Commonwealth Could Be Britain’s Post-Brexit Break

Taking on the leadership of the Commonwealth is a boost for the country embattled in precarious Brexit negotiations and trying to reimagine its place in the world.

In April, Britain hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which was billed as the largest gathering of heads of states in the UK for a long time. Taking on the leadership of the Commonwealth is a boost for the country embattled in precarious Brexit negotiations and trying to reimagine its place in the world.

The summit set the agenda for a sustainable future, hosting a civil society forum, as well as forums for women, youth and business — and the UK found its job tricky. As the summit started, the British government was faced with the prospect of an embarrassing apology and a U-turn over the treatment of the Windrush generation — immigrants from the Caribbean who came to rebuild Britain after the Second World War, many of whom recently faced deportation by the Home Office.

If the UK thought that it could breeze into the chairmanship of the Commonwealth, it misread the signs. Britain, mindful of its colonial history, should be careful in how it displays humility in taking up the leadership of the Commonwealth amidst the challenges the organization is facing. The Commonwealth, to some extent, remains a voluntary space for countries to opt into, where everyone from the small island state of Vanuatu to the big three — UK, Canada and Australia — are equal.

FACING CLIMATE CHANGE

One unique challenge for the Commonwealth will be climate change. Many of its members are small island states, and over the next few years they will face increasing humanitarian challenges as extreme weather events, like last year’s Hurricanes Irma and Maria, become more frequent. Leadership toward responding and making communities more resilient to climate change will need to be balanced with sustainable development.

Many countries within the Commonwealth are rapidly developing, meaning they will face the challenge of “people, cities and resources.” The world’s population passed the 1 billion mark in 1810, doubled in the next hundred years, and by 2010 hovered around 7 billion. The projection for 2030 is 9 billion. But the issue here is not pure numbers — it’s resources. When the global total reached 1 billion, just 3% — 30 million people — lived in cities. Today, the world is 50% urbanized, meaning that 3.5 billion people live in metropolitan areas.

While urbanization is by no means bad per se, it provides a different set of issues to contend with. The prospect of shadow economies, political violence coupled with the relentless drive for money and status, manifesting itself in gang violence, creates reasons for concern. Some of the urban violence coming out of Johannesburg and Nairobi showcases the challenge of rapid urbanization, while many of the small island states in the Caribbean or the Maldives struggle with gang violence, especially among the youth population.

In fact the World Health Organization’s Global status report on violence prevention 2014 shows that within low and middle income countries, the highest estimated rates of homicide occur in the Americas, with 28.5 homicides per 100,000 population, followed by Africa, at 10.9 homicides per 100,000, due to gang violence. The lowest estimated rate of homicide is in the low and middle income countries of the Western Pacific, with 2.1 homicides per 100,000. Where state institutions are weak, violence becomes cyclical and relentless, as criminal violence is traditionally met with the violence by law enforcement.

The Commonwealth is also not immune to the global migration crisis, which has seen the highest number of displaced people and refugees since the end of the Second World War. As the UNHCR reports, an unprecedented 65.6 million people around the world have been forced from home. Among them are nearly 22.5 million refugees, over half of whom are under the age of 18. These demographic changes are putting new stresses on how we engage with and exclude each other as societies across the world are seeing a backlash of racism and xenophobia.

BRIDGING THE GAPS

Yet the Commonwealth offers opportunities to bridge those gaps, given its shared history. The Civil Paths to Peace report by the Commonwealth Commission on Respect and Understanding suggested a framework for all stakeholders — government, media, civil society, business and so on — to explore the complexities around violent behavior and its causes, putting forward ways of building dialogue between communities in the Commonwealth.

The report addresses the narrowing space for civil society and asks for its mobilization to confront violence as well as engage in the process of democracy. It includes the removal of gross economic inequalities, social humiliations and political disenfranchisement that can contribute to generating confrontation and hostility. It calls, in effect, for an integrated approach to dealing with all economic, social and cultural issues that are related to conflict.

The report recognizes cultural and social factors, as well as features of political economy, are all important in understanding violence. It puts forward the premise that there is a need for greater respect and understanding of diversity, to counter disquiet, disaffection and violence: “If the cultivation of respect and understanding is both important in itself and consequential in reducing violence and terrorism in the world, the link between the two lies in the understanding the cultivated violence is generated through fomenting disrespect and fostering confrontational misunderstandings.”

The concept of developing respect and understanding is further cemented by the Nobel laureate, professor Amartya Sen, in his book, Identity and Violence, the premise of which states that the key to good citizenship and social cohesion is the encouragement and retention of multiple identities. People have several enriching identities: nationality, gender, age and parental background, religious or professional affiliation. They identify with different ethnic groups and races, towns or villages they call home, sometimes football teams; they speak different languages, which they hope their children will retain, and love different parts of their countries.

It is the recognition of this plurality and the searching for commonalities within this pluralism that will lead to greater respect and ultimately understanding and acceptance. Thus, these new solutions will have to challenge people to accept diversity and create equal opportunities for multicultural communities, ethnicities, traditions, cultures and faiths. The new solutions will also have to take into account the existence of multiple identities that add a richness and variety to diversity and pluralism as part of a common wealth that needs to be celebrated in the global civil society and integrated into life as a positive force for development.

NEW OPPORTUNITIES

Addressing this, the Commonwealth Commission argued for more dialogue and discussion on the richness of human identities and the counterproductive nature of placing people in rigidly separated identity boxes, linked with religion or community. At the 2007 Commonwealth People’s Forum in Kampala, Uganda, civil society leaders called for “the creation of an enabling environment to foster: unity in diversity, where there would be respectful and meaningful dialogue and collaboration between people with different identities and values; and practical grassroots action and community linking partnerships to build peace, prosperity and well-being for all Commonwealth Citizens.” This was very much in keeping with the Civil Paths to Peace mandate for an engaged process toward respect and understanding.

A decade later, the UK government has an opportunity to revisit these principles and create an environment to foster the knowledge and engagement needed for a sustainable future to be created. It must understand that there are lessons to be learned from, as well as provided to, the Commonwealth. It must first start by accepting that there has to be a space for different voices to be heard within the organization, be it the youth, women, the private sector or civil society. The latter in particular is an integral part of the Commonwealth DNA, providing not only dialogue, but also dissonance.

In an era of shrinking civil society space worldwide, Britain should champion the role of civil society globally, seeing it as a partner and not a service provider or instrument of foreign action. There is much to be done to reclaim the basic rights being lost in the clampdown on civic space or even the rights being lost in a digital world. Post Brexit, the UK has to battle the rising tide of populism to respond to the weakness of democracy and use this as an opportunity to reimagine what the Commonwealth can be: not just a club for former British colonies, but a vibrant space for innovation and thinking, with a youth dividend that is multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious, that can pave the way for what diverse societies could and should be — based around partnerships and sharing.

This originally appeared on Fair Observer

Ramadan Is a Chance to Reconcile Relationships

While much is made of the physical aspects around fasting during Ramadan, the holy month represents a spiritual space for remembering and reinforcing relationships. 

For many Muslims worldwide, May 17 marks the first day of Ramadan, the observance of abstaining from food, water and innate desires between sunrise and sunset. Muslims will faithfully observe this third fundamental pillar of Islam as ordained by God. Though much is made of the physical aspects around Ramadan, apart from the physical sacrifices and discipline the holy month brings with it, it also represents a spiritual space for remembering and reinforcing relationships.

We are invited to re-examine the relationship with ourselves. On the spiritual journey that each one of us undertakes, the most difficult lesson is to understand our destination. We all struggle with the destination, as well as the mode and speed of travel. However, for those of you who have read The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho, the understanding of this destination is very simple: “Go; travel the world, look for the truth and the secret of life — every road will lead you to this sense of initiation: the secret is hidden in the place from which you set out.”

Thus the “secret” and the “destination” are hidden in the very place where you are. For many of us on this spiritual journey it is about seeking the one, the creator, the meaning of life. The secret is that what you seek is found only by rediscovering the essence of your own nature. The essence of your own nature is the return to oneself.

This is the apparent paradox of spiritual experience whereby the constant effort that we make to purify, to control and liberate our hearts is, in the end, a reconciliation with the deepest level of our being. That spark that the creator breathed into our heart — fitra in Arabic — is the spark of humility, the awareness of fragility, the consciousness of limitation, the shoulder of responsibility.

Developing this state is the very essence of Ramadan, something that is often missed in the superficial celebrations of this most blessed month. At the heart of our consumer society, where materialism and individualism drive our daily lives, the blessed month of Ramadan reinforces our personal effort and commitment, invites us toward the deep horizons of introspection and meaning, reminds us of silence, restraint and remembrance, and inculcates the importance of detail, precision, rigor and discipline of practice.

We are invited to re-examine our relationship with the creator. Fasting is in essence a deeply individual act: No one knows you are fasting except you and the creator, and it is easy to pretend on the outside that you are fasting. Hence its very act is about developing that personal connection with the creator. Through acts of worship during the blessed month, we take up a dialogue with God, a dialogue of intimacy, of sincerity, of love. This re-examination allows us to realize that we marry the purpose of our existence with the purpose of our subsistence, while nurturing the inspiration from the Quran that “God will not change anything for the good if you change nothing.”

We are invited to re-examine our relationship with our community. Ramadan is a feast of faith of fraternal atmosphere that is shared with all brothers and sisters. Unfortunately, over the last years, the concept of a fraternity has been denigrated to a single notion within the mindset of the Muslim community, which has gradually entrenched itself in an ideological box. This ideological comfort zone is an intellectual arrogance leading to an isolationist mentality and a cultural ghetto, into which Muslim communities around the world, especially those that live under minority situations, voluntarily lock themselves.

This isolationist mentality invites an “us” versus “them” attitude, meaning that the Muslim community has always been worried about “us” rather than taking an all encompassing “we.” The sense of community is reinforced with the fact that we all start and finish our fast together, while also choosing to pray together.

We are invited to re-examine our relationship with our society. Ramadan teaches us that we share the burdens of others, especially those less fortunate than us, and we remember our responsibilities toward them. The giving of charity is encouraged during this period as it is felt that rewards are doubled. Identifying with others in different ways is important in our role of living in society as founded upon a universal humanitarian principle based on the following verse from the holy Quran: “If anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.”

A world that makes sense is a world in which we connect with other people, often beyond our immediate communities and experience, and show them compassion and love. This is the ultimate aspect of building relationships as taught by Ramadan.

This originally appeared on Fair Observer

The Way Forward After Communal Violence in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka needs a platform for genuine and objective discussion in the hope of moving forward and achieving reconciliation.

In Sri Lanka, the start of February was about celebration for the past 70 years of independence, but its end was about reflective contemplation over an uncertain future. Following a wave of anti-Muslim violence in the central district of Kandy, a nationwide state of emergency was declared on March 6 — and lifted on March 18 — the first time in seven years in a country with a history of civil war.

Amidst a curfew enforced in the central province, mobs comprising disaffected youth from the majority Sinhala community — often led by Buddhist monks and individuals linked to ultra-nationalist Sinhalese groups — attacked and destroyed premises belonging to the minority Muslim community. Businesses, homes and mosques were torched and looted.

The attacks were in apparent retaliation for the death of a Sinhalese driver after an altercation with drunken Muslim youth. Yet this was not a simple rise in anger symbolizing grassroots tensions between two communities. It was organized mob violence with a plan and strategy to target Sri Lankan Muslims, united on social media and fed with local intelligence about where they lived.

To some extent, the violence was not entirely unexpected. For many of us who have been working on post-conflict reconciliation in Sri Lanka and kept an eye on community relations, for a number of years there has been a feeling that although relative “calm” had descended on the island at the end of the decades-long civil war in 2009, this was just surface-led. It was inevitable that some sort of communal violence would return. After all, the conflict indicators showed that Sri Lanka faced trouble every 10 years after independence.

BEHIND THE VIOLENCE IN KANDY

For those of us who were tracking the rise of extreme nationalism and ethnic and religious hatred — being pushed by a small minority speaking on behalf of the majority Sinhala Buddhist community — the latest round of violence is a worrying sign of a link and trend of globalizing hatred and fragility.

Over the last 100 years, there have been at least six incidents of large-scale violence between the Sinhalese and Muslims in Sri Lanka. Today, the time between recent incidents has dropped (the previous flare ups happened within the last four years), and the rhetoric around sectarian violence has mirrored what is coming out of Myanmar with hardline Buddhists and the minority Rohingya.

It is in this light that Sri Lanka is seen through a singular lens of good vs evil, us vs them. This perpetuates deeply delusive and divisive assumptions of exclusive identities by these sectarian actors, who want people to ignore all affiliation and loyalties in support of one “religious” identity.

The violence of February comes on the back of what has been a relentless and sustained campaign of anti-Muslim rhetoric. This has involved public meetings, the distribution of pamphlets and the publishing of articles in mainstream Sinhala and English papers, which have borrowed rhetoric used globally to demonize and stereotype Muslims. In the face of “fake news,” the propagation of myths is wide and wild. For instance, the week preceding the flare up of violence in Kandy, a tense situation erupted in the east where Sinhalese had accused Muslims of serving them food with infertile pills. Such was the seriousness of the claim that the United Nations Population Fund, the World Health Organization, and the Government Medical Officers Association had to issue statements to refute this.

It would be naive to blame the violence just on faith. There are other factors that combine to make this flare up and its causes deep and problematic. The majority misperception is that Sri Lankan Muslims are successful businessmen and, therefore, economic interests mean there is an attempt to squeeze Muslims out of the market. From the halal boycott — a move by a hardline Sinhalese Buddhist group — to the extensive damage and looting that has been inflicted on businesses, it is clear that there was an economic dimension to the violence aimed at hitting the Muslim community.

There is also an attempt to decrease the visibility of Muslims. For hardline Sinhalese, Muslims are seen as a threat to Sinhala identity and ultimately Sri Lanka, which manifests itself in the rhetoric around dress codes — in particular what is deemed as Arab clothes such as the thawb for men or the abaya and niqab for women — and the attacks on mosques.

Government Response

What is ultimately surprising is not that these actions took place, but the silent complicity of the Sinhala majority. For a lot of us in Sri Lanka who grew up with people from other communities, what has been disconcerting (although there are exceptions to this) has been the silence of condemnation for violent actions by mainstream Sinhalese. This is by no means a generalization as there have been strong statements, including by Buddhist monks, condemning the violence.

However, the disappointment was the reaction of the government, who seemed to have been caught by surprise by the violence and struggled to contain it. Despite a curfew and social media censorship, in the initial phases of the violence the government appeared unable to mobilize law enforcement to act. Though a number of arrests were made and there have been strong statements issued, the Sri Lankan government struggled to ensure that the rule of law and justice had been followed. This perhaps remains the biggest disappointment for many who thought the government change in 2015 would bring about a shift in the narrative of racist, ethno-nationalist politics.

So, what needs to be done?

Clearly there is a lot to be done politically. The present government entered office on the agenda of good governance and equality, and it was largely supported by minority voters, including the Muslim community. There needs to be trust built once again with the government and between the government and Sri Lankan Muslims. In addition, however, there needs to be work done at the grassroots level. There is currently a lot to be done around improving social capital. Hence, a change of narrative and thinking has to be the order of the day on top of any structural alignments toward ensuring that such bouts of violence do not happen again. There also has to be a change of narrative about who Muslims are and where they belong in Sri Lanka.

DIVERSITY IN SRI LANKA

By hardline Sinhala Buddhists declaring Sri Lanka as a “Sinhala-only country,” those perpetrating this mindless rhetoric of Sinhala supremacism presuppose the acceptance of Sri Lanka as a land sacred to Buddhism and with Buddhists as its chosen people. According to this vision, minorities, including Sinhala Christians, are not co-owners or even guests (because guests have to be given certain privileges and rights). Rather, they are second-class serfs (untouchables) who should thank the benevolent majority for being given the chance to live there.

In so doing, this completely rewrites the rich history of a country whose mosaic is made up of different ethnicities, faiths and cultures. They have chosen to rewrite a history of the accumulation of unfinished business, the piling up of debts and the stacking up of fortunes and misfortunes. Whilst it is true that Sri Lanka is the only place in which there are Sinhalese and where the Sinhalese language is spoken, this does not equate to ownership of the island solely by one race or another, nor does it speak of the rich inter mingling of all races and faiths that influence much of Sri Lankan culture, food, art and music today. It also does a huge disservice to the Buddhist way of life, which is about peace, tranquility and tolerance of others. Declaring Sri Lanka as Buddhist does not preclude it from having minorities of other faiths and ethnicities coexisting with equal rights.

This change in narrative also has to start from the Muslim community itself. For years, we have claimed that Muslims arrived in Sri Lanka around 1,000 years ago. This simplifies a complex history of Islam coming through trade — mostly by Arabs — and of a rich history of engagement with local people. Islam came to Sri Lanka via traders who interacted with local communities. Thus, there is a mélange of identities, ethnicities and cultures that make up the Muslim community, not the homogeneous identities that both the Muslim community and those outside of it choose to define.

RECONCILIATION

The recent events are also a wake-up call to those who have been engaging in reconciliation work in Sri Lanka. For too long, there was a binary notion from the international community about the decades-long civil war being between two parties: the Sinhalese and the Tamil. Yet the history of the conflict is much more than that. Though not direct parties to the war, Sri Lankan Muslims suffered during the conflict, and it is important to note that for full reconciliation to take place, it needs to be holistic and comprehensive. This means everyone should be considered from all parts of Sri Lanka. Reconciliation is not about north and south.

The violence in Kandy shows that a lot more needs to be done at the grassroots level. It is fine to talk about political solutions, but if people at the grassroots still do not trust or know each other, then political solutions will just be a band-aid to a deep burn. The vitriolic rhetoric that has been spread is testimony to the fact that we need to start once again from scratch in developing a discussion that is not only top-down, but bottom-up too. There needs to be parallel efforts to build trust between people and communities through multi-faith interactions and crossing ethnic divides.

This is the role that civil society and, in particular, religious leaders should be playing in order to bring out about reconciliation. The aim should be to rebuild trust through reducing suspicion and infusing human values, with an understanding of the need to move away from apportioning blame for deceit and destruction. Trust can only be rebuilt when a space is created for effective dialogue and understanding. This space is one that starts at local levels with community organizations, leaders and intellectuals. It is not the sole responsibility of the political establishment, but of everyone interested in this endeavor.

Rebuilding trust is about honoring unity and celebrating diversity, working toward equity and justice, and ensuring the eradication of social prejudices in building a collective identity. We cannot abrogate our individual responsibilities in this task. The simple question to ask ourselves is: How much do we know of and understand our friends/colleagues who come from a different faith and ethnicity? By knowing, understanding and respecting each other’s faith and community, we move from just tolerance to acceptance. These are the first signs of a mature, diverse society and democracy. It is the first part in accepting the social contract of citizenship of a nation.

Solutions are needed for the restitution of a fractured polity, which involves a healthy acceptance of minorities. Hence, there must be legal and constitutional structures that not only guarantee equal rights for citizens and freedom of religion, but also legislates against incitement for racial and religious hatred and discrimination. No one argues about removing the privileged place of Buddhism in Sri Lanka or doing away with rights of the majority. But it is expected that the spirit of Buddhism has to ensure tolerance and respect for others, and with legal safeguards in place to enforce this.

Sri Lanka is at a crossroads of uncertainty, with bitter interethnic rivalries fanned by divisive politics. Constitutional amendments and projected development, however, are not enough to make hearts forgive and forget. Sri Lanka needs a platform for genuine and objective discussion in the hope of moving forward and achieving reconciliation. This has to start at the grassroots and involve all aspects of society. Reconciliation has to ultimately work through the hearts of individuals who harbor pain from the long years of their inability to meet basic human aspirations or from the loss of loved ones and properties as they became innocent victims of calculated and indiscriminate violence between fighting forces.

We are nearly 35 years on from the horrible riots of July 1983 that sent the country down a treacherous path, because it is exactly the same scenario where anti-Tamil propaganda was pumped over in the years. We are also 103 years on from the first Sinhala-Muslim riots and violence that took place in exactly the same place: Kandy. Despite the multiple incidents of anti-Muslim violence that have occurred since 1915 without any such armed reaction from the community, lessons should be taken from history in terms of the ramifications of not addressing the causes of conflict.

If we want to aspire to tackle the root causes of the ethnic and racist rhetoric and violence, then the challenge is to actually learn from what has happened in order to have a county that respects its diversity and is united in its principles and values that are influenced by Buddhism. Otherwise, we condemn future generations to the vicious cycle of hatred, intolerance and violence that will destroy Sri Lanka, not unite it.

This originally appeared in Fair Observer

Happy 70th Birthday Sri Lanka: Where do we go from here.

In a normal trajectory of human life, once you reach 70 as my father continues to remind me, you know that you have some limitations of time as you are ‘retired’ and just wiling away time. You are unable to actively contribute towards society as you may have done previously. All you can do is provide the benefit of your knowledge, wisdom and experience. You try to look forward and reflect on what you have achieved. You try to see if you can atone for your mistakes but at the same time, try to enjoy the remainder of life.

70 years of a nations history should also accord us the same reflection. As the past been some thing to be proud of or has it been a period where we need to reflect. Did we become ‘independent’ from a colonial power just to become ‘dependent’ on our closed patriarchal and monolithic thinking? to become financially dependent on outside sources? to become dependent on our past to make decisions for the future? are we truly independent as the nation itself is dependent on foreign aid and political influences?

As we celebrate the nation’s monumental independence which in effect meant freedom from the rule of an outside force allowing all people the ability to take part in the decision making of their country, we must reflect whether this has been achieved and what should be achieved?

Sri Lanka’s independence can only be truly manifested once we acknowledge, respect, understand and celebrate the fact that to be Sri Lankan is not a homogeneous monolithic structure but one where cosmopolitans come together to provide agency and expression to the multiples identities that every person has and performs on a daily basis. Your single identity of faith or ethnicity or gender or age can and should not be a limiting factor to your agency of full expression of being Sri Lankan

To be Sri Lankan is to accept that there is diversity amongst your fellow countrymen and as you agree on some things you can disagree on others, and there is space for you here.

To be Sri Lankan is to work towards the fact that the ‘privilege’ that you can have is based on your abilities and achievements not because you were born into wealth or a certain ethnic group or family or in a certain city.

To be Sri Lankan is to accept that those members of society who have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of their circumstances of birth, deserve to be listened to and supported.

To be Sri Lankan is not just to coalesce around a national team or just to celebrate different religious and ethnic festivals or to selectively choose and appropriate different cultural foods. It is not in the rhetoric or the clothes we wear. When people are oppressed due to their ethnicity or their faith; when they make ‘russian roulette’ decisions based on their economic circumstances; when they know their gender might limit their agency; when those in power steal, cheat and lie; then this is a pain that all of us should feel. When one Sri Lankan is hurting, all of us should be hurting.

To be Sri Lankan is to be the living example of ‘Compassion’ as understood by all of the great global faiths that intertwine the fabric of society. To be Sri Lankan is to challenge those who say and do wrong even if they are from our own faith and ethnic grouping simply because this is the right and just thing to do.

To be Sri Lankan is to accept that the country belongs to all

Some of us may not have been in control of what happened in the past, but a majority of us have control of what can happen in the future. There is no political vision for nation building and nothing that respective governments have given us that give us confidence that this will be addressed. perhaps the failure is not with them, but is a collective responsibility as we ourselves in our own daily lives perhaps do not respect the very foundations of a nation. after all, how many of us are guilty of the selfishness of looking first to our own communities, to abusing the environment and also not necessarily understanding the hardships of the most vulnerable and marginalised?

So as Sri Lanka marks 70 days, perhaps we need to reflect what is the country that we want to leave our children’s children.

Finally to be Sri Lankan is to accept that the above though seeming idealistic can be achievable if we can work together. Though we may not all get there in the end and that there will be many mountains to climb, we will persevere on this journey because we are Sri Lankans - who love this island, its different tastes, smells and colours - and this is the right and just thing to do.

Happy Independence Day Sri Lanka

Going Beyond The Rhetoric: Unpacking The Role Of Faith Leaders And Institutions In Humanitarian Action

10 years ago the president of the Methodist Church challenged me in the east of Sri Lanka following a humanitarian crisis caused by the upsurge in the conflict. "Amjad! Whenever there is a crisis, people flee to the religious institutions and religious leaders. They are there for the affected community and remain with them even as security gets worse, whilst you as NGOs withdraw when your security is threatened. Why do you never respect that?".

This question has plagued me since then and I have sought to understand why we as the international humanitarian community have failed to give the faith community the respect that it deserves and a seat at the table of policy makers and donors in terms of global programming, advocacy and decision making.

As the discussion around localisation of aid becomes more heated and pertinent, we have to realise that we can not have a full discussion if we do not also consider the role of faith.

Religious teachings, although diverse, teach the importance of compassion and of one common shared humanity, where each human being is important in him/herself. Human dignity and the welfare of all people are part of the main objectives of faith and religion, with the principal teaching of serving other people especially the downtrodden, irrespective of their faith, ethnicity, gender, and geography. Faith-based actors enjoy close proximity to, or are part of the populations affected by wider crises, and have therefore developed special relationships of trust, as well as insights and access to community members compared to many other actors. They are often present before crises, and are first responders when disasters hit. They are key providers of assistance and protection during crises and their aftermath.

In a world where conflicts, violence, and natural disaster affect millions of people, faith-based entities share a critical responsibility and role in working for peace, both at local and national or international levels. Faith-based organizations can thus facilitate sustainable behavior and relationship changes based on faith and worldview, offering mediation and sacred space for dialogue between parties.

Yet they are not a panacea. Engaging with faith and faith organisations also has its problems. There is a character to the religious playing field, that complicates matters. Our faith communities, whether they are numerous and powerful, a minority struggling for a voice, or even an influential tiny cadre, have undeniably, as strong a history of internecine strife and struggle as they do of cooperation and collaboration. There is a problem with the perception of what engagement with faith really means? In addition many faith communities are tied together across national boundaries, which have appeared or crystallised long after the faith community emerged. Globalisation has problematised, at one level, the very idea of the sacrosanctity of nation state borders. The flow of information and humans, respects no borders. This means that the faith communities themselves often feel united by mutual concerns and values, which are sometimes at odds with other policies.

This all speaks to a trust deficit that exists with engaging with faith organisations and leaders. So much more needs to be done to bridge that gap. We need more evidence and case studies about the role and impact of faith organisations on individual and community resilience.

We also need to work through an understanding of the tensions between programmes of certain faith organisationss (vis-à-vis conversion and proselytization) and the humanitarian principles of 'neutrality' and 'impartiality'.  Thus more is needed to explore and discuss especially in 'understanding the spiritual wisdom of humanity' i.e. in using spirituality as a mechanism higher than just simply faith for developing a consensus towards understanding human value and responding to the need.   Put simply if organisations and faith leaders can converge on shared religious values towards the spiritual values of humanity regarding the protection of human life and dignity and the relationship of these values to humanitarian principles, then they would be able to possible address these tensions. 

There needs to be greater dialogue within and between faiths (and organisations) to not only understand humanitarian principles and instruments of International Humanitarian Law, but also look at relations with (and between) faiths, traditions and cultures which could then lead to new approaches for cooperation. We have to challenge ourselves to a new ethics of common concern that provides the moral commitments that relate to a sense of spiritual unity. On the flip side non faith organisations need greater faith literacy around humanitarian, development and peace building to have that understanding.

Engaging with faith based organisations and faith leaders will also mean building the capacity of local faith communities to mitigate against and respond to disasters whilst also equipping religious premises and assets such as mosques, churches and other sacred places as possible emergency facilities and for community education on disaster risk reduction and preparedness. 

So there is a lot to be done in this space. Last year at the World Humanitarian Summit, a special session to rethink and re-define the engagement with FBOs, communities, leaders and institutions. The conversation was started but has to be continued. This week in Sri Lanka, an international forum will discuss scaling up engagement of local faith actors in humanitarian response. Exploring a wide array of topics including migration, gender based violence, peace and conflict, the forum will present evidence on the responses of successful partnerships and call for greater sector-wide literacy and capacity for local faith communities.

For many of the 'local' communities, we are talking about, faith (teachings, rituals, practice) are part of their DNA. We need to understand, respect and accept the role of faith-based actors in reducing humanitarian need and suffering. But we also need realise that this is still a process that will need to continue as we call for constructive dialogue between faith and non-faith players in the larger interest of communities in need.  

Originally published in Huffington Post

Reflecting on Peace Day 2017: Resetting the Button

The World Peace Day has come and gone. For many it is a time of celebration and for others it is the annual time to do some reflections and soul searching with regards the state of world peace. This time round, it seems that the state is slightly in a poorer state than the year before. The global incidents make it clear that there is a need for a pause and reset button in terms of just the basics of relationships. Somehow over the last year, it is clear that what has been lost is the very basic element of relating to someone: of empathy: sympathy and compassion.

So this year whilst we have seen protracted conflict, we have seen unexpected conflict turning violent, with many asking the question, why? We know that there are many drivers of conflict. Often, in many cases where there has been a cessation of violence and hostilities, peace agreements and the accompanying international apparatus to support their implementation have suppressed the violence but not addressed the causes of conflict. Accordingly, the risk of a re-eruption remains. One of the best indicators of where there is risk of future violent conflict is simply identifying where there was violent conflict before.

Yet for example if we examine what happened last month in Charlottesville, USAand the simmering tensions since then, one might be tempted to say that this is not the case. After all the USA has not been in conflict internally since the end of the Civil War in the late 19th century. Yet and this is the point, conflict can remain and tensions manifest themselves into deep socio-political cleavages, if moves are not made to bring about structural peace and reconciliation. A simple end to a violent conflict or war with one side being victorious over the other is not enough to build peace.

So the concept of building peace remains different to how we normally understand it. The common understanding of peace is often misinterpreted as a hippie type of affair with utopian love. The more working definition of peace is more disciplined than that. It is about defining an environment where people can pursue conflicts without violence and harm to themselves or others. In other words, it is not conflict that is the problem, but violence. Indeed, conflict is often a necessary condition for making social progress, and the ability to manage conflicts without violence is an important means by which we do so.

Thus in talking about peace, we talk about maintaining of a balance of certain conditions that encourage people to handle conflicts peacefully and prevent serious problems from emerging, as well as offering many other shared goods. These conditions draw on the idea of human security and 'positive peace' (a peace that is more than just the absence of violence). They express both what needs to be aimed for and how one assesses whether a society is indeed moving in a peaceful direction. The concepts of political power: safety and security of people; economic prosperity; rule of law and justice and wellbeing all factor in these conditions. If these are in balance, you have a better chance for peaceful conditions to be met.

Running through these five peace factors are values of equity, fairness, inclusion and respect for human dignity, and with that the importance of human relationships that are fulfilling and functional for peace.

What these conditions also point to is the long term nature of things. While political leaders' decisions are required to make these unfold positively, to sustain or protect them, they do not come about at the flick of a leader's switch. Similarly, while peace is most likely and strongest when many individuals gear their actions toward peacebuilding, the effects of activism are not necessarily either quick or linear. Rather, change is indirect, incremental and cumulatively transformative.

In the face of the current global challenges with the multitude of conflicts we are facing, this year's peace day has to call for new solutions, that challenge exclusion based on difference. Peace Day has to reinforce the commonalities of existence such as values, ethics, social justice and social responsibility. We have to build communities that are resilient to stress and strain; that is knowledgeable, healthy and can meet its basic needs; that is socially cohesive; that has economic opportunities; that has well-maintained and accessible infrastructures and services; that can manage its natural assets; that is connected.

Understanding how the different elements of risk interact with each other, is fundamental to conflict analysis and to understanding what can be done to build peace in any particular context and to build resilient peaceful communities. The capacity to respond to challenges is necessary but not enough and relying on crisis response is truly inadequate. It is essential to meet emerging problems upstream.

In this age of growing long-term risk, the international community as a whole needs to be better at risk management. In order to be able to meet problems upstream, there need to be strong advocates for creative dialogue, and diplomacy that understands the context and addresses civic empowerment.

True inclusivity can only be obtained when we carefully position all elements to create a compelling cosmopolitan mosaic. There is a need to remain committed to engineering the software needed to work effectively in a range of situation. This will never be easy, but remains vitally important for, it involves creating the very 'ideas and institutions that will allow us to live together as the global tribe we have become'.

This originally appeared on Huffington Post

A Holistic Approach For Youth To Build Peace

he youth demographic is on the rise. We cannot ignore the case in many parts of the world that the majority of the society is under 30. The youth are not just the future as the cliché goes, they are the present. This means that they need to be included and embedded in processes taking place now, not as token representations but with agency and influence. And it's not like they do not want that engagement.

The recent Varkey Foundation study is testament to this urgency. It exudes cautious optimism about the attitudes and opinions of the generation that will shape the next few decades. Despite the rise of populist movements which focusses on differences, the survey paints young people as wanting to bridge differences. The survey also points to young people having a greater commitment to doing something to contribute to their societies and their world. There is anger in our youth, impatient with the lack of progress being made on tackling this and also frustrated by being shut out. Surveys like this help to make the case for not only recognising the role of young people but also doing something about being part of the change. This is important as we consider the state of the world.

For all the relative calmness and progress of the second half of the 20th Century and the early years of the 21st, we still see a world that is hurting due to increased fragility - fragility that is globalising at the pace of our fast-evolving world.

Figures show that the world has become less peaceful since 2008, largely attributed to the rise of conflicts within states, the rise of terrorism, and increasing levels of criminality. The battlefields of today are everywhere: they are not defined by geography; they are not places like Verdun and Waterloo and Solferino. The battlefields of today are on our streets, in our hospitals, in our schools, in our places of worship. There may not be a World War, yet we are still a world at war.

So in the lead up to International Youth Day this year on 12th August with its theme 'Youth Building Peace', it is important we re-dedicate efforts once again to seeing how youth are part of and take the lead in building peace. Young people are agents for peace, engaged in transforming the structures and institutions that hinder the socio- economic and political well-being of people living in fragile and conflict affected communities as pointed out by a recent report on the role of young people in peacebuilding. They are often first responders and disproportionately affected by conflict taking a long time to build back better.

So, we need to do more to invest and engage with them but this requires a holistic approach. First though, we need to remove the prejudice that many of us have when it comes to engaging young people. We must stop thinking that they are apolitical - more interested in following the latest instalment of a reality TV programme than in engaging with the serious questions of the world around them. We should channel their enthusiasm to express and get involved. However we must be honest about this approach. We need to give them the space to be innovative and shape or rethink new models for the communities and societies in which they live - maybe outside the globalised economic and "social" system that they will inherit from their elders and previous generations. In doing this, we have to answer some hard questions about whether we are ready for that and what it will take for each one of us to work together towards a fairer world for all of us. In short we have to be prepared for a hard shift in how we work and engage.

In December 2015, the United Nations Security Council recognized the efforts of young people with a unanimous vote on UN Security Council Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security (UNSCR 2250). UNSCR 2250 sets guidelines for its member states, the UN and civil society to ensure young people's active, systematic and meaningful participation in institutions and mechanisms relating to peace and security.

However like many things, the devil is in the detail as well as in the will to get this participation.

A lot has to be done to ensure that we get the full engagement and investment. This is not only the responsibility of the youth to push for this as they inherit the problems that we create but also our collective responsibility to ensure that we do not hand something that we would not want to inherit.

Youth can no longer be 'represented' but have to be mainstreamed, included, nurtured, listened to, consulted and worked with in partnership with. This is the call that is most loud and one we need to support.

So this youth day, its not just about reaffirming the need for youth to build peace but to find avenues and opportunities to make this happen.

This originally appeared on Huffington Post