Interview with Stein Villumstad of Norwegian Church Aid

Stein Villumstad is the regional representative for Norwegian Church Aid in the Horn of Africa and Great Lakes region. The organisation is working with religious leaders from Ethiopia and Eritrea on a "second track" peace process. Here he shares with IRIN reflections on the difficult steps towards reconciliation and the critical juncture now facing both countries. QUESTION: What is Norwegian Church Aid's role within the Ethio-Eritrea peace process? ANSWER: It dates back to 1998 when the war started. We realised that the attempts at peace negotiations were really stalled and were not going anywhere. We had no role to play at the political level. Our main constituency and partners are the churches in the two countries, and they represent the people and not the governments. Could they initiate a second track process? The churches are our partners but they represent not much more than 50 percent of the population in the two countries. If the dialogue could also include the Muslims, they would reach the great majority of people in the two countries. We contacted the religious leaders in both countries, in order to explore whether inter-faith consultations between both sides would be relevant. Our long humanitarian history in both countries and deep relations with some of the religious communities gave us a good starting point to facilitate such a process. Both sides responded positively, and the process could start. Q: How successful do you think your attempts to bolster peace have been? A: In the beginning of our discussions there was an ambition among the religious leaders to influence the governments to stop the war. Obviously there were other forces that were stronger, and the war continued. But there were certainly other roles they could and can play. Inflammatory propaganda and language of hate is quite detrimental to a reconciliation process. When religious leaders met in third countries, they put out statements appealing to authorities and the media, not to go that way. They issued appeals to their governments to take serious steps to end the war, and to their peoples to search for peace. They expressed solidarity with the innocent people who suffered due to the conflict. On return to their home capitals they repeated these appeals to the local media. These were relatively small steps, but they were quite symbolic. People are looking for alternatives that can lift them up and give them some hope. That influential groups from the two countries met, in spite of the war, and that they were the only significant groups who had the chance to meet during that period, is very important. Q: How did that contribution manifest itself? A: The most visible and powerful contribution to building trust and promoting reconciliation was the programme of visitations last year. The groups visited each other in their respective capitals, held public meetings, met with high government officials and celebrated their faiths together. Press coverage was quite good, and the awareness of their move towards reconciliation was broadly acknowledged. No other significant group had taken similar steps, and the message of peace had not been pronounced more clearly to the peoples and authorities from any other corner. Q: What would you like to see happen next among religious leaders? A: I hope they will meet and possibly explore new visitation programmes, in addition to intensified work within their respective faiths and communities. There was at one point an attempt for them to physically cross the border together. When time is ripe, that would be an important symbolic action. This would give possibilities to meet communities on both sides. Local committees of elders and religious leaders on both sides may be initiated and encouraged to work for reconciliation, reconstruction and promotion of understanding. This would give some kind of hope. Q: What do you see as normalisation? A: Normalisation is what the governments do to normalise diplomatic relations, communication, trade, opening up the border and other measures that will create normal relations. The process of reconciliation is different. It is driven by people and not necessarily driven by formal institutions. It is people on both sides trying to come to grips with their grief and pains, and their desire to live together in the future, a combination of being involved in the affected areas, seeing that things are happening across the border, and showing solidarity. Q: Is there any indication from religious authorities of how to move towards normalisation? A: During their joint meetings with their respective government representatives last year, they asked them to re-open the postal service and the telecommunication between the two countries as soon as possible. They argued that people on both sides should have the possibility to communicate. Communication should be encouraged between people on both sides, between families, between friends. Q: How effective a force do you think working with religious leaders can be? A: The religious institutions and communities are, in terms of their size and physical presence, the most significant civil society institutions in both countries. The traditions of Ethiopia and Eritrea are historically hierarchical. Grassroots mobilisation of religious communities in these countries is probably more difficult than in other African countries, as for example South Africa and Kenya. The role of the most senior leaders is therefore crucial in Ethiopian and Eritrean tradition. The fact that the religious leaders are using their voices to talk peace to the political leaders and to the people should be very much recognised. Q: How seriously do you view the current situation? A: From what we read and hear, it seems we are at a critical phase. We are once more hearing the word "enemy" appearing in statements. That is worrying. Q: Why do you think the level of bitterness between both countries is so strong? A: In family conflicts, emotions run high. In many ways, the peoples of the two countries are one family, and they are very close. There is a combination of bitterness of why this had to happen, and towards the heavy burden the war has put on them as people - "Why between brothers?" Q: How do you defuse that? A: The contribution of the religious leaders and communities may be significant. Concrete solidarity is shown through humanitarian assistance and through support for reconstruction at the local level. Alleviation of human suffering may help to turn around the bitterness and hopelessness. The people are physically very affected. They have lost dear ones; many have had to leave their homes. Their livelihoods have been heavily affected. The holistic approach by the religious communities cares for the physical and spiritual needs. This combination is important in defusing bitterness. Q: Do you think the international community needs to make more efforts to ensure the peace process remains on track? A: The current global situation has not made peace processes in Africa easier. It has taken some of the focus and pressure away, not only on Ethiopia and Eritrea. More international pressure on the peace process in Somalia will have an effect on what is happening in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Of course the Sudan peace process is important to the Ethio-Eritrea peace process. The Horn is a region and must be a regional issue. At this critical moment it is very important that the international community is firmly supporting the peace processes in the region. Q: Do you remain optimistic? A: I am optimistic, but the peace process will probably be a ride that has its ups and downs. Obviously this conflict is about border posts and other issues that need to be addressed before the two countries can settle down to a normal relationship. But the people want peace. This is the most important sign of hope. The commitment of the religious communities and their leaders reinforces this hope.