In situations of protracted armed conflict such as in sub-Saharan Africa, there exists a strong tendency to describe rebel violence as a senseless war of ‘all-against-allThis ‘Hobbesian’ violence (a theory that people have the fundamental right to pursue selfish aims but will relinquish those rights in the interest of the common good) is often illustrated by the sight of drugged and gun-toting youths engaged in the harassment of innocent civilians. Their sole motivation appears to lay in the benefit of organized plunder.

We greatly welcome Williamson and Robinson’s paper (Intervention, this issue) on two counts. Given the specific goal of the Psychosocial Working Group (PWG) to promote debate leading towards practice development, we are delighted that one of our papers on conceptual and field implementation issues (Strang & Ager, 2003) is credited as a prompt to this thoughtful article. More importantly, we support the core contentions of their paper even if not, as discussed below, all details of their prescription for action.

The article by John Williamson and Malia Robinson (Intervention, this issue) represents a way of humanitarian thinking and acting that will hopefully increase its influence to dominate humanitarian response across all sectors. The authors argue for an integrated, cross-sector response to biological, material, mental, emotional, social, cultural and spiritual well-being. We agree.

Over the past 25years, humanitarian programming has increasingly included attention to the psychological and social impacts ofconflict. Over this time, a wide variety of approaches have been developed to address these ‘psychosocial’ issues. The authors argue that labelling these approaches, as a distinct and separate sector of activity is not helpful, either conceptually or programmatically.

Based on his experience as a mediator in many conflict areas, the author discusses twelve approaches to reconciliation. He concludes that no single approach is capable f handling the complexity of the situation after violent events, thus combining approaches makes more sense. The parties involved in the conflict should be invited to discuss these approaches and therefore be able to arrive at the best combination for their own situation.

Key words: conflict theory, peace work, reconciliation

Reconciliation in the aftermath of the history of violent conflict in Rwanda is approached as part of a set of deeply interrelated issues, such as individual and social suffering, justice, remembering and forgetting, truth-telling accountability, forgiveness, trauma therapy, socio-therapy, human rights, and development. The article is based on literature study, conversaions with people of all walks of life in Rwanda, and six years of research experience in this country of one of the authors.

Truth and reconciliation processes initiated in post-conflict countries have several interrelated objectives with the two key aims being to confront past injustices and to heal the suffering caused by such abuses. Structural constraints, however, often limit the extent to which justice can be achieved for all victims and their families. The present report is based on a review of' the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (known by its Portuguese acronym CAVR), a national initiative that was concluded in 2005.

This article illustrates the opinion that a bottom-up recondliatim requires, in addition to a top-down legal and political agreement between the parties, a complementary educational and social-psychological process. After an intractable conflict such a process will help the people involved to work through and let go of hatred, the desire for revenge, the mistrust, and the pain that were imprinted as a result of the conflict. A successful synchronisation of these two processes could diminish the danger of a renewed outburst of violence.

The article discusses the shortcomings of the current theory and practice of reconciliation and explores the possibilities of addressing the complex social and psychological processes involved in dealing with the past:.

Key words: ambivalence, conflict capacity, denial, imperialism, impunity, grieving process, reconciliation

Introduction

Every program runs into difficulties or must cope with difficult situations. These can vary from conflicts with staff members of the partner organisation, to the inability of participants to cross military checkpoints, or even engine trouble with the buses bringing the participants. There are some preventative measures that could prove useful: