This academic webinar was presented by Alejandro Vélez, Editor-in-Chief, Nuestra Aparente Rendición (Our Apparent Surrender).

This webinar is transcribed into Chinese

Watch the webinar below:

Webinar content:

1. Introduction of the Speaker: 00:00- 01:27
2. Presentation: 01:29 – 30:45

 

Webinar Summary

Enforced disappearance has been used by undemocratic and democratic regimes as well as violent groups for decades. It is considered one of the most severe crimes because it consists of simultaneous violations of various interrelated human rights norms and has widespread pernicious psychosocial effects on the society. Despite the terrible impact, enforced disappearances have not necessarily led to civic disempowerment.

On the contrary, the relatives of the disappeared persons have often engaged in strategic collective actions as a way to resist nonviolently the crime and its demobilizing effects. Those most affected have created solidarity groups or mutual aid associations to help victims’ families, confront perpetrators and raise awareness about disappearances. Various nonviolent actions of defiance mobilized people, made violations visible not only on a domestic but also an international stage and, in some cases, imposed costs and constraints on governments that resulted in the adoption of search protocols, passing new anti-disappearance legislation, or acknowledgement of crimes committed by responsible authorities. Arguably, in some cases these efforts have even been successful in preventing further disappearances.

This webinar will present various examples of nonviolent organizing and actions against forced disappearances and their role and impact.

 

Presenter

Alejandro Vélez is the editor in chief of Nuestra Aparente Rendición’s webpage. He has a B.A. in Political Science and a Ph.D. in Humanities. In his Ph.D. research he sought to make visible the pernicious effects on peace and human rights that originated in the global securitarian response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He came back to Mexico in 2012 and he enrolled the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitan-Xochimilco Social Psychology Faculty for a two-year postdoctoral fellowship where he did research on the catastrophe of enforced disappearance in Mexico. Along with Lolita Bosch he edited the book Tú y yo Coincidimos en la Noche Terrible (You and I Concur on the Terrible Night) that collected the life stories of all the journalists and media workers that have been murdered or disappeared since 2000 in Mexico. He likes to dwell in the triangle between academia, journalism and human rights defense.

 

Additional Resources

• Exposición Fotográfica Geografía del Dolor. Vimeo video, August 11, 2014. Available Online
• Knapke, Margaret. “Colombia: Remembering as Resistance.” Nonviolent Activist, Winter 2005. Available Online
• Longoni, Ana. “Photographs and Silhouettes: Visual Politics in Argentina.” Vol. 25, Afterall, Autumn/Winter 2010. Available online
• Reyes, Cristina. Embroidering for Peace: Women Sewing Aesthetical and Political Narratives against Violence in Mexico. YouTube video, June 11, 2014. Available online
• Salaburu, Santi. Homenaje a 33 Años del Golpe Militar – “Ausencias” de Gustavo Germano. YouTube video, March 18, 2014. Available online

 

This ICNC Academic Webinar was presented on Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2015 by Juan Masullo Jiménez, Doctoral Researcher at the Department of Political and Social Sciences at the European University Institute (EUI).

 

Watch webinar below:

Webinar content:

1. Introduction of the Speaker: 00:00- 01:25
2. Presentation: 01:32 – 39:25
3. Questions and Answers: 39:50 – 56:53

 

Webinar Summary

In this webinar, Juan will tell us the compelling story of a community of ordinary campesinos (farmers) who have lead a longstanding, sustained and organized effort to nonviolently resist armed opponents in Colombia’s longstanding civil war. The case study of the Peace Community of San Jose de Apartado (PCSJA) leaves us with an important message regarding the scale at which ongoing peace efforts in Colombia can be advanced. National peace negotiations usually take place between high-level representatives of warring parties, without involving authentic grassroots peacemakers such as the PCSJA.

 

Further Participant Questions

Questions not addressed during the webinar recording itself.

Participant’s question: What role, if any, did international accompaniment play into the struggle?

Juan Masullo Jiménez: The role of international accompaniment is central to the Peace Community struggle. In fact, many villagers highlight that they are where they are thanks, to a large extent, to their international support network, which includes, but goes beyond, international accompaniment. I would qualify, however, by noting that its role is less important when it comes to understanding the emergence of the Community than its persistence and developments over time. During the process of consultation and coordination prior to the creation, as well as when the community was declared in March 1997, there was no international accompaniment as such (in the form of physical accompaniment, at least). The day of the public declaration there was presence of international actors, but it would be a somehow inaccurate to call it “accompaniment”. In fact, the first accompaniment the community had (in the form of “unarmed bodyguards”) was national. International actors that today play a central role, such as the Fellowship of Reconciliation, Operazione Colombia and Peace Brigades, came into the picture later through an interesting process of brokerage and coalition formation. Today, the first two have constant presence in two of the Community’s settlements and the third has its office in the capital of the Municipality and is constant communication with the Community.

Participant’s question: How did you get involved in nonviolent resistance?

Juan Masullo Jiménez: I have been interested in the Colombian civil war in particular and in the phenomenon of civil war in general for many years now and have conducted different types of research on related topics. In doing so (and influenced by the work of other scholars), I felt we were missing something important as most of the work being done on the topic (at least in the fields of political science and sociology) focused on armed groups as the main actors (leaving civilians aside) and violence as the central interactions (leaving nonviolent ones aside). Not happy with this narrow (although understandable) focus, and also having a strong interest in the study of social movements and collective action, I decided to study other actors and other types of interactions that also take place in civil war. Being Colombian and knowing about the existence of the Peace Community and other experiences of the sort, it was an almost natural step to do research on nonviolent resistance. This goes without saying that, beyond my academic interests, since I heard about the Peace Community and other resisting communities in Colombia and abroad, I have deeply admired what they do. I was fascinated by the mere fact of seeing people defying heavily armed groups without resorting to any type of violence. This resonated well with the teachings and preachings on (principled) nonviolence coming from Easter philosophy and religion that I have been studying and following for a long time.

 

Presenter

Juan Masullo Jiménez is a Doctoral Researcher at the Department of Political and Social Sciences at the European University Institute (EUI).  He is also an honorary member of the Consortium on Social Movement Studies (COSMOS) and an associated researcher at the Jaweriana University (Bogota, Colombia), and holds Master’s degrees in International Relations (International Peace and Security) from the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI) and Political Science (Comparative Politics) from the Central European University (CEU). Juan was awarded the ICNC Research Monograph Award in 2014.

 

 Additional Resources

“The Power of Staying Put: Nonviolent Resistance Against Armed Groups in Colombia” by Juan Masullo Jiménez (free PDF download)
Purchase a hard copy on Amazon (US$6.75).
Download a Spanish translation: “El Poder de No Desplazarse: Resistencia No-violenta Contra Grupos Armados en Columbia“

This ICNC Academic Webinar was presented on Thursday, Sept. 24, 2015 by Tenzin Dorjee, Activist and Writer, and former executive director of Students for a Free Tibet. 

 

 Watch webinar recording below:

Webinar content:

1. Introduction of the Speaker: 00:00- 00:56
2. Presentation: 01:00 – 34:44
3. Questions and Answers: 35:20 – 56:23

 

Webinar Summary

This webinar will take parts of Tendor Dorjee’s ICNC Monograph and use that to analyze the strategy and history of the civic struggle in Tibet over the last six decades. Contrary to a perception, fueled by Chinese propaganda during the 2008 Tibetan uprising, that the Tibetan struggle is heading toward extremism, this webinar will show that since the 1950s, the movement has moved toward a tighter embrace of nonviolent resistance. The webinar will examine this evolution, analyzing central themes, purposes, challenges, strategies, tactics and impacts of three major Tibetan uprisings over the last six decades. Tibetans are now waging a quiet, slow-building nonviolent movement, centered on strengthening the Tibetan national and cultural fabric via what Dorjee calls “transformative resistance.” This is happening in an immensely repressive political environment, which shows that there is a way to mobilize people power against even one of the most ruthless regimes in the world.

 

Further Participant Questions

Questions not addressed during the webinar recording itself.

Participant’s question: Can you say more about Lhakar’s effectiveness? I am asking because the documentary “Tibet in Song” shows how Beijing cracks down on any assertion of Tibetan identity. Also, has the protest against mining been replicated elsewhere, and with the same success?

Tenzin Dorjee: Lhakar has been one of the most effective homegrown campaigns we’ve seen in Tibet. It’s true that China clamps down on almost every assertion of Tibetan identity, as you saw in the film “Tibet in Song,” but there are still small pockets of space for action that one can find within China’s repressive system. When Tibetans assert their identity in simple and personal ways, such as eating Tibetan cuisine, writing in Tibetan script, or refusing to speak Chinese at home, it is hard for Chinese authorities to punish these acts even if they would like to. Regarding the question about mining, there have been some successful campaigns in other places. Recently, Tibetans in Dzatoe and Kyegudo have waged anti-mining campaigns with some measurable success so far. But it is hard to tell whether these two campaigns were directly inspired by the success of Markham.

Participant’s question: You’ve mentioned a common vision, which we know is critical for success of a nonviolent movement. Can you talk a little bit more about where this stands for the Tibet movement, how it’s being developed with all the challenges of repression and diaspora and dispersion of activists, and next steps?

Tenzin Dorjee: In recent years, articulation of a common vision for Tibet has become increasingly tough. The Tibetan government in exile pursues autonomy for Tibet as its goal while many Tibetans outside the establishment advocate independence, the former advocates a highly conciliatory diplomatic approach while the latter wants to push for a more confrontational grassroots approach. But this doesn’t mean that a common vision cannot be developed. One area of commonality is the fact that both camps emphasize the use of nonviolent methods and the rejection of violence, and this commonality can be turned into a foundation for united action. It is hard to dismiss the debate between independence advocates and autonomy advocates as unimportant, because the debate is absolutely necessary and also a result of both camps caring deeply about the cause. Nevertheless, we could say, let’s continue the debate in a more civil and less hostile fashion, but let’s also start working together on more immediate and achievable campaigns around, say, environmental issues, political prisoners’ release, anti-mining mobilization, etc. Focusing on these concrete campaigns rather than remaining trapped in a never-ending ideological tug-of-war will make the Tibet movement more united as a force, and therefore more of a challenge to China.

Participant’s question: How has the Chinese government’s responses to these protests changed from the 1959, 1989 to 2008 protests?

Tenzin Dorjee: The Chinese government’s response to Tibetan protests has been consistently ruthless and brutal. But after each successive uprising and crackdown, the Chinese authorities’ methods of repression become more sophisticated. Especially in 2008, the Chinese government made strategic use of its media and information monopoly over Tibet, especially CCTV footage captured on surveillance cameras. For days and weeks, it circulated to domestic and international media images of Tibetans rioting in the streets of Lhasa, while censoring all images of the mass violence used by Chinese authorities on Tibetan protesters. They also immediately expelled all foreigners from Tibet in an attempt to prevent any reporting other than its own. In the 1987-88 uprising, many foreigners documented and broadcast Chinese brutalities against Tibetans, causing China a huge loss of face. In 2008, China wanted to make sure foreigners didn’t get the opportunity to do that, and proceeded to lock off the entire region from foreigners and reporters. So it is clear that Chinese government response to the Tibetan protests are getting more sophisticated.

Participant’s question: In Egypt and other recent nonviolent movements, technology has played a huge part. How is the Tibet movement embracing technology as a tool in this nonviolent movement?

Tenzin Dorjee: Technology has played an unexpectedly important role in the Tibet movement. In the past, Tibetan elders used to worry that the advent of technology, and all the flash and seduction it comes with, would distract the youth from our traditional heritage and undermine the movement to protect Tibet’s cultural as well as political identity. However, once Tibetans began to overcome their fear of technology and put it to service, we quickly realized that it could serve multiple purposes. In the ‘90s, radio stations such as VOA, RFA and Voice of Tibet, which were the only alternative sources of information in Tibet, became a lifeline between Tibetans in Tibet and those in exile. In the last ten years, thanks to advancing digital and information technologies, news and information from Tibet travel to the outside world much faster. Until a few years ago, it used to take up to a month for exiled Tibetans to learn about the arrest of someone in Tibet, but now real-time communication over tools such as email, Skype, QQ, and Wechat allows exiles to get such news within hours, even minutes. All this is changing the landscape of the political movement, opening up new possibilities for organizing and mobilization.

Participant’s question: How could Tibetans reach out to other groups in China, such as Uyghurs or Chinese workers, farmers and Chinese intellectuals to create a diverse and multi-ethnic coalition for greater political rights? Is this possible, and how?

Tenzin Dorjee: I think it is possible, but it won’t be easy. There are many barriers between Tibetans and Chinese that prevent them from working together even when there are common grievances. Many of these barriers are cultural and have existed for centuries, while other barriers are political and created by the government. However, in the meantime, Tibetans might find it easier to reach out to non-Chinese groups such as Mongolians and Uyghurs, who are undergoing many of the same existential problems as Tibetans. For example, both Tibetans and Mongolians have a huge nomadic population who are being driven to the edge by the Chinese government’s ethnocidal policies. Although difficult, it might not be entirely impossible for Tibetans and Mongolians to start a joint movement against policies such as relocation of nomads from their ancestral grasslands.

 

Presenter

Tenzin Dorjee is an activist and writer, and the former executive director of Students for a Free Tibet, a global network of students and activists dedicated to advancing Tibetan freedom and human rights. His writings have been published in various forums, including the Huffington Post, Global Post, Courrier International, Tibetan Review, Tibet Times and the CNN Blog. He is a regular commentator on Tibet-related issues on Radio Free Asia, Voice of America and Voice of Tibet. Born and raised in India, he is a graduate of the Tibetan Children’s Village and Brown University. He worked at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, D.C., before moving to New York to work at Students for a Free Tibet. He is pursuing a Master’s degree in political science at Columbia University. Dorjee is a recipient of the 2014 ICNC Research Monograph Award.

 

Additional Resources

The Tibetan Nonviolent Struggle: A Strategic and Historical Analysis (English) by Tenzin Dorjee

The Tibetan Nonviolent Struggle: A Strategic and Historical Analysis (Tibetan version) by Tenzin Dorjee

 

This ICNC Academic Webinar was presented on Thursday, March 19, 2015 by Barry L. Gan, Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Nonviolence at St. Bonaventure University.

This webinar is transcribed into Chinese

Watch the webinar below:

Webinar content:

1. Introduction of the Speaker: 00:32- 02:00
2. Presentation: 02:04 – 23:45
3. Questions and Answers: 24:26 – 50:41

 

Webinar Summary

The concept of civil resistance presumes the notion of a large-scale struggle as a means to initiate a sustained political change. These struggles must be multilayered, in that they should not aim primarily to disrupt an adversary’s business but rather to transform a society as a whole. Additionally, they should be multidimensional, consisting of direct as well as constructive nonviolent actions. But the typical actions by which civil resistance has been practiced in recent years, most notably in the Arab Spring, have been aimed at power at the top, an approach that ignores a key principle of nonviolent action-that power resides in the masses. They seem to have neglected that the emotions of people who sit on the fence, who are neither with the power structure nor opposed to it, play a major role in power shifts.

Ultimately, a change merely in power at the top means no real change in the institutional structures that oppress people in the first place. Meaningful change requires a longer-term approach directed at changing the mind-sets of the masses of people and at changing institutions, not necessarily the officials in those institutions. In the end, it is a continued development of new understandings of power, wielded from the bottom up, developed democratically, practiced over time, understood by many, that will change an oppressive culture.

 

Further Participant Questions

Questions not addressed during the webinar recording itself.

Participant’s Question: The presentation alluded to the idea that change should take the form of what Gene Sharp called “conversion,” which is a force that reverses the adversary’s views using moral persuasion. However, scholars of civil resistance generally agree that this type of mechanism of change (conversion) has been marginal to the success of nonviolent resistance. In other words, it is an ideal that everyone would like to aspire to, but it is not a practical instrument to bring about change in the real world of popular uprisings. This contradicts some of the main points of your presentation which has to do with bringing the opponent to your side by moral example. Could you comment on this seeming contradiction and effectiveness of moral persuasion versus economic and social disruption in undermining brutal dictatorships?

Barry L. Gan: The presentation did indeed allude to the concept of conversion, but by conversion I did not mean necessarily the conversion of one’s adversaries.  More important is the conversion of the masses of people at the bottom of the pyramid who initially believe that they have no stake in the struggle.  It is nonviolence and the suffering that is imposed on the grievance group that wins over, that converts, the masses of people who sit on the fence.  Leaders are not likely to be converted to their opponents’ points of views.  I agree.  But masses of people who are initially indifferent are much more likely to be converted by observing nonviolent activists than by observing violent ones.  Furthermore, to the extent that nonviolent activists are seen as disruptive rather than constructive in their engagement, they are less likely to convert those who are initially indifferent, those who sit on the fence, those who are neither opponents nor collaborators.

Participant’s Question: What is the boundary between development and resistance as you have defined it? Those in the development community sometimes criticize actors using civil resistance as being disruptive, thus discouraging the use of extra-constitutional organizing. Your arguments seem to align themselves with those held by the people from the developmental community that emphasize the importance of dialogue and negotiations over nonviolent direct actions in bringing about change. The issue is that no dictators have been toppled because of simple dialogue and negotiations without a real people power movement – often in the form of contentious actions –that stood behind them. Resistance in that sense seems to be a positive feature of nonviolent actions and is the very element that distinguishes nonviolent organizing from processes such as economic development. Dictators love to talk about the latter to stress the necessity for stability and peace that guarantee their rule.  I would like to hear your perspective on this in the light of some parts of your presentation that had a critical view on civil resistance.

Barry L. Gan: Major political change is not an either/or proposition.  It’s not a matter of civil resistance versus development.  More importantly, civil resistance should not be the aim of those seeking political change.  Political change should be the aim.  And civil resistance is but one tool, and not even always a necessary tool.  Stephen Zunes documented much positive political change in three countries in the webinar that followed this one.  And none of the political change that he documented involved massive disruption and resistance to bring down a dictator.  Au contraire.  See the response to Question 1 above:  to the extent that those who sit on the fence see efforts for major political change merely as reactionary resistance instead of positive development, they are less likely to get off the fence, less likely to add to the power of a movement, which might best not be called a resistance movement but an alternative movement.

Participant’s Question: Among scholars who study civil resistance, this term is used to describe a large variety of actions other than demonstrations and protests. In your presentation, however, you criticized it saying that it is not necessary to bring about a successful outcome for a movement. Instead of defining civil resistance with such a narrow scope (e.g. disruption, obstruction), shouldn’t the criticism be directed toward those that rely upon physical actions in the street, rather than those that advocate and practice civil resistance in its entirety (for example, a landless people’s movement in Brazil or for that matter, a number of anti-communist movements in Central Europe)?

Barry L. Gan: I have no issue with widening the concept of civil resistance, but I hesitate to call all forms of opposition to existing policies as resistance, a needlessly belligerent term.  A constructive programme can be construed as resistance, and indeed it is likely to be construed as resistance and thus crushed if those who pursue the constructive programme call it resistance.  But if it is simply called a constructive programme, a new way of doing things, then it is less likely (1) to be targeted by an oppressive regime in its early stages (2) more likely to succeed in its later stages, and (4) less likely to attract the sorts of people who enjoy antagonizing, and (4) more likely to attract the kinds of people who want a constructive alternative. Similarly, I take issue with the use of the term obstructive, just as I have some issue with the term resistance.  In a sense, the term civil resistance or at least the term civil obstruction is almost—I say almost—an oxymoron.  Obstruction for obstruction’s sake,  resistance for resistance’s sake, are ultimately counterproductive to building a power base.  One must always be open to dialogue, which need not cede one’s growing power.  The resistance must be a resistance of conscience, not something aimed at harming another.  If it is aimed at harming another, then it’s not nonviolent.

Participant’s Question: One might say that two different types of self-reliance exist. The first kind could be called “egoistic” or “selfish” self-reliance, in which people are indirectly in cahoots with a ruling government or their community’s adversary for their own enrichment and well-being. They value stability and economic prosperity over systemic change and are thus aligned with those who want to preserve status quo. The other kind- “selfless self-reliance” – is more similar to what Gandhi advocated: communitywide self-reliance. This type of reliance involves thousands or millions of local actors who work to develop parallel instutions, ruling structures, and/or other capacities so that they can function outside of the boundaries set for the rest of society. How does one encourage the use of community/selfless self-reliance while simultaneously discouraging egoistic self-reliance?

Barry L. Gan: This is a good question, and I’m not sure I have a good answer for it.  All I can say is that (1) it may not be an either/or proposition when it comes down to actual practice.  That is, one may find both sorts of people engaged in self-reliant activities, various motives and aims in any population.  And (2) the power of example will prevail unless so much power is aligned against it.

Participant’s Question: What if self reliance is not possible in that sense? Take for instance Palestine or South Africa where if you look at the progression of the nonviolent movements self-reliance was sadly never an option as water sources, electricity was nationalized by repressive regimes they fought against. With Gandhi it was a lot easier to become self-sufficient as it was very localised whereas on a macro level to change an entire system of racism it is in that sense harder to do. What is your view on this?

Barry L. Gan: It is not my place to counsel Palestinians, who have suffered since the inception of the State of Israel, on being patient.  Their struggle is a long one, to be sure, and many have been born and died during the course of that struggle.  The same holds true for South Africa.  However, we can look back at South Africa and see that, in the end, nonviolent action prevailed.  And in the end, I am confident that nonviolent action could prevail in Israel/Palestine.  Until recently, the Palestinians have had a difficult time publicizing their nonviolence, and, as in Burma, the nonviolent movement has not been helped by activists who engage in violence.  The violence has been most counterproductive to an earlier coming to terms between the parties.

Participant’s Question: I am originally from Tajikistan but I live here in the USA. What would be your advice to those people who live outside but still want to see their parents, friends, people in free and fair society?

Barry L. Gan: First, what do your parents, friends, and others in Tajikistan want?  Do they want to leave, or do they want to stay?  If they want to leave, you know what to do since you have left.  If they want to stay, then the answers are the same as in the presentation.  Your parents, friends, and relatives should work to build alternatives that initially do not threaten the powers that be.  Develop power that makes the leaders irrelevant.  Heed the advice of Srdja Popovic, one of the Otpor leaders and the author of “Blueprint For Revolution.” I quote him at length in one chapter in my own book Violence and Nonviolence: An Introduction. He speaks of the difficulties facing Syria shortly after war erupted there.  His advice was sage: boycotts, especially economic boycotts not active violent struggle, are a very effective tool against repression and a better option than violence against an oppressive regime. But from the outside, you might work to develop micro-loans, not just for friends and family but a much larger program that builds power in the base. Work to develop exchange programs—student exchange programs, professor exchange programs.  Work to foster as much interaction as possible between people from home with those in other countries.  Educate others like myself, who are generally ignorant of the situation in Tajikistan, about Tajikistan.  Do this on a one-to-one basis.  Do this on a larger scale.  Writing letters to representatives in Congress is less effective than writing op-ed pieces, which they are more likely to read and which will reach many more people.

 

Presenter

Barry L. Gan is a Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Nonviolence at St. Bonaventure University. He is also an ICNC Academic Advisor and the author of Violence and Nonviolence: An Introduction. He is co-editor with Robert L. Holmes of a leading anthology on nonviolence, Nonviolence in Theory and Practice, now in a third edition; and he is editor of The Acorn: Journal of the Gandhi-King Society. For two years he served as program committee chair of the oldest and largest interfaith peace group in the United States, the Fellowship of Reconciliation.

He has taught at St. Bonaventure University for the past thirty years since receiving his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in philosophy from the University of Rochester in 1981 and 1984, respectively. Prior to that he taught high school and junior high school English for six years. He is newly married to Miaoli Zhang, a trainer in microscopic photography for Olympus of China. He has a daughter who is a writer and works at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, and he has a son who has recently been graduated from college. To read more about Dr. Gan, click here.

 

Additional Resources

• Albert Einstein Institution (homepage)
• “Collective Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electric Book).” New Delhi, Publications Division Government of India, 1999, 98 volumes. Available online
• Gan, Barry. Violence and Nonviolence: An Introduction. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013.
• Global Nonviolent Action Database (homepage)
• Holmes, Robert L. and Gan, Barry L. Nonviolence in Theory and Practice. 3rd edition. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, 2012.
• Lakey, George. “Strategizing for a Living Revolution.” History is a Weapon, n.d. Available online
• Moyer, Bill. “The Movement Action Plan: A Strategic Framework Describing the Eight Stages of Successful Social Movements.” History is a Weapon, Spring 1987. Available online

 

This webinar was presented by Pastor Cori Bush, Kingdom Embassy International; Dr. Bernard Lafayette, Civil Rights Activist and Distinguished Senior Scholar-in-Residence at Emory University; Dr. David Ragland, Visiting Professor at Bucknell University; and Barbara J. Wien, Professorial Lecturer at American University.

 

Watch the webinar below:

Introduction of Speakers (3 minutes) View on YouTube 

Police Militarization and Brutality (22 minutes) View on YouTube

Movement Strategy, Tactics, and Nonviolent Discipline (26 minutes) View on YouTube

From Selma to Montgomery to Ferguson and Beyond (14 minutes) View on YouTube

Live Q&A with Webinar Attendees (25 minutes) View on YouTube

 

Webinar Summary

Police brutality and militarization have reached crisis proportions for people of color in the United States. Youth, students, clergy, educators, lawyers, civil rights leaders, and hundreds of community grassroots coalitions and national organizations have come together to nonviolently resist repressive violence and a lack of accountability through mass organizing, rallies, teach-ins, protests, speakouts, and marches. Consciousness and mobilization are spreading and scaling-up, particularly on college campuses.

The narrative and discourse about policing and laws are changing in cities and towns across the nation. What is the vision of this peaceful civil resistance movement? What strategies, goals and methods are being tried in the Ferguson-St. Louis area of Missouri? How can the movement ensure nonviolent discipline among its participants? What is this movement seeking as redress against police repression and overreach? What is the movement’s real adversary? How must the movement define its interactions with the police? What cutting-edge, long-term solutions will keep our communities safe and united?

This webinar will aim to address these questions in addition to discussing community dialogues and truth telling hearings (see http://www.thetruthtellingproject.org/) that have been organized in St. Louis, Missouri for March 13-15th, 2015, following a historic 50th Anniversary march on the bridge in Selma Alabama.

 

Download Presentation Slides

 

Further Participant Questions

Questions not addressed during the webinar recording itself.

Re: Police Militarization and Brutality

Follow-up question from a viewer: Dr. Ragland raised an interesting point about scapegoating of the police.  To what extent do you think the movement should be trying to win over police as allies?  In what ways is this possible, and in what ways do relations with police need to be more antagonistic?

Response: Many officers are already allies and are trying to participate in peacemaking and restorative justice circles, community conversations and peace dialogues. The fact that 84% of U.S. police say that have witnessed excessive use of force by their fellow officers, but were afraid to speak up (according to U.S Dept. of Justice study), indicates that police want to change their own culture.  Citizen oversight advisory boards can help.

Follow-up question from a viewer: How can we best reach those in the United States who are unaware of civil rights conflicts/police brutality?

Response: Through discussions and trusted friendships, by requesting your local newspapers and TV stations carry more information, and by getting involved with your community and local police force for oversight and accountability.

Follow-up question from a viewer: How can we utilize social media as a conflict intervention for the current civil rights conflict and exposing police brutality (with the target audience being those that aren’t aware of the conflict)?

Response:  Speak the truth in a straightforward, respectfully manner in as many venues as possible so that unaware citizens can relate and understand.  Make it a question of fairness.

 

Re: Movement Strategy, Tactics, and Nonviolent Discipline

Follow-up question from a viewer: Does the movement have a serious power analysis? Is non-violence a principle or a strategy for you all?

Response: Yes, we have a serious power analysis.  Among the major pillars holding up police brutality and militarism in the U.S. are – – greed and profits; fear of “the other”/racism; an ideology or cultural belief system in the U.S. which says violence “works”; patriarchal control & male domination,; habit; ignorance; and lack of critical consciousness across the society.

Follow-up question from a viewer: What ideas/experience do you have about working with police to thwart violence and police provocateurs, and to change to nonviolent tactics that we could use?

Response: One idea is to deploy unarmed civilian peacekeepers (using models from Nonviolent Peaceforce, Gandhi’s Shanti Sena approach). We are using such nonviolent tactics and strategies in U.S. inner cities.  We have peace teams on the ground in Washington D.C. who bear witness and stand in solidarity if Black youth are stopped by police.   I was part of peace patrols in my neighborhoods in Harlem and Columbia Heights D.C. to befriend youth, organize midnight basketball, help teens find jobs, and make the streets safe for kids.

Follow-up question from a viewer: What has been effective in roles of peace team groups such as unarmed civilian peacekeepers, like the Michigan Peace Teams, Meta peace teams, Metta Center for Nonviolence Shanti Sena peace teams, and the Nonviolent Peaceforce?

Response: The answer to this question takes a long time. Here are just a few of the ingredients for successful peace teams #1 Longevity and permanence.  Teams need to stay for a long time to build trust. They cannot be a flash in the pan, here today, gone tomorrow; #2 They must conduct a thorough analysis of the forces driving the violence in order to apply an effective intervention; #3 Training and extensive preparation of the peace teams; #4 Communication with a wide variety of area residents and community members.

 

Re: From Selma to Montgomery to Ferguson and Beyond

Follow-up question from a viewer: Living far away (Norway) from most of the grave breaches of human rights in the world, I wonder what sort of solidarity is the most useful. How can we help from far away?

Response: Reach out to friends, family, co-workers and anyone you know in the U.S. who trusts you, but is unaware of the disproportionate number of unarmed African-Americans being killed by police.  Share the recording of the ICNC webinar with them.  Spread information.  Please educate everyone that there are many of us in the U.S. standing up against violence and brutality.

Follow-up question from a viewer: How can I, as a college student in DC, create truth telling sessions in my area?

Response: We will help you with resources and protocols for living room dialogues being used currently in the St. Louis area, and we will send you the report from our St. Louis conference after March 15th, 2015.

Follow-up question from a viewer: How can use education as a tool to spread awareness about the civil rights conflict?

Response: Use materials from Teaching for http://www.teachingforchange.org/ and the Southern Poverty Law Center (Teaching Tolerance  http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/teaching-tolerance)

Follow-up question from a viewer: It seems like anger is an appropriate response to killing unarmed Black men. Could radical/confrontational nonviolent actions be a way to channel this anger more effectively than burning and looting? Have you discussed more forceful actions for those who need more than marching with signs?

Response: If you mean by forceful action – boycotts, strikes, walk outs, law suits, and more, Ferguson residents have been doing all those things for 20 years. They have shut down the interstate surrounding the city on numerous occasions.  They have called for special independent prosecutors.  Citizen protestors are not the ones burning and looting. White supremacist groups operate in the area and try to frame the Ferguson residents. The pastor for Michael Brown’s family received 71 death threats and then his church was burned down.  See the following Washington Post article for further evidence of that http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-brown-familys-pastor-tries-to-make-sense-of-fire-that-gutted-his-church/2014/11/28/15520f3e-7711-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html

Just suffice it to say that peace and anti-violence works has many, many allies.  Those who work to stop child abuse, wife beatings, rape, sexual violence, environmental destruction, war, poverty, economic exploitation of immigrants, corruption, human rights abuses, and police brutality are all part of a worldwide peace movement.  If we connected the dots, we would be greater than the sum of our parts.

 

Presenters

Pastor Cori Bush – Born and raised in the St. Louis Missouri area, Cori is the pastor of Kingdom Embassy International, events chairperson of Better Family Life Inc.’s Membership Association, part of Ferguson’s Women’s Caucus, and an active Ferguson frontlines activist. Pastor Cori is a registered nurse, supervising nursing services for several mental health facilities in St. Louis city that serve the homeless, underserved, and uninsured. She has been on the frontlines of the Ferguson citizens’ movement as a protester, as clergy, as a medic and as a victim of police assault on the day of the announcement not to indict Darren Wilson. She has been interviewed numerous times by several local and national media outlets. Pastor Cori plans to continue to stand along side the youth of today in the fight for justice.

Dr. Bernard Lafayette – The Rev. Dr. Lafayette, an ordained minister, is a longtime civil rights activist, organizer, and an authority on nonviolent social change. He co-founded the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in 1960, and he was a core leader of the civil rights movement in Nashville, TN, in 1960 and in Selma, AL, in 1965. He directed the Alabama Voter Registration Project in 1962, and he was appointed by Martin Luther King, Jr. to be national program administrator for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and national coordinator of the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign.

 

Dr. David Ragland grew up in North St. Louis, a few miles from Ferguson, Mo. Dr. Ragland is the co-director for the Truth-Telling Project in St. Louis, Mo and a Visiting Professor at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, PA.   Dr. Ragland’s research focuses on School Violence (the school to prison pipeline), Peace Education, Philosophy of Education and Critical Race Theory.  Dr. Ragland is also on the board of the Peace and Justice Studies Association and Serves as the United Nations Representative for the International Peace Research Association.

 

Barbara J. Wien is a peace educator, human rights activist, author, and trainer. She has protected civilians in war zones, led 8 peace organizations, and taught at 6 universities.  From 2003-2008, Barbara directed Peace Brigades International, which walks side-by-side with villagers as “unarmed bodyguards for human rights” to stop massacres in Guatemala, Mexico, Colombia, and 12 other areas.  From 2001-2003, Barbara worked for the playwright Eve Ensler at the V-Day Foundation to end sexual violence against women.  She organized labor delegations to El Salvador to stop the killing of priests, teachers and union activists by the army in the 1980s. Barbara was awarded for her moral courage by 4 foundations and academic societies.  She is named in Amy Goodman’s book Exceptions to the Rulers, and The Progressive magazine for speaking truth to power. She is the author of 23 articles, study guides and books and was interviewed by the National Public Radio, The Washington Post, NBC Nightly News, Australian Public Broadcasting, Defense One, and Nuclear Times magazine.

 

Further readings on civil resistance in the U.S.

• Bloch, Nadine.”The Art of #BlackLivesMatter.” Waging Nonviolence, January 8, 2015. Available online
• Boyd, Andrew. Beautiful Trouble: A Toolbox for Revolution (Pocket Edition). OR Books: London (2013). Buy the book
• Conser, Walter H. “The United States: Reconsidering the Struggle for Independence, 1765-1775.” In Recovering Nonviolent History: Civil Resistance in Liberation Struggles. Maciej Bartkowski, ed. Lynne Rienner Publishers: Boulder, CO (2013). Learn more
• “Cradle to Prison Pipeline Campaign.” Children’s Defense Fund. Available online
• Dey, Andrew et al. “Handbook for Nonviolent Campaigns” 2nd edition, War Resisters’ International. First edition. Second edition
• Driver, Alice. “Freedom Summer and the Unfinished Work of the Civil Rights Movement.” Al Jazeera, June 25, 2014. Available online
• Engler, Mark and Paul Engler. “When Martin Luther King Gave Up His Guns.” Waging Nonviolence, January 15, 2014. Available online
• “Fighting Police Abuse:  A Community Action Manual”, American Civil Liberties Union, Dec. 1, 1997. Available online
• Harris, Fredrick. ”Will Ferguson be a Moment or a Movement?.” Washington Post, August 22, 2014. Available online
• Madar, Chase. “Why it’s Impossible to Indict a Cop” The Nation, November 24, 2014. Available online
• Mothers Against Police Brutality (webpage)
• Schneider, Nathan. “The Future of Protest According to Vice.” VICE, January 15, 2015. Available online
• Sun, Rivera. “Nonviolent Activists Shape American Identity.” CounterPunch, February 16, 2015. Available online

 

This live ICNC Academic Webinar took place on Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2014 at 12 p.m. EST.

Based on a newly-published edited book Civil Resistance and Conflict Transformation. Transitions from Armed to Nonviolent Struggles (Routledge August 2014), this webinar will provide some insights on the interplay between civil resistance, armed insurgency and conflict transformation. Particular focus will be placed (both conceptually and empirically) on the phenomenon of armed groups shifting their conflict-waging strategies from violent to nonviolent means, especially in contexts which cannot be resolved by force but are also ‘unripe’ for conventional de-escalation methods such as negotiation and political integration. Relying on evidence from such various settings as South Africa, Palestine, Western Sahara, West Papua, Mexico, Colombia, Nepal and Egypt, the webinar talk will review the dynamics of organizational and strategic shifts from armed to unarmed conflict and factors inducing such transitions – from a change of leadership and a pragmatic re-evaluation of the goals and means of insurgency in the light of evolving inter-party power dynamics, to the search for new local or international allies and the cross-border emulation or diffusion of new repertoires of action.

Watch the webinar below:

Presenter:

Dr. Véronique Dudouet is senior researcher and program director at the Berghof Foundation in Berlin. She has been coordinating participatory action research, training and policy advice activities on resistance and liberation movements in transition’ since 2005. She holds an MA (2001) and PhD (2005) in Conflict Resolution from the Department of Peace Studies, Bradford University, UK, as well as an MPhil in International Relations and Security and a BA in Political Science from the Institute d’Etudes Politiques, Toulouse, France.

Her current research interests include transitions from armed to unarmed insurgencies, the role of external actors in nonviolent resistance, negotiation and third-party intervention in asymmetric conflict, inclusive post-war governance. As a scholar-activist, she has been involved in several anti-war and nonviolent campaigns, including as a volunteer with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) in the Palestinian territories. She also carries out consultancy projects for various civil society organizations, state and international agencies (EU, OECD, UNDP).

Besides numerous publications in the fields of conflict transformation and peacebuilding, she has published numerous book chapters and academic articles on civil resistance, as well as a co-authored report (with Howard Clark, 2009) for the European Parliament on Nonviolent Civic Action in Support of Human Rights and Democracy, and an edited book on Civil Resistance and Conflict Transformation: Transitions from Armed to Nonviolent Struggle (Routledge 2014).

 

 

 

 

Véronique Dudouet, Senior Researcher and Program Director, the Berghof Foundation
Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / 12:00pm – 1:00pm EST

Based on a newly-published edited book Civil Resistance and Conflict Transformation. Transitions from Armed to Nonviolent Struggles (Routledge August 2014), this webinar will provide some insights on the interplay between civil resistance, armed insurgency and conflict transformation. Particular focus will be placed (both conceptually and empirically) on the phenomenon of armed groups shifting their conflict-waging strategies from violent to nonviolent means, especially in contexts which cannot be resolved by force but are also ‘unripe’ for conventional de-escalation methods such as negotiation and political integration. Relying on evidence from such various settings as South Africa, Palestine, Western Sahara, West Papua, Mexico, Colombia, Nepal and Egypt, the webinar talk will review the dynamics of organizational and strategic shifts from armed to unarmed conflict and factors inducing such transitions – from a change of leadership and a pragmatic re-evaluation of the goals and means of insurgency in the light of evolving inter-party power dynamics, to the search for new local or international allies and the cross-border emulation or diffusion of new repertoires of action.

Véronique Dudouet is Senior Researcher and Director for the Programme ‘Agents of Change for Inclusive Conflict Transformation’ at the Berghof Foundation in Berlin. Since joining the Berghof research team in 2005, she has been coordinating various research projects and peer-support projects on/with ‘resistance and liberation movements in transition’. She has also been carrying out consultancy activities for various state and international agencies (including UNDP, EU Parliament, Norwegian Foreign Ministry), and facilitates training activities on peace negotiations and political capacity-building. She teaches modules for students and practitioners on various topics linked to non-state armed groups, civil resistance, conflict transformation, DDR and post-war governance. Véronique currently edits the Berghof Transitions publication series. She has published two edited books, several peer-reviewed articles and numerous publications in the field of conflict transformation. She has an MA and PhD in Conflict Resolution from the University of Bradford, UK, as well as a BA in political science and a postgraduate research diploma (DEA) in International Relations and Security from the Institut d’Etudes Politiques, Toulouse, France.

This ICNC Academic webinar took place on Tuesday, October 7, 2014, and featured Michael Davis, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong; Victoria Tin-bor Hui, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame; and was moderated by Dr. Maciej Bartkowski, Senior Director, Education and Research, ICNC.

 

Watch the webinar below:

Webinar Introduction

The Beginnings of the Movement

Civil Resistance and the Rule of Law

Role of International Community

Social Media

Nonviolent Discipline

Leadership

Judiciary

Demographics of Protests

Backfire

Coalition Building

Repression

Read speakers’ responses to follow-up questions submitted by viewers

 

Webinar Summary

This webinar analyzes the unfolding “umbrella revolution” in Hong Kong. International media have reported on how hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong protestors have maintained nonviolent discipline and order. International observers see images common to nonviolent movements around the world: strength in number, determined faces in front of riot police, slogans, songs, and more. Beneath such broad strokes of similarities, Hong Kong is unlike other cases given the constitutional structure of “one country, two systems” agreed to between Beijing and London. While Hong Kong has only semi-democracy, people are free to protest. While the police sometimes make arbitrary arrests, the independent judiciary inherited from the colonial era routinely releases activists. This constitutional structure presents a very open political space unseen in the rest of China and yet makes it difficult for activists to mobilize the largely contented population. Against this backdrop, the unprecedented use of riot police and the firing of tear gas seemed to have galvanized popular support for the protesters fighting for genuine democracy and increased sympathy for their nonviolent actions.

Presenters

Michael C. Davis, a professor in the Law Faculty at the University of Hong Kong, has held visiting chairs at Northwestern University Law School (2005-06) and Notre Dame Law School (2004-05), as well as the Schell Senior Fellowship at the Yale Law School (1994-95).  His publications include Constitutional Confrontation in Hong Kong (1990), Human Rights and Chinese Values (1995) and International Intervention: From Power Politics to Global Responsibility (2004), as well as numerous articles in leading academic journals in law and political science. Professor Davis has as public intellectual contributed to the debate over constitutional reform and human rights in Hong Kong for over two decades.

 

Victoria Tin-bor Hui, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame, researches the dynamics of international politics and state-society relations in historical China and Europe. She received her M.A. in 1997 and Ph.D. in 2000 from Columbia University. She is the author of War and State Formation in Ancient China and Early Modern Europe (Cambridge University Press, 2005) which won the 2006 Jervis-Schroeder Award from the American Political Science Association and the 2005 Edgar S. Furniss Book Award from the Mershon Center for International Security Studies. Dr. Hui also serves on the Academic Advisory Committee of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict.

 

Webinar moderator

Dr. Maciej Bartkowski is Senior Director for Education & Research at ICNC where he works on academic programs for students, faculty, and professionals, curricular development, and global academic and educational outreach and research in the growing field of civil resistance studies. He has taught short seminars or spoke about strategic nonviolent conflict, movement’s mobilization, nonviolent actions, civil resistance and democratization at various academic institutions around the world. Dr. Bartkowski is the book editor of Rediscovering Nonviolent History. Civil Resistance in Liberation Struggles and Nation-Making published by Lynne Rienner in 2013 that highlights relatively unknown stories of nonviolent resistance as part of the national struggles for self-rule and independence.

 

Additional Resources

• Davis, Michael. “Occupy Protests Breaking Law, but not Undermining Hong Kong’s Rule of Law.” South China Morning Post, November 7, 2014. Available online
• Davis, Michael. “Real Threat to Rule of Law Lies in NPC’s Reform Ruling.” South China Morning Post, October 14, 2014. View online or download article
• Davis, Michael. “Talks Between Protesters and Government Must Proceed on Basis of Trust.” South China Morning Post, October 10, 2014. View online or download article
• Hui, Victoria. “Foreign/External Forces at Work in Hong Kong?” Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement, October 30, 2014. Available online
• Hui, Victoria. “The Fallacy that Nonviolence has not Worked.” Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement, December 7, 2014. Available online
• Hui, Victoria. “The Umbrella Movement Already Failed or is Failing? Why do some people say that?” Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement, October 11, 2014. Available online
• Hui, Victoria. “Unity and Leadership are Critical to Success.” Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement, November 23, 2014. Available online

Presentation slides

 

Recorded discussion from live webinar conducted on April 9, 2014

An ICNC-moderated webinar discussion brought together four Ukrainian guests with backgrounds in academia, journalism, activism, and policy to talk about the political conflict in Ukraine. A number of false narratives have emerged that branded the Maidan Revolution as violent, driven by radicals and external powers. After the invasion of Crimea and its annexation to Russia some commentators suggested that the outcome of the referendum reflected the preferences of the majority of the Crimean population and the political change represented by the annexation of Crimea to Russia was in fact engineered peacefully, which contrasted with the supposedly violent nature of the Maidan Revolution that brought down the Yanukovych regime.

This webinar addressed the prevailing misconceptions that emerged around the conflict in Ukraine. It discussed the origin, goals, strategies and tactics behind the Ukrainian Maidan movement, as well as its composition and its responses to the state-sponsored repression. Webinar discussants talked about the role of a violent minority – a radical flank in the movement – and reflected on the impact of external actors in the Ukrainian struggle. How, and more importantly why was the Yanukovych regime ultimately brought down? In the final part of the conversation, the speakers offered their views on the ongoing mobilization of the Ukrainian society against Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and against a possible Russian invasion of other parts of Ukraine, as well as civic organizing to support but also pressure the Ukrainian government to implement needed reforms.

Speakers

• Nataliya Gumenyuk, Ukrainian journalist, Co-Founder of Hromadske.TV
• Olga Onuch, Newton Fellow, University of Oxford / Research Fellow, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute
• Dmytro Potekhin, Trainer and consultant in strategic planning and nonviolent resistance
• Olena Tregub, Policy expert of the Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation and a writer for Kyiv Post

Watch parts of the webinar below:

Start of the Protest in Ukraine

Maidan and its Organization

Demographics of the Maidan Protests

International Community and Sanctions

Breakdown of Nonviolent Discipline

Why Yanukovich Fell

Referendum in Crimea and Preferences of the Crimean People

Post Maidan Civil Society and Transition

Separatism and Ukraine’s Unity

Read speakers’ responses to follow-up questions submitted by viewers

PRESENTERS

Nataliya Gumenyuk – is a Ukrainian journalist and co-founder of Hromadske.TV, a Ukrainian journalist-led initiative to create public broadcasting in Ukraine. Previously, she served as Head of the Foreign News Desk INTER, one of the most influential TV channels in Ukraine. As an independent, international correspondent, she has reported on major political and social events from nearly 50 countries. During the last few years, she has focused on post-Arab Spring developments in the Arab world. Nataliya cooperates with a number of Ukrainian and international media, including Esquire Ukraine, Ukrainska Pravda, the Ukrainian Week magazine, 1+1 TV, and Open Democracy Russia. She teaches global journalism at the Kyiv Mohyla School of Journalism.

 

Dr. Olga Onuch (DPhil Oxon) is a Newton Fellow in Comparative Politics at Nuffield College, University of Oxford, and is a Shklar Research Fellow at the Ukrainian Research Institute of Harvard University. She specializes in the comparative study of protest politics, political behavior, and institutions, as well as in democratizing states in Latin America and Eastern Europe. An expert on protests and activism in Ukraine, she is the principle investigator of the Ukrainian Protest Project. She analyses the mechanisms of mass-mobilization in her book entitled Mapping Mass Mobilizations: Understanding Revolutionary Moments in Argentina and Ukraine (Palgrave MacMillan 2014). Her forthcoming book, The Making of Civil Society: The Contemporary History of Social-Mobilization in Ukraine, outlines the political history of activist networks and protest-events in Ukraine since the 1970s. Her research has appeared in numerous international media including Al Jazeera English, The Washington Post, AFP, El País, BBC World Service, Sky News, NPR, IBT, and Radio Free Europe. Follow her on Twitter @oonuch.

Dmytro Potekhin is a trainer and consultant in strategic planning and nonviolent resistance. He coordinated a nationwide campaign leading to Ukraine’s Orange Revolution in 2004. His training experience includes helping democracy activists in a dozen countries around the world. Dmytro described the nature and probability of the 2014 Russian aggression in Crimea in one of his 2008 publications. He holds an MA in International Relations from the Kyiv Institute of Humanities and holds a certificate with distinction in Democratic Development, overseen by professor Larry Diamond, Director of the Center for Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at Stanford University. Dmytro has managed projects ranging from a twenty-dollar start-up to save a historical city object, to a million-dollar project to bring down a dictator. He has also been involved in launching a city FM/online public radio station, and served as correspondent for a major international TV broadcaster. Dmytro does micro-tweeting and macro-blogging. He is regularly consulted on Ukrainian and international affairs by some of the most highly-regarded Ukrainian and international media. He may be contacted at dmytro.potekhin@gmail.com.

Olena Tregub is a policy expert of the Kyiv-based Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation and a US-based writer for Kyiv Post, the leading English-language newspaper in Ukraine. Olena is also the World Economic Forum’s Global Shaper and a member of Young Atlanticists’ Network of the Atlantic Council of the USA. She has worked as US foreign correspondent for the Ukrainian News Agency as well as researcher on Ukraine for The New York Times. Olena has authored numerous publications on Ukrainian domestic and international politics which have appeared in European and American media. She is also a co-founder of Global Education Leadership (www.GELead.org), an educational consulting group that offers professional internship and study abroad programs for young North Americans in the Central and Eastern European region. Olena has actively participated in pro-democracy and pro-European civic initiatives in Ukraine. She may be contacted at olenatregub@gelead.org . Follow Olena on Twitter: @olenatregub.

 

Further readings on civil resistance in Ukraine

• Ackerman, Peter and Maciej Bartkowski. “Challenging Annexation: In Crimea, the Referendum that wasn’t.” openDemocracy, March 22, 2014. Click here
• Ackerman, Peter, Maciej Bartkowski and Jack DuVall. “Ukraine: A Nonviolent Victory.” openDemocracy, March 3, 2014. Click here
• Bartkowski, Maciej and Maria J. Stephan. “How Ukraine Ousted an Autocrat: The Logic of Civil Resistance.” Atlantic Council, June 1, 2014. Click here
• Bartkowski, Maciej and Maria J. Stephan. “Ukraine and the Logic of Civil Resistance: Confronting Russian-Fueled Insurgency.” Atlantic Council, June 1, 2014. Click here
• Chenoweth, Erica and Stephen Zunes. “A Nonviolent Alternative for Ukraine.” Foreign Policy, May 28, 2014. Click here
• Stephan, Maria and Maciej Bartkowski. “How to Beat a Russian Occupation with Flash Mobs: Why Nonviolent Resistance Might be the Best Hope for Thwarting Putin’s Adventurism in Eastern Ukraine.” Foreign Policy, April 10, 2014. Click here