Getting through chaotic moments

Everyone experiences the confusion, frustration and chaos which conflict can bring. Everyone can learn how to move through those moments of chaos with calm resolve as well. There are a number of components to chaos that you need to be aware of in order to move through such situations. As you read these you will most likely know them. The difficult part is applying your knowledge. You must apply it as often as you in order to excel at getting through those chaotic moments.

Emotions and communication are the two factors that are often the most poorly managed. Case in point is the situation in Syria. At first the people protested against the government. During these protest emotions of panic set in, non-violent communication was lost and bullets were fired. This same situation continues to this day. That is a very simple breakdown but in reality that is exactly what transpired.

To get through the chaos you need to be able to keep things as simple as possible. The complications will work themselves out. Breaking the situation in small goals is the best plan. For example in Syria the small goal was a ceasefire agreement. Neither side adhered to that which brings the entire situation back to chaos and even further distrust. However the ceasefire agreement is crucial and must be implemented. What we are faced with is how a ceasefire agreement is to be implemented.

The average person in Syria most likely wants an end to the violence. As usual the ones that seek to destabilize a society are in the minority. The question now becomes, how do you reach a peaceful resolution when both sides are locked on destroying each other? This question is a very difficult situation.

The common element in poor conflict resolution rest with the people involved. With the case of Syria there has to be a different set of voices now. The current voices are distrusted and have too much history attached. In order for a peaceful environment to take root there needs to be new leadership. The issue will always be the same but the people need to change.

Whether or not the people can transcend the history is the main obstacle. For example we can look at the Palestine/Israel wars. These people have carried the history, violence, revenge, hatred and distrust for generations. The face of the war has become ambiguous, inhumane and demonized. There have been small breakthroughs with the Israel/Palestine war, 1994 was one. Since then there has been stalemates and regression. The people are in dire need of new visions, leadership and voice.

To transcend conflict, an open mind is crucial. New perspectives and a willingness to focus on the future is vital as well. All too often relationships get mired in what I call “stacking bodies”. This is when people bring up past wrongs as they race to stack up the most injustices incurred. This tactic is very common yet rarely works to resolve a conflict, (I have never experienced this tactic working).

Getting past stacking bodies is a challenge that must be overcome. If history is not let go of, the conflict will only spiral into further frustration.  The emotional attachment to those past injustices will gain more moments to fuel the anger. To get past this tactic takes a certain amount of resolve and hard work. Focusing on the immediate situation will help. The moment you start to talk about the context or situations that began the chaos you have started stacking bodies.  This is where the hard work is most needed.

Emotions and attachments need to be managed so that a peaceful solution can be found. Doing so is made more difficult when the other side will not or is not able to do the same. However someone has to have the intelligence and the willingness to let go of old tactics.

Did Gadhafi provide greater stability in West Africa?

Would a peaceful transfer of power in Libya have provided greater stability in West Africa?

We know that the out flow of weapons from Libya has armed many groups. These groups have used the weapons to bring more instability to many West African countries.  It must be understood that the weapons are not the cause of the unrest. The unrest is already there, yet the flood of weapons have increased the occurrence of violence in the region.

Peace, as does violence begins in the minds of people. When we are dealing with nomadic populations, we must look to the regional stability of peace. We must gather a sense of what the regional impact will when a central figure, such as Gadhafi, is lost.

We have to be cognizant of the power vacuum created and plan to fill that vacuum.  In the past few months we have witnessed (yet have not taken to heart) the need to put peacekeepers on the ground.

Libya is slowly slipping backwards because NATO countries left a power vacuum when they did not put soldiers on the ground. These soldiers did not have to engage in combat but would have been used to ensure the peace. We know that in order to maintain peace you need to put a force on the ground to step between the groups fighting. 

Syria is in the same situation. There is a strong need for intervention. Already there is intervention with the flow of weapons into Syria and the training of opposition soldiers. Why is the international community not using that effort for peaceful means? Instead of purchasing weapons and producing more soldiers which prolongs the violence, use those resources to build a ceasefire agreement and begin the dialogue process.

In the case of Libya, the lack of sector security reform is directly linked to the upheaval in Mali. We have known for decades that the armed forces in Libya were populated by the Tuareg nomadic forces responsible for many conflicts in West Africa.  These forces were not contained or even disarmed. Now we have a peaceful country Mali in upheaval.

The person in charge of the coup in Mali is Captain Amadou Haya Sanogo. He has stated very similar messages that have been spoken by others before him. The similarities are easy to see in comparison with Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, the Guinean junta leader who took power in Guinea during 2008. Guinea is still embroiled in political uncertainty. Mali is facing a similar future.

It is often a difficult situation to speak of peace when you know the current situation is not good but the options indicate a worse situation. At the time of Gadhafi there was little support for his remaining in power. Even if a person did speak of such they were quickly denounced as supporting crimes against humanity. With the evidence today, the spread of violence in West Africa since Gadhafi fell is there. Sadly this is a moment when a person asks, “Is it better now with Libya sliding into civil unrest, armed groups that thrive on instability have more weapons, governments being toppled, and regional peace again is taken a step backwards?”

This is the very question why Syria is of such importance. Taking the current power structure will leave a vacuum only to be replaced by another less stable group. No one is saying that the current power structure is a positive long term solution. Everyone is pointing to the need for change in leadership. The people want to have more opportunities for communication and political involvement. Those that know how difficult peace is to maintain lament the loss of every life. Due to that it is difficult to accept the killing of another to gain power. Unfortunately we live in a world that believes might is right. Even when we speak to the wisdom of open communication, governance for the protection of people and obeying the rule of law, when bullets fly, chaos rules and people die.

The question of greater stability is a speculative question. All we know is that there is an increase of weapons flowing around West African now. As I stated before the unrest was always there, the weapons made it more visible. Gadhafi was a brutal leader no doubt, however a peaceful Libya maintained peace in West Africa. With the unrest in Libya, the weapons were free to anyone that wanted them.

Communication, interpretation and war

War is a political discussion carried out through the use of violence.  War is said to be the last option so when war takes place that is what we have to believe. All other options were exhausted. The oddity of all this is that every war will end with a conversation. It will end when enough damage has been done that one side can see no logic in continuing.

Taking the above logic to its end is how we came to employ nuclear weapons, still we have war. So the argument for better weapons is quite moot, war will always be with us no matter what weapon is used. The other part of the logic for war is that conversation failed. To that I have to say that conversation can fail no more than a chair can ask a person to sit. Conversation is form of communication that you can use or not. For some they believe that conversation is useless and they begin to shoot.

That is the simplest route to define why wars, weapon build up, and violent conflicts happen. If this is going to change it can only change when everyone believes in a different logic.  EVERYONE.

A number of years ago there was a push for change in language structure called Giraffe language.  This language is deeply rooted in the profession of mediation. The theory is that if people begin to talk with less aggressive words the society will become less aggressive. To go further into that theory, the thought patterns of a person will seek less aggressive choices which in turn creates a less aggressive society. It is a theory and I am sure that this works for some people. I have not heard much about Giraffe language for about four years now.

For me, I applaud the effort because I am a person that has a mindset geared towards “try everything and anything”. Even then you do not shoot unless fired upon, Chapter 6.5 version of the United Nations Charter. It does not exist in the actual UN Charter so if you go reading your copy it is not there. The 6.5 version comes into interpretation of the Charter, how we perceive language.

Within the wording of Chapters6 and 7 are the two steps for use of force by a United Nations Force. Chapter 6 relates to the use of all means to talk with both sides. Chapter 7 relates to all other means including the use force. The making of Chapter 6.5 came in to effect through the rules of engagement take, do not fire unless fired upon.

It was common knowledge that a UN force was not allowed to fire unless they were fired on specifically. What this translated into was that if you were a UN forces member protecting an area or a person and that area or person was shoot; you (the UN forces member) were not actually fired upon, therefor you could not return fire. This ideology changed during the Bosnian War. The logic shifted to include the area and the people in which the UN forces protect.

That is a very important piece of history as much as it is a very important lesson in language interpretation. One of the main reasons war even takes place is due to a lack of skill in language interpretation and communication. The other reason is insanity and logic is almost lost in that chaos of distortion.

Here we sit with Syria going to hell and the world body that is supposed to be in charge of keeping things peaceful, have been fighting wars against themselves since day one. Right now we are barely applying Chapter 6. The Permanent Five members have been at odds with what to do. With two different approaches being offered neither side wants to give in to the other because of, get ready IMAGE. That is right each side is protecting their own image. This stalemate that has been going on for a year now is a public relations war. Each side is doing their best to make the other side look as bad as possible while making themselves look the better. All the while people are being killed by the hundreds.

This is a communication war, as most are. Neither side will give in until enough are dead and the situation gets to such a point where options are down to the last. All because of poor communication with a tinge of insanity, maybe it is the other way around?

Peace is slipping in Libya

The Libyan armed revolution was to be over when the former leader was killed. However in the past few months there have been reports of growing tribal aggression. We were aware that such a thing was possible. It is a common reality that such events happen. However, the cycle did not have to happen.

The upside is that Libya is not fully engulfed in another civil war –just yet. The reality of civil war is slowly marching to existence though. At this point we have a very disturbing question to ask, “At what cost will peace be made?” The payoff is usually in the form of political power.

I have written about the peaceful transition of power many times. One such topic is Negotiated Governance, this is exactly where Libya rests at the moment. They are negotiating how and who will govern the country. This negotiation can take place using words, elections and votes or the exchange of bullets. Either way the argument is going to take place. When all is lost the bullets will come to life.

There is still time to keep the guns silent and we have squandered much of that time in the past six months. Due to that it will take an even greater effort to communicate in peace with words to slow the anger and lower the weapons. We do know that the current tactics being used for the communication of a common goal in Libya is not effective.

At the moment we have very little time to draw up new plans. The best possible method is to increase the communication, power sharing and broaden the circle for discussion, planning and decision making. Let us not forget that Libya wants to have elections in June. The chances for a peaceful election under this current pressure is getting worse.

As I stated before the international community needs to severely boost aid in the targeted areas where violence is threatened. The focus of the aid needs to be an all out ceasefire agreement coupled with awareness/education programs, and a decentralisation of the governing power structure. Not an easy task. As crazy as this sounds, the people of Libya were calling for this very action back in December. We have wasted all that time.

As communication failures mount and groups voice their options to use violence the rhetoric also escalates. This sinking to the stupidity of violence can be averted if the will of the world is there to be wise. Too be honest though, I am not too optimistic that such wisdom will prevail.

Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain are all on a similar path.

What happens in Syria if the current government is toppled?

We have many examples to look at, Egypt and Libya are two.  There will be a struggle of communicating effectively and making progression swift enough. Both of these will combine to erode the legitimacy of any new government.

In Egypt the military is still in power. In Libya the government is an ad hoc group that was a natural progression. Now in Libya the international support has dried up leaving it twisting in the wind. In both situations the people are left to seek other options other than what is being offered at the moment. These options will come from armed groups because we live in a reality where might makes right.

This might makes right attitude can only be culled by the mass peaceful rally of the people. We have learned from Poland, Czech Republic and Egypt that if the people stand united in peaceful mass rallies, the use of violence is defeated. The defeat of violence will give space for peace.

Next there needs to be a strong effort to communicate the planning process. This process has to have a constant avenue for public inclusion. Such inclusion provides transparency, legitimacy, stability, and unity. With these four elements, society will hold a great deal of patience as a new government is brought to power.

There is no mystery to how or why revolutions take place. The people simply no longer trust the leaders, they feel alienated by their own government and they lived with fear of the government too long. This combination of reality factors in every revolution. At the moment mistrust and alienation are quickly rising in Libya.

A peaceful transition is still very possible in Libya. What needs to be done is a major show of support by the international community in the form of leadership visits, major funding of programs, and infrastructure building. Within this support, armed groups will have a point of reference to hold trust in as the governance processes are continually worked on.

The capacity is there and so is the determination of the people to achieve peace. What is missing is the work needed to connect the people with the government on a unified vision of the future. At the moment there is no such unified vision, nor is there an avenue for dialogue to discuss this vision.

Communication builds trust, it can also destroy trust as well though. Due to that, the communication must settle on finding a cohesive and agreeable path forward to peace. At the moment the communication between the government and the people of Libya needs greater support and effort.

With all of the above, we can see exactly the same situation in Syria. Poor communication, mistrust, no clear vision of the future, alienation of the people and ultimately violence can be mapped out to see how Syria fell into such chaos. The road back to peace will begin with lowering the weapons, increased communication, inclusion of the people and building a common vision of the way forward.

Iran vs Israel 21 Feb 2012

Simplicity and peace can be both allies and enemies at the same time. Take any situation where violence occurs or threats are made, now try to make sense of why such events continue. Simple reasoning states that a person just has to walk away or put down the weapons. However actions are only the manifestation of thought. Thought is where the true battles take place.

The realm of thought is the labyrinth we must find peace in. Today we have the reaction of Iran to the threat of attack from Israel. This cycle of insanity has to end. It is our choice to have it end using peace or we can go through the hell of war. Either way, peace will be the end result. If we decide to go the route of war, no one may live to experience the peace.

To find a way through this I looked at the constitutions of both Iran and Israel. Israel, like Britain has no formal constitution. However, Israel has their Proclamation to Independence as well as basic laws which culminate into a form of constitution.

The reason I took this route is because at some point there needs to be a leap of faith taken to secure peace. To do that, you have to see a point to leap for. Such a point is most often found within the culture, identity and laws of a country. The core of a modern society is founded in the grand ideology of its identity. That identity is supported by the laws of a society

For Iran the point of faith that must be held to is this portion of their constitution:

Article 2

The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:

Section 6. the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God; in which equity, justice, political, economic, social, and cultural independence, and national solidarity are secured by recourse to:

Sub section 3. negation of all forms of oppression, both the infliction of and the submission to it, and of dominance, both its imposition and its acceptance.

If you want to be negative, you can easily find faults with the above exert from the Constitution of Iran. However it is just as easy to see where peace can be held onto. This is your choice, I am for peace so I decide to see the positives.

For Israel there are a number of laws to point to. Having such a system is problematic because a clear definition or ideology is impossible to make. Due to the many points of reference it is easy to argue about which law takes precedent over another. However we need a point of reference to have as a point for peace. So I have made these two sections of the Basic laws of Israel my points to leap towards.

Protection of life, body and dignity  4. All persons are entitled to protection of their life, body and dignity.  

Personal liberty  5. There shall be no deprivation or restriction of the liberty of a person by imprisonment, arrest, extradition or otherwise. 

Many will say that these points are only valid within the countries themselves. Well to that I would say, if you do not feel your laws are valid enough to be a model for international peace in the world then what good are they?

To stay on point here, both countries have laws that no person is to be oppressed. Any threat of violence is an act of oppression. Now please do not start arguing about who started the fight, that is a waste of time, energy and intelligence. Besides, we have been doing that very thing for thousands of years and all it has given us is death, hatred and hell.

Each country is in a state of mind where they feel threatened. Escalating the violence is fuelled by revenge, hatred, fear, mistrust and narrow mindedness. Peace needs expansion of ideology and tactics. Continuing on the same path as we have for centuries will give us peace only when complete destruction has been achieved. Using the laws of each country solidifies the points of peace that will provide a foundation of negotiations.

Based upon the passages from each set of laws, there is a common understanding of a persons right to live peacefully. No one is enjoying that due to the constant oppression each country is waging. Such actions are contrary to the very laws of their own country. "Be the change you wish to see". Simple to say, apparently impossible to do.

Each country speaks to a foundation of peaceful existence very quickly in their respective laws. These laws must be used as building blocks for peace. It is these laws which must be pointed to so that trust can be fostered.

We have lived with the threat of war for too many years. Clearly the leaders of this region can not bring peace by themselves. Due to that reality the rest of us have to stand up for all the civilians who crave peace. For that to transpire, the world has to step in to police and disarm the entire region.

Elections in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

28 Nov 2011 was the date for the people to decide the leader of that country. Since that date there have been many reports concerning the lack of legitimacy of those elections.  Millions of votes were found illegal as well as procedural violations cited. As I am writing this article many protesters are now in the streets complaining about the election. At this very moment, the government has shut down radio stations and detained those that protest.

None of this is a shock because we had understood the reality of life in that country. However the situation needs to be resolved. As sad as it is, the current government must be allowed to govern, even though there is no doubt that the current leader has abused power.  That leaves us with the question of what to do?

Now as I have said many times, life is insane and this is one of those situations where a persons’ morals are in direct conflict with reality. We can be certain that any challenge to power will be met with violent force. The use of violence is not the choice of a peaceful person but when you are left with no options you must defend yourself. With that in mind it must be understood that no government rules without the will of the people.

The method or tactic being used by the current leader to hold power/control, is a combination of fear, corruption, loyalty and entitlement. In order to defeat the current leader there has to be a sustained focus on the use of those tactics and strong alternatives to every policy being offered. These alternatives have to be communicated. This is the task for the people of the country and they are doing many of these. The opposition is also using the other four tactics as well and that is where the international community can help.

We all have opinions but when it comes to international politics there has been a code of not talking publicly about who should lead what country. That is one reason why Russia and China do not speak about changing the leadership in Syria. Anyway, the NGO community does not have such restraints so many governments use that avenue to voice such concerns. For me I have no idea if the current leader would is any better or worse than the opposition leader and that needs to be a focus.

The focus for achieving peace in the DRC needs to be concerned with the independence of the Electoral Commission and strong education concerning peaceful societies. The institutions of the country and the average citizen need to be given great support so they feel safe in voting how they want. Right now is the time to begin that support in preparation for the next election.

All too often we only focus months before the date of elections. This not so alarming in a peaceful society but in a post-conflict society this lack of attention is harmful. As we witnessed in the past election, the Electoral Commission was poorly organized during the election. Also the opposition leader openly supported the use of violence no matter what the outcome.

The international community needs to step up the efforts to educate the people and those working in government. The education has to be focused on the responsibility of the people and the institutions to support the rule of a free and fair society. The chaos of conflict will grip any country as long as the ideology of disconnection exists. We have to get the people to practice the knowledge which holds a country in peace. That time is now because it can not be done in a months time, it will take years. As it stands now we have years before the next election in the DRC. Get to work now.

Talk or Shoot?

One of the great sources of frustration in the minds of peace activists is the fact that every violent conflict ends with a negotiated settlement. For example, during the early stages of the Afghanistan war Canada sought a strategy of communication with locals and Taliban forces. This strategy was soundly rejected as futile. Almost ten years later that very strategy is now being used even though the situation in Afghanistan is no better than it was ten years ago.

Another example is in Syria. The people of Syria asked for a democratic method of governance. That request was met with bullets and here we are today. Alas, the government of Syria has set 26 Feb as a day of referendum. This vote will seek to change the constitution of Syria.

Now in both examples why was the communication efforts denied at those early stages? Okay, I know that such a question solves nothing and really only cements hatred because the past is unchangeable. We can do nothing about those decisions even if we had answers. However, what we can do is focus on the efforts now. The past is something we must learn from and those answers must be viewed as positives to peace not crutches to death. Although I am deeply sorry for the lives lost because of the missed opportunity to negotiate peace rather than kill for it.

The referendum in Syria is to be held on 26 Feb. That is eleven days away. To be honest I have no idea how anyone can accomplish that feat, even in a peaceful country. Polling stations need to be organized, ballots printed, questions formulated, debate, voter registration compiled and then distribution of information and resources to hold the referendum. To me this is not possible in such a short time, unless the entire event is a smoke screen.

As a person that operates within a peaceful mindset, I have seen such ploys before. A person that is willing to talk will always be trusted and therefore seen as easy prey. This is a reality of peaceful existence. The peaceful person is often brought into an ambush under such a smoke screen. These are very difficult moments for a peaceful person. If they stand up and say that the offer of peace is just a ploy/ambush they are branded as being uncooperative. If they go along they risk being killed. What do you do in such a situation?

For the peaceful person they realize that the current situation has already killed them. The offer is agreed to but with a great deal of trepidation. International media must be allowed in as well as any other observer forces that are willing to monitor, document and witness the entire event. With that can anyone see such a situation taking place in Syria?

When dealing with such a situation the only thing you can trust is the fact that someday you will die and today might be that day.

Going back to the situation in Afghanistan, the Taliban are in the stages of opening a political office so that negotiation can take place. This was a similar tactic used by the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein. Such a step needs to take place for discussions because those that employ such tactics need to be at least one step removed from the battle field.

In the case of Syria who will lead the opposition? There have been a wide range of religious groups tied to the opposition as well as economic alliances. To me, both of these connections should take their ideology and shove it. The religious groups in this area have only prolonged the torture and the economic groups will be happy with anything as long as the attention is gone. In my mind neither the religious or economic groups are interested in peace. They are more interested in power and control.

As the event unfolds we are going to hear more about which religious group is seeking to rule, which economic group is backing who and all the while people will die as the cities are destroyed. For what? All because a bunch of stubborn idiots. Well is that not what religion and politics has been all about? My way is better than your way and to prove that I will kill every last one of you. And they preach peace. What a pile of dog shit.

As the violent situation continues the people will fight until enough are dead. Finally, as the grave yards fill someone will  make a connection with the other side who has a great idea, Why not stop shooting each other, sit down and find a way to co-exist? I guess that is just too difficult for some at this moment. Shooting is the only option because talking will only lull you to death.

How the world sees conflict

How the world sees conflict or situations of difficulties is in direct correlation as to the options it sees to solve those situations. If the world is stuck in the path of old grievances it will continue to have those as barriers to achieving peace.

The old events of injustice have to be acknowledged but they must also be understood as history which can not be changed. All that can be done is to work at the task of ensuring such events are no longer part of the future.

Take the past situations, look at them and see what should have been done to ensure a different outcome. As those situations arise again, the people involved will feel similar emotions swell in their hearts and minds. These are the moments where decisions of difference must be made. However, the task is to recognize these emotions during those moments.

As the moments present themselves it takes a great amount of energy to stop and think in the moment. The skill to do this only comes from experience. There will be setbacks but those have to be recognized as learning curves for success.

All of that seems great on paper. It is quite a different element when the set back is lives lost, homes destroyed and people injured. These are very difficult events to come to terms with. The fact remains that once such an event has taken place that is it. There has to be an element of resolve in the wake of such destruction.

Lamenting the loss is part of the process. In equal importance a focus on a future of peace must be kept in view. I am not saying that we forget or excuse events that cause injury. What I am saying is that these events have to be understood as part of a larger process. Mourn such events and point to the useless acts of creating more harm. If the reaction to such events is to seek revenge the cycle of chaos will cement itself in a spiral of annihilation.

To put that ideology in context, many weapons have been developed to cause such great destruction that the opponent would see the end result as complete annihilation.  In simple terms we are discussing the zero sum game theory.

The common belief that nuclear weapons would result in complete annihilation is a major factor in the global pursuit to have them banned. Albert Einstein is quoted as saying “I am not sure what world war three would be fought with but I know world war four will be fought with sticks”. With that we can see the show of force in Syria as a similar point where the complete destruction of the country is being gambled.

Power is not the use of force, it is the intelligent use of force. Furthermore power is also shown in the use of restraint. Being able to control emotions and understanding the impact of forceful actions. A true leader would understand the negative impact of shelling a city, shooting people all the while pointing blame at everyone but yourself. Especially when all that was needed was an intense/inclusive discussion. Yet that discussion was so feared that killing was seen as the better choice.

These are the events of insanity that wreak havoc daily around the world. People who call themselves leaders because they use fear and destruction to gain power are the biggest challenges to peace. In reality such people will always exist. All we can do is to work as hard as we can with such people to retrain them somehow.

Seeing these options before us is needed. The world could have pressured all the people in Syria to the negotiation table. Instead we allowed them to shoot each other. We must learn form this. Forcing the negotiation is not an act of breaking sovereingty, it is the act of strengthening it. For some reason we just do not see that in todays world.

How the world sees conflict or situations of difficulties is in direct correlation as to the options it sees to solve those situations. If the world is stuck in the path of old grievances it will continue to have those as barriers to achieving peace.

Libyians need to talk

Lately I have been working with a group to manage the process of transition in Libya. The main element that is on the minds of most people in Libya deals with the question;  What has been accomplished since the revolt? This question indicates a lack of information getting to the people, difficulties in the management of the process and the presence of the old guard mentality.

It would be unwise to think that violence would not take place in the coming months or years. The reason is because the people (any people in the world) do not change their methods in such a short time frame. Libya still has a large component of people that believe in the same governing style as the past government did. Mix that reality with the strong desire for quick change by the public. That scenario is like putting a match near gasoline.

At the moment there needs to be a very aggressive communication plan set out in tandem with an equal diplomacy effort to all tribes, rebel groups, political parties, religious factions and any other element of society that exists. Both the communication plan and the diplomacy effort need to reach out to as many people as possible.

The message must inform everyone that a period of time is needed to quell the element of violence that is still fresh in peoples’ minds. With that the diplomacy effort needs to ensure that all armed factions are informed as to the process of transition, steps that each faction must take to secure the peace and where they can assist with the transition process.

When and if violence does occur it will most likely start because people are not satisfied with the speed of transition or feel left out of the process. The only tool that is available to ensure violence does not take place is through communication. A government that uses threats of violence dies the same way – just as the past government went. Also it must be acknowledged that this is the time where a relapse of war can take hold. The next few months are tenuous as the patience of the people begins to wear thin, thus the need for a robust effort to reach out extensively.

The communication and diplomacy points to a large education program for the entire country. Goals need to be set, validated, marked and evaluated constantly.  The people need to know what state the police, army and court systems are in. People need to know the people that are in charge and what their plans are. Right now there is not enough information getting to the people and there is no clear idea of what is going on.

Large public events/speeches need to take place. Newspaper articles written, radio and television interviews need to take place. If these actions are not taken we may see violence erupt.

Respect Electoral Process

Where I live we are going through a debate about governance.  How much is too much, is the current system working as well as it should, what are the options for change and do we have the right people in place to manage any change?

These questions are exactly the same questions being asked of politicians in Russia, DRC, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and every other country to be honest.  There is another factor to consider though, which is the trust we have for debate to be handled with great skill.  Do we have people that will say damaging remarks, even if it the remarks are true?  Then, after the damage is done still feels justified in their actions?  A person that acts in such a manner has no real understanding of peace. 

Peace is about respect for the other.  Knowing how your actions will impact and managing the information you want to get across.  In the case of Syria, the government is actively killing its people.  What is the message there?   The opposition party in DRC made note that violence was going to happen no matter what the result were.  In Russia, there are demonstrations about fraudulent voting procedures.  What is the message there?

In each case we have failures of various degrees in governance.  A strong leader will understand the coming issues of violence and relate the message of peace through words and actions.  A strong peaceful leader will allow opposition to their policies in an open format.  A strong peaceful leader will see and understand the need for rivals to exist.  A strong peaceful leader will have a plan in place to hand over leadership and that plan should be made known.

A strong peaceful leader will have respect for the process of governance.  They will have the ability to communicate with wide spread impact, with trust and with courage to face the threats of defeat peacefully.  These elements are missing in many of our leaders today.  There is a lack of trust that those in power can manage peacefully.  There is trust that the current leaders will act violently and they rule by fear not agreement and support.

There comes a time when leaders have to be given weak support with the knowledge that there is no next time.  Russia and Putin may have that situation in place now?  The people want to see life improve and this has not happened since Putin came into the Kremlin.  He may get his wish and be President again due to possible election fraud but he must understand that this should be his last term.  This should be his last chance to make improvements.  He should not run again.  Doing so is a slap in the face to the people of Russia and the process of governance.