5 results
11 - Everyday peace: after ethnic cleansing in Myanmar’s Rohingya conflict
- Edited by John Eversley, Sinéad Gormally, University of Glasgow, Avila Kilmurray
-
- Book:
- Peacebuilding, Conflict and Community Development
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 16 June 2023
- Print publication:
- 28 November 2022, pp 191-208
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Summary
The theory of everyday peace and its relevance at a theoretical level to community development in conflict-affected contexts was presented in Chapter 2. In this chapter, the authors explore and build on this theory to discuss their attempts to operationalise it into community development practice in Rakhine State, Myanmar – a region that has seen significant intercommunal and armed conflict in recent years, resulting in two-thirds of the Rohingya population being driven into Bangladesh in an act of ethnic cleansing. This chapter explores ways in which the principles and typologies of ‘everyday peace’ are being translated into community development practice by Vicki-Ann and Anthony Ware and evaluated by Leanne Kelly, in a programme working to strengthen peace formation between villages of Rohingya Muslim remaining in Myanmar and their Rakhine Buddhist neighbours. The authors draw from both their academic perspective and their grounded experience of the practice put in place during this programme of work. The case study demonstrates the conclusion that community development approaches can offer a strong foundation on which to scaffold an everyday peace framework that, in turn, supports the building of inclusive relationships and more peaceful coexistence.
Introduction
Our earlier chapter in this volume explored the concepts of ‘the everyday’ and ‘everyday peace’ in depth. We argued that the key innovations of everyday peace make it ideal for community development in conflict contexts, to achieve peacebuilding outcomes in the process of development. By definition, everyday peace adopts a bottom-up view, so community development’s focus on locally led initiatives, active participation and subsidiarity provide theory and tools that support the strengthening of everyday peace. Everyday peace redefines behaviours usually perceived as negative, such as avoidance, ambiguity or blame-shifting, as potentially positive practices, and recognises that even in the most violent conflict situations a majority of ordinary people already resist the most extreme narratives and engage in some conflictcalming measures. Both of these directly facilitate appreciative inquiry (see Chapter 2 and Elliott, 1999; Bushe, 2011) and fit well with community development principles. They also break down the false dichotomy that wants to distinguish between negative and positive peace, focusing instead on agency and resistance. Everyday peace thus offers a robust framework with a range of innovations that fit very well with community development practice.
2 - Everyday peace as a community development approach
- Edited by John Eversley, Sinéad Gormally, University of Glasgow, Avila Kilmurray
-
- Book:
- Peacebuilding, Conflict and Community Development
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 16 June 2023
- Print publication:
- 28 November 2022, pp 25-39
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The dominant approach to peacebuilding at a community level, as opposed to elite-level peace processes, revolves around ideas of building or strengthening social cohesion between individuals, groups and authorities. In this context, social cohesion is conceived of in terms of overcoming horizontal social cleavages within society, and vertical cleavages between the state and the people. A social cohesion approach to peacebuilding thus fundamentally commences with the idea of bringing people together, physically, socially and emotionally, to search for common ground or shared needs/ mutual benefit. It relies on rehumanising the Other, developing empathy and rebuilding relationships, including between state authorities and the people.
The issue is that violence leaves a pervasive fear of further violence, and the more frequent or severe the violence, the deeper that fear. Given this, most work seeking to strengthen social cohesion after violence is usually agonistic, cautious and sensitive. Nonetheless, the principal threat to social cohesion after violence at the everyday level, apart from more actual violence, is that the slightest confrontation may trigger further fear, and that the ongoing suspicion drives social practices that maintain or expand these cleavages. The more extreme the past violence, and frequent the triggering of fear, therefore, the more likely that bringing people together, seeking to rebuild empathy, and searching for common ground or mutual benefit, may be premature. Even a deep sense of awkwardness encountering the Other may, potentially, trigger fear more than advance social cohesion. There are situations in which the social cleavages are so great, and fears so acute, that engagement and (social) cohesion may be premature, unsafe or even inflammatory. Such is the situation in the case study we explore in Chapter 11 in this book, regarding Myanmar’s Rohingya conflict after the horrific ethnic cleansing of 2017. In such cases, and perhaps far more widely, we propose an alternative community development peacebuilding approach, built around the idea of ‘everyday peace’.
This chapter explores the concepts of ‘the everyday’ and of ‘everyday peace’ in detail, highlighting its relevance to community development practice, particularly that which adopts appreciative inquiry and awareness-raising approaches. Everyday peace is presented in the literature as the means by which ordinary individuals and groups navigate everyday life in deeply divided societies, in ways that first avoid or minimise both awkward situations and conflict triggers, and (only) then consider active steps to engage with the other.
Myanmar. Interpreting Myanmar: A decade of analysis By Andrew Selth Canberra: ANU Press, 2020. Pp. 515. Index.
- Anthony Ware
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Southeast Asian Studies / Volume 53 / Issue 3 / October 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 25 October 2022, pp. 608-609
- Print publication:
- October 2022
-
- Article
- Export citation
3 - Reexamining the centrality of ethnic identity to the Kachin conflict
- from Part II - War and Order
-
- By Costas Laoutides, Deakin University, Anthony Ware, Deakin University
- Edited by Nick Cheesman, Nicholas Farrelly
-
- Book:
- Conflict in Myanmar
- Published by:
- ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
- Published online:
- 22 July 2017
- Print publication:
- 01 August 2016, pp 47-66
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Myanmar has been plagued by armed conflict since independence. Kachin armed resistance, the focus of this chapter, has challenged the state since 1962, now more than half a century. Initial independence claims have been revised to demands for a federal union, but recourse to armed resistance to secure full or partial autonomy constitutes an explicit or implicit separatist claim. The conventional characterization of separatist conflicts in Myanmar, including the Kachin conflict, has focused on centre-periphery ethno-nationalist politics (for example, Egreteau 2012; Smith 1991, 1997, 2007; South 2008). The idea that ‘ethnic’ identity is primary has largely been taken for granted, and analysis has predominantly focused on the structure and patterns of inequality in inter-ethnic relations. This chapter reframes that presupposition.
For all its faults, the previous military government achieved some form of ceasefire deal with forty armed groups between 1998 and 2010 (Min Zaw Oo 2014). One of the most significant of these was the 1994 ceasefire with the Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO) and its armed wing, the Kachin Independence Army (KIA). The KIO/A are one of the larger, better organized and more formidable of the non-state armed groups, with a presence spread across a significant part of Kachin and northern Shan States, and while the other ceasefire deals were unwritten ‘gentlemen's agreements’, the Kachin ceasefire was the only one with a signed document (although the signed document was kept secret for a decade). For most of its seventeen years, the Kachin ceasefire also appeared among the most stable and led to a wealth of state-led, civil society and commercial development activity, including the rapid expansion of resource extraction.
Since the return to armed conflict by the KIO/A in June 2011, and their recalcitrant stance in national ceasefire negotiations, analysis has begun to emphasize the growing role of resource exploitation, and it has been tempting to characterize this as a resource-driven conflict. Certainly, almost all violent clashes between the Tatmadaw and the KIA since 2011 have centred around the control of resources and resource trade corridors, suggesting it is pertinent to once again re-examine the causes and characteristics of the Kachin conflict.
18 - Context Sensitivity by Development INGOs in Myanmar
- from Part VII - The Continued Importance of International Assistance
-
- By Anthony Ware, Deakin University, Melbourne
-
- Book:
- Myanmar's Transition
- Published by:
- ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
- Published online:
- 21 October 2015
- Print publication:
- 19 November 2012, pp 323-348
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Myanmar is a difficult country for international non-government organizations (INGOs) to operate in effectively. It has significant humanitarian needs but the domestic and international political environments hamper effective assistance. On the one hand, agencies working in Myanmar face a sometimes obstructive, and often inept, authoritarian government which is suspicious of both their motives and those of international donor governments. On the other hand, aid and development resources and mandates are heavily restricted by international donors disturbed by allegations of human rights violations and concerned that satisfactory policy preconditions for macro-economic development are not in place. This is a “complex political and bureaucratic environment” (ICG 2008), a “politically delicate situation” (CEC 2007), in which the tension in Myanmar's relations with the international community is as large a contributor to the difficulty in delivering humanitarian assistance as Myanmar's domestic policy, capability, and will. The result for INGOs is restrictions on access, funding, and mandates.
This chapter presents analysis of new primary research data collected from INGOs working inside Myanmar between 2009 and mid-2011. In particular, it looks at their contextualization of common development approaches in order to maximize programme effectiveness. The key finding is that INGOs believe that although operating in Myanmar is difficult, their effectiveness is not as heavily restricted as is commonly perceived by people outside the country, provided they deploy appropriate sensitivity to the operational context. This is particularly true for activities that address the impact of extreme poverty in communities, but also applies in areas such as advocacy and capacity-building for the emerging civil society.
There have been many studies of Myanmar politics, and of the pros and cons of sanctions, but while this body of research often mentions the humanitarian impact of the political stalemate, few studies examine INGO effectiveness or how INGOs adapt to attempt poverty alleviation in Myanmar. This research goes well beyond previous studies by Inwood (2008), Igboemeka (2005), and Duffield (2008), presenting analysis of a much larger number of more recent primary interviews within Myanmar. I have previously presented findings from this research regarding the ways INGOs create space to operate in spite of Myanmar government restrictions and the restrictions imposed by the international community on funding and mandates (Ware 2011).