|
|
The peacekeeping mission to Afghanistan: peacebuilding
Rob de Wijk and Willem van de Put
Chair: to be announced |
Participating in peacekeeping missions is an integral part of the Dutch foreign policy. The leading concept for this is the so called 3D approach: defense, diplomacy and development. This leads to an integral approach focussing on three components: safety and stability, good governance and democracy, social and economic development. The local civil environment seems to be important.
As far as we know when preparing for a peacekeeping mission the ministry of Defense does not analyze the possible role of ‘hatred’ in the conflict. This is an omission that may jeopardize any mission’s success in general and the Afghanistan mission’s success in particular. |
|
|
Truth and reconciliation: South Africa, best practice?
Awraham Soetendorp and Eddy van der Borght
Chair: Henk Jan Dalewijk (psychiatrist, former board member of the Symfora Group) |
During the Apartheid regime in South Africa human rights were severely violated. Persecution of all perpetrators seemed too huge a task to be performed. On the other hand amnesty for all was not a desirable option. It was decided to grant personal amnesty only if the person involved would reveal the full truth about his crimes during the Apartheid regime. Among others this aimed at obtaining a complete picture of the human rights violations and restoration of the victims’ dignity as well.
Why there were no repercussions for the perpetrators in South Africa, as was to be expected? Did reconciliation or forgiveness really happen? Is a truth and reconciliation commission an viable option for other countries as well? If so, which are the conditions for success? Or were the latent feelings of hatred in South Africa underestimated? |
|
|
Hating and being hated: perpetrators and victims (E)
Salman Akhtar and Vamik D. Volkan
Chair: Arend Veeninga (psychiatrist, Altrecht, Den Dolder) |
When speaking about war and conflict we easily turn to the question of blame. We divide the participants in perpetrators and victims. In this way we reduce violent conflicts to a comprehensible level of understanding so that perpetrators can be convicted, heroes honoured, and victims consoled or commemorated.
Victims however, are not always only the innocent persons deserving of our sympathy. Just as victims can become perpetrators in a domestic setting, war and conflict may turn them into perpetrators themselves. People can be forced by circumstances to adopt alternate roles.
There seems to be a rather large grey area between victimisation and delinquency. For professionals , confronting victims with perpetratorial behaviour and vice versa is far from easy and gives rise to much resistance. What are the instruments for professionals to address this issue and what if there are more similarities than differences between the two? Is it possible to break the cycle? |
|
|
The role of the media and propaganda
Cees J. Hamelink and Bertus Hendriks
Chair: Pieter Broertjes (former editor in chief of De Volkskrant) |
| Media reduce the often complex political events too easily to grasp categories of good and evil. Because of this the use of violence for good causes becomes an acceptable tool for many. Images and texts can induce empathy for one group while at the same time invoking hatred for another. Every year people are becoming the victim of genocide caused by propaganda. A sad example of the phenomenon is the hate propaganda of Radio Mille Collines in Rwanda, resulting in 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu getting killed by armed Hutu extremists within a couple of months. How do the media contribute to raising hatred? How can the media contribute to counteracting hatred? In other words: how far-stretching is the media’s responsibility in general and in this conflict in particular? But also: are there possibilities to interfere, for examples by timely reporting and judging hate speech? |
|
|
The role of religion: Islam and muslims in Europe (E)
Tariq Ramadan and Dominique Moïsi
Chair: Ruard Ganzevoort (professor of pastoral theology at VU University Amsterdam) |
| Religion is preaching peace but often it is a source of conflict and misery as well. A large number of European countries have a predominantly Christian tradition. The arrival of large numbers of refugees and migrants with an Islamic background poses these countries for sometimes severe problems. In some cases violent confrontations are the result. One could say that in much instances of violence religion seems to be a major influencing factor. What are the reasons for this phenomenon? In which way does religion contribute to the arising and strengthening of hatred? How does it manifest itself in rhetorics and the public image? Can religion be of influence in bringing about reconciliation? |
|
|
The African continent: the role of poverty as a factor of influence
Bert Koenders and Piet Emmer
Chair: Micha de Winter (professor of Social Education Issues at Utrecht University) |
| Poverty is a worldwide problem that is related to imbalances of power. In Africa in particular poverty is a long-term problem. This leads to internal conflicts concerning power and access to sources, which in turn lead to escalations of violence, demographical changes and migration, resulting in migration focal points. Poverty takes away people’s opportunities for survival, development and prosperity, it keeps them from having equal opportunities. Because of poverty people are more vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, violence, discrimination and stigmatizing. All of which are sources feeding future violence. How can this be prevented? Is it necessary to eradicate poverty first to neutralize dormant feelings of hatred? |
|
|
Ethnic conflicts and rebuilding: Congo and Burundi
Evert Kets (second speaker to follow)
(conversation leader to follow) |
| Both in Congo and Burundi, the newly acquired independence brought conflicts concerning the sharing of administrative and economic power. Ethnic differences hadn't really played a role of any importance. However, in light of the fight over power, they became important and had a catalysing impact on further intensification and extension of animosities. In some cases this gave way to very serious violence with genocidal traits. The question rises, whether it is still possible to arrive at a peaceful and sustainable society when hatred between different ethnic groups has lead to such serious cruelties in war time. |