This program was set up in the department of Artibonite with the purpose of training peasant and community leaders in the techniques of peaceful resolution of conflicts regarding land. It also provided them with an informal forum in which to examine and discuss their problems.

Training in peaceful resolution of conflicts for the Haitian National Police (HNP). The aim of this program was to change the relationship between the police and the public at large, which was frequently marred by abusive behavior. Administration was undertaken jointly with the National Police Academy (Direction d’Ecoles et de Formation Permanente) and the program received the cooperation of the National Office of the HNP (Direction Generale de la Police Nationale de Haiti).

Training in peaceful resolution of conflicts for NGO representatives. This program was geared to representatives of civil society with the purpose of increasing the network of individuals with knowledge of and experience in conflict prevention and intervention in their respective fields of work.

Mediation for Judicial Authorities. The aim of this program was to train judicial authorities, especially judges and public prosecutors, in the use of mediation techniques. The idea was that this would give them a wider range of tools to effectively resolve domestic and family conflicts. The program worked with the Ministry of Justice and the National Judiciary School (École de la Magistrature), which later formally adopted the program as part of police training.

Reduction of Urban Violence. This program was set up jointly with local crime prevention committees to facilitate dialogue and develop a closer relationship between the police force and the community. Another purpose was to enhance a sense of citizen participation and responsibility in the examination of matters of concern to the community, such as police patrols and crime prevention.

Participants in all these programs were introduced to basic concepts related to conflict definition, the various ways conflicts can be handled, the difference between constructive and destructive conflicts, and effective communication skills and techniques. The training sessions also included exercises designed to introduce the use of negotiation and mediation. Among its other achievements, the program developed a manual of conflict resolution techniques.

Bloque Samoré (Colombia)

In May 1997, the Government of Colombia asked the OAS to study a conflict then existing in the so-called Bloque Samoré (located in northeast Colombia) between oil companies and the indigenous U’wa community. The request came directly from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Mines & Energy, with the backing of Occidental Petroleum of Colombia (a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum of the United States) and representatives of the U’wa community and the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia (ONIC). Other interested parties included the National Office for Indigenous Affairs under the Ministry the Interior and the Colombian Institute of Agrarian Reform (INCORA) of the Ministry of Agriculture.

In response, the OAS organized a mission comprised of experts from UPD, the General Secretariat and the Center for Non-Violent Sanctions and Cultural Survival of Harvard University. Their goal was to seek out and record the multiple points of view and opinions regarding the situation and come up with ways to handle the conflict. It was decided that if all the parties involved so agreed, a dialogue would then be opened to facilitate mutual understanding regarding the various aspects of the conflict, such as cultural preservation and social, economic, and environmental questions.

The study was completed and a report called “The Samoré Case: Observations and Recommendation” submitted. The OAS/Harvard University team put forward a number of recommendations designed to bring the parties closer together. The following were among the recommendations made in the report:

1. As a first step toward creating conditions conducive to a dialogue, the oil companies should declare that they are suspending exploration and/or extraction of oil in Bloque Samoré. 2. The process to enlarge the U’wa reservation should be put back on track. 3. All parties should tone down their public statements. 4. The U’wa authority and leadership system should be recognized and shown respect. 5. A process of consultation should be put in place under the responsibility of the Colombian government. 6. The U’wa should receive training and assistance within the context of any consultation carried out with them. 7. A conflict prevention and resolution program should be initiated.

The territorial problem was resolved with the signing of an INCORA decree on August 6, 1999, through which the government of Colombia created the U’wa Preserve (Resguardo Unico U’wa). The area assigned to the U’wa was therein increased from 61,000 to 220,000 hectares for a community of 707 families numbering 3,582 persons. The government made a commitment to earmark several billion pesos for the purchase of land and other improvements for settlers and peasants that are not part of the indigenous community. The parties involved in the conflict stressed the importance of reservation borders being clearly defined, thus guaranteeing the U’wa the conditions they need to assure that their culture will survive and thrive. This problem was tackled separately from other questions, as the OAS/Harvard report recommended. It could therefore be solved without the U’wa being asked for oil exploration rights in return.

Courses on Conflict Analysis and Management

In collaboration with other institutions from the region, UPD organized two courses on conflict analysis and management. The first was held in Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) in mid-June 1999. The United States Institute of Peace (USIP), the United States Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the Pontificia Universidad Católica Madre y Maestra (PUCMM) of Santo Domingo, the Caribbean Regional University Program of the European Union and the Fellowship Department of the OAS all contributed. The course was attended by 30 high-level representatives of the governments of English-speaking Caribbean nations, Haiti, Belize, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, El Salvador, and Colombia, and by NGO representatives.

The second course was held in Bogota (Colombia) in mid-September 1999 with the collaboration of Universidad Javeriana and the Colombian Institute of Educational Credit and Technical Study Abroad (ICETEX). Financial support was forthcoming from the OAS Fellowships Department. The 35 participants came from local, regional, and national public administration bodies, the media, centers of higher education and NGOs from the Andean region and Chile.

The main aim of both courses was to foster knowledge on the dynamics of social/political conflicts, and to develop the capacity and skills needed to prevent, manage and resolve them. Another purpose was to make participants more aware of the importance of having instruments and strategies for the peaceful resolution of conflicts in place and available. Subject matter included the various kinds of disputes and their causes, the intensification and mitigation of conflicts and the best time to initiate negotiation, facilitation, conciliation or mediation.

V. OTHER ACTIVITIES

To support the consolidation of democracy, the OAS General Secretariat carries out many activities, including the organization of election observation teams for member states that request them. The OAS General Assembly has recommended that such teams be sent to member states requesting them “to observe the development, if possible in all stages, of all respective electoral processes.”

With the aim of carrying out this mandate and collaborating with party, electoral and governmental authorities and with the public in general to assure the fairness and impartiality of elections, the observation missions have frequently served as an informal channel for consensus building, easing of tensions and the resolution of conflicts.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

The maintenance of peace and security in the region is closely linked to human rights and the consolidation of democracy in the countries of our Hemisphere. It is thus of extreme importance that our societies and institutions be imbued with the fundamental values and practices of democracy.

Achieving this is necessarily a long-term goal, as it takes time for these values and practices to become firmly rooted. After all, we are talking about profound cultural change leading to the construction of a rock-solid democratic political culture. To develop such a culture, current values, beliefs, attitudes, behavior, tendencies, and practices will have to change.

Such societal change is a collective effort and cannot be left up to government alone. All sectors of society must be firmly committed and involved. And multilateral bodies such as the OAS must be ready to lend their unflinching support.