Nonviolent Conflict Resolution on Bougainville - A Vision 

Nine months ago, I joined Australian Humanitarian Aid for Bougainville
(AHAB), in Melbourne. Since then I have had the opportunity to work with a
wonderful, functional group of people trying to stop Australia's involvement
in the war on Bougainville, and I have been able to develop new activist
skills at a rapid rate. One question that has troubled me throughout that
time, however, is "what is our relationship with the Bougainville
Revolutionary Army (BRA)?"  While we privately talked about the fact that we
did not support the BRA's use of violence, we did not publicly make any
statements about it at all. This was largely because of our close
relationships with members of the Bougainville Interim Government (BIG) and
Bougainville Freedom Movement, both groups being linked more or less to the
BRA. We have close personal relationships with these people and also have
used them as our main source of information regarding current events on
Bougainville.

I recently started work at the International Women's Development Agency
(IWDA), and talked to women there who gave me information about women's
groups on Bougainville and their current perspectives on the conflict.
Hearing women's voices for the first time since my involvement in the issue
made me realise the limitations AHAB had placed upon itself by relying on
only one (masculine) source of information. This is not because I believe the
information that comes through BRA sources is fundamentally incorrect, but
because their words have an emotional bias towards showing violent struggle
against oppression to be heroic, effective and justified. I believe that this
prevented us from clearly envisioning a nonviolent solution to the war and
the conflict on Bougainville. 

The part AHAB plays in trying to end Australia's support for the war is, I
believe, strategically valid, considering the nature of Australia's role and
our geographical location. However, we have not been looking to find
nonviolent allies on Bougainville itself, or to work out ways of supporting
nonviolent groups and initiatives there. We have been, in a sense, one very
isolated group of nonviolent activists working on one very small part of a
very large nonviolent strategy, with no sense that we could link with
existing groups who may be able to achieve other important strategic goals. 

Because of this sense of isolation, my vision for the future until now has
been 'the end of the war through Australia's withdrawal' rather than the
resolution of the underlying conflict on Bougainville. I accept that it is
necessary to have a concrete, achievable purpose for ourselves as a small,
focussed campaign group. However, the limits of this vision have made it
difficult for me to see beyond the possibility of the BRA 'winning' as PNG
withdrew. It has also made it difficult to make judgments about the extent to
which the BRA has contributed to both the level of direct violence and the
entrenchment of the idea of 'violence as a solution' on Bougainville. 

So, I have been thinking hard, and have begun to develop a wider vision.
These are only my initial thoughts - an attempt to draw some broad lines and
see the different groups who might be involved in this struggle. These ideas
are my own, not those of AHAB as a whole - members of the group have
different conceptions of nonviolence and we are only just beginning to
discuss the new issues I have raised in the light of our differing feelings
and perceptions.

This vision is based on the theories and social analysis of principled
nonviolence. From my perspective, 'violence' refers to all 'power-over'
relationships (eg. patriarchy, the state, capitalism, racism ...) and
nonviolence refers to relationships where people have 'power with' one
another. Nonviolence theory recognises that all people have power - the power
to noncooperate with systems of control, and the power to build creative
alternatives to power-over structures. Nonviolent practice encourages
judgment of people's behaviour, while retaining respect for the inherent
worth and human rights of every person. 

My vision:
1) The immediate, physical violence of both warring parties has to stop, so
that the underlying causes of the conflict can be addressed. 

2) The notion of 'reconciliation' currently being used is inadequate unless
it encompasses the intention to bring about true conflict resolution between
all the parties directly and indirectly involved in the war. 

3) The structural violence imposed on Bougainvilleans by the nation states of
Australia and PNG and by multinational economic interests needs to be a)
recognised, b) resisted nonviolently and c) transformed through a
constructive program. From my point of view, the immediate, physical violence
now occurring on Bougainville is only an extension of the violence inherent
in Western economic, political, social and cultural structures (and possibly
in structures within traditional Bougainvillean culture also), and so I do
not believe that the cessation of the war will bring about 'peace' - it is
only the first step. 

a) Structural violence needs to be recognised: 
* by Bougainvilleans (Many of them do recognise it, as can be seen by the
history of women's nonviolent resistance to the mine, the stated aspirations
of the BRA and BIG, and the sense gained from a number of sources that
Bougainvilleans generally want at least some degree of political and economic
self-determination.) 
* by Australian NGO's
* by the public of Australia and PNG.

Acknowledgment of structural violence includes the recognition that the armed
forces of PNG, whether disciplined or not, cannot be considered a force for
peace - they are being used to control local people through the threat of
violence or the promise of protection through violence. Even if all
Bougainvilleans accepted the PNG military as 'peacekeepers' (which is highly
unlikely considering the fact that they are a primary party in the war), the
PNG Defence Force would not be assisting in the development of true peace,
freedom and self-determination for communities on Bougainville. 'Military
peacekeepers' are a contradiction in terms (even though they may appear to
play a role in lessening the level of physical violence at certain times).

b) Active nonviolent resistance to both immediate, physical violence and
structural violence needs to be undertaken: 
* by Bougainvilleans
* by Papua New Guineans
* by Australians

Some activities which could be undertaken, or are already being undertaken
are:
* the strategic nonviolent campaign being run by Australian Humanitarian Aid
for Bougainville in Australia designed to end Australia's military
contribution to the war.
* the development of groups in PNG who could work to convince PNGDF soldiers
to withdraw their support for the war.
* support for the development of nonviolent approaches to conflict resolution
on Bougainville; for example: 
- support for the work women are doing to convince the BRA that violence is
not an effective (or moral) response to the violence of PNG and Australia;
- support for the local development of strategies for nonviolent resistance
to ongoing control by the PNGDF, PNG Police Force, PNG government structures
and activities carried out by multinationals. 

c) Transformation through a constructive program: 
This program would be made up of projects which foster the use of new and
traditional decision making structures, processes and outcomes which are
grassroots in nature - ie. that are community/human needs based. (In effect
the types of projects initiated/supported by NGO's such as IWDA and Community
Aid Abroad.) Initially, a significant part of this work may include trauma
counselling (dealing with people's emotional needs). If this work is to
contribute to true resolution of the conflict, it needs to be done within the
context of empowering individuals and communities to take control of their
lives, rather than for the purpose of "healing" individuals to the point
where they can bear to live, for a time at least, within the bounds of
structural violence. 

This is the first time I have considered the role NGO's might play in the
situation on Bougainville. From my point of view, NGO's are somewhat
(considerably?) hampered by the fact that they work in cooperation with
government structures which are fundamentally opposed to the empowerment of
people. I also understand the reasons why NGO's such as IWDA choose to do
this and I can see the evidence of real empowerment that their projects
achieve, despite these limitations, so I am interested in exploring the
possibilities of their role further.

In conclusion
Now I am faced with the question of how I might personally be involved in
working towards my vision - what are the practicalities around the different
elements and where might I put my energy? As yet, I have no clear answers.

My vision is long term - the structures of violence to be overcome are
immense and strongly defended by those elite groups who benefit from them. My
vision is idealistic in my hopes for the eventual achievement of a nonviolent
world, but realistic in the timeframe in which I expect this to happen.
Anita McKone