The Growth of Peacemaker Teams
Unless we are ready to die developing new nonviolent attempts to reduce conflict, we should confess that we never really meant that the cross was an alternative to the sword.
Ronald J. Sider, “Are We Willing to Die for Peace?” Gospel Herald, December 25, 1984
In the last few decades, a number of new peacemaker teams have emerged to expand the use of nonviolent ways to reduce conflict in violent situations.1 They intervene in situations of violent conflict, accompany people threatened with violence, and report instances of violence and oppression, always seeking to promote justice, peace, and reconciliation. In comparison to the need, their numbers remain minuscule. But the fact that these new peacemaking teams are growing both in size and number hints at the possibility of a much greater expansion
Accompaniment—almost always accompaniment of local oppressed people and human rights workers by outside, usually international, persons—is a central component of the new peacemaker teams discussed in this chapter. Increasingly careful reflection on “international accompaniment” helps us understand why it works so well.2 At its core, international accompaniment works by deterrence: aggressors realize that the advantages resulting from attacking human rights activists are less than the disadvantages coming from bad publicity and global pressure that follow when they attack justice activists. International accompaniers make it more difficult for local oppressors to cover up their action, devalue the activists as criminals or terrorists, or frighten them into submission and silence. To be effective, international accompaniment must be able to appeal to internationally accepted norms (e.g., on human rights) and support only local activists who remain nonviolent. Also essential is the ability of international accompaniers to use global media to report local abuse and to persuade outside governments and international structures to bring international pressure to persuade local governments to end the abuse.
The modern story of peacemaker teams goes back at least to the followers of Gandhi. In 1948, pacifists worldwide had arranged a meeting with the man everyone viewed as their spiritual leader, Mahatma Gandhi. His assassination, however, forced postponement to December 1949. Out of this World Pacifist Conference came a proposal to form Satyagraha (Gandhi’s word for “nonviolence”) units.3
The proposal lay dormant until 1957, when Vinoba Bhave of India implemented one of Gandhi’s dreams by creating the Shanti Sena (literally, “peace army” or “peace brigade”).4 Resolving communal conflict between Muslims and Hindus, including the quelling of raging mobs, was the special mission of this nonviolent peace brigade. When burning and killing broke out between Hindus and Muslims, the Shanti Sena marched unarmed into the middle of the mobs, protected only by their identifying sash and their record of goodwill in all communities. By 1969, there were thirteen thousand volunteers organized in local, district, state, and national levels.
The Shanti Sena also threw themselves into the Gramdan movement, a movement designed to create interreligious communal harmony at the village level. In some fifty thousand Gramdan villages, the Shanti Sena were responsible for guarding the village and maintaining peace.5
Narayan Desai, later director of the Shanti Sena, led the group during religious riots in Ahmedabad, India. In September 1969, the city erupted in Hindu-Muslim strife. Thousands died in a rampage that devastated much of the urban area. Immediately, Shanti Sena volunteers poured into Ahmedabad. They moved fearlessly throughout the city, visiting one riot-affected area after another. The Shanti Sena engaged in arbitration, cleanup, relief efforts, and education. After four months of work, the volunteers celebrated success with a procession, shouting, “We may be Hindus, we may be Muslims, but above all, we are human beings.”6
In 1960, the Triennial Conference of War Resisters International met in India and embraced the idea of an unarmed Peace Guard serving under United Nations auspices.7 The proposal envisioned teams of Peace Guards ready to intervene at the command of the United Nations or at the invitation of third parties in situations of violence around the world.8 The leaders sent their proposal to Secretary General Dag Hammerskjöld at the United Nations, but they never received a response. The proposal, while bold, remained theoretical.
Small groups continued their search for concrete structures for nonviolent intervention in armed conflict in the 1960s. In 1962, the World Peace Brigade was formed. The founding statement declared its aim to “organize, train and keep available a Brigade for nonviolent action in situations of potential or actual conflict, internal and international.”9
The fledging World Peace Brigade did assemble for action in Zambia (then Northern Rhodesia). Kenneth Kaunda, leader of the United National Independence Party, had requested that a force of primarily African marchers be ready to move into the country. Kaunda was concerned that white stalling of the election process might provoke a black backlash. More than five thousand unarmed persons massed on the Northern Rhodesian border in response to Kaunda’s call. Though most were Africans, some had come from Europe, Asia, and the United States. In the end, the dispute was resolved peacefully and the marchers were not needed.10
In the 1970s, the Shanti Sena movement spread to Sri Lanka. Sarvodaya, Sri Lanka’s largest people’s organization, has worked for more than fifty years to promote self-reliance, community development, and intercommunal reconciliation in over fifteen thousand villages. In 1978, when communal violence threatened and often broke out across Sri Lanka, Sarvodaya’s charismatic founder, Dr. A. T. Ariyaratne, issued a call for a nonviolent movement to curb the violence. The result was the emergence of a Sri Lankan Shanti Sena.
Shanti Sena units quickly organized in many places across the country, applying nonviolent methods to end the conflict. Today, Sri Lanka’s Shanti Sena continues as an active youth movement. Over one hundred ten thousand youth have participated in thousands of units. The organization trains its members in nonviolent methods. Its vision is to use nonviolence to create a society of peace, justice, and cooperation in a nation where severe ethnic and religious tension has often exploded in violence.11
Peace Brigades International
Peace Brigades International (PBI) was born at an international consultation in Canada in September 1981. PBI is clearly based on the foundation of Gandhi, Shanti Sena, and the success of Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolent civil rights crusade. Its founding statement reads in part,
We are forming an organization with the capability to mobilize and provide trained units of volunteers. These units may be assigned to areas of high tension to avert violent outbreaks. If hostile clashes occur, a brigade may establish and monitor a cease-fire, offer mediatory services, or carry on works of reconstruction and reconciliation. . . . We are building on a rich and extensive heritage of nonviolent action, which can no longer be ignored.12
PBI’s first major action was its nonviolent “escort duty” for endangered mothers in Guatemala. For a time, members of PBI accompanied threatened leaders of GAM (Grupo de Apoyo Mutuo) twenty-four hours a day.
GAM was a group of parents (largely mothers) formed in June 1984 to protest the disappearance of their children.13 In Guatemala, right-wing death squads were frequently kidnapping, torturing, and killing anyone involved in improving the lot of the poor. Very few of GAM’s members had any previous political involvement. But the pain of their missing children prompted them to place newspaper advertisements, hold regular vigils, and petition the government with one simple question: “Where are our loved ones?”
For a year, GAM was tolerated. But in March 1985, General Óscar Victores, the chief of state, charged (falsely) that “forces of subversion” were manipulating GAM. A barrage of anonymous death threats followed. Within a few weeks, two key leaders of GAM had been murdered. One of these, Hector Gomez, was found with his head bashed in and his tongue cut out.
PBI offered to supply international, round-the-clock escorts to accompany the other leaders of GAM. After these international escorts from PBI arrived in May 1985, no board member of GAM was kidnapped or harmed. The task was nerve-racking. One never knew when a bullet or bomb might kill escort or friend. The work was so emotionally draining that escorts rotated out every few weeks. But it worked.14
PBI has expanded its activities over the last three decades. Its primary focus is on sending teams of international volunteers into violent situations to protect threatened human rights defenders by nonviolent accompaniment. When PBI’s volunteers accompany endangered persons, they wear T-shirts, vests, caps, and jackets that identify them as members of PBI.15 Volunteers make a minimum commitment of one year and receive extensive training in the philosophy and strategies of nonviolent action. Volunteers always work in a country other than their own. By providing international volunteers who both accompany endangered human rights workers and report their findings through PBI’s global network, PBI provides significant safety to endangered human rights defenders. Their international volunteers send a clear message that the world is watching.
In its Annual Review 2012, PBI reported that three hundred volunteers risked their lives to defend others in Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, and Nepal. In addition to providing 1,365 days of physical accompaniment for endangered human rights workers that year, PBI volunteers monitored dozens of demonstrations, hosted forty-eight workshops for human rights defenders, held over four hundred meetings with government officials, and made hundreds of phone calls to check on threatened local human rights workers. They attended over seven hundred meetings with the United Nations, diplomats, and international agencies to “raise concerns about the safety of human rights defenders.” They also organized speaking tours in Europe and North America for twenty-six human rights defenders from the countries where PBI volunteers accompanied national human rights workers.
PBI has sixteen national groups in Europe, Australia, and North and South America. These support groups raise funds, help identify volunteers, and provide an international network to disseminate reports of endangered human rights defenders. They also develop relationships with government officials and other persons and agencies to urge them to use their influence to protect threatened human rights defenders. PBI’s goal is “a world in which people address conflicts nonviolently, where human rights are universally upheld, and social justice and respect for other cultures have become a reality.”16
Christian Peacemaker Teams
In the latter part of the twentieth century, Mennonites (also called Anabaptists) began to embrace activist nonviolent action as a proper expression of their historic opposition to war. Earlier, in the middle of the century, Mennonites typically used the term “nonresistance” to describe their understanding of Jesus’s call to love one’s enemies. But by the 1960s and 1970s, many younger Mennonites challenged this “passive” response to killing and injustice.
In the peace lecture at the Mennonite World Conference in Strasbourg, France, in July 1984, I said,
Over the past 450 years of martyrdom, immigration and missionary proclamation, the God of shalom has been preparing us Anabaptists for a late twentieth-century rendezvous with history. . . . Now is the time to risk everything for our belief that Jesus is the way to peace. If we still believe it, now is the time to live what we have spoken. . . .
But . . . we must be prepared to die by the thousands. Those who believed in peace through the sword have not hesitated to die. Proudly, courageously, they gave their lives. Again and again, they sacrificed bright futures to the tragic illusion that one more righteous crusade would bring peace in their time, and they laid down their lives by the millions.
Unless comfortable North American and European Mennonites and Brethren in Christ are prepared to risk injury and death in nonviolent opposition to the injustice our societies foster and assist in Central America, the Philippines, and South Africa, we dare never whisper another word about pacifism to our sisters and brothers in those desperate lands. . . . Making peace is as costly as waging war. Unless we are prepared to pay the cost of peacemaking we have no right to claim the label or preach the message. . . . Unless we are ready to die developing new nonviolent attempts to reduce conflict, we should confess that we never really meant that the cross was an alternative to the sword.17
In response to this speech, the Mennonite leadership in the United States and Canada engaged in two years of deliberation to decide if this activist type of nonviolent action was faithful to our Anabaptist understanding of Jesus. The decision was a clear yes. And the result was the formation of Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT).18
CPT’s first delegation went to Iraq in 1990.19 Other short-term delegations and then permanent teams followed in Colombia; Iraq; the West Bank; Mexico; the US-Mexico border; and Kenora, Canada. By 2013, CPT had thirty full-time activists in various locations, plus over one hundred fifty trained reservists who spend two to eight weeks a year in various locations. The two largest Mennonite denominations in North America and the Church of the Brethren were the original sponsors of CPT, but a number of Baptist, Presbyterian, and Quaker peace groups have also joined as sponsors. CPT hopes that a “larger, more ecumenical CPT will inspire Christians from all over the world . . . [and] show that the power for transforming conflicts is a miracle available to all humankind.”20
CPT seeks to reduce violence by “getting in the way.” Well-trained teams intervene in situations of conflict, accompany endangered persons, document human rights abuses, and provide information that helps supporters at home advocate with policy makers.
In 2003, the CPT team in Iraq documented numerous human rights abuses, including abuse of detainees, by US forces. But the international media largely ignored their January 2004 report. So on February 26, 2004, the team launched a public forty-day fast in downtown Baghdad to protest these abuses. When, in April, the ghastly photos of the abuse of Iraqi detainees by US soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison captured global attention, CPT had already been reporting abuses for months.21
CPT received massive international publicity after four CPT volunteers were kidnapped in Iraq on November 26, 2005, while traveling to meet a group of influential Sunni Muslim religious leaders. The captors demanded the release of all Iraqi prisoners held by the United States. That, of course, did not happen, and one CPT team member was murdered. Allied Special Forces freed the other three after about four months in captivity.
The CPT team located in Colombia since 2001 has sought to protect farmers threatened by the fighting between guerrillas and “self-defense” forces. They accompany endangered people and document and report human rights abuses.22
CPT’s work in Hebron in the West Bank provides one of the best illustrations of what the organization seeks to do. Kathleen Kern, who has written the history of CPT, says this project is a “study in ‘mosts.’”23 It has had the longest permanent team, generated the most press releases, seen more of its volunteers arrested and assaulted, and drawn the most criticism. The Hebron project has also developed strong relationships with Israeli peace and human rights organizations.
Hebron—the alleged burial place of Abraham, Sarah, Rebekah, Isaac, Leah, and Jacob—is an overwhelmingly Palestinian city with a bloody history. In 1929, an Arab mob murdered about sixty-seven Jews there. After Israel took control of the West Bank in 1967, right-wing Israeli settlers forcibly established settlements in Hebron. In 1980, Palestinian militants killed six Israeli yeshiva students in Hebron. And in 1994, an Israeli settler shot and killed twenty-nine Palestinian Muslims worshiping in Hebron’s famous Al-Ibrahimi mosque. Perhaps nowhere in the West Bank is Israeli-Palestinian tension, conflict, and hatred so persistent and violent. That was the volatile situation that four CPT volunteers faced as they established an ongoing presence in Hebron in mid-1995.
Over the next eighteen years, the permanent team and short-term volunteers have tried to prevent and document illegal seizures of Palestinian land, house demolitions, and attacks on Palestinian schoolchildren by militant Israeli settlers and soldiers. They have also protested Palestinian attacks on Israelis and worked with Israeli and other Jewish peace organizations.
In the spring of 1997, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government began a new effort to demolish Palestinian houses. The legal reason given was that they had been built without permits, which the Israeli authorities regularly made very hard for Palestinians to obtain. The actual reason was that they were on land close to Israeli settlements in the West Bank that wanted more Palestinian land for expansion.
In the fall of 1997, CPT began the Campaign for Secure Dwellings, and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions joined CPT in the campaign. (An Israeli activist later said that CPT had provided the inspiration for the founding of this Israeli committee.) In a number of cases, CPT had a team member stay with Palestinian families threatened with house demolition. CPT and other cooperating organizations orchestrated an international letter-writing and fax campaign. One report indicated that the US State Department received more letters on the Israeli house demolitions than on any other issue in the Middle East. US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright started to quietly pressure the Israeli government to end the house demolitions.24
On February 25, 1996, the Palestinian militant organization Hamas bombed an Israeli bus (No. 18) in Jerusalem. The next Sunday, Hamas again bombed bus No. 18. In response, CPT members sent press releases to Israeli and Arab newspapers announcing that CPT members would ride bus No. 18 the next Sunday. They explained that they were opposed to all violence, both Palestinian attacks on Israelis and Israeli injustice and violence against Palestinians.25
Accompaniment of Palestinian schoolchildren became an important CPT activity in 2000–2003. Substantial sections of Hebron were under curfew, and the Israeli military frequently prevented Palestinian children from going to school. CPT knew, and the Israeli military acknowledged, that international law demanded that children be allowed to go to school, even during a curfew. But the local Israeli soldiers often stopped children on the way to school or entered classrooms and forced the students to leave. CPT volunteers regularly accompanied the Palestinian schoolchildren, trying to persuade the soldiers to let them pass the checkpoints on the way to school. On some occasions, CPT volunteers witnessed Israeli soldiers using tear gas and percussion grenades on students returning from school. Some soldiers drove their jeeps at children. In one famous incident, CPT volunteer Art Gish stood between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian schoolgirls as the soldiers pointed their guns at the girls. Art said, “Aren’t you ashamed of threatening little girls? Just let the girls go to school.”26
In the summer of 2001, a number of international groups—Jewish, Christian, and secular—came to visit and learn from CPT’s work in Hebron. The World Council of Churches visited CPT in Hebron and then announced their decision to “develop an accompaniment program that would include ecumenical presence similar to Christian Peacemaker Teams in Hebron.”27
CPT in Hebron has been criticized for being partisan and pro-Palestinian. In fact, they sometimes tried to befriend Israeli settlers.28 They also condemned Palestinian attacks on Israelis. But not even the most ardent CPT members would claim that they always got the balance right.
Nor did they end the violence. Prominent Palestinian lawyer Jonathan Kuttab, an evangelical Christian and peace activist, actually called for the placement of a thousand CPT teams spread throughout the West Bank. Perhaps, if that had happened, things might have improved greatly. But CPT did offer a courageous attempt to deter violence, correct injustice, and promote peace in one of the most intractable situations in the world today.
Muslim Peacemaker Teams (MPT) was inspired by Christian Peacemaker Teams. Sami Rasouli, the founder and director of MPT, was impressed when he met CPT team members in Iraq. CPT agreed to his request to train Muslims in the principles of nonviolence, and MPT was born.29 MPT’s website says that “the mission of the Muslim Peacemaker Teams (MPT) is to bring all Iraqi groups together in peace to work for the good of the country by getting in the way of violence.”
MPT provides training to help people understand the roots of nonviolence in Islamic thought and sponsors art exhibits promoting nonviolence.30 MPT also sponsors the Water for Peace program, helping schools and hospitals in southern Iraq acquire life-saving water filters.
MPT is a young, tiny organization. But its very existence illustrates the spread of the idea of nonviolent peacemaking in diverse countries and cultures.
Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI)
In 2002, the World Council of Churches (WCC) responded to a call from Jerusalem churches requesting international organizations to send people to the Palestinian West Bank, occupied by Israel. After the outbreak of the second intifada, the United Nations Security Council tried to pass several resolutions sending peacekeepers to protect civilians in the West Bank, but the United States vetoed these resolutions. So the Jerusalem churches requested the help of nongovernmental organizations. The WCC’s response has been to send about a hundred Ecumenical Accompaniers (EAs) to the West Bank each year.
Mostly from Europe and North America, EAs receive several weeks of training in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the techniques of nonviolent action. Then they move in teams of three or four into different locations in the West Bank. EAs do a number of things: provide protection by presence (e.g., by accompanying young children to school when settlers harass them); monitor checkpoints and gates in the wall, helping Palestinians deal with the numerous obstacles; partner with and accompany Israeli peace movement organizations, which often are strongly disliked by other Israelis. And when they return home, EAs give speeches, write articles, and speak to government officials.31
One EA, Ann Wright, tells about her experience with EAPPI in Tulkarem. Tulkarem is only fifty miles from Jerusalem, but the Israelis have placed six hundred physical obstacles to movement in the West Bank, and so traveling the fifty miles regularly took about seven hours. Even when Palestinians managed to get exit permits to pass through the wall, soldiers often made passage through the checkpoints humiliating and uncertain. So Ann and her team often accompanied Palestinians and checked with commanders to make sure soldiers were following the rules.
Local Palestinian farmers also needed support. They often could not get permits to farm their land. The farmers also had to pass through checkpoints to work on their land. Under the catchall of “security,” the Israelis frequently refused passage and sometimes impounded tractors. The presence of Ann’s team helped the farmers get through the checkpoints. “People in Tulkarem told us that checkpoint abuse decreased when we were there monitoring.”32
Nonviolent Peaceforce
Nonviolent Peaceforce (NP) is one of the newest and also one of the largest organizations using nonviolent action to prevent violence. NP defines its mission as implementing “unarmed civilian peacekeeping as a tool for reducing violence and protecting civilians in situations of violent conflict.”33 NP was conceived when two men from the United States, David Ray Hartsough (a Quaker) and Mel Duncan (an activist formerly engaged in opposing the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s), met at a peace conference in the Netherlands in 1999. Three years later, in 2002, a founding conference in India launched NP. By 2012, NP had about two hundred field staffers working in the Philippines, South Sudan, and South Caucasus and a budget of almost $7 million.
NP’s central concept is “unarmed civilian peacekeeping” (UCP). Key components of their strategy include physical presence in conflict zones, protective accompaniment of threatened persons and groups, relationship building with all parties in a conflict, rumor control to prevent the outbreak of violence, interpositioning between conflicting groups, monitoring compliance with agreements, and capacity building for local groups.34
NP differs from most of the other groups discussed in this chapter in several ways. NP pays its workers, who thus are called “staff,” not “volunteers.” Partly because NP pays its staff, large numbers of its team are able to come from places other than Europe and North America. In addition, a large portion of NP’s income comes from national governments and large governmental bodies, such as the European Union and the United Nations.
NP has a large program in South Sudan. By 2012, there were almost one hundred staffers in nine teams in six states in the new country of South Sudan. The following story illustrates how NP works. When NP staff learned that youth in two clans had started fighting over cattle, an NP leader, Asha Asokan, a petite woman from India, set to work shuttling back and forth between the clans. Eventually, the youth agreed to let clan chiefs mediate a deal, which the NP team then monitored at the chiefs’ request.35
NP also has major teams in the Philippines and the South Caucasus. NP has worked since 2007 on the Philippine island of Mindanao to protect civilians and support the peace process. At a United Nations briefing in Geneva in 2012, the Philippine ambassador had high words of praise for NP: “Civilian, neutral, impartial, and cost-effective. We are grateful for the contributions of Nonviolent Peaceforce as practitioners of unarmed civilian peacekeeping. The concept has been tested in our country—and it works.”36 In the South Caucasus, NP teams have helped develop and train local unarmed civilian peacekeeper teams. They have also taken representatives from several countries in the region to visit NP’s successful program in the Philippines.
In 2012, for the first time, a national government invited NP to come to the country. The government of Myanmar asked NP to come and use its successful experience in South Sudan and the Philippines to help the country strengthen its ambitious peace process. NP will run a training program that will include members of the parliament, members of opposition groups, and representatives from local civil society.37
The year 2012 was a breakthrough year for NP. Fifty-eight countries sent representatives to a briefing at the United Nations on unarmed civilian peacekeeping. Ambassadors and United Nations officials had high praise for NP’s work. Excellent media coverage of the event led to a long-awaited public relations breakthrough, including a national television special on Christmas Day. NP now has staff in New York, meets frequently with ambassadors on the United Nations Security Council, and makes high-level presentations at the United Nations. Also in 2012, NP received its largest grant ever: €2.4 million from the European Union. That grant demonstrated, NP’s executive director noted, “that unarmed civilian peacekeeping is gaining mainstream support and is here to stay.”38
The evidence in this chapter supports that claim. But that is not to assert that nonviolent peacemaking organizations such as Nonviolent Peaceforce, Peace Brigades International, and Christian Peacemaker Teams are anywhere close to realizing the vision of tens of thousands of trained nonviolent peacemakers ready to move into violent situations to deter injustice and violence. The total numbers are still tiny, indeed minuscule in comparison to the need. But the stories in this chapter demonstrate that the vision is expanding rapidly. The number and size of organizations using nonviolent action are growing significantly. The idea, as well as awareness of concrete success, has gone mainstream. One can hope that in the next decade the number of trained practitioners of unarmed civilian peacemaking will jump from the hundreds to the thousands, even tens of thousands.
1. I thank my student Jake Goertz for help in researching material for this chapter.
2. See, for example, Brian Martin, “Making Accompaniment Effective,” and Luis Enrique Eguren, “Developing Strategy for Accompaniment,” in People Power: Unarmed Resistance and Global Solidarity, ed. Howard Clark (London: Pluto Press, 2009), 93–97, 98–107; Liam Mahony and Luis Enrique Eguren, Unarmed Bodyguards: International Accompaniment for the Protection of Human Rights (West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1997).
3. William Robert Miller, Nonviolence: A Christian Interpretation (New York: Association Press, 1964), 119–20; Charles C. Walker, A World Peace Guard: An Unarmed Agency for Peacekeeping (New Delhi: Academy of Gandhian Studies Hyderabad, 1981), 71–72.
4. Walker, World Peace Guard, 71–72.
5. See Narayan Desai, “Gandhi’s Peace Army: The Shanti Sena Today,” Fellowship, November 1969, 23–25.
6. See Narayan Desai, “Intervention in Riots in India,” in Liberation without Violence: A Third-Party Approach, ed. A. Paul Hare and Herbert H. Blumberg (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1977), 83. For the Shanti Sena, see also Thomas Weber, Gandhi’s Peace Army: The Shanti Sena and Unarmed Peacekeeping (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1996).
7. Miller, Nonviolence, 123.
8. See Gene Keyes, “Peacekeeping by Unarmed Buffer Forces: Precedents and Proposals,” Peace & Change 5, nos. 2–3 (1978): 8.
9. Cited in Charles C. Walker, “Nonviolence in Eastern Africa 1962–1964,” in Hare and Blumberg, Liberation, 157.
10. Ibid., 160–67. For a broader discussion of nonviolence in Africa, see Charles C. Walker, “Nonviolence in Africa,” in Nonviolent Action and Social Change, ed. Severyn T. Bruyn and Paula M. Rayman (New York: Irving, 1979), 186–212. For another attempt at nonviolent peacemaking, see A. Paul Hare, ed., Cyprus Resettlement Project: An Instance of International Peacemaking (Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 1984).
11. See “About Us,” Shanthi Sena, http://www.shanthisena.org/aboutus.php.
12. From a PBI brochure. See further Mahony and Eguren, Unarmed Bodyguards; Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan and Thomas Weber, Nonviolent Intervention across Borders: A Recurrent Vision (Honolulu: Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace, University of Hawaii, 2000); also the annual reviews of Peace Brigades International.
13. See Philip McManus, “Refusing to Disappear,” Fellowship, July–August 1985, 12–14.
14. See the discussion in Martin, “Making Accompaniment Effective,” 93–97.
15. Louise Winstanley, “With Peace Brigades International in Colombia,” in Clark, People Power, 109.
16. Peace Brigades International, Annual Review 2012 (http://www.peacebrigades.org/fileadmin/user_files/international/files/annual_reviews/PBI_Annual_Review_2012_English.pdf).
17. Ronald J. Sider, “Are We Willing to Die for Peace?” Gospel Herald, December 25, 1984, 898–901.
18. See Tricia Gates Brown, Getting in the Way: Stories from Christian Peacemaker Teams (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2005); see also the other works cited below.
19. Kathleen Kern, In Harm’s Way: A History of Christian Peacemaker Teams (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2009), 13.
20. See “History,” CPT, http://www.cpt.org/about/history.
21. Kern, In Harm’s Way, 428–37.
22. Ibid., 361–415.
23. Ibid., 93.
24. Ibid., 122–36.
25. Ibid., 118–21.
26. Ibid., 189.
27. Quoted in ibid., 177.
28. See Arthur G. Gish, Hebron Journal: Stories of Nonviolent Peacemaking (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2001).
29. See reconciliationproject.org/2012/history.
30. See http://www.reconciliationproject.org/2012/muslim-peacemaker-teams.
31. See http://www.oikoumene.org/en/what-we-do/eappi.
32. Ann Wright, “The Work of the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI),” in Clark, People Power, 137.
33. Nonviolent Peaceforce, 2012 Annual Report, 2 (http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/sites/nonviolentpeaceforce.org/files/attachments/NP%202012%20AR_FINAL.pdf).
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid., 6–7.
36. Ibid., 12.
37. Ibid., 10.
38. Ibid., 1.