Roowod and Palmer Soccer & Society 2011.

This article was downloaded by: [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, A.C.
]
On: 21 August 2013, At: 13:41
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Soccer & Society

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsas20
Invasion games in war‐torn nations: can

football help to build peace?
a b
Joel Rookwood & Clive Palmer
a
Faculty of Sciences and Social Sciences, Liverpool Hope
University, Liverpool, UK
b
School of Sport Tourism and The Outdoors, University of Central
Lancashire, Preston, UK
Published online: 17 Mar 2011.
To cite this article: Joel Rookwood & Clive Palmer (2011) Invasion games in war‐torn nations: can
football help to build peace?, Soccer & Society, 12:2, 184-200, DOI: 10.1080/14660970.2011.548356
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2011.548356
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Soccer & Society
Vol. 12, No. 2, March 2011, 184–200
Invasion games in war-torn nations: can football help to build

peace?
Joel Rookwooda,* and Clive Palmerb
Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, A.C.] at 13:41 21 August 2013
a
Faculty of Sciences and Social Sciences, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, UK;
bSchool of Sport Tourism and The Outdoors, University of Central Lancashire, Preston,
UK
Soccer
10.1080/14660970.2011.548356
FSAS_A_548356.sgm
1466-0970
Original
Taylor
202011
12
Dr
rookwoj@hope.ac.uk
000002011
JoelRookwood
&
and
Article
Francis
(print)/1743-9590
Francis
Society (online)
Interpersonal violence such as terrorism, civil war and transnational conflict pose
a significant threat to peace in many contemporary societies. Such hostilities
frequently produce humanitarian crises that encourage the international
community to engage in ‘humanitarian intervention’ in an effort to stabilize/
restore social order. This article examines the applicability of football as a tool to
promote peace-building in post-conflict communities. As a consequence of its
simplicity and global popularity, a number of non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) have noted the suitability of football as a mechanism to help build peace
and promote social development in post-conflict societies. They regard football as
a means of encouraging otherwise segregated groups to congregate in shared space
to partake in a collective sporting experience – and see this as a positive thing to
do. Consequently, this article examines a football-based NGO programme
conducted in Liberia and, by way of exploring the applicability of football as a tool
for peace promotion, a series of philosophical questions about football are raised.
For example, because football is an invasion game based upon the principles of
attack and defence, key warfare concepts may be played out and reinforced rather
than mitigated. The article concludes that whilst some excellent work is
undertaken by NGOs, more in-depth research is required to understand the impact
of a project upon a society or individuals who promoted the use of football for
peace-building.
Introduction: post-conflict peace-building

Violence provides one of the key challenges to the peaceful functioning of contempo-
rary societies. Violence assumes many forms including intrapersonal, such as alcohol
and drug abuse, suicide and depression. Interpersonal violence includes that within
communities such as domestic violence and rape, and on national and transnational
levels, notably civil and international wars, terrorism, rebel movements, revolutions
and coups.1 Although related global media coverage often focuses on interstate
conflicts, such reporting would appear to be disproportionate, given that the majority
of recent violent conflicts have been intranational rather than between independent
states. As Katano notes in a global context:
Between 1990 and 2004, the number of ‘major armed conflicts’ was 57. A ‘major armed
conflict’ is defined as the use of armed force between military forces and/or organized
armed groups, with the battle-related deaths of at least 1,000 people in any given year.
Only 4 out of 57 were fought between states.2
*Corresponding author. Email: rookwoj@hope.ac.uk
ISSN 1466-0970 print/ISSN 1743-9590 online

© 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14660970.2011.548356
http://www.informaworld.com
Soccer & Society 185
Furthermore, Lederach claims that civil conflict fosters deep societal divisions, in
which ‘people, when threatened, seek security in narrower, more localized identity
groups (this often leads to their conflicts being labelled “ethnic” or “religious”)’.3
Both local and global dimensions and concerns regarding civil wars are often political,
economic, religious and cultural.
The advancement of war is often characterized by collective engagement in a
given cause with those involved drawing from altruistic motives and ideological justi-
fication. Ideologies are instrumental in framing the worldview of members of politi-
cal, religious or ethnic groups, functioning to provide a sense of collective identity,

helping to identify enemies who conflict with this identity and legitimize their target-
ing.4 In the context of war, the underpinning ideologies of organizations often serve
to unify frustrated individuals by connecting their grievances through a holistic expla-
nation of experience, which blames those representing ‘the system’ as a corrupt and
unjust enemy that must be fought and defeated.5 In many such organizations,
members are provided with a single mindset and objective, with violence presented
and perceived as the only plausible mechanism to produce a remedy to a given prob-
lem. In warfare, enemies are frequently dehumanized with personal responsibility
diffused, in order to help justify the indiscriminate murder of adversaries for a higher
purpose.6 The perceived inability of particular representative groups to resolve key
problems fosters the development of alternative groups whose members are often
motivated by exposure to humiliation, victimization and injustice.7
Civil wars frequently produce severe humanitarian crises and the reporting of such
tragedies often encourages the international community to intervene. Whaite8 argues
that complex humanitarian emergencies (CHEs), famine and civil strife propel
humanitarian-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) into the media spotlight,
given the human desire to respond and the complexities associated with meeting such
need. Practitioners and academics have recently begun to engage in reflective and
analytical debate focusing on the questions of who should intervene, when and how.9
Hehir10 contends that military intervention in a humanitarian crisis should be a last
resort, conducted by the legitimate authority (such as the United Nations Security
Council) with limited application of coercive force. In most post-conflict scenarios,
key objectives are non-militaristic and include stabilizing social order and facilitating
the successful transition from a cycle of violence to a culture of peace. Such objectives
are realized by aiding the return of refugees, monitoring elections and promoting
human rights and proportionate policing. Some authors have examined this process of
stabilization in chronological terms, from a pre-conflict phase of preventive diplo-
macy, to a mid-conflict stage of peacemaking and peacekeeping, to a post-conflict
phase of peace-building.11 The latter stage can be classified relative to Korton’s12
typology as an example of developmental intervention (as opposed to humanitarian).
Such work is particularly significant as ‘building peace’ can help to ‘prevent the
recurrence of violence among nations and peoples’.13
Other authors such as Donelly14 and Riak15 comment on the complex and multi-
faceted nature of peace-building, suggesting that it encompasses various forms of
development including demilitarization, human rights, economy and policy, and
personal and community development. Schirch16 provides a more explicit and useful
categorization of peace-building, involving four major elements, namely values,
skills, analysis and processes. First, values relate to the protection of rights and the
fulfilment of needs, which should be pursued with an underpinning ethic of peace
promotion, interdependence and partnership. These rights and needs include physical
186 J. Rookwood and C. Palmer
needs such as food, health and shelter; social needs such as security, belonging,
dignity and recognition; and cultural needs such as religious identity and freedom.
Second, communicative and practical skills such as dialogue, negotiation and media-
tion, appreciative inquiry and creative problem-solving are significant in transforming
tensions into cooperative relationships, built on commonalities of purpose.17 Third,
analysis is important in order to fully understand local contexts, to identify the
outstanding needs and the mechanisms that justify violent response, and to determine
the relational dynamics between types of violence. Fourth, the processes involved in
peace-building include the reduction of direct violence, the transformation of personal

and social relationships, and sustainable capacity development through education,
interventions, research and evaluation.18 Within this framework, this article assesses
the significance and applicability of sport (chiefly football) as a tool to promote peace-
building in post-conflict communities.
NGOs – youth football projects

There are a number of organizations and actors involved in various forms and stages
of peace-building. On a macro level, there are governmental, business and religious
institutions on national and international scales. Then there are smaller businesses and
organizations on a national and regional level, with the grassroots range often located
at community level. This article examines micro-level community-based programmes
focused on peace-building (as opposed to conflict resolution, peacemaking or peace-
keeping), established and implemented by NGOs. Before examining the specific prac-
tical, political and theoretical elements of these programmes and the questions they
raised, various contextual considerations are worthy of exploration, focusing on the
rationale for engaging with particular participants, mechanisms, programmes and
localities.
The majority of contemporary armed conflicts are fought not on clearly defined
battlefields, but within and adjacent to communities.19 As a consequence, physical
and social infrastructure is often damaged at a community level, homes and schools
may be destroyed, violence becomes normalized and mass displacement and hard-
ships reduce social cohesion and other social controls. Wessells argues that:
The burdens of this social transformation fall disproportionately on children, who are
defined under international law as people under 18 years of age and who typically
comprise half the population in war-torn countries.20
In many conflicts, especially protracted ones, young people become socialized in

warfare, having regularly witnessed adult behaviour that normalizes and glamorizes
violence. Young people can therefore lack an appropriate reference point for concep-
tualizing peace and instead be drawn into conflict which they perceive to be their only
opportunity to avoid powerlessness and deprivation.21 Wars also enable child exploi-
tation, with youth combatants forcefully recruited through abduction. The global
significance of this problem is underlined by Wessells, who notes that approximately
250,000 children may be involved in armed conflict at any particular moment.22
In addition, Newman claims that ‘the most sinister effect of modern wars is the
damage they wreak upon young people’s social worlds.’23 In post-war societies, young
people often feel marginalized and excluded from reconstruction activities as such
efforts are often concentrated on adults. However, as Sommers argues, the youth in
this context are frequently the ‘demographic majority that sees itself as an outcast minor-
ity’.24 This renders the challenge of producing peaceful legacies, i.e. leaving behind
communities less fractured than the ones inherited, still more challenging. Coakley25
argues that positive transitions from youth to adulthood occur when people feel phys-
ically safe, personally valued, socially connected, morally and economically supported,
personally and politically empowered, and hopeful about the future. Many of these
complex objectives take on special significance in the context of peace-building in
communities with recent experience of conflict. The focus on young people in peace-
building initiatives is appropriate therefore, as part of an attempt to, ‘break this war
system and to convert a culture of war into a culture of peace’, which Wessells claims
‘is no small feat; it requires careful attention to community reconciliation and peace-
building.’26 The programme examined here was staged in Liberia, and concentrated
on youth engagement in football and other physical activity as a means to promote peace.
A number of mechanisms have been employed in order to make a meaningful contri-
bution to peace-building, relating to education, business and sport. Sports such as foot-
ball, together with other forms of physical activity, are rapidly gaining recognition as
simple, low-cost and effective means of achieving development goals.27 The simplicity
of the game of football helps explain its popularity, as consistent regulations are inter-
nationally applied, and there is a minimal requirement to understand practical or linguis-
tic variations.28 Various NGOs have utilized football in a developmental capacity, with
projects of this nature not confined to any particular locality or any ethnic, religious
or political context. However, the status, universality and potential applicability of foot-
ball should not be used as a rationale for simply applying it in any circumstances.
Patriksson29 argues that sport, as with most activities, is not a priori good or bad, and
can produce positive as well as negative outcomes. Clearly, therefore, contextual factors
need to be considered as Barack Obama has stated, ‘I believe in the power of culture
to determine both individual success and social cohesion, and I believe we ignore
cultural factors at our peril.’30 Particular types of sport and physical activity should
only be utilized if they are culturally significant in the location in question and one
should consider the conditions necessary for sport, and in particular football, to have
beneficial outcomes before deciding to include it within the peace-building process.31
A number of collaborative NGO projects have been conducted, structured around
carefully designed context-bound football coaching programmes, underpinned by
value-based philosophies and seeking to create ‘teachable moments’ to facilitate moral
and social education. Projects often culminate in competitive tournaments during
‘festival days’, providing participants with opportunities to illustrate the tactical, tech-
nical and moral lessons they have learned. Teams are mixed in relation to the forms
of identity perceived to be in conflict, such as ethnicity or nationality, thus preventing
a victory representing a triumph over ‘the other’. Instead teams of mixed identities
must co-exist and cooperate to successfully achieve common objectives. In Europe,
the ‘Open Fun Football Schools’ (OFFS) project in the Balkans is one example, which
is a reconciliation programme that promotes cross-ethnic integration in communities
fractured by conflict. The organizers of this initiative insist that the municipalities who
take part in the reconciliation programme join up with another from a different ethnic
background, in order to promote integration.32 In the Middle East, the Football for
Peace (F4P) initiative seeks to make grassroots interventions into the sporting culture
of Israel and Palestine. F4P is a British Universities project staged annually in Israel
since 2001, run collectively by the University of Brighton, the British Council and the
Israeli Sports Authority. The project employs a value-based football coaching model
in order to facilitate peaceful integration in the increasingly violent, mistrusting and

detached Jewish and Arab communities.33 This forms part of a response to the follow-
ing statement offered in this context, ‘we cannot co-exist as two communities of
detached and uncommunicatingly separate suffering … the only way is of rising
beyond the endless back-and-forth violence and dehumanisation is to admit the univer-
sality and integrity of the other’s experience and begin to plan a common life
together.’34 The function of projects of this nature is not technical sports development,
but moreover moral and social education. As Nujidat states: ‘Maybe the children who
have experienced F4P will not grow up to be professional football players, but surely
they will be better human citizens because of it.’35
There has been a recent increase in the theorizing and practising efforts in conflict
prevention and peace-building.36 However, partly reflecting the magnitude of these
issues and the challenges of conducting meaningful analysis, ‘the growing literature
on peace-building, which embraces elements of both praxis and research, is still very
much in an embryonic state.’37 Although there are a number of positive elements of
programmes such as the OFFS and F4P project, this does not infer that they are uncrit-
icizable. A number of theoretical, practical and philosophical questions remain unre-
solved for initiatives of this nature. The remainder of this article is committed to
exploring some of these questions in the context of NGO football projects, for exam-
ple, the STAR Project in Liberia. This was a unique programme which served as a
tailored response to the individual needs of the locality. It is important to assess the
approach and value of sport-based development projects, in order to meaningfully
explain the successes and failures of an adopted approach and to pass judgement on
the generalizability of various models. Although it poses certain methodological chal-
lenges in terms of measuring and illustrating the effect of football upon a community,
there is a requirement to assess outcomes with an appreciation of context and process.
Failing to do so could limit the capacity to remodel programmes perceived to have
been unsuccessful, or to disseminate examples of good practice in a way that clearly
outlines the culturally specific and context-bound factors which may restrict transfer-
ability of what might be deemed as good social skills.
Liberia – the STAR Project

Liberia was severely affected by a double civil war, the first of which commenced in
1989 and the second culminating in 2004. As with many other protracted conflicts, the
wars were prolonged by the supply of arms from foreign nations. The so-called blood
diamond trade, which attracted international interest through the global media, receiv-
ing further recognition through the 2003 film of the same name, economically influ-
enced the longevity of the armed conflicts. A quarter of million Liberians died during
these civil wars, with a further one million displaced. (These are significant numbers
given the relatively small national population.) With control of territory and local
diamond fields often being the fundamental motives for conflict, numerous rebel
groups expanded, some forcibly, involving child soldiers, ‘the typical profile of a
child soldier is of a boy between the ages of 8 and 18 years, bonded into a group of
armed peers, almost always an orphan, drug or alcohol addicted, amoral, merciless,
illiterate and dangerous.’38 In addition, Honwana notes,
The issue of child soldiers is not unique to Mozambique and Angola. Many other African
countries, such as Uganda, Sierra Leone, Congo, Liberia, and Algeria, at war feature
young combatants… Young people have been at the forefront of political conflict in
many parts of the world … in Europe in Middle Ages and nowadays in places such as
Cambodia, Yugoslavia and Palestine.39
In Liberia, many of those coerced into combat through abduction and other methods
were given drugs, and went through gang-like rituals to make them feel bulletproof.40
Following the termination of the second civil war, the majority of community
members feared the young people, who were regarded as dangerous troublemakers
and as a threat to peace. The need for community reconciliation in Liberia was not
merely a function of the perceived threat from child ex-combatants, but it was also due
to the widespread disintegration of communities.41 More than 10 years of conflict and
displacement, severe competition for the limited resources available and the disunity
between various factions produced such a desperate scenario that many have ques-
tioned the validity of the term ‘community’ in many Liberian contexts.42 In such
conditions, a key element of inter- and intracommunity reconciliation involves devel-
oping social bonds to reduce tensions between child ex-combatants and other commu-
nity members and to forge or renew the sense of community. In response, forgiveness
festivals were held to celebrate and promote peace through drama, dance and song,
which also featured speeches from child soldiers openly admitting to their actions and
seeking forgiveness for their involvement in the atrocities.43 The festivals were
intended to be enjoyable occasions, but also carried an important message about the
need to promote peace.
Tidwell claims that a lack of ‘human contact, engagement and bonding’ can
contribute to hatred between ethnic groups.44 Therefore, football programmes have
been perceived to provide another mechanism for peace-building in Liberia, this being
one that involves human contact, engagement and bonding. Armstrong45 notes that
football evokes a sense of unity and pride in Liberia, where Western governments and
NGOs recognize that sport and particularly football has the potential to assist in the
prevention of armed conflict. The STAR Project, run by the international NGO
Samaritan’s Purse, focused on assisting the integration of former child combatants
into society. The initiative involves a value-driven coaching philosophy relating to
self-discipline, truthfulness, appreciation and respect, which was simplified into the
acronym ‘STAR’. The term ‘star’ is significant in relation to Liberia as it signifies the
Declaration of Independence from the American Colonization Society. Having only
been established in 2006, this project is in its infancy, and as a consequence, it has
received minimal scholarly attention. Discipline was incorporated by encouraging
players to participate according to the established regulations of the codified game and
by focusing on punctuality and concentration. Truthfulness was emphasized in a
number of ways such as by making reference to individual cases of cheating and
honesty during competitive activities, and reinforcing appropriate conduct as well as
correcting unsuitable behaviour. Appreciation and respect were implemented through-
out the programme and involved, for example, offering both teammates and opponents
a positive reception before, during and after coaching sessions and matches.46 In
discussing value-based football projects of this nature, Lambert47 argues that, ‘the
challenge for the coaches is to identify specific concrete behaviours that are attached
to those values and to reinforce them so that they may be taken beyond the football
field.’ Beedy48 refers to these concrete behaviours as ‘teachable moments’, which
formed an important feature of the STAR programme, following the successful appli-
cation of this procedure in the F4P (Football for Peace) project.49
Modern football is characterized by largely consistently applied regulations. In an

exploration of the importance of rules and the nature of sport, McFee states that a set
of regulations illustrates whether particular behaviours complies with those rules,
‘the rules make plain whether or not a particular behaviour is or is not in accord with
those rules.’50 McFee also notes that some consider the behaviour of sports perform-
ers to only make sense in the context of rules. However, within the STAR Project,
football was applied outside this regulatory system at times. For example, relays
were used incorporating handling the ball and in competitive soccer games where
possession was maintained by throw and catch rather than passing with feet. Other
apparatus was sometimes utilized which are not permitted in football such as hockey
sticks and hoops. Instances in which this innovative method is used served to
produce some of the more notable ‘teachable moments’ in which players seemed to
learn a great deal. Similarly, regulatory barriers were consciously overlooked in
certain instances to facilitate teachable moments. It is clear, therefore, that whilst
officially recognized football regulations should be applied in the majority of
sessions, there are occasions in which implementing drills and games where these
rules are not applied can prove useful.51
Football, the ultimate invasion game – in what sense is it peaceful to invade?

The purpose of questioning the use of football by some NGOs as a means towards
peace promotion (for example, the STAR Project in Liberia, OFFS in the Balkans or
Football for Peace in Israel) is to foster some critical reflection about their interven-
tions using this invasion game. This may help some NGOs who use football as the
main feature of their intervention, to evaluate more effectively how their project had
an impact in a disrupted society at the time of their visit. That is, that the ‘impact’
might have to be something more than simply providing a diversion or break from the
daily routines of former child combatants for example, in order, if nothing else, to
justify the project. Seemingly, what may be desired by an NGO project is to create a
lasting and positive contribution to peace-building in a post-conflict society and what
is under focus here is the ability of football to meet this end. Furthermore, the ‘good’
envisaged by intervening in a war-ravaged community with a plan for football activity
seems to be based upon a Western assumption (by the NGOs) that they are doing a
good turn for others who to them, appear to be in a needy situation.52 There are
several levels to such an initial assessment, which appear to be problematic for the
NGO, including deciding whether to intervene at all, then, how and when to intervene
and perhaps what the ideal outcomes from their programme might be. As Dolnik and
Gunaratna, point out,
Overwhelming arguments have been made in academic circles, and many of them prima-
rily focus on the question of who should intervene, as well as when and how. And out of
them has emerged recognition that longer-term commitment to post-conflict social
reconstruction is required as a crucial part of successful intervention. 53
If the desired outcomes of a project are centred around the notion of peace and
social harmony, then what should be considered also is whether visiting the game of
football upon them is a potentially useful thing to do in their ‘disrupted’ situation. Can
it be claimed that popular aspects of modern football culture, for the few that play and
the many that support, genuinely demonstrate peace and respect for others? Also, a
question of appropriateness might be considered as, for the Liberian communities
discussed above, is football what they really need right now? Underlying this assump-
tion seems to be the idea that football is a fun game which has positive social spin-offs
and does, therefore, bring about positive behaviour that these people would [obvi-
ously] benefit from socially in the long-term. Implicit here may also be the assump-
tion that some of these people are lacking these behaviours or perhaps lacking the
capacity or will to show them towards their neighbours – could playing football really
help these people? The NGO’s claim seems to be that the young people may experi-
ence ethical, moral and social development as a result of playing football in their
programme.54 However, the assumption that sport in general, let alone football in
particular, could ever provide this may be deeply questionable and worthy of greater
consideration by the NGO.55 So, on reflection, is football really the best mode of
social activity to offer young people in a post-conflict situation to promote peace and
social harmony? Can it be claimed that football has promoted social harmony in our
domestic situation (in the UK)?56 Again this seems debatable. Consequently, there is
seemingly a need for in-depth investigation about the recipient’s conception of their
well-meaning visitors who bring footballs and whistles with them. This kind of
research may be needed to help NGOs understand the impact they are actually having,
for better or for worse.
A basic contention with football in this humanitarian context appears to be as
follows. If football is based upon the principles of invasion – attack and defence
(shooting, striking, repelling invaders, etc.) – which seems to be the case, then engag-
ing in acts of football may not lead to peace or even promote it in post-conflict soci-
eties as these may not be peaceful acts to be engaged in. Indeed, to play football at all,
requires the players to deliberately invade the opposition’s territory at the slightest
opportunity with the sole intention of overpowering them physically and psychologi-
cally, and dominating their territory. Neutral territory may be non-existent in football
terms as there is always a sense of a mission that may constitute playing the game.
Seemingly, if they did not do this they would not be playing football. There may be
no middle-ground of ‘peace’ in football as when one is not attacking one is by defini-
tion defending from being attacked. Indeed a peaceful ‘football’ situation may be
where both teams patrol at the centre line and never invade the opposing territory;
respecting each other’s space, both are defending simultaneously and neither are
attacking. Notwithstanding peaceful ‘tourists’ who may be welcome to visit under
certain conditions, i.e. not to perform an attacking action like scoring a goal, this may
be a representation of peaceful stability at a shared border between communities.
Could this be the peaceful social outcome that the NGOs are striving for in their foot-
ball-based projects? Could this be a football equivalent to détente? The use of the
game of football itself may be their category mistake which undermines their good
humanitarian intent. The ‘sporting’ actions implicit in football seem to be indicative
of invading a domain to occupy it and become victorious in a combatant-like engage-
ment, something that the young Liberian people may already be very familiar with.
Therefore, given the ingrained cultural messages of what codified football is and how
to go about it, it seems unlikely that the use of football could ever succeed as a means
to promoting peace in communities already ravaged and divided by invasion activi-
ties. If anything, it may do the opposite to what the intended ‘good’ was by the NGO,
by reinforcing personal prejudices about ‘the opposition’ and merely allowing the
local people to play out their personal social ‘war’ against the individuals they may
despise but have outwardly put on hold during the fleeting sporting occasion facili-
tated by the NGO.
Use the right lure to catch the right ‘fish’

Football does seem to have global appeal and a popularity which may indeed tran-
scend languages, allowing young people with major cultural differences to participate
in a match or training for match day - would there be any point in training otherwise?
But what social baggage and football-orientated expectations do the would-be players
bring with them and do they really put these beliefs aside in order to play the game in
a manner which celebrates each other’s cultural differences? Football has been hailed
as the lure or the decoy phenomenon57 to attract children from broken societies to a
project, such as F4P in Israel. The deception to gather at the prospect of enjoying play-
ing football, perhaps on their terms, could be interpreted as unfair, albeit for well-
intentioned purposes. Football seems to be used as a ‘honey-pot’ to stimulate interest
and generate attendance, presumably, with the idea that the emphasis upon football
prowess and skill development diminishes as the project progresses and the enjoyment
of sharing social space through common activity increases. Could this seemingly
contradictory aim/process lead to playing good football at the end of this football
experience? If the strategy for playing football under these conditions on participation
were fully explained at the outset would there be a project? Well, yes perhaps, but
maybe not a football one. Because of the deception, and the segregative nature of foot-
balling actions (for playing and spectating), football may be the wrong kind of lure for
the right kind of outcome for an NGO.
Having been lured to play football, some wider social tolerance might well have
taken place in order for the project to proceed. For example, tolerance may be asked
for in the wider community beyond the young people themselves, extending from their
parents and guardians to local sports officials and government representatives to sanc-
tion the event and allow participation by both boys and girls from disparate commu-
nities. The apparent reticence from elders for their younger counterparts to partake in
any kind of social integration, as reported by Sugden,58 may hint at much deeper issues
than football could seemingly ever deal with, however integrated and mixed the players
may be in their temporary teams. The somewhat simplistic idea seems to be that, if
Jewish and Arab children,59 or children from opposing communities in Liberia or else-
where, are put in the same ‘mixing pot’ and stirred round with a game of football, then
they may realize their social differences and live together more peacefully thereafter.
The difficulties of this situation are not lost on some project organizers such as John
Sugden’s Football for Peace initiative in Israel.60 However, the problem seems to be
in recognizing what the nature of that appeal is in football in the first place, and then
to consider if football is really the best activity to offer to promote peaceful social inter-
action. The lure of football may set up from the outset an invitation to play out a domi-
nating role in which physical skill and competitiveness may allow them to enjoy
winning, or at least the prospect of it as may be portrayed by their football idols through
the media. The popularity of football for these young people is fully appreciated but
in the circumstances it may be the wrong kind of attitude and behaviour to invite, foster
and reward in order to elicit the peaceful social outcomes to which an NGO may aspire.
Social education, cultural appreciation, shared celebration (and playing

football?)
The scoring of a goal from a well-struck kick must be exhilarating for the player and
exciting for the winning team, but can this act be interpreted as one of peace, kindness,
understanding and tolerance? Does everyone on the pitch, or in the crowd of supporters,
rejoice in the scorer’s success and encourage more of the same? Probably not, although
this may be just one defining feature of competition in football. So what are the qual-
ities and social responses to others which an NGO project may wish to promote through
football? The real task of the facilitators seems to be one of educating the young people
to appreciate each other’s willingness to participate in a common activity. As a result
of that shared experience, there may be a celebration of difference and richness in
cultures and perhaps a realization of commonalities which may help towards a more
peaceful and stable state of affairs than existed between them previously. Indeed, this
would seem to be a positive contribution by an NGO that encouraged people from frac-
tured societies to be more disposed to demonstrate positive neighbourly qualities than
negative ones. However, the personal qualities associated with success in football (and
in some cases failure) seem to be those of strength, power and destruction of the oppo-
sition, psyching out the man, mental toughness and superiority through competition.
The products of such an aggressive disposition in football has been well documented
by researchers and observers in various football contexts.61 Footballing behaviour, by
the very nature of its actions, is seemingly rarely disposed to being tolerant, friendly,
caring, compassionate, forgiving, ecumenical, welcoming and sharing to all. Perhaps
this is a Utopian view of peace and social harmony, but it may further serve to indicate
that the use of football by an NGO may be to actively set off in a less than productive
direction than it perhaps intended.
There are clearly some alternative activities which could serve more readily
towards meeting these humanitarian aspirations of the NGO. However, it may be
worth considering first whether the NGO that promotes football is actually doing foot-
ball at all. If they are not actually doing football, it may be worth asking what they are
doing. For example, if I am kicking a tennis ball against a wall and sharing kicks with
a person I hope to become friendly with, am I playing football, tennis or squash or
something else? My gut feeling is that I am playing ‘something else’. Football, as with
all codified games, is circumscribed by its rules which allow certain actions to be
recognized, such as taking a goal kick or taking a penalty. Both are definite footballing
actions.62 Seemingly, this is something a little more than just kicking a ball – perhaps
into the sea. Although both kicks may demonstrate similar biomechanical traits and
both may be deliberate, they may not be the same kind of action. One is football and
the other is relaxing on the beach – the former with established criteria for the kick
performed well or poorly and the latter being of little consequence either way. The
conditions and reasons for kicking the ball in these two different scenarios may and
perhaps should lead the observer to appreciate these actions differently. How might
the young people being taught by the NGO facilitators understand the criteria of a
well-taken kick in football as a means to peace and social harmony? Is this possible
or do they just kick the ball as ‘a footballer’? Similarly, as with my game of ‘some-
thing else’, just because I am kicking a ball does not make it football but perhaps can
be appreciated in some way, even as a peaceful sharing act with a neighbour, by look-
ing at other criteria such as balance or co-ordination or not hogging the ball. If these
are the kinds of criteria or outcome, stemming from some kind of improvised physical
activity, which NGO facilitators are working towards and wish to use to help young
displaced people to judge others by, then the notion of football seems to be become
less and less important to the learning or ‘teachable moments’ that might take place
about social or moral development.
Some other physical activities which could be indulged in for similar social
outcomes might include, for example, painting, acting, singing, dancing, theatre, story
telling, indigenous exercises/physical challenges, cooking, travelling and journeying

or guided exploration. All of these activities might promote a curiosity and inquisi-
tiveness in cultural difference more readily than football. There will of course be the
indigenous sports of the region, which could be facilitated to good effect in the NGO
context. Does the NGO ignore their value and in the same stroke introduce a new layer
of distraction with football to the social issues in hand? What is the rationale in focusing
upon a sport which motivates competition rather than celebrating other aspects of phys-
ical culture? The invasion sport of football requires that an opposition (team or persons)
be contested in a match, a showdown of sorts, whereas none of the activities listed

above implicitly involve that kind of attitude to participate. Interestingly, all of them
could be made to be competitive if so desired by the NGO facilitators, by having, for
example, a cooking competition, a kind of Master Chef, but this is not a pre-condition
of taking part. And further in the popularity stakes, is it the claim of the football-
oriented NGOs that their game has wider global appeal than cooking food? If the
purpose of football is relatively inconsequential to the NGO’s main aims for peace
promotion, it seems increasingly important for them to make a strong case to justify
its predominance over other activities in their humanitarian mission.
If the competitive and invasive nature of football is put to one side for a moment,
there may be a limited range of opportunities for NGO facilitators to recognize and
reward the aesthetic of certain footballing skills performed well in a non-game
context. This may be rewarding skills in isolation, but the facilitator may also need to
be aware when that skill becomes merely a trick with a ball, such as ‘keepy-ups’, and
consider what they may be rewarding at that point, i.e. it may have ceased to be foot-
ball. This may be an artificial distinction in football, given how skills are ultimately
used in the context of the game and the limited range of skills that this suggestion
might reasonably apply to. However, it may serve to highlight a wider educative
‘moment’ for those associated with an NGO football project. If the recipients/players
on the project are taught the criteria of the skill performed well, such as turns or
specific kinds of kicks, they may be able to recognize good performance by others and
show their appreciation of this. The opposite also applies of recognizing poor perfor-
mance characteristics, but careful thought may need to be given about rewarding poor
technique or irrelevant ball tricks or other improvisations that would not appear in a
football match. Moving towards the game situation, there might also be elements of
team strategy that could be recognized through educating the players and the specta-
tors about what counts as good football, regardless of outcome (which may be prob-
lematic and contradictory), and being willing to celebrate good skills or strategy by
others even if it works against someone’s interests. However, there may be a large
group of influential people who do not get the opportunity to be educated to appreciate
and celebrate the [good] football on display, and these are the spectators. The specta-
tors seemingly need to be educated, as well as the players, about how to appreciate the
spectacle of ‘peaceful football’ with the risk that otherwise they become stereotypical
supporters which could be an opportunity missed for the NGO to reach wider into a
community with their peace-building message.
Is it possible that a community which has been fractured by war or other atrocities
in real life, can be remedied, bettered or healed in some way by the sport of football?
The irony is that sports may be exciting because of their separation from other parts
of life, that is, they may not be part of real life in the sense that war was. This may be
their attraction for momentary relief from difficult times, an entertaining diversion or
suspension of reality. Also, as can be witnessed with regular occurrence, things can
happen on a football field during play that may not be permitted away from it after
play. Consequently, might it be the reasoning of an NGO who promotes football that
conduct on the field of play is an exemplar or mirror of good moral conduct to be
emulated in real life? Probably not; so, is football real life or an entertainment specta-
cle? If it may be conceded that sport and therefore football is an entertainment spec-
tacle, then there may be a large degree of suspension of disbelief in which the
participants and the spectators tacitly agree to provisionally suspend their judgements
of others in exchange for the promise of entertainment. Consequently, could an NGO
football programme just be an opportunity to put on-hold life’s troubles, which could
be taken up after the diversion? After the game, we can carry on where we left off. If
the football programme is not real-life, but a ‘suspended’ period of entertainment, how
might it have a lasting effect in peace-building?
Compared with the good community work that a football-orientated NGO might
do in a post-conflict society, what might be the problem with staging a harmless game
of football? On the face of things who could object to that? However, at worst it may
be that the intervention with a football plan in a fractured society might actually be
harmful unless established as being otherwise through extensive research from the
NGOs in pre-, during and post-project phases. Or, it may indeed be harmless in the
sense that is totally ineffectual upon the deep social crises faced by the people in these
fractured societies. Either way, it seems clear that a rationale for the use of football for
moral, social and ethical development of people in disrupted societies may be needed
from an NGO to justify football’s prominent place in a so-called peace-building process.
Conclusion
By assessing the relative peacefulness of different cultures, we can set standards for
what is possible, detect trouble spots, possibly encourage some healthy competition,
and have a way of evaluating the effects of social movements and government poli-
cies. It may also provide a background for the assessment of peace operations that aim
at transforming a society from a culture of war to one that deals with its problems with
nonviolent means. However, assessing the peacefulness of cultures requires us to say
what we mean by both peacefulness and culture, and both concepts are more complex
than one might imagine.63
Indeed, being open to different cultural constructions of reconciliation and culture
of peace is an important part of building peace in a highly diverse world. To overlook
or marginalize local understandings and practices may be risky, making psychology a
tool of neo-colonialism in which Western approaches are privileged, while local,
indigenous approaches are portrayed as inferior. With regard to praxis, an important
issue is sustainability. Too often, externally driven approaches come to an abrupt end
when the funding for them has dried up. Although the problem is often seen as lack
of long-term funding, the deeper issue is that the externally imposed approaches may
have little basis in the local culture and social norms. For these and other reasons, local
beliefs and practices regarding reconciliation warrant careful attention and use in
peace-building programs, provided that they do not violate international human rights
standards and the humanitarian imperative of Do No Harm.
The brief interventions on reconciliation described here are best regarded as initial
steps that need to be complemented with diverse activities and supports that engender
long-term reconciliation. These wider community supports include the institutional-
ization of non-violent means of handling conflict at all levels of community life; the
reduction of discrimination and oppression; the strengthening of systems for social,

restorative and procedural justice; the re-establishment of law and order; the rebuild-
ing of damaged infrastructure; the distribution of local power and resources in equita-
ble ways that promote positive relationships; and the establishment of strong linkages
with effective systems of governance, including at levels higher than the community
level. This list, which could easily be extended, serves as a reminder of the limits of
any single intervention.
By the same token, the interventions described above yield several valuable lessons.
First, cultural practices are an essential part of community reconciliation and a useful
complement to Western approaches. Cultural practices enable communities to
construct meaningful narratives, whether expressed in songs, dances, stories or dramas,
about their circumstances and the value of peace. Following armed conflict, the rekin-
dling of cultural practices such as cleansing rituals or the use of traditional songs helps
to communalize pain and build continuity between a painful past, the difficult present,
and the future. Through cultural practices, people express their collective identity and
their hopes as well as their pain. By orienting them toward peace-building, the practices
become avenues for restructuring collective identities and narratives in ways that
promote unity, harmony, and peace. Second, community reconciliation requires a
systems approach. At the individual level, specific individuals such as formerly
recruited young people need to be made acceptable to the community.
Equally important are elements that address interpersonal, intergroup and intercom-
munity aspects of reconciliation. In the post-war contexts discussed above, it is essen-
tial to rebuild basic social bonds between neighbours, improve intracommunity
relations between formerly hostile subgroups, and build a wider sense of community
that interconnects neighbouring villages. As the case of Liberia illustrated, these tasks
can often be achieved through the use of methods that promote empathy and cooper-
ation across the lines of conflict. Beyond these levels, it is crucial to establish effective
linkages between communities and elements of the macrosystem, such as the provincial
or district government, a functioning economy and political system, and inclusive
structures of a central government that promotes social justice and avoids militarism.
This systems approach, which connects the macrosystem of the society with the micro-
system of communities, is valuable in constructing the civil society in which peace can
take root. The third lesson is that young people have a vital role to play in building
peace. The case studies indicate that although young people often become warriors,
they can also be agents of reconciliation. Even following very difficult life experiences,
many young people exhibit resilience and defy images such as ‘damaged goods’ or
‘scarred for life’. Given proper support, young people have the capacity to transition
out of the bowels of the war system and develop means of supporting peace-building
in their communities. Because young people are increasingly influential political
actors, it is essential to bring them out of the margins of the post-conflict setting and
to engage their prodigious energies as agents of peace. Helping young people to
become agents of peace is one of the best means of breaking intergenerational cycles
of violence and enabling the transformation of a culture of war into a culture of peace.
Notes
1. Schirch, The Little Book of Strategic Peacebuilding.
2. Katano, ‘Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding’, 351.
3. Lederach, Building Peace, Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, 18.
4. Dolnik and Gunaratna, ‘On the Nature of Religious Terrorism’.

5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Laqueur, The New Terrorism, Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction; Hoffman,
Holy Terror, The Implications of Terrorism Motivated by a Religious Imperative.
8. Whaite, ‘NGOs, Disasters and Advocacy’.
10. Hehir, ‘Intervention, from Theories to Cases’.
11. Katano, ‘Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding’.
12. Korten, NGO Strategic Networks, From Community Projects to Global Transformation.
13. Roberts and Kingsbury, United Nations, Divided World, 475.

14. Donnelly, ‘Subcultures in Sport, Resilience and Transformation’.
15. Riak, ‘The Local Capacities for Peace Project, the Sudan Experience’.
16. Schirch, The Little Book of Strategic Peacebuilding.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Machel, The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children.
20. Wessells, ‘Community Reconciliation and Post-conflict Reconstruction for Peace’, 349.
21. Brett and Specht, Young Soldiers, Why They Chose to Fight.
22. Wessells, Child Soldiers.
23. Newman, ‘Protection Through Participation’, 19.
24. Sommers, ‘Urbanization, War and Africa’s Youth at Risk’, 1.
25. Coakley, ‘Using Sport to Control Deviance and Violence among Youth’.
26. Wessells, ‘Community Reconciliation and Post-conflict Reconstruction, 439.
27. Rookwood, ‘Applying Olympic Values’.
28. Rookwood and Palmer, ‘A Socio-aesthetic Account of Construction and Destruction in
World Football’.
29. Patriksson, ‘Scientific Review’.
30. Obama speech in 2006 in Harrison and Gilbert, Barack Obama, 63.
31. Patriksson, ‘Scientific Review’.
32. Gasser and Levinsen, ‘Breaking Post-War Ice’.
33. Sugden, ‘Teaching and Playing Sport for Conflict Resolution and Co-existence in Israel’;
Liebmann and Rookwood, ‘Football for Peace?’
34. Said, The End of the Peace Process, 208.
35. Nujidat, ‘A View from the Israeli Sports Authority’, 154.
36. Date-Bah, Introduction; Howarth, ‘Football for Peace’; Jaimes, ‘NGOs’.
37. Knight, ‘Evaluating Recent Trends in Peacebuilding Research’, 242.
38. Pearn, ‘Children at War’, 166.
39. Honwana, ‘Negotiating Post-war Identities’, 10.
40. Wessells, ‘Community Reconciliation and Post-conflict Reconstruction for Peace’.
41. Ibid.
42. Richards et al., ‘Community Cohesion in Liberia’.
44. Tidwell, Conflict Resolved, 134.
45. Armstrong, ‘Talking up the Game’.
46. Rookwood, ‘Soccer for Peace and Social Development’.
47. Lambert, ‘A Values-based Approach to Coaching Sport in Divided Societies’, 20.
48. Beedy, Sports Plus.
49. Lambert, ‘From Kfar and Menashe to Acco’.
50. McFee, Sport, Rules and Values, 15.
51. Rookwood, ‘Soccer for Peace and Social Development’.
52. Sugden, ‘Community and the Instrumental Use of Football, 410.
54. Street Football World, ‘Development through Football’; Rookwood, ‘Soccer for Peace and
Social Development’.
55. McNamee, Sports Virtues and Vices, see Chapter 4 entitled ‘Sport and Ethical Develop-
ment’. Jones and McNamee, ‘Moral Development and Sport’; Cashmore, Making Sense of
Sports.
56. Flemming and Tomlinson, ‘Racism and Xenophobia in English Football’; Corrigan, ‘What
Do Kids Get Out of Playing Football?’
57. Sugden, ‘Community and the Instrumental Use of Football’.

58. Ibid.
59. Leibmann and Rookwood, ‘Football for Peace?’.
60. Sugden, ‘Teaching and Playing Sport for Conflict Resolution and Co-existence in Israel’;
‘Community and the Instrumental Use of Football’.
61. Dunning, Murphy and Williams, ‘Ordered Segmentation and Football Hooligan Violence’;
Marsh, Rosser and Harre, ‘Life on the Terraces’; Kemp, Gangs II.
62. McFee, Sport Rules and Values, Chapter 1: ‘Definiteness and Defining Sport’.
References
Armstrong, G. ‘Talking up the Game, Football and the Reconstruction of Liberia, West
Africa’. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 9, no. 4 (2002): 471–94.
Beedy, J.P. Sports Plus: Positive Learning Using Sports. Hamilton: Project Adventure, 1997.
Brett, R., and I. Specht. Young Soldiers, Why They Choose to Fight. Boulder, CO: Rienner,
2004.
Cashmore, E. Making Sense of Sports, 4th edn. London: Routledge, 2005.
Coakley, J. ‘Using Sport to Control Deviance and Violence Among Youth, Let’s Be Critical
and Cautious’. In Paradoxes of Youth and Sport, eds. M. Gatz, M. Messner and S. Ball-
Rokeach, 13–30. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002.
Corrigan, P. ‘What Do Kids Get Out of Playing Football?’ In The Sports Studies Reader, ed.
A. Tomlinson, 256–60. London: Routledge, 2007.
Date-Bah, E. ‘Introduction’. In Jobs after War, A Critical Challenge in the Peace and
Reconstruction Puzzle, 1–29. Geneva: International Relations Office, 2003.
Dolnik, A., and R. Gunaratna. ‘On the Nature of Religious Terrorism’. In Routledge Hand-
book of Religion and Politics, ed. J. Haynes, 343–50. New York: Routledge, 2009.
Donnelly, J. ‘Subcultures in Sport, Resilience and Transformation’. In Sport in Social Devel-
opment, eds. A.G. Ingham and J.W. Loy, 119–46. Leeds: Human Kinetics, 1993.
Dunning, E., P. Murphy and J. Williams. ‘Ordered Segmentation and Football Hooligan
Violence’. In The Sports Studies Reader, ed. A. Tomlinson, 387–91. London: Routledge,
2007.
Flemming, S., and A. Tomlinson. ‘Racism and Xenophobia in English Football’. In The
Sports Studies Reader, ed. A. Tomlinson, 304–8. London: Routledge, 2007.
Gasser, P.K. and A. Levinsen. ‘Breaking Post-war Ice, Open Fun Football Schools in Bosnia
and Herzegovina’. Sport in Society 7, no. 3 (2004): 457–72.
Harrison, M., and S. Gilbert, eds. Barack Obama: Speeches 2002–2006. Carlsbad, CA:
Excellent Books, 2007.
Hehir, J. ‘Intervention, from Theories to Cases’. Ethics and International Affairs 9 (1995): 1–13.
Hoffman, B. Holy Terror, The Implications of Terrorism Motivated by a Religious Imperative.
Washington, DC: Rand, 1993.
Honwana, A. ‘Negotiating Post-war Identities, Child Soldiers in Mozambique and Angola’. In
Contested Terrains and Constructed Categories, eds. G. Bond and N. Gibson, 4–13.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2002.
Howarth, C. ‘Football for Peace: A Student Volunteer’s Perspective’. In Football for Peace?
The Challenges of Using Sport for Co-existence in Israel, eds. J. Sugden and J. Wallis,
113–26. Oxford: Meyer and Meyer, 2007.
Jaimes, J.A. ‘NGOs: Fragmented Dreams’. Development in Practice 10, no. 34 (2000): 390–401.
Jones, C., and M. McNamee. ‘Moral Development and Sport – Character and Cognitive
Developmentalism Contrasted’. In Sports Ethics: An Anthology, ed. J. Boxhill. Oxford:
Blackwell, 2003.
Katano, A. ‘Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding’. In Routledge Handbook of Religion and
Politics, ed. J. Haynes. New York: Routledge, 2009.
Kemp, R. Gangs II. London: Penguin Books, 2009.
Knight, W.A. ‘Evaluating Recent Trends in Peacebuilding Research’. International Relations
of the Asia-Pacific 3, no. 2 (2003): 241–64.
Korten, D. NGO Strategic Networks, From Community Projects to Global Transformation.
Kobe: Global Development Research Centre, 1990.
Lacquer, W. The New Terrorism, Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999.
Lambert, J. ‘A Values-based Approach to Coaching Spot in Divided Societies – The Football
for Peace Coaching Manual’. In Football for Peace? The Challenges of Using Sport for
Co-existence in Israel, eds. J. Sugden and J. Wallis, 13–34. Oxford: Meyer and Meyer,
2007.
Lambert, J. ‘From Kfar and Menashe to Acco: A Comparison of Two Football for Peace
Experiences’ In Football for Peace? The Challenges of Using Sport for Co-existence in
Israel, eds. J. Sugden and J. Wallis, 51–68. Oxford: Meyer and Meyer, 2007.
Lederach, J.P. Building Peace, Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington,
DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997.

Liebmann, S., and J. Rookwood. ‘Football for Peace? Bringing Jews and Arabs Together
in Northern Israel’. Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies 1, no. 1 (2007):
11–18.
Machel, G. The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children. Cape Town: David Philip, 2001.
Marsh, P., E. Rosser and R. Harre. ‘Life on the Terraces’. In The Sports Studies Reader, ed.
A. Tomlinson, 381–6. London: Routledge, 2007.
McFee, G. Sport Rules and Values: Philosophical Investigations into the Nature of Sport.
London: Routledge, 2004.
McNamee, M. Sports, Virtues and Vices, Morality Plays. London: Routledge, 2008.
Newman, J. ‘Protection Through Participation: Young People Affected by Forced Migration
and Political Crisis’. Refugee Studies Centre Working Paper, no. 20 Oxford: University of
Oxford, 2005.
Nujidat, G. ‘A View from the Israeli Sports Authority’. In Football for Peace? The Chal-
lenges of Using Sport for Co-existence in Israel, eds. J. Sugden and J. Wallis. Oxford:
Meyer and Meyer, Oxford, 2007.
Patriksson, G. ‘Scientific Review – Part 2’. In The Significance of Sport for Society: Health,
Socialisation, Economy – 8th Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Sport,
Lisbon, May 17–18, 1995. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Press, 1998.
Pearn, J. ‘Children at War’. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 39, no. 3 (2003): 166–72.
Riak, A. ‘The Local Capacities for Peace Project: The Sudan Experience’. Development in
Practice 10, nos. 3–4 (2000): 501–5.
Richards, P., S. Archibald, B. Bruce, W. Modad, E. Mulbah, T. Varpilah, and J. Vincent.
‘Community Cohesion in Liberia‘. Social Development Papers, Conflict Prevention and
Reconstruction 21. Washington DC: World Bank, 2005.
Roberts, A., and B. Kingsbury, eds. United Nations, Divided World, the UN’s Roles in Inter-
national Relations, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Rookwood, J. ‘Soccer for Peace and Social Development’. Peace Review 20, no. 4 (2008):
471–9.
Rookwood, J. ‘Applying Olympic Values – Peace Promotion through Sport in Russia and
Bosnia and Herzegovina’. Journal of Olympic History 17, no. 2 (2009): 22–33.
Rookwood, J., and C. Palmer. ‘A Socio-aesthetic Account of Construction and Destruction in
World Football. In The Turn to Aesthetics: An Interdisciplinary Exchange of Ideas in
Applied and Philosophical Aesthetics, eds. C. Palmer and D. Torevell, 229–35. Liverpool:
Liverpool Hope University Press, 2008.
Said, E. The End of the Peace Process. London: Granta, 2002.
Schirch, L. The Little Book of Strategic Peacebuilding. Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2004.
Sommers, M. ‘Urbanization, War and Africa’s Youth at Risk, Towards Understanding and
Addressing Future Challenges’. Washington DC: Creative Associates International, Inc.
USAID [online], 2003, http://www.beps.net/publications/BEPS-UrbanizationWarYoutha-
tRisk-.pdf (accessed September 21, 2009).
Street Football World. ‘Development through Football – Non Governmental Organisation’.
http://www.streetfootballworld.org/ (accessed September 20, 2009).
Sugden, J. ‘Teaching and Playing Sport for Conflict Resolution and Co-existence in Israel’.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport 41, no. 2 (2006): 221–40.
Sugden, J. ‘Community and the Instrumental Use of Football – Anyone for Football for
Peace? The Challenges of Using Sport in the Service of Co-existence in Israel’. Soccer in
Society 9, no. 3 (2008): 405–15.
Tidwell, A.C. Conflict Resolved: A Critical Assessment of Conflict Resolution. London:

Pinter, 1998.
Wessells, M. ‘Community Reconciliation and Post-conflict Reconstruction for Peace’. In
Handbook on Building Cultures of Peace, ed. J. de Rivera, 349–62. New York: Springer,
2009.
Wessells, M.G. Child Soldiers: From Violence to Protection. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 2006.
Whaite, A. ‘NGOs, Disasters and Advocacy: caught between the prophet and the shepherd
boy’. Development in Practice 10, nos. 3–4 (2000): 506–16.

Roowod and Palmer Soccer &amp; Society 2011.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Roowod and Palmer Soccer &amp; Society 2011.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roowod and Palmer Soccer &amp; Society 2011.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, A.C.

Soccer & Society

Invasion games in war‐torn nations: can

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2011.548356

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Invasion games in war-torn nations: can football help to build

Introduction: post-conflict peace-building

*Corresponding author. Email: rookwoj@hope.ac.uk

ISSN 1466-0970 print/ISSN 1743-9590 online

cal, religious or ethnic groups, functioning to provide a sense of collective identity,

peace-building include the reduction of direct violence, the transformation of personal

NGOs – youth football projects

In many conflicts, especially protracted ones, young people become socialized in

in order to facilitate peaceful integration in the increasingly violent, mistrusting and

Liberia – the STAR Project

Modern football is characterized by largely consistently applied regulations. In an

Football, the ultimate invasion game – in what sense is it peaceful to invade?

Use the right lure to catch the right ‘fish’

Social education, cultural appreciation, shared celebration (and playing

telling, indigenous exercises/physical challenges, cooking, travelling and journeying

be contested in a match, a showdown of sorts, whereas none of the activities listed

reduction of discrimination and oppression; the strengthening of systems for social,

4. Dolnik and Gunaratna, ‘On the Nature of Religious Terrorism’.

13. Roberts and Kingsbury, United Nations, Divided World, 475.

57. Sugden, ‘Community and the Instrumental Use of Football’.

DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997.

Tidwell, A.C. Conflict Resolved: A Critical Assessment of Conflict Resolution. London:

You might also like

Roowod and Palmer Soccer & Society 2011.

Roowod and Palmer Soccer & Society 2011.

Roowod and Palmer Soccer & Society 2011.