Conflict resolution in practice

A recent conference at Nipissing University hosted in partnership with CIAAN instigated a discussion into conflict resolution and the possibility of translating individually-based resolution strategies into the context on international armed conflict.

When the subject of conflict resolution and prevention is breached it is often in the context of international armed conflict. A most apt example would be the Gaza conflict--a timely topic on everyone's mind at the moment. A conflict that has raged on for many years, culminating in violent acts, murders, and threats, is certainly one definition of conflict itself. On the other hand, conflict can be far less bloody and yet equally dangerous to the individual. Given this, it is pertinent for us to understand what we mean when we speak of conflict. Further, it incites a need for us to understand how conflicts can be effectively managed in order to not cause more harm.

Conflict, commonly understood, occurs when individuals or parties perceive that, as a consequence of a given disagreement, there is a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. Conflict  then, does not necessarily exclusively pertain to state/international bodies. Rather, conflict is an almost inherent part of the human experience. As such, could it be possible that the tools we use to resolve personal conflicts can be used to resolves ones of an international/transnational nature? More succinctly put: can conflict resolution practices utilized in personal conflict situation translate into an international context?

In the 1970s Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann identified five main styles of dealing with conflict that vary in their degrees of cooperativeness and assertiveness. They argued that people typically have a preferred conflict resolution style. However they also noted that different styles were most useful in different situations. They developed the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) which helps you to identify which style you tend towards when conflict arises.

Thomas and Kilmann's styles are:

Competitive: People who tend towards a competitive style take a firm stand, and know what they want. situations.
Collaborative: People tending towards a collaborative style try to meet the needs of all people involved.
Compromising: People who prefer a compromising style try to find a solution that will at least partially satisfy everyone.
Accommodating: This style indicates a willingness to meet the needs of others at the expense of the person's own needs.
Avoiding: People tending towards this style seek to evade the conflict entirely.

The idea behind this theory is that once you understand the different styles, you can use them to think about the most appropriate approach (or mixture of approaches) for the situation you're in. You can also think about your own instinctive approach, and learn how you need to change this if necessary.

Ideally you can adopt an approach that meets the situation, resolves the problem, respects people's legitimate interests, and mends damaged working relationships.

This is not the only way to approach conflict resolution, though. Conflict resolution often must be sensitive to culture. In homogenous cultural contexts, successful conflict resolution usually involves fostering communication among disputants, problem solving, and drafting agreements that meet their underlying needs. In these situations, conflict resolvers often talk about finding a mutually satisfying solution for everyone involved. However, in heterogenous cultural context this approach may be ineffective. Indeed, it is still important to find "win-win" solutions but the process of finding that solution is a little more rocky. In these contexts, direct communication between disputants that explicitly addresses the issues at stake in the conflict can be perceived as very rude, making the conflict worse and delaying resolution. Rather, it can make sense to involve religious, tribal or community leaders, communicate difficult truths indirectly through a third party, and make suggestions through narratives and the like. 

Now, the idea that such processes can translate into a broader, international context is contentious. Groups like our partners at CIAAN operate under the assumption that mediatory activities and communication can lead to peaceful resolution in the context of violent conflict, but their results have been mixed. 

It is a question that then must be left open to experience to answer. Mediation certainly seems helpful, and many scholars and practitioners would agree that it preferable to the alternative. This is not to suggest that every intractable conflict can be mediated. Many conflicts may be too intense, the parties too entrenched and the behaviour too violent for any mediator to achieve any desirable outcome. In many cases, a conflict only ceases to become intractable when there is a major systemic change. How then can we distinguish between conflicts that can be mediated and those that cannot? When should mediators enter an intractable conflict?

These questions have been answered in many different ways in the past. Jacob Bercovitch, a professor of international relations in the Political Science Department at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, offers a very helpful list to understand which conflicts can be mediated and when mediators are appropriate, cited below. But this list is certainly not the only perspective offered on the subject. 

We are interested to know what you think on the subject. Is mediation the answer? And, can we use the same tools that we use for personal conflict in the context of international armed conflict? 






1. Mediators can engage in an intractable conflict only after a thorough and complete analysis of the conflict, issues at stake, context and dynamics, parties' grievances, etc. Intractable conflicts are complex and multi-layered. A mediation initiative is more likely to be successful if it is predicated on knowledge and understanding rather than on good intentions only. A good analysis and a thorough understanding of all aspects of the conflict are important prerequisites for successful mediation in intractable conflicts.
2. Mediation must take place at an optimal or ripe moment. Early mediation may be premature and late mediation may face too many obstacles. A ripe moment describes a phase in the life cycle of the conflict where the parties feel exhausted and hurt, or where they may not wish to countenance any further losses and are prepared to commit to a settlement, or at least believe one to be possible. In destructive and escalating conflicts, mediation can have any chance of success only if it can capture a particular moment when the adversaries, for a variety of reasons, appear most amenable to change. Timing of intervention in an intractable conflict is an issue of crucial importance, and one that must be properly assessed by any would be mediator.
3. Given the nature and complexity of intractable conflicts, successful mediation requires a co-ordinated approach between different aspects of intervention. Mediation here requires leverage and resources to nudge the parties toward a settlement, but also acute psychological understanding of the parties' feelings and grievances. The kind of mediation we are talking about here is mediation that is embedded in various disciplinary frameworks, ranging from problem-solving workshops to more traditional diplomatic methods. No one aspect or form of behavior will suffice to turn an intractable conflict around. Diverse and complementary methods, an interdisciplinary focus, and a full range of intervention methods responding to the many concerns and fears of the adversaries, are required to achieve some accommodation between parties in an intractable conflict.
4. Mediating intractable conflicts require commitment, resources, persistence, and experience. Mediators of high rank or prestige are more likely to possess these attributes and thus are more likely to be successful in intractable conflicts. Such mediators have the capacity to appeal directly to the domestic constituency and build up support for some peace agreement. Influential, high ranking or prestigious mediators have more at stake, can marshal more resources, have better information, and can devote more time to an intractable conflict. Such mediators can work toward achieving some visible signs of progress in the short term, and identify steps that need to be taken to deal with the issues of a longer term peace objectives. Influential mediators can work better within the constraints of intractable conflicts, and more likely to elicit accommodative responses from the adversaries.
5. Mediation in intractable conflicts is more likely to be successful when there are recognizable leaders within each party, where the leaders are accepted as legitimate by all concerned, and where they have considerable control over their territory. An intractable conflict between parties with competing leaders and constituents (e.g. Northern Ireland) can prove very difficult to deal with. Where there are recognizable leaders, each from the mainstream of their respective community, and where each embodies the aspirations and expectations of their respective community, provides mediators with individuals who may have a serious impact on official diplomacy. Where there are competing leadership factions, state institutions, and governance capacity are all too uncertain, and the chances of successful mediation decline sharply.
6. Mediation in intractable conflicts is more likely to be effective if there are no sections in each community committed to the continuation of violence. Such parties are usually described as spoilers. Spoilers in such a context have much to lose from a peaceful outcome and much to gain from the continuation of violence. Their presence and activities constitute a major obstacle to any mediation effort.
7. Where an intractable conflict involves a major power, or major powers have interests (vital or otherwise) at stake, it is very unlikely that mediation will be attempted, and if attempted, very unlikely that it will succeed. The involvement of major powers in any capacity in an intractable conflict poses too serious a constraint on any mediation effort. A major power involvement in an intractable conflict provides a clear indication of the difficulty of initiating any form of mediation.

taken from: http://beyondintractability.colorado.edu/essay/med_intractable_conflict/?nid=1295

Virtually Campaigning for Peace

Here at NUPRI we'v just kicked off our Post-Its for peace campaign. Here's the idea: grab a sticky note, write down what comes to mind when you hear the word "Peace", stick it up in an unexpected place, snap a picture, upload it to our Facebook page or onto twitter (@NUPRIPeaceAgent).

In the world of online networking and virtual fundraising/awareness campaigns it is important to consider the effectiveness of virtual communication in building meaningful, reciprocal relationships. At the same time, however, we begin to question the necessity of meaningful reciprocal relationships when virtual fundraising and awareness campaigns are so seemingly effective in the absence of mutual trust and reciprocity.

We would like to know what you have to say about virtual relationships. Can we foster peace via the web? Or is any peace that we achieve virtually non-transferable to concrete reality?

Thanks for reading!

Peace,


the NUPRI team

Guerilla Peace

Ben Hoffman, PhD, the director of CIIAN and author of the Guerilla Peace Handbook writes that peace-building must be pursued with the same vigor and tenacity that guerilla fighters use to achieve their goals. The peace guerilla must "wage peace"at the grassroots level, as well as on a larger scale in order to prevent violence and promote immediate and sustainable peace.

In October (the 12th, to be precise) Ben Hoffman will be at Nipissing University's Muskoka Campus to discuss what we can do to promote peace at home and abroad in his presentation entitled "From Bracebridge to Bagdad". Leading up to this even we find it pertinent to begin a more in depth discussion of what exactly peace is in our own specific contexts and in the context of the broader spectrum of reality--whether it be peace in the community, peace on a national scale or global peace. And once we know what peace is (or at least have some sort of individualized operational definition), how can we seek to promote or, as Ben Hoffman puts it, wage peace at these different levels.

So, what would it mean to be a guerilla fighter for peace?

In the Peace Guerilla Handbook, Hoffman explains why he uses the term "guerilla" to describe wagers of peace. He writes that the peace guerilla differs from the war guerilla in objective only. Their tactics must be similar - the guerilla must operate often in secret ways, using limited resources to achieve their goal through strategic thinking and collaboration. The waging of peace is, similar to guerilla warfare, a coordinated effort of subversive tactics to get at the root of the problem - to seek out those things which are obstructing peace and eliminate them.

We want to know what you think? Can and should peace be pursued in this manner? If not, why not?

NUPRI at Piebird B&B: Nature and Peace

Human beings, as far as I can tell, tend to find a great deal of peace in nature. In fact, I would even go so far as to say this little tidbit is indisputable. But why is it that we find so much peace in nature?

Last week NUPRI went on the road and visited Piebird Bed and Breakfast, owned and operated by a lovely couple, Yan and Sherry. As soon as you step onto their property you are struck by the beauty and the peacefulness of their lifestyle. Yan and Sherry are Vegan animal lovers who grow most of their own food (this includes the food they feed to their B&B guests) and live with and care for a herd of goats, some chickens and some very happy cats. 

We asked them why they think that people feel at peace at Piebird and the answers they gave resonated with beautiful truth. The land, they explained, has a sort of magnetism. Nature is a vibration. We are connected to the earth. The land is happy and it attracts happy people. 

Is this the case? We are certainly from nature, originally. But for the most part, human beings are no longer of nature, so to speak. If we find so much peace in nature, if we are meant to live alongside nature, then why have human beings spent so many centuries and put so much effort into building homes that protect us and shield us from nature? Why do we live in 'concrete jungles'? Why do we cut down trees just to grind them up and glue them back together to form furniture and paper and disposable cups? 

These are the questions that we at NUPRI are ruminating on this week as we reflect upon our time at Piebird with Yan and Sherry and their animal friends. 

Here are some clips from the interview, so you can ruminate on them too:

Peace,

NUPRI

NUPRI Funnies!

Nipissing Universitiy Peace Research Initiative's first NUPRI Funny - Nupri Fun Facts #1

Enjoy and share!

Peace and Conflict

An interview with Metta Spencer, a woman long active in the peace-building field, inspired a discussion about peace and conflict. It is common for us to say that where there is conflict there can not be peace. Of course, we are not talking about armed conflict here -- it does seem to go without saying that armed conflict and peace can not coexist. We are, however, discussing conflict in the sense of disagreement, of argument, of debate.

For some of our Agents of Peace it is clear that conflict of this kind can not lead to peace; for example, Frankie James, an environmentalist, writer and artist, argues that Canada is in a state of conflict, especially over the oil sands and environmental protection, and that Canada is not, therefore, a peaceful country. However, even here we see Frankie James insisting that despite this conflict, the existence of a third party with representatives from every interest group could mediate these conflicts and indeed lead to a more peaceful society. So, perhaps she does not mean that conflict can not exist if a society is to be peaceful; rather, a society must deal with its conflict in an organized and all-encompassing manner.

But, to the question at hand, can conflict and peace coexist? Does conflict necessarily make a society less peaceful? Metta Spencer tells us that she can not imagine a society without conflict, and in fact she does not have any desire to. Conflict, for Metta, is essential. Without conflict, life would be boring.

Indeed, we can all see why this would be true. Perhaps we are geared towards conflict. Perhaps it is in our nature. Dr. Ian McKay tells us, and Ben Hoffman (author of the Guerilla Peace Handbook) agrees, that peace is the natural state of being for humans. So, why do we seek out conflict?

There is some suspicion that while peace is the natural state of being for humans, it is not the "peace of the graveyard", in Kant's words, that we are seeking. Rather it may be that the peace we seek is one that allows for conflict and disagreement and constant moving forward. Human beings exist in action. As Aristotle explains, the human being lives to act and all virtue is grounded in action. One can not simply study peace and the ways of peace and then find that they have mastered it. Rather, peace is something that must be worked for and towards and that when achieved does not lead to inaction.

Somewhat in line with Aristotle, Chantal Mouffe, in On the Political, discusses politics as a discipline of action. She is advocates for a society which transforms naturally occurring antagonisms into agonism. The “political” for Mouffe necessarily encompasses a struggle whereby contesting groups with opposing interests compete for hegemony. Rather than being the rational conversation of modern liberalism, politics involves a battle where a recognizable “we” fight against a likewise identifiable “they.” Mouffe scorns the pervasive idea in post-Cold War political theory which sees actors existing in a post-political world. The ignorance of antagonism can not lead to peace -- in other words, you can not fix what you think is not broken. Mouffe insists that, an agonistic model will actually lead to a more safe and peaceful society, is in part because competing parties are allows an arena in which to discuss their differences. Mouffe argues for a pluralism that recognizes real difference, while ensuring that every player is subject to the same set of rules.  


Is this type of politics of peace plausible? Can we find peace by recognizing difference, embracing conflict? What would a society like this looks like?


We would love to know what you have to say. 


Peace,


NUPRI
 

To listen to the interviews with Ian McKay, Metta Spencer and Frankie James, visit us on Vimeo.

Speaking Truth to Power

I have been thinking a lot about the idea of speaking truth to power. Inspired by an interview I did with Dr. Susan Roll of St. Paul University in Ottawa, I began looking into the actions of individuals in times of war who were willing to stand up for their beliefs in spite of great threat to their lives and livelihoods for doing so.

A poignant example of someone who spoke truth to power is Sophie Scholl. Susan Roll wrote and presented a paper on this incredible young White Rose member for a conference on Women as Peacemakers last November.

Sophie Scholl, a 21 year old German woman, along with other member of the White Rose movement in Germany (which included her school friends, her brother and many others), created leaflets outlining the many lies told by the German government regarding its actions overseas, particularly their treatment of Jewish peoples in Poland. In many cases the leaflets began "as you already know...".

Sophie and her friends were saying something that everyone already knew, but they were willing to say it out loud--something that the majority of German (and indeed Global) society feared doing.

Sophie was executed for her involvement in the White Rose in February of 1943. Before her death she was cited as saying, "So many people have died for this war. It's about time somebody died against it."

But Speaking Truth to Power does not necessarily have to be done at risk to one's life. Regardless of the circumstances, it is often very difficult to speak the truth--for fear of resentment, for fear of offending someone, for fear of exclusion. As Susan Roll told me in our interview in November "some truths are too important to be polite about".

So, can speaking Truth to Power lead to a more peaceful society. Certainly we in Canada see our ability and right to free association, to protest, to vote, as key in maintaining a peaceful society. But what of a country that seen as such an embodiment of peaceful society culture? Is speaking truth to power in the United States seen as peace-producing/maintaining? What about Israel? What about North Korea?

In fact, even in the time of the Shoah, those who spoke truth to power faced death, or worse (and yes, there are worse things). Sophie died because she stood up for what she believed in. Is this the way to peace?

Surely there are more subversive ways to attain peace that do not put lives at risk.

But if lives are already at risk, then what is one life against thousands?

What do you think? Must we always speak truth to power? Are some truths too important to be polite about?

And can speaking truth to power lead to peace?

Poverty and Conflict

A question comes to mind: does poverty breed conflict? The Global Peace Index shows us that poverty does not actually have a direct impact on the peacefulness of a country. For example, while the United States is often hailed as one of the most rich countries in the world (despite their enormous deficit) they are 82nd on the list. To put this into perspective, Canada is 8th. 


So why do we always hear that common tale, that where there is poverty there will be crime? 


We can always look back to Thomas Hobbes who claimed that without the protections of society human beings would revert to the state of nature - doomed to live a nasty, poor short and brutish life. But surely, even this is not evidence enough to support the claim. Hobbes was talking not about poverty breeding conflict; rather, he thought that lack of government produced violence. 


Thomas Homer Dixon sheds a little more light on this subject. He claimed that environmental scarcity has the potential to cause great conflict. Lack of agricultural land, water scarcity and the depletion of ozone all factored into his argument. He claimed that decreasing supplies of physically controllable resources might provoke inter-state "simple-scarcity" conflicts or "resource wars". Further,  large population movements caused by environment stress might induce "group-identity" conflicts such as ethnic clashes and finally, scarcity could simultaneously increase economic deprivation and disrupt social institutions, causing "deprivation conflicts" reflected in civil strife and insurgency.


Some might cite the uprisings in North Africa as an example of poverty and scarcity leading to conflict, but where successful, the goals and the means to attaining that goals were peaceful. So what is the answer? What is the relationship between poverty and conflict.


Here is what Gordon Teti says:

What do you think? 


Visit our youtube page for more interviews like this one. 

Update on the Zimbabwe 6 trial

Yesterday the 6 Zimbabwean activists (including our friend, Eddson Chakuma) arrested last February for watching videos of the Arab Spring were found guilty of conspiracy to incite public violence (a step down from the original charge of treason). Today they were sentenced to 240 hours of community service, charged a $500 fine and given a 2 year suspended custodial sentence. Basically this means that they are on probation for 24 months (12 months to ensure they complete their community service and 12 to ensure that they do not commit a similar "crime"). 


We are lucky that Nyazamba (the prosecutor in this trial) did not get his way. Yesterday in court he claimed that the 6 would have faced death by stoning in ancient times, citing the bible. He said that those who disobeyed Moses face the most sever punishment and said "this case reminds me of that story in the bible whereby those who revolt against authority are swallowed up by the earth. 


Despite the relatively lenient sentence - no doubt better than old testament stoning or the alternative 10 years in prison - this conviction and sentence are an affront to justice. Amnesty International representatives say that the decision to convict and sentence these activists for simply organizing a video screening is a setback fro freedom and expression in Zimbabwe. 


The evidence against the Zim 6 throughout the trial as sparse and unreliable and the ongoing nature of the trial in spite of this suggests someone higher up is pulling the strings. This was clearly a political conviction.


Their lawyer has filed an appeal for both the conviction and sentence with the provincial court and if the court does not show them favour they plan to take it to the High Court. 


For more information about this trial visit Human Rights Watch or our other blogs about Eddson and the trial (to your right).

The environment and peace

Going along with our nature theme I have been thinking about the connection between the environment and peace. This is an extension, I believe, of our relationship between Nature and Peace...and how our nature is shaped by our treatment of animal and plant food sources.

As noted previously, our our relationship with animals and plants which provide us with food is one of great disconnect. We treat them as though they are objects which in turn shapes us into objects.

The situation is similar in our relationship with the environment. Much like we treat food producing animals and plants as resources, we tend to treat other natural elements as resources as well. Beyond our raping of the oil sands, and destruction of ancient forests for fuel, we must consider the small, every-day ways in which we treat "nature" (here, referring to the outdoor, natural environment) as a resource for our consumption and similarly as ours to destroy as we please.

How can we truly be at peace when we constantly define ourselves in opposition to the environment in which we live?

What do you think? Is our relationship with the environment peaceful? If not, how can we make it more peaceful?

I won't try to answer this question but rather, as before, tell you my first step. Today, instead of taking the bus home I will walk. And rather than ignoring everything and remaining in my mind for the 70 minute walk I will attempt to deconstruct my surroundings - taking into account those elements which can viewed as destructive, violent or non-peaceful and those which are peaceful in order to better understand the human relationship to the outside world.

The contents of peace

Peace is a loaded word. It seems to encompass a whole spectrum of human (and non-human) needs and desires. These in many cases include: happiness, coexistence, human security, shelter,  compromise, clean water, communication, agreement, inner peace, knowledge and many more.


Firdaus Kharas on Peace by NUPRI

Metta Spencer on Peace by NUPRI


Here, Firdaus Kharas, an award winning film maker, and Metta Spencer, a writer, academic and activist explain what peace does and does not contain. One thing is clear for both Kharas and Spencer: peace is more than the absence of war.

What do you think? Is the defintion of peace as the absence of war outdated? Is it somehow an anachronism in our intellectually, economically and technologically advanced society? And if it is outdated, then do you agree with these two Agents of Peace as to the contents of peace itself?

Gender equality and the road to peace

In honour of IWW and IWD:

In November of 2011 I had the pleasure of visiting Ottawa for the Women as Peacemakers Conference at St. Paul University. While there I interviewed a number of amazing, interesting and vibrant women working for peace. Some were educators, others activists, others artists, therapists, mothers, daughters... the list goes on. The one thing that resonated throughout the whole event was this; women's equality is paramount to attaining the goal of global peace. 

I honour of International Women's Day I would like to share with you the definition of peace given by one of our wonderful interviewees - educator, academic and activist, Cheshmak Farhoumand-Sims - and urge you to consider the implications of this definition on the plight for global gender equality. 

Cheshmak on Peace by NUPRI

For more interviews like this one visit us on youtube.

According to Cheshmak Farhoumand-Sims and most of the other agents of peace we have interviewed, gender equality and social justice are key to achieving peace. Please leave your comments below.

A side note: our Eating on a Budget with a Conscience Challenge ended today. Be sure to check out the submissions and testimonials!

What does nature have to do with it?

Having been engaged recently in a number of vivid discussions regarding nature and food, particularly in relation to our ethical eating challenge for International Women's Week 2012, I have begun to think a lot about how our views of nature shape our own nature. In a great conversation with Dr. Toivo Koivukoski (one of NUPRI's fearless leaders) today I was inspired to write about the connection between Peace-building and our relationship with nature.

As part of the Agents of Peace project we have had the pleasure of speaking with a number of activists and professionals (namely, Jessica Wilson of Greenpeace and Brennain Lloyd of Northwatch) who believe that with the plight for peace comes a responsibility to respect the earth. I would also add that with the plight for peace comes a responsibility to nature. I find it necessary to make the distinction between the environment and nature because when we use the word "environment" in those general terms - of "save the environment" and "environmentalism" - the planet becomes something "other than" ourselves. Nature, to me, means something more personal...more connected. The way we interact with nature on this personal level says a lot about who we are as individuals, as a culture, and as a species.

This brings me to the discussion of factory farming and mass production of "food", which is the theme for this week. It is my contention that we must begin truly thinking about what we eat. This is not some rant about eating healthily or becoming vegetarian; rather what I mean to say is that we need to reshape the way that we think about food. When we treat  plants and animals as though their soul value lies in our willingness or desire to consume them, we lose something of ourselves. If this is the way that we think about "nature" and its parts then we, being part of nature, become objects for mass consumption ourselves. To paraphrase Dr. Koivukoski, in making our food "other" we are made "other" in turn - through the mass homogenization of our food, we become homogenized.

You know what they say, "you are what you eat".

What does this mean for peace? Well, in fact it means a tremendous amount. Consider the implication of mass consumption of "produce" on our relations with others. We sit in our car outside a "restaurant", we shout our order through a microphone, drive to the window and trade a few coins for a bag of food that does not remotely resemble the animals and plants from whence it came, and then we drive off. Our entire lives are characterized by these faceless, nameless interactions with not only our food, but also the people who produce it.  I believe that these daily, mechanical interactions (drive through banking, ordering fast food etc.) are incredibly indicative of our  relationship with the rest of the world. We have turned animals and plants into "produce" to be consumed, just as we have turned human beings into instruments through which we are able to consume more "produce" more quickly.

So how do we change this nameless, faceless way of, as Dr. Koivukoski puts it, "being" with the world? Well, to be honest I have no idea, nor would I want to prescribe any overarching solution to such a huge problem. What I am going to do, though, is start interacting more vigorously with my food. Tonight, when I sit down to dinner, I am going to ask myself: what is this made of? What was it before it was food? Is there a better way for me to consume this food that will make my relationship with nature more personal and respectful?

We would love to hear your thoughts on this. How do you interact with your food? Do you buy local food? Do you grow your own?

And please let us know your thoughts on the connection between the way we treat our food and the way we treat our fellow human beings.

Happy eating!

Eating on a Budget with a Conscience Challenge!

In partnership with Gender Equality and Social Justice at Nipissing University, NUPRI is hosting an "Eating on a Budget with a Conscience Challenge". This challenge will be part of the programming for International Women's Week 2012, the theme of which is The Grocery Bag. 

The Challenge is: make a meal for 10 dollars or less for yourself and 3 of your favourite friends using as much local, organic and ethical food as you can. Take pictures or videos of the whole process--where you got the food, how much it cost, how you made it, and how you eat it! Be sure to show us the finished product with you and your friends sitting down to your inexpensive and globally conscious meal. If you win (the way to win is to have the most ethical and cheep meal!) then you'll get a prize full of local and organic goodies! 

Then, go to our youtube page and upload your video response: http://www.youtube.com/user/EBWCChallenge. 

To see what people are saying about eating consciously on a budget visit our Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/channels/291668

If you want to be involved in the challenge, or know someone who does, send us an email at nupri.lieann@gmail.com or nupri.johanna@gmail.com. The deadline for the challenge is Friday, March 5th.

Eddson Chakuma Chicken Project Well on the Way to Success

Happy New Year from the Nipissing University Peace Research Initiative! 

In 2011 NUPRI held a fundraiser for Eddson Chakuma, one of the activists charged with treason in Zimbabwe for watching videos of the Arab Springs. 

Thanks to the support of the students, faculty and staff at Nipissing University, as well as the generous donations of many other individuals in our community and beyond we were able to raise enough money to help Eddson start up a Chicken Project to help take care of his family, pay for his education and offer continuing support for his activism as he works towards freedom and justice in Zimbabwe.

We are happy to announce that as we sail into 2012 Eddson’s chicken coop is full of healthy chickens, which will be sent to the market this week.  

On behalf of Eddson and his family as well as all the members of NUPRI, we would like to thank you for you support in this endeavor. This project is a great help to Eddson who, along with his comrades, is still in the midst of the groundless trial that began last March.