Human rights defenders do their work in unpredictable and often dangerous situations and conditions around the world. Unarmed accompaniment provides a powerful witness to those who may wish to harm defenders. It lets them know their actions will be known.
Philippe Duhamel on Courage, Friendship, and Global Peace Efforts
Many organizations and people around the world have been involved in the amazing gift of providing unarmed protection to human rights defenders. This is not a new tactic. It probably dates back before written history. Bravery and sacrifice are as much a part of our human make-up as violence and self-gain. But we also know that tactics shift and change with the demands of the times. What has this tactic meant to us in OUR time?
A Global Network of Support
This conversation focuses on “unarmed accompaniment” as a tactic to protect human rights defenders. Through visible presence, international peace groups like Peace Brigades International (PBI) and Nonviolent Peaceforce (NP) discourage harm against activists by acting as witnesses, often in violent or politically unstable regions. David Grant, from the NP, shared with New Tactics that there are many organizations involved. There are over 80 organizations around the world in the NP Network. The discussion highlights how accompaniment functions as both a deterrent to potential aggressors and a tool for solidarity. While effective in Latin America and Asia, some participants noted challenges in Africa due to complex political and social conditions, emphasizing the need for strategic support and local capacity-building to sustain peace.
Integrating Protection in Humanitarian Work
Additionally, the conversation discusses integrating “protection” as a central concept in humanitarian and peacebuilding fields. One participant observes that organizations like Oxfam are mainstreaming protection into their work and notes that PBI’s unarmed accompaniment approach is gaining recognition, such as through a large protection-focused conference in Melbourne. PATRIR shares insights on using a “Competency Framework” in Moldova-Transdniestria to assess and train peaceworkers, focusing on skills for conflict transformation and peacebuilding. PATRIR’s staff are refining methods to assess these skills over time, while Anthony and others express interest in sharing practices for training and evaluation.
Balancing Advocacy and Neutrality
David Grant clarified his role as mostly a ‘figurehead’ in a discussion for Nonviolent Peaceforce (NP), which comprises 80 organizations worldwide, with peacekeepers deployed in Sri Lanka and the Philippines and regional coordinators across six locations. He encouraged NP members to join the discussion and identify themselves as NP contributors. Nancy Pearson of New Tactics emphasized that combining tactics, like “carrot and stick” approaches, can strengthen partnerships, while another participant shared her experience in collaboration with armed forces for joint training, highlighting how these interactions build credibility. Conversations further explored the delicate balance between visibility and restraint in NP’s work, emphasizing respect, empathy, and non-partisanship as crucial to establishing trust in conflict zones.
The Complexity of Human Rights Advocacy
This thread highlights the complex challenges faced by humanitarian and human rights organizations when deciding whether to speak out about human rights abuses. Here’s a breakdown of some key perspectives:
Non-Partisan Neutrality (David Grant, Nonviolent Peaceforce): Some organizations, like the International Committee of the Red Cross, operate under a mandate to protect and assist victims without making public statements. By staying neutral, they maintain access to sensitive information and can continue helping vulnerable populations without jeopardizing their operations.
Advocacy Risks (Kristin Antin, New Tactics): Advocacy can create challenges for organizations providing direct support to victims. When they speak out, these organizations risk losing the ability to work within certain regions, particularly if local governments view them as adversarial. However, providing information to advocacy groups focused on “naming and shaming” might still allow them to indirectly support public advocacy without direct involvement.
The Power-Advocacy Balance
The Power-Advocacy Balance (Liam Mahoney): Liam raises a thought-provoking point that advocacy can increase an organization’s perceived power, possibly deterring abuses. He suggests that organizations entirely unwilling to speak out risk being viewed as powerless, which could actually make them more vulnerable to expulsion. He advocates for a nuanced approach, balancing advocacy with caution to maintain credibility and leverage in sensitive areas.
Context-Specific Tactics (Kiradit in Thailand): Another participant illustrates how challenges like unclear accountability and covert threats can complicate the work of advocacy and accompaniment. In regions like Thailand, where perpetrators of violence are often unknown, it can be difficult to determine an effective response. The post suggests the importance of tailoring tactics to the specific dynamics of each conflict, recognizing both unique factors and shared patterns. These discussions collectively emphasize that while advocacy can be a powerful tool, organizations must weigh the risks carefully, particularly in high-stakes environments.
Resources and Theoretical Perspectives on Nonviolent Accompaniment
In this forum conversation, participants discuss resources, challenges, and theoretical perspectives on nonviolent accompaniment, particularly in conflict zones. Some highlight useful materials for understanding civilian protection and nonviolent intervention, including works by scholars like George Lakey, Daniel Hunter, and Gene Sharp.
One participant shares insights from Guatemala, where she leads a Nonviolent Peaceforce team accompanying human rights defenders amid generalized violence and impunity. She explains how modern perpetrators—like organized crime and narco-traffickers—differ from past state-backed forces, making it harder to protect defenders effectively. Participants note the difficulties in identifying perpetrators and the uncertain deterrent effect of accompaniment in such cases.
Community-Oriented Approaches to Accompaniment
Participants describe Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) and Nonviolent Peaceforce’s community-oriented accompaniment models, which allow communities to guide how they are protected. This approach involves both a physical presence and political advocacy, while Ayettey emphasizes NP’s use of visibility to support vulnerable communities.
They also discuss defining and differentiating peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peacebuilding. Accompaniment can act as a form of “dissociative peacekeeping,” aiming to create political space and reduce violence. The overlap between short-term peacekeeping and the relationship-building work typical of peacebuilding, particularly in Sri Lanka, can become blurred.
The Challenge of Measuring Impact
A participant introduces the concept of “social capital”—trust within a society—as a measure of peacebuilding effectiveness. He suggests that increasing social capital may help weaken corrupt authorities and sustain peace, though measuring it remains a challenge. The ongoing discussion about the evaluation of human rights efforts highlights the challenges and intricacies involved in measuring impact, particularly for organizations engaged in unarmed accompaniment. The Human Rights Impact Centre provides valuable resources, including a comprehensive Handbook on the Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment Framework and the “Hands-on PCIA” Handbook, both of which assist groups in evaluating their contributions to peace and conflict situations.
Language and Gender Considerations in Peacekeeping
The conversation delves into the nuanced distinction between terms like “peacekeeping” and “nonviolent action.” The term “peacekeeping” is often conflated with armed interventions, which can obscure the broader applicability of accompaniment as a human rights protection tool. But accompaniment is more accurately described within the framework of human rights protection, as it serves not only in armed conflict but also in non-violent contexts where individuals face repression. This perspective asserts that nonviolent activists employ accompaniment to enhance their resistance capabilities, thereby framing accompaniment as an essential tool for empowering grassroots efforts.
Furthermore, participants in the dialogue stress the importance of language and definitions in shaping perceptions and strategies in peacemaking. They highlight the need for clarity to ensure that the terms we use accurately reflect the principles and practices at play.
The discussion also raises critical points about gender dynamics within peacekeeping efforts. Members from the International Fellowship of Reconciliation and Women Peacemakers Program emphasize the necessity of integrating a gender perspective into peacebuilding initiatives, advocating for a comprehensive understanding of how conflicts uniquely impact women and men.
Conclusion: Enhancing Effectiveness in Human Rights Protection
In conclusion, the multifaceted conversation reveals that evaluating human rights efforts is a continuous challenge that requires not only innovative tools and frameworks but also a commitment to clarity in our language and an inclusive approach to gender considerations. Engaging with these complexities allows organizations to enhance their effectiveness and responsiveness in promoting peace and protecting human rights across diverse contexts. As we strive to support those on the front lines, it is imperative to remain open to learning from their experiences and perspectives, ensuring that our efforts resonate deeply with those we aim to empower.
