MENNONITE INTERNATIONAL PEACEBUILDING AND LOCAL OWNERSHIP

LEXINGTON BOOKS 1-800-462-6420 www.LexingtonBooks.com

“This book provides insightful views of the place of religion in peace and conflict studies. Its amazingly wide, yet deep, reports of diverse religions’ approaches to peace and conflict offer specific paths to peacebuilding. The editors have assembled excellent contributors, with great knowledge about and experience with the important topics they examine. Every reader will learn about more and better ways that peace can be advanced at many different levels from this work.” — Louis Kriesberg, Syracuse University “This is an important and exciting book with depth as well as breadth of coverage of the role of religion and religious actors in peace building work. The diverse and rich case studies and the theme of constructively addressing ‘religious illiteracy’ should make it a useful volume for students, researchers, and a wide variety of practitioners.” — Siobhan McEvoy-Levy, Butler University

ABOUT THE BOOK

Peace on Earth: The Role of Religion in Peace and Conflict Studies provides a critical analysis of faith and religious institutions in peacebuilding practice and pedagogy. The work captures the synergistic relationships among faith traditions and how multiple approaches to conflict transformation and peacebuilding result in a creative process that has the potential to achieve a more detailed view of peace on earth, containing breadth as well as depth. Library and bookstore shelves are filled with critiques of the negative impacts of religion in conflict scenarios. Peace on Earth: The Role of Religion in Peace and Conflict Studies offers an alternate view that suggests religious organizations play a more complex role in conflict than a simply negative one. Faith-based organizations, and their workers, are often found on the frontlines of conflict throughout the world, conducting conflict management and resolution activities as well as advancing peacebuilding initiatives. CONTRIBUTORS David Creamer; Christopher Hrynkow; Klaus Klostermaier; Vern Neufeld Redekop; John Perry; Kristen Lundquist; Chris Seiple; Hien Vu; Michael Lerner; Nathan Funk; Paul Nicolas Cormier; Chuck Thiessen; Vernie Davis; Margaret Mitchell Armand; Harry Anastasiou; Katharina Bitzker; S. I. Keethaponcalan; Min Wang; Yueh-Ting Lee; Honggang Yang; Charles Egerton; S. K. Moore; Ismael Muvingi; Mohammed Abu-Nimer; Lois Edmund and Deanna Armbruster ABOUT THE EDITORS

Thomas Matyók is associate professor in the Program in Conflict and Peace Studies at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

Maureen Flaherty is assistant professor in peace and conflict studies at the Arthur V. Mauro Centre for Peace and Justice, St. Paul’s College, University of Manitoba.

Hamdesa Tuso is a faculty member at the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies of the University of Manitoba. Jessica Senehi is associate professor of peace and conflict studies, and associate director of the Arthur V. Mauro Centre for

Peace and Justice, St. Paul’s College at University of Manitoba. Sean Byrne is professor of peace and conflict studies, and founding head of the Ph.D. and joint MA programs in peace and

conflict studies at University of Manitoba, and founding director of the Arthur V. Mauro Centre for Peace and Justice housed in St. Paul’s College at the University of Manitoba.

Cloth ISBN: 978-0-7391-7628-3 December 2013 454 pages Regular price: $120.00 / After discount: $84.00 E-book ISBN: 978-0-7391-7629-0 December 2013 454 pages Regular price: $119.99 / After discount: $83.99

Special 30% OFF discount offer!* To get discount, use code LEX30AUTH14 when ordering

*Discount cannot be combined with any other special offers and only applies to purchases made directly from R&L. For this offer, the eBook can only be ordered online at rowman.com. Print and eBooks cannot be combined in the same order. Valid until 12/31/2014.

PEACE ON EARTH: THE ROLE OF RELIGION IN PEACE AND CONFLICT STUDIES

EDITED BY THOMAS MATYÓK, MAUREEN FLAHERTY, HAMDESA TUSO, JESSICA SENEHI, AND SEAN BYRNE

All orders from individuals must be prepaid / prices are subject to change

without notice / Billing in US dollars / Please make checks payable to Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group

Shipping and handling:

• U.S.: $5 first book, $1 each additional book • Canada: $6 first book, $1 each additional book • International orders: $10.50 first book, $6.50 each additional book

4 CONVENIENT WAYS TO ORDER:

http://www.lexingtonbooks.com/ call toll-free: 1-800-462-6420 or fax this order form toll-free to: 1-800-338-4550 mail this order form to: Rowman & Littlefield, 15200 NBN Way,

PO Box 191 Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214-0191 Please check: MasterCard Visa AmEx Personal Check Credit Card #: Expiration date: Signature:

BILLING AND SHIPPING ADDRESS: Name Institution Street City, State, Zip Country Phone

ISBN Title Price Quantity Cost

Cloth: 978-0-7391-7628-3 Peace on Earth: The Role of Religion in Peace and Conflict Studies $120.00 $84.00

E-book: 978-0-7391-7629-0 Peace on Earth: The Role of Religion in Peace and Conflict Studies $119.99 $83.99

Promo Code (May not be combined with other offers and discounts) LEX30AUTH14

Shipping Costs

CA, CO, IL, MD, NY, PA residents, please add sales tax

TOTAL

ORDER FORM Please send me the following book(s) right away:

http://www.lexingtonbooks.com/

© 2014 Chuck Thiessen

Mennonite International Peacebuilding and Local Ownership 1

Introduction

The leaders of international governmental and non-governmental peacebuilding

organizations are faced with difficult programming decisions as they venture into contexts

devastated by violence. A sub-set of exceptionally difficult decisions lie within the international-

domestic inter-relationship, and address the necessity of increased local ownership of

peacebuilding decision-making and implementation. The problem is that peacebuilding leaders

in these conflict-affected contexts are asked to make these decisions with virtually no empirical

evidence regarding practices leading to increased local ownership.i As a result, instances of

literal local ownership of peacebuilding activities remain rare and internationally led

peacebuilding ventures often remain controlled by outsiders for the entire lifespan of project-

work.ii Thus, many international peacebuilding activities ultimately fail to contribute to

sustainable peace and development in their local context.iii

This chapter aims to close the gap between the good intentions of international

organizations and the actual, on-the-ground, peacebuilding practice that has thus far struggled

to grant local individuals and groups control over project design and implementation. To this

end, the proceeding discussion highlights the small-scale but well-recognized peacebuilding

work of a group of North American Mennonite organizations and individuals that has quietly

been wrestling with the idea of increased local ownership for over fifty years. iv Thus, this

chapter holds up select practices that have incubated inside of Mennonite peacebuilding

initiatives around the globe as both examples worth emulating and as evidence of the benefits

to increased local ownership of peacebuilding work. To achieve this outcome, this chapter’s

discussion will include a: (1) survey of the local ownership problematic; (2) brief summary of the

development of peacebuilding practice within the Mennonite community; (3) discussion of

several thematic areas emerging from Mennonite peacebuilding practice that allows for local

ownership; (4) brief discussion of dilemmas that arise with Mennonite peacebuilding; and last,

1 Thiessen, C. (2014). Mennonite International Peacebuilding and Local Ownership. In T. Matyók, M. Flaherty, H. Tuso, J. Senehi, & S. Byrne (Eds.) Peace on Earth: The Role of Religion in Peace and Conflict Studies (pgs. 181-200). New York: Lexington Books.


(5) a consideration of whether ‘local ownership’ success in Mennonite experiences can be

reproduced by larger and/or upper-level and/or governmental organizations.

The ‘Local Ownership’ Problem

The theme of local ownership is increasingly evident in peacebuilding rhetoric emerging

from war-torn contexts, and has been legitimated by international donor policies such as the

Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.v The recent spotlight on inadequate local ownership

coincides with (and is perhaps intensified by) recent critiques of prominent international

peacebuilding methodologies that prop up liberal democratization and neo-liberal

marketization as panaceas for war-torn contexts.vi In response, a body of emerging

‘emancipatory’ peacebuilding theoryvii is pushing beyond the currently accepted status quo and

is exploring alternative peacebuilding paradigms that are much more in tune with local voices

and much less coercive. As such, emancipatory peacebuilding expands upon the current fixation

with top-down state-building projects and rather holistically re-conceptualizes peacebuilding as

a bottom-up activity that allows local conditions and capacities to determine what type of

peace will emerge in a particular context.viii

Emancipatory peacebuilding theory requires a fundamental shift in both voice and

strategy in order to ensure increased local ownership of international interventions.

Peacebuilders must eschew international-centred languageix and make room for

comprehensive solutions that ensure space for indigenous and/or traditional peace-making

processes.x

Unfortunately this sort of theorizing about alternative and emancipatory peacebuilding

processes has not translated into revised peacebuilding practice inside of major international

peacebuilding interventions due to a variety of barriers and dilemmas. First, at a basic level the

meaning of ‘local ownership’ remains convoluted and unclear. Despite holding a sort of

commonsense wisdom that people generally care for and protect the things that they own, the

meaning of local ownership is vastly complicated by its intensely political nature. For example,

governmental actors and intervening foreign militaries have often perceived local ownership as

simply local ‘buy-in’, which pushes for local adoption of an externally-designed initiative.

Second, the international-local power relationship in many war-torn contexts is hindered by


local dependency on international ‘experts’ and funding. Insisting on locally led project designs

and control is certainly difficult when someone else is holding the purse strings. International

groups are also, understandably, unwilling to relinquish control over their resources and

personnel in order to remain accountable to home constituents. Third, international

peacebuilding organizations are struggling to identify appropriate actors to grant local

ownership to. For example, should civil society or government actors be the primary focus, and

should informal traditional (and often undemocratic) organizations be given precedence over

formal democratic institutions? xi Fourth, granting ownership and increased authority to

government and civil society counterparts that are known to be corrupt and/or lacking the

necessary capacity puts international peacebuilders into an obvious predicament. And fifth, can

international peacebuilders grant domestic government and civil society institutions increased

control when local human rights reform falls short of international human rights standards (for

example religious freedom, gender rights, child labour, etc.)?

These barriers and dilemmas pose a serious challenge for international peacebuilding

actors. However, this chapter proposes that Mennonite peacebuilding organizations have not

necessarily been held captive by these barriers and dilemmas, and have been able to push

forward with initiatives that permit local authority and control. Thus, Mennonite peacebuilding

experiences provide lessons that are instructive for transforming international-local relations to

facilitate the journey towards local ownership of peacebuilding. Before these lessons are

explored, it is first necessary to briefly survey the development of international peacebuilding

practice and ethics inside of the North American Mennonite community.

The Development of Mennonite International Peacebuilding

The development of a peacebuilding practice and ethic within the Mennonite faith

community is a relatively recent phenomenon, and has largely occurred in the post-WWII

period. Two streams of inquiry are necessary to investigate this developmental journey. One

stream surveys Mennonite spirituality as it relates to peacebuilding, and the other summarizes

Mennonite religious and social history and the emergence of an internationalized peacemaking

program from within a traditionally passive, non-resistant, and separated ethnic group.

However, it should be noted that Mennonite spirituality and society is widely varied, and this


section will simply present generalizations that will not necessarily align with the reality of

some Mennonite groups.

Mennonite (Anabaptist) Christian spirituality is intensely focused on the life and

teachings of Jesus and, as such, elevates the teachings of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark,

Luke, and John) of the New Testament as the primary guide for spirituality. Jesus’ teachings in

the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 – 7) and, in particular, his exhortation to love one’s

enemy and to “not resist an evil person” (Matthew 5: 39), along with Paul’s teaching about

“overcoming evil with good” (Romans 12:14) have become central texts guiding the Mennonite

Christian community. As a result, peace is viewed as close to the heart of the gospel, and

faithful followers of Jesus should be fundamentally concerned with peacemaking and creating a

‘holy space’ where individuals (and even nations) can meet together to work out their

problems. John Paul Lederach, a pioneering Mennonite peacebuilder, described this sort of

peacebuilding space as the point where Truth, Mercy, Peace, and Justice meet in the

restoration of damaged relationships.xii Thus, pacifism has become a basic component to

Mennonite belief, and has traditionally led to an avoidance of military service, a distinct

separation of church and state, and a focus on peacemaking in the outreach of the Mennonite

church.

Underlying Mennonite spirituality is a distinct sense of community in the context of the

local church. Mennonites tend to believe that the church community is the forum in which the

Bible is read and interpreted, as well as the inspiration for the Jesus-centred ethic that is aimed

for in personal living. The church community is viewed as the clearest expression of God’s

kingdom here on earth, and should be a sustaining and caring structure for its members.

Mennonite theology emphasizes the ‘priesthood’ of all Christians, and thus tends to be wary of

authority structures, which ensures that church leadership and decision-making structures are

quite ‘flat’ in nature.

Mennonite spirituality is quite aware that religion and its organizational structures have

often been associated with power, status, and wealth.xiii This awareness has perhaps inspired

the growing involvement of Mennonites in the lives of the poor, the powerless, and the

oppressed through its peacebuilding activities. Thus, addressing violence, poverty, and injustice


is viewed as an intensely spiritual activity that recognizes each person (despite their identity) as

a carrier of God’s image and a revelation of God. Thus, Mennonite peacebuilding will often side

with the poor, and with those staring down the barrel of the oppressor’s gun. Another result

has been the intentional linking of spirituality and economics. The spirituality-economics link

has led some Mennonite groups to counter the individualistic-consumerist tendencies of North

American culture with a simple lifestyle, generous giving, and economic justice/equality work.

xiv

There are many other important aspects to Mennonite spirituality, but the preceding

introduction should reveal a bit of the spiritual motivation for the growing emphasis on

international peacebuilding amongst Mennonites. The discussion will now turn to the social and

strategic adjustments that have been made within the Mennonite community in North America

in the post-WWII period that have resulted in an active Mennonite peacebuilding program in

several conflict-affected nations around the globe.

In their book, Mennonite Peacemaking: From Quietism to Activism, Driedger and Kraybill

note that North American Mennonites have traditionally lived in rural communities separated

from the cultural mainstream.xv Perhaps forged by the extreme persecution Mennonites

suffered in Europe, Mennonites have developed a clear sense of dualism between the church

and the world, have often separated themselves from public life, and have emphasized the

moral necessity of living a quiet and simple life. As a result, many Mennonites have withdrawn

from the larger world and wider social order. Prior to WWII a social theology of ‘nonresistance’

was deeply engrained, and became intertwined with many other beliefs and practices.

Nonresistance implied not fighting back against an enemy or opponent. Nonresistance

extended far beyond the avoidance of military involvement and bearing arms, and governed

everyday interactions in the home, business, and community. For example, Mennonites were

often willing to suffer wrongdoing as opposed to using violence in conflict, often refrained from

litigation and the public legal system in disputes, and attempted to live peaceably with all

people on all occasions.xvi Further, the central focus on nonresistance limited Mennonite public

peacemaking to a refusal to participate in war. For example, the Mennonite Central Committee


(MCC) Peace Section was initially created to respond to the threat of the military draft in WWII

and for communal protection against conscription in the U.S.xvii

However, the 1950s and 1960s witnessed a rapid peacemaking paradigm transformation

amongst North American Mennonites as the forces of modernization eroded the hold of

‘nonresistance’ and made way for more active forms of civic engagement.xviii While perhaps

building upon their limited connection to the outside world through church missions initiatives,

Mennonites were inspired by the activism of Martin Luther King and joined both the racial

struggle in urban centres such as Chicago and the resistance against the Vietnam War. In this

way, Mennonites began to embrace the use of strategic action and non-violent resistance to

affect change in the political realm. By the 1980s a concern for ‘justice’ and the language of

‘peacemaking’ entered the Mennonite communal narrative, and Mennonite theologians

legitimated community work that addressed injustice, mediation initiatives, and reconciliation

work.xix A belief evolved within the Mennonite community that propelled it to actively move

outward, cross over ethnic, rural-urban, and international borders, and engage with a violent

world without abandoning its peace-centered heritage. For example, Mennonite conflict

scholars and practitioners developed a peacebuilding practice that moved beyond picking up

the pieces after war and proposed that the roots of conflict must be addressed in conjunction

with the provision of aid and development assistance.

The public face of Mennonite peacebuilding includes numerous Mennonite individuals

conducting peacebuilding work around the globe (e.g. John Paul Lederach and Ron Kraybill,

amongst many others), and also includes a number of organizations, namely MCC, Mennonite

Conciliation Service (MCS), International Conciliation Service (ICS), Mennonite Economic

Development Associates (MEDA), and the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT).xx This chapter

does not summarize the work of these individuals and organizations since this is done

elsewhere. For example, the most comprehensive treatment of Mennonite peacebuilding

practice is in the book From the Ground Up: Mennonite Contributions to International

Peacebuilding, which provides a case-study analysis of several Mennonite individuals and

organizations in contexts such as Columbia, Haiti, Israel/Palestine, Liberia, Nicaragua, Northern

Ireland, South Africa, and Somalia. xxi


Local Ownership in Mennonite International Peacebuilding Practice

North American Mennonite individuals and peacebuilding organizations have made

significant contributions to the theory and practice of ensuring local ownership of

peacebuilding activities in conflict-affected contexts. In particular, five themes are salient in

Mennonite peacebuilding practice: (1) standing with the oppressed; (2) lengthened

peacebuilding timeframes; (3) inclusion of the grassroots and marginalized; (4) relinquishing

control and local empowerment; and (5) reliance upon local voices and knowledge. Once again

it is important to note that generalizations are necessary to succinctly discuss these themes

here, and that a wide variety of practice exists on the ground inside of Mennonite-led

peacebuilding project work. Also, these themes are neither exclusive nor unique to Mennonite

peacebuilding actors.

The numerous case studies in From the Ground Up: Mennonite Contributions to

International Peacebuilding served as a valuable source of evidence for this section. In addition

to this, evidence was gathered from informal research on Mennonite peacebuilding activities

and organizations, from personal observations of Mennonite-led peacebuilding work, and from

interactions with Mennonite peacebuilders.

Standing With the Oppressed and Impoverished

The practice of being physically present amongst suffering populations is a fundamental

peacebuilding practice for Mennonite peacebuilders.xxii Physical presence often becomes a

political act as peacebuilders avoid hiding inside of plush hotel rooms or behind security walls in

conflict zones. Putting themselves out there requires sacrifice on the part of peacebuilders as

they walk beside those who suffer and perhaps even shoulder some of the suffering. However,

the protection of international citizenship and the legal allowance and financial ability to leave

in the face of danger does separate Mennonite peacebuilders from their hosts.

The act of being present together with suffering populations is strategic in several

respects. North American Mennonites carry multiple identities, one of which is holding either

U.S. or Canadian citizenship. Because the U.S. and Canada are wealthy, influential, and militarily

powerful, U.S. or Canadian citizenship can serve to protect local populations from violence.

Perhaps the clearest expression of this is with CPT peacebuilding work. CPT members enter


contexts of insecurity and violence to stand between vulnerable individuals and populations

and the guns of their oppressors. While in most instances CPTers have not been physically

attacked by these oppressors, they have effectively used their citizenship identity to draw

international attention to local violence.xxiii

Physical presence can also serve to educate violent parties in a conflict zone. By quietly

standing in the way of violence as opposed to physically attacking the oppressor, peacebuilders

can legitimate the cause of the oppressed in the eyes of the oppressor, and perhaps motivate

transformation in oppressor-oppressed relations. In addition to this, the presence of Mennonite

peacebuilders may allow non-violent methodologies of resisting oppression to be considered

and utilized.

So how does the theme of ‘presence’ relate to local ownership? It is vital that local

ownership be multi-level, multi-sectoral, and comprehensive in nature. Thus, the voices of all

sub-groupings in the conflict-affected context become instrumental and instructive for

peacebuilding design, coordination, and implementation. If one or more groups are excluded

and barred from any power, their voice will not be heard in the key peacebuilding forums and

peace processes. Consequently, these groups may resort to direct violence and killing to force

the necessary changes in power dynamics and have their voice heard. Instead, peacebuilders

that are present in a conflict can model non-violent methodologies for local groups to ensure

their voice is heard. Local ownership of peacebuilding is not possible without having a voice.

Lengthened Timeframes

Mennonite peacebuilding has generally eschewed quick and short-term initiatives and

has engaged with local populations for significant amounts of time. This willingness to work

slowly and patiently and take a long time is legitimated by the institutional culture inside of

Mennonite organizations, as well as by the wider Mennonite church community from which

significant funding is procured.

The willingness to incorporate longer peacebuilding timeframes allows for increased

local ownership of peacebuilding in several ways. First, it is difficult to imagine how deep

peacebuilding and reconciliation can be achieved in the short term. Instead, peacebuilding and

reconciliation will likely require several generations in many cases.xxiv Rushed timelines can only


address superficial concerns, while lengthened timelines can better allow local populations to

uncover and heal deep wounds.

Second, by lengthening timelines Mennonite peacebuilding practitioners can adopt a

participatory project planning strategy that allows local knowledge to guide the design of

sustainable peacebuilding activities. This sort of approach stands in contrast to currently

popular peacebuilding strategies that rely almost solely on international expert consultants to

quickly design and implement peacebuilding activities in a flurry of activity that must bewilder

local populations.

Third, avoiding rushed peacebuilding strategies allows Mennonite peacebuilding

organizations to focus on building community at the local level. Community building is

prerequisite to local ownership of peacebuilding and allows local groups to define for

themselves what sorts of peacebuilding activities are truly needed in their context. Community

building responds to the fact that communal decision-making and conflict resolution structures

have been sidelined by international intervention strategies. These strategies often rely upon

technical experts and private contractors who sell their knowledge and skills for a period of

weeks, or perhaps months. In contrast, Mennonite organizations and practitioners bring with

them a deep understanding of working in the context of community and, thus, take the time to

build strong and inclusive local communities.

Focusing on Grassroots Inclusion in Comprehensive Solutions

A central question in the local ownership debate is: “Who should be owning

peacebuilding activities – the grassroots or upper-level groups?” A strong case has been built

for the efficacy of simultaneously ensuring ownership by both groups.xxv However, Mennonite

peacebuilding initiatives have taken a decided stance on the issue and have often focused their

efforts at the grassroots level. For Mennonites, local ownership often implies empowering

grassroots individuals and groups. While other ‘peace church’ groups such as the Quakers have

been more comfortable working at upper-levels, Mennonites have often chosen a route to

peace that bypasses government officials and top-down negotiations.xxvi By aiming squarely at

grassroots communities and individuals, Mennonite peacebuilding is making the bold

statement that peace can be built from the bottom-up by working with local people.


This instinctive bottom-up stance has also allowed Mennonite peacebuilders to dive into

asymmetric conflicts within independent states where one adversary (often the central

government) has the ability to inflict injustice and severe suffering on a minority ethnic

group.xxvii Embracing a bottom-up stance in a context of direct violence is central to the work of

CPT in locations such as Columbia, Iraq, and Palestine, and has undergirded peace work by MCC

in Somalia.xxviii

It should be clarified that by embracing a bottom-up approach, Mennonite

peacebuilders do not reject the necessity of upper-level peacebuilding processes, but rather

ensure that grassroots and civil society voices are not excluded in post-conflict rebuilding and

reconciliation activities. Yet, this bottom-up bias is likely not based strictly on intervention

effectiveness but, rather, stems from a communal history of distanced relationships with

national governments and their military and police enforcers.

However, some Mennonite peacebuilding practitioners have reconsidered their bottom-

up bias, and recognize that their work must also address the disempowering lack of ownership

by elite actors and governments, even if they are violent and oppressive. Sustainable peace

requires that neither side in a conflict is demonized and excluded from peacemaking work. For

example, Lederach has legitimated upper-level peace work by proposing a multi-level

peacebuilding strategy that connects elite actors to grassroots populations through mid-level

leaders.xxix In likewise fashion, another Mennonite scholar, Lisa Schirch, has re-affirmed the

necessity of top-level peacebuilding success in her call for a comprehensive peace process in

Afghanistan.xxx

Relinquishing Control and Local Empowerment

Foreign organizations must relinquish control over their peacebuilding work and

empower local leaders in order to ensure a sense of local ownership. Foreign control of both

bottom-up and top-down peace processes will likely block success, and is perhaps not even

possible. For example, Lederach shares how his support work for the complex Nicaraguan

peace processes during the 1980s led him to drop all references to foreign conflict

‘management’ – “I felt like a conflict chaser more than a manager – like the proverbial dog that


barks at the car that just went by.”xxxi Foreign control in any peace process is probably largely

illusionary.

Yet, relinquishing control has been difficult for many peacebuilding organizations for

many reasons including deficient local capacity, local corruption, sub-par human rights

insurances inside project work, and strict accountability requirements to home funding

constituencies. However, Mennonite peacebuilding groups have often taken a lead in modelling

a commitment to leaving control in the hands of local actors.xxxii Their leadership has been

based on a willingness to partner with local individuals and organizations and conduct capacity

building work as opposed to just training. For example, a leading Mennonite scholar and

practitioner, Ron Kraybill, has described the importance of capacity building: “Finally, I learned

that the most effective trainers are those who encourage students to find their own Grail. … In

the end, teachers who imply they have found the Holy Grail disempower their students.”xxxiii

Cross-cultural training is inherently awkward and inefficient, but building the capacity of local

leaders can bypass cultural barriers and ensure that peacebuilding momentum is maintained

long after foreign peacebuilders leave the country.

Other barriers to relinquishing foreign control and ensuring local empowerment are

more personal. Kraybill has sensitized the broader conflict resolution training community to the

dangers of being motivated by personal gain, power advancement, and other self-interests.xxxiv

He notes that the professionalization of peace work has allowed peace workers to empower

themselves as opposed to their local recipients, and that the peace worker’s self-interests often

outshadow any commitment to the needs of local people. In other instances, the drive for

‘success’ (e.g. number of recipients, number of trainings, etc.) can blind foreign workers from

considering whether local human resources already exist to perform similar work.

Reliance Upon Local Voices and Knowledge

Foreign peacebuilders are naturally limited in what they can comprehend about a

conflict-affected context. One Mennonite conflict analyst working in Liberia commented: “After

being here for two months, I was sure I understood this conflict. Two years later, I’m much less

certain.”xxxv Thus, Mennonite peacebuilders are often careful to rely on local knowledge and

guidance in the journey towards local ownership of peacebuilding activities.


Interestingly, a reliance on local knowledge is necessary even before project work in

conflict-affected zones is begun. As prime examples, both MCC and CPT wait for invitations

from local partners before venturing out.xxxvi Waiting for an invitation allows local groups to

determine what sort of aid is necessary in their context and who can best meet their needs, as

opposed to foreign organizations determining for themselves in which local context they can

best apply their skills.

Tuning into local voices requires an ‘elicitive’ stance on the part of Mennonite

peacebuilders. An elicitive peacebuilding methodology is careful to allow local peacebuilding

models to emerge from the local resources in the conflict-affected context.xxxvii An elicitive

approach requires the foreign peacebuilder to carefully consider her stance towards local

counterparts. In Lederach’s words, she must redefine her “role away from expert-in-content

and toward accompaniment-in-discovery”.xxxviii This sort of stance structures the foreign-local

relationship so that local conflict dynamics can transform in a locally appropriate manner, as

opposed to applying foreign prescriptions that may run counter to local culture and

sensibilities.xxxix As an example in practice, MCC has a long tradition of requiring its staff to

purposely connect with the communities in which they work, and to carefully wait and listen for

local direction and advice on which projects are considered important.xl As another example,

MCC workers in Liberia enacted a cyclical project design methodology that ensured that local

feedback and analysis fundamentally shaped intervention activities.xli

Dilemmas faced by Mennonite peacebuilders

Despite the apparent success with which Mennonite organizations such as MCC have

engaged with processes leading to local ownership of peacebuilding, Mennonite peacebuilding

initiatives face several significant dilemmas that must be continually wrestled with. However,

these dilemmas are not necessarily exclusive to Mennonite peacebuilding organizations and

individuals.

The first dilemma concerns the status, influence, power, and role of Mennonite

foreigners living in developing and/or conflict-affected contexts across the globe. There are

certainly convincing justifications for Mennonites to venture into areas affected by violence and

war. By witnessing local atrocities and reporting them through the world media, Mennonites


have suppressed local violence in some cases. In this way, a foreign presence provides

protection for local peacebuilders as they conduct their work. The injection of foreigners into a

local context may also shock an intractable system into reform and change, and can provide an

impetus for transformation as local populations become aware of new patterns of thinking and

peacebuilding strategies.

Yet, at the end of the day, local groups will struggle to achieve literal and meaningful

ownership of peacebuilding as long as they rely on foreign funding and foreign leaders. Local

peacebuilders must be enabled to acknowledge and build upon their own culture in a manner

that leads to sustainable peace. Peacebuilding methodologies that connect with local

conceptions of decision-making, conflict resolution, and reconciliation are more likely to take

root.

In the Mennonite peacebuilding arena this status-power dilemma is evident in a couple

of ways. As mentioned earlier, North American Mennonites convey a socio-political identity as

citizens of powerful Western nations, and cart with them significant social capital. Many

international peacebuilders carry advanced university degrees at the Master’s or Ph.D. level,

are often white, and are usually firmly established within the wealthy North American middle

class. Thus, Mennonites move amongst local groups as conspicuous outsiders, which is cause

for concern since foreign-local relationships can quickly exhibit debilitating dependency.

Despite the fact that Mennonite peacebuilding organizations have been hesitant to introduce

too much into the local context, they still introduce and transfer in more than they probably

realize. This natural transfer of foreign knowledge and practice must be continually examined

and restrained to encourage local communal ownership of peacebuilding initiatives.

In addition, Mennonites carry with them a religious identity as Christians in many cases.

Even though Mennonites have often separated their evangelism and peacebuilding activities, it

must be remembered that Mennonite theology holds up peacebuilding as a spiritual activity,

and thus a clear distinction cannot be easily made. However, it seems that most peacebuilding

activities have been careful to avoid proselytizing and seeking converts to Christianity. Yet, it

should be noted that in some cases peacebuilding work runs parallel to or builds upon the work

of Mennonite missionaries.xlii Thus, the boundaries of peacebuilding and missionary work


cannot be easily defined, which can create confusion for the recipients of local programming.

Again, this is cause for reflection since many Mennonite peacebuilding ventures are occurring in

contexts where populations adhere to non-Christian religions. Thus, Mennonite faith-based

organizations will inherently struggle with maintaining a sense of personal and public integrity

and avoiding hidden motivations as they engage with local groups in a culturally sensitive

manner.

A second dilemma concerns the relationship of Mennonite peacebuilding actors with

international and local military forces. This dilemma has several dimensions. It should be

obvious from the preceding discussion of Mennonite history, theology, and ethics that

Mennonite peacebuilding organizations will inherently remain dissonant with military-led

peacebuilding work. But yet, security work has become a central component to most large-

scale peacebuilding interventions. Military-backed security initiatives are believed to be

essential for creating a safe space for peacebuilding work in other sectors, as well as preventing

the outbreak of widespread fighting or civil war in locales such as Afghanistan and the

Democratic Republic of the Congo. Thus, Mennonite peacebuilding groups that work in war-

torn contexts apparently enjoy greater success due to reduced security risks that allows project

staff to travel and conduct their work freely. International military forces can also provide a

modicum of protection for local voices that are critical of national governments and militaries.

Yet, research has shown that a strong international military influence in intervention

planning and coordination structures can potentially derail local efforts to gain ownership over

peacebuilding.xliii Military influence prevents significant local influence over project design and

implementation due to its rigid hierarchical decision-making structures, its achievement-

oriented organizational culture, its need to shorten timeframes to reduce casualties, and its

inability to grant ownership to its ‘enemy’.

Thus, Mennonite peacebuilders must reflect on their relationship with government and

military actors in their peacebuilding networks. They must move beyond debating the issues

and ethics of relying on military power and violence to achieve peacebuilding success, and

rather become leaders in proposing non-violent alternatives that better accommodate the

necessity of local ownership. For example, there is significant potential to develop effective


strategies for non-violent disarmament and peacekeeping. However, much creativity will be

required to ensure local ownership of non-violent strategies in contexts experiencing active

insurgencies such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

Are Mennonite Peacebuilding Methodologies Transferable to Other Organizations?

While the broader peacebuilding community has only recently embraced the local

ownership debate, in Mennonite circles the topic has already been wrestled with for years. But

Mennonite peacebuilding is a small enterprise (primarily through MCC and the work of various

individuals) and has its hands in but a limited set of conflict-affected settings, albeit in a deep

way in most cases. The limited number of case studies makes it difficult to predict the efficacy

of transferring the philosophy of Mennonite peacebuilders to other types of organizations, be

they fellow NGOs, the United Nations agencies, governmental organizations, regional

organizations, international donors, or the international military.

Many larger peacebuilding organizations have embraced a vision of allowing increased

local ownership over peacebuilding, but are struggling to undergo the deep institutional

cultural transformation required for a variety of reasons. Governmental organizations

(including governmental donors and the international military) are inherently resistant to local

ownership in many cases due to their national self-interests and concerns. Governmental actors

likely do operate with a modicum of altruism, but at the end of the day they will ensure that

their government’s needs and self-interests are met, despite the effect on local populations. As

evident in Afghanistan and Iraq, addressing self-interests has required that peacebuilding and

development activities become increasingly militarized and politicized in recent years. Thus,

national self-interests will often be at odds with local efforts to own peacebuilding activities. To

make matters worse, governmental actors often invest massive amounts of money (often

billions of dollars) in war torn contexts, and are accountable for effective expenditures to their

home constituencies. Thus, relinquishing control and avoiding the use of violent coercion

through international military forces appears unlikely. In contrast, Mennonite peacebuilders

have operated inside an ethical framework that values vulnerability, accepting personal

suffering and cost, faith in the protection and guidance of God, and a faith in humanity. Further,

their pacifist ethos has opened up new ways of peacebuilding and working towards the


transformation of ‘enemy’ groups. Governmental power politics and national interests will

quickly suppress this sort of framework and stance towards peacebuilding work.

Organizations that rely upon international donor funding (both governmental and non-

governmental) will also struggle to ensure local ownership of peacebuilding. International

donors typically have narrow program requirements and stringent timelines that are carefully

enforced. To quickly get a project up and running, donors will rely upon foreign consultants and

commercial contracting companies to design projects and lead implementation. In this way,

international peacebuilding has become ultra-professionalized, and local experts are

understandably not able to compete with the imported foreign experts in their area of

specialty. While these initiatives may be heavily staffed with local employees, there is little

sense of local control or ownership over the process. In some cases such as Afghanistan,

international donors have achieved a powerful stature in relation to local groups, and have

created a strong dependency on international monies.xliv Mennonite peacebuilding, on the

other hand, has relied upon funding from within the North American Mennonite community,

which has granted it the freedom to conduct its activities while remaining faithful to the aim of

local ownership. However, this is changing since MCC Canada has grown much more reliant on

CIDA funding which may be of concern in this matter. Regarding timelines, MCC has built into

its institutional methodology an expectation that peacebuilding project work will be a long-

term affair, which provides additional incentive to attain local ownership of peacebuilding

activities.

Based on this discussion, it appears that larger and/or international government-

supported organizations will inherently struggle to adopt the stance taken by Mennonite

organizations in ensuring local ownership of peacebuilding. Adopting a stance similar to

Mennonite organizations would require major institutional culture changes, which seems

unlikely and difficult given the donor requirements that resist increased local control and the

apparent necessity of taking care of national self-interests. However, there is hope. Smaller-

scale peacebuilding actors and a majority of the NGO community can more easily make

significant advances to ensure increased local ownership of peacebuilding. However, advances

in this area may require the NGO community to clarify its peacebuilding roles as clearly


separate from international governmental activities by reducing its reliance upon international

government funding. Further, the NGO community must be committed to standing firmly

behind the principles of comprehensive peacebuilding processes that are inclusive of grassroots

voices and encourage local voice and control.

However, even government and military actors can make smaller, but effective, reforms

that will lead to increased local ownership of peacebuilding. The Mennonite example would

suggest that reforms would require peacebuilding actors to creatively design peacebuilding

solutions that rely less upon combative roles for international peacebuilding troops, and

incorporate non-violent solutions that are led by local populations. Political leaders must assert

the will to extend peacebuilding timelines, and exhibit patience as the difficult peacebuilding

road is travelled. Extended timelines will require home constituencies to catch a vision of the

long-term nature of sustainable peacebuilding, and carefully maintain its gaze upon particular

war-torn contexts for extended periods of time. Last, political leaders must be forthright in

regards to its self-interests and motivations for intervening in conflict-affected contexts.

Conclusion

The theme of local ownership is widely recognized in the peacebuilding community as

an important policy objective, but international organizations are struggling to ensure

meaningful local control and ownership on the ground in their peacebuilding project work. This

chapter responds to this dilemma by highlighting the efforts of North American Mennonite

peacebuilding organizations. Based upon a rich and unique socio-religious ethic, Mennonite

peacebuilding organizations have learnt to carry themselves and conduct their work in a

manner that is conducive to reducing or avoiding dependency on foreign human resources and

funding, is increasingly sustainable, and contributes to the local push for ownership of

peacebuilding activities. This has led Mennonite peacebuilders to shun neutrality and stand

with the oppressed and impoverished, lengthen their project timelines, ensure inclusion of

grassroots voices, and relinquish control as they empower local leaders and rely upon local

knowledge. The difficult lessons learned from Mennonite practice are valuable and instructive

for other peacebuilding organizations, even if difficult to transfer.


Bibliography

Bergey, Bonnie. "The "Bottom-Up" Alternative in Somali Peacebuilding." Pp. 149-64 in From the

Ground Up: Mennonite Contributions to International Peacebuilding, edited by Cynthia

Sampson and John Paul Lederach. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Chesterman, Simon. "Ownership in Theory and in Practice: Transfer of Authority in UN

Statebuilding Operations." Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 1, no. 1 (2007): 3-

26.

Cockell, John G. "Conceptualising Peacebuilding: Human Security and Sustainable Peace." Pp.

15-34 in Regeneration of War-Torn Societies, edited by Michael Pugh. New York, NY: St.

Martin's Press, 2000.

Donais, Timothy. "Empowerment or Imposition? Dilemmas of Local Ownership in Post-Conflict

Peacebuilding Processes." Peace & Change 34, no. 1 (2009): 3-26.

Driedger, Leo and Donald B. Kraybill. Mennonite Peacemaking: From Quietism to Activism.

Herald Press, 1994.

Duffield, Mark. Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of Peoples.

Malden, MA: Polity, 2007.

Gerstbauer, Loramy Conradi. "The Whole Story of NGO Mandate Change: The Peacebuilding

Work of World Vision, Catholic Relief Services, and Mennonite Central Committee."

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 39, no. 5 (2010): 844–65.

Goodhand, Jonathan and Mark Sedra. "Who Owns the Peace? Aid, Reconstruction, and

Peacebuilding in Afghanistan." Disasters 34, no. 1 (2010): 78-102.

Hart, Barry. "Trauma-Healing and Reconciliation Workshops During Liberia's Civil Crisis." Pp.

165-82 in From the Ground Up: Mennonite Contributions to International Peacebuilding,

edited by Cynthia Sampson and John Paul Lederach. New York: Oxford University Press,

2000.

Kern, Kathleen. "From Haiti to Hebron with a Brief Stop in Washington, D.C.: The CPT

Experiment." Pp. 183-200 in From the Ground Up: Mennonite Contributions to

International Peacebuilding, edited by Cynthia Sampson and John Paul Lederach. New

York: Oxford University Press, 2000.


Kraybill, Ron. "Looking for the Holy Grail." Conciliation Quarterly 7, no. 3 (1988): 5.

---. "Reflections on Twenty Years in Peacebuilding."From the Ground Up: Mennonite

Contributions to International Peacebuilding, edited by Cynthia Sampson and John Paul

Lederach. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Lapp, John A. "The Peace Mission of the Mennonite Central Committee." Mennonite Quarterly

Review 44, no. 3 (1970): 281-97.

Lederach, John Paul. Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across Cultures. Syracuse,

N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1995.

---. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, D.C.: United

States Institute of Peace Press, 1997.

---. "Journey from Resolution to Transformative Peacebuilding." Pp. 45-55 in From the Ground

Up: Mennonite Contributions to International Peacebuilding, edited by Cynthia Sampson

and John Paul Lederach. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

---. "Civil Society and Reconciliation." Pp. 841-54 in Turbulent Peace: The Challenges of

Managing International Conflict, edited by Chester Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, and

Pamela Aall. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2001.

Lidèn, Kristoffer. "Building Peace between Global and Local Politics: The Cosmopolitical Ethics

of Liberal Peacebuilding." International Peacekeeping 16, no. 5 (2009): 616-34.

Mac Ginty, Roger. "Indigenous Peace-Making Versus the Liberal Peace." Cooperation and

Conflict 43, no. 2 (2008): 139-63.

Merry, Sally Engle. "Mennonite Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation: A Cultural Analysis."

Pp. 203-17 in From the Ground Up: Mennonite Contributions to International

Peacebuilding, edited New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Miller, Joseph S. "A History of the Mennonite Conciliation Service, International Conciliation

Service, and Christian Peacemaker Teams." Pp. 3-29 in From the Ground Up: Mennonite

Contributions to International Peacebuilding, edited by Cynthia Sampson and John Paul

Lederach. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.


Mitchell, Christopher. "Mennonite Approaches to Peace and Conflict Resolution." Pp. 218-32 in

From the Ground Up: Mennonite Contributions to International Peacebuilding, edited by

Cynthia Sampson and John Paul Lederach. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Murray, Stuart. The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith. Milton Keynes,

UK: Paternoster, 2011.

Nathan, Laurie. "The Challenge of Local Ownership of SSR: From Donor Rhetoric to Practice."

Pp. 19-35 in Local Ownership and Security Sector Reform, edited by Timothy Donais.

Berlin: Lit Verlag for the Geneva Centre for Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF),

2008.

OECD, 'Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: Ownership, Harmonization, Alignment, Results

and Mutual Accountability', Paris: OECD, 2005.

Reich, Hannah, '"Local Ownership" In Conflict Transformation Projects', Berlin: Berghoff

Research Center, 2006.

Richmond, Oliver. "A Post-Liberal Peace: Eirenism and the Everyday." Review of International

Studies 35, no. 03 (2009): 557-80.

Sampson, Cynthia and John Paul Lederach. eds., From the Ground Up: Mennonite Contributions

to International Peacebuilding New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Schirch, Lisa, 'Designing a Comprehensive Peace Process for Afghanistan', Washington, D.C.:

United States Institute of Peace, 2011.

Thiessen, Chuck. "Emancipatory Peacebuilding: Critical Responses to (Neo)Liberal

Trends."Critical Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies, edited by Tom Matyók, Jessica

Senehi, and Sean Byrne. New York, NY: Lexington Books, 2011.

---, 'Shouldering Responsibility for Sustainable Peace: Exploring Afghan Ownership of

Peacebuilding Activities in Afghanistan', Ph.D. Thesis in Peace and Conflict Studies,

Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, 2012.


Notes

i. Simon Chesterman, "Ownership in Theory and in Practice: Transfer of Authority in UN

Statebuilding Operations," Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 1, no. 1 (2007): 3-26;

Laurie Nathan, "The Challenge of Local Ownership of SSR: From Donor Rhetoric to Practice,"

in Local Ownership and Security Sector Reform, ed. Timothy Donais (Berlin: Lit Verlag for the

Geneva Centre for Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF), 2008), 19-35; Hannah Reich,

'"Local Ownership" In Conflict Transformation Projects', (Berlin: Berghoff Research Center,

2006).

ii. Timothy Donais, "Empowerment or Imposition? Dilemmas of Local Ownership in

Post-Conflict Peacebuilding Processes," Peace & Change 34, no. 1 (2009): 3-26; Jonathan

Goodhand and Mark Sedra, "Who Owns the Peace? Aid, Reconstruction, and Peacebuilding in

Afghanistan," Disasters 34, no. 1 (2010): 78-102.

iii. Chuck Thiessen, 'Shouldering Responsibility for Sustainable Peace: Exploring Afghan

Ownership of Peacebuilding Activities in Afghanistan', Ph.D. Thesis in Peace and Conflict

Studies, (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, 2012), 141-168.

iv. Very little has been written on the peacebuilding work of non-North American

Mennonites. This is a major area requiring investigation since North America contained only

about 35% of the world’s population of Mennonites in 2003.

v. OECD, 'Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: Ownership, Harmonization,

Alignment, Results and Mutual Accountability', (Paris: OECD, 2005). In this document the

OECD proposes that war-torn and/or developing countries should lead and manage the majority

of peacebuilding work within their borders.


vi. Mark Duffield, Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of

Peoples (Malden, MA: Polity, 2007); Roger Mac Ginty, "Indigenous Peace-Making Versus the

Liberal Peace," Cooperation and Conflict 43, no. 2 (2008): 139-63; Roland Paris, At War's End:

Building Peace after Civil Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Oliver

Richmond, "A Post-Liberal Peace: Eirenism and the Everyday," Review of International Studies

35, no. 03 (2009): 557-80.

vii. Chuck Thiessen, "Emancipatory Peacebuilding: Critical Responses to (Neo)Liberal

Trends," in Critical Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies, eds. Tom Matyók, Jessica Senehi, and

Sean Byrne (New York, NY: Lexington Books, 2011), 115-140.

viii. Kristoffer Lidèn, "Building Peace between Global and Local Politics: The

Cosmopolitical Ethics of Liberal Peacebuilding," International Peacekeeping 16, no. 5 (2009):

621.

ix. John G. Cockell, "Conceptualising Peacebuilding: Human Security and Sustainable

Peace," in Regeneration of War-Torn Societies, ed. Michael Pugh (New York, NY: St. Martin's

Press, 2000), 15-34; John Paul Lederach, Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across

Cultures (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1995), 63-70.

x. Lidèn, "Global and Local Politics”; Mac Ginty, "Indigenous Peace-Making”.

xi. Thiessen, “Exploring Afghan Ownership,” 237-240.

xii. John Paul Lederach, "Civil Society and Reconciliation," in Turbulent Peace: The

Challenges of Managing International Conflict, eds. Chester Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, and

Pamela Aall (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2001), 847-853.

xiii. Stuart Murray, The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith

(Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2011), 24.


xiv. Murray, The Naked Anabaptist, 25.

xv. Leo Driedger and Donald B. Kraybill, Mennonite Peacemaking: From Quietism to

Activism (Herald Press, 1994), 13.

xvi. Driedger and Kraybill, Mennonite Peacemaking, 32.

xvii. Ron Kraybill, "Reflections on Twenty Years in Peacebuilding," in From the Ground

Up: Mennonite Contributions to International Peacebuilding, eds. Cynthia Sampson and John

Paul Lederach (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 31.

xviii. Driedger and Kraybill, Mennonite Peacemaking, 58-59.

xix. Driedger and Kraybill, Mennonite Peacemaking, 158.

xx. Loramy Conradi Gerstbauer, "The Whole Story of NGO Mandate Change: The

Peacebuilding Work of World Vision, Catholic Relief Services, and Mennonite Central

Committee," Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 39, no. 5 (2010): 844–65; John A. Lapp,

"The Peace Mission of the Mennonite Central Committee," Mennonite Quarterly Review 44, no.

3 (1970): 281-97; Joseph S. Miller, "A History of the Mennonite Conciliation Service,

International Conciliation Service, and Christian Peacemaker Teams," in From the Ground Up:

Mennonite Contributions to International Peacebuilding, eds. Cynthia Sampson and John Paul

Lederach (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 3-29.

xxi. Cynthia Sampson and John Paul Lederach, eds., From the Ground Up: Mennonite

Contributions to International Peacebuilding (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).

xxii. Sally Engle Merry, "Mennonite Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation: A

Cultural Analysis," in From the Ground Up: Mennonite Contributions to International

Peacebuilding, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 206.


xxiii. Kathleen Kern, "From Haiti to Hebron with a Brief Stop in Washington, D.C.: The

CPT Experiment," in From the Ground Up: Mennonite Contributions to International

Peacebuilding, eds. Cynthia Sampson and John Paul Lederach (New York: Oxford University

Press, 2000), 183-200; Merry, “Mennonite Peacebuilding,” 215.

xxiv. Thiessen, 'Shouldering Responsibility for Sustainable Peace,’ 337-339. This sort of

generational thinking stands in contrast to current donor expectations that requires project work

to be framed in terms of months, or perhaps years.

xxv. Thiessen, 'Shouldering Responsibility for Sustainable Peace,’ 237-238.

xxvi. Merry, “Mennonite Peacebuilding,” 211.

xxvii. Christopher Mitchell, "Mennonite Approaches to Peace and Conflict Resolution,"

in From the Ground Up: Mennonite Contributions to International Peacebuilding, eds. Cynthia

Sampson and John Paul Lederach (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 225-226.

xxviii. Bonnie Bergey, "The "Bottom-Up" Alternative in Somali Peacebuilding," in From

the Ground Up: Mennonite Contributions to International Peacebuilding, eds. Cynthia Sampson

and John Paul Lederach (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 160-163.

xxix. John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided

Societies (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997), 38-43.

xxx. Lisa Schirch, 'Designing a Comprehensive Peace Process for Afghanistan',

(Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 2011).

xxxi. John Paul Lederach, "Journey from Resolution to Transformative Peacebuilding,"

in From the Ground Up: Mennonite Contributions to International Peacebuilding, eds. Cynthia

Sampson and John Paul Lederach (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 49.

xxxii. Merry, “Mennonite Peacebuilding,” 203.


xxxiii. Ron Kraybill, "Looking for the Holy Grail,"Conciliation Quarterly 7, no. 3

(1988): 5.

xxxiv. Kraybill, "Reflections on Twenty Years in Peacebuilding," 39-40.

xxxv. Barry Hart, "Trauma-Healing and Reconciliation Workshops During Liberia's Civil

Crisis," in From the Ground Up: Mennonite Contributions to International Peacebuilding, eds.

Cynthia Sampson and John Paul Lederach (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 165-82.

xxxvi. Kern, "From Haiti to Hebron,” 198-199; Miller, "A History of the Mennonite

Conciliation Service,” 21.

xxxvii. Lederach, Preparing for Peace, 55.

xxxviii. Lederach, "Resolution to Transformative Peacebuilding,” 47.

xxxix. Lederach, "Resolution to Transformative Peacebuilding,” 47.

xl. Miller, "A History of the Mennonite Conciliation Service,” 16.

xli. Hart, "Trauma-Healing,” 173.

xlii. Merry, “Mennonite Peacebuilding,” 215.

xliii. Thiessen, 'Shouldering Responsibility for Sustainable Peace,’ 332.

xliv. Thiessen, 'Shouldering Responsibility for Sustainable Peace,’ 183.

MENNONITE INTERNATIONAL PEACEBUILDING AND LOCAL OWNERSHIP

Documents