PfL Organisational Meeting Report — About PEACE for LIFE

The People’s Forum is intrinsic in the mandate of Peace for Life (PfL) and an essential element in defining itself. Among its central purposes is to function as PfL’s equivalent of a general assembly, a fitting mechanism for an unconventional notion of a “movable membership.”

The Second People’s Forum held in Colombia on 20-23 March 2009, was intended to accomplish, among others, the said organisational function. However, the realities of Bogotá—its distinct character, the forum’s composition and overall program—did not lend well to demands of holding a general assembly, specifically in the aspect pertaining to organisational structure, functions, and programmes.

As such, what could have been the two-part PfL people’s forum—with the first part being thematic portion and the second portion being the assembly, where the unities in the analyses and perspectives arrived at during the first part becoming a major part of the basis for programming, target setting, and review of the workings and identity of PfL as commitment and a social formation—was not possible. Important as they were, some of the major tasks of the People’s Forum had to give way to the facts on the ground. The assembly part which was intended to involve the entire forum had to be modified to fit existing conditions.

Members of the PfL Working Group decided that only current members of the Continuation Committee and selected participants of the Second People’s Forum (mainly those with some historical association with PfL) were to participate in a much shorter organisational meeting to be held after the close of the forum. The meeting was attended by all 32 PfL international delegates—PfL invitees to the Bogotá forum—and five local participants who expressed long-term interest in involvement with PfL and its advocacies.

Organisational Meeting

Following the conclusion of the Bogota forum, an organisational meeting was called at 4:00 in the afternoon on Monday, 23rd of March 2009, at the conference room of Hotel del Parque Superior, Bogotá, Colombia. It was presided jointly by the PfL Moderator, Eunice Santana, and Co-Moderator, Farid Esack, with Carmencita Karagdag, PfL Coordinator, joining them at the table. It was attended by 37 participants in all. (See Annex 1)

The first part was an informal assessment, mainly a subjective, nay an emotional response to the People’s Forum. Everyone manifested great enthusiasm over the just concluded activity. Ulrich Duchrow and Chandra Muzaffar expressed their great appreciation for what had just transpired, describing the event as “almost heroic.” A much-appreciated part of the forum programme were the daily rituals offered by Red Ecuménica. Particularly noteworthy in which participants were brought to an obvious emotional high was the closing ritual using the symbolic power of the primal elements—earth, water, and fire—performed during the closing ceremonies.

In a more tempered tone, there were suggestions that a more systematic and objective assessment of the activity be done by e-mail.

Agenda

A one-page agenda was distributed at the beginning of the Meeting. The items were as follows:

Coordinator’s Report
Report and Adoption of Continuation Committee (or expanded Working Group) Proposal on Revision of PfL Structure
Report of Nominations Committee
Report of the New York Conference Planning Committee
Assessment of the Second People’s Forum
Programme for the Next Two Years
The Third People’s Forum
Other Business
Name Change to: Justice & Peace & Life: People of Faith Resisting Empire

Items six (6) and seven (7) were deleted from the agenda at the outset. The two items required ample time for discussions, which the current session did not have. It was agreed that the Secretariat prepare a draft for discussion of the Working Group which would meet again at a later time to discuss the matter. The final output would be submitted to the Continuation Committee for comments and approval. The schedule for the Working Group meeting would be set by the members though E-mail exchanges or telephone-conferencing.

Report of the Secretariat

The Coordinator presented a report on PfL’s activities for the period since the First People’s Forum (2004) until the Second People’s Forum (2008). A lengthier 12-page PfL Report 2004-2008, prepared by the Secretariat was distributed to the participants at the start of the meeting (the Coordinator’s Report was circulated earlier). It contained a brief history of PfL that highlighted some of the greatest challenges it faced along with the major questions that have remained unresolved. Also provided was the context in which the PfL was organised along with a description of its structure and leadership according to the agreements arrived at during the inaugural People’s Forum in Davao City, Philippines, and as further elaborated by succeeding meetings and consultations.

It gave details of the activities and engagements of PfL for the entire duration, its institutional partnership, and joint activities with other groups. Among the essential points raised were the problems faced by PfL in terms of an appropriate structure and the attendant accountability, clarity on the issue of how PfL should perceive itself (in view of its mainly Christian participants and orientation that promotes interfaith solidarity and undertakes interfaith activities in alliance with social movements).

The report also begs for a more thorough discussion for long-term view of PfL, its viability and its programmes, along with more comprehensive and strategic approach to its programming and participation in external (non-PfL initiated) activities.

Result of the Continuation Committee Meeting

A meeting of the Continuation Committee (PfL-CC) was held on 19th March, a day before the Forum opened. In attendance were Eunice Santana (Moderator) who presided over the meeting, Kim Yong-bock (Co- Moderator), Farid Esack (Co-Moderator), and Carmencita Karagdag (Coordinator). Other members of the PfL-CC present were Soritua Nababan, Ulrich Duchrow, Chandra Muzaffar, Bp. Aldo Etchegoyen, Akuila Yabaki, Gabriel Habib, Kathryn Poethig, and Vivian de Lima from the Secretariat.

The meeting started with trying to deal with the obvious lack of quorum (There are 52 CC members including the Coordinator in an ex-officio position) and the fact that holding a meeting where all or most members are present would be near impossibility, given the cost and scheduling requirement. There was no definitive position on the matter, but the Coordinator indicated that the meeting could be considered an expanded Working Group meeting. Other discussions that followed included an expressed need to re-engage in the analysis of interfaith solidarity and religion in the manner that a broader representation from different faith communities as well as “broader generational” involvement can be achieved. Would local PfL formations be the answer? And what can PfL do at the local level where most of its members’ engagements are focused.

Gabriel Habib also suggested a continuing discourse on the Empire’s use and misuse of religion, the phenomenon that is creating the Bin Ladens of the world, making Islam appear as a violent religion, and making Zionism the ideology of Judaism.

On Proposed Policies on Organisation

A brief paper presented by the Secretariat on proposed organisational policies (See Annex 2) aroused a lively exchange on some of fundamental questions on PfL’s identity and the parameters of its concerns. Among them is Pfl’s concept of “interfaith”: Kim Yong-bock posited that PfL should look beyond the traditional idea of interfaith in that it should not be limited to interaction with non-Christians or post-Christian groups. Ulrich Duchrow put forward the idea that central in interfaith relationship is the objective to prevent the instrumentalisation of religion, particularly in pursuit of hegemony. To Habib, it is a shared sense of liberated religion. Eunice Santana considered “interfaith” to go beyond religions in the sense that all people in struggle are motivated by a certain kind of faith. Kathryn Poethig suggested that for PfL, interfaith should have the element of a South-driven creative space.

The proposed changes in the current structure were discussed for eventual action by what was earlier expected as the PfL Assembly. Central to the proposed change was the replacement and redefinition of function and composition of the current PfL Working Group. It would be replaced by the PfL Council which would undertake “decisions on the organisation’s behalf based on the general mandate set forth by the People’s Forum; composed of from 15-20 members drawn from the PfL Continuation Committee. The Council selects from among its members the moderator and co-moderators who will represent Peace for Life and preside over all meetings.” Members of the Continuation Committee are elected by the Forum’s assembly. In the proposal, the Continuation Committee becomes a “consultative group that represents the People’s Forum in between assemblies,” with members being invited and confirmed by the Council.

The CC members present discussed the proposal and agreed to present it for consideration of what could have been the assembly with some revision. The agreed structure would have the Forum function as a network with a Council composed of 15 persons working very closely with the Secretariat, and maintaining regular contact with the Continuation Committee.

It was agreed that a Nominations Committee chaired by Farid Esack would prepare the list of nominees for the Council and Continuation Committee.

There was little time for other matters. But certain concern about the PfL conference in the US was raised. Of particular concern was how to begin to talk about Zionism in the US? There was also question on what would be the next step for the Peace Charter after its adoption by the Peoples’ Forum.

Reports of the Continuation Committee (or expanded Working Group) meeting and the Nominations Committee

The proposed changes in the current structure adopted by the earlier meeting of the Continuation Committee (see Annex 3), particularly the creation of the Council to replace the Working Group, were initially received well. On further discussion and after the report of the Nominations Committee was issued, however, a vigorous debate ensued. The list of nominees for the proposed Council elicited strong reactions from nearly everyone. Among the more contentious points was the distribution of nominees according to geographical and faith groupings. Also raised by Omega Bula was the necessity to include sectoral interests such as migrants and workers. Chandra Muzaffar opined that the current structure was workable, and strengthening the secretariat was more important, Hans Koechler stressed that the simplicity and fluidity of the current structure was what was creating the dynamism for PfL.

The consensus reached was that the current structure stays, subject for review after two years. Carmencita Karagdag, however, pressed for an assessment of the current membership of the Continuation Committee and the Working group in view of the inactivity of a number of members and the expressed desires of some to give up their participation. The decision was to replace these said members and fill the vacant posts without changing the numbers as specified in the PfL Covenant of Self Understanding. It was also agreed that in the selection of additional members, gender balance and geographical representation would be considered. The “quota” system to represent religious affiliation, which was a guiding principle in the past selection to reflect the interfaith character of the organisation, would give way to giving more weight to the ability for active participation and a clear perspective for interfaith work.

The secretariat was tasked to compile suggestions for possible membership to both bodies; the current Working Group would meet to refine the selection. Final approval would be done by the current Continuation Committee through email. No date was set for the Working Group Meeting.

Sharing on the New York Conference

The Committee planning for the holding of the World without Empire People’s Congress to be held in New York in November 2009 (the event has since been moved to April 2010) was represented by Chris Ferguson and Chung Hyun-Kyung of the Union Theological Seminary in NY, which is hosting the PfL-initiated event. Ferguson presented a brief report on the background and plans for the conference, including the results of the caucus of US-based delegates held during a break in the Bogota forum.

A spirited discussion ensued particularly on the rationale for holding the activity in the US. Hans Koechler remarked that one topic that needs to highlighted, if the gathering is to be held in the US, is the “myth of September 11”. There were also questions on how far changes can still be introduced at this stage of the planning.

Other Matters

Agenda items 6 & 7 (Programmes and the Third People’s Forum) were not taken up. There was simply no time to have a serious discussion and most of the participants were leaving early the next day either for the solidarity visits to Cali or Barrancabermeja or flying back home. There were, however, serious questions raised regarding the direction in which PfL programmes should lead. Nidal Abuzuluf asked what would be the next for Palestine; and for Colombia. There was a strong consensus that PfL should start consolidating its experiences and set long-term goals.

The last item that proved truly controversial was the proposal of Farid Esack to change the name of “Peace for Life” to Justice & Peace & Life: People of Faith Resisting Empire.” The problem with the current name, according to him, was that it was nearly impossible for people in South Africa to understand what “peace for life” is all about. The discomfort in the name, as it is, is shared by a number of PfL network participants especially those from the English speaking countries: it is English but its syntax is not English, making it incomprehensible. It is a concept that resonates strongly however with East Asians who originally proposed the name, Peace for Life. But as was pointed out in many of the passionate arguments, to change the name at this time when the organisation was just starting to get recognised could be reckless. The matter was not totally resolved.

The meeting ended in a celebratory manner with everybody thanking everybody for an inspiring experience.

ANNEX 1

Attendance:

Eunice Santana (Moderator) - Puerto Rico
Kim Yong-Bock (Co Moderator) - South Korea
Farid Esack (Co Moderator) - South Africa
Carmencita Karagdag (Coordinator) - Philippines
Gabriel Habib (Member, Working Group) - Lebanon/United States
Kathryn Poethig (Member, Working Group) - United States
Akuila Yabaki (Member, Continuation Committee) - Fiji
Aldo Etchegoyen (Member, Continuation Committee) - Argentina
Chris Ferguson (Member, Continuation Committee) - Canada
Lilia Solano (Member, Continuation Committee) - Colombia
Soritua Nababan (Member, Continuation Committee) - Indonesia
Ulrich Duchrow (Member, Continuation Committee) - Germany
Bennet Benjamin - India
Chandra Muzaffar - Malaysia
Chung Hyun-Kyung - South Korea/United States
Darren Liepold - Canada
Denise Nadeau - Canada
Dulph Mitchell - San Andres (island off Col Coast)
Jairo Rodriguez Davis - San Andres (island off Col Coast)
Enosh Kumar Rokaya - Nepal
Farsijana Adeney-Risakotta - Indonesia
Felixberto Calang - Philippines
Hans Cediel - Colombia
Hans Koechler - Austria
Jione Havea - Tonga/Australia
Liza Maza - Philippines
Luciano Kovacs - Italy
Luiza Tomita - Brazil
Mark Taylor - United States
Nidal Abuzuluf - Palestine
Omega Bula - Zambia/Canada
Osvaldo Ardila Frias - Colombia
Pamela Brubaker - United States
Peder Nustad - Norway
Rifat Kassis - Palestine
Yun Shin Young - South Korea
Vivian de Lima (Secretariat) - Philippines

ANNEX 2

For discussion and adoption:

PROPOSED POLICIES ON ORGANISATION

Submitted by:

Peace for Life Secretariat

Nature of organisation
1. Peace for Life is a movement engaged in building interfaith solidarity and faith-based resistance to global hegemony and its life-threatening forces; it defines its peace and justice objectives against the core issues of empire, state terrorism, and militarized globalisation; it will carry out its work in an organised way, with decision-making bodies, accountabilities, and simple but efficient organisational procedures.
2. People of faith – individuals and groups whose faith/spirituality is a driving force in their actions and stance on issues—comprise Peace for Life’s constituency. Anyone who adheres to the cause of Peace for Life, regardless of creed, can be part of Peace for Life.
3. Peace for Life is a faith-based movement engaged in interfaith action that mobilises faith communities to be in solidarity with movements for resistance against injustice and exploitation. It will strive to achieve meaningful participation of people of various faith traditions and belief systems in its activities and decision-making bodies.
Structure
1. People’s Forum – Peace for Life’s quadrennial assembly that draws up the general mandate and direction of Peace for Life. It is designed to maintain close links with people’s organisations in struggle against empire and its manifestations, especially in areas where victims are most in need of international solidarity. It is always organised in partnership with local groups.
2. PfL Members – individuals, acting in personal or institutional capacity, who desire to be actively involved in or associate with Peace for Life. Participants of the People’s Forums are automatically members.
3. PfL Council – undertakes decisions on the organisation’s behalf based on the general mandate set forth by the People’s Forum; composed of from 15 – 20 members drawn from the Peace for Life Continuation Committee. The Council selects from among its members the moderator and co-moderators who will represent Peace for Life and preside over all its meetings. Members are elected by the Forum’s assembly.
4. Continuation Committee – a consultative group that represents the People’s Forum in between assemblies. Members are invited and confirmed by the PfL Council.
5. Secretariat – as presently defined and constituted
6. Working Groups and Ad-hoc Committees may be constituted for major programmes or activities, led at least by a member of the Continuation Committee; members may be drawn from outside.
Membership
1. Member – refers to any individual who adheres to the cause of faith-based resistance to global hegemony and its life-threatening forces and desires to participate in or be associated with Peace for Life.
2. Partner – refers to any group or organisation that supports Peace for Life and its cause. They shall be called “partners” on the principle that no organisation can be a member of Peace for Life, as Peace for Life is not an alliance or coalition of organisations but itself an organisation.
3. Peace for Life will maintain an informal membership structure and policy.

ANNEX 3

POLICIES ON ORGANISATION

(Initially adopted by the Continuation Committee)

Nature of organisation
1. Peace for Life is a movement engaged in building interfaith solidarity and faith-based resistance to global hegemony and its life-threatening forces; it will carry out its work in an organised way, with decision-making bodies, accountabilities, and simple but efficient organisational procedures.
2. People of faith – individuals and groups whose faith/spirituality is a driving force in their actions and stance on issues—comprise Peace for Life’s constituency. Anyone who adheres to the cause of Peace for Life, regardless of creed, can be part of Peace for Life.
3. Peace for Life is a faith-based movement engaged in interfaith action that mobilises faith communities to be in solidarity with movements for resistance against injustice and exploitation. It will strive to achieve meaningful participation of people of various faith traditions and belief systems in its activities and decision-making bodies.
Structure
1. People’s Forum – Peace for Life’s quadrennial assembly that draws up the general mandate and direction of Peace for Life. It is designed to maintain close links with people’s organisations in struggle against empire and its manifestations, especially in areas where victims are most in need of international solidarity. It is always organised in partnership with local groups.
2. PfL Members - individuals, acting in personal or institutional capacity, who desire to be actively involved in or associate with Peace for Life. Participants of the People’s Forums are automatically members.
3. Continuation Committee – a consultative group that represents the People’s Forum in between assemblies; composed of no less than 50 but no more than 75 members. Members are nominated by outgoing Continuation Committee members present at the Assembly.
4. PfL Council – undertakes decisions on the organisation’s behalf based on the general mandate set forth by the People’s Forum; composed of from 20-25 members drawn from the Peace for Life Continuation Committee. The Council selects from among its members the moderator and co-moderators who will represent Peace for Life and preside over all its meetings. Members are nominated by the incoming Continuation Committee members.
5. Working Groups – teams or committees that will be responsible for developing the programme of a particular thematic focus and for devising ways and means to ensure its implementation. Membership will be voluntary. The thematic focus will be based on the programme priorities identified by the PfL Council.
6. Secretariat – as presently defined and constituted
Membership
1. Member – refers to any individual who adheres to the cause of faith-based resistance to global hegemony and its life-threatening forces and desires to participate in or be associated with Peace for Life. The collective body of PfL members will be referred to as the Peace for Life Council.
2. Partner – refers to any group or organisation that supports Peace for Life and its cause. They shall be called “partners” on the principle that no organisation can be a member of Peace for Life, as Peace for Life is not an alliance or coalition of organisations but itself an organisation.
3. Peace for Life will maintain an informal membership structure and policy. That is, no membership dues or application process will be required to be a member or partner of Peace for Life.