Object: Resignation letter of Francesco Tullio as European member from the IGC of NP – Seriousness of the situation in the managment and organizational structure of Nonviolent Peaceforce.

Dear friends,
It’s with a sense of emptyness that I write to you: 
First of all please permit me to tell you

I’ll expose only some of the main serious example of the repeated uncorrected procedures.

The NP strategic and political course has been characterized by many problems since the very first moment after the convening event of Surjakund (India 2002).

My analytic comments on the first meeting of the IGC ( in Surjakund itself) and on the election of the chairs, were sent to the secretary of the IGC with the explicit request to put them in the minutes. I don’t know if they have been distributed to all MO and to all IGC members. Anyway at the second meeting of the IGC in St Paul(2003) they were not included in the minutes.

Erich Bachmann who was nominated in the IGC of NP after the St. Paul meeting did not receive my relation with the minutes.  

This and similar problems brought me to try several ways to ensure correctness of information flow and of decision making processes, transparence of decisions, transparence of methodological choices, and real participatory processes that should reflect our common nonviolent approach and the cultural richness and differences that NP is supposed to reflect as an added value of the NP project.

Some attempts and good willing actions where tried to overcome this situation but different, possibly unwilling, behaviours and choices did not permit to solve finally the problems and the wrong attitudes behind them.

I realized that my contributions systematically had to bounce toward a gummi wall. Probably because NP was looking much on the outcomes than to the correctness of the process, feeling that any suggestion and constructive critics on the information flow level could obstacle the achieving of rapid results than ameliorate the process.

After several and fatiguing attempts I could include in the agenda of the IGC a proposal about a newsletter which could represent an informative and participative tool of the MO and a space for open debate.

The decision for the proposed newsletter has been taken by unanimity in the IGC in Cuernavaca (2004) but after that no practical effort has been done to implement it.  Isn’t the Executive Committee called like this because it has to execute the decisions of the IGC ? Shouldn’t the Exec Committee, together with the NP Director, invest and coordinate human resources to implement the IGC decisions?

Something different happened in 2003, when NP could not hire new peace workers to be dislocated in Sri Lanka because, I have been told, there had not been a specific decision of the IGC, whereas new staff was hired, directly by the Director of NP, to work in the USA itself!

In Surjakund there were more than 160 people. The angloamericans were more or less 20%. In the first IGC meeting which took place in Surjakund as well, the english mother tongue speakers were suddenly 40-45%. Staff, in great part english mother tongue speakers, were included in the IGC meetings, strongly enhancing the anglo-american background and processes to decision making. Many non angloamerican members (if not all unless me ) had their travel costs paid by the american funding campaign. This was surely done with good intentions, but brought them at the first meetings to be more observers and less assertive.

Gustavo Cabrera Verga the director of Serpaj Latino America decided after that IGC meeting in Surjakund to resign from NP. Paloma Ayala a young member of Serpaj took his place in the IGC, but not as a representative of Serpaj itself.

Since 2003 first our thailandese IGC member resigned, then Rabia Roberts who was also member of the Executive Comittee.

Ramu Mannivan the indian member of IGC and of the Executive Committee has done until January 2005 a 9 month long passive resistance which seems to continue.

The requirements to IGC members are very high, but unclear. The frenzy character of many discussions brings non mother english speakers to be in great difficulty.

The most part of non english speaking members of IGC seem practically to be absent from any significant and propositive process ! Please look just as an example the minutes of the 23 of January 2005 approved by email in February, 2005. Present at the decision ( about the budget) were Lyn Adamson, Eric Bachman, Omar Diop, Donna Howard, Hindolo Pokawa, Phil Ritter, Claudia Samayoa, John Stewart, Tim Wallis; Mel Duncan, ex officio. Absent were Paloma Ayala, Young Kim, Akihiko Kimijima, Ramu Manivannan, Renad Qubbaj, Francesco Tullio. (In truth in a private letter I had delegated Erich Bachmann fully trusting in his careful experience of budgets)

The NP Committees are built mostly by anglo american people.

In January there has been a telephonic meeting of the Strategic and planning Committee where I participated with other 6 people, they were all english mother speaking.

top

Can we say that this is due to the bad will of non anglo american ? Or is it due to the definition of the agenda setting and to the way NP are working ? This is an open question to all MOs !?

For this I see a clear political responsibility in the actual Executive Committee which decided priorities not considering the possibility of others to be engaged. The Executive Committee has followed his own idea of Nonviolent Peaceforce, a brand new top down organization with quite exclusive hyperactive touch, with strong outcome and business oriented approach. It has not considered the prior necessity to involve all cultural wings of the international nonviolent movement in a participatory and dialogue oriented process. This is a big cultural question with vital importance.  

The spirit of the Surijakund meeting in this way could be  betrayed.

Furthermore  I cannot accept manipulative, even if unconscious, tricks like organizing an international meeting and then seeing "elected" through progressive unclear mechanisms an angloamerican ruling class.

There is a frenzy hectic style combined with the incapacity to take time to listen and find win/win solutions for central issues like the methodology of work. I consider the anglo american members of NP essential for the success of large scale interventions. But they have to get aware about how their styles and their cultural privileges (language, a strong and easy support of technology) are used even in our movement to define rules which can only be defined together. This could undermine our common adventure in building a world wide nonviolent peaceforce.

I am not willing to partecipate in a autocelebrative, propagandistic campaign where everything is shown as a great nonviolent effort even if it has to be accepted without critics and questionings.

Constructive proposals like the one of a participative newsletter disappeared in the NP after having been approved by the IGC in Cuernavaca. It disappeared even from the agenda of the Strategic and Planning Commmittee. 

The top down approach prevailed again even in this Committee. And the agenda was set up by a member of the Executive Committee. I had to fight to set again the point of the newsletter up in the agenda. Then after my protest it came again up but as something which should be further discussed and worked out by me personally. So the decision of the IGC was again contorted.

1.  With, at the beginning, American funds to set up the office and no real role of European MOs in the political guidance of NP in Europe; We can be grateful for this starting help but we cannot remain subordinates because of it.

2.  With not democratic internal structure but only a seeming like structure. The European director is chosen by the American NP director; as European delegate I have not been consulted; the European NP office responds to the intercontinental NP director. As far as I know the English co-chair is regularly consulted whereas I have never, I repeat never, in these three years been consulted or invited to give any opinion or to represent NP in any meeting. The bylaws can be changed but the spirit of the Surjakund meeting no.

3. Strong consideration of the outcome and business approach and quite inexistent consideration of the issue of participation of other cultures and nonviolent approaches.

This under-representative/top-down and "monocultural" structure is now in the condition to divert funds from European Governments and Donors towards a not European NGO, with no European project and competing with the European MOs projects. 

I repeat it… this structure will now take funds as a nonviolent NGO from the European Union, from Donors and from European governments.

We should not permit it, not if NP is not seriously reconsidering it’s internal structure. It is not only a question of written papers ! it’s a question of respect, of unspoken aspects, of setting up of the agenda’s of real involving other people with the necessary times instead of hurrying.

In the last two years I accepted in Europe the organizatory model of EnCPS and of Eu MO of NP being parallel structures but now I see that this is only a way to keep some business oriented decisions out of the disturbances of a democratic process.

The EnCPs should set up the european permanent office of NP (id est:  take over completely the european office of NP and not permit any intrusion from outside Europe) and decide from the bottom his representatives, his staff and it’s relations with the intercontinental coordination of the nonviolent peacebuilding forces. NP, should and could become above all an intercontinental network of nonviolent active civil peace corps, instead of representing a frenzy attempt to substitute them.

EnCPS and the european MO of NP should contribute to:

1. Prepare large scale interventions. The pilot project in Sri Lanka is an important aspect of this process but it is not the only one. Even more important is the process of a networking between worldwide organizations already realizing nonviolent intervention in conflicts. We should set up a clearer information flow enhancing all nonviolent peacebuilding  and peace corps efforts all over the world, as an unavoidable tool to create synergies.

2. Build a real international cross-cultural nonviolent NGO not dominated by any culture and approach (but at present the English/Anglo-Saxon approach is dominant in the management).

The Europeans should strictly refuse the linguistic and cultural colonialism (I don't mean that we can use other languages than english but it has to be used not in a quick and slungy way as it is mostly in the IGC NP meetings and in the NP staff activity, respecting the major work that non mother speaking persons have to do in speaking and writing in english!); If we, in Europe, have set up a correct process between so many different cultures and languages we can be able to suggest it even on the international level.

3. Strengthen inside NP the processes of reciprocal listening, of democratic and if necessary slow decision taking  that we (En CPS) have set up in so many years and refuse the top down approach of the actual NP;

NP has a big chance to set up services for all peacebuilding groups all over the world. A common newsletter would only be the first step. An international nonviolent press agency and other services to support local groups could easily follow, which will give to local groups a plusvalue. The first step would only be an easy  question of asking for articles, for contributions, for selected informations  to local groups and to engaged journalists and researchers. It is a question of giving, to little and big groups, the chance to express themselves.

A further point should be to separate precisely the Intercontinental coordination (whose task cannot be to continue to work on the creation of a top down organization but to network the existing in all continents) and the practice work of the pilot project, (whose coordination can even be given to one or two continents for example Asia + North America). In the intercontinental networking level should be involved only yet well established and organized continental or regional networks. Individuals, local and national groups should first involve themselves in higher regional and international networks to participate in the higher organizatory level. (This would not be needed to express themselves on the newsletter, to have the chance to say to the whole nonviolent world movements that they exist and what they are doing).

Individuals and little organizations lended over to the international work of NP, even if on the personal level they are very goodwilling persons, are used to legitimate uncorrect procedures, because they don’t have the force to resist to the monocultural dominance.

NP should  enhance this process instead of trying to establish new continental organizations and to select itself the people who could participate to the intercontinental events.

Even the selection of field team member should be done wherever possible by continental groups and not centrally. The field team members should be selected between people who are aware about the necessity to synergizise with those of other continents, to overcome internal conflicts of the teams and to be effective.

Please remember that Serpaj Latino America did not really invest in  NP since the first IGC meeting  in Surjakund (just after the Convening Event), where the touch that I am denouncing came up.

En CPS should take contact with Serpaj Latino America and with other african and asiatic networks to convince NP to act without the actual intrusive business oriented organization.

I consider at that time the changement of the actual Executive Committee of NP the first necessity in order to really set up a new course. The Executive Committee should resign letting the current administrative work of NP in the hands of the precedent steering committee or in the hands of 5 - 6 sages of all over the world, until a new intercontinental meeting will take place, so to set up a real world wide network with all relative needed functional services.

In this way NP and it’s Executive Committee would show that they are not attached to business or to power and would give a highly respected new and clear impulse to the international peacebuilding movement, which is the only true ground of large scale interventions.  

Best greetings and a good work

Francesco Tullio