In Lebanon, searching for peace and "the enemy"

(Beirut, Lebanon)--For most Americans, discussions about peace and war are, thankfully, abstract. Sadly, that’s not the case here in Lebanon, where talk of war, of “the enemy”, and of the prospects for peace is never far from the surface.

 As we discussed peace in a general way during the first day of my first peace journalism seminar here in Beirut, the attendees, all bright, energetic young people, began talking about the prospects of peace in a skeptical way. I asked them the question, “Do Lebanese want peace?” The response was one of the most poignant things I have ever heard. One student said, “We want peace, but we don’t know what peace is.” The other students applauded this response while I stood, mouth agape, not knowing what to say.

Later, as I sat in my hotel room, I thought that “not knowing what peace is” was not only poignant, but was one of the saddest comments I had ever heard as well.

We picked up this discussion the second day. The young lady who made the “not knowing what peace is” comment said that she, too, had been thinking about the discussion overnight. She said that what she really wanted to say was that Lebanese do want peace, but sometimes misunderstand the true meaning of peace.

The discussion at our advanced peace journalism seminar also taught me about the daily, routine use of the term “the enemy” by the Lebanese media to denote Israel. One attendee even noted that at her media outlet, it was mandatory to say “the enemy” instead of Israel. I asked the students about this term, and they all agreed that Israel is the enemy, and that the label was accurate. My response was that this term is inconsistent with peace journalism, since it is needlessly inflammatory and reflects bias and a lack of objectivity. The students’ retort: But what if this is the way I really feel? I replied that all journalists have feelings and individual biases, but the best reporters present news in a matter-of-fact way.

We also briefly talked about how some Lebanese media refuse to use the acronym IDF (Israeli Defense Forces). Why? Because IDF implies that this army is merely defending Israeli territory. Here in Lebanon, the IDF is seen an army of aggression and oppression. Again, I cautioned about making value judgments that reveal bias. I said that it’s better to call them what they choose to call themselves, and then systematically and factually reveal the IDF’s actions, letting the reader/listener/viewer decide if this is a defensive or offensive force.

As wonderful as the participants were, my first Lebanese peace journalism seminar left me with more questions than answers. If we can’t move beyond discussions about labels, how can we ever enter into a deeper and more constructive dialogue?

--Follow me on Twitter @PeaceJourn

In support of free press in Uganda

The Center for Global Peace Journalism strongly condemns the Ugandan government’s actions against the Daily Monitor newspaper, the Red Pepper newspaper, and two Kampala radio stations. Yesterday, according to a statement from the newspaper, about 50 armed men in police uniforms stormed the company's premises with a search warrant, blocked all exits and insisted they wanted to conduct a search. The statement said, “Instead of carrying out the search, the armed men disabled the printing press, computer servers and radio transmission equipment. The intention was to prevent the Monitor from operating broadcasting and printing its newspapers. ‘We are horrified by this act, which is a gross disregard of Ugandan Law and a violation of The Monitor's constitutional right,’ said Mr. Alex Asiimwe, The MPL Managing Director.

The foundation of a free society is a free press. If the Monitor’s rights are taken away, who is next? Certainly, actions like these put Uganda on a slippery slope that leads inexorably to oppression and dictatorship.

We call on the Museveni government to immediately allow the Monitor and its sister media outlets to re-open, and further that the Monitor be paid restitution for the losses it has incurred as a result of this incident.

Authoritarian regime? Not in Dictatorland

I knew I was in for an interesting lunchtime discussion when I heard the words, “I don’t believe in elections.”

This discussion was with several participants from a recent Fulbright Association-Kyrgyzstan seminar called Generation Peace: New Media Technologies for Central Asia. Attendees were from five central Asian countries.

When I questioned the woman about her stance on elections, she backpedaled. Perhaps she had misspoken, or maybe I just didn’t understand. She elaborated on her comment by explaining that elections are inherently flawed and often corrupt, and that the process needs to be changed—not that elections themselves must be scrapped.

Before I could breathe a sigh of relief, however, the anti-election mantle was picked up by two other fellow diners, one a young man and the other a young woman. These young people were both from a central Asian country renowned for its oppressive government. I will call this place Dictatorland.*

First, some background. International human rights NGO’s like Freedom House and Human Rights Watch have been extremely critical of this country for its authoritarian government and consistent suppression of human rights and free speech. “Dictatorland” is consistently ranked near the bottom of the various lists these organizations produce. These criticisms have been echoed by the UN Human Rights Committee.

Both of the young people from Dictatorland said that they support the government, and that “the people” support the government, too. I jumped on the term ”the people.” All the people? Some? How do we know—through the government controlled media?

There have been elections in Dictatorland, but not elections in any Western sense. There are different parties, some representing interests like labor or the environment, I was told, but that none of these parties oppose the current leadership or their major programs. Still, the young lady told me that that these elections did represent the will of the people. She said that the people like the government, and approved of its leaders.

I challenged the young Dictatorland residents by proposing that if the government truly is popular and loved, that they should have no fear of free elections featuring authentic opponents running on an anti-ruling party platform. After all, I pointed out that if Dictatorland held real, contested elections, and if the the ruling party still won, that this would confer legitimacy upon the regime and perhaps help remove its status as an international pariah. The young man responded by saying, “You have a point.”

I left lunch a bit stunned by what I had heard. Were these intelligent, articulate young people typical Dictatorland residents? If they are, then one can reasonably conclude that there is definitely some support for the country’s regime. However, I believe this support is nothing but a house of cards, since it is built upon government manipulation and propaganda.

As we finished up lunch, I asked the young man if I would be welcomed to his country to teach peace journalism. He said yes, of course I would be welcome in his country, although there would be no need for peace journalism there since Dictatorland is completely peaceful. I plan to test his invitation, and see if Dictatorland’s regime will really be as welcoming as he says.

*I won’t name the people involved or their country, just in case it could cause problems for these two at home. This is probably paranoid on my part, but I wouldn’t want to do anything that might cause them problems. A little paranoia is probably a good thing when dealing with dictatorships.

Religious labels, stereotypes challenge responsible journalists

(Issyk Kul, Kyrgyzstan)--How are religious labels used by leaders (and media) to divide populations and inflame passions? What role do stereotypes have in laying a foundation for hate speech?

These were two key questions discussed during the last day of “Generation Peace: New Media Technology for Central Asia,” a conference I’m teaching at this week at Issyk Kul lake in Kyrgyzstan. The conference is sponsored by the Fulbright Association of Kyrgyzstan, and includes participants from five central Asian countries.

The first presentation today about religion was adeptly taught by Gerd Junne from the Amsterdam Centre for Conflict Studies. Junne pointed out how religion is used to divide groups—the classic “us vs. them” outlined by the originators of peace journalism. Junne also recommended that journalists take a different approach, and instead look to highlight common, shared values—again, a fundamental peace journalism principle.

Although I’ve occasionally led discussions about peace journalism and religion, Junne’s presentation has encouraged me to expand my consideration of religion and media issues, especially religious jargon and propaganda from extremist leaders and groups. As peace journalists, we must be able to filter out inflammatory religious content, or at minimum, expose it as extremism. This discussion was especially salient for me as I ready to hop a plane for Lebanon, my next peace journalism teaching stop this May.

Another excellent session today at the conference featured a presentation by Kyrgyzstan Director of the School of Peacemaking Inga Sikorskay (pictured). She led the participants through an exercise where they catalogued popular stereotypes of central Asian peoples. (Tajiks are all terrorists, for example). The exercise was well executed, and engaged the participants in some valuable introspection.

After hearing Inga’s presentation, I plan to “borrow” her exercise for my classes. Avoiding spreading stereotypes, which are often divisive and inflammatory, begins with understanding and cataloging these stereotypes and their impacts.

--Follow me on Twitter @PeaceJourn.

Seeking peace, and peace journalism, in Kyrgyzstan


Active participants at Generation Peace conference



45 NGO leaders and journalists from across central Asia are gathering this week in Issyk Kul, Kyrgyzstan (see photo--wow!) to learn about new media and, at least today, peace journalism.



My two hour presentation this morning was exhilarating, at least for me, thanks to the high energy and keen interest of the participants. It was one of those seminars where, if I had stopped to answer every question, my two hour session would have taken six hours.



Beach, Issyk Kul lake. Stunning!



The interest was keen, I suspect, in part because of unrest here in Kyrgyzstan in 2010, and because many of the participants are alumni of the Fulbright program.

The most vibrant discussions we had today were about what constitutes a terrorist, and about a Russian media article that demonstrated inflammatory, biased media.

Our morning session culminated with the participants producing scripts for a peace-themed public service announcement. The best one—a simple series of peace advocacy statements by women in their native tongue .

I’m looking forward to presentations tomorrow about the use of new and social media.