i never thought i'd say this about an article from the Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday from Britain - but this is a great article :-) it's so well written that i don't think i need a comment to contextualize it.

enjoy it!



http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/03/fake_caring_abo.html
Fake caring about Zimbabwe

Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday

Do I care about Zimbabwe? Should you? Every few months, the British media, together with a certain number of politicians, make a fuss about the misery now afflicting that sad country. They sympathise with its ill-fed, oppressed people and with the leaders of its opposition movements. Pictures and reports are published of the horrible beatings given to those who dare to oppose the country's tyrant, Robert Mugabe. The BBC makes a great to-do about how it is banned from Zimbabwe but still manages to get information out.


Nobody can read these accounts without a feeling of outrage and a desire to do or say something. But in my view this is in fact a selfish impulse, unless you are prepared to act personally in some way that will improve matters. We become inflamed with righteous anger about these things, only to prove to ourselves that we are nice, civilised people. In truth, we have absolutely no intention of doing anything about it.


And if we did, it would probably fail. I don't know how many of those who call for intervention in Zimbabwe could find it on a map, but the fact that the country has no coastline could present a small problem to anyone who wanted to invade it. In any case, this is all futile stuff.


The disastrous and irreparable defeat of British arms by the Japanese in Singapore in 1942 finished the British empire for all time, though it would take a little while for this truth to become obvious. India went first, and, after a pause ended by the Suez fiasco, the rest followed soon afterwards. Not only could we not afford the empire any more. Our reputation for invincibility had been smashed by Japan, and we had lost the psychological advantage we had gained in the 18th century and had reinforced by our merciless crushing of the Indian mutiny in 1857.


All over Asia, the Japanese had been careful to see that captured British officers and soldiers were visible to their former colonial subjects, reduced to the status of humiliated, suppliant slaves. The effects of this were enormous and permanent in Asia, and word spread to Africa quite quickly.


Britain, which during the war against Hitler was understandably paying less attention to the Empire than it would otherwise have done, was slow to realise how much things had changed. But by the end of the 1950s, its leaders decided it could not afford an African colonial empire.


Its influence in the area has been in decline ever since, replaced by the USA, China, Cuba and - to a surprisingly small extent - Russia. The problem with Zimbabwe, formerly Southern Rhodesia, was that it was already semi-independent and self-governing in any case, with a white minority that did not wish to lose its privileged way of life because of Britain's decline. It was very difficult for a British government, trying to soothe the feelings of the United Nations and to scrub away all traces of unfashionable colonial supremacy, to force the Southern Rhodesians into giving up their power. They had good reason to suspect that, when they did, they would swiftly lose their pampered way of life.


So London devoted much of the late 1960s and all the 1970s to trying to force a settlement there that would enable the British government to avoid all future responsibility and appear in tune with modern thinking. This ended in 1979, under the Thatcher government but endorsed by the whole British establishment, with the Lancaster House agreement.


This handed Zimbabwe to the sinister Robert Mugabe - mainly because he was too politically and militarily strong to be denied. there were better men available, but they were not strong enough, and the rigged elections which followed confirmed the Lancaster House settlement


The history of that process is long, complicated and not specially honourable on any side. It involves, as so often, the curious paradox that the campaigners for 'freedom' turned out to be tyrants themselves once they had power, and that life under the 'colonial oppressors' was in many ways more prosperous and peaceful than it was to become later. You do not have to be a sympathiser of Ian Smith, the leader of the Rhodesian Front and the chief opponent of majority rule, to recognise that Robert Mugabe has done terrible damage to the country and its people. You do not have to be a partisan of Robert Mugabe to recognise that Smith's Southern Rhodesia was a state based on racial discrimination, that could not survive and should not have survived as it was. Was this unavoidable? Possibly.

Mugabeepa2102_228x197

Intelligent British politicians and diplomats knew, or at least suspected back in the 1950s and 1960s that the end of empire might well mean severe suffering for the people involved. Most of them probably privately admitted that - as in India in 1947 - this country simply no longer had the strength to rule, and that it must make the best of a very bad bargain by trying to leave behind as much democracy, law and freedom, and as strong an economy, as it could manage.


Many of the British colonial administrators, in Africa and Asia, were genuinely devoted men who had worked very hard to bring incorruptible justice, education and prosperity. Such men did all that they could to leave good things behind - and I am always greatly moved by two legacies that seem to have lasted specially well.


Even where elections are rigged and parliaments fail, and civil servants are corrupt, it is amazing how often African judges defy the new tyrants of Africa, releasing political prisoners and halting torture. And it is equally amazing how often African journalists continue to print the truth, despite the very real danger of torture and death, or the smashing of their presses. Free speech and law, interestingly enough, may be more important and enduring than democracy in securing justice and liberty.


What practical conclusions can we draw from this? First, that our power in these parts of the world is gone for good, and it is just posturing to imagine that a protest in London will make any difference there. Comrade Mugabe's response that his critics could 'go hang' is rude and brusque, but also an accurate estimate of how things stand. He doesn't care what we think, and what's more he doesn't even pretend to care.


That's embarrassing of him. We would much prefer an expression of concern, some sign that we matter, even if don't. In fact, his taunting of us for our powerlessness may be his greatest offence against those interventionist liberals who like to imagine that a tough leading article in the Guardian will make Harare tremble.


Second, that the worst crimes of empires often come at the finish of them. Having persuaded people to rely on our power and our ability to protect them, we abruptly change our minds and disappear over the horizon, leaving them with a parliament building, a flag, an anthem, several unresolved territorial disputes and (quite often) a Mugabe figure who, if not very pleasant, is at least strong enough to take over the state.


This is, so far as I have been able to work out, the most powerful argument against empire - which in its British form was often highly benevolent so long as it existed. It has to end, and when it does, there is almost always tragedy. People often say, without thinking, that the winding up of the British empire was a civilised and creditable episode. I completely disagree. the scuttle from India, 60 years ago this year, and the smaller but more poisonous scuttle from Palestine soon afterwards, are among the most shameful episodes in British history. Our departure from Africa was not much better. The USA, and its ring of loyal client states in the former Soviet Union, from the Caucasus to the Baltic, should beware of a comparable bout of shameful departures, probably in the next 30 years, when Washington loses interest in this part of the world and Moscow reasserts its ancient dominance.


Third, that other countries do not exist to provide broad open spaces in which we can exercise our constipated, under-used consciences. It is incredibly easy, and rather enjoyable, to rail against tyrants and injustice a long way away. The tyrants cannot get at you, and if you travel to these places on a Western passport, the worst you are likely to face is expulsion. But it is so much harder, and less glamorous, to challenge the power-grabbers and would-tyrants, and petty but persistent injustices, in your own home country - where your targets can take revenge.


Fourth, that intervention cannot permanently alter the balance of power in foreign lands. Unless you are prepared to stay forever, the 'improvements' you achieve will not survive your departure by more than a few years. Worse, people who trusted you and relied on you will be left to dreadful fates.


Caring about a foreign injustice is futile unless you have the means to express your concern through effective, sustained action. It is an impulse designed to make the carer feel good to himself, and look good in the eyes of others, rather than to do good. So the honest answer, for most of us, is that we do not really care. But who dares say so? To say in a public place that you do not think Britain should intervene in Zimbabwe is to court shocked disapproval. Yet those who say they think we should intervene are applauded - even if they have no intention of doing anything.

All comments are moderated by the community team. Please contact community@dailymailonline.co.uk with any queries about moderation

i found these two articles in South Africa's Sunday Times to be
somewhat refreshing and worth reading as opposed to most of the
sensational pieces floating over the internet and other newspapers.

Complicated times over here - but we're living through them... somehow!



From http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=414960

Peering through Zimbabwe's layers of deception

18 March 2007
Mohau Pheko


I have become jaded over the Zimbabwe issue.

I've been reading Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins,
which describes how highly paid professionals lurk in the shadows to
cheat countries around the world out of trillions of dollars. When
they emerge, their modus operandi includes overthrowing heads of
state, rigged elections, manufactured terrorist attacks, payoffs, sex,
murder and extortion.

It has me wondering whether recent events in Harare are not the
makings of an over- productive mastermind trying , through make-
believe scenarios, to evoke sympathy and outrage for what may actually
be seeds of deception.

Frankly, the reported situation in Zimbabwe has become the perfect
script for a spy movie.

On October 12 2005, Morgan Tsvangirai precipitated a fatal split in
his six-year-old opposition when he stormed out of a Movement for
Democratic Change meeting, prompting the faction led by the party's
deputy secretary, Gibson Sibanda, to suspend him .

In return, Tsvangirai supporters suspended Sibanda and members of his
faction. Stunned by their party leader's dishonesty and dictatorial
tendencies, the MDC found itself divided.

It has to be said that Tsvangirai's bizarre behaviour that day left
many formerly enthusiastic supporters baffled. Why, some question, was
he committed to boycotting the election? Why would he not countenance
an alternative plan? Why was he dogmatic and unyielding in his view,
prepared to trample on the MDC's constitution, lie to the media and
even declare to the national council, "If the party breaks, so be it"?
Why has he not done anything since to reconcile the two opposing
factions? Could a secret meeting with Zanu-PF kingmaker Solomon Mujuru
— husband of vice-president Joyce Mujuru — have changed his mind?

In the tradition of the espionage movie, conspiracy theories abound.
The Gibson Sibanda faction has been accused of secretly conniving with
President Thabo Mbeki to undermine Tsvangirai. On the other hand,
there are those who believe that President Robert Mugabe and
Tsvangirai are colluding on a blueprint that is mutually beneficial.
There are accusations that Tsvangirai has been colluding with Zanu- PF
in a plot by Mujuru's husband, betraying the MDC by pulling out of
senate elections in exchange for undisclosed political rewards.

If one links these events, recent statements by various leaders of the
ruling Zanu-PF make perfect sense. The government of Zimbabwe declares
its innocence in recent events by implicating opposition forces within
the MDC for the latest calamity. In essence, it is said the opposition
came with pangas to the recent march to deal with each other. In the
interest of public safety, the police had to intervene to stop the
altercation.

In the mind of many, this ongoing war within the opposition in
Zimbabwe is a perfect cover for the country's Central Intelligence
Organisation to meticulously deepen divisions within the opposition,
and undermine any credible opposition or threat to the ruling party.

The government's response to recent events is consistent with the
words of Emmerson Mnangagwa, shortly after the deployment of the Fifth
Brigade in Mata beleland North in 1983. As minister of State Security
responsible for the CIO, he stated: "Blessed are they who will follow
the path of the government law, for their days on earth shall be
increased. But woe to those who will choose the path of collaboration
with dissidents for we will certainly shorten their stay on earth."

In trying to discover who is culpable in the Zimbabwe crisis, Mugabe's
statement is instructive: "I would like to see an African country that
has gone this length in those directions ... abiding by the rule of
law, accepting the reign of human rights and establishing democracy.
You also have nongovernmental organisations here telling them [the
British government] the opposite of what we are. In the meantime, they
are enjoying the freedom of organising our people without hindrance."

It is clear from this that Mugabe perceives accusations levelled
against his government as baseless and unfounded.

As the plot thickens, the sad ending is that after 26 years as
distinguished architects of their own liberation, Zimbabweans pin
their hopes on the retirement of one man. Even more disappointing,
conversations in Zimbabwe have centred on dubious characters for
leadership. It is time Zimbabwe ended the personality cult in
politics. It is time to pause and not blindly follow popular and
charismatic personalities who have already shown that they are
seriously flawed as leaders. For outsiders to support and intervene in
Zimbabwe, solidarity needs to be built on a vision of a new Zimbabwe.

The lesson to be learnt from Zimbabwe is that a construction of
democracy, where the majority vote and the minority elites govern,
does not lend itself to participatory democracy where citizens can
recall their leaders. Perhaps the real lesson is, presidents do not
assume power through an exam. They are the product of the choices made
by the governed.

It is incumbent upon all Zimbabweans to elevate the level of debate to
provide a vision of their new society. This will reinforce solidarity
in the region in such a way that those who find themselves in wrong
jobs after 26 years of rule will be conscious of the pressure to step
aside in the interest of a new national vision and thereby end the
seeds of deception.

----------------------------------------------------------------

From http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=415095

Inaction lets Zimbabwe crisis play itself out

18 March 2007
Francis Kornegay


Second opinion Francis Kornegay says SA and the region have little
choice but to let Robert Mugabe's country stew

The arrest and brutal detention of Movement for Democratic Change
leader Morgan Tsvangirai and his colleagues have refocused the
spotlight on South Africa's "quiet diplomacy" towards Zimbabwe.

The assumption, as reflected in Mondli Makhanya's recent commentary
"The joke will be on us if we don't wake up to Zimbabwe's pain" (March
4), is that diplomacy is not working, though what may be the real
source of frustration is Pretoria's lack of effective public diplomacy
regarding Zimbabwe.

This becomes especially apparent during episodes of overt repression
as witnessed over the past week, though the South African government
did counsel Harare on the need to observe the rule of law and the
rights of all concerned.

If diplomacy has failed, perhaps a closer look at what is unfolding in
Zimbabwe is in order, accompanied by suggestions of what more South
Africa and/or the Southern African Development Community (SADC) should
undertake.

At the same time, it is useful to note observations about the recent
Franco-African summit to which Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe was
not invited and at which his fellow heads of state made not a peep.
The loud and clear message from their silence was that they had
"washed their hands" of and were not willing to go to bat for their
tarnished icon.

Silence can be golden and, in the Taoist tradition of "dynamic
inaction", the best approach to certain intractable situations. Here,
South Africa and the SADC are not alone. Witness the equally lengthy
stalemates between China-North Korea, the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations and Burma or even the US and Cuba.

Given the fact that the military option is ruled out and cutting off
electricity and a border blockade are equally unpalatable for what
these would convey to our neighbours — the return of the neighbourhood
bully — a protracted crisis-management containment strategy has been
the only realistic option.

Pretoria has gone the extra mile in searching for a negotiated
internal settlement to Zimbabwe's crisis, to no avail. As this
diplomacy interacted with the dynamics within and between the ruling
Zanu-PF and the opposition MDC, there was less and less scope within
which to work such a settlement. Both parties became internally
divided. But these internal divisions, especially within Zanu-PF, are
what may eventually bear fruit as the country's economic meltdown,
underneath the apparently loosening grip of Mugabe, seems to be
pushing the party's rival factions towards the exit as they search for
a way out of Zimbabwe's predicament.

Once the negotiating phase of quiet diplomacy had run its course, the
only thing Pretoria and the SADC could do was sit back and, in effect,
let Zimbabwe stew in its own juices.

South Africa and the SADC must prepare for whatever emerges from this
current "dynamic inaction" phase of quiet diplomacy, which allows
Zanu-PF's internal contradictions to play themselves out towards the
long-awaited "endgame".

As a result of the growing flood of desperate Zimbabweans streaming
into Zambia — not to mention South Africa, Botswana and Malawi —
Zambian Foreign Minister Mundia Sikatana has suggested that the next
SADC summit in August take up the Zimbabwean crisis. This may signal
the need for a more highly profiled diplomacy on Pretoria's part.

Sikatana's suggestion that the SADC facilitate dialogue between
Zimbabwe and the European Union could complement some of the
diplomatic outreach being reportedly attempted by some among Zanu-PF's
divided elite. His suggestion would also be in line with the
International Crisis Group's recommendation that Pretoria engage the
EU and the US in devising a strategy to resolve Zimbabwe's crisis.

Rather than hammering Pretoria without knowing all the facts about
what is and is not happening between South Africa and Zimbabwe, the
media need to focus on breaking developments, with the aim of
stimulating constructive dialogue on Zimbabwe's future and the role
that South Africa and others should play to ensure an internally and
regionally stabilising post-Mugabe transition.


Francis Kornegay is senior researcher in international affairs at the
Centre for Policy Studies

The ICG has yet again released a STUPID report on Zimbabwe. The
summary to their report is below and has some pretty out of touch
synopses of things over here. Below are a few highlights. What country
are these people talking about…? Sometimes I just feel that these
think-tank and advocacy and journalistic types will really never get
it!

The country is in a very fragile condition: the economy is near
meltdown, and discontent among underpaid police and troops, combined
with the willingness of opposition parties and civil society to
protest in the streets, all increase the risk of sudden major
violence
The economy is really really bad. I don't know what they mean by
'meltdown' because predictions of a meltdown have been in place since
2000. but it is rather horrific. So perhaps on that, I'd agree with
them. Public servant are well underpaid but the government seems to
manage to ease their pain whenever it gets too much. Both teachers and
doctors have now called off strikes and are back at work. The cops and
the military going on strike or protest - now that would be something!

President Mugabe must give up efforts to extend his term, and the
opposing parties must negotiate a compromise
This issue of the president's term being extended is really reported
on badly. The other option which the government is weighing is to cut
the term of parliament by two years and have harmonized elections for
the executive and legislature next year - which very well might
happen. Nothing is a done deal yet. But also, it's rather simplistic
to look at this in terms of just the president hanging on to power. If
mugabe wanted to remain president, he would keep the election on next
year and win another six year term. Why have two years when you can
have six ... if staying in power is really your end objective..? this
whole issue is taken out of context and ignore the importance of the
succession debate and process within ZANU PF. It can be critiqued all
we want, but the reality is that they are zimbabwe's dominant
political force at the moment. The opposition couldn't organize a mud
fest in a mud bath and couldn't govern Zimbabwe in its current state.
(not to say the current performance of the entire zim government
leaves much to be desired). The "opposing parties" that "must
negotiate a compromise" are all in ZANU PF. The opposition party just
loves to make itself useless to the whole political future of
Zimbabwe. And speaking of people not extending their terms, the
leader[s] of the opposition my also give up their terms of office
because they have quite frankly failed. A new start at the top level
across the board may not be a bad thing...


Pressure by the European Union and the U.S., through targeted
sanctions and isolation, has helped divide the ruling party, ZANU-PF,
persuading key figures whose business interests have been hard hit by
the current crisis, that change is needed.
Again - whoever reached this conclusion does not really understand how
the "key figures" in ZANU PF are making their money. This crisis
enables the rich to get richer more than ever. Disengagement never
helped to address a situation like the one we have in Zimbabwe. Keep
the sanctions on, and normal people suffer, are closed off from
accessing key parts of the economy because shortages mean that those
with power access the much needed resources (most of the time) and you
get a case where people made millions. The prohibition in America (a
form of sanctions) taught us all how much money is made when you try
and restrict things to achieve some idealistic pie in the sky
objective. Al Capone died a millionaire. These "key figures" are
millionaires in US dollar terms thanks to these 'targeted' or 'smart'
sanctions. Easy money. Why would they just want to let that go...? get
rid of these sanctions. Allow the economics to normalize and perhaps
most of the country will once again be interested in political
engagement. Survival as an M.O doesn't leave much room for political
analysis and participation.

These sanction also affect Zimbabwe more than anyone else because the
government runs a lot of state enterprises that are starved off
foreign investment. These enterprises (electricity, fuel, transport,
health services etc) serve a lot of normal, average Zimbabweans. Their
failure to perform because of the indirect results of these sanctions
means that the majority of Zimbabweans suffer. Not the small elite
driving gas guzzling cars which never run out of gas or have
generators to work through power outages. When a zimbabwean government
official cannot talk to potential investors in Europe or the US or any
other place, how is the economy not expect to 'meltdown' ... ? that
coupled with internal mismanagement...? so yeah, these sanctions and
isolation are really helping us. Not at all.

This pressure should be increased if ZANU-PF does not cooperate
with the opposition to implement a transitional government and restore
democracy.
And beating a dead donkey always arose it from the dead! NO! increased
pressure will ultimately help ZANU PF on a number of fronts. The
opposition will probably not get consulted or involved in any
transitional government process primarily because they take some of
their queues from thinkers people who wrote this report. They
unfortunately need to find a way to engage with the government - not
the other way round. We're being practical here, not academic. The
truth is, as much as ZANU PF is failing to administer things, for a
number of different reasons, most people in Zimbabwe today would vote
for ZANU PF (also for a number of varying reasons) regardless of how
much external forces increase pressure on ZANU.



The Southern African Development Community (SADC), the organisation
of regional countries, should work as a mediator for negotiations
between ZANU-PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change
(MDC) and join the EU and the U.S. in defining a clear sequence of
benchmarks leading to a genuinely democratic process
SADC has tried that. Hasn't worked. The opposition leaders themselves
have helped to foil some of these efforts. I think we should stop
seeing the MDC as an alternative because most Zimbabweans just don't
think that it is. They can not govern this country effectively in
their present state. SADC is unlikely to place sanctions on Zimbabwe.
Could the writers of this report try to at least understand African
Politics 101.

"The situation today is reminiscent of the last stages of Mobutu's
reign in the Congo", says Crisis Group President Gareth Evans.
"Zimbabwe has the potential to fall into chaos and bring large chunks
of the region down with it unless both domestic and international
parties act now".
The Congo...??? the Congo...??? and Zimbabwe are similar? Mugabe and
Mobutu (who was placed in power by the US government in place of
Lumumba-which is fact and not conspiracy?) how do you compare Mugabe
and Mobutu and their situations. They ran/run two totally different
countries in very different contexts with very different approaches,
systems, achievements, etc. how can the situation in Zimbabwe (where
there is no rebel army fighting the government amongst other things)
compare to that of the Congo?

Final Comments if I was a donor to the International Crisis
Group I would be very embarrassed with the results of my
contributions. The major international crisis is the one that they
create through putting forth such ignorant, ill-informed and unhelpful
reports on countries and situations they clearly seem to know very
little about.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--

From: International Crisis Group [mailto:notification@crisisgroup.org]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 6:29 PM
Subject: Zimbabwe: An End to the Stalemate? - New Crisis Group report

INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP - NEW REPORT
Zimbabwe: An End to the Stalemate?
Pretoria/Brussels, 5 March 2007: The long political stalemate in
Zimbabwe may be breaking at last, but regional intervention and
continued Western pressure are needed to ensure a peaceful restoration
of democracy.
Zimbabwe: An End to the Stalemate,* the latest report from the
International Crisis Group, examines the deadlock in Zimbabwe and sees
in the current moment a chance to resolve the situation through the
retirement of President Robert Mugabe when his term ends in 2008 and a
power-sharing deal to create a transitional government tasked with
preparing a new constitution and holding elections by 2010.

The country is in a very fragile condition: the economy is near
meltdown, and discontent among underpaid police and troops, combined
with the willingness of opposition parties and civil society to
protest in the streets, all increase the risk of sudden major
violence. For Zimbabwe to begin to recover, President Mugabe must give
up efforts to extend his term, and the opposing parties must negotiate
a compromise. The months leading to the July parliament session, when
decisions will be taken on Mugabe's fate or transition, are
crucial.

"The prospect of President Mugabe's retirement has created an
exceptional rallying point among varied constituencies within the
country", says François Grignon, Crisis Group's Africa Program
Director. "There is widespread agreement that he must leave so that
the country can finally make progress on the needed economic and
political reforms".

Pressure by the European Union and the U.S., through targeted
sanctions and isolation, has helped divide the ruling party, ZANU-PF,
persuading key figures whose business interests have been hard hit by
the current crisis, that change is needed. This pressure should be
increased if ZANU-PF does not cooperate with the opposition to
implement a transitional government and restore democracy.
The Southern African Development Community (SADC), the organisation of
regional countries, should work as a mediator for negotiations between
ZANU-PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and
join the EU and the U.S. in defining a clear sequence of benchmarks
leading to a genuinely democratic process. SADC leaders have an
opportunity to talk to Mugabe now about a retirement package to be
implemented not later than 2008 – and at last get him to listen. The
MDC needs urgently to reconcile its feuding factions.

"The situation today is reminiscent of the last stages of Mobutu's
reign in the Congo", says Crisis Group President Gareth Evans.
"Zimbabwe has the potential to fall into chaos and bring large chunks
of the region down with it unless both domestic and international
parties act now".
________________________________________
Contacts: Andrew Stroehlein (Brussels) 32 (0) 2 541 1635
Kimberly Abbott (Washington) 1 202 785 1601
To contact Crisis Group media please click here
*Read the full Crisis Group report our website: http://www.crisisgroup.org
________________________________________
The International Crisis Group (Crisis Group) is an independent,
non-profit, non-governmental organisation covering over 50
crisis-affected countries and territories across four continents,
working through field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to
prevent and resolve deadly conflict.
________________________________________