Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

International Alert

December 1998

Introduction

This workshop was the fourth in a programme of six confidence-building measures involving Georgian and Abkhaz civil society representatives. The confidence-building programme is carried out by International Alert in partnership with the International Center on Conflict and Negotiation (ICCN), Tbilisi, and the foundation Civic Initiative - Man of Future, Sukhumi. The programme is funded by the European Union’s TACIS Democracy Programme and by the Caritas Foundation, Netherlands.

The first workshop of the programme was held in Sochi in April 1998. The participants at this workshop decided the main focus for the remaining workshops. Each was to be devoted to a specific theme and potentially serve as a launch-pad for further activity, for example, joint project development and/or further meetings. Thus, the second workshop (held in Nalchik in July 1998) focused on the formation of a Caucasian Forum of NGOs for Peace and the third workshop (held in Sochi in October 1998) was devoted to Youth as Leaders and Peacebuilders, providing training in conflict transformation for young people in the Caucasus. The women’s workshop was held in Sochi between 25-29 November 1998 and focused on Women as Peacebuilders.

The rationale for holding a workshop specifically for women stems from a belief that effective conflict prevention requires knowledge and an understanding of local capacities for peace in the country in conflict. Women and women’s organisations are often reservoirs of important local capacities which can be used in peace-building activities to unite divided communities. Conflict prevention strategies should therefore consider and highlight the experiences and lessons learnt from the activities of women and women’s organisations in conflict situations, and the capacity of this important group of civil society should be strengthened.

Programme aim

The overall aim of this Confidence-building Programme is to contribute to the peace process between Georgia and Abkhazia by working with civil society representatives to develop trust and confidence between the two sides.

Workshop objectives

The objectives of this workshop in particular were to:

Process/methodology

International Alert is in the process of submitting a follow-up application to Tacis to continue the important work developed in the current first phase of the programme. The envisaged process, which was confirmed at this workshop (see below) is that each of the meetings in Phase I of the programme will serve as a launch-pad for future work with that particular group of civil society. In this case, the projects developed at the first women’s workshop will be further developed by the women within their own communities. With support from IA, they will attempt to fundraise for them and to put them into action. We will then hold two further workshops in the series to provide further training in identified areas and to review the small projects and develop new ones where appropriate.

This is a process-led programme of activities; we developed and have been using this process-related methodology to strengthen the capacity of women as peacemakers in Burundi since 1996, where we have run a series of three conflict resolution training workshops for twenty-five women community-trainers. In between the workshops we have supported them to carry out small-scale peace activities in their own provinces, which have enabled them to reach a large number of ordinary women and their families. At each subsequent workshop the women report back on their experiences - both positive and negative - so that they learn from one another and thus strengthen their future work. The first group of women trained have now completed three training sessions and have formed a highly active network of Burundian women trainers for peace. We have just started training a second group of twenty-five women in Burundi, using the same methodology, and we are replicating the experience in Rwanda. This successful methodology is one which we are adapting for use in the Caucasus, primarily with influential representatives among women, youth, and ex-combatants.

Other aspects of our methodology consist of partnership-building and training in various skills during the workshops. Partnership-building is important since in general peace constituencies in Caucasian societies, and specifically in Georgia and Abkhazia, are still weak. NGOs (including women) working on these issues are in clear need of partnership-building skills, in particular establishing and maintaining good working relations with each other, following up on the projects initiated, disseminating information concerning existing and potential projects, and networking with and influencing governments.

Approach

The workshop was designed to offer an opportunity for participants to meet and talk in a non-threatening, neutral environment about issues of concern to them and to find some common ground in their needs, fears and hopes as women. Specific inputs were also provided on, for example, conflict mapping, project planning and fundraising (see agenda in Appendix 1). The participants worked both in plenary sessions and working groups. Each day, games were played at appropriate times which helped to keep the atmosphere energised and positive. A key element of the workshop was the work on developing small-scale peace-related projects which emanated from the participants’ analysis of the conflict situation from a women’s perspective. The free time in coffee and lunch breaks and in the evenings provided plenty of opportunity for the participants to mingle and to talk informally about very personal, and perhaps confidential feelings and experiences. This time was therefore as important as the more formal workshop sessions for developing relationships.

The agenda was set in advance by IA and its core partners – ICCN (Georgia) and the Civic Initiative Foundation (Abkhazia). This was however a flexible agenda, and it was changed in places during the course of the workshop in accordance with the needs and progress of the group.

The facilitator was Diana Francis, a member of the CCTS. Diana is extremely experienced in running conflict resolution training workshops and has worked with all-women groups on several occasions, for instance in Africa with International Alert. Diana agreed to have two co-facilitators: Sofiko Shubladze from Georgia and Diana Kerselyan from Abkhazia. They provided Diana with support during the group sessions – checking that the groups were on track and that they were addressing the tasks and subjects given to them. The co-facilitators also participated in core group meetings.

Interpretation was provided by Sofi Cook, IA Eurasia Project Officer. Diana Kerselyan also undertook some interpretation for Sara Gil, Fundraising Officer and Gillian Symmons, freelance education consultant. Gillian was present as an observer in order to feed the experience into training materials she is editing for women in conflict.

Participants

The participants were chosen by IA’s core partners (see above). The criteria for selection was that they should be influential members of civil society with some connections upwards, towards the political level, and/or downwards, towards the grassroots level of society. Likewise, that they should be actively involved in peace-related work and that they should be of a moderate tendency. A list of the participants can be found in Appendix 2.

Activities

The workshop began with a round of introductions from the participants and facilitators which included an expression of their hopes, fears and expectations. Some of these were more detailed than others and some extremely touching and revealing. Marina Pagava, for instance, spoke of the way in which war forces one to see what is really important in life - throughout the workshop she was helpful in maintaining a positive and contructive mood. Her experience as a refugee and her work with children of refugees will be documented by Gillian Symons as part of the Women and Conflict module Gillian is currently putting together to aid women in similar situations.

The entire workshop agenda was then presented in brief and the purpose of the confidence-building workshops was clarified.

The working agreements were summarised as follows:

The participants then split up into three groups of five people to discuss their experiences of living in conflict – how it felt, the practical effects etc. They then shared the main points discussed in plenary. Some of the key points discussed were as follows:

After lunch the participants played a short game called “Getting to Know You” which consisted of throwing a ball to one another calling out their own name and the name of the person to whom the ball was to be thrown.

The afternoon session focussed on mapping the geopolitical conflict from a women’s perspective. The first task was to find a definition of the problem which embraced both parties’ points of view. Then, the participants were asked: who are the key parties to the conflict? What do you need and What are you afraid of? What are the needs and fears of other players in situation, as well as your own? The participants were encouraged to make a conscious effort to think about being a woman in this situation and whether this makes a difference. Diana Francis suggested the participants work in mixed groups, but they chose to work separately, saying it would be more interesting to imagine how the other groups feel; they did not want to sit down with the other side to work through this problem.

The Georgians were to have included imagined needs and fears of the Abkhaz, but did not, claiming they were unaware they were supposed to do so.

Problem: The Abkhaz began by providing a historical analysis of the situation.

Needs (hopes): The Georgians and Abkhaz work together towards building peace in the whole Caucasus; women become more co-operative; a multi-ethnic solution to the Georgian/Abkhaz conflict; an end to the blockade in Abkhazia to allow for economic improvement; a resolution to the refugee problem.

Fears: more hostilities; that the situation would remain frozen in its current state; innocent people continue to die in terrorist attacks meaning that peace documnents can’t be signed; those refugees with blood on their hands are returned to Abkhazia.

Perception of Georgian fears: integrity of state broken; Georgian refugees won’t return, leading to a lack of stability in Georgia; fear of sharing power with non-Georgians.

Other players: Other Northern Caucasus; Russia - doesn’t want to lose Caucasus; USA and other Western countries - want to drive Russia from the Caucasus.

Problem: The Abkhaz want independence but the Georgians want to preserve territorial integrity. The conflict began as a political one, but became an ethnic conflict.

Players: Not all Georgians and Abkhaz, but only the most radical people within each society; Russia.

Needs (wishes): Restoration of relationships between Georgia and Abkhazia; rehabilitation to pre-war situation; the return of refugees to their old homes; the right to a secure life for all; preservation of all people’s equal political rights; a federation including Abkhazia as a symmetric entity - this is the general feeling amongst Georgian civil society but not at the political level.

Fears: resumption of war; preservation of status quo; future of the refugees and the lives of those left in Abkhazia; deepening economic problems; a lack of education and health care.

The Georgians did not present what they saw as the needs and fears of the opposite side, claiming they had not been aware they had to do this.

Difficulties arose during the Abkhaz presentation of their accepted historical background. This was something they were specifically asked not to do, the idea being that one cannot change history, but we can start from now to shape the present and the future. The historical presentation antagonised the Georgian side which felt that in expressing official historical positions they would only reach a deadlock.

Diana expressed the need to reframe the conflict – the need to move from the past to the present and to the future; from we vs. you, to we together; from victims to choosers, and from rigid positions to interests based on the needs of all concerned.

It became clear during the group work that in future it was necessary to have more balanced co-facilitators, as Sofiko was very experienced in facilitation, whilst Diana Kerselyan had no previous experience and was tied in closer with her own side, sometimes finding it hard to direct the group. The real need for objectives to be very clear was noted, likewise it was felt that these were not clear for the whole workshop – thus the participants and facilitators had no common goal in mind. It was decided that the main points of tasks need to be written down.

An important issue was felt to be the lack of individual, and common understanding of whether to be honest; whether to say things which hurt others. If constantly dealing with an accepted truth people may not know what they really think/feel and it may take some time to know this and work through positions.

The question was raised as to whether it might be necessary to have some kind of training in communication skills as it is important to distinguish between speaking for oneself vs. speaking in accusing language.

It appeared from side conversations during the day that the participants were not clear of the purpose of workshop. They were not aware that one of the main thrusts of this workshop would be to develop small peace-related projects. This was due to difficulties in communication before the workshop i.e. in sending the agenda and preparatory materials to all of the participants beforehand. However, it also appeared that even after the opening presentation on the purpose of the workshop, the participants remained unclear. Therefore it was decided that the objectives should be put up on the board and run through again at the beginning of the next day.

The first day ended on a somewhat aggressive note, following the disagreement over (a) the version of history presented by the Abkhaz, but mainly (b) whether any version of history should have been presented or discussed at all.

The participants did not really address the needs and fears etc. mapping from a women’s perspective - it was thought that this was because it was not made of paramount importance by the facilitator, but was expressed as an “add on” and therefore not considered seriously enough by the participants.

The fact that the Georgians and Abkhaz decided that they would rather work in separate rather than mixed groups was respected as it was considered important not to push people together before they are ready.

Two new participants arrived from Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan.

The day began with a review of the purposes of workshop (see above) and Sara Gil gave a short presentation about how this workshop fits within the overall process of the Tacis-funded confidence-building programme. It was also explained how the purposes would be addressed during the course of the workshop.

Several of the participants commented that they rarely get the opportunity to talk directly with one another and so they wanted time set aside in small, confidential groups for discussions about any burning issues. This request was accommodated during some of the set workshop discussions, such discussion also being possible during the breaks and in the evenings.

The needs and fears from the previous day were reviewed and divided into common needs/fears, opposite needs/fears and needs/fears expressed by one side only.

The participants divided into two groups to examine what areas of the needs and fears they felt they could work on and look at the socio-economic problems reflected in both societies to see if there are any more specific, practical problems they have in common. This time they divided into mixed groups of both Georgians and Abkhaz.

The participants played a game called Touch Blue at the beginning of the next session, which they very much enjoyed. The game involved touching and holding clothing of different colours on other participants, which led to a laughing tangle of people. They then reported back on their group work in plenary. Their feedback included the following:

- the need for the re-normalisation of gender roles. Currently there is a lack of partnership in families due essentially to the loss of employment for men; women are therefore increasingly taking over financial responsibility through, for example, small trading schemes

- the need to take practical peacebuilding steps. For example, for the Abkhaz to help refugees in Georgia to visit the graves of their families and friends in Abkhazia on the Day of Remembrance of the Dead (April 2nd, which is a Christian holiday).

This group work helped to clear the air and from then on the participants appeared much happier to work together in mixed groups. They had also enjoyed focussing on common problems and trying to think of ways to tackle them. It became noticeable that the participants started to mix their seating positions in plenaries - initially the Abkhaz had sat on one side of the room, and the Georgians on the other.

Further plenary discussion around the main issues produced some project ideas within the context of these identified issues. For example: a Tbilisi-Sukhumi exchange visit for women; a meeting of the mothers of the war-dead; a small-trading project whereby Abkhaz and Georgian women could become trading partners and provide support for one another; children’s education – the publication of a peace textbook to help get over the enemy image. It was felt to be extremely important to influence the conscience of people in a positive and peaceful way from an early age.

At this stage in the workshop, participants had actually run ahead of themselves in starting to think about action plans and projects which could address some of the issues and problems identified, without really beginning to analyse the issues/problems in detail, especially from a women’s perspective in particular, which hadn’t yet been achieved. Therefore, Diana suggested stepping back from specific projects to look at the overall situation of women. She posed two questions:

a) What role have women played in exacerbating/mitigating violent conflict and what would we like to change/develop within that?

b) What are the spheres/levels of women’s influence and power – what are their possibilities and limits - do we want to push out the boundaries, and if so, how can we do it? In connection with this question, she introduced the John Paul Lederach triangle of power levels (grassroots - middle and top political levels) to explore where women in Geogia and Abkhazia are located and therefore where their power and ability to influence the situation lie.

The participants were divided into two groups to discuss these questions and returned after the break and another game (Elephants and Palm Trees) to feed back to the plenary group. The main points were as follows:

• The need to work on neutral/civic projects – for example, the meeting of mothers of the war dead was considered too highly charged a project at present, but the graves visit project could be possible
• The need to concentrate in this meeting on work at the grassroots and middle levels, not at the political level - political discussions led the group back into conflict. This was not therefore a useful level on which they could engage
• Women had played a negative role at the beginning of the conflict, both actively, and by remaining passive when they could have done something to try to prevent the conflict. The participants felt however, that if the situation occurred afresh, women would not support the conflict as they had learnt from their experiences and knew what such action could lead to
• There are no effective structures connecting the top and middle levels, but there are good connections between the middle and grassroots levels. Most of the women present at the workshop were from the middle level.

The participants felt they hadn’t had enough freedom to brainstorm their ideas, problems and projects, and there was a feeling of wanting to be given more space to do so. It was therefore decided that, rather than looking at the issue “identity” on the morning of Day 3, the participants would be given the opportunity to brainstorm further and work on project ideas in groups.

This is one example of how the agenda was very flexible and accommodating to the energy and wishes of the group. A couple of planned sessions (e.g. identity and problem solving) were left out to provide more opportunity for group discussions about their problems and experiences.

Manana Gurgulia (IA’s core Abkhaz partner) arrived.

The day began with a game introduced by the Russian participant, Katya Loskutova, to help energise everyone. It was called “A Strong Wind Blows” and focussed on common points all women share regardless of nationality (for example lovers, a liking for jewellery and singing in the shower).

Diana Francis then attempted to class the issues/problems from the previous day into the following categories: political problems; problems of mistrust, stereotyping and hostility; and socio-economic problems.

A model for analysing problems was introduced. This was an inverted triangle (the main problem) which is supported by pillars (these are situations or/and people supporting and/or contributing to the problem). This model helps to put the problem into some kind of context and helps to think at what point one can make an entry of some kind - which pillars one can begin to erode through one’s projects.

The participants were then split into three groups to work on one of the following areas:

Plenary feedback:

1. Civil society: Everyone needs to know their rights and how to use them; if the middle level of the pyramid is strong it can make the top level more open. Worked on “pillars” preventing the development of civil society – war, corruption of courts, disrespect for laws, lack of fair elections, people not knowing their rights. The last factor was chosen for work on Day 4 since civic and psychological education was felt to be needed in schools. If we cannot understand ourselves, how can we understand anyone else?

2. The enmity group felt the focus should be on reducing enmity. They examined the concept of an enemy; agreed that the conflict was driven by both ideological purists and criminal factions on both sides.

3. The socio-economic group on the whole came up with similar ideas to the first group, wanting to work on education and healthcare issues.

At the end of this morning session, a TV crew from a Russian national channel arrived wanting to carry out interviews for a newspiece on Mother’s Day (that Sunday). Galina, Manana and Manana gave short interviews.

The afternoon was left free and was used by participants to purchase return tickets, shop, rest, discuss ideas and chat - a time they felt was much needed both logistically and intellectually!

The fact that the group was even suggesting an exchange of women between Abkhazia and Georgia was progress as they have never before expressed a willingness or desire to do so. Whether this is logistically feasible is another matter - at the moment it seems it is not.

Other small facts which provide some insight into the growing relationships and confidence between the participants:

• The representatives from Azerbaijan and Nagorny-Karabakh - two areas in conflict - went shopping together during the free afternoon and appeared really to enjoy each other’s company, having originally shown hostility towards one another in the plenary session
• The participants discussed some topics/areas which at previous workshops they did not even go near, such as their own honesty/dishonesty; the Georgian group tolerated a toast to Abkhazia on Abkhazian Constitution Day. The toast was proposed by Marina Pagava - a refugee from Abkhazia living in Tbilisi with very strong links to both sides.

There was a lot of talk about sincerity and honesty at this workshop. It appeared that the participants were beginning to realise that they had not necessarily been honest with themselves in the past in thinking they were being open and that perhaps they were beginning to realise where their honesty lies. There seemed to be less holding back amongst the group.

Some discussions kept on occurring again and again. But these were important issues therefore it was good that they were being discussed in an open manner and given enough space.

The morning was kick-started with a learning game introduced by one of the co-facilitators, Sofiko. The participants had to form pairs and stand one either side of an imaginary straight line. The aim of the game was to convince one’s partner to cross the line to join one without speaking to her. Any other means of persuasion was permitted. The range of solutions was telling: one couple simply ignored each other, making no attempt at communication; some of the participants bribed their partners (notably, Nadezhda rushed in a vast armchair and knelt beside it, serenading her partner until the latter was unable to resist!); some used physical force; two couples met on the line and embraced and a couple exchanged places without discussion. This game illustrated the different possible methods of achieving a desired result in a conflict situation. The solution of swapping places was explained in particular since this allows both partners to achieve their goal in a creative way.

The main purpose of this day and Day 5 was to work towards plans of action on small projects.

The participants recapped the existing ideas for projects/action plans. It was emphasised that there was no existing commitment to any of these projects and that they were merely ideas at this stage. Participants were asked for any additional ideas, which could include work which the participants were already carrying out at home but would like to develop further, or totally new ideas. The projects were listed as follows:

- Exchange of women’s delegations

- Mothers’ exchange

- Visits to graves of friends and relatives

- Children’s summer camps

- “Voices for Peace”: the recreation of a culture of peace and human solidarity in the Caucasus

- Rediscovery of Caucasian peace traditions

- A radio programme to enable Georgians to learn about the ethnic culture of the Abkhaz. There has been a huge distortion of facts in this area, especially in recent years. One example proposed for transmission was exerpts from the book “Voices for Peace” currently developed by Marina Pagava. The book relates real cases of human solidarity throughout the Caucasus where representatives of one side in a conflict have helped those from the other side. These instances are felt to be extremely touching and persuasive.

- Peace education in secondary schools

- Civic education / education for civil society

- Vaccination schemes

- A meeting of doctors / medicine and healthcare professionals from different regions of the Caucasus

- Small-scale trading scheme for women to build on and formalise activities already happening in this area.

Participants then signed up to work on a particular project. Before going into groups to work further on these projects, Diana Francis told a story from Brazil about peasant farmers whose land, which had been in their families for generations, was taken away by the government and given to multi-national companies. The peasants had no land-right documents. However, as a result of careful planning, cooperation and targeting certain groups in authority (for instance, the army, composed largely of peasants!) over time a large proportion of the land was won back. This story was used to demonstrate several project planning models:

1) the inverted triangle representing the main problem with pillars supporting the problem. The necessity of working together and looking rationally at the factors supporting the problem in order to determine which ones one could start to attack;

2) the second model was named Building Support from the Centre. It represented a series of concentric circles with the people facing the main problem in the innermost circle. Each successive circle represents a new group of the population (lawyers, army, NGOs, government etc.) which can be “brought around” and involved in attacking the problem. This helps erode the pillars supporting the problem. In other words, this diagram represents in succession the layers of the population gradually involved in working to overcome the main problem.

3) Model 3: Planning and Working for the Future (Long-term programme). Starting from the main goal, a series of steps is elaborated, the goals at each level building on each other. This should relate to the original definition of the problem. For instance:

The peasants want their land back: peasants to build cooperative – win right to political responsibilities – mount national campaign for land reform.

Some important questions were listed which should be considered when planning a project:

WHO?

WHEN?

HOW?

WHAT WILL WE NEED?

WHAT WILL BE THE DIFFICULTIES?

It has seemed to us on a number of occasions that participants can have a difficulty developing their main aim/main problem into a series of small goals. The seemingly desperate nature of their situation and factors such as the underdevelopment of civil society and the relative isolation of many regions in the Caucasus make people think that rational responsible civic action is hopeless - however, upon reflection and consultation new “loopholes” do frequently appear. For instance, the group working on peace education was daunted by the fact that their societies have no experience, curriculum or materials to conduct a peace education programme in schools. Diana Francis told them of ENCORE, the European Network of Conflict Resolution in Education, and the group then began to formulate specific objectives and needs, knowing that some experience and knowledge in this field may be available to them.

The groups worked on their projects and came back after lunch to present their project ideas in the plenary.

Main objectives:

- to edit a text book on the meaning of civic society for children (such a book already exists in Nagorno-Karabakh);

- to develop the notion of peace education and collect material on modern strategies of conflict resolution - perhaps in a popular form;

- to look at how women tried to stop conflicts and produce a book on this;

- to ensure ongoing peace education for children and parents together;

- to build a monument to peace;

- to hold a conference on peace education.

The aim of the peace education programme is to influence the awareness of children in a positive and peaceful way. A significant number of children schooled in Soviet years were taught a discipline named “Elements of Military Training”. A peace education programme could be a worthy substitute for this subject. Having little or no experience in this matter in their own societies, participants would like to collect information on the progress of peace education in other countries, for example Hungary, Northern Ireland and Burundi.

2. An exchange of women’s delegations. This should start off with one woman exchanges which would later lead to delegations of women undertaking cultural exchanges throughout the Caucasus. The main problem would be the security of the women involved. These events would be low-profile, with little publicity, and the women would be carefully selected in order not to arouse the antagonism of the other side. It was thought that figures exist on both sides who are acceptable to the other side.

An idea arose in connection with this project concerning the Council of Elders in Abkhazia. Georgian refugees would very much like an opportunity to talk with them. This will be developed further. Another concept discussed was psychological rehabilitation - the continuing need for such work and neccesity to organise more.

4. Exchange of mothers. This project was put on hold since it was thought to be somewhat premature. Such an exchange may be likely to arouse extremely deep feelings of pain for the mothers and potentially animosity in society.

5. Visits to the graves of friends and relatives in Abkhazia. Tsisa Gumba and Manana Dardzhania developed this project together. A small group of Georgian refugees could be prepared to visit the graves of their friends, neighbours (the concept of the neighbour has a lot of weight in their culture) and relatives in Abkhazia. Both sides would receive specialist psychological preparation. Likewise in Abkhazia a group of people would clean and tidy the graves to be visited and receive the refugees. They will accommodate them and visit the graves together, perhaps then staying in contact and continuing to maintain the graves in order.

The day was started with an exercise on building a reconciliation monument with the women’s own bodies. Participants were split into two groups. Each group was to produce a monument to peace, the other group was allowed to change the construction as it saw fit.

The first monument represented a group of people: a dead soldier, a mourner by his side, a marauder clutching money and valuables, a mother holding her baby and smiling and a figure gazing into the distance. When asked whether there was anything the other group would like to change, a participant from that group rushed up to the monument and seized the money from the marauder!

The second monument consisted of a woman knealing and holding up a branch with thorns and flowers, surrounded by a ring of women with their joined hands in the air. The other group wanted to change the orientation of the women: they had previously faced inwards, towards the knealing figure. The other group claimed the women should face outwards and not be afraid to confront the world. A short discussion on the meaning and necessity of “confronting the world” ensued.

Sara Gil then made a presentation on project planning/proposal writing. This consisted of talking through a flow diagram using the example of a youth centre in Sochi as the project. The diagram focussed on the following:

• Project background – aims – objectives – justification – activities – obstacles/risks – monitoring and evaluation – budget.

After a break participants then split up into groups and, using the planning flow diagram provided, attempted to think more realistically and specifically about their projects, filling in the details which would be necessary to turn them from theory into reality.

Sara Gil and Diana Francis went around the groups helping them to put their projects into this format and think about all the detail necessary. Sara also spoke to participants individually about which funders could potentially be interested in some of the projects, and gave some contact details, explaining how to go about approaching these funders in order to help participants compile a general fundraising strategy.

After lunch participants returned to give feedback.

The project ideas are contained in Appendix 1.

Following the presentations and the break, the participants played a cooperation game with a ball- they had to throw the ball to each other so that each participant receives the ball once and then try to do it more and more quickly following the same order of throwing – the quickest way that any group can develop is to form a line from top to bottom using only their fingers for the ball to roll down a slide of fingers!

Finally, the participants gave verbal feedback in plenary – each of them holding an object in the middle of the circle and saying what they felt they had learnt from the workshop. Here are some examples:

It helped to take away the pain inside

It was the first time in five years that I have seen Georgian people and I will try to cooperate with them in the future

I originally had a question about how these workshops really help with what we want to do – having participated at this workshop I think it helps those who participate to find something positive amongst all the negative.

It has shown me that a resolution to this conflict may be possible.

To be friends is more pleasant than being enemies.

We have reached some mutual understanding

We need to throw away all that is black inside and go home and share this positive experience with others.

A common mentality exists. Any worries I had about coming here have disappeared.

Such communications are vital.

On the whole the participants had a lot of praise for Diana Francis, the facilitator, who showed a great understanding of women’s situation and problems and helped them to learn about each other and to gain the most from this workshop.

Towards the end of the workshop a striking example of how this workshop was successful in building relations appeared. Some of the Georgian participants had received funding to invite an American trainer to Tbilisi university in order to teach university lecturers to incorporate conflict resolution in their courses. The Georgians were not planning to invite any Abkhaz tutors to attend. They changed their minds towards the end of the workshop, however, and will now invite two Abkhaz university lecturers to attend the course. Successful candidates must have a good command of English as all of the materials are in English. Marina Gumba gave Sofiko Shubladze some names of potential candidates.

Appendix 1

WOMEN AND CONFLICT: A WORKSHOP

This workshop is funded by the European Union’s TACIS Democracy Programme

and the Caritas Foundation

WORKSHOP AGENDA

9.30 Introductions - getting to know each other.

Expectations - hopes and fears.

Working agreements.

11.00 Break

11.30 Experiences of living in conflict.

Group work and plenary discussion.

13.00 Lunch

15.00 Mapping the geopolitical conflicts affecting participants.

Group work.

16.30 Break

17.00 Sharing the maps in plenary and reviewing them from a women’s perspective.

Evaluation of the day.

9.30 Problems and problem-solving in conflict.

Plenary and group work.

11.00 Break

11.30 Exploring identity - what aspects are important to us? What would we like to change?

13.00 Lunch

15.00 Women’s roles in society and politics; areas of power and powerlessness.

Plenary followed by group work.

16.30 Break

17.00 Plenary reports.

How can women be most effective, maximising the power they have and extending their influence?

Group work.

Evaluation of the day.

9.30 Plenary reports on group work carried out on Day Two.

Discussion.

11.00 Break

11.30 Selecting issues and exploring tools for further work.

13.00 Lunch

15.00 Free afternoon.

9.30 Detailed work on selected issues: analysis, goal setting, planning how to build support.

Group work.

11.00 Break

11.30 Group work continued.

Developing broad action plans.

13.00 Lunch

15.00 Refining action plans.

16.30 Break

17.00 Plenary reports; discussion.

Evaluation of the day.

9.30 Evaluating the feasibility of action plans developed and allocating tasks.

11.00 Break

11.30 Fundraising session.

13.00 Lunch

15.00 Looking at future possibilities for networking and mutual support.

16.30 Break

17.00 Closing process.

Final evaluation.

Appendix 3

DETAILED PROJECTS DEVELOPED

This is a project combining confidence-building and psychological rehabilitation. It aims also to revive ancient traditions.

As a result of the war many old traditions have been forgotten. This includes the tradition of visiting and maintaining in order the graves of one’s friends and relatives - thus, the graves are now largely at the mercy of the elements. Tsisa Gumba and Manana Dardzhania elaborated a project which would enable a small group of Georgian refugees from Abkhazia to visit the graves of family and friends. The group would stay with Abkhazians who would accompany them to the graves, having previously located the graves in question and ensured they were clean and tidy. Ideally, the visitors would develop a bond with their hosts and continue to be in touch, the Abkhazian hosts voluntarily taking on the task of maintating the grave in good order. Many people in the Caucasus feel a deep repect for age-old tradition and it has been noted time and time again that old customs and traditions are a valuable meanss of bringing people together. There is a strong spiritual need to revive this tradition which will help to alleviate the pain and aggression of those who lost relatives or friends in the war. Many people who have lost friends or relatives worldwide claim that seeing the grave of the departed, and being given this opportunity to grieve properly, can provide a valuable and necessary release.

Should this first visit be successful it might be possible to widen this project further, making the visit an annual event and involving more people. The first visit should if possible take place around 2 April 1999 - the Day of Remembrance of the Dead. The trip will last for 3-4 days and 10-12 Georgian refugees will be involved.

The organisers will undertake a series of interviews – social research to select both those who will return to visit the graves, and those who will accompany them from the Abkhaz side. A needs and difficulties assessment will be carried out.

Both Abkhaz and Georgians will receive specialist psychological preparation for the visit. For the refugees this will most likely be the first time they return since the hostilities began. All participants will need to be selected very carefully and criteria will be developed accordingly. The participants will need to be able to show respect for another’s pain. They should not have experienced pain too recently, and in the first instance the graves to be visited should perhaps not be those of the war-dead but of older friends, neighbours and relatives. As a result of such a visit the participants - and their families etc - will begin to feel more at ease with each other and begin to accept the past. The isolation since the war, the lack of travel and communication has made it impossible for a real healing process to begin. Eventually this could become an autonomous project – the refugees would undertake this trip without any outside help.

This is the beginning of a longer-term project to introduce peace education into the curricula of secondary schools in the Caucasus.

The seminar planned would be a meeting for teachers, teacher trainers and appropriate Government Ministry Officials – preferably from the Ministry of Education, as well as for several resource persons from ENCORE. The seminar would take place in Russia (most probably Sochi). About 5-6 participants will be invited from Azerbaijan, Armenia, Abkhazia, Georgia and Kabardino-Balkaria to exchange information, knowledge and experience in this area, and to look at ways of adapting work done in countries such as Hungary and Northern Ireland to suit the requirements in the Caucasus. Participants from the Caucasus would learn about existing methodologies and materials and contribute their own thinking and materials. The specific regions have been selected initially by way of a pilot project to represent the main states of the southern Caucasus and some others from which participants were drawn.

Ministry of Education officials would only be invited at this stage should they be positively inclined towards this work. Should they appear sceptical or resist the notion, it was thought to be better not to invite them until a stronger network had been established and the process was underway.

One of the key objectives of this project is to produce a peace education network in the Caucasus committed to elaborating and implementing a peace education system in schools and with parents, students etc. The points raised at such a seminar could continue to be researched, a lobbying/advocacy strategy then put into action and more people involved from various spheres of society. Participants at the seminar may perhaps join the European network.

The seminar will be 4-5 days long. If possible it will be held in summer/autumn 1999.

This project aims to target the problem that people don’t believe they can have an influence over what is happening in society. They don’t know their rights, especially since the war. Civic education is needed at all levels of society. This particular project envisages the publication of a peace education textbook for the ages of 10 - 12 in order to develop a higher level of civic awareness through education. At present no such textbook exists.

The textbook will use both Western and Caucasian methods, drawing on national and regional traditions, including the traditional role of women. It will include information on women’s, children’s and refugees’ rights. A core group of people will work on this project, including social workers, teachers and lawyers. They will edit the materials collected. This will be a six-month project. Teachers will then help to produce and distribute these textbooks.

Obstacles/risks – the curriculum is extremely full, so such lessons might have to take place as after-school teaching.

Monitoring and evaluation – an opinion poll could be conducted amongst the children and an exam could be set.

The aim is to produce a book with concrete examples of how women have helped to build peace and to prevent violence – both in general and against themselves – in times of conflict. Women and children are often the main victims of civil conflict, it is therefore important to try to provide them with some kind of knowledge and methodology/tool and/or know-how to prevent violence and build peace.

This book will therefore be a collection of factual stories about women who have helped to prevent violence. The stories will be collected from all over the Caucasus. Those present at the workshop will identify the appropriate people in their areas. There were not many representatives from the Northern Caucasus at the workshop therefore these will have to identified by Nadya also. Communication can take place mainly by phone/fax. The publication will take place under the auspices of a women’s organisation in Abkhazia and with the help of the news agency which Nadezhda works with in her capacity as writer/journalist.

The book will be no more than 500 pages long and 500 copies will be produced. The book will appear in Russian and subsequently may be translated into other languages. Eventually it may also be published on the internet.

The cost of printing the book in Abkhazia would be remarkably low. Diana Francis suggested that IFOR, a women’s network based in London, might be able to help find some money also.

There very few women at the top political level of Lederach’s triangle. Women possess the same rights as men legally - so what is preventing them from being promoted to the top level? There is a need to overcome gender stereotypes.

This project will set up a bulletin for women in the Caucasus. Articles will be collected from different regions of the Caucasus – Azerbaijan already has such a monthly bulletin. A database of the position of high-level/influential and active women in the Caucasus with all their contact etc. details will be created. Information will be gathered about the position of women in the Caucasus at different levels – local resources could be used for this, such as state institutions already collecting information in this area. It would be possible, for instance, to set up an annual conference for women from around the Caucasus, also parallel and joint projects involving seminars, training, lectures on women in power. Examples could be drawn from Turkey, Norway and other countries where there are women ministers. Materials could likewise be produced for the mass media.

It was noted that there was a lot of interest in the topic “Women as Leaders” - a request was made that International Alert consider this as a potential theme for a future TACIS follow-up women’s training session.

Appendix 4

WRITTEN EVALUATION

After the close of the workshop participants were asked to answer the following questions:

In what ways was it different?

What would you do differently?